Finally some sanity and informed expertise being added to this debate.

There's nothing wrong with building dream castles in the clouds, always providing you don't move in as permanent resident, like Mz B?

And typical of the disingenuous, mendacious, extraordinarily insincere green movement. Typically, they just trample the rights of others, simply to support an extremely narrow ideological imperative, which puts humans last in order of priority.

Except where they serve a political agenda/pious power play! Replete with a veritable torrent of crocodile tears!

And almost always reject any engineered solution, even though that may well be the very thing we need, to reverse climate change? All while alleviating poverty and allowing culturally incompatible refugees to be repatriated to restored and reinvigorated homelands!

Helped as it could be by the expertise and practical know how of some of the world's best conservationists, Aussie farmers!

If we want to move these radical thinkers on, we all of us, need to stop preferencing them and other obstructive, divisive, noxious, nocturnal numbskulls, at election time!

Better a sane Major take the seat and we retain democracy! Rather than have this bunch of quisling autocrats given what they crave! POWER!

Trees store carbon whether horizontal or vertical! In houses, furniture, gum tree canoes, or a buried woody weeds!
Alan B.

It's good to get a riposte to a Left Wing Liar the next day. 0.23% cleared makes more sense. People should stick to what they know, and not waffle on as a hobby. Being a medical practitioner in no way qualifies anyone to speak outside their area about anything. Besides, doctors, like bank managers, are no longer looked up to by the hoi polloi, who now realise that academic qualifications mean b...er all when they are held by political ideologues.

.23% is the same as 138,000 Ha year. It's new forest clearing apart from the re-growth . It's 400 years to zero forests.

Little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization
Oxford Journal of Plant Ecology, Volume 5, Issue 1, 1 March 2012,
"Overall, Australia has lost nearly 40% of its forests,."
-

"With a total forest estate of around 52 million hectares, Queensland has the largest forested area Australia."

So in 200 years 40% , 400 years 60% . The rate is slowing but we're at half-way to ground zero forests. Can Oz beat the Brazilians to national success in wasteland ?

and lets not forget the masses amount of land that will be destroyed by bushfires because the Greens are to dumb to allow burn off in many places. I guarantee these bushfires do more harm in a couple of days than a farmer could possibly do. Then again that requires a person to think beyond their idiotic narrative which is something that warmist/Greens find hard to do.

btw how many carbon emissions from the volcano's around Bali. More than 50 Adani's could produce?

Well done Graham, providing this counter to that greenie garbage.

Perhaps you missed the bit Nick, that trees are proliferating faster than they are being knocked down. We have more now than at white settlement. Of course it could be you are just too dumb to understand plain English, or are one of those lying greenies. Perhaps you could advise us which.

Personally I am sick of your smart ass comments, which contribute nothing useful, but probably do give you an exaggerated idea of your obviously limited mental abilities.

I quote experts and you don't like that?
Can you give any facts about trees proliferating faster ? Is it offensive to have a different opinion from you?

Lock it up and leave they say and when the fuel load is a tangled impenetrable wilderness and tinder dry after an extended drought! Then let a single bolt of lightening of a careless disposed bottle or ciggies get a small fire started, just as a strong wind blows it toward a major settlement, like say a wooded Canberra or Sydney. Or other cities, more trees than houses.

And where many of those are heritage listed and dry old timber? And as the fire storm erupts as it must! Destroys all not able to outrun something faster than a thundering steaming express, setting new land speed records! Be they endangered or nearly extinct/bat wing parrot.

And then create the very circumstance, where only ferals can and do survive! Well done, no name numbskull!

Why don't you nick off back to the rand of the wrong white crowd! Or maybe just stalk Hasbeen for a change?

I mean he'd have two laser activated thorium powered generators one for his car and one for his house.

Particularly if just 16 grams would power both of them for the next 100 years without refuelling! Or as a environmentally/socially responsible senior citizen, without adding so much as a single gram of carbon to the atmosphere for a century!

And given he has spoken in favour of thorium like he has been, give you all the excuse you need, like the troll you are to add your notorious noxious nonsense as an adjunct to his every comment! He'll just love you! NO NAY NEVER!
Alan B.

Goodness me Alan.
You'll send me the bill for burning down Sydney?
I didn't mention the Thorium . And you blow your reactor pile at me..

Haven't you heard the definition of an expert nick, particularly those like your greenie ratbags, or this author.

A drip under pressure just for you.

Facts, gentlemen, please.
Trees down.
Trees up .

Guys, I would like to ask a question. Did anyone hear an announcement on TV, by a scientist/researcher, (not sure of his title) who had just finished his research into Flora (plants) related CO2 emissions. I was astounded to hear him declare that his research found that plants give off an incredible amount more CO2 than previously thought. He gave a figure of at least 30%. It was all over by the time I engaged my brain, so I'm hoping someone else saw it and can clarify it for me. I find the statement a little surprising, BUT, not knowing anything about such things I am prone to believe him. After all he is the expert. But did I hear him correctly? If anyone has anything to add to this question I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Yes it's not what we're usually told .It's been known for a while :
High CO2 boosts plant respiration, potentially affecting climate and crops
https://phys.org › Earth › Earth Sciences
Feb 9, 2009 - Plants ..also release some CO2 during respiration

Yes Altrav. Some satellite CO2 sensing gear gave the greenies a real shock a few years ago. They had expected to detect large plumes of the stuff, called carbon of course, from the industrial areas of the US, Europe & China.

They were horrified when they found very little coming from the industrial areas, but from the major jungle areas.

The biggest emitter of CO2 turned out to be the Amazon jungle, followed by the tropical rain forests of southeast Asia.

Being very politically incorrect, just a couple of days after it was published, it was buried under a torrent of catastrophe stories about the Barrier Reef, Global Warming & drought/floods from anywhere they could be dredged up. Of course all this was worse than expected, just in case someone recommended we could reduce CO2 emissions drastically by clearing the Amazon, & rain forests.

Funny isn't it. To save the planet we have to clear the bloody thing.

That has been the answer. If sugary drinks cause obesity then dump all the reservoir water in the ocean to stop people drinking .

Humans have added 180ppm of CO2 onto the forests' 280ppm during 2 centuries. An equal amount of CO2 has been added to the sea making it a warm , carbonated drink and causing obese fish . Sharks have a reason for trimming down the surfers' numbers .

If 280ppm is stability then 280+180 = instability . Oxygen is a trendy flavour for birds , humans and other lung breathers and comes from un-dead trees.

Do you actually believe this garbage you spout Nick?

No, the universities of the world have always been greeny fake sell-outs . Ignorance is bliss. Tree-clearing separated men from boys .
Never trust facts. A dead tree is a good tree.

WOW! Why do we have to listen to these green idiots and the pollies who agree with them? I know votes. Well as far as I am concerned if it's true that plants are the biggest CO2 emitters by far then this fact has to be broadcast at every opportunity. If nothing else it will destroy the green party and we'll be rid of another lying bunch of scumbags. If they have known about this then they should be charged with fraud and mis-leading the public. I'd love to line them up and stone them to.....

A car engine that's tuned can run all day. It's balanced. If you increase fuel by 70% and cut air by 30% what happens? If you advance the spark by 70% what happens?

nicknamenick, you've got me. Tell us. What would happen? I'm curious, even though I think I know the answer, I would rather hear your take on it so I can better understand the point you are trying to make.

ALTRAV
With my small understanding of mechanics , blogs say that a choke changes fuel to air ratio . Throttle varies the amount of fuel-air that is burnt . Rich fuel-air starts an engine without complete burning and emits lots of smoke . So it's not "in tune". As with a small amount of fuel-air it will probably lose power and stop . Too much rich-mix causes flooded carbie and it stops.

The spark also reduces power if too late or too early and can stop the engine . So a normal engine produces a consistent , complete burn with flow of CO2 . The world has done this for years , feeding dinosaurs , making coal and oxygen from trees . We can only breathe because CO2 is steadily circulating into tree-leaves and out . CO2-air mixture normally doesn't vary much. Now the surplus amounts from industries go equally into air and sea and 70% above normal has been added to each . Like 5 meals a day instead of 3 . People get fat and hot .

You're right Nick, you don't know much about the workings of an internal combustion engine. Probably about as much as you know about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You're right . The quotes were from mechanical and climate engineers. So if you could correct the nonsense about choke , throttle and spark along with climate systems we can help the scientists get your advice.

Climate engineering can involve absolute nonsense. Previously a politician proposed shade cloth to cool the Great Barrier Reef. LOL

The latest is to make clouds more shiny over the GBR to cool coral. There is no mention of the GBR being 2,000 km long with persistent wind and clear sky most of the year. LOL
http://www.savingthegreatbarrierreef.org/cooling-the-reef

Shade cloth may protect surfers from sunburn... But the next step of cloud droplets seems more workable . Snow machines can be converted.

"These droplets are generated near the sea surface and are dispersed in the planetary layer by atmospheric turbulence. The planetary boundary layer lies closest to the surface of the Earth, and is typically 1 to 2 km thick. "

Prevailing winds along Qld coast are S to SE so the bulk of droplets will disperse along the reef from a limited number of nano-drop pumps.

Just rub a greenie if you want someone to come up with a ridiculous idea. Being a greenie, their idea will cause at least a dozen times as much damage as they think needs preventing.

They are now taking nanoparticles out of makeup because they have belatedly found them to be harmful. But don't let that stop us spreading them in another form all over 2 thousands of miles of coastline.

Nick, half understanding something said by some scientist & then bleating about it is not productive. You need to actually understand something, & have enough experience in the practicalities of the subject, or you simply make a fool of yourself. Believing all academics know which way is up is the first mistake. Taking most of their waffle seriously is the second.

There are quite a lot of people on here from time to time who know a great deal about perhaps only a few subjects each, but that adds up to a vast amount of actual knowledge, not the type of crap used in grant applications.

Your rainwater is brought to you by greenies . The sun-god evaporates the Plastic Ocean nano-particles and gives you ...salt...

"Marine cloud brightening is a technology designed to increase the brightness of clouds by mimicking natural processes, in this case the generation of aerosols by sea spray. It requires the generation of small salt-water droplets which evaporate in the planetary boundary layer to give a nano-scale grain of salt. "

How could clouds be kept in position above the GBR coral during persistent wind that blows most of the year? Its often difficult to get an anchor to hold a boat in persistently windy GBR waters.

What would happen to salt in air blown inland?

Bunnings Shade Sails - Get More Done With Our Prices‎
View Our Shade Sails At Bunnings. Wide Range Under The One Roof.
Hold clouds over your reef , just the beginning.
Or else make some more using Bunnings sun-rays , sea water and southerly winds. Salty bits in the Qld air have been a problem for years and corrode bull-dozers , chains and cattle trucks. Salt is fine for Pauline's salty chips , chicken salt or nano-salt . Salt in cosmetics is bad and causes red hair.

Nick, what quantity of nano particles of what are you indulging in?

It's about 50 cu metres second per pump with salt at 3.5% weight. Seagulls and plastic are filtered out and re-cycled.