Gulf Stream and Europe's Climate

[billvon 3,118]

>I call BULLSHIT.

Fine with me. Be sure to let the Natural Resources Conservation Service know that they were founded on bullshit, and now work on bullshit. Might also want to tell farmers that all that soil-conservation nonsense won't help a bit if another drought hits.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>I call BULLSHIT.

Fine with me. Be sure to let the Natural Resources Conservation Service know that they were founded on bullshit, and now work on bullshit. Might also want to tell farmers that all that soil-conservation nonsense won't help a bit if another drought hits.

Are they claiming that if proper land conservation methods were being used, the drought(s) of the 1930s would have been a non-event?

[billvon 3,118]

>Are they claiming that if proper land conservation methods were
>being used, the drought(s) of the 1930s would have been a non-event?

Uh, no. Land conservation methods do not prevent drought. They do make farms more productive during droughts and help prevent "dust bowl" events.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Are they claiming that if proper land conservation methods were
>being used, the drought(s) of the 1930s would have been a non-event?

Uh, no.

Funny, here it sounds like you are saying as much:

Quote

No. The poor land management that caused it could have been avoided, which would have made the drought (which happens periodically) a non-event.

[billvon 3,118]

>Funny, here it sounds like you are saying as much:

Ah, the intentional misinterpretation - the last refuge of the cornered DZ.com poster. It can indeed be a fun game, which everyone can play. Perhaps you could redefine "periodically" next.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Funny, here it sounds like you are saying as much:

Ah, the intentional misinterpretation - the last refuge of the cornered DZ.com poster.

Nice PA, Bill. It would have earned me an official warning, no doubt.

Quote

It can indeed be a fun game, which everyone can play. Perhaps you could redefine "periodically" next.

I can't help it if your posts contradict one another. Not much room for misinterpretation. Your resorting to PAs speaks for itself.

What exactly did you mean when you said:

"The poor land management that caused it (the Dust Bowl disaster of the 30s) could have been avoided, which would have made the drought (which happens periodically) a non-event."

I'm particularly interested in the part about making the drought (of the 30s), which was actually several back-to-back droughts, a non-event.

[billvon 3,118]

>What exactly did you mean when you said:

>The poor land management that caused it (the Dust Bowl disaster of the
>30s) could have been avoided, which would have made the drought (which
>happens periodically) a non-event."


The dust bowl was a pretty big event to the people who lived through it. It removed much of the topsoil from the farms in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and much of the Great Plains. Half a million people had to leave the area when their farms were literally blown away into the oceans. It happened because people plowed under the prairie grasses and left the topsoil exposed; the change in heat retention and evaporation fueled massive wind storms that then ripped the soil away

Had they followed better soil management procedures, that event would not have happened. There would have been no dustbowl event. There would have been several year-long or two-year-long droughts (1930, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40) interspersed by good rain years. When your farm does not blow away, you can replant during the good years, and weather bad years. (After all, everyone's in the same boat, and you can get more money for your crops when they are in short supply.) When your farm DOES blow away, nothing you can do will let you recover next year.

What would have been a non-event - at best a footnote in the history of the midwest - became a very big event because of poor soil conservation practices.

[NCclimber 0]

While I completely agree that modern soil conservation efforts would have made the disaster less extreme, I don't buy into your claim they would have resulted in the droughts of the 30s being non-event.

Your claim is the first time I've ever heard as much.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

While I completely agree that modern soil conservation efforts would have made the disaster less extreme, I don't buy into your claim they would have resulted in the droughts of the 30s being non-event.

Your claim is the first time I've ever heard as much.

You brought up droughts. Bill's original post referred to "dust bowl".

Bill then clarified EXACTLY what he meant in this post, which everyone except you managed to understand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

which everyone except you managed to understand.

That is a pretty blatant assumption and almost surely a personal attack.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

While I completely agree that modern soil conservation efforts would have made the disaster less extreme, I don't buy into your claim they would have resulted in the droughts of the 30s being non-event.

Your claim is the first time I've ever heard as much.

You brought up droughts. Bill's original post referred to "dust bowl".

Bill then clarified EXACTLY what he meant in this post, which everyone except you managed to understand.

You mean the post in which he said if proper soil management had been used, that "would have made the drought (which happens periodically) a non-event"?

Tell me perfesser - if a student answers a question 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong does he get full credit? Or do you deduct (and note) the part that is wrong?

Oh yeah, he brought up the Dust Bowl in response to controlling the climate, "which everyone except you managed to understand"

Note to Billvon - that last phrase is intended as a return volley of Kallend's own words... not as a PA.