A Solution To Global Warming

I found it interesting to have learned from a recent Scientific American article (Dec 2011) that agricultural scientists are working on the problem of making wheat and corn perennial plants. They’ve been working on this for the last 30 years and admit they have 10-30 more years to go on it. However, they say if only 2% of the world’s wheat and corn crops were perennial the increase in the world’s CO2 level would stop. If 100% of the wheat or corn crops were perennial then the world’s CO2 level would go back to preindustrial levels.
As far as I know that is our only hope for that problem.

So finding non polluting fuel sources other than biofuels is not a solution? I disagree but there you go.

There is no problem to be solved…

That is interesting, thanks for posting, as I’d never heard of this. If you are able to share more of the details, that would be welcomed.

While this development would surely be welcomed, I propose that all technological fixes for global warming are shortsighted temporary band aids. I realize such fixes are necessary and I support them, but we should try to keep our eye on the big picture while applying the band aid.

Imagine that tomorrow morning somebody announces the discovery of a completely free and entirely clean source of energy. Problem solved?

Well, what would happen next? The economy would take off like a rocket, we’d all be distracted by blissful rampant consumption, and would continue burning through finite resources at an ever faster pace.

Problem solved? Only if one takes a deliberately narrow view. It’s more accurate to say the problem has simply been moved from one box to another. The classic kicking the can down the road process.

The source of global warming is our overheating minds. The endless demand for more. The Earth is finite, our desire is infinite. Nature says, sorry, does not compute.

Incentive for more GMOs?

The only problem homosapian has is the presumption of what the problem actually is.

Having a “Global Warming” problem allows for all kinds of other problems to be born that he would not otherwise allow to be in his world, much like Over-population, Cancer, Ozone Depletion, Terrorism, Epidemics, Racism, Oppression, or Religion.

Oh what would Man do without a global problem to free his lust for power.


I am not going to believe there is a problem until I am on fire. Which at the current rate of the suns thermal rise will be in about 90-100 million years in a BAU model and perhaps a tens of millions of years less in a run away greenhouse model. AGW is a myth caused by a conspiracy of anti-governmental anarchists, to undermine the sanctity of what are oil magnates and obscenely rich Shas, Kings, despots etc. God save the Queen!

Emm… which government? :-k

Does it matter they all suck, some more than others, but on the suck scale they are all well up there with, like the suckyness…? :slight_smile:

Yes, isn’t it wonderful? I did the math:

The amount of farmland in the world is 6 x 106 square miles. (that is 6 times 10 to the 6th power)
There are 2.6 x 10
6 square meters per square mile.
That makes 15.6 x 1012 square meters of farmland in the world.
1 cubic meter of soil weighs 1.5 metric tons.
That means there is 23.4 x 10
12 metric tons of farmland in the world 1 meter deep.
1% of that (the amount of carbon the author claims to be sequestered by these experimental plants) is 23.4 x 1010 metric tons per year.
The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere each year by fossil fuel emissions is 35 x 10
9 tons.
Of course, not all farmland is corn and wheat.

Furthermore, perennial plants cause less erosion than annuals do. Also, they require less fertilizer and less water. This is a big deal in third world countries. Another thing would be that farmers wouldn’t have to sow and plow each year. All of this will reduce the price of food dramatically. It’s not just the price of corn and wheat that would drop but also the price of meat as well as the feed of livestock is composed of corn and wheat.

Incidentally I read an article about how fields can be used to produce electricity by using the soil chemistry, the current efficiency is quite low, but crops like rice are especially good for this.

You might want to be a little more careful with your math, but my only question is whether they are proposing a GMO to handle this “solution”?

Let the debate about GW rage on…

What is it with humans and wheat? More and more people are becoming intolerant to the stuff, and it is hard to digest for all humans, so I wish they would stop adding that crap to practically everything in the form of additives - why is wheat seen as the saviour to the worlds problems…

Allergies are becoming more common because of the sanitisation of everything these days, back in the days when everything didn’t have to be bacteria free, people were constantly exposed to bacterial and viral threats, keeping the immune system primed towards attack, the result being it learnt to discriminate, not overreact to threats and cause illness or even death. Granted this theory is only “a theory” atm but I think it does explain why so many people have asthma, hay fever etc compared to 100 years ago. As a matter of interest 200,000 years ago everyone practically was lactose intolerant, that changed, its also an inconvenient truth to evolution deniers. :slight_smile:

Global warming is real, I’m super cereal.


You think every scientific theory is bs, so who cares what you think.

Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and disprove the theory instead of lazily writing one liners and claiming you know it all. Why not eh, 'cause we’re kinda of all tired of your bs, you never back it up. So why not walk the walk, or is it because you can’t?. I think you are all mouth personally, prove me wrong? Hell anthropogenic global warming or the other one, I’m easy. :slight_smile:

BTW in the case of the former I am not trying to claim it is a strong theory, just that it is a theory. The latter is a strong theory, which doesn’t mean much except that if you overturn it you win big time. Most scientists agreeing makes it more airtight, it doesn’t however make it bullet proof. That is not what science is about.

newscientist.com/article/mg1 … bx244048B1

Aslo to make it clear food alllergies are a different kettle of fish to allergic asthma and other related diseased such as hay fever and eczema which again can have different root causes or the same ones.

You didn’t state it as a “theory”. You stated it as a fact.
I stated that as a fact, it is Bullshit.

No. It doesn’t.
That is how you get conspiracies and their theorists (and religions).
Science is not about popular or majority voting.

No I didn’t I made a joke about it, a joke straight our of Southpark. Of course global warming is real though, the planet is going through a warming period and will continue to do so as long as the suns heat/energy output goes up and due to all predictions and evidence it will. But that is not the point I was making, I was in fact joking. :slight_smile:

AGW well I am not sure enough to say absolutely, but I am sure enough to take a side.

No one said it was. In fact I said the opposite. Yes we are agreed science is not about popularity it is about being right, or at least as right as you can be.

What you come to believe “most scientists say”, is pure politics (w/ help of media).

A pole was taken and registered stating and listing the 30,000 scientists across the world who stated that any Global warming is not scientific fact at all and certainly not due to industrial societies.

No it is not. If a Scientist goes on a TV show and says he believes AGW is real that is not politics, Scientists are not compulsive liars. Everyone has their biases true, but that is what peer review is for. Saying that global warming is contentious is an understatement.

Most scientists are in agreement with AGW, this we know because of the IPCC and various other means that test consensus. Are they right, who knows, is anyone ever right in science absolutely? We know that this is true because we can google it. If the IPCC does not interest us we can find sources that also maintain this outside of the IPCC. If the media are all lying then they are taking what scientists are saying and lying their asses off. This is not something I think is happening. But if you think the majority are against AGW then by all means I am all ears.

Well, maybe you should explain that to Michio Kaku;

And in case you missed this part;