Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational:  :whyyou:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Testy Calibrate

1
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
2
Can you make a wind powered balloon that goes faster than the wind?
Sure. Fill it up, let go.
3
"You won't be doing any HMG with any results that you imagine."

Well considering that you don't even know what HMG is, how can you say that?
Bunch, move, rest. Soil gets thicker.  Is it more complicated than that? Hmm?
4
Trump isn't a real business man.

Trump is going to start World War 3 with China.

Trump is going to piss off China and not be able to reduce the trade deficit.

Trump is not going to be in office in January of 2019 and will probably wind up in jail.

And last but not least... You can't raise goats and sheep in light gaps in the rainforest.

Oh my sides!
I didn't say you cant raise goats and sheep at edge zones. I said something different.  Your brain.  Wow.
5
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
Hmm. I sense a tantrum coming.
Has it finally dawned on you that I'm right about this topic? That opening up the rainforest canopy a bit isn't going to hurt it at all? And that plenty of good stuff will immediately start growing, in fact stuff that herbivores like to eat?
Dave, I don't think you've provided even the seed of a new idea for me in the past few days. The edge species won't be grasses. You won't be doing hmg with any of the results you imagine. The environment just won't support it. If you had any idea how really obvious it is that you have no idea what you are talking about,  you'd be surprised. But then, we all know that's not going to happen.
6
No of course not.
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know. You would think with all their science training that they would make tentative statements instead of bold authoritative statements especially when it's obvious to everyone that they haven't studied the topic. It seems that the primary motivation for this ass talking is the need to always take the opposite position from Dave. That's their Orthodoxy and it clouds lots of their posts.
Hmm. I sense a tantrum coming.
7
The faster does matter but what matters more is that it isn't slowed by the canopy in terms of systemic delay. When the water does not buffer in the trees all of it goes to the creek all at once.to the forest floor, it keeps raining gently for weeks or months where for the canopy it rains hard with frequent breaks.
That's cool, I think I can picture it, all the surface area that has to drip dry?
Pretty much.

Eta: humidity on the forest floor is far less varied than above the canopy.
8
The faster does matter but what matters more is that it isn't slowed by the canopy in terms of systemic delay. When the water does not buffer in the trees all of it goes to the creek all at once.to the forest floor, it keeps raining gently for weeks or months where for the canopy it rains hard with frequent breaks.
9
No he's not. He's right. It's more complicated than that and he added some normative stuff but he's right that more water reaches the ground and it is moving faster and all at once.
10
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Btw, feel free to study up on the dendrochronology thing. That should be entertaining.  A good place to start is http://bwe1.wordpress.com
11
Yeah BD, I notice you are too chickenshit to make any predictions about the balloons, just the same old ad-homs eh?

The balloons will not go in a straight line.  That's my prediction.  And my other prediction is the same as spork's. No matter what they do you won't consider the results valid.

Dude, Bb went 3x wind speed.  Not 1.3x but 3x. There really isn't much wiggle room for balloons there.
12
Lol. Awesomeness is America.
13
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
14
No one has missed the point, Hawkins.
The fact remains:  there is a dynamic equilibrium between minerals concentrated in bacteria (or protozoa, etc.) and floating free, soluble, in the soil. The free, soluble, ions can (1) be taken up by another microbe (2) be leached by rainwater or (3) be taken up by a plant root. Yes, proximity of the source increases the probability of (3). But it's still nowhere close to 100%.
I don't know what the percent is. But it's got to be pretty close to 100% because soil scientists like Elaine Ingham tell us that if you measure the soluble fertilizer content of rainforest soils you will barely get a reading at all. Which is really interesting because it tells us that some of the best plant growth on the planet is achieved entirely without a man-made product which most mainstream agriculturalists think is indispensable for growing plants. That is, commercial fertilizers.
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.

The reason you barely get a reading for soluble fertilizer content in the rainforests is because if it wasn't sucked up almost as soon as it was produced by the trees it would get leached away. Which is what happens when you get rid of the trees. What little nutrients you put back by burning or composting the cleared forests rapidly leach away. There isn't a store of nutrients that you can rely on as in Missouri or other grasslands.


I agree with most of this.

And I agree that if you remove large numbers of trees like the mega farms do then what you are saying here is generally what will happen.

BUT ...

I'm not proposing to remove large numbers of trees. In fact I've asked a question about what do you think would happen if I just removed one large tree, and I didn't even remove it completely but left the roots and stump in place for coppicing.

What say you?
That you cant keep the water out of the creek.
15
When someone wrote the soil guide for the USDA 20 years ago, saying thir ideas aren't part of the mainstream is utterly delusional.
Welcome to the bizarre shitshow that is Dave's psychology.
17
Dave all that has to happen for nutrients to be in a form that can be subject to leaching is for them to be water soluble. Funnily enough that's also the form they have to be in for them to be available to plants.
Yes but what you keep missing even though I've talked about it several times is the fact that there's a very short distance between the ass end of a protozoan and the root hair on which he takes a dump.  And there's a very short time span between when this protozoa poop leaves the protozoa's ass and enters the root hairs' mouth.  Yes I'm anthropomorphizing here a bit to make a point. I do realize that there is no actual ass and no actual mouth, okay? The point of all this is that the nutrients don't have a chance to get leached away because the nutrient Loop is so tight.
And when you remove the trees that are taking up the nutrients almost as fast as they're being produced and which are the ultimate source for those nutrients what do you think will happen?
The nutrients go into the creek!
18
Here.
I'll click it for you:
Quote
Soil Food Web

By Elaine R. Ingham


:pwned:


Wonderful. I'm glad that they are taking notice of her work.
"taking notice"?
She wrote their "soil primer" 20 years ago.

So you want to maybe rethink that idiotic "armies of fake scientists"  slogan?
No. It's still quite appropriate. Most farming in the USA is still the type of farming that uses chemical fertilizers and thus destroys soil life.
You are a mess.
19
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
No there's not. You are an idiot.

It would be fun to study up on the dendrochronology thing and engage you on that topic again. You would fold like a cheap card table. The only reason you think you won is because I didn't really have the resources at the time to study up on the topic properly.
Good god you are an idiot
20
tbf, I get the impression that many if not most Trumpublicans use the term, 'liberal', to describe anyone left of themselves,  anyone who thinks Obama was a better president than Trump, pretty much all Democrats and pretty much all the mainstream news media.
Yeah, in the US it has become a pejorative used by Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, and MAGAbots to label anyone who doesn't like Trump.
Predates Trump.   The first time someone called me a "Liberal" in that way was in 2011.
Limbaugh and Jerry Fallwell and others made it a pejorative in the 1980s
21
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
That is indeed the fantasy you've concocted.

Scientists who have observed rainforest soil have observed and measured leaching.

Quote
But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?
Leaching will continue as before, perhaps at a slightly higher rate.

Quote
Why or why not?
Leaching happens in rainforest soil.  In your scenario more rainwater may reach the forest floor, increasing the rate of leaching.

It also matters that the trees slow the water down. Yes, leeching increases when you cut the trees.
22
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?
Click the link, dumbass.
Ok I did. But I should point out that I didn't say that rainforest soils have not been leached. I just said there is no leaching. As in currently. This link does claim that they have been leached which is an assumption because they really don't know that for sure having not been there millions of years ago when these rainforest were supposedly first formed. And it's probably a wrong assumption because why would there ever have been nutrients in a form that would be subject to leaching in the first place?
You misunderstand.  They are always leeching. There just isn't much to leech in a healthy forest
23
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 
Soil-Net begs to differ:
Quote
Tropical soils are often several metres deep, but the soils are often washed out, or strongly leached, with large amounts of nutrients and minerals being removed from the subsoils and considerable thickness of rock broken down to produce soil. Over many millions of years this leaching has left most of the soils lacking many of the fundamental nutrients needed by the above ground vegetation.
Soil net Huh? Well if we're going to believe them, then I guess we need to rescue the rainforest because all those poor trees are lacking in nutrients and no doubt we'll all be dead in a few decades.

What do you (or soil net) propose  should be done?

:popcorn:
See? Misunderstanding. The nutrients are in the plants.
Eta: they are in the plants because in the soil they would be leeched. Cue all some none error in 5...4...3...
24
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?
Dave, there is substantial leeching in rainforest soils. You're just misunderstanding if you think there isn't.
25
Also the shallow roots in rainforest trees is not a consideration in this discussion because what we are talking about is shade species versus non shade species. We're not even talking about depth of roots. There are plenty of shallow-rooted species that love sunlight and what's more plants adapt to their environment very quickly which you would know if you knew anything about evolution. What you don't because you've bought Darwin mumbo-jumbo Hook Line & Sinker.
We're talking about leaching.
You are, but I'm not. It's irrelevant in a discussion about what I am proposing to do.
Lol. Your brain.