Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Skeptical]

Arthur

Perhaps you might give me your recipe for cultivating brazil nuts, since my information is that it cannot be done outside the mature rainforest. If you cannot, that is perhaps an indication of the quality of your other ideas on this subject.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph1.htm

While seeds can be transferred elsewhere for planting brazil nut trees, the actual pollination requires a special rain forest insect, not found outside the rainforest.

 

[Billy T]

Your one that made a whole post that talked sole about Jefferson!

One sentence, pointing out the implication of your calling those who cut down trees "ignorant." I.e. that one sentence in post 820, noted that Jefferson was being called ignorant by you for clearing forest in Virginia. One sentence ON SUBJECT.

But yes that one sentence was a "whole post," however since then you have made at least two "duck & weave" posts about Jefferson's sex relations with slaves, etc. - totally off subject, but that is what "duck & weave" posts are.

To return to subject:

I note that US (and China) who are damaging to some unknown extent the global climate with huge consumption of fossil fuels have no right to tell Brazil to totally stop cutting in the Amazon, where it is a tiny fraction that is being cut. Furthermore none would be cut if the people of US and Europe would stop buying furniture made of Mahogany and other pretty woods.

Brazil's contribution to global warming is little from power plants (~80 hydro-electric power, coal & oil less than 2%, not ~2/3 as in the US). Nor much from cars as now half use sugar cane alcohol and every gram of carbon that releases was earlier REMOVED from the air. The primary GHG Brazil releases is CH4, which comes from cows! (Their belches manily, not their farts). That too is mainly caused by foreigners (buying beef. Brazil is world's largest exporter of beef by mass, but not always by dollars).

As US is responsible for about 40 times more air pollution than Brazil, You should clean up your act before telling Brazil what to do!

 

[ElectricFetus]

One sentence, pointing out the implication of your calling those who cut down trees "ignorant." I.e. that one sentence in post 820, noted that Jefferson was being called ignorant by you for clearing forest in Virginia. One sentence ON SUBJECT.

I was talking about post #828, before you edited it of course. It consist then of only just one sentence, which was about Jefferson, now if you want to go off-topic I'm willing to man dance with you anywhere, anytime and any place, if you don't want to, whatever.

I note that US (and China) who are damaging to some unknown extent the global climate with huge consumption of fossil fuels have no right to tell Brazil to totally stop cutting in the Amazon, where it is a tiny fraction that is being cut. Furthermore none would be cut if the people of US and Europe would stop buying furniture made of Mahogany and other pretty woods.

Brazil's contribution to global warming is little from power plants (~80 hydro-electric power, coal & oil less than 2%, not ~2/3 as in the US). Nor much from cars as now half use sugar cane alcohol and every gram of carbon that releases was earlier REMOVED from the air. The primary GHG Brazil releases is CH4, which comes from cows! (Their belches manily, not their farts). That too is mainly caused by foreigners (buying beef. Brazil is world's largest exporter of beef by mass, but not always by dollars).

As US is responsible for about 40 times more air pollution than Brazil, You should clean up your act before telling Brazil what to do!

Ah the good old tu quoque fallacy: if your bad therefor I can be bad, if you murder, I can murder, I you ruin the environment therefor it alright if I can too, its been noted as invalid logic for centuries! Just because others do it or do it worse does not separate you from the real and physical consequences of your actions, for Brazil the consequences of cutting down its Rainforest will be a country with even less value then it has today, and just because the Americans or Chinese did worse won't make it any better for Brazil.

 

[adoucette]

Arthur

Perhaps you might give me your recipe for cultivating brazil nuts, since my information is that it cannot be done outside the mature rainforest. If you cannot, that is perhaps an indication of the quality of your other ideas on this subject.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ecoph1.htm

While seeds can be transferred elsewhere for planting brazil nut trees, the actual pollination requires a special rain forest insect, not found outside the rainforest.

Actually your information says it isn't done, not that it cannot be done. Apparently it requires just bees and orchids, and both can be cultivated.
According to Wiki, the only reason that it isn't done is gathering wild nuts is cheaper: Brazil nuts have been harvested from plantations but production is low and it is currently not economically viable.
So clearly since we can grow orchids and we can raise bees, Brazilians could if they wanted, cultivate Brazil nuts.

In any case, I actually trust the people of Brazil to know more about the Rain Forest (and Brazil nuts) and manage the forest than a bunch of Yankees who for the most part have never set foot in it.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

Sure it would.

I provided links to reading and evidence that it will not grow back above. Tell me how do we return the rains to grow rainforest to land that will then be so dry it can only support light grasses? Without the rainforest trees reducing albedo, giving off cloud nucleating organic particles by the megaton, the rains won't come.

More value to whom?

More value to Brazilians, Rainforest left as Rainforest is worth more then Savannah economically! The forest produce more money worth in economic products such a Brazil nuts, in hydroelectric power, eco-tourism, etc, then as cattle grounds, which is all they can ultimately be once the poor soil id depleted, not the endless sugarcane producing fields BillyT alludes too.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5032917/What-are-Rainforests-Worth

Besides Brazil has an enormous amount of rain forest, roughly 5,500,000 km² and their annual deforestation is only running about 11,000 km2 year.

We are talking about the destruction of the whole forest, now if you can accurately point out how much can be destroyed and yet will maintain Brazils wet and productive equatorial climate I'm willing to consider compromise.

I actually trust the people of Brazil to know more about the Rain Forest and manage it than a bunch of Yankees who for the most part have never set foot in it.

Yes, lets trust the people of Brazil, better yet lets trust the people of Brazil that actually live in the rain-forest, I wonder if they want to chop it all down?

 

[adoucette]

Actually your links don't support your assertions.

Nor does the rainfall record since the 50s.

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/data/brazil/

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

I was talking about post #828, ...

Yes another one sentence reply to your comments about Jefferson getting slaves pregnant.
Here that short post 828 reply sentence is:

"Read his will. As I recall it sets them all free."

It is true I have not totally ignored your off subject posts about Jefferson's sexual activities - two of them got a short one sentence reply.

 

[Billy T]

...The {Brazilian} forest produce more money worth in economic products such a Brazil nuts, in hydroelectric power, eco-tourism, etc, then as cattle grounds, which is all they can ultimately be once the poor soil id depleted, not the endless sugarcane producing fields BillyT alludes too....

Part about me is totally false - exactly the opposite of what I have often stated. I have several times explained that it is not economical feasible to raise sugar cane in the Amazon rain forest as the cane is too Bulky and of too low a value per ton to ship more than 500 miles.

I have also stated that Brazil could expanded sugar cane production several times using only the abandoned farms, like the 100 acre one I bought for $23,000 dollar as its pasture was overgrown with weeds and small bushes. It would only support five scranny cows as they walked up and down its hills looking for grass they could eat. After about $3000 in plowing and seeding it had 50 fat steers on it when I sold it, at a profit, 10 years later.

I have been careful to say "tropical sugar cane" and many times referred to clearing forest in Central America, NEVER TO CLEARING ANY FOREST IN BRAZIL for growing sugar cane.

I have explained the it is the demand for pretty wood from US and EU that is causing individual tree in the rain forest to be illegally cut and then forest burned to hid the crime.

Please retract your false claim about what I have said or alluded to.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I have been careful to say "tropical sugar cane" and many times referred to clearing forest in Central America, NEVER TO CLEARING ANY FOREST IN BRAZIL for growing sugar cane.

I have explained the it is the demand for pretty wood from US and EU that is causing individual tree in the rain forest to be illegally cut and then forest burned to hid the crime.

Please retract your false claim about what I have said or alluded to.

Hey just stating it how I saw it, in my opinion you were alluding to it, if not that your claim, I'll respect that claim, but now are you also stating that you do not want or believe it wise to cut down the Brazilian Rainforest as well, that what is appears to me your saying and I ask you to clarify before assuming

 

[Billy T]

...
Yes, lets trust the people of Brazil, better yet lets trust the people of Brazil that actually live in the rain-forest, I wonder if they want to chop it all down?

Most and nearly 100% of the indigenous peoples do not. Certainly those in state of Para where the Brazil Nuts come from don't. BTW in Brazil they are called Para nuts. Para is a small state, entirely inside the Amazon.

Nor would those who illegally catch wild animals to sell, especially parrots. Most do live in some way using the forests and "ecotourism" especially via boats traveling up the rivers is increasing; however, the people cutting down valuable individual trees, and then burning the forest to hid their crime, live there too - that is how they make much better living than most. One good tree is worth more than a year's salary at the minimum wage.

The Amazon rain forest is huge - impossible to stop this illegal cutting, caused by the US and EU's demand for pretty wood furniture. The photo in your post is only a few years old - It show how big and impossible to control the Amazon rain forest -that small tribe was not even known to exist, prior to that photo, taking from an army helicopter on patrol.

If you want to stop the cutting and burning start something like PETA. I.e. instead of throwing blood on fur coats, make deep scratches with knifes in furniture of stores selling furniture made of Brazilian wood* and tell your friends with their pretty wood furniture, they helped finance the destruction of Brazilian rain forest.

It is pointless to blame Brazil - it is doing all it can to stop the illegal cutting and subsequent burning. Last year, as it cannot be stopped by forest police, Brazil has begun to license the extraction of valuable trees in small scattered areas so forest need not be burnt afterwards. Replanting more than cut is also part of the license requirement.

----------------
* If quickly done by a dozen of so people with gloved hands to leave no finger prints on the quickly dropped knives, none can be found guilty as all can claim they were just in store shopping and did not have a knife, etc.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Actually your links don't support your assertions.

Nor does the rainfall record since the 50s.

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/data/brazil/

really? my link does not support the claim that Rain forest generate rain?

"We show that the fine submicrometer particles accounting for most cloud condensation nuclei are predominantly composed of secondary organic material formed by oxidation of gaseous biogenic precursors. Supermicrometer particles, which are relevant as ice nuclei, consist mostly of primary biological material directly released from rainforest biota. The Amazon Basin appears to be a biogeochemical reactor, in which the biosphere and atmospheric photochemistry produce nuclei for clouds and precipitation sustaining the hydrological cycle."

Also your record do show a decrease in tropical rainfall in the last few years, more so they don't account for the existing draught.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Amazon+thirst+alarming+Earth/3903904/story.html

 

[Billy T]

Hey just stating it how I saw it, in my opinion you were alluding to it, {Me suggesting cutting Brazil's rain forest to plant sugar cane}

How can you think that when here is what I have posted recently in this thread:

from post 824... If these poor people of Central America could raise an exportable crop, like alcohol for sugar cane on their own small farms, their lives would greatly improve. They would not support the communist and left wingers - farmers never do. You've got yours (forest free productive land) - they have the same right.

from post 812... On (3) I never have suggested Brazil alone could meet current* US and its own needs, which now in include large scale production of polyethylene & soon Polypropylene (or the reverse, at 20,000 tons per year, but I forget which and not sure of volume but posted it earlier.) from sugar cane. Why I speak of "tropical cane alcohol" and allowed that some forests in the tropic would need to be cleared of forest as Ohio was for the crops raised there. Note more than half of Brazil sugar cane is grown, just south of the tropics in the state of Sao Paulo, to be closer to the that big market...
----------
*At least 2/3 of the US's needs should be met by demand reduction, not increased supply. For example near 50% reduction achieved by required telecommuting for all who sit in front of computers 8 hours /day and smaller cars plus free (to user) and expanded mass transit would be first things to do.

{This footnote is an example of how the US should get its much greater pollution under control before in ignorance telling Brazil what to do.}

From post 810... Unlike bulky, low value per ton sugar cane, beef has high value per ton and can be economically shipped to markets. The closest part of the Amazon is more than 500 miles from where any alcohol distillation plants are. They are located near the major cities, more than half in the State of Sao Paulo. Simple economic keeps sugar cane from being grown on burnt rain forest land.
It is like the US's problem with hard drug production in Columbia, etc. - The demand makes the problem. Trying to stop that cutting of valuable wood or the drug production at the source location does not work. Think of the rain forest next time you buy furniture. - If you buy pretty wood, it is you who are helping to destroy the rain forest, not the users of cane alcohol in their cars....

I have never suggested cutting even one rain forest tree in Brazil to grow sugar cane because that would be stupid (due to impossibly bad economics).
Morally it can be justified in Central America where children are dying from parent's lack of jobs, frequent failed left wing revolutions against land-owning rich etc.
Planting and harvesting sugar cane provides lots of very low skill jobs, but it is a start towards a better life for those with no job now trying to exist on what the tropical forest provides.

 

[adoucette]

really? my link does not support the claim that Rain forest generate rain?

Nope.

From your link: Farmers, loggers and land speculators have destroyed nearly a fifth of the original Amazon forest,

But there is no corresponding 20% decline in rain.

In fact there is no statistical decline in rainfall at all.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Nope. From your link: Farmers, loggers and land speculators have destroyed nearly a fifth of the original Amazon forest, But there is no corresponding 20% decline in rain. In fact there is no statistical decline in rainfall at all. Arthur

I think that is correct, but Brazil has a more extreme case. The Atlantic coastal rain forest is nearly 100% gone. Brazil is named after a tree* that was common there, and easy to haul down hill 400+ years ago to waiting ships. That tree was both good wood for many uses and also provided a reddish purple dye used in royal robes etc. It was Brazil's first export. It is now being replanted but essentially no mature ones exist and 500 years ago they dominated the Atlantic rain forest.

Today it often is raining there when ever the wind blows from the sea to the land as it frequently does. Reason is simple physic: Central and Southern Brazil is a steeply rising from the sea land and then slowly sinking to the west - why most of the rivers in central and southern Brazil flow west before eventually returning to the sea. As the sea breezes climb up those coastal mountains they cool to the point of water vapor saturation, so it rains where there was once, but no more a native brazilwood rain forest.
---------------
* "Brazil" is the place where brazilwood (note no initial capital) came from.

"... In the 15th and 16th centuries, brazilwood was highly valued in Europe and quite difficult to get. Coming from Asia, it was traded in powder form and used as a red dye in the manufacture of luxury textiles, such as velvet, in high demand during the Renaissance. When Portuguese navigators discovered present-day Brazil, on April 22, 1500, they immediately saw that brazilwood was extremely abundant along the coast and in its hinterland, along the rivers. In a few years, a hectic and very profitable operation for felling and transporting by shipping all the brazilwood logs they could get was established, as a crown-granted Portuguese monopoly. The rich commerce which soon followed stimulated other nations to try to harvest and smuggle brazilwood contraband out of Brazil, or even corsairs attacking loaded Portuguese ships in order to steal their cargo. For example, the unsuccessful attempt of a French expedition led by Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon, vice-admiral of Brittany and corsair under the King, in 1555, to establish a colony in present-day Rio de Janeiro (France Antarctique) was motivated in part by the bounty generated by economic exploitation of brazilwood. ..." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesalpinia_echinata

 

[ElectricFetus]

Nope.

From your link: Farmers, loggers and land speculators have destroyed nearly a fifth of the original Amazon forest,

But there is no corresponding 20% decline in rain.

Of course not! What in the world would make you assume these even work by a 1:1? In fact sporadic losses could increase rainfall by roughing the topography of the terrain.

Today it often is raining there when ever the wind blows from the sea to the land as it frequently does. Reason is simple physic: Central and Southern Brazil is a steeply rising from the sea land and then slowly sinking to the west - why most of the rivers in central and southern Brazil flow west before eventually returning to the sea. As the sea breezes climb up those coastal mountains they cool to the point of water vapor saturation, so it rains where there was once, but no more a native brazilwood rain forest.

And this scenario will apply to the whole of the amazon?

 

[ElectricFetus]

How can you think that when here is what I have posted recently in this thread:

Gee in Post #824 you talk about them getting farms, on what land pray tell were you implying they would get these farms?

{This footnote is an example of how the US should get its much greater pollution under control before in ignorance telling Brazil what to do.}

Again with the Tu Quoque, please, try to utilize proper argument formats and not fallacies, its embarrassing to see your lack of logical sense.

I have never suggested cutting even one rain forest tree in Brazil to grow sugar cane because that would be stupid (due to impossibly bad economics).
Morally it can be justified in Central America where children are dying from parent's lack of jobs, frequent failed left wing revolutions against land-owning rich etc.
Planting and harvesting sugar cane provides lots of very low skill jobs, but it is a start towards a better life for those with no job now trying to exist on what the tropical forest provides.

Or they could get factors build off the funding of foreign environmentalist and get better paying jobs, just one of many other options!

 

[adoucette]

Of course not! What in the world would make you assume these even work by a 1:1? In fact sporadic losses could increase rainfall by roughing the topography of the terrain.

You're right there is no 20% loss = 20% less rain.
Indeed, there is no indication of less rain at all, ie. 20% loss = 0% less rain.
The 50s were far dryer back when there was much more rain forest.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

You're right there is no 20% loss = 20% less rain.
Indeed, there is no indication of less rain at all, ie. 20% loss = 0% less rain.
The 50s were far dryer back when there was much more rain forest.

Right, but that does not mean 100% loss of rain forest will equal no loss in rain fall, the effects are not even linear, and the reports point to a sigmoidal like model, where a tipping point exists once enough forest is gone to cause appreciable rainloss the cycle feeds back to kill off more forest.

The 50s were far dryer back when there was much more rain forest.

Simply because the climate is variable and affected by many many factors.

 

[adoucette]

Right, but that does not mean 100% loss of rain forest will equal no loss in rain fall, the effects are not even linear, and the reports point to a sigmoidal like model, where a tipping point exists once enough forest is gone to cause appreciable rainloss the cycle feeds back to kill off more forest.



Simply because the climate is variable and affected by many many factors.

Well first of all, no one is talking about 100% loss of the rain forest.

Secondly, there is no indication that there is any correlation to decrease in rain forest and an associated decrease in rainfall, hence no indication of any feedback at all.

And yes, there are a LOT of factors that determine the rainfall, and yet if there was a correlation to decreasing rain forest and decreasing rain, even with all the other factors, we would most likely have seen it by now.

We haven't

Arthur

 

[Stoniphi]

...We haven't ..

Uh...I think that somebody has sometime. That is why we call it a "rain forest".