wokeness

[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?

[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!