Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rice, a crucial food source for billions of people—is less nutritious when grown under higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Its stores of protein, iron, zinc and some important B vitamins all decline.
That’s a potential concern for public health, the authors say, particularly in poorer nations where rice makes up a large proportion of people’s diet."
Why is it a potential concern in these nations? Why wouldn't it be a real concern?
Sentence 1:
One of the world’s most important food crops may be declining in quality due to greenhouse gas emissions.
May be? Well, is it or isn't it? And if the study proves this relationship between rice and CO2 levels, why don't they use the word "is" like true believer Sanspeur? Well, there's the second sentence in the article.
Sentence 2: The results of a major study, published yesterday in Science Advances, suggest that rice—a crucial food source for billions of people—is less nutritious when grown under higher carbon dioxide concentrations.
Oh, the results suggest this. They don't prove anything, so it's not really conclusive about the relationship. If it were conclusive, the language would say The results .... prove ..... that rice ...
It doesn't say that. Looks to me like the Scientific American really doesn't want to sign their name to this study. Oh, they want to publish it because it aligns with their fundamentalist environmental agenda. But they understand that whatever cautious words they use to put a little distance between them and legal liability will be replaced by the right verbs of being in the minds of their climate disciples. Like Sanspeur.
Why is it a potential concern in these nations? Why wouldn't it be a real concern?
Sentence 1:
One of the world’s most important food crops may be declining in quality due to greenhouse gas emissions.
May be? Well, is it or isn't it? And if the study proves this relationship between rice and CO2 levels, why don't they use the word "is" like true believer Sanspeur? Well, there's the second sentence in the article.
Sentence 2: The results of a major study, published yesterday in Science Advances, suggest that rice—a crucial food source for billions of people—is less nutritious when grown under higher carbon dioxide concentrations.
Oh, the results suggest this. They don't prove anything, so it's not really conclusive about the relationship. If it were conclusive, the language would say The results .... prove ..... that rice ...
It doesn't say that. Looks to me like the Scientific American really doesn't want to sign their name to this study. Oh, they want to publish it because it aligns with their fundamentalist environmental agenda. But they understand that whatever cautious words they use to put a little distance between them and legal liability will be replaced by the right verbs of being in the minds of their climate disciples. Like Sanspeur.
It's funny to watch. Really, really funny.
It's very simple...The article was not written by the researcher, but by a journalist she uses those words because nobody has a crystal ball and cannot predict future CO2, rainfall, temperatures or amounts of sunlight...
If you are really interested here is the actual research paper....
It's very simple...The article was not written by the researcher, but by a journalist she uses those words because nobody has a crystal ball and cannot predict future CO2, rainfall, temperatures or amounts of sunlight...
If you are really interested here is the actual research paper....
You present it as scientific fact. The journalist, who is actually a political activist, posits an increase in CO2 as a negative for the environment, when we all know that plants thrive in a high CO2 environment. You can't bring about worldwide wealth redistribution when your so-called climate crisis turns out to be a net positive for the world's populations.
You present it as scientific fact. The journalist, who is actually a political activist, posits an increase in CO2 as a negative for the environment, when we all know that plants thrive in a high CO2 environment. You can't bring about worldwide wealth redistribution when your so-called climate crisis turns out to be a net positive for the world's populations.
Disruptions to our food supply systems and all ecosystems will not be a net positive for anyone.
....yep, a longer growing season and faster growing plants will really disrupt everything
Hotter temps, more severe droughts, and more severe flooding has never been a net positive for agriculture. You’re opinion means nothing. Facts and data say otherwise.
Rice is a starch that lacks enough vitamins and nutrients itself to be a sole sustaining food. Individuals who live on rice alone (your "nutritious rice) develop vit B6 defficiency and Beri-beri. US POWs in Japanese camps suffered this disease.
1. Rice is not the main source of said vitamins for those who consume rice
2. rice is a starch- much like western nations getting starch from potatoes and not many of thier vitamins, Asian countries use rice for starch. Believe it or not, they still eat meats and vegetables.
3. Increased Co2 levels have resulted in 20% increases in crop yields, far outweighing this presumed reduction in vitamins. Thus, those nations have far more rice than before.
4. There is no data regarding the methods or statistics for us to determine the validity of said study.
#4 is the key here. While rice can conceivably be grown in an indoor environment where it may be possible to maintain atmospheric CO2 concentrations at the level stated in the study (568 to 590 ppm), we are hard pressed to envision a situation where one could maintain those CO2 concentrations in the normal growing environment for rice, i.e., large outdoor paddies containing heavy clay soils which can be inundated by irrigation.
It would also be useful to know what differences there were, if any, in the soil types used in the study as opposed to real-world growing environments. In the U.S. Rice Belt, for instance, the crop thrives in heavy clay soils that retain water. Rice can be productively grown in soil types that are not suitable for other crops. The linked article does not indicate whether the study used a growth medium mineralogically equivalent to that used by commercial outdoor growers.
Beyond the CO2 the warmer weather and droughts is having an impact on food supplies worldwide.
warmer is not droughts, warmer is wetter..more tropical
warmer= longer growing seasons, and less irrigation needed
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
