Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: At least we're not IIDB

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 147227 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32175
Tell me, Hawkins.
Can you think of some reason, other than narcissistic asymmetry, why you expect people to answer your questions when you ignore everyone else's?
Yes actually I can think of a very good reason. You see,
Let me ask you something.
Let ME ask YOU something.

Can you think of some reason, other than narcissistic asymmetry, why you expect people to answer your questions when you ignore everyone else's?

why yes I can. You Darwin clubbers have about 20 people on your team. I only have one guy on my team. When it's one versus 20 I can be selective. No decent person would expect one guy to be able to answer the questions of all 20 people now would they?
Ahahaha

You don't even answer as many questions as one person on "Team Darwin".

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32176
You Darwin clubbers have about 20 people on your team. I only have one guy on my team. When it's one versus 20 I can be selective. No decent person would expect one guy to be able to answer the questions of all 20 people now would they?
Nice try.
But, no. You are not getting substantive questions from 20 people.
You rarely answer ANYONE'S question.
How many pages do you suppose I would have to scroll back to get a substantive answer from you to ANY question?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32177
... You Darwin clubbers
And apparently you need reminding again that all your go-to gurus - Mark Shepard, Allan Savory, Weston Price, Aldo Leopold, any ecologist you can name - are "Darwin Clubbers".

So that tediously repeated bit of sloganeering doesn't work very well for you as an Us vs. Them mythology in the context of this thread.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32178
Someone was asking what Mount Saint Helens has to do with the Sahara and it was Pingu who brought that up. I think she was saying that the area around Mount Saint Helens was basically desertified but it seems to be a significantly different composition than the Sands of the Sahara.

Of course it is.  My answer was in respose to your query about whether I thought the Sahara would re-green if rainfall increased, and how.  My answer was that as rainfal increased, the ecosystems now thriving on a small amount of rainfall would encroach inwards as the rainfall increased areas previously too dry for that rainfall.  And as a parallel, I cited Mount St.Helens, which shows that the surrounding ecosystem will easily move inwards to occupy vacated land.

I've said it a bit differently there, but the point is the same.  It won't suddenly start raining hard and regularly throughout the Sahara. but as the whole region gets gradually more humid, and arid becomes semi-arid, and semi-arid becomes humid etc, the ecosystems adapted to each will tend to migrate accordingly.  And vice versa when the climate tide goes back out again. 

This has actually been observed happening.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32179
Tell me, Hawkins.
Can you think of some reason, other than narcissistic asymmetry, why you expect people to answer your questions when you ignore everyone else's?
Yes actually I can think of a very good reason. You see,
Let me ask you something.
Let ME ask YOU something.

Can you think of some reason, other than narcissistic asymmetry, why you expect people to answer your questions when you ignore everyone else's?

why yes I can. You Darwin clubbers have about 20 people on your team. I only have one guy on my team. When it's one versus 20 I can be selective. No decent person would expect one guy to be able to answer the questions of all 20 people now would they?
Then how about some one on one threads?  Pingu and lake k or carbon?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sun Jan 14 2018 19:59:03 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
you suck at truth detection. (And spelling)

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32180
Someone was asking what Mount Saint Helens has to do with the Sahara and it was Pingu who brought that up. I think she was saying that the area around Mount Saint Helens was basically desertified but it seems to be a significantly different composition than the Sands of the Sahara.
Using the quote function eliminates this problem.

I don't recall any such comment by Pingu, but I could be wrong. Perhaps she remembers. I really can't see why she would post something like that. The area around Mount St Helens was not basically desertified, though most of the life above and slightly below grade was killed by the blast effects, heat effects and being covered by ash. However, the rainfall on that area remained the same and it was surrounded by the biosphere it was before the eruption. Naturally, must of the ash is filled with minerals and with continued rainfall and a source of life similar to before all around it, it has begun the process of recovery fairly quickly. But I don't see what that would have to do with possible overgrazing of the Sahara.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32181
... You Darwin clubbers
And apparently you need reminding again that all your go-to gurus - Mark Shepard, Allan Savory, Weston Price, Aldo Leopold, any ecologist you can name - are "Darwin Clubbers".

So that tediously repeated bit of sloganeering doesn't work very well for you as an Us vs. Them mythology in the context of this thread.
Hey, there's fine people on both sides.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32182
Someone was asking what Mount Saint Helens has to do with the Sahara and it was Pingu who brought that up. I think she was saying that the area around Mount Saint Helens was basically desertified but it seems to be a significantly different composition than the Sands of the Sahara.
Using the quote function eliminates this problem.

I don't recall any such comment by Pingu, but I could be wrong. Perhaps she remembers. I really can't see why she would post something like that. The area around Mount St Helens was not basically desertified, though most of the life above and slightly below grade was killed by the blast effects, heat effects and being covered by ash. However, the rainfall on that area remained the same and it was surrounded by the biosphere it was before the eruption. Naturally, must of the ash is filled with minerals and with continued rainfall and a source of life similar to before all around it, it has begun the process of recovery fairly quickly. But I don't see what that would have to do with possible overgrazing of the Sahara.

I did say that, althuugh I was using "desertified" metaphorically .  My point was that if you have an area in which FOR SOME REASON (prior dry rainfall; volcanic eruption) there isn't much biomass, then that changes (rain falls; volcanic eruption is finished) the surrounding ecosystem will tend to move in.

Dave had specifically asked what I thought would happen if it started raining in the Sahara, i.e. have similar conditions surrounding it.  Mount St.Helen's seems to me to be a reasonable analogue to that.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32183
Here's my post:

Dave, this is really simple.

We KNOW that the Sahara wasn't caused by human agriculture because it has been there for millions of years before there were humans and over that time it has regularly cycled between humid and dry periods.

right. Millions of years is the magic Genie that creates everything. I know.


No. You still don't get it.  There's nothing magic about a long time except that more can happen in a long time than can happen in a short time.

You've actually got it back to front.  YEC requires magic because there isn't enough time for continents to move without it, and we know they did.  You actually NEED them to move, or you don't have enough water to cover your mountains.

But once you let go the religious need to have the world so young (and it is a purely religious need) you can actually sit back and watch the show - and the show tells us that the earth's climate has oscillated regularly over millions of years, as we can see from records of not just layers of rock but layers of ice.

Let me ask you something. Under your theory

It's not my theory.  None of these are my theories.  They are theories that are in general universally accepted by anyone with the capacity to look at and evaluate the evidence, which doesn't include you and it doesn't include me.

we should have alternating wet phases and dry phases in North Africa, right?

No.  The theory is that the OBSERVED record of alternating wet and dry phases in North Africa can be EXPLAINED by oscillatory processes that affect climate, for instance, the cyclical change in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit.

So my question is this... The next time we enter a wet phase for North Africa what will that look like? What will happen? I assume it will rain more, correct?

Yes.

Is that what you think? If that's what you think, what effect will that have? Will everything start growing again? Will grass and trees and topsoil start building in the region to the point where we actually have a nice lush green area again? Or what?

Probably.  That's what's happened in the past, as you can see from that picture of the sapropel layers I posted - layers of dust blown from North Africa and deposited by southerly winds in Sicily.  The stripes represent the changing composition of the dust depending on the amount of soil.

Here's another paper on the topic:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170989

If the climate changes fairly gradually, what tends to happen is that the ecosystems at the margins of an area advance inwards or outwards, or northwards/southwards.  You can see it happening in real time over the last century.

And you yourself love to point out what has happened in the Mount St.Helens region since the eruption.  The eruption "desertified" the area, but has been fairly rapidly repopulated by the ecosystem at the margin, in a very interesting sequence of phases.

Perhaps I should have used actual :airquote::airquote:
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32184
Someone was asking what Mount Saint Helens has to do with the Sahara and it was Pingu who brought that up. I think she was saying that the area around Mount Saint Helens was basically desertified but it seems to be a significantly different composition than the Sands of the Sahara.

Of course it is.  My answer was in respose to your query about whether I thought the Sahara would re-green if rainfall increased, and how.  My answer was that as rainfal increased, the ecosystems now thriving on a small amount of rainfall would encroach inwards as the rainfall increased areas previously too dry for that rainfall.  And as a parallel, I cited Mount St.Helens, which shows that the surrounding ecosystem will easily move inwards to occupy vacated land.

I've said it a bit differently there, but the point is the same.  It won't suddenly start raining hard and regularly throughout the Sahara. but as the whole region gets gradually more humid, and arid becomes semi-arid, and semi-arid becomes humid etc, the ecosystems adapted to each will tend to migrate accordingly.  And vice versa when the climate tide goes back out again. 

This has actually been observed happening.
Yes, it's happening now. As I posted earlier.

Sorry for doubting you Pingu, but with what little Bluffy provided, it was impossible to see what point he was making with his reference to your comments.
Beyond which, while sand is not as good a topsoil as some, it does have some admirable qualities, notably draining well while retaining some moisture due to the large surface area of the sand per volume. I'd also note, the Sahara is not all sand. While there are larger sand seas and it's unlikely they would ever support much, a lot of it is either desert paving (gravel, compacted by the wind and occasional water, and a lot is simply bare rock, which often is significantly cracked and jointed, allowing organic material a place to lodge.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32185
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32186
Someone was asking what Mount Saint Helens has to do with the Sahara and it was Pingu who brought that up. I think she was saying that the area around Mount Saint Helens was basically desertified but it seems to be a significantly different composition than the Sands of the Sahara.

Of course it is.  My answer was in respose to your query about whether I thought the Sahara would re-green if rainfall increased, and how.  My answer was that as rainfal increased, the ecosystems now thriving on a small amount of rainfall would encroach inwards as the rainfall increased areas previously too dry for that rainfall.  And as a parallel, I cited Mount St.Helens, which shows that the surrounding ecosystem will easily move inwards to occupy vacated land.

I've said it a bit differently there, but the point is the same.  It won't suddenly start raining hard and regularly throughout the Sahara. but as the whole region gets gradually more humid, and arid becomes semi-arid, and semi-arid becomes humid etc, the ecosystems adapted to each will tend to migrate accordingly.  And vice versa when the climate tide goes back out again. 

This has actually been observed happening.
Yes, it's happening now. As I posted earlier.

Sorry for doubting you Pingu, but with what little Bluffy provided, it was impossible to see what point he was making with his reference to your comments.
Beyond which, while sand is not as good a topsoil as some, it does have some admirable qualities, notably draining well while retaining some moisture due to the large surface area of the sand per volume. I'd also note, the Sahara is not all sand. While there are larger sand seas and it's unlikely they would ever support much, a lot of it is either desert paving (gravel, compacted by the wind and occasional water, and a lot is simply bare rock, which often is significantly cracked and jointed, allowing organic material a place to lodge.

Yes, there is lots of life in the Sahara.  Right now the ecosystem adapted to very arid conditions is extensive; if it became more humid, that ecosystem would shrink and the ecosystem around it encroach inwards, was my point.

It amazes me that Dave, like other creationists, cites Mount St.Helens as evidence that the earth could rapidly regreen after the Flood.

There is a huge difference between an area of scant life being rapidly repopulated by a surrounding area of more abundant life, and an entire plant being rapidly repopulated by a boat load of animals (no plants mentioned on the Ark).
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #32187
Stupidity is par for the course.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor