Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Islam is the light

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 - uncool

1
Another ~10 minutes down, an hour ago.
2
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Dadanawa Ranch isn't in the rainforest you clueless fuck. Its in the Rupununi Savannah.

WTF indeed Dave.

Which herbivores of similar size and habit are in the Guyanese rainforest on this list Dave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Guyana
Deer.
Which deer are you comparing your livestock to? There are three kinds that live in Guyana, according to that list: white-tailed, red brocket, and grey brocket. Which have similar habits?
3
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.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
5
Yes. Yes it is.

Much like being dishonest when claiming honesty, and excoriating others for lying.
6
Quote
I've noticed over the years that quite a few people talk out their asses about things they don't know.

You know, Dave, you're absolutely right.
7


Can someone please explain to me how men who have problems getting laid would suddenly do much better if society "promoted" monogamy (because it apparently doesn't right now even though millions of people literally just watched a fucking wedding on TV)?
The idea is that women have sexual desires, too, but in today's society of free sex, where women supposedly are the "gatekeepers" of sex, they can fulfill those desires with men of higher social status (the term often used is "hypergamy") - see Chad Thundercock and "his" Stacies. Monogamy restricts that outlet, meaning that higher social status men can't "hog the market", and women who still want sex will have to settle for lower social status men - like incels.

There is some similar analysis for highly polygynous cults - because cult leaders "hog" all of the women, young men are either forced to extremes to "prove themselves", or are forced to leave the cult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)

They overlook, ignore, or explain away the obvious difference: who is making the decisions about sex.
8
Shut up and read.
Oh good, you got the point of Zombies's plan rather quickly.
10
When someone wrote the soil guide for the USDA 20 years ago, saying thir ideas aren't part of the mainstream is utterly delusional.
11
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.
The decisions of farmers don't define the state of modern science, Dave.
12
Well, one thing to add - that that "other frame of reference" is the one where the surface under the cart isn't moving.
13
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.
Wrong tense, Dave.
14
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/ny-wrongly-convicted-man-exonerated-trnd/index.html

Quote
John Bunn was just 14 when he was jailed for the murder of an off-duty correction officer in Brooklyn.
He was finally able to clear his name Tuesday, when a judge formally exonerated him after 27 years. He's 41 now.

17 years in prison, 8 years on parole, and 2 years preparing for a new trial.

Old case of misconduct, since Louis Scarcella's already famous, but it's nice to have a..."good ending" is too damn pat.
15
Well yes. They're still pigs.
17
From testes paper that someone just pulled forward

Quote
  The deforested catchment loss of dissolved inorganic nitrogen increased 95 % over the forested catchment. 

Yeah so how much is 1.95 X Almost Zero?

Answer:
Still almost zero.
If you want the actual answer: an extra 55 kg Nitrogen per square kilometer per year.
For reference: if I've done the math correctly, this is equivalent to completely depleting - not partially, completely, no nitrogen left - two additional millimeters worth of soil each year.

Anyone mind checking my math?

55 kg N/sq km/year, 20 mg N/kg soil, 1.33 g soil/cm^3
19
From testes paper that someone just pulled forward

Quote
  The deforested catchment loss of dissolved inorganic nitrogen increased 95 % over the forested catchment. 

Yeah so how much is 1.95 X Almost Zero?

Answer:
Still almost zero.
If you want the actual answer: an extra 55 kg Nitrogen per square kilometer per year.
22
Mind re-linking it? I think I missed it.
23
And "once it comes out of the protozoa's ass", where would it be?
24
"The point that you don't seem to grasp is that the portion in the free form is continuously subject to rapid leaching."

No I grasped that point a long time ago. You are the one that is not grasping my point, my point being that I don't freaking care about these free form minerals. What I care about is microorganisms. How many different ways do I need to say this before you will get it?
No one cares about what you care about. Some care to clarify your understanding of said issues. But you don't seem to care about that either.

Again, how do those "salts" go from the inside of microorganisms to plant roots? Care to elaborate on your previous "guess"?
Again, I'm just starting to learn the specifics of this and the only one I can give you any sort of an answer for would-be protozoa. It is my understanding that protozoa eat bacteria and poop out excess nitrogen in the form of some sort of salt. Maybe salt isn't the right word I forget. Whatever Elaine Ingham said on the video. Or was it Patricia Richardson. I don't remember for sure but it doesn't matter. The point is that these protozoa poop out a form of nitrogen that the plants can use. The obvious question then is the obvious question then is why wouldn't this get washed away in a big rain and I think the answer must be that they are pooping it directly on the root hairs and it is getting absorbed almost immediately.

But I'm not sure if anyone here cares about this interesting scientific stuff. It seems that most people here are only interested in mindlessly chanting slogans such as ....

"Dave is an idiot"

"Cutting rainforest is bad"

And so on.
That is not an answer.

The question is, HOW do plants "use" that form?

Or is that not "interesting scientific stuff"?
Hell if I know. But that's mainstream and I'm sure you could find that out anywhere. The bit about plant roots absorbing fertilizer salts in solution is old science. It's the bit about the microorganisms that's new.
Here's the thing about new science: it builds on old science. So if you barely know the old science...
25
I had hoped that this would be an interesting discussion about how micro-organisms Supply plants with nutrients. It's really interesting stuff. But instead it was yet another study in human psychology.
I did tell you that human psychology is why i was in this thread, didn't I? Made it pretty damn explicit, as I recall.