The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Snow is knocking on my door. It was snowing at the 2 wind farms to my north. The house wind farm and I can't remember the name of the other one.
They are only 40 or 50 miles away.
I don't think the snow cares that it's still October.

[NeilBlanchard]

Yes, the melting Arctic ice is destabilizing the jet stream aka the polar vortex; so the Arctic air is "slipping" out and areas are colder than normal, while other areas are warmer. High pressure ridges are blocking what was typical weather patterns.

Those who say "it is cold where I am, so global warming can't be true" - do not understand what climate is.

Forbes is not a scientific source. Climategate is bunk.

[oil pan 4]

This area used to be sand dunes according to the old timers.
Bring on the climate change.
All climate change is local.
(Since climate change and politics are inseparable)

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

This area used to be sand dunes according to the old timers.
Bring on the climate change.
All climate change is local.
(Since climate change and politics are inseparable)

The infamous "separate but equal" relationship?

[oil pan 4]

They are one in the same.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

Are these concepts (biochar) meaningfully scalable on a global CO2 emissions level? Or is this just more wishful thinking?

Other than reverting to the swamp, it's the only one that is scalable to global proportions. This is because is is extremely low-tech. It was practiced in the Amazon Basin by the Mayan.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Having internet at home would blow my budget such that I'd never make it back to DARKO in 2020.Losing 15-years of effort.

I just stopped by the library to turn off email notifications. My providers bill went up $12 this month. I know I can save $7/mo by reverting to dialup. I'm working on the math.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I just stopped by the library to turn off email notifications. My providers bill went up $12 this month. I know I can save $7/mo by reverting to dialup. I'm working on the math.

Do you have multiple broadband options out there (Comcast / CenturyLink)? If so, play them off each other by always switching and staying in the $30/mo promo rate. Own your own standalone DSL and Cable modems so you can readily switch between them, keeping your wifi router separate so the network doesn't have to change.

I offered to share my bandwidth with my neighbor, so that might be an option too.

As always, I probably have an extra modem lying around somewhere. Working in IT always has me flush with parts/wholes I don't need.

[oil pan 4]

I had dial up until 2006.
It works

[redneck]

NeilBlanchard

Forbes is not a scientific source.

Ok

What qualifies in your mind to be considered a scientific source?

Please give examples.

Climategate is bunk.

Ignoring the elephant in the room does not make it go away...


>

[Xist]

Originally Posted by freebeard

If they're wearing White Helmets they must be the good guys, right? Amirite?

"Based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis."

"Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake [as forests], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees."

[S]tudies done in 1999 and again in 2005 show that reducing the amount of tree cover tends to decrease the amount of organic carbon in deep soil sinks. The 2005 study showed that about 1 metre underground, grassland sites contained only 25 tonnes of carbon in the soil per hectare compared with the soil in treed savannah sites, which stored 30 to 70 tonnes per hectare.

https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/20...ts-or-grasses/

This says that models show grasslands are better: Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California - IOPscience

Goodie. Models. Okay boys! Our work here is done!

"We use the dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) LPJ-GUESS."

It must be accurate if they call it "Guess."

Anyone Thinking About Planting Grasslands to Fight Climate Change? They Should

This just explains the report that I shared using the Guess models. Lead author Pawlok "Dass concedes that the simulation is an oversimplification"

"The model predicts that in the absence of human intervention, California’s vegetation will lose more carbon than it can absorb under all but the most optimistic climate mitigation scenario."



Isn't planting grasslands an intervention? Why not choose the more effective one?

"[T]he researchers acknowledge that their study does not account for forest management activities, such as forest thinning and prescribed burning, which can increase the resilience of forests in the face of climate change."

I only find articles about the report, nothing independent.