How Global Warming May Starve Us: More Carbon Equals Less Nutrition

Check it out, ATS

According to this article
Global Warming wiill starve several people because plants will grow larger due to an increase in Carbon Dioxide but will have less nutrients like Zinc and Iron.

“Reductions in the zinc and iron content of the edible portion of these food crops will increase the risk of zinc and iron deficiencies."

The future looks oh-so-bright because of all the recent technical innovations but the future is also very scary because of the environments breakdown. A breakdown which is starting small but will build momentum until it's too large to stop. Doom Porn. I know.

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: lostbook

I read about this on Science Daily today. Must be about the same content. Now Raising CO2 levels does make a tree grow faster, but it would seem that it might only take in the same nutrients over a larger area. This could mean rapid growth with less nutritional value.

Plants that grow faster without adding micronutrients will have a lesser concentration it seems. Basically just more carbon and water.

I'm more worried about killer robots.

Anyone with experience in Hydroponics could of came to the same conclusion, CO2 helps plants grow, but you still need other nutrients to supplement that added growth.


And for some reason, why is it all i hear is GMO to the rescue,

problem, reaction, solution.

originally posted by: lostbook
Check it out, ATS

According to this article
Global Warming wiill starve several people because plants will grow larger due to an increase in Carbon Dioxide but will have less nutrients like Zinc and Iron.

“Reductions in the zinc and iron content of the edible portion of these food crops will increase the risk of zinc and iron deficiencies."

The future looks oh-so-bright because of all the recent technical innovations but the future is also very scary because of the environments breakdown. A breakdown which is starting small but will build momentum until it's too large to stop. Doom Porn. I know.

www.nbcnews.com...

Yeah, it`s doom porn alright.

Using a 100% increase in carbon dioxide (above normal levels) inside of agricultural robots while maintaining the temperature at 21 degrees C and using HPS lamps in water jackets, we grew Romaine Lettuce with 17% more nutrients and less fungus and/or bacteria, in 14 days from seedling to 18 inches in diameter.

Since I designed a lot of the system, lights, robotics controllers and was involved in running the experiments myself, I guess that blows that theory of less nutrients and larger plants.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: benrl
And for some reason, why is it all i hear is GMO to the rescue,

problem, reaction, solution.

That's exactly what I thought.
and it will be the solution..at least short term. Global warming will not be sufficiently reversed, rather, we will invent our way out of the worst effects until we can invent methods to stabilize.

In a way, I don't mind this approach if we can all just admit some core tendencies.
we must first
1) accept the dang globe is warming
2) accept we have a hand in it
3) accept we will not risk even a single moment of our week to be responsible or alter our behavior.

Then we should accept a bit of a increase in taxes specifically for tracked research in technology to offset the issues here, create carbon filter plants, huge solar arrays in deserts, etc etc etc...
I think the switch may already be switched and now its time to talk about reactionary development..prevention is more than likely not a option at this point..especially with the far east coming online in regards to power and meat eating.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: benrl
And for some reason, why is it all i hear is GMO to the rescue,

problem, reaction, solution.

That's exactly what I thought.
and it will be the solution..at least short term. Global warming will not be sufficiently reversed, rather, we will invent our way out of the worst effects until we can invent methods to stabilize.

In a way, I don't mind this approach if we can all just admit some core tendencies.
we must first
1) accept the dang globe is warming
2) accept we have a hand in it
3) accept we will not risk even a single moment of our week to be responsible or alter our behavior.

Then we should accept a bit of a increase in taxes specifically for tracked research in technology to offset the issues here, create carbon filter plants, huge solar arrays in deserts, etc etc etc...
I think the switch may already be switched and now its time to talk about reactionary development..prevention is more than likely not a option at this point..especially with the far east coming online in regards to power and meat eating.

Something needs to be done to mitigate the damage, it wont be stopped.

China and India are emerging industrial societies with a growing middle class, what happens when a few billion people decide they want to drive just like the rest of the world.

Its a time bomb waiting to happen, and we have already seen the environmental effects in china.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

And what was your soil composition?

originally posted by: benrl

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: benrl
And for some reason, why is it all i hear is GMO to the rescue,

problem, reaction, solution.

That's exactly what I thought.
and it will be the solution..at least short term. Global warming will not be sufficiently reversed, rather, we will invent our way out of the worst effects until we can invent methods to stabilize.

In a way, I don't mind this approach if we can all just admit some core tendencies.
we must first
1) accept the dang globe is warming
2) accept we have a hand in it
3) accept we will not risk even a single moment of our week to be responsible or alter our behavior.

Then we should accept a bit of a increase in taxes specifically for tracked research in technology to offset the issues here, create carbon filter plants, huge solar arrays in deserts, etc etc etc...
I think the switch may already be switched and now its time to talk about reactionary development..prevention is more than likely not a option at this point..especially with the far east coming online in regards to power and meat eating.

Something needs to be done to mitigate the damage, it wont be stopped.

China and India are emerging industrial societies with a growing middle class, what happens when a few billion people decide they want to drive just like the rest of the world.

Its a time bomb waiting to happen, and we have already seen the environmental effects in china.

Yep, that's why I say its not going to change, we are screwed conventionally speaking.
Actually, the entire western civilization could simply go dark, and this may slow things down by a decade or so, but as china and india develop more, we will eventually hit that peak again and alter the chemical composition of the planet...so..the only viable solution will be for innovation to counter and reverse...personally, I am in favor of moving towards a type 1 civilization...absolute control over the environment. rain in the deserts, etc

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

And what was your soil composition?

These were hydroponic systems, plus some aeroponics for zero-g applications. The tubes were standard 2 inch BIC (vacuum cleaner tubes) cut to 14 inches. There were 1500 tubes per side in two moving rail assemblies for a total of 3000 plants every 14 days and the chamber was 10 x 10 x 20 feet. The feed was formulated by our biologist, which was then mixed with aerated distilled water to maintain accurate control of nutrient content. The chamber had 29.6kw of water cooled HPS lights (before I converted over to specific frequency LED lights) and a single 2 ton air conditioner to maintain temperature. The walls, roof and floor were covered in reflective mylar. You can see pictures of it on my site.

It was a lot of fun to build and it produced the best vegetables I have ever tasted.

ETA: My only point was that we were driving the system normally with a 100% increase in carbon dioxide. Sometimes I took that up to 5% CO2 by weight in the chamber, but we never had any adverse effects.

Cheers - Dave

In a place that purports to question authority and "deny ignorance" is amazing how many ATS members swallow the Global warming hysteria hook, line, and sinker. Anything else the MSM tells us and we're all "You're lying!" and come up with conspiracies to explain the so-called "facts" we're being fed. But if a mainstream "scientist" says, "Global warming is gonna getcha if you don't watch out!" then we're all willing to dump our cars, go vegan, and consent to NWO Global Rule with hardly a whimper.

Why don't we question this more? Why don't we look up the history? Why don’t we investigate alternative explanations?

OK, LET'S JUST TAKE THIS AT FACE VALUE:
Fine, all the scientists are right. It's warming up (Please ignore the last decade for awhile) and WE caused it. So what's going to happen? The Sierra will expand. Warm places will get warmer. Some people will die because of it because some governments and bureaucrats were inept in getting them food and water. It's not that it doesn't exist. It's just that fools with guns like to disrupt supply chains.

Meanwhile some cold places will warm up and some people won't die of cold. Places like Canada and Siberia will become bread baskets and major grain producers. You'll be able to grow wine grapes in Scotland (again!) and support farms and livestock in Greenland (again!) You'll spend more on air conditioning, but less on furnaces.

When we had a whole lot of carbon in times past, we had lush forests with common bracken ferns growing 40 feet tall. The entire Earth was a garden of plants. As long as you could avoid plodding Brontosaurus feet there was plenty for everyone. (Now don't go getting pedantic on me by self-righteously pointing out your simplistic knowledge that there was no such thing as a Brontosaurus, OK? Spare me the friggin' grief!)

Besides, your alternative is what, exactly? [Insert drum roll here]. Another Ice Age! Yup! That's right. Look at the record. It's time for one. I don't know about you, but I kinda think avoiding one of those global glacier thingies is not a bad idea at all.

AND WHAT IF IT ISN'T TRUE, OR AT LEAST NOT MAN MADE?
You know by now, I hope, that Gore's "Hockey Stick" is BS, right? (OK. It's because the program that produces the hockey stick will do so every time the input is "red noise." What is red noise? White noise is random data. Red noise is random from the last data point, like stock prices. If you put stock prices in the program that produced the hockey stick, you ALWAYS get a hockey stick. neat, huh?) And you DID actually read and study the Climategate emails and files, right? And as a result you do know that the "science" holding up this preposterous Global Warming fiasco is a house of cards of faulty computer programs, erroneous data, fudged reports with political overtones, and just plain screw-ups, right?

Want an example of fraud? OK Here ya go:



Pretty, cool, huh? And WHY is this important? because the green line is TREE RING DATA and it is tree ring data that acts as a "proxy" (since no one bothered to put real thermometers online thousands of years ago) to "represent" temperature. If a tree ring is THICKER, that represents MORE GROWTH and HOTTER temperatures (Wait!! More GROWTH?!? What's THAT all about?!) If a tree ring is THINNER, well, it's colder, probably, unless thick and thin is a matter of the presence of water instead of temperature, but Shhhh! Don't bring that up!)

But ANYWAY the real point is that the green line is tree rings and while everything else shows an INCREASE in temperature, the green line is showing a DECREASE, therefore the tree ring data is LYING! And if it is not accurate TODAY, WHY are we using it as a proxy for how warm it was in the distant past?

Tough question, huh? The answer? MAKE IT DISAPPEAR and THAT’S what “Hide the decline” means! Why did they do it? Because they did not want to explain it and thought it would "confuse" you. And that is an example of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD (one of many) in this global warming debate. You've got computer programs that don’t work, data that is fudged, and outright fraud such as “hide the decline.” But hey! "Scientists" say it's true, so you better believe!

If you KNOW all this, why the hell do you still believe these jokers?

But hey, let’s look at some more data. Here’s a cool graph!



This shows temperatures over thousands of years have been DECLINING. What’s up with that? Here you can see there was a Roman Warm Period that was hotter than today, a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today, and a “Little Ice Age” in the 1700s that was positively chilly, but, when we compare to today, well, today is definitely warmer, therefore Global Warming must be real.

But you don’t have to take my word on it. Take a look at the Hockey Stick Illusion and read all about it.

There's no doubt that climate is changing. IT ALWAYS HAS! But there is no guarantee that climate will always be like we've known it for the last 200 or so years.It will change, and so will we. We have adapted before and we will again, but there's absolutely no reason to run around like Chicken Little saying the sky is falling.

Get a grip!

All this talk about, less nutritious because it grows too fast sounds exactly like what GMO's have been aiming for a long time.

I think this article is BS. It just doesn't make sense.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

So the nutrient boost in the lettuce (very cool btw) was more than likely due to the nutritional formula added to your water. It would be interesting to see the difference if you removed the added CO2.

I'd like to read the actual report used for the NBC article as well.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

So the nutrient boost in the lettuce (very cool btw) was more than likely due to the nutritional formula added to your water. It would be interesting to see the difference if you removed the added CO2.

I'd like to read the actual report used for the NBC article as well.

If you want to read about what we did, you can go to vortexresearch.com and select the Hydroponics tab. I give a breakdown of light sources and the required frequencies, how the system works, etc. When we eventually went to LED lights, I dropped the current requirements by roughly 85% and we decreased the grow time to 11 days (for the same final 18 inches), but that was using a mix of 450nm, 665nm and 710nm high power LED light sources with 60 and 90 degree dispersion optics, total peak radiant flux around 3000 watts. The aeroponics systems were experimental for zero-g applications and had a complex wash and feed cycle to reduce mineralization on the roots.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: schuyler

I hold onto the data I receive thru my own senses and experiences. Maybe this is just one big government conspiracy and they are using H.A.A.R.P to put fear in our hearts with monstrous weather and such. It IS happening now and that fact shouldn't be a debate.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

Yep, that's why I say its not going to change, we are screwed conventionally speaking.
Actually, the entire western civilization could simply go dark, and this may slow things down by a decade or so, but as china and india develop more, we will eventually hit that peak again and alter the chemical composition of the planet...so..the only viable solution will be for innovation to counter and reverse...personally, I am in favor of moving towards a type 1 civilization...absolute control over the environment. rain in the deserts, etc

It is one of the ONLY reasons I give any thought to population control conspiracies.

At some point, what needs to happen will either happen through tragedy and nature taking its course (famine due to climate shifts, water levels rising, mass die offs) OR we do something about it.

Which leave me at, People making a conscious choice to view the planet as a resource that we all share.

OR Start thinning the eaters who refuse to change.

Its not popular, but its logical, if we can't be bothered to try and save ourselves are we really worth saving?

But, start thinking about all those conspiracies, Smart people like Bill Gates saying we need to control third world growth.

It starts to almost make sense.

originally posted by: schuyler
In a place that purports to question authority and "deny ignorance" is amazing how many ATS members swallow the Global warming hysteria hook, line, and sinker.

The only thing I buy, is that the current model of Society is Glutenous and dangerous, and that anything to tamper the damage we do to the world around us is a good thing.

That we should be stewards of the world around us, if only for the sake of those that come next.

The really frightening thing? That people refuse to believe they should not be glutenous consuming slobs that destroy the world around them.

Can you look at China and India's emerging pollution problems and honestly think there is no cost to that?

originally posted by: schuyler

But you don’t have to take my word on it. Take a look at the Hockey Stick Illusion and read all about it.

If your at all interested in the climate science debate, you may want to check this source here
Real Climate
Where several scientists discuss the book you are pointing at and how overtly flawed their testing was, their theory, etc.
The end bit of the article I link says enough about the book and the author in question/his methods

Montford certainly spins a tale of suspense, conflict, and lively action, intertwining conspiracy and covert skullduggery, politics and big money, into a narrative worthy of the best spy thrillers. I’m not qualified to compare Montford’s writing skill to that of such a widely-read author as, say, Michael Crichton, but I do know they share this in common: they’re both skilled fiction writers.

The only corruption of science in the “hockey stick” is in the minds of McIntyre and Montford. They were looking for corruption, and they found it. Someone looking for actual science would have found it as well.

a reply to: rickymouse

But is it only due to global warming or is it due more to growing plants in soil that is increasing depleted?

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

It comes from depleted soils the most. The thing with increasing CO2 is that the plants grow faster. but there aren't enough available micronutrients in the soil. You can lime the soil to help, but once it has been limed too much, there is no nutrition to give to the plants. Adding potassium, nitrogen, and phosphorous will make the plants grow big but those are by no means all the plant needs. There are sixty known necessary minerals needed in food and piles of chemicals needed to make food so it is nutritious. We have to eat a lot more today than we did in the seventies because of this problem to feel full. The sugars add on stored fat yet we are in starvation. This causes a change in gene expression which can lead to many diseases.

We evolved with the food, everyone's needs are different based on their ancestors eating habits. Raising CO2 levels will make the food less nutritious after a few years.


CO2 is actually an adjuvant, it causes things to happen faster in our body and in all living bodies. It makes Coca Cola's chemistry more metabolically active. This is why plants grow better with CO2. It stimulates many histamine reactions.