Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread

Total doom!

What climate change will do to your loaf of bread

If the promise of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more frequent natural disasters doesn’t convince you of the urgent need for the world to act on climate change, maybe this picture above will.

This is what global warming will do to your loaf of bread.

On the right is a loaf made from grain grown in today’s climate conditions. On the left is a loaf made from grain that sprouted in concentrations of carbon dioxide that are expected by mid-century if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced significantly.

So this is 2050 bread. It was baked at the Australian Grains Free Air CO₂ Enrichment facility (AgFace) in Victoria by a research group studying the effect elevated carbon dioxide will have on crops such as wheat, lentils, canola and field pea.

Or, it could be that they’re bad bakers.

AgFace leader Glenn Fitzgerald said the effect of high carbon dioxide on grains is complex. On the one hand, it makes plants such as wheat and canola grow faster and produce greater yields but, on the other hand, they contain less protein. Elevated carbon dioxide also alters the ratio of different types of proteins in wheat, which, in the case of bread, affects the elasticity of dough and how well a loaf rises.

“We don’t understand completely why that’s the case,” said Dr Fitzgerald, a senior research scientist with the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources.

Huh. Imagine that.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Bummer: Climate Change Could Maybe Possibly Mess With Your Bread”

  1. Dana says:

    Take a close look at the picture: note that the top of the loaf on the right is shiny, as though it had been brushed with butter. That’s the kind of thing an advertiser would do to make the loaf on the right seem more appealing. This does not look to me like it was done objectively.

  2. jeffery says:

    Right off the bat the article misnames the culprit. It is not climate change, but increased CO2 causing the so-called problem with the wheat. The so-called lower quality wheat would be present whether it warmed or not, it’s not dependent on global warming.

    … the effect of high carbon dioxide on grains is complex. On the one hand, it makes plants such as wheat and canola grow faster and produce greater yields but, on the other hand, they contain less protein. Elevated carbon dioxide also alters the ratio of different types of proteins in wheat, which, in the case of bread, affects the elasticity of dough and how well a loaf rises.

    Stupid science. Stupid scientists. This is just all part of the communist plot to take over the world and enslave white conservatives. I bet if you read the actual paper they will have claimed they measured protein content and the ratios of the various proteins synthesized amongst the groups of wheat grown in the varying concentrations of CO2. Is that kind of magical technology even possible?

    Also from the news article:

    The group is now conducting research to see whether it can reverse the protein decline through the selection of new varieties of wheat. Grain breeders might then be able to develop new wheat strains with traits that can overcome this problem.

    “It can take 10 to 15 years for a new trait to be worked into a new variety [of grain] so if we’re looking ahead at 35 years, that means we can do several generations of testing. It gives us lots of time,” Dr. Fitzgerald said.

    “There are positives, and we’re trying to accentuate those,” he said.

    I just bet that some entrepreneur could find a way to make millions from wheat synthesizing the same protein content when grown in 500 ppm CO2! But we skeptics know that CO2 can only do good things – “It’s necessary for life on Earth!” and “It’s plant food!” – so it would have to be a scam.

    And isn’t it also suspicious that this is consistent with the recent findings that increased CO2 impacts nitrogen uptake by plants (nitrogen being vital for amino acid synthesis, and amino acids being vital for protein synthesis)?

    This confirms now that the conspiracy includes communists, fascists, Nazis, Australians, liberals, scientists, pH, the Pope, Dems, all governments, the UN, every major scientific organization on Earth, the Earth, the oceans, ice, big business, small business, proteins, and now green plants (or at least the grass family, Gramineae). The only moieties not part of the conspiracy are carbohydrates, Exxon and the Council of Conservative Citizens! Nucleic acids are still on the fence, but I fear the impact of CO2 on nitrogen incorporation may swing their vote the wrong way (we’ve lost the purine vote, the pyrimidines are likely to follow).

    The goal of the conspirators is to force white supremacists to drive electric cars and eat taller bread! And take away confederate bumper stickers. FREEDOM!

  3. jl says:

    Haven’t you read the memo? Here in the 21st century mankind won’t be able to adapt to such terrible events, though in past centuries he could.

  4. jeffery says:

    My understanding from the warmists is that mankind will be able to adapt but only at great cost.

    The warmists also maintain that the global warming period we are entering is much worse than human civilization has ever experienced.

  5. Jl says:

    Except that the MWP was warmer. And human civilization at some time always experiences something that’s worse than before, right? That would be a key component of evolution. Actually, the animal and plant kingdoms have experienced much worse than human civilization ever has, as obviously they’ve been around much longer than we have, and have survived. “Mankind will adapt but only at great cost.” Except that the “cost” is in the fix, not the alleged problem.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Except that the MWP was warmer.

    That’s just not true.

    And human civilization at some time always experiences something that’s worse than before, right? That would be a key component of evolution.

    That’s just not true.

    Actually, the animal and plant kingdoms have experienced much worse than human civilization ever has, as obviously they’ve been around much longer than we have, and have survived.

    So? Ever hear of the 5 major extinction events? Millions of species did not survive. Scientists claim we’re in the 6th major extinction – due to human caused global warming.

    “Mankind will adapt but only at great cost.” Except that the “cost” is in the fix, not the alleged problem.

    That’s just not true.

  7. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    My understanding from the warmists is that mankind will be able to adapt but only at great cost.

    And so your solution is to impose great costs, now, on people to avoid something which some people project will occur, and which some of the warmists say is unavoidable regardless of what we do, but which might not actually occur.

    There are three possibilities:

    1 – If global warming will occur, but is avoidable, paying the costs to avoid it now is reasonable;
    2 – If global warming will occur, and is unavoidable regardless of what we do, paying the costs to avoid it is a waste of money, because we’ll still have to pay the costs of adaptation after it occurs.
    3 – If global warming is not really going to happen, paying the costs to avoid it is a huge waste of money.

    In only one of the three possibilities does your prescription for the future make sense; in the other two, it does not.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7288 access attempts in the last 7 days.