Climate Change

[Alf'Omega]

No, I want a conversation. Mike is claiming that more CO2 is good for plants, but the data shows "Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will render some major crops less nutritious".

https://www.ehn.org/carbon-dioxide-make ... 39140.html

So what is your response?

Can you tell me why greenhouses pump in CO2? Cannabis Growers try to keep the CO2 level anywhere from 500 to 800 ppm's, why is that?

Oh God here we go. Damn the science, AM knows a buddy who grows weed and says DT is full of crap.

[doubtingthomas]

Can you tell me why greenhouses pump in CO2?

Obviously for plants, but not too much. Too much of anything is bad, when we humans eat too much we get fat. Even drinking too much water is bad.

Just look at the science and give me a response.

Did you know vegetables are becoming less nutritious? Check out nutritive data published in the 1890s by the USDA and compare it to today's nutritive data.

https://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/p ... olis2000a/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7516302113

Here is another link
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15637215/

[doubtingthomas]

I agree that policies in general hurt and burden the poorer classes of people in the world. It is hard for me to take these arguments too seriously when in California, for example, the aquifer water is unmetered for golf courses, almonds and vineyards and fires are regularly started by a failing grid but policies are put in place to limit the water use for regular citizens, electric vehicles for wealthy people are supplemented, and personal water use is restricted.

I am with you, I don't trust politicians. But your point has nothing to do with the science. Most politicians are not scientists. And a lot of the research is not funded by the government.

So here is the science (no politics here) and give me a response.

https://soils.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/p ... olis2000a/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7516302113
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15637215/

Just ignore Al Gore, Biden, and all the politicians. Focus on the science.

[doubtingthomas]

You'll quickly learn that cult doesn't actually provide responses, at least not anything of substance.

He's a career troll who shows up for his team to indirectly cheerlead

Yea I am starting to realize. I hope you are wrong, so we'll see.

[doubtingthomas]

And the same is true for wild plants. So you can't blame farming practices.

[canpakes]

Are Republicans still doing their best to deny climate change?

Rep. Robert Aderholt, R, Alabama-

"I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change," Aderholt wrote in a 2009 op-ed. "Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions."

Spokespeople for Aderholt did not return INSIDER's request for comment, but his website states that he primarily supports expanding oil and natural gas production but is also open to renewable energy.

[canpakes]

Highlights
Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.

Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.

Read what you just posted. The study you’re quoting is looking at nutritional value with respect to ‘agricultural soil mineral depletion’ related to agricultural practices, not with respect to climate-related factors.


When you consider climate-related effects, the story is different, because the issue is one of how the plant uses available soil nutrients … regardless of depletion, or not.

Myers and his colleagues released the results of a six year study examining the nutritional content of crops exposed to levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) that are expected to exist by mid-century. The conclusions were indeed troubling. They found that in wheat grains, zinc concentrations were down some 9.3 percent and iron concentrations were down by 5.1 percent across the seven different crop sites (in Australia, Japan and the U.S.) used in the study. The researchers also noted reduced protein levels in wheat and rice grains growing in the CO2-rich test environment.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... utritious/

And here:

Rising CO2, climate change projected to reduce availability of nutrients worldwide
Protein, iron, zinc to be 19.5%, 14.4%, and 14.6% lower, respectively, than without climate change.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 085308.htm

And more reading here:

The effects of climate change on agriculture are projected to negatively impact global nutrition, and this is likely to increase in the future (Challinor et al 2007, Lobell et al 2008, UNSCN 2010, Godfray et al 2010, Wheeler and von Braun 2013, Springmann et al 2016). Effects will be particularly severe in sub- Saharan Africa and South Asian countries where the burden of malnutrition is already high and health systems are in many cases strained or weak (IPCC 2014, Springmann et al 2016, Willett et al 2019). Malnutrition is a risk factor for neonatal and child mortality, as well as for maternal reproductive and other health outcomes (Pelletier and Frongillo 2003, Black et al 2008, Xu et al 2012, Rylander et al 2013, Gakidou et al 2017, Rodriguez-Llanes et al 2011, Ly et al 2018). Further, poverty exacerbates food insecurity and under-nutrition, and without adaptation strategies malnutrition is expected to increase (Grace et al 2012, FAO and USAI 2017).

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... abafd4/pdf

[canpakes]

I only saw the summary with this conclusion:

Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.

You should read the other paragraph. ; )

“As a group, the 43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid), but no statistically reliable changes for 7 other nutrients. Declines in the medians range from 6% for protein to 38% for riboflavin.”

So there are declines anyway in important nutrients, even if not all nutrients declined … and you’re still not looking at studies that are assessing climate-related factors, anyway.

[doubtingthomas]

references to data going as far back as the 19th century

Exactly! We can compare nutritive data from the 19th century to today's nutritive data. There is no way to get new nutritive data from 19th century. We don't have a time machine.

Conclusions: We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content.

Good job! I am proud of you for reading the article. The point of the study was to "To evaluate possible changes in USDA nutrient content data for 43 garden crops between 1950 and 1999 and consider their potential causes. " What the study found is "43 foods show apparent, statistically reliable declines (R < 1) for 6 nutrients (protein, Ca, P, Fe, riboflavin and ascorbic acid". The explanation for the decline is just a suggestion. However, it can't be due to "changes in cultivated varieties" because the nutritional value in wild plants is also declining.

https://insider.si.edu/2016/06/pollen/

I scanned this report, largely because of the length and detail. I also am not educated enough to know crap about this topic. It is fascinating to me how much the report attempts to debunk a narrative that is popular in the media and makes that transparent in the report. We can learn a lot from that!

Or read what canpakes just told you. It is easy to understand.

[doubtingthomas]

This type of research is valuable, non political and worthwhile.

And here is some valuable research that can't be political.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm