Human activity affects our climate and our environment, sometimes dramatically and drastically; this is not news, however the extent to which we now understand that function, that interaction, has advanced significantly. A more modern example is the reversal of desertification in Israel through their reforestation projects.
In the 1930s, the United States experienced an extraordinary period of drought and agricultural disaster known as the dust bowl. The dust bowl phenomena was caused in part by man made activity, notably bad agricultural activity that destroyed land and increased the aridification problems, also changing by several degrees their temperatures downward.
The government and scientists at the time figured out what went wrong, and corrected it, so far as that was possible. Given the large amount of top soil that had been blown away due to bad agricultural decisions, some areas were permanently degraded from their previous state.
The prevailing ideology in the era leading up to the Dust Bowl was a non-sensical belief that 'the rain follows the plow'. To quote from that misguided attempt at climatology (from wikipedia):
In the 1930s, the United States experienced an extraordinary period of drought and agricultural disaster known as the dust bowl. The dust bowl phenomena was caused in part by man made activity, notably bad agricultural activity that destroyed land and increased the aridification problems, also changing by several degrees their temperatures downward.
The government and scientists at the time figured out what went wrong, and corrected it, so far as that was possible. Given the large amount of top soil that had been blown away due to bad agricultural decisions, some areas were permanently degraded from their previous state.
The prevailing ideology in the era leading up to the Dust Bowl was a non-sensical belief that 'the rain follows the plow'. To quote from that misguided attempt at climatology (from wikipedia):
Rain follows the plow is the conventional name for a now-discredited theory of climatology that was popular throughout the American West and Australia during the late 19th century. The phrase was employed as a summation of the theory by Charles Dana Wilber:
According to the theory, increased human settlement in the region and cultivation of soil would result in an increased rainfall over time, rendering the land more fertile and lush as the population increased. As later historical records of rainfall indicated, the theory was based on faulty evidence arising from brief climatological fluctuations. The theory was later refuted by climatologists and is regarded as a serious error.
North America
The theory arose in the late 1860s and 1870s during the westward expansion of European-American settlement west of the Missouri River and across the 100th meridian west. This was the traditional boundary line between the humid and semi-arid portions of central North America. Specifically, in the early part of the decade, white settlement had spread into central and western Nebraska along the Platte River. Emigrants on the Oregon Trail began reporting that the land in western Nebraska, previously known for its yellowed, dry vegetation during the summer, had seemingly become green.
Out of this evidence, some scientists of the day concluded that the apparent increase in rain was due to the settlement and the effects of cultivation. One of the most prominent exponents of the theory in the United States was Cyrus Thomas, a noted climatologist. After studying the recent history of Colorado, he concluded that the increase in moisture was permanent, and that it coincided exactly with the first homesteaders' cultivating the land. Other prominent advocates of the theory were Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden, the noted geographer who had explored and surveyed parts of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado; Samuel Aughey, a professor at the University of Nebraska; and Charles Dana Wilber, an amateur scientist and author.
Thomas and other climatologists offered a variety of explanations for the theory. A common idea was that the plowing of the soil for cultivation exposed the soil's moisture to the sky. In addition, newly planted trees and shrubs increased rainfall as well, as did smoke from trains, or even the metal in the rails or the telegraph wires. Another hypothesis stated that the increased vibrations in the atmosphere due to human activity created additional clouds, from which rain fell. This idea led to the widespread dynamiting of the air across the Great Plains in the 1870s.[citation needed]
God speed the plow.... By this wonderful provision, which is only man's mastery over nature, the clouds are dispensing copious rains ... [the plow] is the instrument which separates civilization from savagery; and converts a desert into a farm or garden.... To be more concise, Rain follows the plow.[1]The basic premise of the theory was that human habitation and agriculture through homesteading effected a permanent change in the climate of arid and semi-arid regions, making these regions more humid. The theory was widely promoted in the 1870s as a justification for the settlement of the Great Plains, a region previously known as the "Great American Desert". It was also used to justify the expansion of wheat growing on marginal land in South Australia during the same period.[2]
According to the theory, increased human settlement in the region and cultivation of soil would result in an increased rainfall over time, rendering the land more fertile and lush as the population increased. As later historical records of rainfall indicated, the theory was based on faulty evidence arising from brief climatological fluctuations. The theory was later refuted by climatologists and is regarded as a serious error.
North America
The theory arose in the late 1860s and 1870s during the westward expansion of European-American settlement west of the Missouri River and across the 100th meridian west. This was the traditional boundary line between the humid and semi-arid portions of central North America. Specifically, in the early part of the decade, white settlement had spread into central and western Nebraska along the Platte River. Emigrants on the Oregon Trail began reporting that the land in western Nebraska, previously known for its yellowed, dry vegetation during the summer, had seemingly become green.
Out of this evidence, some scientists of the day concluded that the apparent increase in rain was due to the settlement and the effects of cultivation. One of the most prominent exponents of the theory in the United States was Cyrus Thomas, a noted climatologist. After studying the recent history of Colorado, he concluded that the increase in moisture was permanent, and that it coincided exactly with the first homesteaders' cultivating the land. Other prominent advocates of the theory were Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden, the noted geographer who had explored and surveyed parts of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado; Samuel Aughey, a professor at the University of Nebraska; and Charles Dana Wilber, an amateur scientist and author.
Thomas and other climatologists offered a variety of explanations for the theory. A common idea was that the plowing of the soil for cultivation exposed the soil's moisture to the sky. In addition, newly planted trees and shrubs increased rainfall as well, as did smoke from trains, or even the metal in the rails or the telegraph wires. Another hypothesis stated that the increased vibrations in the atmosphere due to human activity created additional clouds, from which rain fell. This idea led to the widespread dynamiting of the air across the Great Plains in the 1870s.[citation needed]
I encourage our readers to read the entire 'rain follows the plow' entry on Wikipedia, for a good thumbnail summary. Like this superficial, silly and so very WRONG phrase, we have similar ideology linked deniers of our modern understanding of climate change. No one in their right minds should believe the propaganda produced as junk science paid for by the fossil fuel industry. No one with any sense should trust the anti-climate change positions of the right, who are owned outright as fully as any slave in the southern states of this nation before the Civil War. As noted here, where the right at one time was well-rooted in moderation, and deeply connected to and functioned in objective reality, that is no longer the case as the right has become hijacked by the radical and extremist right. The right attacks legitimate science, while extolling junk science. The right places ideology and political payoffs above facts and solving problems. In a day and age where the premise of teaching controversies where the claims of controversy on the right are bogus, like the conflict between evolution and creationism/intelligent design, there can be no meeting of the minds, where the minds on one side of the equation are insane, committed to a fantasy world that denies reality. Like the mistakes of the decades leading up to the Dust Bowl decade - an event which pales in comparison to the hazards we are facing now - we are making mistakes again. ONLY when we acknowledge what those mistakes have been, particularly as regards the fossil fuel industry and greenhouse gases, can we begin to repair the damage done. In the interim, we have one segment of the right that sticks their thumbs in their ears, wiggles their fingers, while going "LA LA LA LA LA" as loud as they can with their eyes closed, and another segment engaging in superstition while calling it religion, claiming that our problem are the result of God hating gays (feminists, communists, and of course Muslims and anyone else who isn't 'them'). Neither segment of the right is rational; in a post-truth era world, they don't believe they need to be. Lying works for them.
From Up with Chris Hayes 7-8-'12:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
QUERY : A more modern example is the reversal of desertification in Israel through their reforestation projects.
ReplyDeleteWill that reforestation occur after they extract shale oil ?
Did you see the news report of Israel's newly discovered oil ?
Israel is blessed with a vast oil shale resource. When this resource is developed, it will bring Israel to energy independence. It is estimated that in the Shfela Basin alone, there are 150 billion barrels of oil.
According to the World Energy Council, a leading global energy forum with organizations and affiliates in some 93 countries, Israel may have the third largest shale oil reserves in the world: something like 250 billion barrels.
If the possibility of huge Israeli energy discoveries really pans out, and if the technical and resource problems connected with them can actually be solved, the US-Israeli relationship will also change. Some of this may already be happening. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s evident lack of worry when it comes to crossing President Obama may reflect his belief that Israel has some new cards to play. An energy-rich Israel with a lot of friends and suitors is going to be less dependent on the US than it has been — and it is also going to be a more valuable ally.
Israel is partnering with Canada and Russia ... while America plays the fool giving taxpayer dollars to build Iron Dome defense shields and belly-aching about Russia not condemning Syria ... when is Israel going to be Our Ally ?
What struck me during the Chris Hayes broadcast was the potential impact on food ... the cornfields in my area are already tasselling ... that is way too early and the yield will be impacted ... and taxpayers will be there to help foot the bill with tax subsidies for Ag ... and as mentioned on the program, the taxpayers are already subsidizing Big Oil.
I hadn't seen the announcement of the shale oil discovery.
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean the U.S. DOESN'T need to subsidize Israel any more either?
Or is it like big oil, we subsidize regardless of a change in conditions?