|
Post by hairball on Jan 13, 2010 3:30:35 GMT
At risk of getting further off topic, this article claims huge productivity increases from "ecological" farming techniques including integrated pest management, water conservation, growing legumes and using green fertilizer. All seems very sensible and not too CC slanted but the yield increases they quote (near the end) are pretty astounding. Not sure whether to trust it, but if it's true then these techniques need to be implemented everywhere that chemical fertilizers are unavailable. It's a bit of a long read. allafrica.com/stories/200902270229.html?viewall=1(Of course CO2 would have been increasing during their studies.)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 13, 2010 4:22:50 GMT
The soil has x amount of mineralization. If you keep taking out, without putting in, the fertility of the soil goes down.....down....to the point of very low production.
The folks who write these types of articles have never farmed and have no idea of real world issues.
That is all I will say about it as it is so very foolish. Oh ya.....already use intigrated pest management.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Jan 13, 2010 6:57:01 GMT
Very true, Sigurdur...
An ex of mine went to U of Illinois, where they have the oldest crop study in progress. Something like 100 or 125 years of farming the same plot with no fertilizers. Its amazing how poorly and weak the crops grown on that plot are compared to all the other various plots, some of which use manure, some modern fertilizers and various combinations of those and many other things.
I'd give more detail about it, but the last time I was there was over 6 years ago and I don't remember it. I'm sure someone with strong google fu could look it up.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 13, 2010 7:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 13, 2010 13:33:28 GMT
Yes, in fact. Quite a lot. I live near Miss. State U. which is one of the premier Agriculture universities in the country. msucares.com/index.html . And although USDA takes some occasional heat from farmers for political reasons, they also do quite good ag science.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 13, 2010 20:41:23 GMT
How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long... Temperature record De Bilt, yearly averages: www.knmi.nl/cms/viewimage.jsp?number=74491How much has the solar cycle been delayed? Why aren't we seeing a 1.5 C temperature drop?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 13, 2010 21:21:27 GMT
mm, there has been more questioning about Archibald's article I see now. Not very well written, but it does show some of the same questions I have. I can understand that Leif has some issues with him. I also do now. n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 13, 2010 23:04:02 GMT
How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long... Temperature record De Bilt, yearly averages: www.knmi.nl/cms/viewimage.jsp?number=74491How much has the solar cycle been delayed? Why aren't we seeing a 1.5 C temperature drop? Why would anyone expect a instant drop of 1.5c? History has taught us that there is around a decade lag between grand minimum and noticeable drop in temperatures. I would not expect the cooling to be really noticeable before at least another 5-10 years, assuming Sun is the main driver.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 13, 2010 23:39:52 GMT
How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long... Temperature record De Bilt, yearly averages: www.knmi.nl/cms/viewimage.jsp?number=74491How much has the solar cycle been delayed? Why aren't we seeing a 1.5 C temperature drop? "How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long..."Now its your turn AJ to have the 'official records' not match what you know from living in an area. I would expect that the De Bilt temperatures have been 'adjusted' as a model showed that they must be incorrect. (Steve will explain this process) Rather like the temperatures in Darwin wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/Do you still trust the reports of average global temperatures?
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 14, 2010 1:20:31 GMT
Are we still of the ancient opinion that smashing soil horizons up is a good idea? Seems like clinging onto the notion that mono cultures are a good thing for nature?
Why fight the way things are when we could just 'go with the flow'?
Maybe we need to look at our dependence on cereals/meat?
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 14, 2010 2:07:56 GMT
How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long... Temperature record De Bilt, yearly averages: www.knmi.nl/cms/viewimage.jsp?number=74491How much has the solar cycle been delayed? Why aren't we seeing a 1.5 C temperature drop? "How did he do the correlations with De Bilt (I live in De Bilt, a little less than 1 km from where they do the measurements...)? I see only very few points, so he must have averaged something... And if he did, I'm quite certain that he removed the trend, because ALL recent years are in the top 10 since 1706 (2006 and 2007 were both the warmest on record here, and the lenght of cycle 23 is rather long..."Now its your turn AJ to have the 'official records' not match what you know from living in an area. I would expect that the De Bilt temperatures have been 'adjusted' as a model showed that they must be incorrect. (Steve will explain this process) Rather like the temperatures in Darwin wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/Do you still trust the reports of average global temperatures? That was not my question, but yeah, if you don't know the answer, or if you don't like the result, you can always say that the data is unreliable... My grandfather used to talk about the winters (nearly all 1940's, 1963) when they were young (he lives near the coast, and remembers that the north sea would freeze over for as one could see), as if they were never happening again. My dad does the same (1979 (snow dunes of 6-8 m high in the northern part of the Netherlands, one of the worst snowstorms), 1986, 1987). Even I do, because 1996 and the first half of 1997 were MUCH colder than they are now (Even the largest lakes froze over, and there was an Elfstedentocht). We only have had more snow this year than in 1996 and 1997, but a negliglible amount compared to 1979, 1963 or the 1940's. I've got a substantial amount of newspapers and observations from those winters (my grandparents used to keep them). Has it warmed HERE? Yeah, certainly and substantially.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jan 14, 2010 2:23:49 GMT
Well, Graywolf, I happen to know more about our dependence on grains that I ever wanted to. Many of my mothers relatives have diabetes as a result of the "over graining" of their diet. I don't have diabetes, I have sprue. So I have spent quite some time examining "diet."
As far as I can tell, homo sap is the only hominid specifically adapted to a diet of flesh. We are primarily carnivores, not omnivores. Yah, we can eke out our diet with plant matter. But too much of that brings on digestive upsets, such as "heartburn" and acid reflux. Next comes the allergic problems, such as sprue and diabetes. Muscle mass starts to decline at a relatively early age. And so on and so forth, until rigor sets in. Often before three score and ten, instead of five score and ten.
But the diet we are best adapted for is not efficient in terms of food production per acre. That brings up the question of "is it moral to kill 94% of the Earth's population in order to keep the human population within the "carrying capacity of the range." Or as you put it, is it moral to kill 94% of humans in order to "go with the flow."
That's a hard choice. But even a smallish asteroid, hollowed out and spun for artificial gravity, would have more "range" than the entire surface of the Earth. Properly done, and given time to get the bugs out of the ecosystem, every last human could find more living space in Ceres than on Earth. And that many more, as well.
I could go on - but what I have already said will give Thoughtless Thomas gas pains. What I would say next would really set them off. So I will merely quote Stephen Hawking.
"We need to get off this planet. "
Soon.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jan 14, 2010 13:10:30 GMT
We are carnivores? Where did you get your biology from? I suggest taking a cat or dog. They both yawn a lot, so this should be easy. Take a look at their teeth, and compare them to yours. Note the difference... The other differences are buried well inside us, so less easy for us to see. I agree with your last statement. We got to get of this planet soon. I fear however that this will not happen in my lifetime .
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 14, 2010 13:46:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jan 14, 2010 14:32:51 GMT
|
|