Climate Change and Conservatism

[ARGOSY]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

So forest apes might live off fruit, but our species depend on grains.   And that means we have a crisis if the carbon levels keep rising.    "Let them eat Japanese pears" is not a very good reply.

Agronomists are now seeking ways to overcome this problem by breeding forms of crops that are adapted to the increasing levels, but it's unlikely to happen fast enough to deal with the lack of nutrition in staple foods used by humans.

 

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. 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by ARGOSY

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

You will never accept a good point. Although your claim is that all plants are affected,

It was? (Barbarian checks).  No, actually it wasn't.

5 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

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.

Neither of those conclusions are supported by the facts.   Americans, for example, depend on grains and potatoes for much of our food.    It's very clear; loss of nutritional value in staple crops is a major problem with rising carbon dioxide.

 

 

[Dennis1209]

God is in control. Throughout all of recorded history there has always been climate change and it wasn't man made. And it's not man-made now, it's an indicator of the times in which we are living prophetically. Climate change is going to be the mechanism and rallying point to generate emission taxes on countries to finance the coming one world government through the United Nations. 

Save the planet from ourselves, tree huggers, mother earth worshipers have their own secular ideas that exclude God. In the tribulation people are going to be scorched from the heat from the sun; is this birth pangs and a prelude of what is to come? 

This is not to say we should not take care of the earth by any means. But we humans can not control the uncontrollable God is in charge of.

[ARGOSY]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It was? (Barbarian checks).  No, actually it wasn't.

Neither of those conclusions are supported by the facts.   Americans, for example, depend on grains and potatoes for much of our food.    It's very clear; loss of nutritional value in staple crops is a major problem with rising carbon dioxide.

 

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.

[The Barbarian]

Let's see what the research actually found...

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Yield, chemical composition and nutritional quality responses of carrot, radish and turnip to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide

First published: 09 April 2013

RESULTS

The yield of carrot, radish and turnip increased by 69, 139 and 72%, respectively, when grown under elevated CO₂ conditions. Among the proximate composition, protein, vitamin C and fat contents decreased significantly for all the vegetables while sugar and fibre contents were increased. Response of the vegetables to elevated CO₂, in terms of elemental composition, was different with a significant decrease in many important minerals. Elevated CO₂ decreased the amount of majority of the fatty acids and amino acids in these vegetables.

CONCLUSIONS

It was observed that elevated CO₂ increased the yield of root vegetables but many important nutritional parameters including protein, vitamin C, minerals, essential fatty acids and amino acids were decreased.

[The Barbarian]

So, "let them eat carrots" won't work, either.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Cletus said:

One has to be blind and completely dedicated to living a life where God is not apart of it. 

He gave us stewardship of the Earth; while it's not a scientific argument, a believer would indeed care if we are good stewards or not.   Perhaps some believers blind themselves into denying our responsibility for this world.

Quote

as the rain Forrest floor decomposes, and as it does it releases tons and tons and tons of carbon dioxide.  IF carbon dioxide was even a thing to consider, it would have been an issue long long ago.  centuries and possibly millenniums. [/quote]

We're merely adding billions of tons of additional CO2 to the mix.   That's unprecedented in human history, and why we're warming up the planet.

 

Quote

you do realize every time a human being breaths out its ... wait for it....  carbon dioxide?  Whats my point? 

 

You have perhaps been convinced that our breathing is a significant part of the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans.   That's wrong.   It's not significant.   More importantly, the respiration by plants and animals is nicely balanced by carbon sinks in the Earth.    We're just adding more to the mix, so that the sinks can't absorb it all.  So the atmospheric CO2 rises.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

the thing i am convinced of is that climate change is a farce.  C02 is not the problem.  man's sin is. 

If  by "sin" you mean "dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere", you're right.

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

 just ponder it for a moment.  it used to be called global warming and once a "polar vortex" came and the rescue boat sent to rescue those on a mission close to the north pole got stuck in an icy sea, and even multiple helicopters sent to rescue them had to turn back just because the winter storm was just too cold and violent... they had to change the name from global warming to climate change.[/quote]

No, it's always been "climate change."   Even in the 1980s, that's what it was called.  Warming is what's happening in climate change.  Last winter was one of the warmest on record.   Would you like me to show you the data?

Why so much more snow?   Well, that's a consequence of warming.   You see, warmer seas mean more evaporation,and when warm, moist air encounters polar air, lots of snow.   This is why Greenland's ice cap is melting rapidly on the periphery, while getting thicker where melting has not yet reached.

It's just a fact.   One can like it, or not like it.   But the fact isn't going away.

 

 

 

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

No, it's always been "climate change."   Even in the 1980s, that's what it was called. 

Just out of curiousity, How old are You?

[The Barbarian]

40 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Just out of curiousity, How old are You?

I'm 72.    I've been in universities since the 1960s, so I remember.