Avatar feed
Responses: 5
CW5 Jack Cardwell
2
2
0
interesting share
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
2
2
0
Excellent agricultural share, thank you.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Col Joseph Lenertz
1
1
0
I'm disappointed the article did not include the numbers (CO2 ppm) they used in the study. It just says they're comparing 1768 to 2100. CO2 levels from 1768 can be estimated fairly well, though there are error bars, and predictions for CO2 levels for 2100 vary widely, and I don't know who's prediction they are using. Bottom line is, more CO2 makes plants grow faster and more abundantly (spread farther with more foliage). This SHOULD equate to less minerals (nutrients) being pulled from the ground in a smaller time-frame and spread across a larger volume of plant. Is this really even a problem? We might be forced to eat slightly higher portions to get the same mineral intake from plants, IF the differences between 1778 and 2100 CO2 levels turn out to be as large as this study makes them. But there will be more plants to eat.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Boyd Herrst
SSgt Boyd Herrst
6 y
Col. Joseph Lenertz: I commented and included the definition for carbon dioxide Sir and the ppm is
0.03% .. is naturally present in air
So I’m thinking Sir that the info is put out by Tree-hugging enviro-whackos who will do whatever to dissuade us from eating meat.
(IMHO). Have a great meat eating day, Sir!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close