141–150 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Gabe Brown switched from conventional agriculture to regenerative agriculture, he increased water infiltration in his soil from 0.5 inches (1.25cm) per hour to 30 inches (75cm) per hour. So imagine if he and all his neighbors had the same beautiful soil -- flooding just couldn't happen. I haven't seen a list of such measurements from permaculture, but I know it can be used to regreen deserts (as shown in Jordan,…
Water infiltration is measured by digging a small hole, filling it with water, and seeing how fast it drains. There's no way that regenerative agriculture has changed soil composition multiple feet down, which is what would be needed for the soil to absorb multiple feet of water. I went to check the above sentence, and the first hit was this detailed article from Washington State, which analyses Brown's claims in det…
Informally yes, but the scientific way is to use a ring infiltrometer: https://www.fao.org/3/s8684e/s8684e0a.htm -- Basically instead of digging a hole, you pound a pipe into the ground and then fill the pipe with water.
As for agricultural practices being able to change soil composition multiple feet down, trees and tap-rooted plants are very effective at placing large volumes of organic matter at depth. One example, Lacy Phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia) is an annual plant that produces a dense fibrous root system that reaches a depth of 4 feet; in the fall the Phacelia plants die, and their roots decompose at depth, creating pathways for water infiltration while also increasing soil organic matter at depth. The same goes with other trees and shrubs. The farmer from the "It ain't much but it's honest work" meme, Dave Brandt, has some really enjoyable presentations on youtube about improving soil composition at depth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Pakistan's population in 2050 will be closer to 37 million than to 370 million.
This sounds extreme, but it's not as extreme as everyone seems to think. 200M is closer to 37M (+163M) than 370M (-170M). OP is saying a 10% decrease is more likely than the population staying even. I disagree - but not as wildly as I would if OP was saying that the population is likely to actually be close to 37M. 200M is quite far from 37M... It's just that 370M is even farther...
I'd love to see nature write an article about why a certain part of the world has had such unusually moderate temperature and precipitation of late. Also, if you want to search the whole globe for something extreme happening, you're guaranteed to find it in spades.
What does this even mean? Are you denying that climate change is a thing? Now? In 2022?
no mention of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption? It sounds like that eruption at least changed atmospheric composition by throwing tons of water into it.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-2034-1 Unlikely. At least a single volcanic eruption is not enough to change the long-term climate trend, you need a clusters of eruptions to persist through centuries for that. HTHH will likely decrease the global mean surface temperatures by 0.004°C in the first year. Compared to that human activity is a thousand times more significant, everything else is statist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least a single volcanic eruption is not enough to change the long-term climate trend, you need a clusters of eruptions to persist through centuries for that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa “ The eruption caused a volcanic winter.[17] In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F).[18] The record rainfall that hit Southern Ca…
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer with Mount Tambora There's good evidence this has happened multiple times in history by a single eruption.
It is not impossible that HTHH affected the monsoon, but there is a thousand pound elephant in the room that will make it's effect hard to quantify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The population of a country peaks a few years after it has gotten developed. As in low child mortality, high educated population, etc.
What countries do you think this is true of? Even, say, France is still growing. Let alone the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The population of a country peaks a few years after it has gotten developed. As in low child mortality, high educated population, etc.
What countries do you think this is true of? Even, say, France is still growing. Let alone the US.
So Pakistan, unlike many more developed countries, has a birth rate higher than the replacement rate, but significantly lower than it’s 1950 to 2000 highs over 6 - and trending downwards.
The population would be expected to drop precipitously, but not soon.