Gary K

The obvious effect of surface warming is an increase in evaporation of water from all sources, since water is the main greenhouse gas that is not necessarily a good thing but water doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long . So global warming must increase the amount of precipitation. More snow in winter and more rain in summer. Where does the drought idea come from?

The obvious effect of surface warming is an increase in evaporation of water from all sources, since water is the main greenhouse gas that is not necessarily a good thing but water doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long . So global warming must increase the amount of precipitation. More snow in winter and more rain in summer. Where does the drought idea come from?

Over the past decade research has demonstrated that the Trans Fatty Acids (TFA'S) from processing unsaturated fats are extraordinarily dangerous. In addition the high levels of omega six fatty acids in such plant oils are now known to contribute to most inflammatory disease by changing the balance of omega 6 to omega 3 Fatty Acids. Saturated fats cannot form TFA's and contain a balanced level of 3 and 6. Perhaps bread and dripping wasn't as bad as has been suggested.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022313.html Search "the great fat debate" for more recent publications.

Over the past decade research has demonstrated that the Trans Fatty Acids (TFA'S) from processing unsaturated fats are extraordinarily dangerous. In addition the high levels of omega six fatty acids in such plant oils are now known to contribute to most inflammatory disease by changing the balance of omega 6 to omega 3 Fatty Acids. Saturated fats cannot form TFA's and contain a balanced level of 3 and 6. Perhaps bread and dripping wasn't as bad as has been suggested.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022313.html Search "the great fat debate" for more recent publications.

Over the past decade research has demonstrated that the Trans Fatty Acids (TFA'S) from processing unsaturated fats are extraordinarily dangerous. In addition the high levels of omega six fatty acids in such plant oils are now known to contribute to most inflammatory disease by changing the balance of omega 6 to omega 3 Fatty Acids. Saturated fats cannot form TFA's and contain a balanced level of 3 and 6. Perhaps bread and dripping wasn't as bad as has been suggested.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022313.html Search "the great fat debate" for more recent publications.

This is to do with Kyoto agreements. Peter had 12000 Ha in SE NSW. Over 10000 Ha of his property was taken without compensation for Carbon Credits to meet Australia's Kyoto obligations.

He cannot meet mortgage payments and pay all taxes and rates on what is left.

He has been up a wind tower for 43 days on a hunger strike because he can not get a court hearing.

Are you prepared to give up your home and job to meet carbon reduction agreements?

Check out the Agmates site for updates.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/sealevel.html

Although from SEPP there is a little logic here.

This brief suggests that though the historically observed rate of sea level rise has changed, increased warming is unlikely to be responsible.

Essentially the increased precipitation that accompanies any warming would deposit more ice in Antartica. Both of these effects are likely. Warming Antartica by a few degrees leaves it way below freezing, so that much is probably true. Is it likely that the erosion of mountains has more effect on sea level? Either way it is not simple, Antartica is huge and could well accommodate this amount of ice.

That means that they would "run" on a large flash drive (solid state).

I need one for our autistic son, I doubt a hard drive would survive long.

The C14 level in the atmosphere was stable until the nuclear tests of the late 50's 60's and 70's pumped large amounts of radioactive C14 into the atmosphere. For carbon dating we have to use data from the early 50's. The amount of C12 from fossil fuels should have swamped the C14 by now. So what is happening?

A good estimate was 30 + trees per hectare. Plant (maintain) the saplings at roughly twice that and the problems with water use and and fuel can go away. In addition the trees can still produce fresh leaf tips even in drought, and maintain an optimum growth rate.

Know why we don't do this?

Managers of Victoria's water supply expect losses to water harvest as the forests regrow. Sure this has been recorded in trials. Unfortunately the trials allowed all of the saplings to grow, naturally they used a huge amount of water. They also grew massive fuel loads.

Here most of our canopy species grow best at separation of 14 to 20 metres, when the saplings are reduced to about this density, regrowth uses less water not more and the saplings grow very well.

So How far apart should Mountain Ash saplings be made to grow,14 M or 20 M or more? I suspect that 20 trees/saplings per hectare would be close.

After Ash Wednesday and then the Canberra fires, reports stated that fire breaks coupled with ongoing mosaic burning could prevent the recurrence of such fires by reducing fuel loads and thinning forests to sustainable densities. Since then we have become aware that Southern forests are unlikely to reduce global warming. Well maybe, maybe not but perhaps the precautionary principal should apply until we know if preservation of trees is worth this loss of life.

Last year I read a report on a study that focused on heat absorption by a forest canopy and the relationship with transpiration. This paper suggested that only tropical forests could actually have a cooling effect because of the growth rate. This year the Plank institute published a paper on methane production by forests. Others who have been studying this noted that it was worse in the tropics. Enough in fact to suggest that re-vegetation should not be acceptable as carbon sequestration at all. There are of course many other reasons to preserve and replant forests, like using up the available water.

Anyway I cannot find the older paper they refer too, I read it but didn't bother to save it. Anyone know it?

A recent one (2009) was about methane production, worse in the tropics. That was done at the Plank institute and I was able to relocate it. The earlier paper (2008) seemed to focus on the heat absorbed by the canopy and the transpiration of water. The later indicated that only forests in the tropics could have an overall negative effect on heating. Together they create problems for forest sequestration. I cannot find the later paper to compare them. Can anyone help? While I was looking I came across figures that show that plant respiration increases with temperature but photosynthesis tops out at moderate temperatures; that's a worry!!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_gian...

A good read. We know that the Martian atmosphere has been destroyed in part by interaction with the solar wind.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/21nov_plas...

Mostly we believed that the Magnetic Field of the Earth and the Van Allen Radiation Belts stopped that from happening.

Appears that that was wrong. Naturally we are a long way from knowing how these events affect out atmosphere and weather. It is a worrying observation. Astronomers are not meteorologists and vice versa.

Whatever happens will happen, it would though be worth knowing if our climate is also changing because of these solar interactions. We would be better able to plan and to spend our limited resources.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_gian...

A good read. We know that the Martian atmosphere has been destroyed in part by interaction with the solar wind.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/21nov_plas...

Mostly we believed that the Magnetic Field of the Earth and the Van Allen Radiation Belts stopped that from happening.

Appears that that was wrong. Naturally we are a long way from knowing how these events affect out atmosphere and weather. It is a worrying observation. Astronomers are not meteorologists and vice versa.

Whatever happens will happen, it would though be worth knowing if our climate is also changing because of these solar interactions. We would be better able to plan and to spend our limited resources.

What stops that from happening to the atmosphere of Earth?

Or indeed does it happen?

What stops that from happening to the atmosphere of Earth? Or indeed does it happen?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/21nov_plas...