We are frequently advised to seek help from the Gates Foundation. We don’t. Here is why.
After it was exposed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the philanthropic brainchild of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, purchased 500,000 shares in Monsanto back in 2010 valued at more than $23 million, it became abundantly clear that this so-called benevolent charity is up to something other than eradicating disease and feeding the world’s poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk). It turns out that the Gates family legacy has long been one of trying to dominate and control the world’s systems, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and now agriculture.
The Gates Foundation, aka the tax-exempt Gates Family Trust, is currently in the process of spending billions of dollars in the name of humanitarianism to establish a global food monopoly dominated by genetically-modified (GM) crops and seeds. And based on the Gates family’s history of involvement in world affairs, it appears that one of its main goals besides simply establishing corporate control of the world’s food supply is to reduce the world’s population by a significant amount in the process.
(2005) Australian scientists say they have found proof that cutting down forests reduces rainfall. The finding, independent of previous anecdotal evidence and computer modelling, uses physics and chemistry to show how the climate changes when forests are lost, by analyzing variations in the molecular structure of rain along the Amazon River.
Not all water, Professor Henderson-Sellers said, was made from the recipe of two atoms of “common” hydrogen and one of “regular” oxygen. About one in every 500 water molecules had its second hydrogen atom replaced by a heavier version called deuterium. And one in every 6500 molecules included a heavy version of the oxygen atom.
Knowing the ratio allowed scientists to trace the Amazon’s water as it flowed into the Atlantic, evaporated, blew back inland with the trade winds to fall again as rain, and finally returned to the river. The study showed that since the 1970s the ratio of the heavy molecules found in rain over the Amazon and the Andes had declined significantly. The only possible explanation was that they were no longer being returned to the atmosphere to fall again as rain because the vegetation was disappearing. “With many trees now gone and the forest degraded, the moisture that reaches the Andes has clearly lost the heavy isotopes that used to be recycled so effectively,” Professor Henderson-Sellers said.
“This is the first demonstration that deforestation has an observable impact on rainfall.”
Castles, field systems, cemetries and irrigation don’t sound like the things you would find in a desert, yet archaeologists exploring the ruins of the Garamantes civilization estimate that it was in existence as recently as 5 to 500 A.D. In one of the most inhospitable parts of the Sahara, there were farms as recently as Roman times!
If, as is commonly posited by those who haven’t thought about it much, the Sahara is a desert due to purely ‘natural’ reasons, then there may be nothing we can do about it. But evidence abounds that human activity (primarily unintelligent farming methods) was the real cause, and this discovery adds support to that view.
More at fox news, where they predictably use it to slag off the Gadhafi regime.
Isotope studies have shown that almost all oceanic moisture falls as rain within the first 150 miles from any coast. All the rest of the rainfall on land is recycled water, evaporated from the land and the vegetation on it. Bare land such as sand or rock desert can only evaporate a small amount of the water before it runs off back to the sea. Farmland will hold a little, but the best reservoir is a forest.
A single oak tree may have ten to thirty acres of leaf surface, so forests are the best thing for ensuring that inland areas get rain. In fact, to destroy the Amazon forest, all we need to do is to chop down the first 200 miles, and we’re busy doing that now.
Until relatively recently, most scientists thought rain was caused by mineral particles in the air which were just the right size for water (or ice) to condense around them. Research is beginning to show that a major factor in rain creation could be bacteria associated with plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioprecipitation
If this is true then it is yet another way in which forests create rain. A forest has a far greater plant surface area than farmland or desert.
The image shows two views of the rabbit-proof fence, stretching aobut 2,000 miles across South-Western Australia. It separates off native land from farmland with the idea of keeping rabbits out.
Clouds form a lot more on the native side than the other, showing a correlation between farmland and decreased rainfall. That’s it really, but there are some speculations and other stuff in a NY Times article about it.
There is a research paper by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University, impact_of_clearing (pdf) which goes into detail, and an abstract of another paper: The role of land use change on the development and evolution of the west coast trough, convective clouds, and precipitation in southwest Australia on the JGR site
(And the fence, it doesn’t work, obviously — what kind of idiot would try to build a 2,000 mile long version of something they haven’t invented a one mile version of yet? And more to the point, what kind of idiot would pay them to do it? Oh, hang on, the kind of idiot that would chop all the trees down and expect to just keep on farming without them forever. The fence builders saw them coming didn’t they?!