https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/13/forests-carbon-dioxide-emissions

(Clip)

In that past era, forests covered a much larger extent of the world than now, with no ice at the poles and much higher seas than today. But while the PETM changes occurred over many thousands of years via carbon released by the natural forces of volcanic activity, current climate change is much faster and caused by our deliberate combustion of fossil fuels.

The paper is a “genuine advance” and provides a record over tens of thousands of years that shows the knock-on impacts of thinning forests, according to Trevor Keenan, a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the new research.

“The headline is that warming won,” Keenan said. “Carbon dioxide rose sharply, and any benefit that gave the forests was not enough to stop canopies from opening up and staying open for tens of thousands of years.”

This is worrying because the pace of change today, he added. “The ancient carbon release happened over thousands of years, ours is happening over decades,” he said. “Faster forcing gives ecosystems less room to adjust.

“Second, those forests faced climate change alone. Today’s forests are dealing with the same warming while also being fragmented, logged, converted to agriculture and exposed to altered fire regimes. If forests thinned under the slower and cleaner version of this experiment, that is not a reassuring precedent.”

(PETM = Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum)

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/13/forests-carbon-dioxide-emissions

(Clip)

In that past era, forests covered a much larger extent of the world than now, with no ice at the poles and much higher seas than today. But while the PETM changes occurred over many thousands of years via carbon released by the natural forces of volcanic activity, current climate change is much faster and caused by our deliberate combustion of fossil fuels.

The paper is a “genuine advance” and provides a record over tens of thousands of years that shows the knock-on impacts of thinning forests, according to Trevor Keenan, a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the new research.

“The headline is that warming won,” Keenan said. “Carbon dioxide rose sharply, and any benefit that gave the forests was not enough to stop canopies from opening up and staying open for tens of thousands of years.”

This is worrying because the pace of change today, he added. “The ancient carbon release happened over thousands of years, ours is happening over decades,” he said. “Faster forcing gives ecosystems less room to adjust.

“Second, those forests faced climate change alone. Today’s forests are dealing with the same warming while also being fragmented, logged, converted to agriculture and exposed to altered fire regimes. If forests thinned under the slower and cleaner version of this experiment, that is not a reassuring precedent.”

Was that supposed beneficial effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere used to poo poo the dangers of an its consequenti increased greenhouse effect ?

Is that talking point more or less put to bed or will they not be bothered to read the fine print and keep assuring us that it will be good for agriculture?

Burgum eats a pasta emu grub?

I've wondered a while whether our House of Lords should be replaced by a House of Nerds appointed not by birth, church, or the ruling polital group in the House of Commons, but by the senates of the 24 Russell group universities in the UK with comprehensive expertise covering all the major academic disciplines.

Their major role would be a constitutional power of veto on acts of utter stupidity emanating from the lower house, free (in principal) of the toxic corrupting influences of privilege, ideology, and plutocratic manipulation.

Let the climate deniers try and get past that one.

5 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I've wondered a while whether our House of Lords should be replaced by a House of Nerds appointed not by birth, church, or the ruling polital group in the House of Commons, but by the senates of the 24 Russell group universities in the UK with comprehensive expertise covering all the major academic disciplines.

I've often thought we would all be better off if scientists controlled the government. If it happened overnight, though, there would be a lot of unhappy people who'd be told they can't live the lifestyle they like because it is unsustainable.

7 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I've often thought we would all be better off if scientists controlled the government. If it happened overnight, though, there would be a lot of unhappy people who'd be told they can't live the lifestyle they like because it is unsustainable.

I'm already weeping into my sour grape curry for them.

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Was that supposed beneficial effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere used to poo poo the dangers of an its consequenti increased greenhouse effect ?

Is that talking point more or less put to bed or will they not be bothered to read the fine print and keep assuring us that it will be good for agriculture?

I'm taking a wild guess of...the latter? Interior secretary (and reported emu eater) Doug Burgum was the governor of North Dakota, perched atop the Bakken shale bed and epicenter of the US fracking boom. "Frackin' the Bakken" was the catchphrase. I'm doubtful these guys read any of the print, fine or otherwise.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I've wondered a while whether our House of Lords should be replaced by a House of Nerds appointed

We could use a Senate on that model. Instead of twits like the infamous senator from Oklahoma who, during a cold spell, walked into the chamber with a snowball in hand crowing "See? No global warming!"

Nota bene, on emu grub:

Laminates La Brea tar pits, tip rat a 'erbal set animal?

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by TheVat