A warmer planet, less nutritious plants and fewer grasshoppers?
worldsensorium.com
worldsensorium.com
Elevated CO2 increased Cu, Fe, and Zn, but lowered Mn concentration in grass leaves. Tree leaf responses were strongly related to N status: CO2 significantly decreased Cu, Fe, Mg, and S at high N, but only Fe at low N. Elevated CO2 decreased Mg and Zn in crop leaves grown with high N, and Mn at low N. Nutrient concentrations in crop roots were not affected by CO2 enrichment, but CO2decreasedCa,K,MgandPintree roots. Crop seeds had lower S under elevated CO2.We also tested the validity of a ‘‘dilution model.’’ CO2 reduced the concentration of plant nutrients 6.6% across nutrients and plant groups, but the reduction is less than expected (18.4%) from carbohydrate accumulation alone.
A lot of gnashing of teeth over an at most 7% shift in nutrient profile (and it takes a doubling to observe this) while a significant double digit percentage increase in crop yield is observed, making more food available for consumption.
https://ecoss.nau.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Duval-et-al...
So life as such isn't in danger but life as we know it, because we could be the one to go extinct.
Just look how it seems that fungus adapt to higher temperatures so they now survive in humans too.
2. Climate change does not mean “increasing CO2”. It means changes in global climate as a result of human activity - things like dumping waste in the ocean count too. CO2 isn’t causing the Anthropocene, Humans are.
3. Arguing in poor faith against climate change because the idea of global catastrophes scares you is a poor evolutionary strategy and you should reconsider your outlook.
It will change the plants and animals equilibrium and at a fast pace compared to most normal process. It’s not a good experiment. I just think that it’s not the panic for global warming. We will be fine on that front with the log scale of renewable growth.
Leaving aside its magnitude, it seems clear that CO2 -> more plants is a negative feedback loop.
Consider that we’re unearthing millions of years worth of sequestered carbon. The planet could be covered pole to pole in lush forest and it wouldn’t account for what we burn today.
The only realistic answer here is permanent sequestration by e.g., repeatedly growing and burying entire forests’ worth of dead trees.
The Earth was in rough equilibrium before this. The only way this factoid is even remotely plausible as a permanent store is if Earth’s total plant biomass is growing at rate proportional to our CO2 emissions.
Do you genuinely believe that to be the case?
I didn't say the greening earth will totally offset climate change. You should ask yourself why you felt the need to spew nonsense in this thread. I find it baffling.
Living trees will grow faster and harvested lumber successfully sequesters carbon indefinitely.
Even crops we consume have non-negligible amounts of carbon sequestered in soil as they decompose.
It would be neat to convert it to other things like chickens and larger insects beyond the fruit and house flies and occasional soldier flies that pop up.
Entocycle (https://entocycle.com/) is one startup looking at this - using black soldier flies to convert food waste into high-protein animal food. (I'm not affiliated, but I think it's a neat idea!)
> Secure protein supply while valorising organic waste streams.
food scarcity in America is not a problem. Then you have logistical challenge to transfer this food to other region and efficiently distribute it. Then you have financial problem who will pay for all of this.
What persistent global shortages currently exist strictly because of climate change and are not related to the Ukraine war or COVID?
Especially droughts. Some parts of USA are already feeling the water squeeze, and it's just the beginning...
Your argument is pure speculation trying to disqualify their remarks by moving the goalposts.
Speaking of the accelerating impacts of the carbon climate crisis -- esp on ecosystems and the food supply -- I've been building an educational comedy adventure game [SB: see below] (set about 80 years in the future) which makes several assumptions about the food supply as a core premise. Assumptions not unlike those in the films Mad Max or Idiocracy.
Namely that several new types of artificially grown/manufactured food are created and promoted. Among them, a fictional slimy, fruity white "slurm" drink and a mystery meat-like goo named "glerm." Both or which smell and taste awful, of course, yet are loaded with healthy nutrients and vitamins. Most importantly, easy to mass produce and distribute, esp in a world with poisoned soils and degraded logistical infrastructure.
----
(1) Greenhouse growers often raise CO2 levels to ~1000 ppm to optimize growth (note this only works because all other nutrients are supplied at ideal levels to sustain growth, however). These crops are not known to be nutritionally deficient and I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it if they were.
(2) Plants have a relatively stable ratio of nutrient requirements, with CHOPKNS CaFe Mg (mighty good) being an easy-to-remember acronym. We might be moving to a scenario in which CO2 is rarely if ever the limiting nutrient, however. Note also certain plants (C4 metabolism) have built-in CO2 concentration mechanisms, so rising CO2 might help C3 plants compete effectively. See:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14757584/
"Terrestrial plants require nutrients in similar proportions" (2004)
It's more probable that there's a bit of a CO2 fertilization effect, so you get a slight increase in carbon fixation while nutrient uptake remains stable, which isn t really a 'decline' as we'd normally think of it. Basically you'd get a bit more cellulose and carbohydrate formation, but each cell still needs its normal amount of N, P, K etc. to sustain protein and DNA metabolism etc.
Incidentally, the decline in insect populations mentioned in the article is largely attributable to extensive use of broad-spectrum insecticides, in particular the neonicotinoids, which are organic compounds based on the nicotine molecule with various additions (chlorine, etc.) to make them more persistent and toxic, and which were introduced in the 1980s.
Turns out that the biggest winners of climate change are likely to be spiders and jellyfish. Great time to be an octopod.
Nutrient absorption is often mediated by fungi and bacteria in the soil, it would be interesting to see a breakdown about how sensitive they are to elevated CO2. If we find that the process is bottlenecked by a certain soil organism, we might be able to find ways to help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects
It's a complex system and we don't know how it ends.
We could become food too for fungi and insects that spread because of higher temperatures.
Perhaps whatever is happening now is too extreme for it to do that, but it seems unlikely. The ecosystems of the planet share many deep symbioses
I know i’ll be downvoted, and i’m expecting no one will actually address what i’ve said while doing it. There’s no real conservation in this topic anymore.
Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
In fact the climate change policies reveal that we don’t care at all about the poor as we would save far more if we were concern about them instead of CO2.
The more you research this the more you will find the whole movement disingenuous at best.
It’s somewhat ironic to say that we need to stop the systems which have helped so many poor people so that we don’t cause harm to poor people
Mostly a positive feedback loop of media, government, research that all finance each others.
Frankly with AI and nuclear threat at this moment I don’t know why people are concern with CO2, the timeline is so far away.
Through history plant have consumed all the carbon they could in the air and much of it ended up stuck in the earth crust (mostly coal but also gas and oil)
As we raise the level of CO2 plants thrive, especially in dry condition where the plants loose water as they open their pore to get CO2. So more CO2 = plant that grow in more dry condition aka desert. Everything is getting greener and as a result CO2 get captured.
Now that doesn’t mean we should be stupid about it, at some point it’s a crazy experiment, but it’s not the end of the world as the media like to report.
With Solar, wind, EV all on exponential path of growth there is nothing to fear about climate change anymore, maybe if we could find a way to slow down China expansion of coal plants that would make a dent, but I understand that they need it.
Look into Tony Seba (for renewable growth) and Bjorn Lomborg for intelligent priorities for the world.
If we are really concern about the earth and the poor there is far, far better way to spend our money and time, but maybe it’s not as catchy as "climate change".
The CO2 may be evenly distributed in the atmosphere but water isn't. Changes in sea currents and the jet streams can make desserts green but also turn green place into desserts.
Higher temperatures mean wider spreading of disease transmitting insects like mosquitos or the fungi that adapt to higher temperatures so they can now survive in humans, add these new threats to other problems like multidrug resistance of bacterias and our future isn't as bright as you picture it.
Corona was kind of a warning shot, something deadlier could have been much more devastating.
If we stop CO2 production (will happen thanks to entrepreneurship and some incentives) nature will soak it up rapidly.
Corona is not natural, it was manmade. All point in that direction. If we want to prevent this from happening again we should stop experimenting with virus (not happening). So yes, I agree we will probably see something worse, but not because of climate change.
Simply no, not all points in that direction. It isn't even the most likely. https://www.dw.com/en/the-covid-lab-leak-theory-who-says-wha...
>If we stop CO2 production (will happen thanks to entrepreneurship and some incentives)
Also unlikely because we don't have mass production ready alternatives for things like concrete
On top of that,CO2 isn't the problem but the rising temperature it triggers. Melting ice caps, changing sea and air currents have massive impacts. If rivers dry out and droughts happen CO2 doesn't help growing plants like wheat, corn and rice. Plants need water and soil too.
For CO2 it’s similar, find people who have the opposite argument of the common narrative and see how it stack up.
The current panic assume a positive feedback, a runaway system, while it’s not impossible it’s highly unlikely. Natural phenomenon are usually self correcting or they would be in constant oscillation. One of such is the ice age/warm period where we were at the bottom of a little ice age, thus it’s normal it’s heating up again.
For Solar / Green energy look into Tony Seba he made prediction that turned out to be right about it.
The way I see it the technological development of the human race is going so fast that most problem we picture in 20, 30, 50 years will be solved way before we are there.
As an example a big CO2 producer is China and India, they are going into population collapse (as we are) and thus event without new tech you can expect their grow to plateau and then collapse in the next few years.
What concern me more than climate change is:
- totalitarian tendency of our democracies at the moment: digital currency, internet control, media capture
- Poor countries where if we raise energy price we will starve them (fertilizer, transport)
- AI / AGI we are almost there, no telling what will happen after that
- Population collapse: cultural but also chemicals in our food chain
- Pharma capture of our institution: being sick is profitable, especially if chronically
- Epidemic of mental illness: depression, anxiety, meaninglessness, bleak vision of our future of humanity