You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
Feed of @cluelessjoe

Get some coding mojo, add some kids, mix, and you get a clueless joe!

@cluelessjoe

More links :

@cluelessjoe
Re: %JDiCmZ9Sy

@kas that's the right link, thanks a lot :)

@cluelessjoe

Here is a list of interesting articles on the topic I gathered over the week, i hope it's fine to drop them here :sweat_smile:
I let the raw urls because they provide quite some context and most often the title of the article:

Some French articles:

@cluelessjoe
Re: %DpEMk/LBy

@alanz I thought giving newcomers to ssb the right pub to find me was kind of the right way to do it for them to "find me" easily.
And indeed the gossip.json lists plenty of hosts, including the first one I had which I could then easily provide back to friends, sweet :) Thanks a lot!

@cluelessjoe
Voted [@cluelessjoe](@x1xeXNYS5y73kXAwq5TLBcrm7E9Tvoah15vreqwxvoc=.ed25519) you o
@cluelessjoe
Followed @adamsky
@cluelessjoe
Followed @keithalexander
@cluelessjoe

Another "lovely" thread about the hothouse effect, how we enter a zone of unknown (dunno if Earth can balance this temp anymore): https://twitter.com/ThierrySalomon/status/1036030974797250561 .

It's based on Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene

Some pictures:
anthropocene1.jpeg
anthropocene2.jpeg
...

@cluelessjoe

I apparently forgot to put this link here: Comment l’homme bouscule l’équilibre du climat sur la Terre
It has plenty of "nice" graphs (click on the dots) like average temp per year since 1880, solar activity, human land use, earth orbit, aerosols emissions, volcano activity, greenhouse gaze emissions, all human factors combined, all natural factors combined, overcast of human factors and temperature...

@cluelessjoe
Re: %bJyJyMOC7

From https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/wood-not-carbon-neutral-energy-source :

The carbon released during combustion was absorbed by forest growth in the past and will be reabsorbed by forest growth in the future; in contrast, fossil fuels originate outside this cycle and their combustion adds carbon to the atmosphere.

But this argument rests on a basic fallacy. Carbon is carbon, wherever it comes from, and if you burn wood for energy, you increase carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere (by more than if you had used fossil fuels), and thereby contribute to climate change. The fact that the carbon emitted was absorbed by growing trees in the past is simply irrelevant. After all, when it’s harvested you don’t have to burn it; you could use it for construction or furniture or window frames or a host of other uses, fixing the carbon in wood products rather than emitting it to the atmosphere.

It is true that continued forest growth will absorb carbon in the future, but the process is a long one, taking decades or even centuries if whole trees are harvested and burnt. Replacing large mature trees, with plentiful leaf cover absorbing large volumes of carbon dioxide, with small young ones mean that the rate of carbon uptake will be far lower for years. On top of that, the impact of harvesting itself releases soil carbon into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change.


Show whole feed
Join Scuttlebutt now