Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Billy T]

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

Not in Brazil, but their own Central American country as explicitly stated:

post 824 ...
Except for farms developed by united fruit (mainly bananas), there are very few "existing farms" to be improved, made more efficient, in [/b]Central American[/b] countries. Most of the land is owned by a few. Why there are left-wing revolutions, ...
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.

If your concern is that they don't own the land, that is valid. So long as they are landless peasnts, it is easy for US firms like United Fruit to exploit them to give you cheap bananas, etc. (Basically why the US supplies the arms and water cannons to put down the protests about land ownership being so concentrated in the hands of a few.)

Your suggestion that factories would be a better alternative than farms for giving the peasants a better life style is true, but only for the distant future, as they lack the skills to work in factories. You need to be realistic if you want to help them.

For example, Brazil has great supply of almost everything it needs, except skilled workers and Brazil is far more advance than any Central American Country. In today's newspaper there is a special section on the change in Brazil during Lula's eight years as President. One thing is a reducion in the illiteracy rate from 11.6% to 9.7%. In some (if not most) Central American Countries it is above 50% who can not read. Changing this will to Brazil's rate with require several decades, probably more than three.

Lula focused a great deal of money and effort for about a decade on improving literacy. It was a requirement of he "bolsa familia" program that the rural poor collecting funds each month under it keep their kids in school until age 18. Normally, before Bolsa Familia they were working in the fields along side their father (or mother in house duties) by age 10 or before instead of going to school.

Lula, himself never graduated from elementary school. - He has no school diploma. There is a paper certificate certifying the election of Brazil's President, given to the newly elected president. When Lula got it he said: "Ah, my first diploma, but it is the best one as granted by the people of Brazil." Sort of a tacit admission that the public schools in Brazil are terrible and their diplomas mean essentially nothing.

You may not be impressed by the small literacy improvement made in Lula's eight years (unless you understand that it will take three decades or more before the people in many Central American countries can work in factories); But today's paper in the Lula section noted with some irony that the greatest improvement of literacy in Brazil history was made by one whose parents are illiterate and who could barely read when he left school.

Lula left office with an 83% approval rating, 13% thought he was just average president and only 4% thought he had been a poor president. I think no US president has ever come even close to that! He is more to be admired IMHO than Abe Lincoln, whose step mother could read and taught Abe to. Lula is the epitome of a self made man, a very gifted orator, etc. He got his first pair of shoes (used already, not new) at age 12!

My main faults with him are two. He did not use his great political power* to reduce corruption in Brazil - if any think he added to it, especially with a program with regular payments monthly to many congress men to vote laws Lula's party wanted and grew the government worker's pay roles to more than 5% of GDP.
------
*He effectively selected the new Lady President who never had been elected to any office before. Many voters would have voted for a horse if Lula told them to and he campaigned hard every day for her. If she were good looking, I would suspect some sex arrangement had been made, but Lula is happily married and she is not physically very attractive.

 

[ElectricFetus]

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

Well we are talking about losing more Forrest, we don't know how much more can be lost without all of it going.

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.

This is limited logic, we have the rain production mechanism down, we have examples of other areas losing forest also losing rainfall , we have examples of actual savannah lands produces once the rain forest is gone, that even with unaffected rainfall these lands can't retain water and can't support more then grasses and degraded forest prone to fire.

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.

Incorrect, minor loss of forest can in fact compensate because the topography becomes rougher with cleared fields in the forest and this decreases wind speed and increase moisture capturing, and surrounding Forrest can still absorb the water that flows through the cleared field.

 

[Billy T]

... This is limited logic, we have the rain production mechanism down, we have examples of other areas losing forest also losing rainfall , we have examples of actual savannah lands produces once the rain forest is gone, that even with unaffected rainfall these lands can't retain water and can't support more then grasses and degraded forest prone to fire. ...

If his logic to be questioned, I think you too are on shaky grounds, perhaps reversing cause and effect. The Sahara desert was once a forest, but climate changed, rain fall decreased to make it. There is some support for the idea that man helped too - I.e. excessively introduced goats who ate the new tree shoots. Those black goats are now nearly gone too - only a few still exist with the Bedouins.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Not in Brazil, but their own Central American country as explicitly stated:

Oh, and pray tell what land were they build their farms on?

Your suggestion that factories would be a better alternative than farms for giving the peasants a better life style is true, but only for the distant future, as they lack the skills to work in factories. You need to be realistic if you want to help them.

Please it does not require much skill to run a sweetshop, they get children to do it even! I am being realist these things take time, generation in fact, there is no quick solution.

For example, Brazil has great supply of almost everything it needs, except skilled workers and Brazil is far more advance than any Central American Country. In today's newspaper there is a special section on the change in Brazil during Lula's eight years as President. One thing is a reducion in the illiteracy rate from 11.6% to 9.7%. In some (if not most) Central American Countries it is above 50% who can not read. Changing this will to Brazil's rate with require several decades, probably more than three.

Lula focused a great deal of money and effort for about a decade on improving literacy. It was a requirement of he "bolsa familia" program that the rural poor collecting funds each month under it keep their kids in school until age 18. Normally, before Bolsa Familia they were working in the fields along side their father (or mother in house duties) by age 10 or before instead of going to school.

Lula, himself never graduated from elementary school. - He has no school diploma. There is a paper certificate certifying the election of Brazil's President, given to the newly elected president. When Lula got it he said: "Ah, my first diploma, but it is the best one as granted by the people of Brazil." Sort of a tacit admission that the public schools in Brazil are terrible and their diplomas mean essentially nothing.

You may not be impressed by the small literacy improvement made in Lula's eight years (unless you understand that it will take three decades or more before the people in many Central American countries can work in factories); But today's paper in the Lula section noted with some irony that the greatest improvement of literacy in Brazil history was made by one whose parents are illiterate and who could barely read when he left school.

Lula left office with an 83% approval rating, 13% thought he was just average president and only 4% thought he had been a poor president. I think no US president has ever come even close to that! He is more to be admired IMHO than Abe Lincoln, whose step mother could read and taught Abe to. Lula is the epitome of a self made man, a very gifted orator, etc. He got his first pair of shoes (used already, not new) at age 12!

My main faults with him are two. He did not use his great political power* to reduce corruption in Brazil - if any think he added to it, especially with a program with regular payments monthly to many congress men to vote laws Lula's party wanted and grew the government worker's pay roles to more than 5% of GDP.
------
*He effectively selected the new Lady President who never had been elected to any office before. Many voters would have voted for a horse if Lula told them to and he campaigned hard every day for her. If she were good looking, I would suspect some sex arrangement had been made, but Lula is happily married and she is not.

TL'DR! What exactly does all this have to do with deforestation?

If logic is to be question, I think you are on shaky grounds, perhaps reversing cause and effect. The Sahara desert was once a forest, but climate changed, rain fall decreased to make it. There is some support for the idea that man helped too - I.e. excessivle introduced goats who ate the new tree shoots. Those black goats are now nearly gone too - only a few still exist with the Bedouins.

Well certainly external climate will also reduce the rain forest, but I'm not saying present rain losses are directly cause by deforestation, I'm saying that more deforestation can cause rain loss, this is irrelevant to your reverse cause and effect argument: to disprove me you most provide evidence that the rain forest does not produce rain or that another mechanism covers for its loss, if external mechanism cause rain loss anyways is irrelevant as it neither proves nor disproves my argument.

 

[Billy T]

... Please it does not require much skill to run a sweetshop, ...

I guess I misunderstood when you said that working in factories would be better than on their own farms. You seem to be wanting to extend the exploitation United Fruit etc. makes into sweet shop production. I thought you were suggesting factory jobs that pay better as the workers have some skills.

That is why I told of the critical role of eduction and used Brazil as an example of how long it takes to even get a population literate. Illiterate people are better off on their own farms than working a factory which pays them what they are worth (Not much if they can't even read.)

 

[Billy T]

Oh, and pray tell what land were they build their farms on? ... TL'DR! What exactly does all this have to do with deforestation?

To answer your first question, although it should have been obvious: On some of the now forested land of Central America. I think that much of it is owned by the state, if by any one.

To answer your second question:

As stated in post 865, I was using Brazil's lack of skilled workers and what has been done to change that and how long it takes to show that some deforestation to get land for these farmers is needed, not send them to sweet shops with lower income than they can make on their farm. I even agreed with you that eventually (three decades) factory work could provide higher incomes; said that becoming farmers is a first step, now feasible, but using machinery, even a simple lathe, is not now feasible for illiterate people. The US population was farmers first too before going to factory work. That transition is now happening in China - it is the only way, historically, that it is feasible starting with an illiterate population.

Why I said you were not being realistic - did not understand the problem, etc. with your "they should work in factories, not clear forest and farm ideas." It has never been done that way, and can't be, with an illiterate population.

 

[adoucette]

This is limited logic, we have the rain production mechanism down, we have examples of other areas losing forest also losing rainfall , we have examples of actual savannah lands produces once the rain forest is gone, that even with unaffected rainfall these lands can't retain water and can't support more then grasses and degraded forest prone to fire.

Really: Takata makes it clear that their findings do not view rainfall as inherently connected to forests. When asked whether or not rainfall is an 'ecosystem service' of forests, Takata replied in the negative.

Arthur

 

[Billy T]

Really: Takata makes it clear that their findings do not view rainfall as inherently connected to forests. When asked whether or not rainfall is an 'ecosystem service' of forests, Takata replied in the negative. Arthur

I have not read this reference or most of Electric's either. As a Physicist I know that rain fall requires that the relative humidity must reach 100% and when it does, you get some form of "rain" (including fog etc.).

The argument that you need forest released particles to nucleate rain is nonsense. It is very difficult to super cool even a few cubic meters of water vapor in even a hyper clean lab by only 0.5 C because there are always tiny particles in normal air which do that.

 

[ElectricFetus]

To answer your first question, although it should have been obvious: On some of the now forested land of Central America. I think that much of it is owned by the state, if by any one.

Well, gee then we are back to my argument about not cutting down the forest, aren't we?

As stated in post 865, I was using Brazil's lack of skilled workers and what has been done to change that and how long it takes to show that some deforestation to get land for these farmers is needed.

No, you have not show why it is "needed".

, not send them to sweet shops with lower income than they can make on their farm.

Actually they would make more money even on a sweetshop, take china for example were the peasantry usually do have farms, yet they still run off to work for very very low wages in factories instead, why, because that still make more then on the farm.

I even agreed with you that eventually (three decades) factory work could provide higher incomes; said that becoming farmers is a first step, now feasible,

Technically many of these people are, I've been out into the forest of Venezuelan and the people are out there growing bananas and raising pigs, so they were farming.

but using machinery, even a simple lathe, is not now feasible for illiterate people.

Aside for the fact I've seen the illiterate do more than that, I'll ask the logic of it: what does reading have to do with operating a lathe?

The US population was farmers first too before going to factory work.

The USA was also enslaving, and very much raised its self to power on the backs of slaves, does that mean South America needs slaves? Maybe models in other places and times aren't viable for latin America today, hum?

That transition is now happening in China - it is the only way, historically, that it is feasible starting with an illiterate population.

Aaah "historically" but today is different times, times when one can get outside funding to build up infrastructure and economy simply by preserving rain forest rather then by destroying it, times when manufacturing is far more lucrative then agriculture, times when global concerns are warranted from the global affects of all of us.

I have not read this reference or most of Electric's either. As a Physicist I know that rain fall requires that the relative humidity must reach 100% and when it does, you get some form of "rain" (including fog etc.).

The argument that you need forest released particles to nucleate rain is nonsense. It is very difficult to super cool even a few cubic meters of water vapor in even a hyper clean lab by only 0.5 C because there are always tiny particles in normal air which do that.

So are you saying that biogenic organic particles can't nucleate clouds and increase precipitation? I want you to clarify so that you won't wiggle out of it later.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Really: Takata makes it clear that their findings do not view rainfall as inherently connected to forests. When asked whether or not rainfall is an 'ecosystem service' of forests, Takata replied in the negative.

and then says:

"Precipitation is one of the most complicated (high-order) processes, i.e., there are many factors that brings rainfall. In this case, forests… bring much rain, but it is not common," Takata said."

Now I never said rain fall was connect to ALL forest, just rainforest, more specifically just the rainforest of equatorial south america, certainly an uncommon and unique place.

 

[adoucette]

And yet you've shown no evidence that rainfall patterns in the Amazon are related to the amount of Forest still standing.

Indeed, there apprears to be NO correlation, like Takata found in Asia.

So it's not that land use couldn't be associated with rainfall, only that you have not proved your assertion in any way.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

And yet you've shown no evidence that rainfall patterns in the Amazon are related to the amount of Forest still standing.

Don't need to.

Indeed, there apprears to be NO correlation, like Takata found in Asia.

Incorrect, Takata found such correlation, was the bases of their paper and even explained mechanism for how it worked, Takata was merely saying in the end that it can't be applied to every forest.

So it's not that land use couldn't be associated with rainfall, only that you have not proved your assertion in any way.

Aside for research articles show that the mechanism exist of course, and that deforestation caused reduce rainfall in some places, etc.

 

[Skeptical]

The relationship between forest cover and rainfall is well established science.
Here is a reference showing that, in tropical South America, forest cover is correlated to rainfall days.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/04-1675?journalCode=ecap

There are several possible mechanisms for this.
For example :
1. more trees mean increased transpiration, which maintains a higher level of water vapour in the atmosphere, and more rain further inland. Without that increased transpiration, more of that water sinks into the soil and aquefers or runs off in rivers etc., rather than contributing to more rain.

2. Forest changes albedo. Darker forest means more infra red absorbed and land warming. This causes hot air to rise, drawing in more air from further out. Since the further out air, much of the time, comes from the ocean, more water is transported inland to be lost as rain.

 

[Billy T]

... what does reading have to do with operating a lathe?

Not much if you are repetitively turning out the same part, day after day, but humans are not economically competitive with programmed machines in doing that. A competitive lathe operator needs to be able to read the job's unique work request, make the part and more on to the next job work order....

... So are you saying that biogenic organic particles can't nucleate clouds and increase precipitation? I want you to clarify so that you won't wiggle out of it later.

No I am not saying that. I don't wiggle out of statements I have made, but do often point out you are falsely putting words in my mouth as you are trying to do here.

Certainly biogenic organic particles can nucleate clouds; but they are not required as there are many more aerosols (tiny particles) not from forest already exist in the air. In fact the air richest in such particles comes from areas where there are no forest, like a desert.

Some times the air off the desert is so thick with air born particles of sand size and smaller aerosols that visibility is reduced to a few meters - that never happens if the air is from a forest, not even in the "Smoky Mountains" which are exceptional rich in pine-oil forest aerosols - the name comes for these pine tree aerosols.

 

[Billy T]

... more trees mean increased transpiration, which maintains a higher level of water vapour in the atmosphere, and more rain further inland. Without that increased transpiration, more of that water sinks into the soil and aquefers or runs off in rivers etc., rather than contributing to more rain.

All true, but not a source of more net transport of H2O from air to soil. I.e. some of the rain that fell will be transpired back into the air to fall again, and again, etc. New H2O usually comes from the ocean evaporation. The forest does help keep the average humidity at ground level higher, which is essential for some plants, like orchids, which do not have roots going down to ground water.

 

[adoucette]

The relationship between forest cover and rainfall is well established science.

Actually: Although models often support this view, this is not universally the case, and empirical evidence is scarce.

Here is a reference showing that, in tropical South America, forest cover is correlated to rainfall days.

However: We do not find a strong relationship between forest cover and total rainfall, which appears to be influenced primarily by factors such as distance to the coast

Arthur

 

[Skeptical]

Billy

What you said is true, but nevertheless, this mechanism increases useable water for plants. The water that flows back to the sea, or is stored in aquefers, until it, too, makes its way back to the sea, is not useable. Thus more forest cover means more water for plant growth, and a reduction in desertification.

 

[Billy T]

... The water that flows back to the sea, or is stored in aquefers, until it, too, makes its way back to the sea, is not useable. Thus more forest cover means more water for plant growth, and a reduction in desertification.

Certainly H2O that rivers have returned to the sea will be a long time stored there before it falls as rain on land again; but unless the aquefer is below an impermable layer, it can and probably will help keep the near surface soil moist by capillary action.

Also I had to leave house so did not earlier comment on 2 from post 873 where your said: "Forest changes albedo. Darker forest means more infra red absorbed and land warming. This causes hot air to rise, drawing in more air from further out. Since the further out air, much of the time, comes from the ocean, more water is transported inland to be lost as rain." so comment now:

I doubt that the land is warmer than if the sun were shining directly on it, but you did not mean what you said literally so yes the near surface air will be more heated by the lower albedo of the forest. This will usually not make the air between the tree warmer, but is the heat that promotes the transpiration of H2O from the leaves . Surely you have experience this cooler air in the forest (and this is not just from the higher humidity as that actually reduces your body's ability to feel cool). Thus I don't think there is much effect of the nature you describe about lower forest albedo making air rise above the forest.

In fact the main effect of a forest on air movement is to reduce the lateral speed of the winds (by friction with the trees). Trees are often planted in a line along crop fields for this very reason as "wind breaks." - Some times to reduce wind driven soil erosion, but more often, I think, just to protect the crop from wind damage.

When one considers that the new H2O comes from ocean evaporation carried by the wind inland great distances in some cases (as discussed in my reply to your point 1) the net effect of the forest (despite it lower forest albedo) can be to REDUCE the new rain* that falls, not increase it and certainly not to bring new water to the forest area. What really makes rain is topography and ocean proximity like I discussed earlier in post 654 with the no longer existing Atlantic Coastal rain forest of Brazil. I.e. a breeze from the sea, which must climb up a steep coastal mountain chain, which is parallel to the coast, is a sure guarantee of lots of rain regardless of the surface vegetation.

* As opposed to the "recycled H2O rain" leaf transpiration promotes.

 

[Skeptical]

Billy

I wish I had kept the reference, but we are always wise in hind sight. There was an article in New Scientist on exactly this topic, and it is there I learned of those two mechanisms by which forest increases rainfall. According to the article, these two mechanisms are not just theory, but have been the subject of research which includes sich things as measuring increased albedo, and changes in air movement.

Arthur

Your comments make it clear that you actually read the abstract from my reference. Well done! Lots of posters do not bother.

Rainfall days are, in fact, more important than total rainfall. The reason is that smaller levels of rainfall over a longe period are more useful for plant growth than larger dumps of rainfall in a short period. Those large dumps are common in tropical monsoon climates, and lead to excess flow of water over land, and down rivers. Hence, floods, landslips etc.

More rainfall days means more water penetrating the soil to a level where plants can use it, and less water wasted.

 

[Billy T]

Billy I wish I had kept the reference, but we are always wise in hind sight. There was an article in New Scientist on exactly this topic, and it is there I learned of those two mechanisms by which forest increases rainfall.

Yes I agree that there is more rain fall, but it mainly the same water, not new H2O from the ocean.

Your comment to Arthur is the important advantage of getting that same water to come back another day so it can be better absorbed; however transpiration is a slow process returning the H2O to the air to become rain again so the tree roots are what keeps soil erosion down, reduces flood run off etc. during a heavy rain, but any crop, sugar cane included, will do that erosion reduction.