Slashdot Mirror

So trees grow leaves and then drop them and they rot, simplified version. For sequestration, the CO2 needs to be permanently removed, not tied up short term.
Here in BC, the forests are currently releasing about 3 times the CO2 as people, rather then sequestering it. https://www.nationalobserver.c...

Much of which was burned. It was due to shortages of wood to burn that coal became popular as a source of heat, both for heating and industrial use.
Interestingly, here in BC, the largest emitter of CO2 last year was the forests, largely due to fire as well as destructive logging practices which includes slash burning and the mountain pine beetle.
Fires alone released estimated 190 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2017 and likely a similar amount in 2018, compared to 63 million tonnes by the usual subjects (industry, people etc).

https://www.nationalobserver.c...

I was born in BC, probably older than you and I am pretty sure I've considered what I say very carefully. My hyperbole to you is real concern. And increasing tanker traffic without ensuring there is a way to deal with mistakes (which of course never happen until they do) is very real. Read my above comments and read this as it explains why the lies currently being perpetuated https://www.nationalobserver.c... Some of us in BC actually care about the planet and about the industries that keep our province an amazing place now and forever and aren't willing to sell them out so Joe Bob in Alberta can have 2 four wheelers, a boat, a $100,000 pickup and a 5 bedroom house. Of course if Joe Bon knew about economics he would have realized his inflated oil economy salary wasn't something he should have banked on.

A pipeline that would be unprofitable and create a much greater risk of environmental damage due to increased tanker traffic just to sell discounted heavy bitumen at a price that is not sustainable. And all the risk would be on BC and all the profit to promote a dysfunctional Alberta oil industry and those have not provinces that would get equalization payments. But BC residents should shoulder all the risk. https://www.nationalobserver.c... While the above link is just an opinion piece, it is much more grounded in reality than the rhetoric being promoted by the the federal government in Canada and the provincial government in Alberta.

How is this News for Nerds? More importantly do we really want to take financial advise from this guy?

An article titled "The real and shocking story of..." sounds like a pretty unbiased source.

How is this News for Nerds? More importantly do we really want to take financial advise from this guy?

If the research is that important, then publish it and get libraries and other 3rd parties archiving it after the data is collected ---
this is also a good thing as it means observation datasets can no longer be tampered with in the future to support new models.

This tampering thing is a myth. Datasets do need to be normalized and massaged before you draw any useful conclusions from them, but you can get the raw data if you're interested -- for example the station data in the instrumental record. The myth persists because people want to believe it and don't even make rudimentary efforts to see if it is true.

I've been reading a lot of this bullshit, and it's clear the people spreading them have never bothered to look for the data or go to the papers which published the data, or to even figure out what the data means. For example I have been hearing a lot from denialists about how the "unadjusted radiosonde" data shows there's no warming, so I tracked down the paper which is the source of that claim. To understand the data you have to understand what a radiosonde is: it's balloon-borne instrument that takes a cross section of measurements from the troposphere -- which warms under AGW -- into the stratosphere -- which cools under AGW. So adding up all the measurements can't tell you whether or not the lower levels of the atmosphere have gotten warmer, you have to select just the relevant data.

I doubt that Trump's team is going to say "delete the research data", anyways.

Of course he hasn't said he's going to do it, but neither did the Harper government in Canada. In that case the advance notice was sent out in August when many of the library staff was on vacation stating there was going to be a consolidation of services and a move toward electronic distribution. That sounded innocuous, but three weeks later a hundred years worth of journals, technical reports and datasets were in the landfill.

I'm no fan of Trudeau, but I'll take what I can get.

Apparently scientists are allowed to talk to the media without getting the answers reviewed by Harper's people first now: http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/06/news/breaking-trudeau-government-unmuzzles-scientists

A return to sanity seems to be a heroic effort these days.