7 ms·

This article is pretty bunk and politically/ideologically motivated.

jacobolus 7y ago
Here’s the study, http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000188 http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000188 which builds on https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012 What part did you think was “bunk”? It seems fairly predictable/uncontroversial that substantially changing the composition of the air plants are grown in would affect their growth. These studies are part of an effort to figure out precisely what changes result from expected current/near-future changes in the atmosphere and what potential impact those changes might have on the global food supply and health. It is important to know about these effects so that we can try to mitigate the harms involved, e.g. by switching to new crops or crop strains, adopting alternative agricultural methods, supplementing at-risk diets with other foods, etc., instead of just letting millions of people suffer dangerous nutrient deficiencies.
- nkurz 7y ago
  On a quick read of the paper (thanks for the link) I was bothered that I found no mention of the fact that the per-acre yield also goes up with increased CO2. Each grain of rice (likely) has slightly less nutrients, but more grains of rice are produced in a given field. From other articles I found, it looks like the yield is expected to increase by about 13%. Omitting any mention of this feels like a political decision. It's also worth noting that the paper doesn't really try to prove that nutrition levels will drop, but instead concentrates on showing that if nutrition levels in rice drop that more people may experience deficiencies. In particular, it cites a paper that actually did the experiment, and found no decrease in nutrients other than Nitrogen: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.004 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.004. This experiment implies that it's at least possible to grow rice under high CO2 levels without experiencing the drop. I also thought the mitigation section was odd. It points out that only a few countries currently fortify rice with Vitamin B. It notes that fortification is inexpensive and effective, although it would require a major effort to begin doing so in other countries. The paper also shows that nutrient deficiency is already a large problem, and that increase caused by a decrease in foliate levels in rice would only be 1.5%. Maybe a better conclusion would be that these countries should really be fortifying their rice? I didn't think it was a bad paper, and it wasn't "bunk". I agree that knowing what sort of changes to expect from an increased CO2 level is a good thing. But it did seem like it might be pushing an agenda more than just trying to lay out the scientific conclusions.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    It's especially weird since crop yields are up like 30-40% since 1988. Not that rice is especially nutritious in the first place. It's basically a bunch of carbs with miniscule levels of vitamins.
  - sedachv 7y ago
    You need read up on agriculture basics before posting junk comments. > From other articles I found, it looks like the yield is expected to increase by about 13%. Omitting any mention of this feels like a political decision. That is because CO2 enrichment as a way to increase yields is decades old common knowledge and a widespread practice in greenhouses. Just because you did not know that, does not mean there is a conspiracy here. > It's also worth noting that the paper doesn't really try to prove that nutrition levels will drop Because nutrient density decrease is something that has already happened: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
    - esyir 7y ago
      The issue here is the notoriously shit science media with no room for nuance. This one goes in along with "SCIENTISTS CURE CANCER" in which you get potentially interesting findings that get blown horribly out of proportion by whatever rag that decides to post it, often with a political spin to boot.
    - kaitai 7y ago
      While... blunt... your comment is exactly right. I don't mention the definition of degree of polynomial when I write an algebraic geometry paper. The knowledge that CO2 increases yields is universal among scientists reading this paper.
      - nkurz 7y ago
        Perhaps obviously, I disagree. It's not that every paper has to mention everything that's obvious, but my point was that the choice of how to frame the problem can be a political decision. There was no attempt to explain why micronutrient per serving of rice was the right metric, and I think using it can be misleading if the amount of rice grown changes for the same reason that the nutrients are dropping. And while "everyone knows" that yields will increase, there is disagreement on whether the increase in yield is dependent or independent of the change in nutritional value. By the way, I liked your comment elsewhere in this thread about eating plain rice. But rather than lamenting that all the references are behind paywalls, I personally think it's better just to give the DOI's and a link to http://sci-hub.tw http://sci-hub.tw. Or even better yet, just link to the papers, profits of publishers be damned. The world is better off when more people read the actual science.
- aaron695 7y ago
  OP did say article not study. The bunk bit is micronutrient deficiency is only amongst the real poor, less than $2 per day. Not the rich (US/Europe) or middle class or US/European poor. And it's happening TODAY, they way forward to the problem, which ALREADY exists is to fix it by getting a variety of foods to the real poor. Rice alone is always not enough, this is a today issue. A - Stop pushing today's issues until 2050 to push CO2 agendas. B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. C - Other plants with the required micronutrients will become cheaper/increased yields with the increased CO2. So stop making up possible issues when it's a today issues.
  - youareostriches 7y ago
    >B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. Fossil fuels need to stop being used altogether, and as quickly as possible. This means that it’s up to the wealthy nations who currently use the most CO2 per capita (https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...) to drastically reduce their share. And guess what happens if the price of fossil fuels doesn’t match the ecological impact and their use is not drastically scaled down? It’s precisely the poorest of the world who will suffer the greatest consequences of global warming.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Mate, you want to see the poor suffer...then immediately ban all use of fossil fuels. THAT will cause suffering of levels unseen in modern times.
      - youareostriches 7y ago
        It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale transition would harm poorer people—-on the contrary, it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels in order to allow poorer countries to continue basic necessities such as heating and nitrogen-fixed fertilizers from natural gas. The wealthy countries have the economic means to rapidly transition their economies away from fossil fuels. This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.
- esyir 7y ago
  My god, that paper is absolutely terrible. The science one, while not without issues, is much much better. The title also sucks less.
ggm 7y ago
<citation required>

Here’s the study, http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000188 http://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000188 which builds on https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012 What part did you think was “bunk”? It seems fairly predictable/uncontroversial that substantially changing the composition of the air plants are grown in would affect their growth. These studies are part of an effort to figure out precisely what changes result from expected current/near-future changes in the atmosphere and what potential impact those changes might have on the global food supply and health. It is important to know about these effects so that we can try to mitigate the harms involved, e.g. by switching to new crops or crop strains, adopting alternative agricultural methods, supplementing at-risk diets with other foods, etc., instead of just letting millions of people suffer dangerous nutrient deficiencies.

nkurz 7y ago
On a quick read of the paper (thanks for the link) I was bothered that I found no mention of the fact that the per-acre yield also goes up with increased CO2. Each grain of rice (likely) has slightly less nutrients, but more grains of rice are produced in a given field. From other articles I found, it looks like the yield is expected to increase by about 13%. Omitting any mention of this feels like a political decision. It's also worth noting that the paper doesn't really try to prove that nutrition levels will drop, but instead concentrates on showing that if nutrition levels in rice drop that more people may experience deficiencies. In particular, it cites a paper that actually did the experiment, and found no decrease in nutrients other than Nitrogen: http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.004 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.004. This experiment implies that it's at least possible to grow rice under high CO2 levels without experiencing the drop. I also thought the mitigation section was odd. It points out that only a few countries currently fortify rice with Vitamin B. It notes that fortification is inexpensive and effective, although it would require a major effort to begin doing so in other countries. The paper also shows that nutrient deficiency is already a large problem, and that increase caused by a decrease in foliate levels in rice would only be 1.5%. Maybe a better conclusion would be that these countries should really be fortifying their rice? I didn't think it was a bad paper, and it wasn't "bunk". I agree that knowing what sort of changes to expect from an increased CO2 level is a good thing. But it did seem like it might be pushing an agenda more than just trying to lay out the scientific conclusions.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  It's especially weird since crop yields are up like 30-40% since 1988. Not that rice is especially nutritious in the first place. It's basically a bunch of carbs with miniscule levels of vitamins.
- sedachv 7y ago
  You need read up on agriculture basics before posting junk comments. > From other articles I found, it looks like the yield is expected to increase by about 13%. Omitting any mention of this feels like a political decision. That is because CO2 enrichment as a way to increase yields is decades old common knowledge and a widespread practice in greenhouses. Just because you did not know that, does not mean there is a conspiracy here. > It's also worth noting that the paper doesn't really try to prove that nutrition levels will drop Because nutrient density decrease is something that has already happened: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511 https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrie...
  - esyir 7y ago
    The issue here is the notoriously shit science media with no room for nuance. This one goes in along with "SCIENTISTS CURE CANCER" in which you get potentially interesting findings that get blown horribly out of proportion by whatever rag that decides to post it, often with a political spin to boot.
  - kaitai 7y ago
    While... blunt... your comment is exactly right. I don't mention the definition of degree of polynomial when I write an algebraic geometry paper. The knowledge that CO2 increases yields is universal among scientists reading this paper.
    - nkurz 7y ago
      Perhaps obviously, I disagree. It's not that every paper has to mention everything that's obvious, but my point was that the choice of how to frame the problem can be a political decision. There was no attempt to explain why micronutrient per serving of rice was the right metric, and I think using it can be misleading if the amount of rice grown changes for the same reason that the nutrients are dropping. And while "everyone knows" that yields will increase, there is disagreement on whether the increase in yield is dependent or independent of the change in nutritional value. By the way, I liked your comment elsewhere in this thread about eating plain rice. But rather than lamenting that all the references are behind paywalls, I personally think it's better just to give the DOI's and a link to http://sci-hub.tw http://sci-hub.tw. Or even better yet, just link to the papers, profits of publishers be damned. The world is better off when more people read the actual science.
aaron695 7y ago
OP did say article not study. The bunk bit is micronutrient deficiency is only amongst the real poor, less than $2 per day. Not the rich (US/Europe) or middle class or US/European poor. And it's happening TODAY, they way forward to the problem, which ALREADY exists is to fix it by getting a variety of foods to the real poor. Rice alone is always not enough, this is a today issue. A - Stop pushing today's issues until 2050 to push CO2 agendas. B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. C - Other plants with the required micronutrients will become cheaper/increased yields with the increased CO2. So stop making up possible issues when it's a today issues.
- youareostriches 7y ago
  >B - The real poor need cheap energy today, they die without it. It's not just a discussion point by the ultra rich on a Bulletin Board. Fossil fuels need to stop being used altogether, and as quickly as possible. This means that it’s up to the wealthy nations who currently use the most CO2 per capita (https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-ex...) to drastically reduce their share. And guess what happens if the price of fossil fuels doesn’t match the ecological impact and their use is not drastically scaled down? It’s precisely the poorest of the world who will suffer the greatest consequences of global warming.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Mate, you want to see the poor suffer...then immediately ban all use of fossil fuels. THAT will cause suffering of levels unseen in modern times.
    - youareostriches 7y ago
      It’s not that simple. You don’t get to keep your wasteful jet-setting, SUV-driving, car-culture-oriented consumer lifestyle on the basis that any wholesale transition would harm poorer people—-on the contrary, it is the obligation of wealthy countries to radically curtail their own use of fossil fuels in order to allow poorer countries to continue basic necessities such as heating and nitrogen-fixed fertilizers from natural gas. The wealthy countries have the economic means to rapidly transition their economies away from fossil fuels. This technology must then be exported to poorer countries on a free or subsidized basis.
esyir 7y ago
My god, that paper is absolutely terrible. The science one, while not without issues, is much much better. The title also sucks less.

ggm 7y ago