Crikey!
Posted on 01/26/2005 12:28:52 PM PST by blam
GGG Ping.
OH! I just figured it was Bush's fault. (/sarcasm)
I don't understand how a scientist can write tripe like this and still appear in public.
I don't understand how it could be published.
So9
They don't say but this would imply they have evidence of largescale fires 50K years all across the continent. If so, couldn't those have been cause by lightening or natural causes? Seems it would be difficult to locate evidence that humans actually started and created massive fires of this scale. Of course, then it's also difficult to link that to climate change. The whole thing is suspect.
Crikey!
Colorado researchers have also been found to be ignorant of the existence of lightening.
Each year, Colorado environmentalists raised their call for the blood of any human that might be blamed for the forest fires caused by lightening. They did so until a man hating, divorcing feminist started the monstrous Hayman Fire.
I missed the part where the Aborigines were driving Escalades and Hummers around the Outback to cause such environmental devastation. How can you effect global climate change without industrialization?
And George W. Bush wasn't even President back then...although it is still his fault.
Wait a minute...isn't this good news? If burning was the cause, wouldn't gradual replanting be the cure?
lightening = lightning
But the systematic burning of the interior by the earliest colonizers differed enough from the natural fire cycle that key ecosystems may have been pushed past a threshold from which they could not recover.
Wow, humans used different fire than nature, they used "Bad Fire", and old mom nature used "Good Fire", that explains it all. Fires started by nature automatically went out after the proper amount of burning, human fires just kept on burning forever without the proper "natural" sense to go out at the proper time.
Orographic precipitation explains part of Australia's desert.
Its LATITUDE goes a long way toward explaining the rest. Deserts tend toward specific latitudes, and it AIN'T necessarily the Equator, either: those areas are lush jungles, due to the convection currents dumping moisture.
Other factors to consider, when saying Australia was once wetter back then: Earth was warmer/wetter then, Australia may have drifted, sun may not be as constant we think (or hope) it is, etc.
Now its all clear!
What are we going to do about it?
Now whudunit Tsunami? Underseaboriginites?
Oh, and one more collossal oversight on their part: Australia is the LOWEST continent in terms of median height.
No big, craggy, cloud-scrapin' (and moisture soakin') mountains. Low mean elevation.
Oh, but they DO have Ayers Rock. Smack dab in the center.
Bush knew!!
Besides the end of the ice age climate shift, the continent of Australia is slowly drifting north and east. The drift is towards a dryer and hotter area and accounts for some of the change. The drift is slow but has been going on for a couple of million years.
Joke as you wish but there is "good fire" and "bad fire". Many plants and animals have adapted to certain fire frequencies and fire intensities. Midwestern oak savannaas and prairies, for example, have unique tolerance levels for fire. Disrupt the "natural" frequency and intensity of fire and you have landscape change. Not to say landscape change is bad, its just landscape change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.