Jump to content
IGNORED

Climate Change and Conservatism


ChessPlayer

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yes. Not that a prediction of a trend means anything.[/quote]

It means his model accurately predicted the warming trend to a remarkable degree of precision, thirty years out.   Given the state of climate science at the time, it's a remarkable accomplishment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If he produced a model that got the climate change precisely right thirty years in advance, he'd be a world famous scientist.  That's what they do.

That's no longer questionable.   Scientists first realized that rises in carbon dioxide would warm up the climate, back in the 1800s.   And then we conducted a massive experiment by dumping huge quantities of it, causing CO2 to rise.    And as predicted, temps rose along with it.   The reason it has such an effect is that it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not.   Would you like to see that?

 

Turns out, that's not so good either, although we might be able to alleviate the worst effects by breeding plants able to cope with it:

Plant quality declines as CO2 levels rise

eLife. 2014; 3: e03233.

There are less data available for edible parts of major food crops, and a general lack of data for other important food crops, such as maize, banana and cassava. Nevertheless, Loladze could show diminished mineral concentrations in edible parts of food crop plants from existing information. Further, he argues that the observed changes to the mineral content of food crops might exacerbate the problem of ‘hidden hunger’; that is, a person's diet can be deficient in minerals even if they consume enough calories. This type of malnutrition is common, particularly in developing countries, as many people eat only a limited number of staple crops, and do not eat enough mineral-rich foods—such as fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats. Loladze also speculates that the changes in the carbohydrate to protein ratio caused by elevated CO2 might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

In independent work, Samuel Myers of Harvard and co-workers have studied the effects of elevated CO2 on six food crops (Myers et al., 2014). They found that zinc and iron levels were diminished in the grains of wheat, rice and soybean that were grown in atmospheres containing the levels of CO2 that may be reached by the middle of this century.

 

There's a lot of research on this now, and none of it is good news.   Plants grown in higher CO2 atmospheres have lower nutritional value.

 

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.

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

IMG_20191024_091446.jpg.263ed7a3535c045a13c1c144e8ca0406.jpg

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. 

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. 

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

Plant quality declines as CO2 levels rise

eLife. 2014; 3: e03233.

There are less data available for edible parts of major food crops, and a general lack of data for other important food crops, such as maize, banana and cassava. Nevertheless, Loladze could show diminished mineral concentrations in edible parts of food crop plants from existing information. Further, he argues that the observed changes to the mineral content of food crops might exacerbate the problem of ‘hidden hunger’; that is, a person's diet can be deficient in minerals even if they consume enough calories. This type of malnutrition is common, particularly in developing countries, as many people eat only a limited number of staple crops, and do not eat enough mineral-rich foods—such as fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats. Loladze also speculates that the changes in the carbohydrate to protein ratio caused by elevated CO2 might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

In independent work, Samuel Myers of Harvard and co-workers have studied the effects of elevated CO2 on six food crops (Myers et al., 2014). They found that zinc and iron levels were diminished in the grains of wheat, rice and soybean that were grown in atmospheres containing the levels of CO2 that may be reached by the middle of this century.

 

There's a lot of research on this now, and none of it is good news.   Plants grown in higher CO2 atmospheres have lower nutritional value.

 

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

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.

Unfortunately, increased mass of vegetation comes along with decreased nutritional value of crops.   It's a negative feedback loop for warming, since more plant mass represents more carbon sequestered.  But small comfort to people who farm their own food; it's going to be tougher to get by, now.  

Higher carbon dioxide levels reduce rice’s nutritional value

https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/news/higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-reduce-rices-nutritional-value

 

Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Reduce Nutritional Value of Crops

The effects of carbon dioxide put populations at risk of losing the available dietary protein in staple crops, compounding the challenges of poverty worldwide.

New research by Harvard University warns that rising carbon dioxide levels that contribute to global warming could drastically reduce the nutritional content of staple crops.

Researchers from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health who conducted the study have concluded that if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, the nutritional value of crops like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes will be reduced. This would put the populations of 18 countries around the world at risk of losing more than five percent of the dietary protein available to them by 2050.

https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-health-news/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-reduce-nutritional-value-crops/58507

 

Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Prompt More Plant Growth, But Fewer Nutrients

It might seem there’s an upside to the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants are growing faster.

However, in many species of plants, quantity is not quality. Most plants are growing faster, but they have on average more starch, less protein and fewer key vitamins in them, said James Metzger, a professor and chair of the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science in The Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).

This change is happening because the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million, nearly double what it was in the middle of the 18th century, the start of the industrial revolution. And it keeps rising, spurred by the burning of fuels.

Taking in carbon dioxide and light, a plant forms sugars and starches first, then other nutrients including protein, fat and antioxidants. Though carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to live, too much carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of valuable nutrients the plant produces including iron, zinc and vitamin C.

“The loss of nutrients, particularly protein, is serious,” Metzger said. “That does not help in the effort for people to eat more balanced diets and increase their nutrition.”

Animal meat and dairy products are a significant source of protein for humans. So, if animals aren’t getting sufficient protein from plants, that will affect what they can produce as food.

https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-prompt-more-plant-growth-fewer-nutrients

And of course, greening the north has another drawback...

New NASA-funded research has discovered that Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing. Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst lake that forms as permafrost thaws.

The impact on the climate may mean an influx of permafrost-derived methane into the atmosphere in the mid-21st century, which is not currently accounted for in climate projections.

The Arctic landscape stores one of the largest natural reservoirs of organic carbon in the world in its frozen soils. But once thawed, soil microbes in the permafrost can turn that carbon into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which then enter into the atmosphere and contribute to climate warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Plant quality declines as CO2 levels rise

eLife. 2014; 3: e03233.

There are less data available for edible parts of major food crops, and a general lack of data for other important food crops, such as maize, banana and cassava. Nevertheless, Loladze could show diminished mineral concentrations in edible parts of food crop plants from existing information. Further, he argues that the observed changes to the mineral content of food crops might exacerbate the problem of ‘hidden hunger’; that is, a person's diet can be deficient in minerals even if they consume enough calories. This type of malnutrition is common, particularly in developing countries, as many people eat only a limited number of staple crops, and do not eat enough mineral-rich foods—such as fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats. Loladze also speculates that the changes in the carbohydrate to protein ratio caused by elevated CO2 might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

In independent work, Samuel Myers of Harvard and co-workers have studied the effects of elevated CO2 on six food crops (Myers et al., 2014). They found that zinc and iron levels were diminished in the grains of wheat, rice and soybean that were grown in atmospheres containing the levels of CO2 that may be reached by the middle of this century.

 

There's a lot of research on this now, and none of it is good news.   Plants grown in higher CO2 atmospheres have lower nutritional value.

 

Unfortunately, increased mass of vegetation comes along with decreased nutritional value of crops.   It's a negative feedback loop for warming, since more plant mass represents more carbon sequestered.  But small comfort to people who farm their own food; it's going to be tougher to get by, now.  

Higher carbon dioxide levels reduce rice’s nutritional value

https://sph.washington.edu/news-events/news/higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-reduce-rices-nutritional-value

 

Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Will Reduce Nutritional Value of Crops

The effects of carbon dioxide put populations at risk of losing the available dietary protein in staple crops, compounding the challenges of poverty worldwide.

New research by Harvard University warns that rising carbon dioxide levels that contribute to global warming could drastically reduce the nutritional content of staple crops.

Researchers from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health who conducted the study have concluded that if carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, the nutritional value of crops like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes will be reduced. This would put the populations of 18 countries around the world at risk of losing more than five percent of the dietary protein available to them by 2050.

https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-health-news/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-reduce-nutritional-value-crops/58507

 

Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Prompt More Plant Growth, But Fewer Nutrients

It might seem there’s an upside to the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants are growing faster.

However, in many species of plants, quantity is not quality. Most plants are growing faster, but they have on average more starch, less protein and fewer key vitamins in them, said James Metzger, a professor and chair of the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science in The Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).

This change is happening because the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 400 parts per million, nearly double what it was in the middle of the 18th century, the start of the industrial revolution. And it keeps rising, spurred by the burning of fuels.

Taking in carbon dioxide and light, a plant forms sugars and starches first, then other nutrients including protein, fat and antioxidants. Though carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to live, too much carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of valuable nutrients the plant produces including iron, zinc and vitamin C.

“The loss of nutrients, particularly protein, is serious,” Metzger said. “That does not help in the effort for people to eat more balanced diets and increase their nutrition.”

Animal meat and dairy products are a significant source of protein for humans. So, if animals aren’t getting sufficient protein from plants, that will affect what they can produce as food.

https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/higher-carbon-dioxide-levels-prompt-more-plant-growth-fewer-nutrients

And of course, greening the north has another drawback...

New NASA-funded research has discovered that Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may actually be sped up by instances of a relatively little known process called abrupt thawing. Abrupt thawing takes place under a certain type of Arctic lake, known as a thermokarst lake that forms as permafrost thaws.

The impact on the climate may mean an influx of permafrost-derived methane into the atmosphere in the mid-21st century, which is not currently accounted for in climate projections.

The Arctic landscape stores one of the largest natural reservoirs of organic carbon in the world in its frozen soils. But once thawed, soil microbes in the permafrost can turn that carbon into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane, which then enter into the atmosphere and contribute to climate warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

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.

Edited by ARGOSY
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

(Numerous studies documenting a loss of nutrient value in crops grown at higher carbon dioxide concentrations)

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

That's all very speculative.

Nope.   Entirely factual.  And yes, we're seeing it happen now.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

I find you attachments didn't give the science behind it, neither confirming the claims quoted.

You think they're lying?   Seriously?    The research is open, if you want the data, ask them for it.   These were all in refereed journals.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

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

No.  In the next decade, many people who depend on their crops to live, will have to grow more of it to survive.

1 hour ago, ARGOSY said:

But this is only with certain plants, not all plants. It seems mainly the grains.

 

Grains are the way the majority of Earth's humans get their calories.   Rice, wheat, barley, and potatoes are being affected, among others.    We aren't sure how many major crops, yet.   We get bigger plants, but less food.  And in a world where hunger remains a problem, it's another way increased CO2 makes things worse.    There's a chance we can breed plants to overcome this. But it won't happen right away.

 

 

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  136
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  2,488
  • Content Per Day:  1.43
  • Reputation:   1,325
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/29/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You think they're lying?   Seriously? 

You think that when millions of dollars are involved in research for an agenda of climate change, that scientists are not going to alter the facts to maintain their funding? The System is rigged to produce the results the globalists want. A Pay to play system. 

My faith is in the Word of God, not in science, how about you?

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/warming-temperature-measurements-polluted-by-bad-data-research-confirms

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

43 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You think that when millions of dollars are involved in research for an agenda of climate change

You have it backwards.   When organizations are offering huge payments for any scientist who will deny man-made warming, the money is in denial, not truth:

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

 

If you're willing to write reports to order, it can be extremely profitable to deny warming:

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

  • Willie Soon is researcher at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Documents: Koch brothers foundation among groups that gave total of $1.25m

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

 

"Look for the money?"   No kidding.   Millions for scientists willing to compromise their integrity to deny warming.

49 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

My faith is in the Word of God, not in science, how about you?

In God, I trust.   Everyone else better have evidence.   How about you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

54 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

You follow up “My faith is in the Word of God” with a link. The Bible does not deny climate change. Why are you attempting to use the Bible as evidence in an argument when it is no such thing? I would suggest “faith in the Bible” for arguments where it is actually relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

(Numerous studies documenting a loss of nutrient value in crops grown at higher carbon dioxide concentrations)

Nope.   Entirely factual.  And yes, we're seeing it happen now.

You think they're lying?   Seriously?    The research is open, if you want the data, ask them for it.   These were all in refereed journals.

No.  In the next decade, many people who depend on their crops to live, will have to grow more of it to survive.

 

Grains are the way the majority of Earth's humans get their calories.   Rice, wheat, barley, and potatoes are being affected, among others.    We aren't sure how many major crops, yet.   We get bigger plants, but less food.  And in a world where hunger remains a problem, it's another way increased CO2 makes things worse.    There's a chance we can breed plants to overcome this. But it won't happen right away.

 

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. 

Edited by ARGOSY
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...