Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 12:42pm:



And of course you have the proof? In your back pocket? You lost it?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 12:42pm:



Show us where this has happened.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 12:42pm:



Only when and if petal.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 12:42pm:



Have a read of Barrett DJ (2002)

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GB001860

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2021 at 7:30pm:



All studies of climate use potentials.

Here is one from the publisher's of John Cook's study for the 97% - So hardly a denier site.

"We found that peatlands, compared to forests, are characterized by higher growing season albedo, lower aerodynamic conductance, and higher surface conductance for an equivalent VPD. This combination of peatland surface properties results in a ~20% decrease in afternoon ABL height, a cooling (from 1.7 to 2.5 °C) in afternoon air temperatures, and a decrease in afternoon VPD (from 0.4 to 0.7 kPa) for peatland landscapes compared to forest landscapes. These biophysical climate impacts of peatlands are most pronounced at lower latitudes (~45°N) and decrease toward the northern limit of the boreal biome (~70°N). Thus, boreal peatlands have the potential to mitigate the effect of regional climate warming during the growing season. "

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abab34

Because it is a potential doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or that it has to meet specific conditions for it to be true.

What potential does your study show that Australia has for carbon sequestration?