Climate Change

[gizmoman]

20 minutes ago, Neil said:

isn't that what some schemes attempt to do with fast growing trees?

Quite possibly, I'm sure it can be done properly but that isn't happening in the link NI posted, they are cutting down "old-growth",

"Ecologist Michelle Connolly, from the British Columbia campaign group Conservation North, says making pellets from old forests can never be sustainable.

"Old-growth forests in British Columbia are almost gone because of 70 years of logging to feed sawmills and pulp mills, and Drax is helping push our remaining ones off the cliff, along with our native biodiversity," she says."

If we are to have green alternatives to existing energy sources we need to make sure they are properly green, not just scams designed to make people feel better.

[Neil]

6 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Quite possibly, I'm sure it can be done properly but that isn't happening in the link NI posted, they are cutting down "old-growth",

"Ecologist Michelle Connolly, from the British Columbia campaign group Conservation North, says making pellets from old forests can never be sustainable.

"Old-growth forests in British Columbia are almost gone because of 70 years of logging to feed sawmills and pulp mills, and Drax is helping push our remaining ones off the cliff, along with our native biodiversity," she says."

If we are to have green alternatives to existing energy sources we need to make sure they are properly green, not just scams designed to make people feel better.

Don't think this was a scam just a case of adapting existing knowledge to the climate problem. There's very few new ideas mostly it's adaptions of existing knowledge.

[5co77ie]

2 hours ago, kerplunk said:

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

Yes I was simplifying but you’re right hence the name of the era. apologies to those who i misled into thinking that oil did come from the bodies of dinosaurs, but my point was back then things (including dinosaurs) didn’t rot / bacteria and shrooms are too new - “But when those trees died, the bacteria, fungi, and other microbes that today would have chewed the dead wood into smaller and smaller bits were missing, or as Ward and Kirschvink put it, they “were not yet present.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth

Edited February 28, 2024 by 5co77ie

[Neil]

Was the warmest and wettest February on record. Gonna be a swelshy Glastonbury this year.

[steviewevie]

40 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

2024 off to a flier, beating all previous sea temperature records and El Nino peaked in Dec 2023............... so no real connection.

yep, scorchio.

Not sure you can say El Nino isn't still a factor though.

 

[kerplunk]

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.

Edited March 11, 2024 by kerplunk

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

we're not ready

 

[steviewevie]

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Policy Exchange - Decarbonising the Grid

[steviewevie]

I wish it would hurry up...bit sick of this prolonged winter.

[kerplunk]

Yes it's been a warm and wet winter and this is the expected trend

Not a record breaker though on either count

[steviewevie]

we're doomed etc

 

[gizmoman]

11 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

This is from a forum on the BBC news site. I have seen others in other forums using the same 'facts', in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference!

These people walk among us and have the right to vote. What could possibly go wrong?

Not sure where you have a problem with this, FH seems to be saying you can't replace the rainforest trees being cut down by planting trees in the north, he gives a rational explanation why, if the "northern" trees are not as efficient at absorbing CO2 then things will continue to get worse. Do you have a science based argument why he is wrong?

[kerplunk]

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.

Edited April 8, 2024 by kerplunk

[kerplunk]

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

[kerplunk]

All the biomass on earth in one graphic

 

https://nautil.us/all-the-biomass-on-earth-238368/

 

 

[gizmoman]

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

I did also write "in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference"

and science based evidence is everywhere - trees take in CO2 and give off O2 regardless of where they are nor how long they are in leaf for, That is primary school level science.

He says clearly that those in the north do nothing for climate change - which is again so very wrong.

On this thread there are loads more comments from 'FH', here is another one. Do you agree with him on this?

"I did also write "in fact some go as far as saying it does not matter if the Northern hemisphere removes all the trees as they make no difference""

 

 Yes you did but didn't actually link the quotes or who made them so it's hard to know exactly what the conversation was and the relevance, seems crazy on the face of it but quotes taken out of context are hard to judge.

 

 

"He says clearly that those in the north do nothing for climate change - which is again so very wrong."

 

He doesn't say it will do nothing, he says planting them won't "slow climate change" not the same thing, he presumably means if we keep on cutting down rainforest it won't have the effect hoped for, he may well believe we need to stop deforestation and begin replanting in the tropics, can't judge his position on a few selected quotes.

 

"On this thread there are loads more comments from 'FH', here is another one. Do you agree with him on this?"

 

A quick look at the globe would suggest the UK on it's own will have little effect due to the fact we are such a small area, so no, I don't agree it's zero but it may well be negligible in the overall picture. Again difficult to judge his position on selected quotes, you seem to have selected a few quotes to try to ridicule him, maybe he is a climate denier or maybe he is a realist who is sceptical of quick fixes that make us feel better but won't have the desired outcome, I've no idea, not seem enough of the conversation to judge.

 

Still not seen any science that compares the relative CO2 absorbing capabilities of tropical and temperate trees/areas  either so can't really tell how valid his argument is. But this is what we need, logical scientific analysis and debate, not trying to ridicule other views.

 

 

 

 

[steviewevie]

56 minutes ago, kerplunk said:

All the biomass on earth in one graphic

 

https://nautil.us/all-the-biomass-on-earth-238368/

 

 

I like that. If only I understood it.

[steviewevie]

I tell you what would be bad news for net zero and all that stuff...Trump winning in November.

[gizmoman]

36 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Ridicule other view - when they are utter nonsense and the person making them refuses to accept anything that says they are wring, which FH and many others do in 'denial' threads and pages is about all you can really do.
When heads are so far down the rabbit hole engaging them any longer is pointless - it is like trying to tell tRump that he did not beat Tiger Woods at golf.

Anyway, here are some links and stuff just about England but papers are available for many other countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

This first one hs a quote that says:
""The planting of trees and an end to deforestation are increasingly being highlighted as low cost and environmentally sensitive mechanisms to combat climate change. These measures have been factored into the net-zero agendas of UK and other governments, with world leaders also pledging to address the issue during COP26 in Glasgow last year."

 

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-explores-temperate-rainforests-aid-climate.html

 

Even out sceptical UK government has plans around putting back our temperate forests and they certainly are not well known for spending money without decent proof (or perhaps benefitting their friends and neighbours financially).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/temperate-rainforest-strategy/a-plan-to-recover-englands-temperate-rainforests

There really are so very many places where info is available and such info was offered by others on the thread with FH and their refusal to accept any of it was laughable to the point of ridiculousness.
Sadly I have had to try and talk to many like this, and lots worse, over the years - there really is no talking to them - like anti maskers and covid deniers, their mind are closed to any truth regardless of who says it and what proof you offer them.

As said, I have seen pages/groups a plenty with people saying the northern hemisphere can has all trees removed and it makes no difference and they refuse any and all proof they are wrong - if you can find a way to combat that level of lack of education then please............ get involved on social media, groups, websites and public debate cos it is soul destroying to try and deal with such people especially as they are now more emboldened thanks to tRump and Reform and similar.

Neither link gives any indication as to how much benefit the reforestation will have, there will be some to be sure but whether it will be as effective as action elsewhere is unknown, so it hardly settles the argument, a bit pointless trying to have a secondhand discussion on what someone said somewhere else can you link the original BBC thread so we can see how the discussion actually went?

[kerplunk]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

I like that. If only I understood it.

😄

 

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

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2024 by kerplunk

[steviewevie]

we need to exterminate all humans.

[gizmoman]

OK found the story and the comments,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68716874

 

FH was replying to this post,

 

 

"We go on about tree loss in the Amazon yet cut down millions of trees in the UK. Our wildlife is now down to 1 in 4 wildlife species close to extinction. Our biodiversity is one of the most under threat in the world."

 

His Reply,

 

"trees in the UK do 0 for climate change. it is the tropics that are important"

 

"I repeat, trees in Northern Europe and the Northern Hemisphere, do 0 to stop climate change. it is the tropics were they must grow."

 

 

and

 

"Use ECOSIA as your search engine. It plants tropical trees to replant the forests, as you search, and stop climate change. Use ecosia to help replant the forests and help it get to 1 billion trees asap"

 

 

 

So it turns out I was right about his stance, he believes we should be concentrating our efforts on the tropical forests,

"and stop climate change" hardly the words of a denier, disagreeing on the solution to the problem is not climate change denial.

 

I can see how his negative reply might annoy some but he could well be right.

 

Not heard of Ecosia before,

https://www.ecosia.org/

 will give it a try.

 

BTW looked at a couple of other stories but couldn't find him.

 

[kerplunk]

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