Good news everyone, rice, which is possibly the world's most important agricultural crop, not only grows better under CO2 enhanced atmospheric conditions, it also becomes more disease resistant when atmospheric CO2 is increased. >Effects of elevated CO2 on resistant and susceptible rice cultivar and its primary host, brown planthopperhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8076292/>The elevated CO2 (eCO2) has positive response on plant growth and negative response on insect pests. As a contemplation, the feeding pattern of the brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stål on susceptible and resistant rice cultivars and their growth rates exposed to eCO2 conditions were analyzed. The eCO2 treatment showed significant differences in percentage of emergence and rice biomass that were consistent across the rice cultivars, when compared to the ambient conditions. Similarly, increase in carbon and decrese in nitrogen ratio of leaves and alterations in defensive peroxidase enzyme levels were observed, but was non‐linear among the cultivars tested. Lower survivorship and nutritional indices of N. lugens were observed in conditions of eCO2 levels over ambient conditions. Results were nonlinear in manner. We conclude that the plant carbon accumulation increased due to eCO2, causing physiological changes that decreased nitrogen content. Similarly, eCO2 increased insect feeding, and did alter other variables such as their biology or reproduction.
Heres a copy of the PDF for anyone who'd like to go over the figures
People who don't want the atmosphere to be enhanced with additional CO2 are people who hate nature and who hate all living creatures
>>16141752this is more good news about the environment so inevitably the people who claim that they're environmentalists will get angry at it.
>>16143135that's ricist
SPOILER:In the next 1-10 years science will GMO plants to uptake much more CO2 than before. This will result in MASSIVE increase in yields of all enhanced plants, faster growing timber as well as food crops. This along with extensive replanting of forest with GMO super trees will negate all human generated CO2 and then some. This was always the plan and will only be made public once the climate hoax fails completely which has already begun. Ironically Golden Rice is a model for such an advancement. Screencap it.
CO2 is plant food
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267242/
>>16143189Theres no need for "roundup ready" plants or for glyphosate in higher CO2 environments because the plants are robust enough to resist predation and disease.
New astroturf thread?
>>16143362Its over insect bros
>>16141752>CO2 makes plants healthierokay, yes. Everyone knows that, sherlock.
>>16141752Was this study conducted at Rice University?
>>16145788lmao, probably
Western science: lets see how we can use our brains to improve the world, lets cure cancer and invent space travel.Eastern science: lets see how we can use our brains to get more rice
>>16144461fungusisters, does this affect us too?
>>16148259Yes, plants in CO2 enhanced atmospheres are more disease resistant
>>16141752Unfortunately CO2 increases causes temperature rises which cause heat and water stress to the plants. You can't look at the variable in isolation.I wonder if they plan a FACE follow up study.
>>16149197>CO2 increases causes temperature rises no it doesn't >which cause heat and water stress to the plants.plants growing in high CO2 environments require less water than plants growing in low CO2 environments
>>16141752Rice is C3 photosynthesis meaning it thrives with 10% CO2 concentration.
>>16141754decreased nitrogen content (protein) and moar bugs
>>16150835All plants do better in higher CO2 environments, at 400ppm they're on the brink of starvation
>>16152328Source?
>>16141752In practice, atmospheric CO2 is not the limiting factor in plant growth. Making farmlands hotter and drier will decrease yields despute more CO2 being available from the atmosphere.
>>16152576>muh soiyentism religion doomsday scenario Plants in high CO2 environments require less water than otherwise
>oh no, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is making agriculture more productive and food more plentiful!!!!
All I know is that real science will always confirm me in doing what I want and what I already do.
>>16154246This is what gretafags are actually crying about
>>16154246When CO2 ends up making agriculture productive enough the value of farmland is going to plummet and a lot of it will return to being wilderness. Nature will thrive and be healthier than any human has ever witnessed, this is what the environmentalists are trying to prevent
>>16141752rice releases more methane than beef but they never mention this for some strange reason
>>16156148
The more productive adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes agriculture, the cheaper biofuels will become, which in turn will eventually stop more CO2 from being added to the atmosphere.Theres a fun equation in figuring out where the inflection points are
>>16158216Retard take
>>16156148https://asmith.ucdavis.edu/news/which-crop-yields-most-calories>On a per acre basis, rice produces the most calories at 14 million per acre. This means an acre produces enough rice to feed 19 people for a year at 2000 calories per day.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level
>>16156148>>16159265And since you're going to whine about cows giving you more protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice-fish_system
>>16141752Unfortunately plants are not the only thing that wants to live on this planet.In addition to that plants have hostorically adapted to the availability of CO2 and variation of the density of stomata has been recorded to be proportional to availability of CO2 for evolutionary periods.This means, given time on an evolutionary scale, plants will adapt and regress to their comfy zone.Unfortunately the changes we are causing are not happening on a evolutionary timescale because what we are releasing on a single day took ages of unimpeded growth and deposition in the absence of lignine consuming microorganisms to form.On top of that photosynthesis in most plants during our period is thylakoid limited. At this point the derivate of the response curve is already quite low and once its in Pi regeneration limited CO2 concentration ranges the derivative is literally 0.But sadly all explaining is in vain when the recipient is either numb or doesn't want to know but rather justify their own actions or agitate.
>>16143189This is one of the examples of the already mentioned >>16159779 numb people. Fauna in our age, conversely to what some wannabe environmentalists like to pretend, does hardly fix any carbon past it reaching it's full potential for a given environment. A point after which it will remain in an equilibrium of release through decay and uptake.Even if we experienced the conditions that lead to the original formation of fossile carbon formation again (god beware), it would still be delusional to believe this process could halt let alone reverse accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, as earths surface is limited and the surface needed to absorb the current man made emission would need to be 400 times that.But again: Dumb people don't even understand how excel or calculators work and have no intuition either. Discrepancies this large should cause a normal functioning humans intuition to prompt for investigation.
>>16157183How is this bitch, a magazine, or nationalism relevant ? Please explain.
>>16156148Methane isn't any more a significant greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Water vapor is responsible for virtually all of the meager greenhouse effect on Earth.
>>16159262Looks sound to me.
>>16160662Look up photosynthetic efficiency
>>16158216This is obviously wrong. Plants currently existing are way too close to running into photoinhibition for any such point to lie on the near side from that point.Besides the whole argument obviously being moot since it fails to demonstrate how a reduction in emission would stop emission. Anon here just suddenly jumps that gap.
>>16141752rice needs water. global warming means increasing heat and drought. Let's see that rice grown in droughts. bye bye
>>16162307plants require less moisture to function in higher CO2 environments because of the way stomata work, so they're less susceptible to drought when atmospheric CO2 is higher than it is currently. if high atmospheric CO2 was going to end all life on earth then all life on earth would've ended ages ago because atmospheric CO2 in the current era is just about as low as it ever has been in past several billion years.
How come the people who claim to be concerned about the environment get upset when they find out that CO2 is good for plants and good for nature? Shouldn't they be happy to learn about that if they're concerned about the environment?
>>16163532>How come the people who claim to be concerned about the environment get upset when people use half truths to lie to truly ignorant people FTFY
>>16141752yeah.
>>16163973CO2 is good for plants, why does that upset you so much?
>>16164720I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere. CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.The law of the minimum governs plant growth. It states that growth is limited by the most scarce factor. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.https://www.cropnutrition.com/resource-library/the-law-of-the-minimum/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimumhttps://soilsfacstaff.cals.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm
>>16164882CO2 is good for plants, why does that upset you so much? Do you hate plants and want to starve them to death? Can you show us on the doll where the plants touched you?
>>16165426Why are you illiterate and stupid? Isn't one bad enough?
>>16165938Can you show us on the doll where the plants touched you?
>>16166477Can you show us where on any of those pages it says "except for carbon dioxide because it's magic"?
>>16153552The global warming hysterics' ignorance of science is what powers their belief in global warming
>>16160267This, Mars would have a massive greenhouse effect if CO2 were a greenhouse gas and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, Mars' average temperature is the same as it's planetary thermal equilibrium temperature despite Mars having hundreds of times more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does
>>16167888Don't worry, NASA will soon fix that by lying about the average surface temperature on Mars
>>16169591Holy shit the stupidity. Have fun existing during the carboniferous. Geeee I wonder WHY no human evolved during the carboniferous.
>>16169610because mammals didn't exist yet
>>16170475and WHY do you think that was ?Thanks for proving the point.
>>16164882Unless you believe that the photosynthesis of all plants in the world is inhibited by factors other than carbon dioxide, then the Libby's minimum principle cannot deny the significance of more carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Even if the growth of plants in the world is inhibited for various reasons, sufficient carbon dioxide can unleash the maximum potential of plants when subjected to growth inhibition.By the way, did you know that most of the world's photosynthesis is driven by marine plankton rather than cacti from the Sahara Desert? In fact, the photosynthesis of plants worldwide increases synchronously with the rise of carbon dioxide.
>>16170634>Unless you believe that the photosynthesis of all plants in the world is inhibited by factors other than carbon dioxideStopped reading there. It is. Learn about the topic before you decide to make shit up.
>>16167888Source?
>>16170839
>>16170891So you made it up.
>>16170838You are the person who believes that the growth of carbon dioxide will not increase plant yield, not me, right?By the way, the bucket model is shit, because Liebig's law of the minimum only points out that the most scarce resources have the highest marginal effects, rather than simply equating plant yield to the most scarce nutrients in the soil. Plants always have a tendency to recombine resource allocation and seek solutions that rely more on another nutrient when one nutrient is inhibitedhttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AgrJ...85..742S/abstracthttps://lamont.columbia.edu/news/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants#!#:~:text=Plants%20use%20sunlight,%20carbon%20dioxide,as%20the%20carbon%20fertilization%20effect.
>>16171593Plants evolved for a billion years to survive on random chance in wilderness settings, they don't need to be treated like princesses to survive in a natural environment, they are very robust creatures
>>16171593>out that the most scarce resources have the highest marginal effects, rather than simply equating plant yield to the most scarce nutrients in the soil.That's exactly what it means. Your article does not refute that. From your own article >Researchers that studied hundreds of plant species between 1980 and 2017 found that most unfertilized terrestrial ecosystems are becoming deficient in nutrients, particularly nitrogen. They attributed this decrease in nutrients to global changes, including rising temperatures and CO2 levels.>Griffin’s work also found that the temperature response of nitrogen fixation is independent from the temperature response of photosynthesis, which involves enzymes made with nitrogen. Higher temperatures can make these enzymes less efficient. Rubisco is the key enzyme that helps turn carbon dioxide into carbohydrates in photosynthesis, but as temperatures go up, it “relaxes” and the shape of its pocket that holds the CO2 gets less precise. Consequently, one fifth of the time, the enzyme winds up fixing oxygen instead of carbon dioxide, lowering the efficiency of photosynthesis and wasting the plant’s resources. With an even greater temperature increase, Rubisco can completely deactivate.>Warmer winters and a longer growing season also help the pests, pathogens, and invasive species that harm vegetation. During longer growing seasons, more generations of pests can reproduce as warmer temperatures speed up insect life cycles, and more pests and pathogens survive over warm winters. Rising temperatures are also driving some insects to invade new territories, sometimes with devastating effects for the local plants.>Higher temperatures and an increase in moisture also make crops more vulnerable. Weeds, many of which thrive in heat and elevated CO2, already cause about 34 percent of crop losses; insects cause 18 percent of losses, and disease 16 percent. Climate change will likely magnify these losses.
>>16171593>>16172951>Many crops start to experience stress at temperatures above 32° to 35°C, although this depends on crop type and water availability. Models show that each degree of added warmth can cause a 3 to 7 percent loss in the yields of some important crops, such as corn and basedbeans.>In addition, an increase in temperature speeds up the plant lifecycle so that as the plant matures more quickly, it has less time for photosynthesis, and consequently produces fewer grains and smaller yields.>Climate change will bring more frequent and severe extreme weather events, including extreme precipitation, wind disturbance, heat waves, and drought. Extreme precipitation events can disturb plant growth, particularly in recently burned forests, and make plants more vulnerable to flooding and soils to erosion. More frequent high winds can stress tree stands.>Climate change is also expected to bring more combined heat waves and droughts, which would likely offset any benefits from the carbon fertilization effect. While crop yields often decrease during hot growing seasons, the combination of heat and dryness could cause maize yields to fall by 20 percent in some parts of the US, and 40 percent in Eastern Europe and southeast Africa. In addition, the combination of heat and water scarcity may reduce crop yields in places like the northern US, Canada, and Ukraine, where crop yields are projected to increase because of warmer temperatures.
>>16171593>>16172951>>16172955>Climate change is also expected to bring more combined heat waves and droughts, which would likely offset any benefits from the carbon fertilization effect. While crop yields often decrease during hot growing seasons, the combination of heat and dryness could cause maize yields to fall by 20 percent in some parts of the US, and 40 percent in Eastern Europe and southeast Africa. In addition, the combination of heat and water scarcity may reduce crop yields in places like the northern US, Canada, and Ukraine, where crop yields are projected to increase because of warmer temperatures.>CO2While some crop yields may increase, rising CO2 levels affect the level of important nutrients in crops. With elevated CO2, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers decreased by 10 to 15 percent in one study. Crops also lose important minerals including calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc. A 2018 study of rice varieties found that while elevated CO2 concentrations increased vitamin E, they resulted in decreases in vitamins B1, B2, B5 and B9.>And, counterintuitively, the CO2-fueled increase in plant growth may result in less carbon storage in soil. Recent research found that plants have to draw more nutrients from the soil to keep up with the added growth triggered by carbon fertilization. This stimulates microbial activity, which ends up releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that might otherwise have stayed in the soil. The findings challenge the long-held belief that as plants grow more due to increased CO2, the additional biomass would turn into organic matter and soils could increase their carbon storage.It helps if you actually read your sources.
>>16172951>Believing that the productivity of plants will not increase the growth of carbon dioxide>Proved to be incorrect>Attempting to drag people into the shit of climate change trivialitiesyou are fucking a gay,The article acknowledges a fact: that plant growth increases with the rise of carbon dioxide, while all other trivial matters aim to offset the optimism this impression brings to people.But adding up other trivial matters cannot offset the fact of global photosynthesis growth. This means that unless the total carbon emissions of all humans exceed the maximum potential of plant photosynthesis rate, it is a wrong argument to simply assume that the world's carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase.Recent data has shown that the growth rate of global carbon dioxide emissions per capita has crossed the inflection point, while photosynthesis continues to grow, and the dynamic equilibrium point will arrive.https://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#&place=Earth&statsVar=Amount_Emissions_CarbonDioxide_PerCapitahttps://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#&place=Earth&statsVar=FertilityRate_Person_Femalehttps://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/
>>16173249Cope harder, retard. You got BTFO by your own source because you couldn't be fucked to read it. I'm not going to keep going through your sources because you've made it clear that you can't even put in the modicum of work required to read them, let alone understand them.
>>16173249>You got BTFO by your own source because you couldn't be fucked to read it. Not even at all. What an ugly roar. Your binary system is for idiots like you, and if you are smart enough, you will extract the parts you agree with from the viewpoints you disagree with.
>fat people are hoarding all the carbon>the rice can't flourish do we start killing the fats?
>>16173291>and if you are smart enough, you will extract the parts you agree with from the viewpoints you disagree with.That's called selection bias and it doesn't make you any less wrong. You are a moron and you will never be a scientist.
>>16173873>That's called selection bias and it doesn't make you any less wrong.Did you even use your brain? I have never denied any other facts, I just saw an idiot talking nonsense that "CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.". You are really shooting at scarecrows, and using catchphrases like "selective bias" will not automatically make you smarter, let alone completely using them in the wrong situation. The remaining arguments are reserved for you and your climate change fags to use and masturbating each other, and it has never had any relation to the viewpoint I advocate for.
>>16173904You are denying and deflecting from facts. The very facts that were in the source that you yourself posted. Cope, seethe, and dilate.
>>16172956>Who cares tho, we can have anti-greenhouses to grow old style crops or eat meat
>>16164882So you have a lot of C02 to use up, what do you do if plants can eat it and you could grow more of them? You figure out what grows and let the plant eat it, like devil's ivy if you're desperate or you cultivate the land properly!Why can't we cultivate the land properly and use the C02? It's like fuckers just love hearing the sound of their own voices and keyboards instead of picking up some damn shovels
>>16159779adapt or die, too bad
>>16159272some people like to eat cows more than they like to eat fish and since the earth has an abundance of resources and ample space, we produce both as well as a lot of other things in order to make life a pleasant experience.
>>16174000>>16174017>>16174402Retard takes.
I don't see why that fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 is good for plants makes so many people upset. Why would that bother them? Do they hate nature or something?
>>16175212Because you're lying so you can justify refusing to change your behavior.See >>16164882
>>16175396you're lying so you can justify refusing to acknowledge and address your narcissistic savior complex. you want nature to be seen as suffering and dying so that you can justify selfishly making demands on other people
>>16173425The rice is doing great because of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. We need those fatsos to eat all the massive excess of rice that we've got
>>16176268Take your meds.
>>16175396Your desire to control other people's behavior and your desire to give yourself the authority to change other people's behavior is part of "the god complex"Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.
>>16177695Take your meds.
>>16176847>200 pounds of rice per person annually 1 pound of rice is 1700 calories, so that one crop provides more than half the calorie needs for the entire planet. And ppl still shill the idea that "oh no theres too many ppl we're all gonna starve to death. Rice is only the 3rd largest crop globally, wheat and corn are larger
>>16178830>He wants everyone to be vegan
>>16178830>And ppl still shill the idea that "oh no theres too many ppl we're all gonna starve to death.they believe that only because they can't do math
>>16176268https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another
>>16179364>>16180175The amount of people that the Earth can support is not solely dependent on how much food can be raised. The higher the population the more strain is put in ecosystem services which provide and estimated 33 trillion dollars worth of services and sustain the natural environment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_service
>>16180421https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology
