3 ms·

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

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.

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.