Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[Essan]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

The UK is 50% Nuclear, or close to it.

 

18.7% in 2018 and declining because we haven't built a new once since the 1980s .....  Mores the shame IMO.   

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789655/Nuclear_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf

[Doc Socks Junior]

I'm sure this will be an interesting read for everyone.  I strive to be all things to all people.

https://issues.org/the-empty-radicalism-of-the-climate-apocalypse/

Quote

If one believed that the climate crisis was already under way and that the world had only a decade or so not only to stop the growth of emissions but to slash them deeply, an emergency mobilization to rapidly cut carbon dioxide emissions would seemingly be the only sane response. But the apocalyptic rhetoric, endless demands for binding global temperature targets, and radical-sounding condemnations of neoliberalism, consumption, and corporations only conceal how feeble the environmental climate agenda actually is. The vagueness and modesty of the Green New Deal is not proof that progressives and environmentalists are closet socialists. It is, rather, evidence that most climate advocates, though no doubt alarmed, don’t actually see climate change as the immediate and existential threat they suggest it is.

I've said the bolded part to a variety of people for a few years now.

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Bull!  Efficient solar systems haven't been available until this year.  If you tried solar, it was one of the obsolete, inefficient systems.

You only have wind failures at a particular turbine 10% of the time.  That means there are other turbines in the same wind farm that can pick up the slack and then there are other wind farms.  You should never have a power failure due to lack of wind

UNLESS:

1.  Australians are unusually stupid and haven't networked their grids, or

2.  You haven't built the needed wind capacity, or

3.  You do not have enough capacity of any kind.  In which case, why aren't you building more?

 

You said you had hydro.  Use wind preferentailly to save your water, then you can use the water to cover low-production periods (like when your obsolete coal plant breaks down).

 

Most of your problem seems to be not having a grid, or knowing how to run it if you do have it.

Doug

We have networked, but in Australia high or low pressure systems cells are huge, or typically cover a third or Australia, (no WA or Perth Network, too far away) so we only need a stinkin hot overcast day with little wind, (spanning two states for 3 days to a week) and we are ....ed.

Then we buy it at excessively high prices from Q, NSW.

Stupid has already had one warning, with an almost total power blackout for our state, (wouldn't have happened if Hazelwood was still open, (used to gen, 22%)) but it won't sink in, or another Gore clone, that will push ahead until we have a total blackout and people die on the operating tables, (this has almost happened in SA).

In the meantime we have dark car parks, (owned by third party's trying to make a profit, so the higher our prices the dimmer the lights) and you literally need a torch, and since stupid has lax youth gang laws a gun.

And l swear that some street lights are now dimmer, probably stupid again, siphoning money for another one of his green scemes, or using it to reduce our costs, so he gets reelected.

In the federal election VIC, just voted for labour, so when the state one rolls in again, hopefully this idiot will finally get the chop.

[tmcom]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gores_new_message/

Quote

All this as Gore continues to wing and SUV his way around the planet, leading a high-consumption, luxury lifestyle and a carbon footprint in his wake that would choke a dinosaur.

 

Quote

So all you have to do is sign up and make a donation to Gore’s traveling salvation road show and you can drive, eat and flick those lights on and off with a clear conscience.

He is well on his way to becoming the first billionare on this circus, and multibillionare if he pushes the carbon tax. Eventhough AU doesn't want it, or the US, and India and....

An interesting read, and of course pensioners are dying for the cause, and the  poor are suffering for the cause, and.

 

[Doug1029]

52 minutes ago, tmcom said:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gores_new_message/

 

He is well on his way to becoming the first billionare on this circus, and multibillionare if he pushes the carbon tax. Eventhough AU doesn't want it, or the US, and India and....

An interesting read, and of course pensioners are dying for the cause, and the  poor are suffering for the cause, and.

 

Carbon taxes (cap-and-trade) are the industrial fall-back position, in case they lose the drive to discredit climate science.  Unfortunately, carbon taxes don't work, at least not very well.  They allow pollution to continue (for a fee).  There is little gain for the money spent.  As such, they are just another tax.

A better idea is a carbon fee system.  Fees are assessed according to the carbon content of products being mined, pumped out of the ground, or coming through a port-of-entry.  That money is distributed to all residents (those that have a Social Security number) on a per-capita basis. This penalizes products with high carbon content, but returns the money to the people so they can exercise their "dollar votes."  Taxes don't do that.

The program needs to start small - maybe $100-$200 a year to give markets and people time to adjust.  After that, the fees increase gradually until control is achieved.  GRADUALLY is the operative word.  France failed because they didn't have the second part of the program and tried to do too much too fast.

Administratively this is done with something like a pre-paid credit card.  Each quarter the administrative agency simply adds the appropriate dividend to the card.

 

A bill instituting this program has been introduced in the US Senate (by two Republicans, yet), but has gone nowhere.

Doug

[+Desertrat56]

12 hours ago, tmcom said:

We have networked, but in Australia high or low pressure systems cells are huge, or typically cover a third or Australia, (no WA or Perth Network, too far away) so we only need a stinkin hot overcast day with little wind, (spanning two states for 3 days to a week) and we are ....ed.

Then we buy it at excessively high prices from Q, NSW.

Stupid has already had one warning, with an almost total power blackout for our state, (wouldn't have happened if Hazelwood was still open, (used to gen, 22%)) but it won't sink in, or another Gore clone, that will push ahead until we have a total blackout and people die on the operating tables, (this has almost happened in SA).

In the meantime we have dark car parks, (owned by third party's trying to make a profit, so the higher our prices the dimmer the lights) and you literally need a torch, and since stupid has lax youth gang laws a gun.

And l swear that some street lights are now dimmer, probably stupid again, siphoning money for another one of his green scemes, or using it to reduce our costs, so he gets reelected.

In the federal election VIC, just voted for labour, so when the state one rolls in again, hopefully this idiot will finally get the chop.

I have a neighbor who has been off the grid for 22 years using wind and solar.  Substandard based on assessment of the solar people but he is frugal and crazy.  He used 4 boat batteries as backup for 10 years before he had to replace them.   The assessment was based on the size of his house, he had 4 cheap solar panels instead of 12 and one tiny wind turbine.   If you are creative you can find the materials you need to survive off grid.  Granted, it was one person who only kept bear and wine in the fridge and only used the television 2 hours a day and the computer 2 hours a day and unplugged the fridge when he went to bed every night.  If he broke down and bought new tech for those he could run them all day on his meager input.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Desertrat56

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Carbon taxes (cap-and-trade) are the industrial fall-back position, in case they lose the drive to discredit climate science.  Unfortunately, carbon taxes don't work, at least not very well.  They allow pollution to continue (for a fee).  There is little gain for the money spent.  As such, they are just another tax.

A better idea is a carbon fee system.  Fees are assessed according to the carbon content of products being mined, pumped out of the ground, or coming through a port-of-entry.  That money is distributed to all residents (those that have a Social Security number) on a per-capita basis. This penalizes products with high carbon content, but returns the money to the people so they can exercise their "dollar votes."  Taxes don't do that.

The program needs to start small - maybe $100-$200 a year to give markets and people time to adjust.  After that, the fees increase gradually until control is achieved.  GRADUALLY is the operative word.  France failed because they didn't have the second part of the program and tried to do too much too fast.

Administratively this is done with something like a pre-paid credit card.  Each quarter the administrative agency simply adds the appropriate dividend to the card.

A bill instituting this program has been introduced in the US Senate (by two Republicans, yet), but has gone nowhere.

Doug

Australia also went through this with Labour, (when they were last in power) saying we will not bring in a carbon tax, and they of course bought it in, and then got the boot.

Australians may want to help, but not if it costs them.

[+Desertrat56]

14 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Australia also went through this with Labour, (when they were last in power) saying we will not bring in a carbon tax, and they of course bought it in, and then got the boot.

Australians may want to help, but not if it costs them.

I feel the same way.  The electric companies charge a lot and are reluctant to put any profits into R&D for new technology, then when they are forced to shut down a coal plant (in the case of PNM in New Mexico) they ask the state to pay off the financing that they could have done.  That coal plant is barely 35 years old and at that time they could have used the money more wisely by setting up wind and solar farms.  They had the opoportunity to be ahead of the curve instead of behind it so that now it is kicking them in the butt and they are kicking us.

[tmcom]

Ok, found this nutter.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/01/its-not-okay-how-clueless-donald-trump-is-about-climate-change

He says that trump is the worst ever US president, not according the the US economy or the stockmarket, (overall).

And apparently sea polar ice is in a "Death Spiral", (their words) or the stuff in the ocean. I thought that Doom, Spiral, Death Thingy would be more accurate?

Quote

But that’s not okay. Donald Trump is the leader of the country most culpable for the existential threat that we’ve created by rapidly changing Earth’s climate. His administration is alone in the world in declaring that we need not worry about that existential threat. We need to hold him to account for his ignorance on this critically important issue and demand better.

Existential threat, and critical, yeah, Dogs and Cats will be living together soon, you mark my words.

[tmcom]

Warning some course language, but a great message to the faithful, (his first video should be on his channel). Go to either poles and ask actual experts about this circus, and they will laugh every time, and no wonder with Apoloclypse, save my children, the oceans are rising, eventhough there is no evidence, critical, tipping point, groan.

[+Desertrat56]

58 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Ok, found this nutter.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/01/its-not-okay-how-clueless-donald-trump-is-about-climate-change

He says that trump is the worst ever US president, not according the the US economy or the stockmarket, (overall).

And apparently sea polar ice is in a "Death Spiral", (their words) or the stuff in the ocean. I thought that Doom, Spiral, Death Thingy would be more accurate?

Existential threat, and critical, yeah, Dogs and Cats will be living together soon, you mark my words.

Dogs and cats are already living together in a lot of U.S. households, including mine.    I was watching Bill Nye videos and I found one that fits here.

 

 

 

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Australians may want to help, but not if it costs them.

And that's the universal problem.

Was it a carbon tax, or a carbon fee?  Don't go by the name - what did it do?

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

And apparently sea polar ice is in a "Death Spiral", (their words) or the stuff in the ocean. I thought that Doom, Spiral, Death Thingy would be more accurate?

Current total loss is about 38% at the minimum cover in September.  Ice cover is shrinking at about 3% per decade.  But that's only half the story.  The other half is ice thickness and I don't have the data on that.

This is one of those "tipping points."  As ice cover drops, less heat is reflected back to space, the ocean gets warmer and more ice melts.  If the trend is accelearting, then we are past the "tipping point" and will eventually have a nearly-ice free Arctic Ocean with attendent ecological consequences.  If not, we could recover.

Doug

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Dogs and cats are already living together in a lot of U.S. households, including mine.    I was watching Bill Nye videos and I found one that fits here.

 

Yes, already seen this fool, and a few more of his videos, he is serious about this subject, but trys to make this funny. Which l guess is similar to the 10/10 promotional drive, where disbelievers are blown up, graphically. I mean l find this subject hilarious, but believers and humor isn't helping their cause, it just makes them look more questionable.

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And that's the universal problem.

Was it a carbon tax, or a carbon fee?  Don't go by the name - what did it do?

Doug

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia

What did it do, it got rid of labor from running our country.

7 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Current total loss is about 38% at the minimum cover in September.  Ice cover is shrinking at about 3% per decade.  But that's only half the story.  The other half is ice thickness and I don't have the data on that.

This is one of those "tipping points."  As ice cover drops, less heat is reflected back to space, the ocean gets warmer and more ice melts.  If the trend is accelearting, then we are past the "tipping point" and will eventually have a nearly-ice free Arctic Ocean with attendent ecological consequences.  If not, we could recover.

Doug

Maybe you should go to the south pole and warn all of the scientists, lol.

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia

What did it do, it got rid of labor from running our country.

It was a cap-and-trade scheme with a few modifications.  It was also too ambitious.  Getting CO2 emissions down to 80% of the 2000 level probably couldn't be done even if all the provisions of the bill were implemented.  They outran both technology and public support, making the situation worse, not better.

Doug

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Maybe you should go to the south pole and warn all of the scientists, lol.

I did the next best thing.  Here is a paper on summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.  In it they propose linkages between the extent of ice cover and "atmospheric circulation anomalies."  In other words, they suspect our "wild weather" is being caused by the decreasing ice cover.

Maslanik, J., M. Serreze and R. Barry.  1996.  Recent decreases in Arctic summer ice cover and linkages to atmospheric circulation anomalies.  Geophysical Research Letters 23(13) 1677-1680.  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/96GL01426  27 June 3019.

The Polar Vortex is apparently shifting location to stay over areas with extensive ice cover, like Greenland.  The Siberian side of the Arctic Ocean is where most of the melting has occurred.  That blocks the eastward travel of major storm systems, forcing them to move southward to get around it.  And that brings severe winter weather to the Northeast, Canada and Europe.  Presumably, this is affecting the eastern Pacific through the trade winds and that, in turn, affects Australia.  It's one earth and we're all on it together.

If this is true, then our "wild weather" is a permanent thing and climate change (at least one small part of it) has already occurred.

Doug

[tmcom]

Another nutter...

https://www.monsterchildren.com/87893/the-end-is-nigh/

Quote

The ‘most powerful country in the world’ is run by a science-denying racist egomaniac reality TV star proto-authoritarian so demented he can’t stop making up outlandish lies while his cronies defend him to the bitter end, humanity be damned.

We will just ignore increased jobs, and the Stockmarket thing.

Canada is warming, and insects are getting zapped,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/extreme-cold-1.4471078

Canada is warming at twice the norm, hence they are putting stupid at the top of their to do lists, or bucket lists?

Yeah, looks unbearably hot up there.

And another...

https://www.thegwpf.com/emmanuel-macron-the-end-is-nigh-and-world-is-losing-the-climate-battle/

Quote

He said: “We are losing the battle. Those before us were lucky. They could say they didn’t know. And it was true. We’ve known for about 20 years now. And every day that goes past, we know a little more.”

He went on to say that those present at his address need to realise that many of the Heads of State and Governments in attendance “in 50, 60 or 100 years, won’t have countries to govern” because climate change will have wiped them off the map.

“It’s as simple as that,” he concluded.

With the emphasis on Simple.

Well his people protested and he turned back taxing everything, so l guess that he is spitting the dummy, literally.

So CC will wipe all Australian citizens off the map, that's nice.

https://time.com/5418690/why-ignore-climate-change-warnings-un-report/

And we seem to have a shrink, tell us why humanity won't move on this since it is too far away, blah, blah, it could also be that increased numbers are waking up to 50 years of failed end is night and bad science, duh.

And the most fervent believers keep ignoring all of this and pressing on, trying to convince or shoot, blashmess skeptics who are too nice or intelligent to tell them that they are stark raving mad.

[+Desertrat56]

@tmcom  I think most of those increased jobs happened when Obamba was in office.  I don't see the ecconomy or jobs getting better in the last 3 years and the stock market is not a measure as it is always manipulated.  And I agree with what you quoted.  Trump was chosen to take us down, not to build us up.  I suspect the U.S. has not been the most powerful country for a while now.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

We will just ignore increased jobs, and the Stockmarket thing.

1.  Job growth is related to the size of the population.  If that goes up 20%, then the number of jobs goes up 20% without a President lifting a finger.

2.  The current increase in the numbers of jobs began in 2013 - Obama's watch.

3.  Job creation as a result of presidential efforts is glacially slow.  What you're looking at is the results of OBAMA's job creation efforts.  Trump's will start showing up in 2021 - no matter who gets elected in 2020.

4.  Trump's tariffs are hurting the agricultural sector pretty badly.  As that employs the greatest number of people, it doen's look like this growth is going to be sustained much longer.

5.  The boom that is affecting Wall Street is not reaching down to where most Americans live.  For us, the recession is still in effect.

http://fortune.com/2017/08/10/donald-trump-jobs-numbers-fact-check/

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Another nutter...

https://www.monsterchildren.com/87893/the-end-is-nigh/

We will just ignore increased jobs, and the Stockmarket thing.

Canada is warming, and insects are getting zapped,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/extreme-cold-1.4471078

Canada is warming at twice the norm, hence they are putting stupid at the top of their to do lists, or bucket lists?

Yeah, looks unbearably hot up there.

And another...

https://www.thegwpf.com/emmanuel-macron-the-end-is-nigh-and-world-is-losing-the-climate-battle/

With the emphasis on Simple.

Well his people protested and he turned back taxing everything, so l guess that he is spitting the dummy, literally.

So CC will wipe all Australian citizens off the map, that's nice.

https://time.com/5418690/why-ignore-climate-change-warnings-un-report/

And we seem to have a shrink, tell us why humanity won't move on this since it is too far away, blah, blah, it could also be that increased numbers are waking up to 50 years of failed end is night and bad science, duh.

And the most fervent believers keep ignoring all of this and pressing on, trying to convince or shoot, blashmess skeptics who are too nice or intelligent to tell them that they are stark raving mad.

I see why people call you names, like "stupid."  Your use of that tactic invites response in kind.

Doug

[tmcom]

10 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

@tmcom  I think most of those increased jobs happened when Obamba was in office.  I don't see the ecconomy or jobs getting better in the last 3 years and the stock market is not a measure as it is always manipulated.  And I agree with what you quoted.  Trump was chosen to take us down, not to build us up.  I suspect the U.S. has not been the most powerful country for a while now.

Ok, perhaps, but trump has also cut back on wasteful end is nigh research, so barring him becoming trigger happy things should improve.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I see why people call you names, like "stupid."  Your use of that tactic invites response in kind.

Doug

I am living in a state with one, that is hell bent on increasing our elec, prices and creating constant power blackouts, based on a theory with a pitiful track record.

Who would invest in a company with 50 years of failure behind them, only a madman spending other peoples money.

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Ok, perhaps, but trump has also cut back on wasteful end is nigh research, so barring him becoming trigger happy things should improve.

I am living in a state with one, that is hell bent on increasing our elec, prices and creating constant power blackouts, based on a theory with a pitiful track record.

Who would invest in a company with 50 years of failure behind them, only a madman spending other peoples money.

I wonder if tRUMP has cut down on climate research.  tRUMP has not yet passed a budget of his own.  We have been operating under extensions of Obama's budget for the past two years.  There will be a budget battle this fall.  We'll have to wait and see how it pans out.

NOAA's and EPA's research programs are on-going. tRUMP's most-recent maneuver is a threat to transfer the Washington people to St. Louis if they don't start supporting his lies.  That is supposed to take effect Monday, but stay tuned.

I have noticed no decrease in the number of research articles being published.  I have been working with old data collected years ago for the past two years.  For the time-being, I don't need any new field data.  That's the most-expensive part of research, anyway.  So I'm thinking that tRUMP has cut down on data collection, but otherwise had little effect on climate research.

 

I note that your criticisms of wind power are mostly a straw man.  You make up something with no basis in reality, then think you are proving something by refuting your own imaginary creation.  Try backing up what you say.  Citing strawman articles proves nothing.

 

I have started writing that paper on carbon sequestration in the litter layer of shortleaf pine stands.  I am finding that carbon sequestration is about 25% of that in the USFS' published lists (Smith and Heath 2002).  How to explain that?  I have come up with some interesting numbers, though:  Forests contain more than 80% of the world's above-ground terrestrial carbon and 70% of its soil carbon (Jandl et al. 2007).  World-wide, vegetation and soils contain about 1146 petagrams of carbon (1 petagram = 1X10¹⁵ grams).  World-wide, forest are a 2.4+/-0.4 Pg/yr carbon sink.  So there seems to be some potential for increasing that absorption.

Doug

 

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I wonder if tRUMP has cut down on climate research.  tRUMP has not yet passed a budget of his own.  We have been operating under extensions of Obama's budget for the past two years.  There will be a budget battle this fall.  We'll have to wait and see how it pans out.

NOAA's and EPA's research programs are on-going. tRUMP's most-recent maneuver is a threat to transfer the Washington people to St. Louis if they don't start supporting his lies.  That is supposed to take effect Monday, but stay tuned.

I have noticed no decrease in the number of research articles being published.  I have been working with old data collected years ago for the past two years.  For the time-being, I don't need any new field data.  That's the most-expensive part of research, anyway.  So I'm thinking that tRUMP has cut down on data collection, but otherwise had little effect on climate research.

Check out NASA's climate change research grants, Trump got rid of it. And is thankfully putting it into something constructive, like Dragonfly, (a drone for Jupiters moon).

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

 

I note that your criticisms of wind power are mostly a straw man.  You make up something with no basis in reality, then think you are proving something by refuting your own imaginary creation.  Try backing up what you say.  Citing strawman articles proves nothing.

Straw man, lol, sure, ignore all of the videos, l and others have posted, l am sure that De Caprio's video will give you all of the fa,....

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have started writing that paper on carbon sequestration in the litter layer of shortleaf pine stands.  I am finding that carbon sequestration is about 25% of that in the USFS' published lists (Smith and Heath 2002).  How to explain that?  I have come up with some interesting numbers, though:  Forests contain more than 80% of the world's above-ground terrestrial carbon and 70% of its soil carbon (Jandl et al. 2007).  World-wide, vegetation and soils contain about 1146 petagrams of carbon (1 petagram = 1X10¹⁵ grams).  World-wide, forest are a 2.4+/-0.4 Pg/yr carbon sink.  So there seems to be some potential for increasing that absorption.

Doug

I am sure you will, have to convince yourself first.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Check out NASA's climate change research grants, Trump got rid of it. And is thankfully putting it into something constructive, like Dragonfly, (a drone for Jupiters moon).

I checked it out.  That's just a proposal for the 2019 budget (which didn't pass).  He's trying again this fall.  As of today, NASA is still operating on Obama's budget.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Straw man, lol, sure, ignore all of the videos, l and others have posted, l am sure that De Caprio's video will give you all of the fa,....

Your videos are opinion pieces only.  They don't present anything to back themselves up.  Same with De Caprio and other actors - all just unsupported opinions.  Give me some hard facts and a line of reasoning that connects the dots.  I don't want anybody's opinion.  Mine's as good as any other out there.  Show me your data.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

I am sure you will, have to convince yourself first.

I don't know what you mean by this.  I am already bucking conventional wisdom by saying that shortleaf stands don't sequester as much carbon as the USFS thinks.  That makes them less-useful as carbon sinks.  Forest fertilization is being floated as a means of sequestering more carbon.  My numbers are suggesting that money would be better-spent elswehere.  As I understand your thinking, that's exactly what you want.  So why are you ridiculing your own ideology?

Doug

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I checked it out.  That's just a proposal for the 2019 budget (which didn't pass).  He's trying again this fall.  As of today, NASA is still operating on Obama's budget.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts

True, but they are not being renewed.

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Your videos are opinion pieces only.  They don't present anything to back themselves up.  Same with De Caprio and other actors - all just unsupported opinions.  Give me some hard facts and a line of reasoning that connects the dots.  I don't want anybody's opinion.  Mine's as good as any other out there.  Show me your data.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is the one Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth Doc. That didn't happen!

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I don't know what you mean by this.  I am already bucking conventional wisdom by saying that shortleaf stands don't sequester as much carbon as the USFS thinks.  That makes them less-useful as carbon sinks.  Forest fertilization is being floated as a means of sequestering more carbon.  My numbers are suggesting that money would be better-spent elswehere.  As I understand your thinking, that's exactly what you want.  So why are you ridiculing your own ideology?

Doug

Ok, fair enough.