• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More CO2 equals Crappier Food

calamity said:
The findings are not made up, and the logic behind it is solid. Actually, it's foolish not to expect fast growing plants to lack the nutritional value of their slower growing predecessors. Duh.
Click to expand...

The findings were not conclusive, according to the scientists who did the study. Yet, you seem to have hung your hat on them, despite decades of science that tells us that reduced vitamin content is a result of depleted soil.

LOL
 
calamity said:
The findings are not made up, and the logic behind it is solid. Actually, it's foolish not to expect fast growing plants to lack the nutritional value of their slower growing predecessors. Duh.
Click to expand...

The findings were not conclusive according to the scientists who did the study. I quoted their caveats. Yet, you seem to have hung your hat on the misleading article, and you were so duped by, despite decades of science that tells us that reduced vitamin content is a result of depleted soil. So confused were you that you mis-titled this thread.

LOL
 
HowardBThiname said:
The findings were not conclusive according to the scientists who did the study. I quoted their caveats. Yet, you seem to have hung your hat on the misleading article, and you were so duped by, despite decades of science that tells us that reduced vitamin content is a result of depleted soil. So confused were you that you mis-titled this thread.

LOL
Click to expand...

Depleted soil is not even part of the conversation, nor was it mentioned in the article. Maybe you should start a thread on it.
 
sangha said:
No, bee health has not been discussed in this thread and is not a part of the OP. It was the subject of one of the experiments the article refers to, but neither the article nor the OP discussed bee health.

You are the Only One who thinks this is about bee health
Click to expand...

He seems to be going out of his way to strawman the thread.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Why did you ask me to read the part about goldenrod? Did you even read it?
Click to expand...

Because the GR was not genetically engineered or modified for higher crop yields like farm plants. It's a control for studying the effects of CO2 alone.
 
HowardBThiname said:
LOL -- when the science doesn't agree with your agenda -- disregard it.

Got it.
Click to expand...

Start a thread on the depleted soil and present the science all you want. In fact, feel free to present some evidence here showing how depleted soil can account for weeds, like goldenrod, which grow pretty much everywhere in all sorts of soil, now being 30% lower in protein.
 
rocket88 said:
Like I said, more interested in blame than in governing. I don't expect more from you, but I do expect more from Trump, Ryan and McConnell.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about governing. I'm talking about solutions to a problem that you and other claim exists. If you are convinced that global warming is dooming the planet, you would think you would have at least some idea of what it would take to stop it from happening. But you seem to have zero intellectual curiosity on that matter for some reason.

Paris was an attempt to lower CO2 emissions. Climate change or not, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
But even its supporters acknowledge it would accomplish nothing with regard to climate change.
 
calamity said:
Interesting paradox. Yes more CO2 makes plants grow faster. But guess what? The plants turn into Junk Food. Too much sugar, not enough nutrients.

The great nutrient collapse



lol...I see more fat, stupid people on the horizon.
Click to expand...

The way we select, breed and engineer our crops will have a way bigger effect than CO2 levels. But dont let that stop your GW spew
 
Fletch said:
I'm not talking about governing. I'm talking about solutions to a problem that you and other claim exists. If you are convinced that global warming is dooming the planet, you would think you would have at least some idea of what it would take to stop it from happening. But you seem to have zero intellectual curiosity on that matter for some reason.

But even its supporters acknowledge it would accomplish nothing with regard to climate change.
Click to expand...

It is about governing. It is up to Trump and the Republicans in Congress to do their jobs. So far, I haven't seen that.

You want to deny the scientific consensus because of politics.

We can reduce CO2 emissions. According to scientists who are much smarter about this than I am. Probably more than you also. They say it will help.
 
rocket88 said:
It is about governing. It is up to Trump and the Republicans in Congress to do their jobs. So far, I haven't seen that.

You want to deny the scientific consensus because of politics.

We can reduce CO2 emissions. According to scientists who are much smarter about this than I am. Probably more than you also. They say it will help.
Click to expand...

Reducing emissions to what level?
 
calamity said:
Interesting paradox. Yes more CO2 makes plants grow faster. But guess what? The plants turn into Junk Food. Too much sugar, not enough nutrients.

The great nutrient collapse



lol...I see more fat, stupid people on the horizon.
Click to expand...

Whoop-te-do...

8% decrease of zinc and iron with elevated growth. You really should stop wasting time with these left wing pundit sites. Primarily, only grains are tested with significant lower results. Legumes do better. This isn't all foods, just the foods poor nations rely on. The article is more geared towards the health of malnourished nations. That 8% is meaningless to 1st world nations. Again, the elevated growth lessens hunger, and with a 8% loss of nutrients, they they are likely going to eat more than enough extra to make up for it.

The solution is to start using fertilizers with these minerals added. If you grow faster from the same content, it's a no-brainier.

This was brought up some time back in another forum here. The article references two papers:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition : Nature : Nature Research

I like the nature article, and have read it before.

temp001.webp

temp002.webp

Again, this really isn't a problem. The extra food growth more than compensates for the lass of nutrients, where in poor countries people have more to eat.

"The great nutrient collapse"... What an obvious line of pundity BS. 8% is not a collapse.
 
volsrock said:
The way we select, breed and engineer our crops will have a way bigger effect than CO2 levels. But dont let that stop your GW spew
Click to expand...

Don't worry. He never stops...
 
rocket88 said:
We can reduce CO2 emissions. According to scientists who are much smarter about this than I am. Probably more than you also. They say it will help.
Click to expand...

We can do better, but does it matter if Asia isn't going to stop their exponential increase?
 
volsrock said:
we all going to die!
Click to expand...

Dying is fine. It's living as a 350lb idiot that causes problems. I'm sure you see them all around you down there in Texas.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Whoop-te-do...

8% decrease of zinc and iron with elevated growth. You really should stop wasting time with these left wing pundit sites. Primarily, only grains are tested with significant lower results. Legumes do better. This isn't all foods, just the foods poor nations rely on. The article is more geared towards the health of malnourished nations. That 8% is meaningless to 1st world nations. Again, the elevated growth lessens hunger, and with a 8% loss of nutrients, they they are likely going to eat more than enough extra to make up for it.

The solution is to start using fertilizers with these minerals added. If you grow faster from the same content, it's a no-brainier.

This was brought up some time back in another forum here. The article references two papers:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/02245

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition : Nature : Nature Research

I like the nature article, and have read it before.

View attachment 67222886

View attachment 67222887

Again, this really isn't a problem. The extra food growth more than compensates for the lass of nutrients, where in poor countries people have more to eat.

"The great nutrient collapse"... What an obvious line of pundity BS. 8% is not a collapse.
Click to expand...

30% loss of protein in goldenrod.
 
calamity said:
Start a thread on the depleted soil and present the science all you want. In fact, feel free to present some evidence here showing how depleted soil can account for weeds, like goldenrod, which grow pretty much everywhere in all sorts of soil, now being 30% lower in protein.
Click to expand...

The depleted soil is vital to THIS thread because it offers a reason for the reduced vitamin content that is not CO2 related. Duh. The goldenrod in your article was mentioned because a study by Lewis Ziska indicated lower protein levels might affect honeybee health. That makes the Ziska study also relevant to this thread. However, the Ziska study specifically stated that the cause of the lower protein is not conclusively linked to additional CO2. I posted the caveats from the study -- choose to ignore them if they don't match your agenda, of course.

Why post a thread if you don't want to discuss the veracity of the claims in the OP?
 
rocket88 said:
Probably not, but that shouldn't stop us from doing right.
Click to expand...

We already have.

Look at our CAFE standards.

Look at the to date emission regulations we have.

To get that extra few fractions of a percent of emission reduction gets so much more costly.
 
calamity said:
30% loss of protein in goldenrod.
Click to expand...

Goldenrod wasn't part of the two papers attached to the OP, at least with a 30% loss. I don't know how much work was done with it, but I found in a quick search one study that gives your 30%, and it was in pollen.

The newer samples look much like the older generations. But scientists testing the pollen content from goldenrod collected between 1842 and 2014, when atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide rose from about 280 parts per million to 398 ppm, found the most recent pollen samples contained 30 percent less protein. The greatest drop in protein occurred from 1960 to 2014, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose dramatically. A field experiment in the same study that exposed goldenrod to CO2 levels ranging from 280 to 500 ppm showed similar protein decreases.
​

How Rising CO2 Levels May Contribute to Die-Off of Bees

So I'm curious. Where are you referencing the 30% loss from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom