Shocking satellite image shows Alaska’s formerly frozen Yukon Delta is completely green

Discussion in 'Science' started by Durandal, Jul 29, 2021.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Starving people don't wait for the paperwork.

    While I agree with the sentiment, I don't see evidence that things work that way.

    People didn't wait for the paperwork to escape the war in Syria.

    People aren't waiting for the paperwork to enter the US.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep making this claim while giving no excuse for it.
    More unsubstantiated nonsense.
    More totally unsubstantiated BS.
    I'm not making anything into politics.
    More unsubstantiated bs.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are proving my claim. The things you said was exactly what I was talking about.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
    Mushroom likes this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to say something that back up anything you've claimed.

    You keep making charges that you have not substantiated in any way at all.

    Or, are you just demonstrating your personal form of ad hom?
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why? You've proved my claim.
    You substantiated it
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL - you haven't even made a claim.

    All you've done is accuse me of saying stuff I certainly did not say.
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    in post 118 you said this.
    So you need to make up your mind.
    I guess someone hacked your account and was typing as though they are you. You need to go look at your post history you said exactly what I said you would say.

    You're arguing with my claim that you first pretended you didn't understand now you pretend I didn't make inconsistently by being exactly what I was talking about.

    I'm not interested in proving anything to you. I'm interested in using you to prove my point and you did exactly what I wanted you to do.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, if you want to contest something I said you are going to have to point to it and state your argument.

    I'm worried about you. You said:
    And, that's pretty confused, even just in terms of being English.
     
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL. After post after post about the realities and advantages of capitalism you are upset at lending and say it won’t work? Seriously? I believe Bangladesh has something like $15+B outstanding (loans/credits) to the World Bank (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) . Mexico has $14.9B in loans/credits from The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—remember Mexico who you claimed was “ahead” of Bangladesh? Guess who is into the World Bank for $16B? Yep, China and Brazil, the #2 and #8 ranked economies based on nominal GDP. It should be of note Brazil is the 5th largest agricultural exporter, ahead of Canada at #8. How can Brazil possibly be the fifth largest ag exporter seeing as how they have more debt to the World Bank than Bangladesh? If all progress towards food security is based on World Bank support but at the same time World Bank support can’t eliminate hunger why has China nearly done so? Your premise is not only wrong based on facts, it’s illogical.
    Yes, you can pick any country and I’ll show you they are in short supply of food based on politics and agronomics—not climate change as you and others claim. I don’t know if you are keeping up with the whole thread but follow the links in post #119 to learn why India is food insecure and why Bangladesh mirrors those same problems.
    What impacts? You destroying the Bangladesh coastline by buying shrimp? Or are you talking about impacts like polder construction in the 1960’s? Or the decreasing frequency of cyclones in the Bay of Bengal? Or the decreasing rainfall in the Ganges Delta watershed resulting in less flooding than seen decades ago? Literally everything you think you know about Bangladesh is false.
    Why can’t it? Because you say so? Why are they able to buy more every year? Are you going to stop them in the future?

    Japan paid off its last WB loan in 1990. From 1953 to the 70’s the WB was responsible for much of the industrial infrastructure buildup that allowed Japan to become what it is today, the number 4 agricultural importer on the planet and the number 6 world importer of Canadian agricultural products.

    Do you have any more unsubstantiated opinions I can debunk?
     
  10. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,276
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did in post number 118 you misunderstood my claim and then later you pretended like I didn't have one.

    You remind me of a Bible beater because you're not you're just preaching
    Then be worried I don't care.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    You assumed that I'm upset about loans.

    And, that's just plain stupid.

    Your attempts at blaming people for being hungry is another preposterous assumption.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
  12. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So all you have is unsubstantiated opinions and ad hominem. Cool.

    Quick quiz. If a person has the option to eat a food that is nutritious but makes it less nutritious intentionally before eating it, who is to blame? Climate change? LOL

    I have stated facts, not assigned blame. I’ve simply pointed out the climate change narrative on agriculture and hunger is false. Completely false. I understand that upsets folks like you. But unfortunately for you all the empirical evidence supports my position. Perhaps someday you will stop denying science, but it doesn’t look like that action is imminent.
     
  13. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell that to starving Guatemalans whose crops have failed because of increased heat and prolonged drought.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know what is most responsible for the heat and drought? Hint. It isn’t global temperature change.

    I’m sure you are aware Guatemala has lost almost 20% of its forests in the last 20 years? And over 70% of mangrove forests since 1950?

    I’m sure you are aware this isn’t the first documented case in history where deforestation decreased agricultural production in Guatemala. The indigenous demographic (Mayan) that are the most impoverished today went through this previously from approximately 800-950 AD.

    https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/Lentz.html
    You would think people would learn more from history even if they don’t understand present day ecosystems. But apparently not. But now you know the narrative you’ve been fed is greatly flawed. You are welcome.
     
    Mitt Ryan likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    World agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change.

    https://documents1.worldbank.org/cu...3/pdf/766350JRN0WBRO00Box374385B00PUBLIC0.pdf

    https://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-impact-agriculture-and-costs-adaptation

    https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/caucus/briefings/climate-change.pdf

    https://www.economist.com/internati...-change-will-alter-where-many-crops-are-grown

    https://www.economist.com/science-a...diseases-and-climate-change-interact-is-vital

    Your assumption that climate change won't be a significant negative impact on the world food supply does not comport with scientists in any related field of study.
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there is anything in that wall of links you specifically want to bring to my attention go ahead. But a bunch of links is not an argument. I skimmed one link and see they excluded CO2 fertilization in their analysis so that pretty much makes the findings moot.

    Nothing I’ve posted is “assumption”. It’s all verifiable fact. You are welcome to present evidence to the contrary, but a bunch of links that are unrelated specifically to the subject at hand are not evidence or an argument.

    I’m well aware what you are told differs from what I post. The thing is, my posts are supported by empirical evidence. Again, if you want to discuss specifics of your links I’m happy to explain them to you in the context of actual empirical evidence and practical agronomics.

    A compatriot of yours challenged me on Guatemala and as I told you earlier the country doesn’t matter. I can show you the errors in the narrative you’ve been given for any country.


    What you and others need to understand is climate change is a very minor component of agricultural productivity. Farming practices in most of these countries that are food insecure are archaic. As I’ve demonstrated conclusively, the present problems in Bangladesh and Guatemala are caused by local/regional practices in the past and present, not global climate change. If the climate was 1-3 degree C cooler and CO2 was 300 ppm these countries would be as bad off as they are now or likely worse. We are already seeing increased water use efficiency and CO2 fertilization from increased CO2 levels. When you look at food production in these countries it is increasing in most every case. Even in Guatemala in spite of deforestation. It’s no surprise the crop production index would lose acceleration with a 20% reduction in forested area. But still crop production increases—in spite of the drug trade, violence, deforestation, mudslides, coastal land degradation from loss of mangroves, decreased marine life from degradation of mangroves, etc.

    At the end of the day, global climate change is one of the most insignificant factors in food security for any nation. That’s just a fact—and you can give me any country or any link and I’ll demonstrate that fact with empirical evidence.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. Links aren't themselves an argument. You actually have to read what scientists say in those links about this topic.

    What happened here is that I cited those who study this issue.

    Biological sciences uniformly confirm that agriculture is negatively impacted by climate change.

    And, I really don't care what you claim about CO2 OR agriculture, as you are a poster, not a source of biological science.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The correct term is "seasonal". Quite often the pace of work can be 10+ hours a day for a week or more. However, as typical in agriculture there are sometimes long pauses of a week or more between sessions working. Hence, most are "migrant". Not working for even an entire season on a single farm, but moving from farm to farm, following the different crops and when they need to be planted or picked. And their week or so of downtime is often used in moving to a new location in preparation for what is needed there.

    Say after planting strawberries or lettuce in California, moving to Idaho to take part in the start of the potato season. Then moving to Oregon to do maintenance on the orchards in the Willamette Valley. Most of this work is done on a schedule, with the migrants and farmers planning it out so they can serve each other. And the farmworkers often serve the same 3 to5 farms or more for years and even decades. Then during the lowest of seasons (winter), most return home, then return in the early spring when it all starts all over again.

    As I said, I quite often chuckle reading these, as I think most have never lived in an agricultural area, or lived on a farm. Many workers would love to work "only 40 hours a week": during peak times. But because the work is based on the plants, the workload increases or decreases, based upon things outside of human control. Weather, the pace the crops grow, etc. Typically frantic in the spring and fall, maintenance in the summer, not much at all in the winter.
     
    557 likes this.
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That once again is the catch-22.

    Historically, the human method of avoiding starvation is to move. Typically move to another location where the food is available. But in the past century and a half to more, that cycle has been largely replaced.

    Not because of "borders", but today the migration instinct has been replaced by moving to cities. Also a past behavior, with the mindset of sacking the city and taking their food. Today, in going to the city because that is where all the food seems to go, and the promise of "jobs and a better life". So instead of people moving from farm to farm, they just go to the city and wait there, expecting to be given food.

    If anything, I am more and more convinced that the megacities are bad for people and the planet, because it only encourages more of this behavior. And it is funny, as because actually doing "farm work" is seen by many to be "beneath them", many now refuse to do it. Which causes a problem after 20 years because many in the cities are or are the children of farm workers.

    We saw this in the US, but machinery largely replaced the people. But this is not the case in many countries, where a lot of the work is still done by humans. In the US, the large pool of "migrant workers" largely left the farms for industrial jobs (especially during WWII) and never returned. Replaced in the 1049's by immigrant labor. But in many countries, they did the same but there were no industrial jobs to go to. SO the cities became slums of those not working and doing much else.

    The solution in many is to find a way to get people to leave those massive cities that are really deserts. Where no food is produced, and unless they can find a job they become dependent upon handouts because they can not even forage.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Simple, much of their exports can not be eaten.

    Coffee, sugar, cotton, and soybeans are major exports for them. The first three are largely cash crops, and like soybeans most can be "eaten", but themselves are not the type of thing you can live off of. Therefore, like the Southern US during the 1800s, they are dependent upon food imports because they do not grow enough food themselves.

    Many make the mistake confusing "agriculture" with "food". They are not the same thing. In India, cotton is actually a major agricultural export. India is the #4 cotton exporter in the world, but they can't eat it. The same with tea, another of their major exports. They (and China) produce and ship a lot of it internationally, but you can't eat it.

    China is still a large net-importer of food, because they can not grow enough internally to support their population. Plus as they have become an "factory nation", a lot they now bring in for processing then ship out again. Bulk cargo ships of wheat, sent to China where they then turn it into flour, pasta, and other "finished foods", then ship back out again. When buying "food" from China, the largest item that is exported is actually rice. Most other is made from ingredients that was shipped to them, and not made domestically.

    It was the same mistake they made during the "great leap forward", when the idea of being an "iron producing nation" would lift them out of poverty. Just replace that with "industrialization", and it is the same mindset.
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which is part of the catch-22 once again.

    Like most rainforests around the world, historically their weather patterns were self-created. The incredibly high density of foliage created humid conditions, which created even more rain. However, as deforestation for agriculture has taken more and more of the land, the rainforests stopped doing their job, because they are either gone, or not big enough to repeat that cycle.

    But for some reason, the response is to simply destroy even more rainforest, and expand the farming into new areas of what should be rainforest, only making the cycle worse. Add to that the unsustainable population that has exploded in the last century.
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you believe in the past 100 years there are more farms and more farmers? You believe people are starting farm businesses every day? You think that acquiring arable land with adequate water and all the supplies and equipment necessary to farm is a cake-walk for anyone? Do you think colleges are filled with students taking agricultural studies? Can you not understand farming used to be 95% while today it is like 5%? Fact; there are critical shortages of farm labor!
     
  23. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US will allow a few people into the country but things will be different if tens of thousands or millions tried to migrate here. I'm not saying the US should not help but instead saying if there's not something in place to facilitate the migrants they will have gained nothing...they will still be starving. I suspect a mass-migration into the US would also negatively effect the economy which could be financially catasthropic to all US citizen and businesses...
     
  24. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes this is the nature of most farming...
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The decision making process for those who will starve if they stay put is pretty darn easy.

    Yes, it will be seen as a major problem by any place that large numbers of people decide to go.

    The DoD points out that starving people is a cause of governments failing and violence between countries.
     

Share This Page