Jump to content

ARGOSY

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,520 Excellent

1 Follower

About ARGOSY

  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Africa
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

2,302 profile views
  1. Why does no one deal with the fact that the Carboniferous had co2 of over 2000ppm. And the world was pretty bounteous then with abundant forests etc. The climate drama smacks of exaggeration. We all know we should eat our vegetables, even currently a grain based diet isn't the best thing. Vegetables and fruit consistently do better under higher co2. I can't wait for all that better nutrition.
  2. It's not actually a major problem at all. 96% of the worlds population are getting our nutrients from fruit and veg, not grains. And even grains show anincrease in concentration of certain vitamins under increased co2, the third world could do with the vitamin E boost under increased c02. So even under the worst case scenarios there will be both vitamin gains and drops in grains, but fruit and veg seems to be mainly gains. It sounds pretty good actually. Especially since the Carboniferous was absolutely flourishing under co2 levels above 2000ppm. Carrots seem to do really well under increased co2, ESPECIALLY when combined with higher temperatures : https://www.vegetableclimate.com/crop-impacts/carrots/ Because carrot roots store photosynthate, it has been suggested that yield may be very responsive to increased CO2 concentration. Yield increases of up to 110% in the presence of double normal CO2 levels have been reported. However, these should not be seen as typical. In a study in tunnels where temperature ranged from 7.5 – 10.9C, a 31% increase in root weight was observed when CO2 concentration was increased to 550ppm. On average, carrot yields increased about 34% for every 1C increase in temperature due to faster growth and development. Another study found that carrot yield more than doubled with high CO2, although this research found the effect only occurred at temperatures over 12C. More work is needed to evaluate the effect of predicted changes in CO2 concentration and temperature on carrots.
  3. You will never accept a good point. Although your claim is that all plants are affected, the studies have mentioned grains, mainly rice. I could read between the lines that they were focusing on grains, the very first fruit study confirmed what I suspected reading the grain studies. You can convince yourself that it's only 1 fruit that benefits under higher co2, but it was already pretty clear from your own links that focussed in on grains, that the other plants haven't shown nutrient deficiency under high co2. But even the grains are higher in vitamin E under elevated co2. The end conclusion, is that even under worst case scenario, only 4 percent of the earth will be affected by a possible 10 percent drop in some nutrients, because they already have an unhealthy over-dependence on grains. This isn't the immediate world crisis scientists are claiming. Most of us will benefit from the increased nutrition, even the 4 percent, because they have 30 years to start introducing mineral supplements and vegetables into their diets to make up for a possible slight loss.
  4. Okay I have found a study that refers to fruit, not grain. Not only did the biomass/fruit size increase with increased co2, but in addition after 78 days after bloom (DAB) the concentration of minerals was also higher in pears: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00380768.1999.10409352&ved=2ahUKEwidisCx5rflAhUTfMAKHckqDrQQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw19MKGtTByd8KoqWsk6lXIH [ CO2 enrichment had no significant effect on the fruit mineral contents until 78 DAB but higher N and K contents have maintained thereafter, particularly K content, compared to the control.] So grains will be down in minerals but up in vit E Fruit seems to be generally better off. Higher N and K.
  5. https://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-favorite-skeptic-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science I don't doubt that temperatures have risen by 0.9 percent in the last 100 years, they rose more than that from 1700 to 1800. World temp is always up and down from natural causes. However the study you have quoted from, is still subject to peer review. Back to the grains, they seem to brush over the fact that some important vitamins IMPROVE with more co2 in these same grains : https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/05/27/rising-co2-is-reducing-the-nutritional-value-of-our-food/amp/ [high CO2 affects the plants ability to build molecules containing nitrogen. B vitamins, which contain nitrogen, tended to decrease while nitrogen-free carbon-rich compounds, like vitamin E, increased.] So the studies specifically focus on grains which actually improve with some vitamins, without giving us info on non-grains, which probably improve with all vitamins. Why don't they give us non-grain stats? Carrots, lettuce, avocado, apples. How do they do under high co2, any studies? And like I keep saying, the Carboniferous was pretty successful with CO2 levels astronomically higher than today, over 2000ppm. Huge insects, massive trees, it actually seems more luscious than todays world.
  6. What data? Urban weather stations which reflect local urban trends? You haven't yet given me the source of their so called data. Just "scientists say".
  7. Aah natural cycles that correct themselves. Interesting. Now we want to intervene, creating a mess. In the meantime the instruments are merely detecting urbanization, the increased co2 and temp levels in localized urban areas (3% of earth). Humans are breathing higher co2 levels in cities. Does that influence the other 97% of the landmass? I would like to know.
  8. Interesting article. Growing urban areas have increasing temperatures and co2 levels. Any weather station based anywhere near a growing urban area will reflect increasing temperatures and co2 levels over time. Scientists have duped themselves
  9. Sure grains are where most people get their calories, me too really. But most of us get the test of our nutrients from vegetables. That is why the one article says only 150 million are vulnerable to a drop in minerals. Very grain based diets. You talk about bedding plants to overcome this... How about simply eat vegetables, it's the grains that they claim are vulnerable to the projected increases in CO2 levels. I don't think they are lying, it's just they themselves use speculation. They use words like could, possibly, speculate. There's uncertainty in their own wording. And due to evidence being misinterpreted because climate change is currently the cool topic, this leads to confirmation bias. The tendency to jump to favorable conclusions too quickly. So no I do not accept "scientists say" as a conclusive argument. I want to know what instruments they used, where they used them, what time they used them. As per my next post, the location of any measurements near an urban Centre will distort the trend. I want to eliminate any possibility of confirmation bias before I believe "scientists say". The bias was glaringly obvious in the one article, which emphasized the possible loss of nutrients in certain grains, yet freely admitted that it was only some plants, and yet will the other plants have absolutely zero change? They don't say, it's possible other plants have a gain in nutrient value. Ruining the whole argument. Veg based societies could then improve their nutrition. Why don't they give the stats for most vegetable plants? Maybe 150 million (4 percent) in grain exclusive societies will need to top up their losses by changing their diet. Maybe the rest (96 percent) will have a 10 percent improvement in nutrient content. Net effect..... Good. The study just brushes over the rest of the plants, confirmation bias making them mention the few plants that have reduced nutrients. But I need to see the studies too, I'm curious about the CO2 levels they predict.
  10. That's all very speculative. Maybe, if co2 possibly reaches a certain level by 2050, some countries who eat too much grain, could have reduced mineral uptake. I find you attachments didn't give the science behind it, neither confirming the claims quoted. The one study was about rice, at predicted 2100 AD co2 levels. The other was just an article, claiming "scientists say". The actual studies and their methodology was not included, so how can I check the logic? But the gist of their conclusion is that in the next 80 years, if 4 percent of the population doesn't start eating more veggies, there will be a slight increased exposure to malnutrition because the grains may lose about 10 percent of their protein/mineral nutritition. But this is only with certain plants, not all plants. It seems mainly the grains.
  11. So rising co2 is currently improving plants. Yet the claim is that the co2 is simultaneously causing warming, and over 32°c damages plants. Yet back in the Carboniferous there were high co2 levels and cool temperatures, high co2 and high temperatures do not necessarily go together. And regarding the claim that higher than 32°c is damaging to plants. Tell that to the rainforests of Amazon, Congo, and Indonesia. Sure humans are a huge problem to this planet, through sheer numbers. But in the meantime climate warnings are exaggerated. I wonder what the predicted co2 levels for 2050 are, surely a lot less than earth's luscious thriving Carboniferous period, when co2 levels were way higher than any modern predictions for the 21st century.
  12. NASA claims plants have already improved: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ "A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." Curious that, plants are improving. But on a massive scale. Here in Cape Town pollen is at all time record levels. That's the current situation, it's all better. You didn't provide a link for your study on reduced minerals in specific grains in possible projected conditions in 2050.
  13. Life thrived in the Carboniferous, huge insects, massive trees. I think we could do with CO2 above 2000 ppm. Declines in CO2 preceded the End Permian mass extinction when co2 was really low like today.
  14. If a guy in 1750 guessed that the heating trend would carry on a bit, does this prove climate change? Yes, the climate is always changing. One has to prove that we are definitely the major source of co2, and that additional co2 is definitely the cause of the climate change. And co2 seems to be good for plants, apparently there's a pollen spike now. We eat the nutrition from plants, what is the best balance? Don't get me wrong, I'm open to facts, I just having seen anything convincing yet.
  15. Yes. Not that a prediction of a trend means anything. Anyone could have predicted warming in 1750, it had been steadily warming for 50 years and carried on for another 50 years. Humans are affecting the planet, no doubt, due to sheer overpopulation. I just wish they would present the info properly and convincingly. I would be the first to embrace it. No one wants a future world of 20 billion, even if our carbon footprint is low, we just don't leave enough space for large animal populations like in the past.
×
×
  • Create New...