wokeness

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"All based on adjusted fraudulent temperature records." Says who? LOL

More climate change denial and crap from Twitter and the equivalent of Info Wars? Give up!

Where is some actual scientific evidence instead of the mindless climate change denial rhetoric?

You could just admit that you didn't follow the link.

The link is two graphs by the denier organization known as NASA starting in 1885. One from 1999, one from 2019. Showing the drastic adjustments NASA made to the 1999 graph to create an uptrend in the 2019 where there was none.

[shtferbrains]

My post came directly from the NASA website.

Chuck is finally agreeing with us.

NASA is no longer a credible scientific organization.

Possible they were always just there to support the current doctrines being pushed by the US government?

[fjlip]

But still no scientific evidence? LOL

You wouldn't know EVIDENCE if it BIT you in the AZZ!

[chuckChuck]

So you pull a set of graphs off of twitter from an unknown source who claims NASA manipulated the temperature data in the US? More climate change denial fodder for the flat earthers? That's all you got?

So many other countries and their climate change scientists and their scientific organizations in Japan, The EU, and UK are collecting and analyzing temperature data that shows very similar results so they must all be in on the giant worldwide conspiracy to manipulate the data?

And they are also causing the the glaciers in the rockies to melt and to recede? LOL

Give up!

[biglentil]

The Chuck

[shtferbrains]

NASA confirmed Canada removes more carbon than we emitted.

Does that mean we don't have to listen to PMJT lecturing us about being among the top carbon emitters?

We sink carbon for the rest of the world but are told we are "the worst ".
What kind of leadership is that?

[Guest]

*** no,
NASA isn’t a credible source , right chucky ?

[chuckChuck]

Now you are telling us NASA is a credible source? What changed your mind? LOL

Now for the bad news: The boreal forest is now a potential huge source of emissions especially after the results of 2023.

"In spite of this vast potential, however, Canada’s forests have actually been a net source of carbon emissions for the better part of two decades, releasing into the air more carbon than they absorb, according to Natural Resources Canada data. In 2018, emissions from wildfires in B.C. alone were three times greater than the entire province’s annual carbon output.

With the threat of warmer, drier summers in the years to come, there is a real risk of more and bigger fires. Canada and Alaska’s boreal forests could add a cumulative 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by mid-century without changes to the way forest fires are managed, according to a recent study published in Science Advances."

Forests could tip the carbon scales either way on Canada’s path to net-zero

https://climateinstitute.ca/forests-could-tip-the-carbon-scales-either-way-on-canadas-path-to-net-zero/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Now for the bad news: The boreal forest is now a potential huge source of emissions especially after the results of 2023.

"In spite of this vast potential, however, Canada’s forests have actually been a net source of carbon emissions for the better part of two decades, releasing into the air more carbon than they absorb, according to Natural Resources Canada data. In 2018, emissions from wildfires in B.C. alone were three times greater than the entire province’s annual carbon output.

With the threat of warmer, drier summers in the years to come, there is a real risk of more and bigger fires. Canada and Alaska’s boreal forests could add a cumulative 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by mid-century without changes to the way forest fires are managed, according to a recent study published in Science Advances."

Forests could tip the carbon scales either way on Canada’s path to net-zero

Isn't science amazing.
Burning forests in a power generation plant on a different continent to make electricity is carbon neutral, because the forests will eventually regrow. But natural forest fires and arson are not, because the forests will regrow. To take it one step further, some forests even require forest fires in order to regrow.

[TSIPP]

It doesn’t matter if a tree burns or if a tree dies and decomposes it’s all the same carbon gassing off but the tree roots are three times the mass of the tree itself, those roots are buried and not gassing off into the atmosphere, math is hard for the experts!

[shtferbrains]

With the threat of warmer, drier summers in the years to come, there is a real risk of more and bigger fires. Canada and Alaska’s boreal forests could add a cumulative 12 gigatons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by mid-century without changes to the way forest fires are managed, according to a recent study published in Science Advances

https://climateinstitute.ca/forests-could-tip-the-carbon-scales-either-way-on-canadas-path-to-net-zero/

Your source is more theory and modeling.

Same BS they have been feeding us.

The NASA satellite is actual real time data.

Canada sinks more carbon than we produce. Simple fact.

You are being misled Chuck. Look around. You don't live in Toronto.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It doesn’t matter if a tree burns or if a tree dies and decomposes it’s all the same carbon gassing off but the tree roots are three times the mass of the tree itself, those roots are buried and not gassing off into the atmosphere, math is hard for the experts!

I went back and read through the recent posts here. And I still cannot figure out what post you think you are refuting with this information.
Are you now arguing that forest fires and arson are not a problem because the roots stay behind and the roots contain more carbon the tree itself did?