- #1743231Hero42 February 20, 2020 at 3:44 pm
I don’t know about the others but you were talking about nature, which is a term you usually use when talking about climate, and the wildlife having recovered and adapted so I was responding on the basis of that. Now in your latest post you are talking about weather.
So in terms of climate as it applies to a region consistency would be approximately the same amount of rain falling across the whole region. If that had occurred across North East Australia then all the land would be green and looking like the second picture in Supergold’s post.
But that is’t what has happened. Some areas have had some rain like the picture shows. Other areas have had too much rain, as predicted by climate change 15 years ago in relation to regions in general and not specifically Queensland, and are washed out mad caked regions. Other areas have received no rain, as also predicted by climate change 15 years again in relation to regions in general and not specifically Queensland, and are still in drought.
So in the regions that have received too much rain or not enough rain then the wildlife won’t have adapted and recovered unfortunately, which is what I was referring too.
Cheers 🙂#1743296rob023 February 21, 2020 at 11:30 am
hero42, if in your post #1743231 you’re referring to my post #1743204, then by it’s first few lines I’d have thought it obvious the subject of that post is rain and how the consistency of rain can be considered in a single situation. Nothing in that post talks about climate.
With that in mind you may wish to rethink an appropriate response.#1743328Hero42 February 21, 2020 at 4:10 pm
No I think I have been quite clear. You are talking about weather and I am talking about climate.
As long as we are clear then there isn’t a problem as we know from previous discussions that climate and weather while related are two different subjects and shouldn’t be confused.
The issue comes down to what you mean by the term “Nature” do you mean weather, in which case your post is accurate and we need to remember that it is very localised.
If you mean climate then we need to remember that it is not localised and what you talked about is incorrect.
So what did you mean when you used the term Nature? It is a somewhat vague word and can mean many things, the Merriam Webster online dictionary has nine different meanings, three of which have two sub definitions. I am sure you knew exactly what you meant when you used the term but others may have interpreted it differently.
Cheers 🙂#1743341rob023 February 21, 2020 at 5:02 pm
hero42, as I said in my last post there’s no mention of climate in my post #1743204. Neither, is there any mention of weather or nature, so clearly you don’t wish to comment on that post, which for the sake of it, I’ll repeat, it’s only talking about rain and how the consistency of rain can be considered in a single situation, and that’s fine, your choice.
Be interesting to learn from ‘the others’ you speak of if they can spot in my post #1743204 where I’m talking about nature and weather.#1743610Hero42 February 24, 2020 at 2:27 pm
Interesting that you can’t define what you meant by nature and only want to focus on one post half way through the discussion. But as the post you want to focus on links back to the earlier posts then one wonders why you don’t want to discuss the whole discussion rather than just one post.
But that is your choice and I guess we will never know what you mean by the term nature.
Cheers 🙂#1743641rob023 February 24, 2020 at 4:56 pm
hero42, I’m glad to see that you and the others agree with my summations on rain consistencies.#1743696Hero42 February 25, 2020 at 3:29 pm
I don’t know about the others but I am glad to see you agree that you are talking about weather and not climate which are two different but related subjects as previously discussed.
Cheers 🙂#1743697Hero42 February 25, 2020 at 3:30 pm
Now that we have settled that misunderstanding, what do you mean by the term “nature”
Cheers 🙂#1743846Hero42 February 27, 2020 at 3:56 pm
The introduction of New Zealand’s world-first needle exchange programme 30 years ago has helped this country avoid the high rates of HIV found overseas, a study has concluded.
Researchers say the sustained low levels shows the effectiveness of the harm reduction – rather than criminalisation – approach to drugs.
A similar approach worked in the UK from the mid 1920s to the mid 1960s following the recommendations of the Rolleston Committee in 1926.
The Rolleston Committee Report was followed by “a period of nearly forty years of tranquility in Britain, known as the Rolleston Era. During this period the medical profession regulated the distribution of licit opioid supplies and the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1920 and 1923 controlled illicit supplies.”
So given we know it works why don’t we apply it again and get rid of gangs and drugs forever.
Truly something to think about.
Cheers 🙂#1743883supergoldMemberMember since: May 9, 2009
Replies: 9173supergold February 27, 2020 at 8:10 pm
15 Stunning Photos That Prove You Have No Clue How Food Is Grown
January 18th, 2018
By D.G. Sciortino
Contributor at Sweet and Savory
We all enjoy eating delicious foods but most of us have absolutely no idea how that food grows or is produced. You’d probably be shocked with some of the truths behind how your favorite foods are made.
We’re about to throw back the curtain on some of them:
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by supergold. Reason: wouldn't let me post first photo for 'security' reasons
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.