wokeness

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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?

That may be the most cogent statement you have evee made on Agriville. Slowly seeing the light.

[jazz]

That may be the most cogent statement you have even made on Agriville. Slowly seeing the light.

chuck said he wanted to instruct his kids on colonization and reconciliation.

Wonder if he ever thought about telling them about our societies flirtations with socialism and Marxism.

Marxism is responsible for some 100m+ direct deaths and still going. Just saying.

[Guest]

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/

Pick and choose your source or flavour of the day as usual

[Guest]

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.

Yep , the stupidity of some is absolutely amazing !

[TSIPP]

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?

Chuckroach’s last post, second paragraph, I’m not quoting that goof!

[chuckChuck]

In the carbon cycle forests capture and release carbon through natural processes.

In a hotter drier world with more forest fires, they release more carbon than they capture.

The much bigger issue is all the ancient carbon that is released when you burn fossil fuels.

That's why CO2 levels keep rising.

[Guest]

Working weekends now !!!
ALL the recent polls have your exalted ruler worried enough to pay overtime?

[blackpowder]

Working overtime because of the 1 Million March 4 Children on the 20th.

[shtferbrains]

There was a report out on MSM that Saskatchewan's oil industry produces more CO2 per unit of production than Alberta's because Alberta has been investing more in carbon reduction.

Nasa has a recent report using satellite data proving Canada doesn't emit carbon as a whole and is actually one of the biggest sinks in the world.

If you could get a more detailed accounting of the data I expect some regions would be sinking a lot and some would be emitters. Possibly correlating to looking out the window at the lights when traveling on an airline. Where we live is mostly dark and areas around population centers are lit up. Coastal USA seems all lit up.

So if one little spot of light on a big dark landscape is emitting more CO2 than another little spot of light but Canada is a net sink and not adding any CO2 to the total, are either of them actually emitting anything?

What do you think Chuck?

I'm a little confused?

[fjlip]

Yes cities are the emitters, rural SINKS, we need that recognized and rewarded!

Used to be a C02 map, but the bastards cancelled, removed, deleted.

[chuckChuck]

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

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

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.

Currently, most fire management strategies do not include a focus on limiting carbon emissions from burning forests, which is by far the largest source of carbon emissions from Canadian forests in recent years.

In fact, in line with UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rules, emissions from natural disturbances such as wildfires are generally not included in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reporting, while the carbon removals from mature forest regrowth after a fire are.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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

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

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.

Currently, most fire management strategies do not include a focus on limiting carbon emissions from burning forests, which is by far the largest source of carbon emissions from Canadian forests in recent years.

In fact, in line with UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rules, emissions from natural disturbances such as wildfires are generally not included in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reporting, while the carbon removals from mature forest regrowth after a fire are.

That doesn't really sound like settled science, then does it?