Select to expand quotePugwash said..log man said..Pugwash said..log man said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Seriously? C'mon man... call it... the drying pattern associated with GW is a factor...
Yes.....of course it is.
And would you agree that humans need to take action to get water back into the environment? And that action may be more than management of water dominantly from (decreasing) rainfall.
I can feel a puny point coming.
............but yes..... I think humans need to....blah blah blah
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Bananabender said..Chris 249 said..evlPanda said..holy guacamole said..
OK let me make it clear. Unprecedented on record, in NSW, both in area of land burnt and total intensity. This is not debatable.
This is true for NSW.
However, and not to take anything away from the size and intensity and impact of these fires, they're huge, but we've had some other massive fires too. Bigger and greater loss of life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia#Major_bushfires_in_Australia
This year's fires have burnt about 9m hectares.
In 1974 fires across NT, WA and SA burned a combined 92m hectares.
This year's fires have killed 25, and destroyed about 2,800 homes.
Black Saturday killed 183, and 2,000 houses.
Ash Wednesday was 75 lives and 2,400 houses.
Black Friday was 71 lives and 3.700 houses.
The 1974 fires were mainly grass fires, which are significantly different.
Black Friday's toll was 1300 homes among 3700 buildings - not 3700 houses. In those days there wasn't even a CFA. Now we are fighting fires with hundreds of trucks far better equipped than those of the 1930s, helicopters, satellites and waterbombers. If we are looking at historical changes we have to factor in the fact that we have far more firefighting equipment than we did before.
Arson was a major cause of deaths and fires on Black Saturday and Black Friday which puts the hype about arson this season in perspective.
I'm not sure what your getting at in above .
A grass fire is as dangerous as a forest fire notwithstanding and can cause many many deaths as we have seen. Eg Lara fires in 1969.
www.blacksaturdaymuseum.com/LaraFire.htm
Forget how many houses / buildings burn ,that is dependant on the levels of communication and the number of buildings in the area. Eg. If your told to evacuate you go and leave your house whereas on years gone by the owners stayed and fought as there was no communication. This also applies to the relative low number of deaths in relation the the number of people in the fire area.
The current fires are so large because they are in national forests ,climate change, etc,etc. but don't downplay what has gone beforehand.
Sure, grass fires can kill, but they don't kill as many people. As I understand it, in '74 they left many grass fires to burn out because they were far inland and away from settled country and well away from most of the (limited) equipment that was available. Therefore the fact that they were over a great area does not mean that they were as serious as the current fires in many ways.
I completely agree with all you say about the other factors. Today, for example, those motorists in the Lara fire would probably have been kept out of the area or made aware of the fire. I wasn't actually disagreeing with Panda on most points, merely looking from a slightly different angle.
Fair enough.
Select to expand quotelog man said..Pugwash said..log man said..Pugwash said..log man said..FormulaNova said..holy guacamole said..Bananabender said..Your talking about one fire chief in this instance who is obviously stressed and also probably covering his own arse. Even for him to make such a public statement at this time is irrational and not appropriate.holy guacamole said..harry potter said..
^^^ interesting the Royal Comisssion after black Saturday found otherwise.
Hazard reduction practices and targets have been adjusted since.
Royal Commissions are a bunch of lawyers looking for someone to blame.
I'd trust the fire chiefs over lawyers any day.
NSW has met their hazard reduction targets and it's done stuff-all to stop the worst NSW fires on record.
What's inappropriate is idiots like Barnaby Joyce acting like a paranoid parrot over greenies and the goons at Sky News pretending that massive increases in hazard reduction is a silver bullet. A smarter thing to do is re-assess how to better target hazard reduction to focus on life safety and fixed asset protection, rather than widespread large scale hazard reduction in heavy bushland.
The fact is, most of these fires are in heavy woodland National Parks. Again, who is calling for large scale prescribed burning of our National Parks? Only those who have no idea and want to cover the country in concrete and mines.
What are we left with then? What is the solution? Macro's army of water drones that fan the flames and then dump water on them?
Even if you think that carbon pollution is the root cause, we need a solution that works now, not in 20 or 50 years.
I don't think anyone is saying GW is the cause. It's a mass of contributing factors. GW makes the fire situation much worse by its changing of the "balance". GW makes the fire season earlier, possibly more intense by the temperatures and moisture levels etc.
the "cause" I guess is the actual piece of lightening that ignites that tree or the man that strikes the match or the car accident or whatever.
Seriously? C'mon man... call it... the drying pattern associated with GW is a factor...
Yes.....of course it is.
And would you agree that humans need to take action to get water back into the environment? And that action may be more than management of water dominantly from (decreasing) rainfall.
I can feel a puny point coming.
............but yes..... I think humans need to....blah blah blah
Jeepers... you must be luke skywalker... and, if you are looking for a puny point... you made one... rule 1 of log man play book, superiority to everyone and everything...
So, how do we get water back into the environment? Desalination?
Solar-powered desalination plants pumping loads of water into the inland waterways?? Good idea?? Or should we make then nuclear powered??
Select to expand quoteChris249 said..
Why not simply respect your fellow humans,
I can not consider myself even racist, because I feel like talking to completely different species, Chris.Are you hemster by any chance, Chris? because rats are one step above in evolutionary ladder.
Retrospectively,
After all we know today.
interesting will be consideration if having access to those 2 bln dollars year or few earlier we could prevent current massive bushfires.
Lets imagine faces of our fire services offered 2 bln dollars and what they could do with it, a year or two back.If amount of purchased equipment, firetrucks , planes could make any difference or end effect will be rather similar regardless ? >? In general > Is it better to spend the same amount of money on prevention or rebuilding?
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Chris249 said..
Why not simply respect your fellow humans,
I can not consider myself even racist, because I feel like talking to completely different species, Chris.Are you hemster by any chance, Chris? because rats are one step above in evolutionary ladder.
You may be a different species, because you can't respect humans enough to realise that if problems were as easy to fix as you pretend, they'd have done it.
If it's so bloody easy for a god like you to fix these problems then why the hell don't you get off your ass and do it?
While we're about it, you still haven't told us what your "brilliant" idea of damming the rivers at their mouths is going to do to all the saltwater flora and fauna that live in them.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Retrospectively,
After all we know today.
interesting will be consideration if having access to those 2 bln dollars year or few earlier we could prevent current massive bushfires.
Lets imagine faces of our fire services offered 2 bln dollars and what they could do with it, a year or two back.If amount of purchased equipment, firetrucks , planes could make any difference or end effect will be rather similar regardless ? >? In general > Is it better to spend the same amount of money on prevention or rebuilding?
There is an ideal mix of fire bombers vs. ground forces. The experts are no doubt still refining the cost benefits of all the options and mixes in all the hypothetical scenarios. The cynics would say current expenditure is already biased towards water bombers because they are so media worthy.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
idea of damming the rivers at their mouths is going to do to all the saltwater flora and fauna that live in them.
Now you talking like typical greenie. We have 0.5 or 500mln animals died and fried in bushfires. But you will be worried about snail / slug that live at the river mouth and now can not find his way up the stream. I could assure you that wetland is much more abundant in life then dry land.
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
increasing the salinity,
If there is any excess of salt in our fresh water rivers, it may be due to our mines using our rivers as gutter drain for their effluence. At some stage we need to decide if we want to have healthy rivers and green lands or healthy miners. I am afraid we could not afford to have both .BTW
there is recent technical solution to industrial waste too. Instead of pumping their sewage from mine pit to the river company could evaporate water and sell leftover ( sometimes to EV and battery manufacturer) .Technology is based on foil transforming whole sun light spectrum into infrared radiation. efficiency of evaporation increased , double or triple.
phys.org/news/2020-01-polluted-wastewater-solar-umbrella.html?fbclid=IwAR3gLZDmlhTzKLW_9CG0oM1wVuWq32v3BtPTXWWNzeTbJ1dcLeEbI2UJ8zY
I assumed you were aware that the salinity problem is not caused so much by salt in added water, but by salt that exists in the rocks. When you add more water, the added water lifts the water table and takes the salt with it, up to the surface where it destroys the plants.
This is another example where solutions are not as easy as you think they are and will backfire even if they are possible, just like your bushfire control ideas. We need to use ideas that can work, not ideas that ignore physical and scientific reality.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
Select to expand quotePugwash said..Chris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
I'm using the information that has been given, and information such as the study by CSIRO and the BoM.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Pugwash said..Chris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
I'm using the information that has been given, and information such as the study by CSIRO and the BoM.
Given where? Here?
Destroying wetlands? Using water as fire breaks, indiscriminate pumping of water inland... all assumptions made by you, but mentioned where???
Select to expand quotePugwash said..Chris 249 said..Pugwash said..Chris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
I'm using the information that has been given, and information such as the study by CSIRO and the BoM.
Given where? Here?
Destroying wetlands? Using water as fire breaks, indiscriminate pumping of water inland... all assumptions made by you, but mentioned where???
From Macro's plans! didnt you read them? Okay they may have been short on detail, but thats sort of the point 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
From Macro's plans! didn't you read them? Okay they may have been short on detail, but thats sort of the point
Hard to even respond the Chris critics that water do/will kill plants, wetlands, and destroy what is left of our ecological treasure. Obviously we could ask farmers at Murray River if they feel killing their crops and stock animals while stealing water for their needs , flowing in the river but sold to best buyer below them?Those bastards and criminals didn't reach Chris diesetertion that salt hidden there only kill the lot of their stock? What about mud crabs at the river mouth? Are they worth less for those farmer robber then grazing cattle? Not for somebody is weekend fishing, crab potting, jet skiing, ski towing.
Ok here is solution that should satisfy Chris and the rest of antiwater community: Lets mud crabs to graze on the flooded dry land.
BTW . I think the subject of the water recyclation , reticulation and utilization is much more complex the Weather Girls brought by Chris as a source of his information could ever comprehend.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Retrospectively,
After all we know today.
interesting will be consideration if having access to those 2 bln dollars year or few earlier we could prevent current massive bushfires.
Lets imagine faces of our fire services offered 2 bln dollars and what they could do with it, a year or two back.If amount of purchased equipment, firetrucks , planes could make any difference or end effect will be rather similar regardless ? >? In general > Is it better to spend the same amount of money on prevention or rebuilding?
Probably not.
The RFS came out and said that the hazard reductions they did only 2 years ago proved useless in these conditions.
Which is kinda scary, because what are the other options??? Do hazard reductions every year, everywhere???
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..Macroscien said..
Retrospectively,
After all we know today.
interesting will be consideration if having access to those 2 bln dollars year or few earlier we could prevent current massive bushfires.
Lets imagine faces of our fire services offered 2 bln dollars and what they could do with it, a year or two back.If amount of purchased equipment, firetrucks , planes could make any difference or end effect will be rather similar regardless ? >? In general > Is it better to spend the same amount of money on prevention or rebuilding?
Probably not.
The RFS came out and said that the hazard reductions they did only 2 years ago were useless.
What about army of 2 bln worth helicopters, turbo planes, fresh ground tankers, professionals firefighters on the wages?
Will not make any dent into firebush carnage? Maybe not. but on another hand what what effect of 2.7 bln spend on Middle East campaign since 2014? Did 350 our troops we made world so much safer?If that was up to me I would try this anyway - get Australia First and the other regions second in the queue for the money.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..
From Macro's plans! didn't you read them? Okay they may have been short on detail, but thats sort of the point
Hard to even respond the Chris critics that water do/will kill plants, wetlands, and destroy what is left of our ecological treasure. Obviously we could ask farmers at Murray River if they feel killing their crops and stock animals while stealing water for their needs , flowing in the river but sold to best buyer below them?Those bastards and criminals didn't reach Chris diesetertion that salt hidden there only kill the lot of their stock? What about mud crabs at the river mouth? Are they worth less for those farmer robber then grazing cattle? Not for somebody is weekend fishing, crab potting, jet skiing, ski towing.
Ok here is solution that should satisfy Chris and the rest of antiwater community: Lets mud crabs to graze on the flooded dry land.
BTW . I think the subject of the water recyclation , reticulation and utilization is much more complex the Weather Girls brought by Chris as a source of his information could ever comprehend.
What the hell?
YOU are the one who wants to kill things like mud crabs and much of the rest of the flora and fauna at live in our estuaries, with your plans to dam the river mouths and therefore turn saltwater wetlands, estuaries and rivers into freshwater wetlands, estuaries and rivers. The death of the mangroves and the life they create would in itself be a disaster.
YOU are the one ignoring the complexities of water recycling etc - did you read the CSIRO study into the claims that the Bradfield scheme (which is similar to what you are arguing for) would NOT increase inland rainfall? Did you read the costing for the scheme and how any water that was sent inland would be so expensive as to be utterly unnaffordable?
YOU are the one who has ignored the complexities that you are not aware of, like the problems of salinity and irrigation.
It is a lie to claim that I am using "weather girls" as a source of information, of course - I'm reading CSIRO reports and other proper studies whereas you have not cited a single source that will show that your ideas could work.
No one is "stealing" water from Murray Valley farmers - riparian rights holders and water license holders (like me) have restricted rights. We are not allowed to just take all we want to take, because it has to be shared - just as the people upstream of the "Murray Valley farmers" allowed water to go past their properties and downstream to the "Murray Valley farmers".
This is a complex issue and simplistic "solutions" that ignore reality will not work. If you are so much smarter than everyone else that you could make them work, prove it by doing something that no one else can do.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
Probably not.
The RFS came out and said that the hazard reductions they did only 2 years ago proved useless in these conditions.
Which is kinda scary, because what are the other options??? Do hazard reductions every year, everywhere???
People I know had a "hazard reduction burn" in the form of a crowning wildfire on 10 December 2018. The fire returned in December 2019, so even a hazard reduction every year didn't stop it.
Select to expand quotePugwash said..Chris 249 said..Pugwash said..Chris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
I'm using the information that has been given, and information such as the study by CSIRO and the BoM.
Given where? Here?
Destroying wetlands? Using water as fire breaks, indiscriminate pumping of water inland... all assumptions made by you, but mentioned where???
From Macro's plans;
"I would build a big dam at the every river by the sea entry and get the last drop back to the land. What happen with all this fresh water from Brisbane river,Yarra and others once falls into sea? I would keep every drop and turn rivers back to outback."
You can't get much more indiscriminate than keeping every drop from every river, can you. And if you turn the salt wetlands at river mouths into freshwater wetlands by damming the river at the mouth, the saltwater wetlands will be destroyed. They, and their surrounding estuaries, as critical for our marine life but apparently they should all die.
Earlier, Macro proposed a scheme to make lots of lakes inland, to change the climate. As a CSIRO study has pointed out, lakes don't change the climate significantly, but according to Macro he knows everything and the CSIRO knows nothing.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
The RFS came out and said that the hazard reductions they did only 2 years ago proved useless in these conditions.
Which is kinda scary, because what are the other options??? Do hazard reductions every year, everywhere???
It was only one person in the RFS who said that, it's only part of the story but every Tom Dick and Harry has picked up on it. Just had an argument while walking the dog with a bloke who kept throwing that back at me. And this word "Unprecedented" When did this word enter the common lexicon?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
And this word "Unprecedented" When did this word enter the common lexicon?
Its the word that you use when you were caught short and have nothing else to explain your error in anticipating it.
e.g.
The level of boat people arriving is unprecedented.
Global economic conditions are unprecedented.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Pugwash said..Chris 249 said..Pugwash said..Chris 249 said..
Ah, so because wetlands are abundant in life, you want to destroy the salt wetlands on the coast. Well that makes perfect sense. You'll wipe out most of the fish like bream and flatheads too but you'll create inland waterways that would be as effective as Burragorang, for example, was at stopping fires - that is, not at all.
I suppose when the water you're pumping inland lifts the water table and kills off all the inland trees and the animals that depend on them by increasing the salinity, you can import the animals that used to live in salt water in the rivers.
You appear to be arguing with you own incorrect assumptions about methods... and purpose...
I'm using the information that has been given, and information such as the study by CSIRO and the BoM.
Given where? Here?
Destroying wetlands? Using water as fire breaks, indiscriminate pumping of water inland... all assumptions made by you, but mentioned where???
From Macro's plans;
"I would build a big dam at the every river by the sea entry and get the last drop back to the land. What happen with all this fresh water from Brisbane river,Yarra and others once falls into sea? I would keep every drop and turn rivers back to outback."
You can't get much more indiscriminate than keeping every drop from every river, can you. And if you turn the salt wetlands at river mouths into freshwater wetlands by damming the river at the mouth, the saltwater wetlands will be destroyed. They, and their surrounding estuaries, as critical for our marine life but apparently they should all die.
Earlier, Macro proposed a scheme to make lots of lakes inland, to change the climate. As a CSIRO study has pointed out, lakes don't change the climate significantly, but according to Macro he knows everything and the CSIRO knows nothing.
Oops... looks like I have a filter...
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Ian K said..
And this word "Unprecedented" When did this word enter the common lexicon?
Its the word that you use when you were caught short and have nothing else to explain your error in anticipating it.
e.g.
The level of boat people arriving is unprecedented.
Global economic conditions are unprecedented.
well said,
every next day is "unprecedented"
brings something new.
Unless we are on constant loop, doing the same and same again every day.
To some point make sense. If you could repeat only old mistakes we avoid to do new one.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
As a CSIRO study has pointed out, lakes don't change the climate significantly,
Yep, your CSIRO study may be relevant to the lakes and even seas as seen on the Moon surface.
Lunar maria doesn't effect their climate too much.Thought Moon effect ours quite a bit.
Chis said _ quote:
"lakes don't change the climate".
Without even reading everybody could discard such nonsense statement, regardless how many phD , Prof. and others signature are behind.
Or that is another trend within deniers? NOTHING at all effect climate? >> INSERT FROMULA NOVA SARCASM FONT HERE << because CLIMATE is given as by GOD ALMIGHTY and we should appreciate now everything HE throw at us.Then cut off the hands of all those trying to tricle a bit , improve something of change. CSIRO possibly have this church somewhere and Ph.D caplan's already, then mob of CHRIS like believers.Unlike you chris, I could possibly go trough every chemical reaction, physical process CSIRO could throw against me, one by one. To verify.But you just read and believe. Most like even miss-read what there are really saying.
<< END FNSF HERE<<
Lets consider the simplest thought experiment.
Recent relative humidity reading at my life style farm ( 250 km of the sea ) at midday , is 7% (Dew point - 9 Celcius !!! NEGATIVE NINE !!!) , temperature near 40 Celsius.Now go to any lake in the world , at similar latitude and when air temperature hit 40 degree, check what humidity you will read above lake surface.I will bet whole $10 that will be closer to 100% then Zero.
I think that one experiment is worth more then tonnes of paper publication. Yep ,in CSRIO believers instantly point that the problem is with experiment and nature itself unable to comply with their good theory.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Earlier, Macro proposed a scheme to make lots of lakes inland, to change the climate. As a CSIRO study has pointed out, lakes don't change the climate significantly, but according to Macro he knows everything and the CSIRO knows nothing.
Problem with Macro is that he mixes up wild fancies with sensible posts. You can't be sure which is which sometimes
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
"lakes don't change the climate"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo
"Although the layer corresponded with a time of low rainfall and cooler weather, more rainwater ran off the western side of the Great Dividing Range during that period, keeping the lake full. It supported a significant human population, as well as many varieties of Australian megafauna."
Lake Mungo appears to have had a favourable effect on the local climate.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Macroscien said..
"lakes don't change the climate"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo
"Although the layer corresponded with a time of low rainfall and cooler weather, more rainwater ran off the western side of the Great Dividing Range during that period, keeping the lake full. It supported a significant human population, as well as many varieties of Australian megafauna."
Lake Mungo appears to have had a favourable effect on the local climate.
Thanks Ian , but that was exactly thesis I was trying to abolish/discredit.Then after some arguments I should use/utilize Formula Nove sarcasm font - to indicate that sometimes I am not so serious.
No worries Macro. I think I can usually tell when you are being serious/not-so-serious. .. I think.
