Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Apr 6, 2022.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The issues I pointed to have to do with economics and Somalia - NOT Somaliland.

    Today, Somaliland is a de facto country with elected leadership, peaceful transfers of power, a working banking system, respected borders (other than the narrow strip between Somalia and Somaliland) and the rest of the requirements that the UNSC calls for in examining prospective countries.

    The problem with recognition of this de facto country is that there are too many countries that consider such a move as being destabilizing. They believe it would energize other separatist movements. Plus, its peaceful nature means that it's not at the top of the list of problems that need resolution.


    I was clear about pointing to Somalia, not Somaliland.

    If you want to bring up security issues, that would need to focus on Somalia and al Shabab, not Somaliland.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure you were.:roll:
    I don't think you knew one from the other until I told you.
    Let's try another one: What do you know about Puntland?
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you are just trying to deflect from what I originally said about Somalia, which I presented as an example.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Case in point, survive. Tell me, have you actually read the book and not just seen the movie? Because they left a hell of a lot out of the movie.

    Actually, that was well covered in the book, but skipped over in the movie. All that did was let him stretch his actual food rations, as there were enough left for a crew of 6 for 3-4 months each. He literally went on a starvation diet, having to survive on tiny portions of the ration meals, a quarter of a potato a day, and going through a huge amount of diet supplements. He was constantly suffering lethargy from the starvation level diet, and dropped around 100 pounds before he was rescued.

    So you see, he was never expected to "live off of" the potatoes he was growing. That was only to allow him to extend the use of rations. So your very claim is dead wrong.

    And his plan was to be growing 4 crops of them a year, as in a greenhouse a potato can grow to maturity in 3 months. And saving 1/4 of his crop when harvested for replanting. Yes, it was accurate, but the big point is that even in the novel that was never the only source of food. They were only in the first week of their mission, so he had enough food to keep him alive for another year even without them. But he had to make what food he had stretch for four years, as that was when the next mission was scheduled to arrive.

    Oh, and the images of Matt Damon in the end? That was done digitally. Unlike in a slightly similar Tom Hanks movie from Cast Away, as he really did that weight gain then loss in real life. Putting on about 50 pounds before the movie started shooting, then after the opening sequences were done they took a year break from filming so he could grow his hair and beard, and drop almost 100 pounds from his weight at the start of filming. But that diet in the book also had the astronaut lose over 100 pounds, as it really was a very unhealthy diet that likely would have killed most who had tried it. And I want to say that towards the end he even had tooth loss in the book because of the poor diet.

    I can't believe that you are using a fictional movie as proof of your claim. First of all, it was a movie. And secondly, apparently you did not actually read the book because as typical in movies they left off a hell of a lot. Like how he electrocuted Pathfinder and had no communications during the drive to the second craft. Or almost dying in a weeks long sandstorm that NASA was not able to warn him about (skipped completely in the movie), or rolling over his vehicle as he is almost to the launch site (once again skipped over).

    Oh, and there was no "Iron Man" stunt in the book. The EVA pilot simply went out and got him with the MMU, there was none of the dramatics of the Captain herself taking off like in the film.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,374
    Likes Received:
    17,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. I'm just exposing your lack of knowledge.
     
  6. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was referring to the book, which I read before I saw the movie.
    Right. The point is that a very small area of land planted in potatoes was going to be enough to provide most of his food, and enable him to survive.
    That is baldly false.
    I never said it was -- though before the famine, Irish peasants were surviving on essentially nothing but potatoes (they had to eat a lot more of them to supply certain nutrients).
    Bingo. The potatoes provided enough nutrition to provide most of his nutrition, and turn one year worth of food into four years.
    You seem to remember a lot of details. But you have not mentioned the crucial one: HOW MUCH LAND was going to be enough to provide 3/4 of his food for four years?
    Because I wasn't. It's just to illustrate how little land is needed to feed a person when it is cultivated intensively in the most productive crops.
    What on earth -- or Mars, for that matter -- does any of that have to do with the yield of potatoes? I did read the book, and nothing I said contradicts it.
    So? I said nothing about any of that. You just falsely attributed claims to me that I did not make.
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A hell of a lot more than he had available to him.

    Yes, he had potatoes. And if that had been his only source of food, he would have died. The potatoes supplemented his dietary supplements and the rations he had. They did not replace it.

    Oh, and you are wrong about the diet of Ireland. They were not "surviving on essentially nothing but potatoes", they never had.

    The potato grew in use because it was a bulk food, that had a lot of volume as a staple in much the same way as rice had in Asian cultures. Yes, almost all Asian cultures eat a lot of rice, but along with other things with real nutrient value like vegetables, meats, etc. Even somebody from China or Japan will die if their diet is nothing but rice. Even Japanese "Survival Rations" of WWII were a mix of rice and barley with dried meat with a bean paste binding agent.

    The main nutrient diet of Ireland was grain, dairy (including eggs), and foul. That made up maybe 15% of the "food", but 80% of the nutrients of their diet. But cut out the bulk of the potatoes, and that was not enough to live. A proper diet needs to have nutritious elements. But it also has to have sufficient bulk for proper digestion and passing of them through the body. That is why a diet completely of pills can not work, the body needs more volume to pass through the tract to absorb them. A diet consumable by only pills is actually scientifically possible. But any bodies would largely reject it, as it lacks the bulk for the body to digest. That is why even supplements are normally so grossly over the daily amount needed. Adults need from 75-90 mg a day of Vitamin C. Most supplements are from 500-1,000 mg, because of the inefficiency of the body to actually "digest" them in that form. They know 80% or more will pass through the tract undigested.

    In developed countries this is not much of an issue, we have sufficient food available so we can eat nothing but "good stuff" and get by. But when you get to developing and more impoverished nations, the "extras" that we have in our diets like rice and potatoes increase in the percentage of the diet. From 20-25% like in a US diet to 80% or more. But like rice, they are really not very nutritious, only serving as the flour in bread to pass the rest along to the digestive tract.

    So once again, 3/4 of his food, only by volume. Not by nutritional value. That 25% that he did not grow is what he had to have to survive. None of which he could have provided for himself.

    But tell you what. I have some land in Idaho. I will even set you out a 1 acre plot and let you set up your own farm and live off of only potatoes. Don't want to farm? I can probably start up a "Go Fund Me" to provide you for 4 years a diet of only potatoes and nothing else.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. That was the point. He did have enough area under greenhouse cultivation to provide 3/4 of his food.

    You seem to have detailed knowledge of the book, and I don't have my copy handy. How much land was it?
    They were 3/4 of it.
    I said the peasants, not the whole population. Obviously richer people had better diets.
    Irrelevant. Potatoes provide not only calories but high-quality protein, vitamins, etc. The main nutrients they don't provide are B12 and essential fatty acids..
    Garbage. That 15% was being consumed by the wealthiest 5% of the population, and the peasants saw almost none of it. They lived on potatoes.
    Nonsense.
    Wrong. Most of his calories and protein would have come from potatoes.
    <yawn> You have a lot of irrelevant things to say. But the relevant ones are all wrong.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I followed back quite a ways, and I really don't see what your overall point is here.

    Are you trying to set a new low bar for how horrible an existence has to be before the wealthy really need to offer aid?
     
  10. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea structural greenhouses are the answer to food production in a thread opposed to greenhouse effects on the entire planet really trends towards the ironic….
     
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point was that we are not close to the earth's carrying capacity in terms of food production.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In volume, not nutritional value.

    I am done with this. Apparently you believe that people can survive on a diet consisting only of potatoes.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. The potatoes were to provide most of the calories and protein.
    I have stated the fact that people have actually done so, except for the addition of very small amounts -- i.e., low single-digit percentages -- of foods with necessary nutrients that potatoes don't provide, like salt, vitamin B12, and essential fatty acids.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was deliberate: warmth and CO2 are favorable for plant growth.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And where are you going to set up 150,000 square miles of greenhouses? And BTW, that is only for a single crop in the US, not even close to all of them.

    Then where are you going to get the raw materials to build them? Are you even aware of how much raw materials that would take? And the cost in resources to make them?

    Not to mention the harm to the ecosystem. Our crops are in a symbiotic relationship with nature, specifically the birds and insects that rely upon them for food, and that the plants rely upon for pollination. Congratulations, you have just wiped out a large number of insects ranging from bees and ladybugs to a hell of a lot of others. As well as humming birds and others that rely upon plant nectar.

    Why is it that so many think they can tame and "industrialize" nature? I read things like this and not only see the outstandingly stupid the idea is, but also how it would harm the balance in an area. Because you are literally talking about building a greenhouse the size of California here. And that would only give you enough area to replace the corn crop and nothing else. Because in the US, over 915 million acres are used for agriculture. That is almost 1.4 million square miles.

    That is enough greenhouse to cover all of Alaska, Texas, California, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, and a huge chunk of Nevada.

    Once again, there is a reason why greenhouses are used for low volume and high value products. And not bulk products.

    So tell me Mr. Arrogant, what would be the effect on the entire planet of a greenhouse that covers more than 6 states? And what will it take to produce what is needed to build it?
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you seem to believe that is all that a person needs.

    I give up, John Snow.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Food is not an issue that can be discussed purely in terms of Earth's total agricultural capacity and population.

    As it turns out, agriculture is a capitalist enterprise, and product doesn't get distributed on the basis of need or average product per human, or whatever.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those are the bulk nutrients.
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a different topic.
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wherever there are people who want food to eat. But I don't propose to do it myself.
    You are not paying attention. I have already explained that greenhouses are most appropriate for high-density crops like potatoes, yams and bananas, which they can produce in far larger quantities per unit area than open-field agriculture. 150Kmi^2 would be enough greenhouses to feed billions of people.
    I suggest you consider how much raw materials and resources are currently devoted to making cars, building houses, stores, office buildings, etc.
    I am unable to take such arrant nonscience seriously.
    Silliness beneath response. A greenhouse has very little effect on the surrounding countryside. See the greenhouse operations in places like South Korea and Hong Kong.
    Because such efforts have a highly successful track record.
    <yawn> Change =/= harm.
    Most corn in the USA is fed to animals. That is a very wasteful system.
    And it is not used very efficiently in terms of feeding people.
    No, because that's the current farmed area, not the equivalent greenhouse area.
    Because in the USA, there is lots of good farmland available for open field agriculture, which is usually cheaper. But that is changing as greenhouse technology improves.
    Nothing very significant, even if you were correct about the size, which you are not.
    The desire to eat.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2022
  21. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, warmth and CO2 are certainly favorable for plant growth. I wish the climate alarmists were able to accept those facts. Unfortunately they likely never will.
     
  22. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL!

    When have I even hinted at building massive greenhouses? I simply pointed out the irony of the discussion on greenhouses.

    As someone who produces your food, I am quite pleased with the current trends in climate that allow me to be more efficient and productive overall. Leveraging increasing atmospheric CO2 and absolute humidity has allowed my region of the planet to substantially increase crop production while increasing precipitation up to 30+% in some areas and decreasing summer high temps by 1°C.

    Greenhouses on a massive scale would have value in a cooling climate perhaps, but with today’s and tomorrow’s climate there are much better ways to invest in agriculture. We don’t need greenhouses, we need to leverage the blessings of more carbon in the system.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2022
  23. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Plants are my thing. Right now I am growing Hydrangeas and creeping phlox. But anyway, agriculture systems like farms and ranches have taken 50 to a 100 years to become established and can't simply move to a better location.
     
  24. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Greenhouses on a massive scale make no sense to me. I am growing Hydrangeas under LED lights because a greenhouse needs to be cooled as well as heated. This takes energy. And energy costs money.
     
    Mushroom and 557 like this.
  25. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have potatoes in pots. They are outside now and the weather is good for them. If I get a frost I will set them in the hydrangea shed for the night and set them out when it warms up during the day. Just my experiment.
     

Share This Page