A warmer planet, less nutritious plants and fewer grasshoppers?(worldsensorium.com)
worldsensorium.com
A warmer planet, less nutritious plants and fewer grasshoppers?
https://worldsensorium.com/a-warmer-planet-less-nutritious-plants-and-fewer-grasshoppers/
10 comments
The double digits yield increase only happens if water is available. Unfortunately climate change makes droughts, freezes, hurricanes and other freak weather events much more likely, actually resulting in huge reduction in productivity.
Especially droughts. Some parts of USA are already feeling the water squeeze, and it's just the beginning...
Especially droughts. Some parts of USA are already feeling the water squeeze, and it's just the beginning...
What the parent states is backed by solid research.
Your argument is pure speculation trying to disqualify their remarks by moving the goalposts.
Your argument is pure speculation trying to disqualify their remarks by moving the goalposts.
just fyi this paper was retracted for glaring data errors
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11258-015-0541-1
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11258-015-0541-1
Why does this matter when food scarcity has never been the problem? Americans throw away a huge portion of the food they buy.
since California made this compost rule I visually see how much food waste there is, a lot being unedible for sure. However there sure is a lot when you see it all in one place concentrated in a bucket.
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.
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.
Agreed. We compost fruit and vegetable waste in our garden, but it is scary how much other food waste (as well as meat and fish bones goes in our "blue bin" for external composting.
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!)
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!)
awesome stuff, I love this line
> Secure protein supply while valorising organic waste streams.
> Secure protein supply while valorising organic waste streams.
> when food scarcity has never been the problem?
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.
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.
Tell it to all those millions of malnourished children all over the world, being stripped of their future and adult lives as we discuss this. Even if we ignore those dying from hunger outright. Seriously?!?
What proof do you have that this is true?
What persistent global shortages currently exist strictly because of climate change and are not related to the Ukraine war or COVID?
What persistent global shortages currently exist strictly because of climate change and are not related to the Ukraine war or COVID?
More plant grow more CO2 captured.
It’s a natural stabilisation cycle and a positive side effect.
But we shouldn’t talk about it because we should be so so afraid all the time of the green apocalypse.
This natural stabilisation cycle leads to a different flora and fauna, some species adapt, some don't and go extinct.
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.
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.
I agree with you on that one.
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.
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.
Nothing is static in nature. We were in an ice age a blink-of-an-eye ago in geologic terms. Animals migrate. Something may or may not be caused by a warming temperature, but immediately assuming all changes are caused by co2, or that all changes are inherently bad, is an unnatural understanding of natural processes.
1. “Climate scientists are claiming that all changes from climate change will be bad!” is quite the strawman. No scientist really believes this, but almost all agree that the average change will be very bad for humans.
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.
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.
Food crops do not sequester carbon. They will either be eaten and exhaled as CO2, or decompose into CO2. Unless you have a link to someone planning on growing fields of corn just to bury it in an anaerobic environment?
Trees have entered the chat.
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.
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.
More CO2 captured is meaningless if that CO2 is shortly released as the dead plant decays.
It's not meaningless if there's consistently more plant biomass (which there is, see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...).
Leaving aside its magnitude, it seems clear that CO2 -> more plants is a negative feedback loop.
Leaving aside its magnitude, it seems clear that CO2 -> more plants is a negative feedback loop.
The amount of living plant biomass is trivial compared to the amount of excess carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere.
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.
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.
Google says that about 25% of global CO2 emissions are captured by plants. That's not trivial.
What, exactly, do you think plants did before we started burning massive amount of oil and natural gas?
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?
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?
All I did was point out that the greening earth as a result of more CO2 is a negative feedback loop, i.e. as the carbon content of the atmosphere increases, plants grow more and will sequester more CO2. Per the article I linked, over the past ~40 years, an area the size of the contintental US has greened and about 70% of that is attributable to CO2.
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.
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.
but you eat a part of that plant, which itself grew by capturing carbon, but then you poop and breath out CO2. Yea in reality CO2 just keeps increasing until we stop extracting hydrocarbures
My brain parsed that first as "less nutritious grasshoppers." Ew!
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.
----
[SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz
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.
----
[SB] - https://synystrongames.itch.io/slartboz
This seems questionable on several grounds.
(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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
(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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
a while back (too long to recall the sources), I was reading about extinctions and thinking, "well, something or other is going to thrive under these changing conditions."
Turns out that the biggest winners of climate change are likely to be spiders and jellyfish. Great time to be an octopod.
Turns out that the biggest winners of climate change are likely to be spiders and jellyfish. Great time to be an octopod.
> Scientists have also posited that when carbon dioxide is high, plants are less efficient at taking up minerals and other elements because the root molecules that normally pull in these elements are acting at a lower capacity
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.
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.
Leaf Brix maybe be a concern,if grasshoppers specific preferences.
https://joegardener.com/podcast/understanding-brix-how-it-af...
I suppose this means the Carboniferous Period must not have had many insects.
It did—they were enormous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carboniferous_insects
Turns out messing with the composition of the atmosphere has some unexpected consequences …
Yep, for example: it'll be better for a lot of agriculture - unexpected indeed
If they still have enough water that is. Spain might have some thoughts on that.
Also: more food, more plants, less deserts, more carbon captured.
How?
Higher temperatures, less glaciers, more extreme weather, dry lakes and rivers, more deserts.
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.
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.
How?
CO2 is hard to get for plants there is only a tiny amount in the air (0.04% or 4/10000) and carbon is the building block for life.
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".
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".
>plant that grow in more dry condition aka dessert.
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.
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.
The current media narrative is to exaggerate all the downside and showing none of the upside or natural restorative patterns.
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.
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.
>Corona is not natural, it was manmade. All point in that direction
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.
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.
I suggest you take a first principle approach to Covid: calculate by yourself the probability of the epicenter to happen in Wuhan by accident. Assume every state and large organisation is not incentivized to tell the truth. (You could call this conspiracy thinking, but try it by yourself, add a very large safety factor as we can make mistakes if not expert in the matter)
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
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
The Earth has many systems which help maintain a balance. It’s happened many times in the past
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.
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.
Nobody is suggesting that the Earth itself is under threat. The biosphere will survive but humans, especially those in poorer regions, stand to suffer greatly, and many consider it a moral imperative to mitigate that suffering. The best way to do that would seem to be avoiding the most rapid and dramatic climatic changes in order to give people and ecosystems time to adapt.
The poor are affected now by our current energy policy.
We should save the poor now instead of the hypothetical poor impacted in the future.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Let’s be real, the poorest are only not suffering as it is because of all the marvels of the industrialization onward
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
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
The benefits of industrialization have accrued primarily to the rich; the negative consequences will be borne largely by the poor. But in any case no one is seriously trying to stop industrial civilization; we are (slowly, inadequately) trying to transition it to more sustainable foundations.
I agree with you. The threat is far overblow. Slowly the tide is turning and more people start to see that it’s not the end of the world.
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.
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.
But in the past we weren't 8 billion people who travel around the world.
Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
Pretty large food base for a more temperature adapted predator, especially the tiny ones we don't see.
Nice Freudian slip!
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...