kerplunk

It was quicker than that I think. I was through to booking page within a few minutes and had checked every departure town in england for wednesday by 6.12 and got 'no shows available' when I tried the thursday page

Make that - we need to fatten up all humans

btw I often manage to find full versions of papers without an institution login by searching on the paper's title https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/zhu/files/five_decades_of_northern_land_carbon_uptake_reveal.pdf

😄 Well you get that living things are made of carbon right? We are 'carbon units'. The graphic shows how much carbon is 'stored' in the mass of all living things on earth. It's quite sobering that the total mass of carbon in plants - the largest by far biomass reservoir on earth - is 450 gigatons. By my rough back of an envelope reckoning fossil fuel emissions since the start of the industrial revolution have increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by about 360 gigatons and we're currently increasing it by about 6 gigatons per year. We'll soon have achieved increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by the same amount that's stored in all plant life on earth

All the biomass on earth in one graphic https://nautil.us/all-the-biomass-on-earth-238368/

ps why not link to sources of quotes so we can all enjoy the view instead of dripping screenshots out

Clearly if you grow more trees increasing the biomass reservoir on land that will have removed some CO2 from the atmosphere. How much of a dent in the 36 billion tons/yr of CO2 we're releasing from fossil fuels is possible that way is another matter though. sidepoint - FH might be referring to the factoid that land covered in forest has a lower albedo than unforested land so that would offset some of the 'climate change' benefits from afforestation Roughly half of our emissions are absorbed by the environment and that fraction seems to have remained constant so far. The worry is that sinks will start to slow down (or sources speed up) making reduction efforts harder. A lot of research is going into understanding the intricacies of the carbon cycle at the moment.

Yes it's been a warm and wet winter and this is the expected trend Not a record breaker though on either count

Right so in festival time - that's a bit different

Slightly surprised by this. We visited the site last september and asked permission from the office. As part of their advice (remember it's a working farm - don't run away from the cows!) they asked us not to publicise our visit on social media as they didn't want to encourage it

The ONI index is a rolling 3 month index of sea surface temps in a fairly small area in the pacific. The NDJ value was 2.0 and the DJF value was 1.8 It's not a good idea to over interpret every twitch in the global means vs ONI index. The data is lumpy and there are lags involved and also, as you can see from the graph, there is a seasonality to global mean SST - it usually peaks around now. That's what made that record breaking peak last august (which has now been surpassed) so remarkable - it was the 'wrong' time of year for record breaking sea temps. The reason global mean SST peaks around now is pretty straightforward - most of the ocean is in the southern hemisphere and it's the end of summer down there I would agree though that El Nino alone can't explain the record breaking global obs eg the record warm north atlantic which isn't a characteristic of El Nino and was notably warm already before EL Nino developed last year.

Isn't that more about coal and trees, rather than oil and animals? Most of the coal was formed in the 'Carboniferous' I think

If it results in less biomass in live trees then yes you're right of course, but if it's sustainably managed forest you would be chopping down the trees in an area planted decades ago and then replanting, and so on. Like any other crop I realise I'm talking 'in an ideal world' with that and there needs to be good scrutiny of the supply chains to ensure best practice and that might not be happening as well as it should but the basic principle is sound enough.

I think it's great, lots of good stuff there for me and happily lots that I'm looking forward to seeing for the first time, and new (to me) bands to look into which is how I like it

Well I certainly 'deny' the sea level rise by 2100 map you posted. Note that I haven't asked your for a source for that - it's just obviously unsupportable so it would be a waste of time asking. To put you straight on where I'm at on climate change and hopefully avoid wasting your time with more misconceptions I consider myself a well above average all round knowledgable about climate science layman reflecting a lot of time spent reading up on the subject. I've racked up ~7000 posts on the giant motoring forum pistonheads.com arguing with deniers and sceptics there over the last 18yrs or so (same username) Right onwards "El Nino effects will not effect the world fully until mid 2024 so 2023 has little or nothing to do with it - but as always, facts for you are to be ingnored" Yes that's what everyone was saying in early 2023 when the unusually long 3yr La Nina conditions in the pacific were finally coming to an end and El Nino was forecasted to form in 2023. Nobody expected 2023 to set a new record - the expectation was that probably 2024 would. The run of large margin record breaking global temps since the middle of last year have been quite astonishing and has caused a lot of head scratching and and a variety of post hoc explainations have been put forward. It's El Nino It's because of the unusually long preceding La Nina 'charging up' the oceans It's the shipping fuel sulphur regulations cleaning the sky and China cleaning up it's coal burning act It's the Hunga Tonga eruption which shot a load of water vapour into the stratosphere. Solar cycle 25 is at maximum Saharan dust has been unusually low Whether 2024 temps will go on to exceed 2023 is anyone's guess - but it'll be another warm year for sure. Regardless, the fact global temps have spiked to 1.5 above pre-industrial mark doesn't mean it will stay that high and therefore it can't be said to have happened 10yrs sooner than predicted - yet

25 years? Difficult to understand then how you came to be posting laughably absurd sea level rise predictions. Up your game - it's embarassing!

No support there for your 10yrs sooner than thought claim. Where you're going wrong is the 1.5c above pre-industrial prediction isn't for when a short term el nino enhanced periods might hit that mark. If that was the case it happened already in 2016

Right, I think I'll just disregard your claim as unsupported

Which 10yrs sooner than thought 1990's predictions are you referring to here?

Except it's a bonkers wildly unrealistic and unsupportable outlook. Appears to be what the UK would look like if all the ice sheets on earth melted completely causing sea levels to rise by 70m. Even if the world warmed enough for that to happen (quite unlikely) it would take many thousands of years.

Probably a handy cam

It's just a fact of life now that everyone has a bloody camera in their pocket isn't it. As a gig photographer, and therefore an expert, I have the added annoyance of seeing people taking photos at the wrong moments - when the lighting isn't good or half of the band have their backs turned. Tsk so amateurish. Of course, all of MY phone-cam pics are ace and well worth it 😁

something wrong here 😉

Damn I've been taking a perverse pleasure out of having lost count but that made it too easy (same years as you)

Not sure if it's still the case but it used to have a rep for being a bad place to be in a muddy one