Climate Change Could Lead To Nutrient Deficiency For Hundreds of Millions (smithsonianmag.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Smithsonian: According to new research, rising carbon dioxide levels will sap some of the nutrients from our crops and lead to dietary deficiencies in millions of humans. In 2014, field trials of common food crops including wheat, rice, corn and soybeans showed that as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased, the levels of iron, zinc and protein decreased in the dietary staples by 3 to 17 percent. While the decrease in a few nutrients may not seem important in food secure countries, it could have a big impact in poorer nations.

In the new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, researchers calculated the impact of declining nutrients on human health. According to a press release, the team looked at the impact of rising CO2 on 225 different types of food. Based on population estimates for 2050 and an expected rise of carbon dioxide from about 400 parts per million today to 550 ppm by mid-century, the team found that the nutrient deficiencies of those already suffering will worsen, and 175 million more people could join the 1.2 billion who are zinc deficient and 122 million people would be added to the 622 million who don't receive enough protein. About 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 could see their iron intake drop by about 4 percent.

Comments

Not good

[110010001000]

This isn't good but fortunately I just bought a $60,000 Tesla so I am sure things are going to turn around real soon now for the environment.

Re: Not good

[SirSlud]

And if things get that bad, you can just eat it!

Re: Not good

[Opportunist]

Not really, but someone able to drop 600 grand on a Tesla sure won't have a problem affording food.

Someone not able to drop half a million on a car might, but who cares about peasants?

Re: Not good

[110010001000]

I have a theory that the government should buy everyone at Tesla and some PowerWalls. That should fix the climate change issue. Right?

Re: Not good

[mpercy]

You're an order of magnitude off. $60,000 is "60 grand" is not "600 grand". 60 grand is quite far from "half a million".

Re:Not good

[Cajun Hell]

Well, just in case buying one of those doesn't save the planet, be ready to buy a few more.

Re:Not good

[JudgeFurious]

Jokes on you man! My Chevy truck cost a lot less than that! What were we talking about again?

So sick of Chicken Little climate change stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, is the ANYTHING bad that hasn't been threatened to happen from climate change? It's gone from funny to downright annoying to insulting now. How stupid do these people think we are? There obviously is a major agenda behind this. I'm just trying to figure out what their angle is. Just keeping the 'research' dollars flowing into the pocketbooks? These scare tactics are abhorrent.

"Lower concentrations"

[cirby]

Lower concentrations per amount.

How much more volume did they have in the crop?

CO2 causes fairly large increases in crop yield, which would cause an overall increase in nutrition. The 5% to 10% decrease in some nutrients would be more than made up by the 30%+ increase in total crop volume they see with the study's level of CO2 - and calories are the primary thing to worry about when you're starving to death.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[idji]

what do you mean by "overall increase of nutrition"? Do you want to eat 25% more bread to get the nutrients you need? This will lead to obesity and diabetes if people need to eat more carbohyrates.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[olsmeister]

If the alternative is dying, then yup, yup I do want to eat 25% more bread and I'll take the obesity and a side of diabetes.

Re: "Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

That gets complicated quickly, and I do agree it needs to be checked.
However, It's also worth noting that if currently you need to consume 10 units of food to get your required levels of iron/zinc/foo and in the high CO future you need to eat 12 then the balance is still out of whack, this throws off the increase in yield a little.
The higher CO2 levels boost production, so before you were only getting say 9 and suffering a little, not enough calories, not enough nutrients.
So the higher CO2 bumps production up a little, assuming it doesn't also result in a drought, or storms that wreck crops, and your 9 gets bumped to 12... success. everything balances, you now have more than enough food, and enough nutrients... but also you have 2 units of excess calories.

So you get fat.

And... this was meant to end in a "your mama's so fat" joke but I got bored.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds to me like they are trying to tie the nutritional woes of the lack of proper soil, lack of crop rotation, and over planting to CO2 levels. The study is completely flawed and total rubbish and can be explained by so many other factors that it isn't even worth debunking it.

This is right down the same line as ice cream and shark attacks. I can produce believable evidence of their link. When you look at statistics, ice cream consumption and shark attacks do correlate very well together. I can say, with an array of "empirical" evidence, that eating ice cream increases your chances of being attacked by a shark. But the statement is not correct. The two items are not related in that way at all directly. The climate during the time of the year yields more ice cream consumption and more people in water which explains how these two situations are linked.

Typical pseudo statistical data that quite often leads to some pretty fucking stupid conclusions.

As gleaned from the linked article. Quote;

The precise biological mechanism that causes nutrient levels to fall is not well understood as yet. But Professor Brian Thomas, a plant develoment (development...their editors suck too) expert at the University of Warwick and not involved in the research said: "The work is convincing and consistent with what we do know about the plant physiology."

end Quote;

If we are going to be cited in an article that make claims like this, Professor Brian Thomas had better understand and produce some convincing evidence and be directly involved in the project.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[DarkOx]

Do you want to eat 25% more bread to get the nutrients you need

The answer to that is "yes" for the groups we are talking about. People in places where there is significant food scarcity and nutritional insecurity absolutely could stand to eat more calories and still be healthy. The vast vast majority of them wish the could!

In places that are not food insecure; that wont be necessary at all making small variations in diet will more than likely fill any nutrient deficits without increasing calorie count. Sure some westerners do manage to get scurvy even in the 21st century - but that is because they make stupid choices like eating nothing by Kraft MacnCheese all week. Its not because they don't or won't have other options. Even if you are way below the poverty line in the west you could still eat a fist full of dandelion greens and chew on some pine needles - to supplement you bread and cheese.

Re: "Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart poor people would rather die of starvation than risk obesity!

Re: "Lower concentrations"

[b0bby]

I remember reading about this or a similar study a little while ago, and that was my takeaway - that yields would rise, but nutrient density decline, leading to people on the edge getting less nutrition per calorie intake. So like you said, if you keep eating the same quantity you get malnourished, if you eat more you get the ill effects of over consumption.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[N1AK]

If we are going to be cited in an article that make claims like this, Professor Brian Thomas had better understand and produce some convincing evidence and be directly involved in the project.

Says the AC providing no evidence, let alone convincing evidence, and with no link to the project; but I'm sure your rant is going to be far more persuasive than the backing of a biology professor who has been doing research on environmental impacts on plants for over a decade, and who to quote his university profile "Current work involves a study of water and nutrient use efficiency in Brassica and wheat at ambient and elevated CO2 levels."

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

If we are going to be cited in an article that make claims like this, Professor Brian Thomas had better understand and produce some convincing evidence and be directly involved in the project.

Says the AC providing no evidence, let alone convincing evidence, and with no link to the project; but I'm sure your rant is going to be far more persuasive than the backing of a biology professor who has been doing research on environmental impacts on plants for over a decade, and who to quote his university profile "Current work involves a study of water and nutrient use efficiency in Brassica and wheat at ambient and elevated CO2 levels."

Says the person who believes in an article or evidently cannot read or understand the fact that the article contains a lot of neat charts and links to articles with more neat charts and some words that when read illuminates the fact that their is no evidence to support their hypothesis.

It is not surprising that the same person needs to be pointed to the historic events that led us into understanding why crop rotation, fertilization, etc is important. This isn't a fucking rocket. Most people who have graduated grade school should know by now, without having to conduct their own studies, that continuing planting the same crops in the same field, with no thought to soil content, leads to varying levels of minerals.

If I have to point to links to peered reviewed articles over shit your sixth grade teacher should have taught you, perhaps you ask the where your education system where they failed you. You might also want to ask them about your English because Brian Thomas clearly stated it wasn't understood and the article made it clear that he was not part of the project.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to sharpen some skills here. :)

And if you must

https://hub.uberflip.com/blog/shark-attacks-ice-cream-and-the-marketing-analytics-revolution

If you require links to George Washington Carver's work and the many others before and after, I will do so if I must but really this ridiculous.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[cirby]

The number cited in the report is closer to five or ten percent - and that also pushes the results into "not very significant" range. For example, with a 5% relative reduction in iron in a wheat crop, 100 grams of bread goes from 35% of the recommended daily allowance to 33% or so. The difference is tiny, when compared to the much larger increase in crop yield.

A lot of nutritional deficiencies could also be addressed by people being able to grow multiple crops for food, instead of concentrating on the one staple crop they go with because that's the one that actually gives them enough food to live at all.

This is a pretty pathetic study - "yeah, fewer people would starve to death, but they have to eat slightly more food to get a good diet!"

Re: "Lower concentrations"

[cirby]

Due to the difference in nutrition, instead of eating 10 units of food, you'd need to eat 10.5 or 11 - but you'd have 13 or 14 units of food available.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

And while we are on the topic of Maize....interesting.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/to-decode-mystery-corn-smithsoniain-scientists-recreate-earth-ten-thousand-years-ago-180949708/

maize?? Really???

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Athanasius]

Some theorise that this is already happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[angel'o'sphere]

So you want everyone to eat 30% more to compensate for the lack of some trace elements, vitamins and essential oils/fats and amino acids?

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[Anonymous Coward]

maize?? Really???

What is that emphatic interrogation? I mean, what do you mean? I'm not in your head and can't understand what you mean by screaming "Maize" and "Really" without them forming part of a coherent sentence.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[N1AK]

Well your skills certainly do need sharpening so keep trying. Once you move on from understanding false correlation you can step up to understanding that this doesn't mean all correlation is false, and then we can move onto why pointing out that the concept of false correlation exists is not, in fact, evidence of any specific claim of correlation being false. It always depresses me when I see examples on a relatively technical site like this of people's ignorance in an area leading them to massively underestimate the complexity of it and of the knowledge applied by people who aren't as ignorant as them.

Re:"Lower concentrations"

[N1AK]

So no evidence to back your ascertains and a handful of puerile diatribes... very persuasive.

And here's something we hope you'll really like!

[Anonymous Coward]

FEAR fear SCARE scare FEAR death DYING FEAR DEATH DYING!!!!!

Support our global warming, errr, climate change agenda!!!!

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[SirSlud]

Information taken personally by simple man, feels guilty and emotionally inconvenienced. Blames conspiracy as means to emotionally divest. News at 11.

Kiinda like

[Ol Olsoc]

There are simply too damn many people on earth.

Re:Kiinda like

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's Thanos when you need him ?

Re:Kiinda like

[Ol Olsoc]

Where's Thanos when you need him ?

Considering some of the scenarios, that might be one of the more merciful ones.

Re:Kiinda like

[Anonymous Coward]

There are simply too damn many people on earth.

Yep.
Whether it is climate change, global pandemic, war, AI or whatever, the number of humans on this planet will be reduced drastically in this century.

Re:Kiinda like

[CrimsonAvenger]

There are simply too damn many people on earth.

So, when had you planned on removing yourself from the Earth?

Or is it "those people" that there are too many of? I suppose we could set up special camps for them, to make it easier to get rid of them....

Re:Kiinda like

[Ol Olsoc]

There are simply too damn many people on earth.

So, when had you planned on removing yourself from the Earth?

For myself, whenever there isn't much point in living any longer.

Or is it "those people" that there are too many of? I suppose we could set up special camps for them, to make it easier to get rid of them....

Your final solution idea is a possible scenario, but one of the less likely ones IMO. You're a bit of a shit for even suggesting that was something I espouse.

More likely is warfare and starvation, or warfare followed by starvation. Resources aren't increasing, Nature based issues can add to the likely problem.

There are even some groups that really want the warfare aspect to occur, and at present, they are the base of the party that is kowtowing to a president that wants to use nucs for his own agenda. Gog and Magog are waiting with baited breath, ready to bring the prophecies to fruition.

Re:Kiinda like

[antdude]

Yeah, let's get rid of them like all of them! :P

Re:Kiinda like

[Anonymous Coward]

Carousel, Carousel, Carousel!!!

http://logans-run.wikia.com/wiki/Carousel

at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

Obviously, it's not "climate change" that lowers nutrients, it's carbon dioxide. And the "nutrients" that are being lost are zinc and iron, trivial to supplement even in the unlikely event that people don't get enough from their diet and the issue can't be addressed by simple breeding.

Re:at least get the title right

[olsmeister]

issue can't be addressed by simple breeding

I'm not sure how people having sex is going to solve this problem.

Re:at least get the title right

[N1AK]

Do you believe a thing you say or are you just being obstinate? The only likely cause of ongoing increases is CO2 emissions so it's pointless pedantry to complain about using the term climate change. However, that minor quibble is nothing compared to the astounding nonsense of your second statement. Over a billion people are zinc deficient, I don't care what definition of trivial you believe in, but if you really do think solving that would be trivial and you aren't up in arms about the fact it hasn't been done then what's wrong with you.

Re:at least get the title right

[Opportunist]

Depends on what orifice you use. Sperm is pretty high in zinc and iron, afaik.

Re:at least get the title right

[Sir_Eptishous]

trivial to supplement even in the unlikely event that people don't get enough from their diet and the issue can't be addressed by simple breeding.

I only read the summary but it sounded like the "alarm" was about the billions of poor people whose diets are already not the best. Trivial the supplement is correct for those in the First World, however it would be much more of a challenge to supplement in poorer populations.

Re:at least get the title right

[LynnwoodRooster]

But the horrors of a life without zinc are too much to think about!

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

The only likely cause of ongoing increases is CO2 emissions so it's pointless pedantry to complain about using the term climate change

You're saying it's irrelevant to you what the cause of nutritional deficiencies is? It's irrelevant to you that increased CO2 levels and climate change have very different geographic patterns, different causes, different coping strategies? That's like advocating amputating a leg to cure appendicitis.

Over a billion people are zinc deficient, I don't care what definition of trivial you believe in, but if you really do think solving that would be trivial and you aren't up in arms about the fact it hasn't been done then what's wrong with you.

You need to read more carefully: I said it is "trivial to supplement" not that it is a "trivial problem". Zinc supplementation costs less than a cent per day even in the US and would be even cheaper in development countries. Are you unfamiliar with those facts?

Now what about causes? The reason so many people are zinc deficient is because they live in abject poverty. Their poverty doesn't just cause zinc deficiency, it causes hundreds of other serious diseases. So what we should be focusing on is alleviating their poverty, and their poverty is not going to be alleviated by decreasing carbon emissions, it is going to be alleviated by economic development.

what's wrong with you.

It is, however, crystal clear what's wrong with you: you're a pampered, ignorant Westerner to whom suffering in the third world is a mere abstraction and who doesn't really care about addressing it.

Re:at least get the title right

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Climate change is also feeding back into CO2 increase, since it's less soluble in warmer oceans.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

Poor populations have many nutritional deficiencies already. The cause of those is poverty, not carbon dioxide or climate change. Our focus should be to lift these people out of poverty as quickly as possible, because then their nutritional deficiencies, as well as many other problems, get addressed.

That is, the paper says something like "carbon emissions cause lower nutritional content in cheap bulk food which causes increased nutritional deficiencies in poor populations", implying that we should "decrease carbon emissions to prevent this". That's not a sensible policy.

The actual situation is that "poverty causes populations to buy food that is already nutritionally marginal" and the solution is to "reduce poverty through rapid economic development".

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

Nevertheless, the cause of lower nutritional content is carbon dioxide increase, not climate change.

And the cause of malnutrition and nutrient deficiency in third world population is poverty, not carbon dioxide or climate change.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

It's a combination of factors, potentially, not just CO2 concentrations.

With regard to supplements, it's trivial if (1) the need is recognised and (2) people can afford them. Neither are a given, and it could mean that self-sufficiency is no longer possible for some.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

It's a combination of factors, potentially, not just CO2 concentrations.

As far as the paper is concerned, the causative factor CO2 concentrations, nothing else. If you want arguments in favor of reducing carbon emissions, you should be happy about at least that much, because for this particular impact, it doesn't matter how much warming carbon emissions cause. But...

With regard to supplements, it's trivial if (1) the need is recognised and (2) people can afford them.

I'm glad we agree on that. Which tells you that the actual problem isn't the level of zinc in the crops, but the wealth of the citizens.

Neither are a given, and it could mean that self-sufficiency is no longer possible for some.

Well, "self-sufficiency" (or nutritional sufficiency) certainly won't be possible for a lot of people if we burden global GDP with the several percent reduction that would result from taking the economic steps outlined in the Paris accords, let alone the far more draconian steps necessary to halt carbon emissions altogether.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

As far as the paper is concerned, the causative factor CO2 concentrations, nothing else.

It's one paper looking at one aspect, but other papers have looked at others. At some point someone will probably publish a review paper bring all of that together. CO2 would seem to be the most dominant effect as it increases growth rate at certain points in the lifecycle, though.

I'm glad we agree on that. Which tells you that the actual problem isn't the level of zinc in the crops, but the wealth of the citizens.

Not entirely. Note I mentioned that realising you have an issue is part of the problem, and that goes for those in wealthy countries too. To catch all those with deficiency a screening programme would be required of a type that I would suspect is more likely in a country with middling income per capita than low OR high. Even after this, if the nutrients were there then for deficiency wealth would not be an issue, so whilst lack of wealth compounds the problem, it's not the cause of it. If I'd had more coffee I'd try to come up with an analogy.

Well, "self-sufficiency" (or nutritional sufficiency) certainly won't be possible for a lot of people if we burden global GDP with the several percent reduction that would result from taking the economic steps outlined in the Paris accords.

If the very mild steps from Paris are not taken, the climate change will burden GDP with several percent reduction in economic activity, that will fall mostly on those in countries that are already less wealthy. Done well, the Paris requirements should not be so burdensome, and indeed growth is still positive in those nations required to make changes (e.g. Western Europe) so it doesn't seem that it has that great an effect on demand for goods from developing nations from Western nations, and has no particular effect directly on the developing nations as they have fewer obligations and can simply avoid some of the polluting activities anyway. Arguably, though, Paris will not stop economic damage from climate change anyway, as it's not enough.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

Note I mentioned that realising you have an issue is part of the problem, and that goes for those in wealthy countries too. To catch all those with deficiency

You don't have to screen, you just supplement.

Even after this, if the nutrients were there then for deficiency wealth would not be an issue, so whilst lack of wealth compounds the problem, it's not the cause of it.

Making people wealthier greatly improves health. Limiting carbon emissions on the hopes that crops stay more nutritious won't do anything.

If the very mild steps from Paris are not taken, the climate change will burden GDP with several percent reduction in economic activity, that will fall mostly on those in countries that are already less wealthy.

(1) Paris is ineffective in reducing carbon emissions to have significant impact according to mainstream climate models.

(2) The cost of Paris is also several percent reduction in GDP globally.

(3) The cost of Paris is immediate and certain, while the cost of climate change is far off and uncertain.

(4) Because developed countries pay but don't benefit much, it's not going to happen.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

You don't have to screen, you just supplement.

Is that efficient?

(3) The cost of Paris is immediate and certain, while the cost of climate change is far off and uncertain.

The cost later of taking action if action is not taken now is much greater, so arguably the rational choice is to take action now.

(4) Because developed countries pay but don't benefit much, it's not going to happen.

If developed countries can't work out a way to benefit (e.g. selling technology to reduce emissions) that's a bit poor.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

P.S. I would say that whilst the cost of climate change is uncertain, it's most likely a chioce between a lot and a hell of a lot. Not much cost is unlikely to be an option, on a global scale at least.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

You don't have to screen, you just supplement.

Is that efficient?

It's what we do with vitamin D and some other nutrients.

The cost later of taking action if action is not taken now is much greater, so arguably the rational choice is to take action now.

According to the IPCC climate change consensus report it's not.

And you have to realize that that isn't a reduction from current incomes, that's a reduction from future incomes. Assuming pretty modest GDP growth, people in 80 years will be 10x wealthier than we are in absolute terms. So the difference we're talking about is whether the per capita GDP/median American household income in 2100 is $600000/year or $550000/year (in today's dollars!).

If developed countries can't work out a way to benefit (e.g. selling technology to reduce emissions) that's a bit poor.

We can't sell them anything right now because they are poor; they don't have any money to pay for our technologies.

But imagine how much more stuff we can sell them in the future to remediate the effects of climate change! Keynesians should love it!

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

P.S. I would say that whilst the cost of climate change is uncertain, it's most likely a chioce between a lot and a hell of a lot. Not much cost is unlikely to be an option, on a global scale at least.

The IPCC climate change consensus report quantifies that and doing nothing ends up about as expensive as trying to prevent climate change according to them.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

The IPCC is very conservative, though.

Re:at least get the title right

[q_e_t]

It's what we do with vitamin D and some other nutrients.

Indeed, and if it is safe and cost-effective for zinc, that's fine. I wouldn't presuppose it is without more informatin, though.

Assuming pretty modest GDP growth, people in 80 years will be 10x wealthier than we are in absolute terms.

That's assuming that climate change doesn't constrain growth (nor anything else), which it is likely to do, so it seems a poor projection. 50 years ago world GDP (GWP) growth was roughly 5% p.a. but that has fallen pretty steadily since. If that trend continued in a linear fashion it would hit roughly zero by around 2060. However, it is also possible that it is flattening out at 2.5%. At 2.5% that's 7 times richer, if it is heading towards zero by around 2060, it's 1.6 times richer in the next 80 years. ,/p>

In terms of the IPCC and Paris: A major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030." This is just under $1 trillion per annum, or 0.1% of global world product (GWP). The effect on global GWP growth rates are hard to determine, but also likely to be small, possibly of the same order. That's basically 6.6 times richer in 80 years at constant growth compared to 7.2 times. Not a catastrophe, and CC might cost a lot to fix late in the day, so could be worse than this cost.

Re:at least get the title right

[dddux]

Yes. Good to know there is a free and natural supplement of zinc and iron.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

That's basically 6.6 times richer in 80 years at constant growth compared to 7.2 times. Not a catastrophe, and CC might cost a lot to fix late in the day, so could be worse than this cost.

I'm not saying that the difference between 10x, 7.2x, or 6.6x is why we shouldn't remediate now. I'm saying that people in 80 years will be so much richer that the cost of climate change will matter very little to you. If you make $400k/year (median household income in constant dollars based on your lowest growth rate), you can easily deal with the effects of climate change on your personal life and situation, with no government assistance or programs.

A major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030." This is just under $1 trillion per annum, or 0.1% of global world product (GWP). The effect on global GWP growth rates are hard to determine, but also likely to be small, possibly of the same order.

First of all, that only counts spending ("investments"), not actual cost to the economy. The cost to the economy is much larger, not just because energy gets more expensive, but because vast amounts of resources get redirected from capital investments to climate change prevention. And those estimates assume efficient spending, but governments are often spending an order of magnitude more than what the private sector would spend for the same effect.

Second, stabilizing levels of GHG is not sufficient to prevent climate change, so we are spending all this money while still having to pay for possible fixes down the road.

That's assuming that climate change doesn't constrain growth (nor anything else), which it is likely to do, so it seems a poor projection. 50 years ago world GDP (GWP) growth was roughly 5% p.a. but that has fallen pretty steadily since. If that trend continued in a linear fashion it would hit roughly zero by around 2060.

And in fact, the cause of that trend is pretty clear, based on empirical data and economic theory: every 10% increase in government expenditures as percentage of GDP decreases growth rate by 1% (the relationship holds quite well over the entire range of government spending), across OECD countries, and also for the US since 1790. That's the trend we need to reverse.

If that trend continues in a linear fashion, climate change is the least of our worries. Free, democratic societies cannot exist without significant economic growth.

Re:at least get the title right

[ooloorie]

The IPCC is very conservative, though.

The IPCC is the best consensus of reputable scientists. If you're not willing to base government interventions on the best scientific consensus, what are you going to base it on?

Re:at least get the title right

[PPalmgren]

The other thing that bothers me about stories like this: "In 50 years, this may become a problem, and we don't have the means to immediately correct it right now!" Outside the dishonesty, its a major false equivalency because it compares a long-term change with the ability to correct it with immediacy. Junk clickbait news or dishonest mental masturbation, take your pick.

It's too hot and it's too cold at the same time!

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfS9_Bafh8w

Vitamins

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was a pill people could take to help.

Re:Vitamins

[blindseer]

If only there was a pill people could take to help.

There's pills for that, and condoms, and all kinds of things to limit population growth. Oh, you mean vitamins? That works too. Or we could make sure people eat more meat, which was suggested in the article.

I'm pretty sure much of the issues of starvation in the world is due to tyrants running their countries into the ground.

Expect the next nation to be overwhelmed by tyranny and the starvation that follows to be South Africa. They seem to think that European descendants that owned farmland for centuries is racist and so the government is just going to take their land. Well, those families owned the land because they know how to farm it. You remove the farmers from the land they cultivated with care and handed down over generations, then hand that land to people that don't know how to farm that land, and you will see food scarcity. In centuries past this might mean a nation getting sent back to the stone age but now it will probably mean wealthy nations coming in to feed everyone, proclamations of "mistakes were made" but no one will get punished, and no one will learn anything.

These land grabs in South Africa should be considered crimes against humanity and the people doing this be severely punished. We don't hear much about this in popular media because that would mean pointing out that people with dark skin can be racist.

There's no shortage of nutrition in the world that wasn't caused by idiots in government. I'm pretty sure that global warming is the fault of idiots in government too.

Re: Vitamins

[blindseer]

It's possible I'm both racist and ignorant. Oh, and sexist. Probably sexist too. Because I'm a man, with skin so white it's nearly translucent, therefore I must be ignorant, racist, and sexist. Oh, and homophobic too, I almost forgot about that.

I've been accused of so many things that it means nothing any more. How about instead of providing insults you provide some information?

The BBC has been giving some reporting on this and they aren't exactly a small time blog known for right wing conspiracy theories.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

The government is planning to take land from people without compensation, and amending the constitution to make it "legal". This will have long lasting effects on people in the country that produce food and conduct business. We've seen how things like this play out and it never goes well. There will be food shortages, unemployment, and all the "fun times" that come with both. This is simply blatant racism against the white minority and it will not go well for South Africa and their neighbors.

Re: Vitamins

[mpercy]

Yep, it certainly appears that South Africa is on the fast track to ignoring all the lessons that should have been learned from the stellar success that was Mugabe's Zimbabwe experiment.

Re: Vitamins

[reanjr]

No, white people don't get to build an apartheid state, oppress the black minority, take all the nation's wealth, then cry "racism!" when new policies are put in place to right the economy and extract wealth from the wealthy. If you think taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people is racist, it can only be because you are a white supremecist who believes the whites deserve the money they stole by right of their skin color.

Re: Vitamins

[reanjr]

...majority... meant to say majority...

Possible Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If we could somehow incorporated climate change with the blockchain, i think we would see a real paradigm shift!!

Re: Possible Solution

[ChunderDownunder]

An Australian company was researching dispersal and monitoring of renewable energy via block chain.
Further, the Venezuelan government we're introducing their own fossil fuel backed crypto currency. Block chain will reduce emissions in that country once hackers short the price making petroleum too expensive to purchase.

not new

[sdinfoserv]

This isn't new, I read about this last year. The result is humans will need to consume more food to achieve the same level of nutrients.

Re:not new

[drinkypoo]

The result is humans will need to consume more food to achieve the same level of nutrients.

They're already getting too many carbs. Your proposal is that they eat more than too much so they can get the nutrients they need?

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[butchersong]

This is essentially the same story as on may 25th slashdot

Because Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

Population estimates + Expected Carbon + Secret Sauce => Our alarmist narrative!

Re:Because Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump + Russian Hookers + Komprimat => Our fascist narrative!

Re: Because Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

and remwmber these are the same scientists who will tell you ecolution is a "fact". convenient huh?

Canâ(TM)t be true

[SomewhatConservative]

We know from the past to blame everything on George Bush.

Re:Canâ(TM)t be true

[Opportunist]

If that fails, try some Obama. It's a bit like homeopathy, you try to blame one, notice no improvement, so try blaming someone else.

See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically, the church was responsible for telling you what is good/bad, and the bible written in Latin/Greek/Aramaic was not readable by the masses. So they would make up what it said to control people, but you could "pay money" to be absolved of sins. Martin Luther translated the bible and all that crap came to an end pretty quick.

AGW appears to be the same. They tell you what is good/bad, you are not allowed to question them because they are "experts" and you are not. However, you can pay them money to be absolved of your AGW sins. With the number of times they have been caught outright lying, I am beginning to believe they desire to become like the Catholic church before the Lutheran revolution.

For example, Al Gore is one of their "Popes". He flys in private jets, with a huge house, and large SUVs, telling you that you are the problem. Just like the old corrupt Popes of the Catholic church (are they better today?).

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Opportunist]

The difference is maybe that there is no cremation while you're still alive (at least before) just because you keep driving that SUV to get your mail because the 100 yards from front door to mailbox are too far a walk.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

AGW appears to be the same. They tell you what is good/bad, you are not allowed to question them because they are "experts" and you are not. However, you can pay them money to be absolved of your AGW sins. With the number of times they have been caught outright lying, I am beginning to believe they desire to become like the Catholic church before the Lutheran revolution.

You can question them all you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when your questions have no basis in science or if they're questions that have already been asked and answered.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

Hey, if you don't want people to believe you, keep on talking down to them and not taking them seriously. That always works well in democracies. In fact, it's exactly how we got Trump - he talks down to the press and other pseudo-intellectuals, instead of talking down to voters.

There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

Also: using moderation or other techniques to avoid having any discussion about a topic? Another great way to fail to persuade anyone to your cause. Which, I will again remind folks, is an unshakable requirement in a democracy.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, why did the CRU in England delete their data? It had been subject to FOIA requests for 7 years with them illegally refusing to hand it over, and a month before they were finally going to lose a hearing in front of a judge they deleted it rather than "risk our enemies from seeing it" according to them.

There are many more, but that is pretty much a smoking gun of anti-scientific behavior.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

I mod retards into oblivion. Fight me

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

There's no bigger oxymoron than "we don't have to explain - we're scientists!"

Just because you're incapable of understanding the explanations doesn't mean they don't exist. The explanations are in the peer reviewed published papers. Science doesn't exist without scientists explaining their findings to other scientists.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on. They stand on how well they explain whatever phenomenon they are examining regardless of how anyone feels about the results.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

I'm not sure where you got your information but the data was deleted in the 1980s long before any FOIA requests were made. The cost of storage in the 1980s was several orders of magnitude greater than it is today. In the 1980s a 100 MB disk drive was huge and costed in the 5 or 6 figures. The data they deleted was still available from the original sources. They had no reason to keep it.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

Of course science isn't in any way a democracy. Scientific findings don't get voted on.

That's entirely beside my point, of course. You want people to change their behavior because of that science? You need to persuade them.

Also, science is often a democracy, from any talk of "consensus", to the effect on your career if you try to pursue something unfashionable (though hopefully grad students are well informed about that), to the simple fact that science is mostly funded by democratically elected governments. Think democracy had no effect on e.g. embryonic stem cell research?

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

Sure, but that's not the context of this thread. You want people to change their behavior? Better explain it to them. Saying "you are too dumb to understand, so just do what your told" is the least persuasive approach possible. It is, in fact, exactly the approach most likely to get all funding for climate change research banned during Trump's second term.

Contrast with the talk.origins FAQ. It takes the arguments of creationists seriously, and rebuts them politely, pointing out what faulty assumption makes them seem correct. It has done wonders to actually pursuance people over the years.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why people stopped asking question.
Deny and lie.
One story of MANY describing what Phil Jones at the CRU did.

Stop pretending we aren't asking valid questions as long as you are going to blatantly lie about what happened. No one gives a crap about your opinions if you are dishonest and we just stopped asking since we never get any honesty.

Congratulations on proving me correct.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

Another great way to fail to persuade anyone to your cause.

At this point the climate alarmists are not really trying to persuade anyone, only silence any voices that question them.

They're simply trying to grab enough power by whatever means they can so they can force everyone at government gunpoint to obey their edicts from on high.

It's a power-grab by globalists, nothing more. Hanging the bastards is too good for them.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

There has been a huge amount of effort expended on trying to explain the science. That's essentially what the whole IPCC is about. Have you ever tried reading any of the IPCC reports? At a lower level there are web sites like Skeptical Science that essentially does for climate science what the talk.origins FAQ does for evolution. I think the problem is more that you just don't like the answers than that you're getting.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

No where in that story does it say the data was deleted after the 1980s. The CRU may be one of the leading temperature records but there are several others including the (originally) skeptic funded Berkeley Earth effort. They all pretty much agree with each other. You could throw out all of the CRU data and it wouldn't change a thing.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

A consensus in science it not something that scientists vote on. It happens organically when a strong majority of scientists agree on some issue so they move on to explore other aspects of the problem. As far as the effect on your career science is one of the most intensely competitive of human endeavors. Scientists love proving other scientists wrong. If there are any serious holes in the current theory you can bet someone is exploring it in hopes of making a name for themselves. But they're not going to waste their time on something that doesn't hold any scientific water.

As far as funding goes most of the government funding process is open with detailed records of what funding has been provided. For example the National Science Foundation has the details for their awards here. If the process is pushing a point of view how come no one has gone through those records to show that? I have to imagine that some have tried that and gave up after it became obvious that wasn't happening.

Yes, politics has had an effect on embryonic stem cell research, at least as funded by the Federal Government but show me the same thing has happened with climate science. All you have is some vague hand-wavy accusations without anything solid to back them up.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

You can question them all you want. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when your questions have no basis in dogma or if they're questions that have already been asked and answered.

The scholastics already played that game for half a millennia. Refuse to acknowledge criticisms and denounce the speaker as worthy of ostracism. Use the excuse that only valid criticisms can be made within what is already selected to be true in that field knowing full well it's impossible for any field. The medieval church knew this. That's why they did it.

Imagine trying to prove an automobile is better than a horse if no one will acknowledge anything but how wonderful it is horses eat hay how soft their fur is. Who cares that the car is faster and can carry more, people that bring those things up clearly have an ignorant agenda about horses and are not to be trusted.

Some people who call themselves scientists today are no better. People that treat science as a religion are repeating mistakes from one of humanity's most ignorant periods.

Re: See old school Catholic Church

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, itâ(TM)s a great idea. Why donâ(TM)t you AGW SJW stop talking since we arenâ(TM)t listening anyway?

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

The beauty of science is that its validity rests in what can be objectively shown to be true. It doesn't matter what you think about it, just what you can objectively show to be true. Criticize all you want but it's not enough without providing answers that work better than the current science. I think it would be fantastic if someone came up with science that completely overturns the current science but with the intense scrutiny that climate science has been under for the past 30 years it doesn't appear likely to happen.

Re: See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

Yeah, right. Ignoring something is going to make it go away. Meanwhile the annual costs worldwide of responding to the effects of AGW are already getting into the billions of dollars and it's only going to go up for the foreseeable future.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

But they're not going to waste their time on something that doesn't hold any scientific water.

String theory. For a couple of decades, if you wanted to do particle physics, you were more-or-less stuck with string theory. If you were of the opinion that it was "not even wrong", well then, don't be a particle physicist.

Humans have politics and fashion.

If the process is pushing a point of view how come no one has gone through those records to show that?

Starting in the 90s, you basically couldn't get funding for any research that questioned global warming - and this was before "the science was settled" (I have this from first-hand accounts of people in related fields). That sort of thing happens a lot - once most scientists reach a "consensus" it can't be questioned if that questioning requires funding, or you'd like to present your paper at a conference, unless of course you're corporate-funded, and then your research is ignored (perhaps rightly so, but still).

Humans have politics and fashion.

And you missed my point: remember when embryonic stem cell research funding was banned in the US? The kratos of the demos affects scintific funding, never doubt it.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

The IPCC is a political organization. They're therefore selling something. Therefore, they automatically get dismissed as political propaganda - and rightly so - by skeptics.

https://skepticalscience.com/ reads like political propaganda. E.g., this https://skepticalscience.com/a... is a straight up political advocacy blog post. Again, any mixing of politics into your source taints it.

We learn early to dismiss as lies any claims that a salesman or politician makes.

Seriously, read through http://talkorigins.org/origins... it's short. Note the tone. Read a link to two of the FAQ page - they're interesting. The most convincing stuff there, BTW, is where they say straight up that some examples of evolution commonly taught in high school are just wrong, and that's why they seem wrong - blame the dumbing down, not the actual science.

But, hey, that would be about actually persuading people, not about pride in tribal belonging, and there's little interest in that.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does. I find it almost impossible to believe that if there were serious holes in the existing science that among the tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world that none of them are willing to stand up and make an issue of it. You posit a conspiracy of consensus and funding that prevents that from happening. If so the conspiracy is the biggest one the world has ever seen and has been going on for decades, maybe since the time of Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s.

As far as Skeptical Science goes, yes there are some pages that are somewhat political in nature but also many pages that directly address the myths about climate science that are bandied about. I find that this quote from the talkorigins FAQ applies to Skeptical Science as well:

Question Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

Answer We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals.

I get the impression that you are not that interested in being persuaded or you would have dug deeper into the science presented by the IPCC and Skeptical Science rather than just dismissing them out of hand. How much of that is due to your pride in tribal belonging?

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[lgw]

Well, you've entirely missed my point.

You can call it politics and dismiss it on that basis all you want but in end science has to conform with reality. If you want to change the existing climate science you have to come up with something that explains the reality better than it does.

You can jump up and down and shout "it's science" all day, but unless you explain the science to the average voter in a persuasive way, the average voter will not vote to reduce their standard of living.

You're not going to get the change you want unless you're prepared to do that work.

Re:See old school Catholic Church

[riverat1]

There's plenty of persuasive information about anthropogenic global warming out there. It's just that it's not amenable to the glib sound bites of bullshit artists who spread lies about the subject. Unfortunately the rate of change from AGW is slow enough it's easy to convince yourself it's not happening and it won't affect you. Most peoples attention span is not great enough to keep following what's going on. The world is already spending billion of dollars responding to the effects and that cost is going to continue to go up as time goes on. The climate scientists have mostly been correct about the effects so far. But you're probably right. Many people won't take it seriously until it takes them by the throat and starts slapping them. That time is coming.

Sure are a lot of "coulds" and "mays"

[Anonymous Coward]

Still waiting for the next "certain" and "proven by independently reproducible scientific method" AGW headline...

and all the skeptics in the room think my skepticism is unhealthy...

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

Based and Redpilled!

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

Easily solved with a cheap multi vitamin... and less greed.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[GoTeam]

Obviously this is a click-bait headline. Regardless of your views on climate change, this is not really an article about climate change. It says that increased CO2 has a negative effect on nutrients produced by these specified crops. I think they do a good job of making their point. Now, if people want to debate the effect of human produced CO2, that's a different discussion.

Who gives a shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a FUCK about worthless subhuman savages dying. The world would be a MUCH better place without shitskins. Face it, they're nothing but a burden on us with their crime, welfare usage, and unabated breeding.

CO2 - They hate it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, because plants hate CO2. Can't stand the stuff. And wheat? Who eats wheat anymore. That's so 1980's.

Re:CO2 - They hate it.

[Archtech]

Yeah. CO2 stimulates faster plant growth, thus accelerating the depletion of the fixed amounts of minerals in the soil.

Re:CO2 - They hate it.

[mpercy]

Brawndo! It's got what plants crave! It has electrolytes!

Correlation is not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet more flawed science based on misleading and false facts. Liberal bias is a mental disease.

Re:Correlation is not causation

[Barsteward]

"Yet more flawed science based on misleading and false facts. Liberal bias is a mental disease."

ROFL.. AC ignorant trolling is a mental disease

Change your crop varietys

[Crashmarik]

Wow that was difficult to think of. Feel free to go back to flagellating yourselves with stories of imminent doom.

Interesting

[ArhcAngel]

I guess soil depletion wasn't the cause after all!

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

This was my first thought as well... but the implied methodology seems to preclude this. It appears they were controlling the CO2 levels around crops rather than checking current nutrient levels against historic benchmarks.

Re:Interesting

[drinkypoo]

I guess soil depletion wasn't the cause after all!

Soil depletion is still a problem, but it's not the only problem. It's easy to account for in a study, as well, by simply testing soil.

We're doomed... if we sit on our hands for decades

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Past, more in-depth studies on this topic have concluded that the effect varies by cultivar (with some nutrients actually increasing in some cultivars). This study briefly acknowledges that concept, then layers on several other ways to keep the sky from falling:

Beyond stepping up nutritional surveillance, there are a variety of actions that could be taken to reduce nutritional vulnerability.

Different cultivars of certain food crops—particularly rice and legumes—have shown differential sensitivity to CO2 for specific nutrients, showing that it may be possible to selectively use or potentially breed cultivars with reduced sensitivity to these effects.

In addition, biofortification of crops with nutrients and the use of developing agricultural techniques that optimize the uptake of iron, zinc or nitrogen may be possible and have shown some early promise. Also, national fortification and supplementation programmes may ameliorate nutritional deficiencies, particularly for targeted vulnerable groups.

Finally, encouraging dietary diversity through the consumption of greater quantities of nutrient-rich grains and pulses, or even through relatively small increases in animal-sourced foods for developing countries where intake is low and it would be culturally appropriate, may offset nutritional inadequacy with relatively little government intervention.

Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing again

[Opportunist]

Can I have a show of hands who still cares? Nobody? Thought so.

Let's face it. Those that did actually care are by now simply done with trying to convince idiots. I know that I am. Enjoy your planet once you managed to fuck it up beyond repair, I probably won't be here anymore anyway. I'm done trying to inform and teach.

I sit back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the flooding. I'm up here on my hill, enjoy your beach front house. But don't try to climb my hill.

Lower Zinc and minerals...

[Gunthaar]

More people to feed = Higher Yields If they achieve that by ignoring the simple process of crop rotation then it's entirely normal the soil is low in minerals year after year...

Re:Lower Zinc and minerals...

[q_e_t]

By what process does crop rotation make zinc magically (and from where) appear in the soil? Crop rotation works because of things like nitrogen fixation and breaking disease cycles, not trace mineral magicking.

Okay but...

[Anonymous Coward]

when does this all become the same as the preacher screaming "You're going to burn in hell for your sins!"

That's my issue with this constant alarmist talk. We are doing things to change and make the climate better. It's never going to be perfect, but there is hope that we are doing better. No there are still wrongs out there, but if that is all the news is going to be then how do you expect anyone to really care. If all you do is feed everyone the negative, what is going to cause people to care when they think it's all doomed anyways?

That's not to say we shouldn't do our part (limit waste, recycle when prudent, etc.) but can we tone down the doomsday talk.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like information overload. Eventually you just start tuning out the windbags. The care-o-meter for most people sinks to zero when it doesn't really have any major impact on their life personally.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Ol Olsoc]

Easily solved with a cheap multi vitamin... and less greed.

Be careful though. Hellary and O'Blama have been caught putting the chemtrail poisons into vitamins. We have the videos from the studio where the fake moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick. Ever notice the new trend in gummy vitamins? That's right. Those chemtrail poisons need to be in a gelatin base.

The problem was that putting the poison in jet fuel just wasn't working fast enough.

Wake UP America!!!!

Malthus

[JBMcB]

1700's - Increasing population is going to cause mass famine!

- Crop rotation perfected, yields increase

1800's - It's going to be different this time. Increasing population is going to cause mass famine!

- Fertilization and irrigation techniques perfected, yields increase

1900's - It's going to be different this time. Increasing population is going to cause mass famine!

- Crop hybridization introduced, modern industrial farming, yields massively increase

2000's - It's going to be different this time. Increasing population is going to cause mass famine!

It's kind of like those people who keep saying the end of every decade is going to be the end of the world.

Re: Malthus

[Anonymous Coward]

"2000's - It's going to be different this time. Increasing population is going to cause mass famine!"
Uhm in 2000, it is Global warming is going to cause:
Coastal flooding and more severe storms , that also hurts crop yields
Temperature rise that could be deadly for anyone without AC, that also hurts crop yields
Temperature rise that encourages pests and disease spread, that also hurts crop yields
And just in this article, reduced nutrition
  world population will stabilize but not until population momentum carries it to 11 billion

Technology must solve not one problem like in the past but hundreds of interlocking problems! Whenever I see a couple with young kids I think to myself; I wish I had their optimism

Re:Malthus

[q_e_t]

Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Often it is, but it's useful to judge things on their own merits, otherwise you end up with:

• When I was 10 I had measles, I got better.
• When I was 20 I had malaria. I got better.
• ...
• At 60 I had cancer. I got better.

Therefore, I'm immortal.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[SirSlud]

How is that a different discussion? Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2. The research and take-away is political by nature. Click-bait is a term you can use dismissively on anything that's designed to attract attention, but "Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.

Climate Change Could Lead To Nutrient Deficiency For Hundreds of Millions.

Rising levels of CO2 is climate change. Could. Not will, but could. Hundreds of Millions is a relatively modest percent of humans on earth. And that's click-baity to you? I really have no idea what you're fucking complaining about, short of the headline being "Don't read this, it's boring and has nothing to do with you."

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[LynnwoodRooster]

Seriously, is the ANYTHING bad that hasn't been threatened to happen from climate change?

Halitosis?

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[e3m4n]

But the upside is that thc and bud production is increasing, so theres that.

Re: Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing aga

[reanjr]

You think new beaches will destroy the planet?

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Sir_Eptishous]

The aganda here is not what many think. The agenda is to get you to stop paying attention because you are tired of hearing about it, so you'll demand we start burning coal. Peace out.

While I agree with your sentiment about paying attention, coal is going away because of natural gas.

Slashdot could be a great source of tech news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it's not, you get this shit instead. But it COULD be!

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[SirSlud]

You wish, or perhaps need, the world to be that simple.

Re:We're doomed... if we sit on our hands for deca

[Anonymous Coward]

More DOOOOOOM pr0n please!

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the videos from the studio where the fake moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick.

I saw that one.
I love the part where the lunar module lands on the moon, and you see the astronaut get out and plant the Russian flag.
Then you see the astronaut take his helmet off and it's Trump!
Bigly!

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[GoTeam]

In your rush to be offended, you seem to have missed my point. You claim that rising CO2 and climate change are the exact same thing. There are plenty of other things that can lead to climate change. If you wanted to create an accurate headline, you could say "Rising CO2 Could Lead To Nutrient Deficiency For Hundreds of Millions". That would accurately describe the research. I would find that to be an interesting enough headline to read the story. Instead, they try to entice more readers by using a click-bait type headline. In no way am I trying to say this is a story that does not deserve to be read.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[ichthus]

No, actually, climate change makes your breath fresher. But, you're not going to hear that from the MSM!

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[GoTeam]

I'm more interested in getting the atmosphere's O2 above 30% again. We'd get giant insects again. Who wouldn't want giant insects? Should be easier to keep them out of my house... I hope...

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[SirSlud]

You claim that rising CO2 and climate change are the exact same thing.

The headline makes no such claim that they're the exact same thing. But they are so closely linked as to be interchangeable for the sake of this headline. I'm sure you can, but will politely decline acknowledging why that is. Indeed, I'm offended by your concern pedantry, because it's bad faith nitpicking masquerading as sincerity.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Bongo]

Oh I dunno. There may be an issue with particular nutrients in particular crops in particular climates and soils. Meanwhile, greenhouses increase co2 to 1000 ppm to increase photosynthesis. Trouble is there are so many soft areas where research is not of the highest gold standard, but I am all for science being respected and well funded in general. But that doesn't mean it is all useful, and we have seen the news about how this or that science journal editor has concluded that you just can't believe at face value most of what is published.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

Re: Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing aga

[Opportunist]

Nah, but the smell of the people who drowned, you know what corpses that float in water smell like? Really disgusting.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[GregMmm]

Exactly. Follow the money. Climate change, while I believe human have an effect, has spawned the REAL big business. Notice I'm not talking about oil companies, or tech companies. Nope, it's called the business of "studies and research". Because so many people want to forward the agenda of climate change, they will fund anything, which has created a wealth of people who will do studies on anything related to climate. Quick, what will happen to concrete if there is more CO2 in the air!!! Quick, how much CO2 is expelled by people who eat beef!!! On and on... I'm being a bit over the top, but there are so many studies. It's all about the money.

I'm not blaming the "researchers", since you should strike while the irons hot, but really.

Also, I'm ready for all the peeps who want to call me something for being logical on just an aspect of climate change. If you can't look at and understand yourself, please don't point fingers.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[fish_in_the_c]

Problem is , there is probably some truth behind what they are saying, but the hyperbole and hype are there to try and gain political control. If it was absent and people we discussing , practical , real , everyday solutions, then there would be change. Because in order to be practical a solution has to solve 'enough' of the problem the current tech does and do so more efficiently ( aka for less total money).

What people seem to want, is quick answers that let them continue doing what they have always done and the government types just used the environment as a political hokey puck.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[iggymanz]

No, there is no truth. Overproduction causes depletion of nutrients in soil. Nothing to do with co2, just greed driven creation of low quality products in quantity.

Only for Vegetarians.

[Zorro]

Just run it through a cow or a chicken to concentrate the nutrients.

Climate change ... natures way of ....

[Anonymous Coward]

... telling you too many nibberz. With a million years of practice bonoboz still need to eat bananaz.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut the fuck up you useless cunt. I'm an atheist and well, you're not winning any friends or making your point any more clear by belittling people.

The coal industry doesn't give a fuck about whatever Jesus bullshit you're trying to bring up here. They care about profit. Not whatever strawman bullshit you're coming up with.

Here is a hint, try being less of a twat.

Correlation, not causation

[Archtech]

The root cause of almost all the problems of pollution, resource exhaustion and crowding is simple: too many human beings sharing a planet that could comfortably and sustainably support one, or maybe two billion.

It's very easy to wave arms and make facile comments about how foolish Malthus was - but, in principle, he was completely right. Thanks (perhaps) to human ingenuity, we have staved off the moment of crisis for a few decades. But perhaps the final consequence will just be a far worse collapse.

Think. As population grows, the need for food obviously grows with it. So does the amount of manufactured objects and services demanded by the larger population. Which is mainly responsible for higher CO2 levels? It's hard to say; but one thing can be said with certainty. If the human population were still one billion (or three billion even) we would not have most of these problems.

Why are crops getting poorer in vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients? Largely because too many harvests are being taken out of a fixed area under cultivation. The Green Revolution produced much greater yields - with generous application of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides - but the soil can only produce nutrients at a given rate. Quadruple the weight of your annual harvest, and pretty soon you have sucked most of the vitamins and minerals out of the fields. After the food is eaten, anything left over goes down the sewer and is lost. It definitely doesn't go back on the land, as animal and human manure used to.

For a little more information, I suggest reading Philip Lymberry's "Farmageddon" and Richard Manning's "Against the Grain".

Re:Correlation, not causation

[drinkypoo]

The root cause of almost all the problems of pollution, resource exhaustion and crowding is simple: too many human beings sharing a planet that could comfortably and sustainably support one, or maybe two billion.

Bollocks. We are simply passing up opportunities for sustainability at every turn. The planet could probably support more people than we have right now, if only sustainability were our primary goal. Unfortunately, that is very far from the truth.

Re:Correlation, not causation

[zmooc]

I don't think that's true; our planet could sustain loads more people. They shouldn't all be eating as much meat and using as much energy as we do now, but that's not needed at all. The real problem is that we do not charge for using our planet like we should. We should tax land use and taking stuff (oil, gold) from the ground. That way, problematic consumption patterns become more expensive and they will change. It really is as simple as that. We're just too collectively stubborn, stupid and egoistic to actually do this.

(In fact if we'd tax the use of our planet properly and sort of make everybody a shareholder of our planet at birth, we've have a real proper basic income in the form of dividend. We wouldn't even have the utterly useless discussion we have now about financing basic income from tax yields, like most approaches propose.)

Re:Correlation, not causation

[Anonymous Coward]

The root cause of almost all the problems of pollution, resource exhaustion and crowding is simple: too many human beings sharing a planet that could comfortably and sustainably support one, or maybe two billion.

Wrong: The Earth can "comfortably and sustainably support" several more billion humans, if we do better at managing and allocating resources.

Why are crops getting poorer in vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients? Largely because too many harvests are being taken out of a fixed area under cultivation. The Green Revolution produced much greater yields - with generous application of artificial fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides - but the soil can only produce nutrients at a given rate. Quadruple the weight of your annual harvest, and pretty soon you have sucked most of the vitamins and minerals out of the fields.

Wrong: Fertiliser is literally nutrients for plants. Plants produce the vitamins you say are being "sucked out of the Earth".

Re:Correlation, not causation

[Seven Spirals]

How exactly do you propose to fix the "They shouldn't be eating as much meat..." problem? Go all militant vegan in Texas? Good luck with that and your dividend plan. You left one variable out of your calculations: human nature.

Re:Correlation, not causation

[zmooc]

Human nature is easily controlled through prices. Because that's human nature. Poor people (relative to what the earth can sustain) already eat less meat. We should just make more people effectively poorer by making their meat more expensive by making the land it is grown on more expensive. Easy.

Re:Correlation, not causation

[Seven Spirals]

Oh yeah, super easy right? Just raise prices on beef in Texas. Nice insight! I mean "whoa!" Why didn't they think of that? Idiot.

Re:We're doomed... if we sit on our hands for deca

[Anonymous Coward]

Feckin-A dude for nutritional inadequacy simply EAT MORE PROG-sluts. Snacking on emotocent Trotsky bitches not only increases vitamin-K intake, but also ... if done before November elections helps make America great again.

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[hyades1]

You nailed it, my friend. When I want to see deniers get all ragey and weird, I just point out that the US military and the insurance industry (quintessential, nut-cutting corporate hardasses) have completely accepted the fact of human-caused Global Warming and incorporated it into their strategic plans.

I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now, people are looking up some of the high profile deniers and hanging their offspring from the nearest (dead) tree.

As usual men are disposable

[Anonymous Coward]

>About 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 could see their iron intake drop by about 4 percent.

China to suffer the most

[Anonymous Coward]

China, if not all Asia, will suffer the most from this, since rice is hit the hardest of all. But, China continues to grow their CO2 emissions and so many libtards ignore it.

Re:China to suffer the most

[Barsteward]

they are also trying to fix their CO2 problems, they are leading in renewable deployment unlike some "developed" countries we could name who are still trying to stop renewables

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[dryeo]

What's your point? That agriculture is more interested in size then the nutrients in the crops? I think that is well established that when someone gets paid by weight, they'll try for increasing the weight of what they're selling.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[drinkypoo]

No, there is no truth. Overproduction causes depletion of nutrients in soil. Nothing to do with co2, just greed driven creation of low quality products in quantity.

You don't think they accounted for such an obvious factor, which is so very simple to account for using soil samples? You really do think you're smarter than everyone else, don't you?

News Flash... Water is wet

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee... Tell me something that climate change won't affect.

So. what's the problem?

[RogueWarrior65]

Look, if these environmental doomsayers had their way, the evil, disgusting scourge of humanity would be wiped form the face of Mother Gaia. They should be cheering this as good news. Thin the herd.

Someone please reset the alarmism FUD tape --

[argStyopa]

...apparently we've looped back to the beginning and you guys are starting to repeat the same fears again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Didn't he pretty much say the exact same thing in 1798?
Didn't happen.
Won't happen this time either..

What's next, are you guys going to start crying about "peak oil" again (in 1909 you guys were saying we only had oil for maybe 25-30 years left)? (http://paleofuture.com/blog/2009/6/14/oil-and-gas-will-eventually-be-exhausted-1909.html)

It also makes the cows give less milk ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... and it turned my brother into a newt!

Utterly false fear-mongering

[SuperKendall]

A warmer climate means a MUCH wider farmable region of earth, with longer growing seasons in many northern climates.

You want proof? What has more vegetation, a jungle or Canada. You might say, but Canada is dryer (ha!), but that person would be forgetting what a warmer climate means in terms of increased evaporation across the entire surface of the ocean...

Anyone who claims that global warming leads to less food is absolutely lying and worst of all, KNOWS they are lying to try and scare you. What you should do is tar and feather an pillory them until they wind up living under a bridge, which is where troll belong.

Re:Utterly false fear-mongering

[MightyMartian]

You don't understand the science at all. Increases in CO2 alters the chemistry of plant growth. It ultimately means that while plants may grow a lot faster, they're also storing a lot less carbohydrates, which means that they store a lot less nutrients. My understanding is there are already some preliminary data on the study of rice crops (which, of course, feed a few billion people), and no reason to think that other grain crops won't be similarly affected.

Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in elevated amounts has a lot of consequences. That you're too infantile to accept that doesn't change reality. The universe does not function merely to make our economic systems work better.

Re:Utterly false fear-mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

i am not going to pretend i know all about climate change, but i am assuming there's a lot we dont know.
so anyways, my assumption (and that's all it is) is that the climate changes all the time.
the picture i am getting (from mas media) is that climate change is like a line on a graph that goes higher and higher.
my feeling (that's all it is at this point) is however, that a changing climate is less like a line and more like a wavy line.
fancy name might be a sinus curve?
anyways, the weather changes from dry to wet, from cold to hot etc. what we are going to see is more extremes.
it's going to rain MORE but it's also going to be dry MORE.
a changing climate is not a one way road, it is more like a dragon that has been sleeping, once in a while batting a eye or sneezing fire or whatnot. once it has fully awakened, there will still be droughts and floods and ice storm and sand storm and whatnot ... but the derative of the wavy line will be extremer ... so the solution would be bigger, longer lasting dams, bigger river beds, more oil storage etc ... all the buffers we have for "changing climate" taken to the next level... and some day the "changed" climate will be the new normal climate ... that changes ... again.

Re:Utterly false fear-mongering

[Miles_O'Toole]

So who am I more inclined to believe, scientists who have submitted refereed papers on the subject, or some dildo on Slashdot who thinks he knows better.

Sorry, kid. You lose.

Re: Utterly false fear-mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

I, on the other hand, am absolutely persuaded by the above postings and am now so relieved that 26,000 scientists got it wrong and it will all work out alright in the end. Thank you slashdot! /s

Necessity is the mother of invention

[bussdriver]

Alarmists serve an EXTREMELY important role in society and we shouldn't encourage the fools who always dismiss them!

Smart people get motivated by an impending crisis and by thinking ahead (possibly even long term thinking) they find solutions to a future necessity. When the crisis has been averted the fools all spew hot air and probably are not even grateful to those who solved the problem.

NOTE: Humans can't always solve every problem in time; and some problems will prove to be beyond human mental capacity.

Re:Necessity is the mother of invention

[JBMcB]

Alarmists serve an EXTREMELY important role in society and we shouldn't encourage the fools who always dismiss them!

No, alarmists exaggerate, usually for economic or political gain. It's the definition of an alarmist. It's why news headlines on the internet read like tabloid headlines from thirty years ago.

Re:Necessity is the mother of invention

[Barsteward]

no matter what you think their motivations are, they are important. Running out of food was alarmist (yields have increase by working on it) Y2K was alarmist (fixed), ozone layer depletion was alarmist (slowing repairing), rising CO2 levels are alarmist (trying to fix), polar ice caps melting etc etc

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[cascadingstylesheet]

When I want to see deniers get all ragey and weird,

Yeah, that's a great way to get buy in to your political goals. Well done.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[riverat1]

Do you want massive fire storms? Because that's how you get massive fire storms. If the level of O2 in the atmosphere was 30% it might be impossible to effectively fight fires.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Billy the Mountain]

Ooh, Big Studies and Research. Who's the market leader in that space?

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[Anonymous Coward]

This is possible. It can be achieved by raising the standard of living for everyone in the overpopulated countries.

Aren't we already...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure with a few rocks flipped over, we would discover that at least a billion people in the world are nutrient deficient. Probably more then that, given how much of a mono-culture we have with the few specific crops we grow to feed everyone. Wheat, rice, maize and soy being the top 4 crops that feed us or our livestock.

Climate Change could also lead to higher ocean levels, worse weather systems and will continue our mass extinction event we are entering (or in?).

By all means, keep reporting it, but let's not pretend we care. Most people don't seem to have an opinion and worse, the ones that are go planet" yet drive an suv, have 4 kids and lives in a 2000 sqft home. Not exactly being eco-friendly like that.

We aren't really doing anything REAL to stop climate change. It's mostly wealth redistribution. Some countries and some people are trying, but is it even 10% of the population of the world?

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[angel'o'sphere]

You claim that rising CO2 and climate change are the exact same thing.
Nitpicking again?
Yes, there are plenty of other things ...

However we have the year 2018. The most important thing on the planet at the moment is human introduced climate change, aka global warming caused by CO2. Obviously we are talking about that, and not other reasons like a nuclear war or an comet impact.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[lgw]

The primary driver for climate change is the sun. If we're exiting the Quaternary Ice Age after a couple hundred million years (and it sort of looks like we are. starting 10k years ago), it's not because of CO2.

You can blame CO2 (and other "greenhouse" gasses) for the rapidity of climate change if you like, and that's important to us humans. But if the pattern for the past millions of years was holding, rising CO2 would mean temps were falling slowly rather than plummeting. It's not human activity that broke that pattern.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[angel'o'sphere]

To qualify to make a study in "climate change" you have to have studied in an university first for 5 - 10 years and made a diploma in climate and meteorology ... and then you need to be a member in a research team or found one. So: "no, there is no research industry"
You are an idiot. Researchers usually don't earn money. They barely can pay the bills, moron!

Missed a decimal

[Latent Heat]

110010001000 spent 60 grand -- there are Tesla Model 3 configurations you can get for that amount.

But maybe the person posting that drives a 15 year old Honda Civic when not taking the city bus or walking and is having fun at the expense of people who think that a car is that labor and mineral resource intensive that it costs 60 grand is going to Save the Earth.

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[hyades1]

You aren't going to get "buy in" from those morons anyway, so there's nothing to lose. Besides sometimes it's actually beneficial to call an asshole an asshole, and not apologize for it.

Consider your head patted and a lollypop duly handed out, along with an invitation to have a nice day. Run along, now. This is an adult conversation.

What about the positives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change is a change to a system, so there will be winners and losers.

All I hear about are the losers.

Can someone point me to a study that discusses the winners?

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[MightyMartian]

Isn't tough that physics and chemistry dictate that there are consequences to increased carbon in the environment. I know, that's so rotten, so we should go out and shoot some scientists because they keep telling us there are consequences to our activities.

the other side

[micahraleigh]

Claims about pseudo science could lead to reduced interest in this website.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh shut the fuck up you useless cunt. I'm an atheist and well, you're not winning any friends or making your point any more clear by belittling people.

U mad bro? People who are purposely stupid deserve all the belittlement they get. Don't like it? Here's a quarter - buy a sense of humor.

The coal industry doesn't give a fuck about whatever Jesus bullshit you're trying to bring up here.

Coming from a family that had a lot of coal miners, I can assure you that the coal industry doesn't give a fuck about the people who work for them, either. Would you like me to send you some of that yummy orange water that fills a lot of our rivers?

They care about profit.

And that's good. Really. I care about profit too.

Not whatever strawman bullshit you're coming up with.

Here is a hint, try being less of a twat.

Life is long and hard, bro. It's even harder when you lack a sense of humor. And even if you don't find it funny, you should be able to recognize it as such.

So don't be mad bro, it raises your blood pressure and puts stress hormones in your bloodstream. Peace out.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

However, we have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) to slow down climate change and give us time to adapt. That is, no more burn fossil fuel (crude oil, natural gas, coal) and no more consume ruminant products (cowmilk, beef, ...). If we can agree to do this, we have a chance to survive. There are very few people profiting from burning these carbon compounds, let us say no and refuse to buy and operate these products (traditional cars, milk, beef, coal for barbecue) and ask our representatives to have coal plants banned.

Too bad climate change is nonanthropogenic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad climate change is nonanthropogenic.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[MightyMartian]

If we keep puking CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 levels will rise. This ain't rocket science.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[cyberchondriac]

Considering that some want to use insects as a staple food source, that'd be a boon. Then again, I wonder how big we'd get?

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Barsteward]

Conspiracy theories are over there next to the Flat Earth Society

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[MightyMartian]

Actuaries have no political goals. They have purely economic ones. They exist solely to make sure insurance companies aren't vulnerable to tangible and measurable risks. AGW presents multiple such risks, and since they are not childish and unable to accept hard facts, they can see greater incidents of strong storm fronts, flooding, sea level rise, wild fires, and they have but one job, to either decide what will or won't be covered by the insurance companies, or if it is to be covered, to make sure the money insurance companies charge for coverage accounts for the greater risks.

It's you that is in fantasy land. Grow up. The laws of nature are not designed to make you feel better or more comfortable. The universe doesn't care about your ideology one little bit. To the physical laws, you're just a pack of atoms, and your feelings mean absolutely nothing.

Research online at WSU and UW

[WillAffleckUW]

If you're looking for the actual research, you can find it in various places at Washington State University and the University of Washington.

Reality doesn't care about your failed fossil fuel religion.

not bad

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the half-million diabetic Slashdot fatties will slim their sausage-fingers and lose a few LBs?

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more sick of you stupid fucks who think we can do anything to the environment without somehow suffering consequences. Seriously kill yourself

Not the agenda

[mpercy]

Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I look forward to clean fusion plants (now supposedly only 20 years in the future!).

So please, folks, don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.

But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it, with climate change to have the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."

It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice an

Re:Not the agenda

[Ol Olsoc]

My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

I kinda wonder where exactly I fit in with your politically based ideology. I hate SJW's and am of mixed feelings about socialism, but please explain - why am I a SJW and a socialist because I believe that solar power and wind powert are getting better all of the time.

But righty away, you perfom the basic mistake that so many pro-nuc people do.

You come out and insult anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. That's the make friends by telling them they are really stupid tactic. How's that workin out for ya?

Give me the science that proves that the so called Greenhouse effect as well as the anti-greenhouse effect fail on a global scale, that the 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing are not real, then we can talk.

But your political screeds are exposing that you don't have that science based evidence - you have ideology. And make no mistake, you are exactly a denialist. You haven't given us one bit of science. And don't bitch about me calling you a denialist - you started it with the insults.

Now change my opinion, show me the evidence that the energy retention effect of an atmosphere based on the composition of the gases in it don't exist, or that human release of sequestered Carbon Dioxide are somehow different.

That really should be quite easy after all. Did you want me to remind you?

Re:Not the agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it the other way : if we drop emissions then we won't need wealth redistribution to fight the effects of global warming. Well, that's not entirely true since a portion of global warming is unstoppable such as that that happened already and some more by inertia.

Well yes they can't hide from the fact the issue is economic.
We'll have hundreds millions dead from the consequences of global warming, so leaving that to the invisible hand of the market (capitalist flying spaghetti monster) is like the Great Leap Forward or Soviet famines.

Re:Not the agenda

[mpercy]

Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).

I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.", I meant in the abstract the proposer of some sort of (non-)solution, not you as the original poster. That is, many proposed "solutions" appear to come from people far more interested in socialism than in science and their agenda (!) is that of SJW and not of a "climate warrior". And sadly, many of those people are "leaders" in the environmental/climate-change movements.

I'm FOR solar, and FOR wind, and recycling, and reducing my carbon footprint. Hell my wife and I just bought a 43 acre piedmont farm so we can be self sufficient and off the grid (one of the first major upgrades will be a solar plant; we had a microwave internet tower put in so we can work from home--zero commute emissions!).

I was trying to discuss the subset of AGW alarmists who do not seem to actually care about real solutions (carbon sequestration, solar, etc.) and instead have hijacked the potential crisis for their socialist political agenda (there's the word!) blathering on about income inequality instead of sustainable low-impact farming, crying about social injustices instead of anything that might actually help the situation. Also the related subset of AGW alarmists who are clearly in it to make a buck for themselves.

Those folks have hijacked what is most probably a serious situation and are not helping find real solutions. Let's talk about the problem and how to solve it.

Re:Not the agenda

[Ol Olsoc]

Ok, there's been a disconnect here somewhere. I wasn't trying to imply that YOU were a socialist SJW (I've no idea what you believe in).

FWIW, I am a pragmatist- (perhaps shorthand for being politically unreliable?) Which means I tend to think about things before deciding my position. So some of my concepts seem a tad left, and others shockingly right wing.

Which is to say that I support universal health care, and do not like Social Justice Warriors at all - as an example. I believe in equal rights for women and men, but think that third wave feminism is a cancer. And yup - I manage to piss off most people, so I really avoid politics at parties.

I latched onto the keyword "agenda" and went from there. When I said "but far more often the "solution" is just a green cloak meant to hide the proposer's socialist SJW motives.",

Oh yes, there are left wing idiots who think we are going to kill all life on earth, or that we are some other thing that simply isn't science. There are people on the right wing side that apparently have a massive hardon for science, possibly an extension of their biblical leanings. Both are idiots, and one of my vices is ridiculing them.

But we have this weird thing going on where those lefties are right about the concept, if wrong about the details. They do need to be called out, and no doubt. But you have to start from a different setting than with people who don't believe at all, and use political tactics to attempt to debunk it. I always like to call it the "Michal Mann is an asshole" tactic. Where both Michael Mann is not an asshole at all, and they hate him both for his stance on AGW, and his willingness to fight them in a manner which they understand. In any event, the physics doesn't care about what either group thinks.

As for fusion, I think it will be a great gig if we can get it. But damn, just the amount of energy to confine it is making that 20 years moving prediction soooo damn difficult. I'm certain that that was in jest. I'm not a nucE, and I'm going to have to take a look at what happens if the containment fails on a fusion Power source.

Chemical agriculture is contributing to the proble

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, (i.e. "organic"), topsoil contributes more to removing CO2 from the atmosphere than plant life, including trees.

Monocropped wheat, the crop that covers more earth than any other, "lives" in dead soil that is near-completely stripped of biological activity. This soil, and the homogenic wheat growing in it, is "fed" by chemical nitrogen-based "fertilizers."

Fertility isn't exactly the result of these fertilizers' use.

Nitrogen oxide is released into the atmosphere throughout this process, and dead soil cannot remove CO2 from the air.

NO3 is about 10x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

And the wheat produced is void of organic nutrients, but full of chemical toxins.

It is by growing shit food with shit chemicals that we are contributing to shit nutrition.

And in the meantime, contributing to shit nutrition as described in this article.

Thank Mr. Rockefeller for his investment in the "Green Revolution."

Doesn't look so fucking green to me.

Sincerely,

An organic landrace wheat farmer,
Hard-working 1991-born "Millenial" scum

They always asumme they're in the clique

[mpercy]

When environmentalist say we need fewer people, they always assume that they--of course--would be included in the group that gets to keep on living when the rest are euthanized or however they envision accomplishing their population reduction.

P.S. Has Paul Ehrlich EVER been right?

Optimum Human Population Size
By Gretchen C. Daily, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Paul R. Ehrlich

Although the tremendous size and rate of growth of the human population now influences virtually every aspect of society, rarely does the public debate, or even consider, the question of what would be an optimum number of human beings to live on Earth at any given time. While there are many possible optima depending on criteria and conditions, there is a solid scientific basis for determining the bounds of possibilities. All optima must lie between the minimum viable population size, MVP (Gilpin and Soule, 1986; Soule, 1987) and the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). At the lower end, 50 to 100 people in each of several groups, for a total of about 500, would constitute an MVP.

At the upper end, the present population of 5.5 billion, with its resource consumption patterns and technologies, has clearly exceeded the capacity of Earth to sustain it. This is evident in the continuous depletion and dispersion of a one-time inheritance of essential, non-substitutable resources that now maintains the human enterprise (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991; Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).

A world with 1.5 billion people using 4.5 TW of energy seems equally plausible and would carry a larger margin of safety. This is about the same number of people as existed at the turn of the century.

To summarize this brief essay, determination of an "optimum" world population size involves social decisions about the lifestyles to be lived and the distribution of those lifestyles among individuals in the population. To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technologies change radically, the optimum size of the human population lies in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people.

Re:They always asumme they're in the clique

[Ol Olsoc]

When environmentalist say we need fewer people, they always assume that they--of course--would be included in the group that gets to keep on living when the rest are euthanized or however they envision accomplishing their population reduction.

P.S. Has Paul Ehrlich EVER been right?

Where in the land of rapture did you ever get that opinion. When nature or our obsession with radioactive boomy things performs the great culling, it will be pretty much random. Depending on the process, I plan on adding myself to the dead manually. So enough with the environmentalist Strawmen, this is not Fox or Breitbart news. That rush of gamma rays, heat pulse, and yummy radioactive debris does not pause to go over the head of liberals or whatever group it is that you hate.

Now maybe if it a starvation scenario, it will be a little more selective, but at present the shakers and movers who will have us kill each other off at their direction are not liberal environmentalists, so that would be a whole different group that just might survive. But when 95 out of every hundred people kick off for whatever reason, there isn't enough wiggle room for any one person's survival.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[lgw]

we have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O) to slow down climate change and give us time to adapt

Maybe. How much will it help? How much will it cost to help? How much will it cost if we ignore the problem?

If we can agree to do this, we have a chance to survive.

Survive? Seriously? This sort of shit is where the science of climate change gets ignored in the religious fever of its True Believers.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[pedz]

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses Generally, adding CO2 has been considered to be a great benefit to plants. Its odd that this study disagrees with countless others. Just Google: greenhouses add co2

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[iggymanz]

No, these young alarmists "scientists" don't account for it for they didn't use control soil sample. they're an embarrassment to the cause of lowering carbon (and radioactive ash) pollution

More false scaremongering

[SuperKendall]

You don't understand the science at all. Increases in CO2 alters the chemistry of plant growth...which means that they store a lot less nutrients.

You don't understand the amount that CO2 is actually affecting nutrients in the STUDY (singular, the one that all other scaremongering references).

If you actually look at the study the plants diminish in protein about 10%. That is not a LOT, and is more than made up for literally millions of acres of land that can grow more food.

Not to mention this study ONLY looks at rice, and even then qualifies that there need to be more strains of rice considered to say what even happens to rice!!! They aren't even willing to say that the study properly covers rice and you are extrapolating this result to every plant across the world.... now THAT is ignoring the science, and engaging in truly deep scaremongering.

You an easily tell when someone is trying to scare you - just watch for words like "a lot" or belting you. That along with the lack of links and real data usually means they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Re:More false scaremongering

[Anonymous Coward]

The usual complete garbage from brainless RWNJ fucktard kendoll.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

This is amazing. People are so far removed from growing food that they can be tricked into believing that rising CO2 levels is going to cause deficiencies?

CO2 is a macronutrient for plants and is required for optimal performance from the photosynthesis engine used by plants to generate sugars from sunshine. More CO2 is a GOOD thing for plants and our food supply!

A small amount of Iron is necessary for your body. However, unless you're a menstruating woman or you're regularly donating blood, you don't need excessive amounts of iron in your food. In fact, excess iron is a health risk that can cause death. The only way for the human body to rid itself of excess iron is to lose blood, so really, you don't need much iron in your food at all. If rising CO2 causes lower iron content in our food, I'm all for it!

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, is the ANYTHING bad that hasn't been threatened to happen from climate change?

What would you expect? It would be shocking if people pretended that so much can change without altering the status quo. You'd know they'd be hiding something. And lots of people think of extreme changes as bad.

When you think about how much things have changed since the end of the Pleistocene, it's like wow! An American landscape that different from today, but in a difference direction, is expected to be pretty different. Whether you think of it as better or worse partly depends on how much value to put on stability.

It's gone from funny to downright annoying to insulting now.

How so? Let's say you grow a garden and you're pretty good at it. One of the things that means, is that you have learned what grows there; i.e. stuff where you don't have to fight to make it work.

Then we change the weather. If someone told you that your garden would continue to work as-is, you would be insulted and suspect a strong agenda of deception. Sure, you can plant different things. By all means, adapt. But the status quo simply ain't happening and anyone who say otherwise, you immediately understand they're a liar.

Are you saying that you're insulted by having some common sense obvious things explained to you? You shouldn't be. Just learn. Geez, it doesn't even have to be this. Learn anything science-related (genetics, physics, chemistry, whatever) and you'll start to get into more of a learning mood, understand how things get figured out, and stuff like this (among many other topics) will get much easier. Never let anyone tell you that if you missed 8th grade, your life is ruined. You can always try. Don't listen to the insults.

How stupid do these people think we are?

I think that's what everyone is trying to determine. Please continue asking your questions.

One school of thought is that people really are stupid, and adults should just give up on them. Personally, I think that's total bullshit.

But the other school of thought is that they're just pretending they don't understand the significance of climate change, in spite of all the historic evidence that it has always, always been a really big deal. When you go out to some dry lakebed in Nevada, you know it was under hundreds of feet of water just a few thousand years ago, and there are reasons you find Clovis settlements all around it, in spite of the land now being clearly worthless and crappy. It doesn't take a genius to understand how intensely some relatively unimpressive-looking numbers on a thermometer result in vastly dramatic effects on landscape and habitability. But some people say they still don't get it, as though they have never researched anything climate-related, or haven't ever learned the most basic basics of archeology. It's not believable that they don't get the seriousness of global warming, but they keep maintaining that they don't.

Attributing this to simple ignorance (easily cured through education) or stupidity (fight it like any other religion, maybe?) or dishonesty (shun them?deny them power?) is going to be an important part of figuring out what regular folks should do. Assuming we want to do anything.

tl;dnr: the adults are still trying to figure out the answer to your question with regard to the seeming fuckwits. We need more data about what the fuckwits are really thinking.

I'm with you, though. I think people aren't nearly as stupid as they say they are. We know stupidity is a threat, but is that really what we're up against? I don't think so.

I'm just trying to figure out what their angle is.

Ah, the motives of science. Just why did Darwin and Einstein give as many fucks about their subjects? All I can tell you, is that some people are curious about how things work. Galileo was even willing to go to prison. WTF.

2 Things...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Plants LIVE on CO2. It is to plants what Oxygen is to animals. How is more CO2 going to deplete nutrients in plants? Isn't that like saying more Oxygen would be bad for animals?

2. Nutrients are ALREADY depleted in fruit and vegetables because the soil is depleted of nutrients. Most farms don't replenish nutrients in the soil based on the nutritional needs of humans, but based on what will make the plant grow. So, over the years, all farm plants have been depleted of nutrients. Not because of air pollution, but because it takes less nutrients to get a plant to grow than to feed a human.

3rd bonus thought - Is it me, or has the amount of bullshit peddled on this site increased dramatically lately?

Not going to be dry more

[SuperKendall]

With increased evaporation that means that inevitably it will be wet more often, and dry less often. That's how the atmosphere works. The earth getting warmer does not change the fundamental cycles based on physics. When water goes into the atmosphere it has to come back down somewhere eventually. What is likely in fact is that some desert areas will shrink, which is kind of sad on its own but beneficial to humans.

There is no desert area that will expand greatly because anywhere there is moisture now, there will generally be more even if weather patterns shift a bit. The temperature is not changing enough that the jet stream will be affected much. Nor would it change geography which is a large part of what dictates where condensed water ends up.

Re:Not going to be dry more

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no more glaciers so things are going to get dry from that.

If you end up getting both floods and droughts you're also fucked even if your water quantity went up.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Ol Olsoc]

The aganda here is not what many think. The agenda is to get you to stop paying attention because you are tired of hearing about it, so you'll demand we start burning coal. Peace out.

While I agree with your sentiment about paying attention, coal is going away because of natural gas.

Natural gas is a fine transition fuel, and I whole heartedly approve of it's use.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Ol Olsoc]

We have the videos from the studio where the fake moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick.

I saw that one. I love the part where the lunar module lands on the moon, and you see the astronaut get out and plant the Russian flag. Then you see the astronaut take his helmet off and it's Trump! Bigly!

Did you hear the one about how they hired Kubrick to make the fake moon landing videos, but he was such a perfectionist that they had to go to the moon so he could film it?

So misleading!

[RJBeery]

The study showed that vegetables grown in higher CO2 concentrations grew FASTER. A large carrot is less nutrient-dense than a small carrot which was grown more slowly, the same as fast-growing trees (like pine) produce weaker wood than slow-growing ones (like oak). The idea that more abundant food will result in fewer nutrients per cubic inch, and that's a bad thing, is absurd.

Re:So misleading!

[Anonymous Coward]

For malnourished undernourished people eating more is tiring. They were people freed from concentration camps who died after eating, because of the reaction people had to walking skeletons. They were fed too much in one sitting and digestion weakened them too much.

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[Anonymous Coward]

You're likely part of the problem anyway.

In any case, we'll just take your hill by force and your popcorn too. You ain't shit.

Re:So sick of Chicken Little climate change storie

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember after climategate came out that people were actually writing articles about how global warming could extend the growing season and help us produce more food.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010084156.htm

This is why we need hard limits

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor countries are wrong when they say the want to exceed the carbon caps in order to grow. They won't come out winners if only rich nations have real limits on carbon.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

1kg of potatoes now turns into 1.1 or 1.2kg of potatoes.
How many nutrients do you get if you eat 200g of older potatoes vs 200g of newer potatoes?
This is not a new problems as modern vegetables

122 million people would be added to the 622 million who don't receive enough protein

Oh shit! You didn't address why less protein is a good thing. (it's not)

However, unless you're a menstruating woman or you're regularly donating blood, you don't need excessive amounts of iron in your food

What if you are a woman?

The only way for the human body to rid itself of excess iron is to lose blood, so really, you don't need much iron in your food at all.

Meat is a big ass source of iron. Maybe you can have it less often. One sure thing is most people on this planet aren't having it twice a day.
Not those people who need something in their "wheat, rice, corn and soybeans"
We can live just fine on empty calories and meat, cheese, eggs because those are super foods full of things.
There are people with one egg a week (per family member) and meat once a year e.g. the day when North Koreans eat dog meat.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly? Who cares? Just buy more food.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness humans come pre-stamped on the forehead for these âoecampsâ everyone talks about...

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of this world is it is as much mine as it is yours.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[bingoUV]

Research like wouldn't even be happening if the scientific community at large wasn't absolutely sure that CO2 levels will continue to rise due to human produced CO2

So much wrong in that post, I'll just start with this sentence :
1. There is nothing "absolutely sure" in science. It is the currently accepted hypothesis with large amount of support from observational data.

2. Plenty of research happens that doesn't have immediate / practical impacts. Noodle breaking physics is a famous example - Feynman himself was highly interested in it. It has recently been explained well by a physicist.

3. Even if we accept that only practical interest research is done - rising CO2 due to any reason would make it practical to study its impact on plants and therefore human nutrient consumption. It need not be "human produced CO2".

"Comet about to hit earth" isn't a click bait headline if a comet is going to hit the earth.

Yes, but "Comet hit could lead to water falling downhill" is clickbait. Or at least highly incorrect. See :
1. Climate change is caused (at least helped along) by rising CO2.
2. Nutrient deficiency is caused by rising CO2

But nutrient deficiency is not caused by climate change - at least for this research.

Similarly :
1. Comet hit is caused (at least helped along) by Earth's gravity
2. Water flowing downhill is caused by Earth's gravity

But water flowing downhill is not caused by comet hit - at least not all of it.

Nope, zinc right there

[bingoUV]

Zinc deficiency might increase halitosis : https://www.drstevenlin.com/ba...

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[Opportunist]

I'm done trying to get a "buy in". Since there's no amount of facts that would sway the people with their fingers in their ears going "nanana, I can't hear you", why bother wasting your time?

GP is dead on the mark, look what corporations are doing and where they put their money. When insurance for a shoreline real estate goes through the roof, there might be a reason for it.

Reality is. Whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not. That makes it different from religion and other wishful thinking.

Re:Gather 'round kids, the climate's changing agai

[Opportunist]

Come try me, wetfoot.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stori

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the usual conga line of RWNJ primitive assholes, masquerading as knowledgeable, denying the scientific facts because they are inconvenient.
So predictably pathetic. Sad.

Re: So sick of Chicken Little climate change stor

[Anonymous Coward]

If elevated CO2 levels alone cause nutrient deficiency regardless of the intermediary effects of climate change, then that is a much easier to demonstrate cause and effect of excessive CO2 pollution.

  This effect on nutrition and acidification of the oceans causing negative effects on some species should should be considered seperately without being linked to projections on climate change.

"Climate change" becoming a catch all phrase for the other effects of excesive CO2 pollution doesn't make logical sense and undermines the argument about the very real needs to cut back emissions and come up with more efficient ways of doing things and shrink the population with lower birth rates.

Flashback

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change and meteorites changes life for millions...

Do they mean...

[Doctrinsograce]

Do they mean nutrient deficiencies as bad as those caused by government subsidies? Whoa!

Misleading Story

[t14m4t]

This story is misleading. Is the concentration of nutrients going down? Yes. Is that a problem?

Well...

As it turns out, what's really happening is the carbon dioxide is promoting bulk growth, which is making more food (particularly, more carbohydrates) in the same amount of time. However, the nutrients are getting stocked into the food at the same rate.

So, the total carbohydrate loading is increasing, making food bulkier. But the total nutrient loading in the food is the same. Since the bulk is larger with the same nutrient loading, the concentration (nutrients per unit bulk) goes down.

Clearly by my verbiage, I'm not a botanist. And I'll say I'm not a climate change denier. But it's not clear to me why this specifically is a "problem" per se.

weylin

There IS a major agenda

[Namarrgon]

and there are dollars to be had - but *vastly* more from causing and denying AGW than merely observing and reporting its effects. If you believe otherwise, let me know when "big green" gets within a couple orders of magnitude of the $2.3 trillion collected annually from oil and coal by 5 of the 10 richest companies in the world.

I do wonder at denialist intelligence - mostly how they keep saying "follow the money" with so little thought about where it actually leads.

Incoming Message ID ####01920--9123

[Anonymous Coward]

MESSAGE BEGIN
Climate Change is Bologna
MESSAGE END

Incorrect.

[bussdriver]

Motivation is NOT relevant; even if 99% of them are 1 motive the definition covers 100% who are raising alarms more than normal which is why they are called an alarmist. For practical purposes, your definition may be fine for YOUR experience but other people have different experiences or may be more specific and technically correct in their use of certain terms than you are.

Even the badly motivated alarmists can serve SOME good as long as people don't let their emotions overtake their reasoning.... which is a HUGE problem for everybody but Vulkan wannabes. That is why appeal to fear is so popular; and commonplace at every level in the USA. If you are in control of your mind then these tactics are ineffective but can still serve a practical purpose beyond STUPID things like alien invasions, safety warnings on US products, etc.