Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - El Cid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
Yes, I have. You've just ignored the links I presented and trotted out the same, tired talking points that don't hold relevance anymore

We must be old boomers who just don't get it. I hope you are right but unfortunately I know you are not :)

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 07:38:18 AM »
Now we will have to turn our attention toward Israel. ...
A (third) general lockdown begun a few weeks ago was extended until the end of January....

..... So in February we *should* see a much improved situation on both infections and hospitalizations.

thanks for this, keep us updated! your country i now a giant laboratory

Anyone saying that countries and politicians don't care and will continue with business as usual until 2050 doesn't know what they're talking about.

You have not yet been able to prove your claim. All you did so far was telling us how stupid and wrong we are to be so cynical. Which is not really a strong argument.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 19, 2021, 09:29:52 PM »
Now we will have to turn our attention toward Israel. 27% of the population has been vaccinated and they keep pushing on, we should soon see a major dropoff in infection rates. I wonder what restrictions they still have and when they will exit those.

oren, what are the rules there now?

Because businesses are exiting coal at a rapid rate, sparked in part by Blackrock:

Also, the Dems can use reconciliation in the Senate to achieve most of Biden's goals:

Manchin will go along with a great deal of it as long as he gets some "pork" for West Virginia.
Interstitial should have mentioned these things instead of his or her innate pessimistic view

Oh, that's cute. Have you  heard about China and India?

Especially China. They added plenty of new coal capacity in the very near past and those plants will keep producing Co2 for a long long time. (1/3 of their capacity was built between 2010-20 and more than 40% between 2000-2010). 60% of India's capacity was built in the past 10 years. They won't close those for a long time, too much sunk cost.

Then: transportation. Most of Asia will not drive Teslas. They will drive gas and diesel cars. They don't buy new cars every 2 years. And after that, Africans will drive those used Asian cars even in 2040-50. We will need oil for decades for transportation, although likely less as time goes on

Then: renewables. To balance out renewables you need lots of gas-turbines. Better than coal but still co2 emissions.

Building/industry: we do not even know how they would reduce co2 emissions.

Agriculture: we know how to but they  are pretty reluctant to do it.

So blu ice IS totally right. This will be a very hard and slow road to reduce emissions. And BTW when a politician says "carbon neutral by 2050" it means: "yeah, I'll pay lipservice and do something that does not hurt much, but basically I don't give a damn"

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 19, 2021, 02:08:06 PM »
..... and when the next El Nino comes along, there will be another leap upward.

The Great Leap Forward. Sounds bad. The last one cost 50 million lives...

the Us and Europe still talk like they should be aplauded for getting to net zerro by 2050. we need a ban on new ff infrastructure ice vehicles today. net zero by 2030 or 2035 should be our goal.
It should, but it isn't. If net zero goal is placed within a decade, people currently in power would have to make the tough decisions. They don't want to do that.

As net zero goal is placed further into the future, it's all business as usual until the powers-that-be conveniently retire. Technology may reduce some emissions so everybody can pretend things are being done, when in fact nothing isn't.

This is a rather simplistic and untrue explanation

how is it untrue?

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 18, 2021, 07:15:08 AM »
Pfizer is not the only ones that should be ashamed, but also the people who organize vaccination without extended testing. If I'm right, Vaccines had only been tested on healthy people under 55,

You're wrong:

"The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age"

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 17, 2021, 08:17:45 AM »
If reinfection is milder than first infection then it does not matter. Someone quoted excellent research about this upthread. Then, even if covid becomes endemic it won't be more dangerous

But what if there is accumulative damage with each reinfection?

 What about the age bias? Covid hits harder the older you are. Reinfections happen on more vulnerable subjects every year.

That is why we need to vaccinate the 60+ cohort fast. Once they are vaccinated there is no reason to keep up the restrictions as 2/3 of hopsitalizations and more than 2/3 of mortality is in that cohort. This will be done by April/May in Europe and America. Also, positive seasonality will kick in. Restrictions will be very quickly lifted at the end of spring. After that the general population will be vaccinated until autumn. This thing is almost gone, there is only 3-4 months left - much less than the 10 months since the start of lockdowns

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: January 16, 2021, 09:28:19 AM »
... Somehow I've always thought that ever since grain-based agriculture became dominant, there wasn't much else, but this makes much more sense....


Since grain-based/annual agriculture is basically the only thing we have ever known, ever seen, it is hard to think that any other diet/agriculture is possible. But if we think about it then perennial, tree-based agriculture is really the only thing that makes sense (with some grain/veggies, animals, etc in the tree rows). The change of mindset is not easy but it is a beautiful goal.

Geoff Lawton's great video about what is a food forest, worth watching:

Arctic sea ice / Re: polar vortex - where?
« on: January 15, 2021, 08:36:05 PM »
El Cid that image is totally Yin & Yang. heh

Actually it is!!!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: polar vortex - where?
« on: January 15, 2021, 03:43:39 PM »
Our mid range weather forecasts in Chicago keep predicting a huge breakout of severe cold weather. It keeps getting pushed out further in the future. The severe cold weather is now forecast to bring highs in the high 20F and lows in the high teens, hardly severe cold.

Same here. We were a bit scared 5-8 days ago that a big outbreak of cold would happen sending temps down to -15C (oh no, my figs!!!), but now the forecast was toned down and now only calls for a low around -10 or 11 C which is pretty much the median low value for the winter here. No major breakout seen until the end of January. So far so good.

BUT! GFS does not show the vortex reappearing any time soon which is kind of interesting...I attach the jan 31 10hpa temp vortex (and no vortex on any previous date either)

we should see a big dark blue circle over the pole but it disappeared at the beginning of january and is absent for the foreseeable time:

100% right bluice

There is a clear acceleration in temperature trends globally, especially in NH midlatitudes. This is likely related to ASI loss. This is not going to stop. We shall definitely NOT hit zero emissions by 2030 and likely will not even get there by 2050. 1,5 C is a pipedream.

all we can realistically expect is for Co2 LEVELS to stabilize after 2050, meaning that we shall see at least 3 more decades of cca +0,2 C/decade rise in temperatures. Mind you, that is rather +0,5 C / decade in NH midlatitudes and likely more during winter as you get closer to the Arctic.
Non-Mediterranean Europe saw a cca 2C+ temperature rise during the past 40 years (and 1 C during the past 20 yrs). I pretty much expect the same amount until 2050. This is theoretically avoidable (just like the global spread of COVID was) but will happen due to our stupidity anyway.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 15, 2021, 08:23:02 AM »
This thing will be mostly over by the end of May. 20-30% of the American/European population will have been infected by then and at least 20% will get the vaccine (even in Europe where there is a scarcity of vaccines). Since COVID is highly seasonal, summertime R is definitely lower than wintertime R. Last summer R was 1,2-1,5 in Europe with basically not effort, no masks, nothing. This means that even vaccinating 20% (plus 20-30% who got it before) will be enough to push it back into the shadows (because R will be lower than 1, even with the mutant version).
Then, during summer and autumn you will have to vaccinate the rest of the population which will happen.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 14, 2021, 05:07:04 PM »
Excellent research, though disturbing results. 1/6 the chance of infection is way too high. Hopefully the larger dataset will be more optimistic, and/or the vaccine turn out to have higher efficacy than previous infection.

If reinfection is milder than first infection then it does not matter. Someone quoted excellent research about this upthread. Then, even if covid becomes endemic it won't be more dangerous than the flu.
All vaccine trials point to the direction that even if you catch the virus after being introduced to it first (by vaccination) there is very little chance of serious complications, meaning that mortality and hospitalization should be very much reduced = it's gonna be like the flu.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 14, 2021, 08:27:10 AM »
From the virus' perspective, a higher R value could mean that a given village all comes down with the flu, everyone goes to bed and recovers, and the virus never gets to spread to the next village.  It wants to circulate in a community for a longer time, for more opportunities to spread to the next community.

Covid is contagious for longer for an individual, so a higher R does not have this disadvantage.  As long as people can be contagious for more than a week, then the higher the better.  All the better if some people are asymptomatic.  Those people will travel rather than take to their beds.  This virus functions extremely well for producing the problems it has.  A tough nut to crack.

Good argument, I can accept that

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 14, 2021, 08:25:11 AM »
Jesus, harpy, just give it up are plain wrong about most of the things you wrote about the virus the past few weeks/months

Neither fearmongering nor belittling the virus is a good soultion. This is a science site, let's try to stick to the facts. Steve is definitely right.

Historical snowfall in the center of Spain. Madrid paralyzed, airport closed.

As one who lives in a place that gets winter weather, I find it hilarious that this is considered some kind of historic storm. You can still see the tires of those cars in the photos.

Here's a photo from our historic 1978 storm:

Nice picture of the 1987 historic  snowstorm  (it has not been that cold since then) in Hungary. BTW, winters have warmed cca 2-3 C since the 1950-80 period here. Average winter minima also went up by that much, somuchso that figs are becoming normal in the warmer places (near lakes, big cities with urban heat island, and on hillsides)

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 13, 2021, 08:25:45 AM »

The virus is under selective pressure to become more contagious

I've been thinking about this for a while. How come the R of the flu has not changed in hundreds of years (= did not become more contagious) despite being more prone to mutations???

I strongly doubt that influenza has a constant R value.  .....

Influenza has a very low R:

"Twenty-four studies reported 51 R values for the 1918 pandemic. The median R value for 1918 was 1.80 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.47–2.27). Six studies reported seven 1957 pandemic R values. The median R value for 1957 was 1.65 (IQR: 1.53–1.70). Four studies reported seven 1968 pandemic R values. The median R value for 1968 was 1.80 (IQR: 1.56–1.85). Fifty-seven studies reported 78 2009 pandemic R values. The median R value for 2009 was 1.46"

This is pretty stable between 1,5-1,8. And I am sure the R could not have been much lower in previous centuries (as that would have made the R too low for it to meaningfully spread). So influenza likely has a very low R for a very long time.

Everyone said upthread that covid will select for higher R because that is what always happens with contagious diseases (less deadly, spreads quicker). This does not seem to be the case for the flu despite being around for centuries! 

Central Spain Records Temperatures of -25C After Snowstorm

I guess that is not really good for orange-trees...or even apricots for that matter...

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 12, 2021, 04:13:19 PM »

The virus is under selective pressure to become more contagious

I've been thinking about this for a while. How come the R of the flu has not changed in hundreds of years (= did not become more contagious) despite being more prone to mutations???

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: January 12, 2021, 01:47:39 PM »
What's going on in the upper atmosphere? The polar vortex is getting pushed aside...

A Sudden Stratospheric Warming event happened at the beginning of the year. Events like this may destroy the vortex for a while and/or displace it, thereby changing the direction of stratospheric winds and eventually messing with troposheric processes (eg beast from the east et al.). I posted about it in this thread at the end of last year and there are more posts about it in the atmospheric connections thread

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: January 11, 2021, 07:25:55 AM »

I actually did some energy calculations. A mixed apple (10%)-hazel (15%)-chestnut(25%)- walnut (15%)-pecan(15%)-nitrogenfixer/pollinator/native pollarded/coppiced (20%) tree mix  with a n fixer perennial understory (eg. white clover/alfalfa,etc) should conservatively yield cca . 500 kg of oily nuts, 500kg chestnuts and 1000 kg of apples (without any outside inputs). Enough food (protein, calories, vitamins,all) for 4 people from one hectare.That is not bad. You can throw in some bean-production for protein in the tree rows (or other vegetables), or alternatively a few sheep,chicken or goat.

Also, this should be managable by handtools and be a regenerative practice in general.
The carrying capacity is pretty amazing in theory.

I have always been curious about this chart, specifically the spike that occurred in the 1940's and the drop following it.

Industrial production spiked during WWII and a decade long worldwide recession followed it. Wouldn't CO2 emissions track with this? The steep climb in temperatures beginning around 1970 coincides with the rapid industrialization of much of the third world. Does this trend suggest that temperatures are much more sensitive to current CO2 emissions?

Interesting study about the early 20th century warming and its causes:

Basically we do not know what caused it, and climate models do not replicate it.

My conclusion has long been that our models are still very very bad, they can not replicate even quite well documented changes in climate (eg. green sahara, Holocene optimum precipitation and temperature, early 20th c. warming, etc.)

I do not trust them a bit. Climate is much more complex than we currently figure

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: January 10, 2021, 04:27:22 PM »
. However, I drew attention to the Russian nuclear submariners and navy GCMs which I cited last summer who expect major mid-winter recirculation this year from around December 2021  that moves the typical storm tracks north of the British Isles to the latitude of Gibraltar with Pleistocene rains pouring in Sahara.


Yes you did write about these GCMs that predicted changed storm tracks but I never found any quotes  (by you or anyone else) to any studies that showed this. Can you point me to the right direction?

There is a new post on this subject over at ATTP.

Good article!

Makes me remember the vulgar version of the Pareto rule. 20% of the effort gets you 80% of the way. We MIGHT be able to reduce emissions very much, but some will very likely remain for quite a long time, thereby keeping Co2 LEVELS at least steady (if not still rising slowly), making the globe warmer and warmer...

Tor and El Cid:
You seem to make calculations where forcings are linearly related to emissions, or to concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.
However, forcings from CO2 are logarithmic.

Forcing from Co2 LEVELS are logarithmic. As Co2 atmospheric lifetime is many many years, therefore it seems to me a near certainity that (as shown in the above post) we will see at least 0,3 C warming in the 2020s. Since we are 1,1-1,3 C above baseline (depending on its definition) we will hit 1,5 C by 2030. And even then, Co2 levels will continue to increase and there are some longer term effects from previous years. So, I do not see how we would stay below 1,5C.

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: January 09, 2021, 10:10:46 AM »
I do not remember if this article has been quoted before in this thread:

This is a truly interesting article (with scientific research quoted), detailing how late stone age Europeans relied very much on semi-wild/semi-cultivated hazel groves for a significant portion of their diet and how climate changed destroyed these ancient, sustainable forest gardens, leading our ancestors to (unsustainable) grain production and working only a few hours a day to toiling all day.

I more and more believe that our whole agricultural system is based on the phallacy of annuals while truly sustainable systems are almost always tree-based / agroforestry systems with mostly perennial produce (various nuts, eg. hazel, chestnut, pecan, walnut etc and fruits) and some annual vegetables in between (and possibly small animals raised in theses groves).

However, as our diet is very much based on grains, we would also have to change our dietary habits, which is a very hard sell...

1,5 C? Very funny. We shall not stop there for sure.

2015-20 was 0,29 C above 2005-10
2005-10 was 0,22 C above 1995-2000
1995-2000 was 0,15 C above 1985-95

The picture is clear. By 2030 we will hit 1,5 C and then, sky is the limit.

In 2030 Electricity/heating is still going to be a major Co2 emitter (Chinese, Indian coal, globally natgas). Cars will also be still mostly gas/diesel. Agriculture and industry will change only slowly. So emissions will be not much lower than now.

By 2050 we will be at 1/3-1/5 of emissions as now, but still positive. This means that we will hit 1,5C by 2030 and I guess 1,7-1,9 C by 2050. We might only be slightly above 2 C by 2100.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 08, 2021, 07:17:52 AM »

Seasonal Coronaviruses Might Stimulate Cross-Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

Greater exposure to seasonal coronaviruses, specifically those responsible for common colds, could help explain why most of sub-Saharan Africa has endured less severe SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks than many other areas of the world, according to research led by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

To test the hypothesis, the researchers examined whether pre-pandemic blood plasma samples—some taken from residents of the United States, others from two countries in sub-Saharan Africa—showed signs of recognizing SARS-CoV-2 antigens. They found that less than 3% of the American samples contained infection-fighting antibodies that reacted with the SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Conversely, 19% and 14% of samples from the respective sub-Saharan countries exhibited a response to SARS-CoV-2, commonly known as the novel coronavirus.

I don't understand this. Sub-Saharan Africans get the cold more often than Americans? What? Doesn't make sense to me.

Once we lose all the summer ice on the Arctic shan't we have such a change in albedo that would result in much more solar energy to enter the Earth system and thereby keeping it warmer even if we cut all Co2 emissions?

Meaning that we have a system change that can not simply be undone even by going to zero?

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 07, 2021, 08:12:37 AM »
C'mon, this is sort of a science site. Reading and understanding a Phase 3 abstract is not that difficult.

Pfizer's research is quite clear: most of the immunization is done by the first shot, and you clearly have very strong protection two weeks after the first shot. So, yes, Britain is right ( a rare occurance these days :) vaccinate as many as you can with one shot and worry about the second shot later.

Even more interesting (I don't know if this is unprecedented or not - someone with more knowledge about this could chip in), that GFS is showing a SECOND SSW starting T+4 and reaching its high by T+11 days (shown)!

Could the current developing SSW disturb the polar vortex in such a way that warm North Pacific storms could invade the Bering sea and the Arctic Ocean via the bering Strait? If Bering Sea Ice replicates the events of Feb March 2019 maybe Central Canada will get really really cold.

Well, that's an interesting idea. An SSW usually "disturbs" the vortex, which obviously heavily influences stratospheric winds, so that they get weaker and/or change direction from the usual N.Pole-centered counterclockwise movement. We know that very often heavy Arctic air outbreaks happen in the aftermath of an SSW (with warm intrusions at other places), so I guess the above could happen. We'll see.

All we know now is that the vortex has broken down, and the models have it slowly re-forming  in cca 2 weeks' time. Nasty things could happen in Jan/Feb (or they won't) :)

Agriculture is responsible for 11% of all Greenhouse Gas emissions globally. Together with related emissions from changing land use and cutting down forests, it accounts for around 30% of GHG emissions globally.

How do they make that part of the pie disappear.

Regenerative agriculture can make the soil a net carbon sink

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 04, 2021, 10:08:54 AM »
Same in Hungary. Officially 10000 dead (population 9,7 million), but excess mortality has been 50% above reported numbers, so true mortality is likely 15000, ie. 0,15% population-wide mortality. Oh yeah, hospitals almost overflowed during the peak of the second wave (end Nov-beg.Dec)

Would you call that mass psychosis or is it a bit more serious than that?

(if the British mutant version spreads here widely then the above numbers will easily double by May)

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 04, 2021, 07:27:15 AM »
Putin...has spent much of the past year secluded at his dacha outside Moscow, and visitors to the president must first walk through a specially constructed corridor in which they are sprayed from all sides with disinfectant.

Not only that, but any visitors to him must spend two weeks in isolation (under surveillance) in the Crimea before meeting him! And of course he has not received the wonderful Sputnik V vaccine yet (but he says he will...eventually). He seems to trust good old quarantine better than their own vaccine...

Best bid is that a new SSW event is on it's way???

See atmospheric connections thread, SSW is already under way


So Environment Canada's forecasts for above average temperatures are a bet against the trends?

No, the trend is for ever warmer temperatures. Keep forecasting warm temperatures every year and you will be mostly right (or at least not very wrong).
I took a look at Canadian temperatures during winter (eyeballing on gisstemp vs 1970-2000 averages)

very warm: 2012,13,16,17,20
mixed: 2011,15,18,19
Cold: 2014

La nina years: 2011,12 ,18, (17 very weak)
of those, 2 were hot and 2 mixed
The only definitely  cold year was 2014, neither nina or nino
We had a nino in 16 and a weak one in 19
ENSO data:

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 03, 2021, 02:19:06 PM »
So a cancellation due to lightning certainly would have made sense.  Now, what will the weather be in 28 days?    :-\

Well, actually, they made a movie about that:

As we have discussed before, these long term forecasts (Canada, Europe, or US models all the same) have hardly any predictive skill.

Besides, since on average winters are significantly warmer now than in the past (see picture), if you forecast warm(er than average) winters, you will likely be right 70-80% of the time.

I even bet one of my friends that this winter (in Hungary) will be warmer than the average of the last 12 years. With AGW (and the late refreeze of the Siberian Seas) I think I have a slight edge, but definitely not 70-80% probability. I subjectively put my chances at cca 65%. This is not skill, it is just a trend. And I rarely bet against trends.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 02, 2021, 08:49:55 AM »
The local Health Dept. phoned about an hour ago giving us (wife and me) appointments to receive our first Moderna vaccination shot, tomorrow mid-day.

The nurse, working at 8 pm on New Year's Day, chuckled when I answered the phone (not knowing who it was) with a cheery "Happy New Year!"

Forecast is for rain all day, maybe some lightning, so appointments could get cancelled...

Didn't know that rain or lightning made vaccination impossible. In my country they usually administer it indoors

GFS shows that the SSW is already under way and also shows the polar vortex splitting into two in 2 days' time (shown). After that GFS shows that the polar vortex tries to reform over C/E Europe, but stays weak until the end of the forecast period (Jan 18). This could really bring unseasonally cold, Arctic air into Europe...

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 31, 2020, 09:29:16 AM »
For anti-vaxxers:

I don't know about your country but in my country infants get COMPULSORY multiple shots against a number of diseases. I can not fathom why adults would not get the vaccine. This is a classic case of freeriding for antivaxxers.
Every society has rules that you must adhere to and those rules were created so that we could all live a better life. If you drive a car after drinking half a liter of whiskey and go thru many red lights you will be arrested and put into jail - because you endanger everyone else. This is the same with the vaccine: if you don't get vaccinated you endanger everyone else.
Solution is simple: if you don't get vaccinated (have no "vaccine passport") then you don't get to fly, you can not go into any place where there are more than 10 people, etc. Your choice.

As for the "risk" of these vaccines: If for some weird reasons you don't trust the relatively new mRNA technology, you can choose from a variety of adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca or Sputnik V, etc) that have been around for much longer.

OK, so here comes your SSW (sudden stratospheric warming). See attached picture of T+2 and T+6 days.
We will have a strong warming over Siberia in the stratosphere by T+2 which will churn and turn and push around the polar vortex. It might split into two eventually, we don't know yet... GFS has been changing its mind in the latest runs as for the longer term outcome. This might bring some cold weather into NH mindlatitudes during mid Jan-end Feb

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 23, 2020, 11:40:12 AM »
Niall, where do you find ice charts for the 1930s?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 23, 2020, 08:40:54 AM »
RE:Dickson (and Siberian Islands) high temps during autumn, early winter

I think we have a new pattern here (my pet theory). With the Siberian seas melting early, then warming up and accumulating huge amounts of heat during summer, they can not freeze until Nov/Dec. The huge open seas are very much warmer than surrounding landmasses, so cold pours into this "warm gap" , warms up and rises, creating a huge low pressure system. I think that in the future there will be an 'Arctic Low" instead of the classical Icelandic Low due to this. (I theorized about this before, but this year) we finally saw this happening during October/November. This low creates wind patterns that "protect" Dickson. See schematic picture...

My conclusion: this will likely be a regular feature in the following years

Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: December 23, 2020, 08:27:49 AM »
A very good article on "Mr. Winter", the Russian geophysicist Dr. Zimov. The only thing lacking are pictures but The Economist alas has not yet discovered the joys of photography.

I read this one a couple of days ago. Quite a colourful guy this one is :)

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: December 22, 2020, 05:15:44 PM »
This is quite interesting:

This one is about biochar and terra preta. The article basically says that to get the best effects out of biochar, you need to co-compost it, not simply add to compost after compost is ready and explains why.
It also says (and after checking it in other scientific studies I found this to be true) that the compost heap heats up faster and to a higher temperature if biochar is added when creating the pile. Also, he states that plants grown in co-composted biochar/compost grows much better (also supported by other studies I found) than in "simple" compost or compost+biochar mix.

Great article!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29