UPDATE from Victoria

We will be posting letters to government ministers, officials and bureaucrats so that those of you who are interested in seeing NSF taken seriously by those in command of our country's future, can see our efforts in that pursuit.
We will also post any replies or reactions we get.

Moderator: webmaster

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby ghosta » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:37 am

duane wrote:So we degrade one to aggrade another. They cancel each other out....all systems need to aggrade together to allow the system to build...better find another example as this example fails to pass go.


My guess is you dont actually know what aggrade means. Look it up!

duane
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby duane » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:14 pm

you obviously did and you still don't know the difference....between degrade vs aggrade.

Maybe you can put your definitions up so we clarify??

Stringybark
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Wagga Wagga. NSW

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby Stringybark » Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:19 pm

Ghosta, g'day and welcome to the NSF forum.
Can you explain to me what happens to the higher ground that you say loses some of its soil to the lower ground level? I went outside and built a heap of dirt with a shovel. Then tipped water over it. As you stated, the higher dirt moved under the power of gravity and water to the lower area. The only problem i came across, was that the higher ground reduced in size untill there wasn't any left. What happens when all the higher ground is gone? Where does the sediment/fertility come from then?

duane
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby duane » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:10 pm

If ghosta can't read the dictionary for a simple word meaning Stringy, how would you expect him to explain that simple concept with any credibility??

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby ghosta » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:01 pm

Stringybark wrote:Ghosta, g'day and welcome to the NSF forum.
Can you explain to me what happens to the higher ground that you say loses some of its soil to the lower ground level? I went outside and built a heap of dirt with a shovel. Then tipped water over it. As you stated, the higher dirt moved under the power of gravity and water to the lower area. The only problem i came across, was that the higher ground reduced in size untill there wasn't any left. What happens when all the higher ground is gone? Where does the sediment/fertility come from then?


Im not sure whether you have access to Peter Andrews book "Back from the Brink" . If you read it you will find his explanations as to where soil fertility comes from. Start with chapter 12. Or you could simply research the net. In simple terms soil fertility is built up by plants.

Agraddation is a geological process where there is an increase in land elevation due to the deposition of sediment. The opposite is subsidence (not degradation as Duanne suggests) . As mentioed earlier fire can be a factor, and to view the process first hand it is possible you will see it after heavy rain in an area that has been burnt by an intense fire. It occurs throughout Australia.

duane
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby duane » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:53 pm

The antonym of degradation is aggradation....pls note the spelling of the word aggradation with a GG not agraddation.

Sorry if I caused you to be confused.

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby ghosta » Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:07 pm

duane wrote:The antonym of degradation is aggradation....pls note the spelling of the word aggradation with a GG not agraddation.

Sorry if I caused you to be confused.


YOU certainly ARE confused. There is no such word as agradation.

From Online dictionary "aggradation The general accumulation of unconsolidated sediments on a surface, which thereby raise its level."
As I said, this is basic stuff.

Stringybark
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Wagga Wagga. NSW

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby Stringybark » Thu Nov 18, 2010 6:29 pm

Ghosta, thanks for pointing out peters books. An informative read no doubt.

duane
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby duane » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:11 pm

Ghosta said:
Agraddation is a geological process where there is an increase in land elevation due to the deposition of sediment. The opposite is subsidence (not degradation as Duanne suggests) . As mentioed earlier fire can be a factor, and to view the process first hand it is possible you will see it after heavy rain in an area that has been burnt by an intense fire. It occurs throughout Australia.


"Agraddation is a geological process....".I think I know who is confused here.and it certainly 'ain't me'.

Then ghosta said: note now the correct spelling and meaning of aggrade:
From Online dictionary "aggradation The general accumulation of unconsolidated sediments on a surface, which thereby raise its level."
Hooray!!! I think you've got it !!!

Well done ghosta!! Go to the top of the class.....we got you there in the end.

Please be sure to pay attention next time!!

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby ghosta » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:53 pm

I dont mind helping those who have difficulty understanding the concepts, but when that help is belittled and greeted with abuse, it makes me less inclined to offer the little I do know to others. For gods sake, duanne GROW UP! You have a lot to learn and you seem to be making it difficult for yourself!

Stringybark
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:24 am
Location: Wagga Wagga. NSW

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby Stringybark » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:38 pm

Ghosta, perhaps you might take a bit of your own advice.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby Shirley Henderson » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:05 am

This is an interesting read. I would like to add that every year it has become highly popular to plant trees. Tree planting day. Often supported by companies who are off-setting their environmental impacts. Many of the trees are Eucalyptus species. That does not make sense to me. Small shrubs, small trees and groundcovers would greatly increase the biodiversity but it is usually the big giant Eucalyptus that is planted instead. Suburban areas are filled with these fire hazards and years later, we the people are not allowed to chop them down, or even prune them without paying the council fees to inspect, approve and then we have to employ professionals to do the work. One argument I hear often is that Eucalyptus hollows are needed and they take years to form. That problem could be so easily solved by putting up pre-made wooden boxes. Wildlife love them and they dont care that they didn't take hundreds of years to form. The wildlife species could become extinct waiting for that. Simple answers as far as I am concerned should be sought. Its obvious that dry grass burns quickly and wet grass will only burn in patches. Dry bush is a tinder box and wet forest will have a better chance of saving the life within. Yes fire is part of life and particularly in Australia we need best management practices. Devastating fires are also part of life but if we can minimise them by rehydrating the landscape why not give it a go. Planting Euclayptus everywhere in suburbia is a dangerous fad, they should minimise those trees and choose shrubs instead. Even roadways in rural Australia are lined with them so if fire catches and they fall you can be trapped. The big ant nest usually survive, Have you seen them. They totally clear everything around their living areas while still living amongst it. They do what is neccesary at the time and change it as required.

ghosta
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby ghosta » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:53 am

Shirley you make some good points in your post. Pressure to plant native species is very strong, particularly from environmental groups like the Australian Conservation Council, Total Environmental Center and the Society for Growing Australian Plants to name just a few bodies.
Interestingly Solar Advocates prefer decidious trees in built up areas as they allow inlux of light in winter.
One point about grasses- after they seed they die off as part of the natural cycle. If they are grazed off there is less of a problem of course and if there is plenty of water they will regrow. Natural sequence farming may mean green grasses can be maintained in floodplains and surrounding treated areas during dry times, but outside these areas it will be a struggle to maintain any green grass. And very hot weather may finish annual plants struggling to hold on. The idea that some people have that we can rehydrate the entire landscape to make it bushfire proof is clearly unobtainable, but every bit will help.

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby Shirley Henderson » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:54 am

As long as its bushfire proof around our homes and we have safe havens for wildlife and farm animals. I would be happy with that! :)

sceptic
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:17 pm

Re: UPDATE from Victoria

Postby sceptic » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:34 am

duane wrote:Even when the wet edge of the water soaked paper dries out, it will catch and burn the edge.

Dry paperbacks packed with VOC will burn like the edge of the paper, as too will dried out reeds when their season is finished, as too will the wet newspaper once it dries out.

Take a look at the fire retardant plants that survived Ash Saturday...the fires went over them and burnt some of the dry edges only.

Take the newspaper test and post your results here.


Which proves what exactly? Yes, if we were to drown the continent we'd have no more fires but that isn't going to happen. australia is a dry continent and it's a dry continent for a couple of very good reasons:

Firstly it's flat, well, not totally but in comparison to all the others it is this means we don't get as much orographic lift happening which causes condensation then causing rain, yes we have rain along the Eastern Seaboard but that's due to the influence of the great dividing range.

Secondly about 15 million years ago the Australian continental plate collided (well, it was at the rate of about 6cm/yr but still significant) with the Asian plate pushing up the Papua New Guinea highlands which serve as a barrier to monsoonal influence, so the whole idea of Australia being some lush rainforest prior to the arrival of humans is just wrong. Yes, Aborigines did have an influence but not to the extent that somer claim.

Now getting back to the fires, I've been through those parts of Victoria on many occassions both prior to and following the fires many of the areas burnt out near Kinglake were wet schlerophyll (for those not familiar with the term it's a rainforest understory with emergent Eucalypts) which under normal circumstances is too wet to burn, however prolonged drought and extreme weather conditions contributed to a Forest Fire Danger Index of 300, which till then was unheard of. An FFDI over 50is regarded as extreme, an FFDI of 300 is off the chart. anything will burn in those situations, including rainforest.
The truth is out there.


Return to “Letters to Government about NSF”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest