It has been well established by proper scientific studies across the world, that fine particle pollution can travel great distances. The lifetime of PM 2.5 particle pollution is from days to weeks and their travel distance ranges from 100 to greater than 1000 kilometres (NRDC, 2000)
It is this size particle and smaller, that lodge deep inside the lungs and are known to cause heart attacks, asthma, low birth weights, infant mortality, infant deaths, COPD and some forms of diabetes, etc. These findings cannot be ignored.

Down here in Tasmania planned burns are lit 50Km or closer to us and our smoke ‘authorities’ are baffled why people are becoming ill. They can’t work out where the smoke is coming from…well the FPA & EPA make out they can’t, even when they acknowledge the wind is exactly in the direction of those affected.

So much for talk about planned burn smoke being better this year; the Smoke Management Strategy and Smoke Management Guidelines are about as good as those who drew them up. They are a failure.

And,

As Rosenfeld and others have shown small particles in the atmosphere disturb the natural formation of water droplets and thus influence rainfall patterns.

Below confirms that Tasmania continues its attack on autumn rainfall in south-eastern Australia, a rainfall that for the past 3 years has commenced well, but tailed off rapidly.

Aaron Gingis has been to Tasmania to point out the impacts of small particulate matter in smoke in relation to industrial activity in Tasmania influencing rainfall on the mainland and his prediction that a Tamar Valley pulpmill will reduce rainfall in the NE.

Now, other researchers independently find that there is an impact by smoke particulate matter on rainfall and that fires add to climate change.

As this particulate matter is discharged into the atmosphere and distributed into the area indicated on the map on TT [They are a failure] at varying altitudes and according to the prevailing wind patterns at those altitudes some account of Gingis’s work should be taken and the emissions of particulate matter reduced in the interests of limiting the decline in rainfall under the other impacts of climate instability.

Further, Bartlett, having taken the advice of Forestry on the carbon footprint of Forestry should now turn to other research to understand the garden path he has taken better, the fruits of denial will be bitter.

Fires make climate change worse – report

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) - In a vicious cycle made worse by humans, scientists now believe fires spur climate change, which in turn makes blazes bigger, more frequent and more damaging to the environment.

Climate experts have known that a warmer world would spawn more fires, but in research published on Thursday in the journal Science, scientists reported that fires—especially those set by humans to clear forests—influence climate change.

Smoke particles sent into the atmosphere by fires inhibit rainfall, which makes the land drier and encourages more fires to start, said study co-author Jennifer Balch of the University of Santa Barbara in California.

On a global scale, burning releases vast amounts of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, making fires more likely in a warming world, Balch said in a video news briefing.

The report’s authors estimate that greenhouse emissions from the world’s fires equal about 50 percent of emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels.

Deforestation fires, like those set to clear forest for pasture in tropical areas like the Amazon, are part of an unintentional “extreme experiment,” Balch said: “We’re testing how burning forests will influence the climate system.”

‘THE SCARY BIT’

These deliberately set forest fires contributed up to one-fifth of all human-generated warming in industrial times, she said.

The climate-fire cycle works like this: plants store the climate-warming gas carbon dioxide; when they burn, they release the gas into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming.

The more fires, the more carbon dioxide is released, which in turn causes more warming in a cycle scientists call positive feedback.

“The scary bit is that, because of the feedbacks and other uncertainties, we could be way underestimating the role of fire in driving future climate change,” said co-author Thomas Swetnam of the University of Arizona in Tucson.

This important piece of the climate change puzzle has not previously been emphasized, said co-author David Bowman of the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia.

Most climate scientists considered fire to be a natural disturbance that was not a crucial force that should be considered in creating models of how the planet’s climate will change, Bowman said.

“Humans and fire have a complex and ancient relationship,” Bowman said. “The relationship means that we can manage fire but we can also start fires. A citizen can’t create hurricanes, but a citizen (who sets a fire) can create a mass disaster.”

The report’s 22 authors called on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to take the role of fire into account when making future climate models.

 

Clive Stott   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  Grindelwald
BECAUSE of its size, and depending on the wind direction, your health is at risk from planned burning in Tasmania.