Dr. Mario's Retard Rehabilitation Program

"Because anyone said move enough soil for billions of people"

a_skeleton_03 proving he can't even tell the difference between "Fractions of a percent of billions of people" ie NOT billions of people, and "billions of people"

"who is misrepresenting now?"

As I've just demonstrated, YOU ARE. Fucking MORON.

Whether we're trying to support 50,000 or a billion people, it would require VAST SUMS OF TOP SOIL to make the taiga tundra arable land.

When you have even a fraction of a percent of an understanding of geology and soil science and ecology and why that is, I'll continue. Go ahead. Google is your friend.

Tard.

[citation required]

And no, you couldn't. You'd be better off just doing greenhouses for that. Trying to convert the taiga to arable land would be a near impossible task.

When you can explain to me what the soil profile of such a region is, let me know.

Then all you've done is goal post shifted from the original conversation when it was convenient for you. I'm referencing the discussion in the science thread.

Have you finished doing your homework on the soil profile of taiga tundra yet?

Here's an easy one, even you should be able to answer it.

Why is the top soil of the taiga so acidic. Can a_skeleton_03 answer this simple question? I'll even accept you simply googling it up and giving us a real answer as I don't expect a computer guy and an army welfare brat to actually have that sort of understanding of soil chemistry right on the tips of his fingers.

And we find that a_skeleton_03 simply cannot answer this one simple question.

Here let me help you, a_skeleton_03.

The taiga soil is so acidic because, laying upon bedrock, it cannot drain properly, and the accumulated needles from the coniferous plants leach acids into that soil. As the climate increases, and this region thaws, the water will only exponentially increase this effect. So even if you are bringing in arable top soil to attempt to make the region more amenable to intensive agriculture, the acidity of the soil will prevent plants, particularly food crops, which are already vulnerable to highly acidic soils, from growing properly.

Further, the thaw will create more bog lands. With no way for this water to be properly drained, tree roots and other plant roots won't be able to take root, and there will be exponentially more erosion, so placing top soil in this situation will just lead to the top soil eroding away during rainstorms and the like.

Next time on "What basic facts does a_skeleton_03 not have about a situation he wishes to spout off about" we'll find out if a_skeleton_03 can tell us why the top soil of the taiga is meager and lacking in nutrients, and how does that vary from the parts of the globe where the most food is grown!

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

http://www.amazon.com/Tierra-Garden-GP172B-Square-32-Inch/dp/B00GHNE73K

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/35/34/a9353478dd577e784fd9917d64b599f9.jpg

Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Yes I'm certain Amazon will have a major delivery hub just waiting for your arrival in Northern Nunavut.

Let's all encourage a_skeleton_03 to pack his bags and move there today!

lurkingdirk_sl said:

This is quite the shitshow. One might call it remarkable.

Click to expand...

I have a way of just generating entertainment where ever I may be.

Its a combination of charisma and machismo that is envied by many, loved by more.

Its almost like you're still arguing your goal post shifting, rather than the point from the science thread that was the actual topic at hand.

Why yes, it seems you are.

But by all means, a_skeleton_03, enjoy your time in the Nunavut taiga. Make sure to give us lots of facebook updates and pictures.

Well since I never shifted any goal posts in the first place, the only goal post shifting we've had is how we've gone from the claims in the science thread of 50-100 thousand or a few million people down to a few hundred in this thread because a_skeleton_03 refuses to simply stand on a position he's argued for pages, across multiple threads, while simultaneously asserting repeatedly that he is rebutting an argument I never made.

The biggest problem with your argument that you've goal post shifted to, that "Well I'm only talking about a few hundred people now" is that you wouldn't meet a minimum viable population level to sustain the species, and extinction would be inevitable as a result of too little genetic variation to adapt to changing environments.

So we're about done here, since you've now had to go from "We're going to survive a climate apocalypse of 5 to 10 degrees celsius increase in 100 years with 50 to 100 thousand people" down to "We're going to survive a climate apocalypse of 5 to 10 degrees celsius increase in 100 years with 50 to 100 people".

As I already pointed out in the science thread, a 6 degree celsius increase would leave us with the oceans expelling hydrogen sulfide gasses into the atmosphere that would smother all but the microbes on this planet to death in short order.