While the UN and other world governments are blaming industrial facilities and greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to climate change, a new study has revealed that four crops, namely: corn, rice, wheat, and soybean are also playing their parts in the whole climate change game.

Scientists found that it is true that crops require carbon dioxide for respiration and to manufacture their food, but they do not burn up this element before their deaths; they store it. Carbon dioxide is therefore re-released into the soil when these crops die, and this ultimately makes carbon dioxide to find its way back into the environment.

According to Mark Friedl of the University of Boston, “It’s a remarkable story of what we’ve done in agriculture in general. And particular in corn, which is one crop that’s just exploded. Over the last 50 years, the area of croplands in the Northern Hemisphere has been relatively stable, but production has intensified enormously. The fact that this land area can affect the composition of the atmosphere is an amazing fingerprint of human activity on the planet.”

Friedl’s research establishes one fact: the return of CO2 via dead crops like corn to the earth enriches the soil and makes it more fertile and efficient for further crop growths. The soil yields more crops per acre, even though more carbon dioxide gas is still released during winter via the soil to the earth.

“Something is changing about this cycle. Ecosystems are becoming more productive, pulling in more atmospheric carbon during the summer and releasing more during the dormant period,” Friedl adds.

The National Science Foundation’s Water Sustainability and Climate Program’s director, Tom Torgersen, notes that “these indications of increased productivity speak well for agriculture. But such enhanced agricultural productivity makes significant demands on water supplies, which will require further investigation.”

While crop scientists continue to research the effects of enhanced agriculture on natural water supplies, researchers found that corn, rice, wheat, and soybean constitute 64% of all calories consumed around the world. And that, is something of interest.

About The Author

Charles is a writer, editor, and publisher. He has a degree in Mass Communication and a PGD in Digital Communication. Wanna get in touch? Email him at writers100@gmail.com

Related Posts

41 Responses

  1. Apu Bugolligosh

    Holy cow, did they just figure out the respiration and photosynthesis cycle of plants?? Welcome to 19th century science, you geniuses!

    Reply
  2. thatswellguyandy

    This is why engineers should be performing analyses like this one, and not scientists. Scientists don’t understand things like steady-state response and the first law of thermodynamics.

    Reply
  3. mikechicago

    it is disgusting to read how media put spin on things, and looses common sense (and expect us to do this too). For each ton, or gram or pound of gathered crops, we sequester 40% of a ton or gram or pound of “harmful” CO2.

    And by the way, trees may breath out CO2 in winter, crops don’t, they are harvested and are no more, they do not even push daisies from below.
    It is an incredible nonsense and a perfect example how boring and sort of obvious low level technical finding get hyped to get into a high level journal (Science?) and then get further scrambled to support warming hysteria

    Reply
  4. skat

    They were paid by the energy companies to try to justify not restricting their carbon emissions. Sad attempt.

    Reply
  5. Mindy Mathy

    This CO2 stuff is getting to be a really sick perverted joke ya know. So I suppose somewhere, somehow, someway tax dollars one way or another paid for this piece of shit.

    Reply
    • cdw

      I can fix climate change, but it will be expensive. I will need about half your income. Please, e-mail your bank account information ASAP. Remember, it is all for the children!

      Reply
    • cdw

      You will also need to leave behind artificial intelligence to exterminate any new, intelligent species that may appear, who will choose to harvest and use fossil fuels.

      Reply
      • Jakob Stagg

        Not really. Species that do not live sustainably just disappear. Sometimes, there’s a little help from the heavens.

  6. D Rant

    Stop trying to make global warming happen. It’s not going to happen.

    Reply
    • Fetch

      “Global Warming” is a misleading name because the world WILL get colder in some places, some of the time. Climate change is very real though, and affects a lot of people’s lives. Especially people who live on islands, where rising sea levels are quite literally swallowing their homes.

      Reply
  7. weddingringstayson

    Usually “climate scientists” are after the rich because the their main aim is income redistribution. This time they are attacking the food of the poor. Maybe they are just anti-human.

    Reply
  8. Tom Tchikofski

    Sorry, I still believe it is Monsanto, DuPont and other Biotech industries that are the core cause beyond just global warming.

    Reply
    • mikechicago

      believe is good
      It is funny how are people are asked, do you believe in the theory of global warming
      I do not hear a question often, do you believe in theory of gravity

      Reply
  9. Peter

    The title is misleading. These crops alone do not contribute to global warming in any harmful way, but when they are mass produced with heavy machinery on a global scale, then you are conflating the demand for four crops with outdated industry practices and calling that global warming, which is misleading.

    Reply
    • cdw

      Yes, the article is VERY misleading. A portion of the plant biomass, full of carbon absorbed from atmospheric CO2, in the form of protein, starch, and sugars, is removed from the fields for human and animal consumption.

      A part of this biomass will certainly sequester carbon. The total plant biomass never completely sequesters carbon for any crop.

      Reply
  10. heirloomtomato

    Gee imagine what would happen if we FINALLY got rid of the dumb ag subsidies that celebrate the 2 biggest Monsanto forced crops: corn and soy. But why do that? Traditional righteous farming of crop ROTATION and usage of cover crops to replenish the soil would be too wise and good for everyone and everything. Can’t have that… might cut into the corrupt profit margins of thine who own us. Next up: they will spout fallacies about how if we don’t do it “their” way we’ll all starve to death. LMAO. Much like the argument that if we simply had MORE guns we would have less gun violence.

    Reply
  11. Borderlord

    I think, what the science, as opposed to the sensationalist journalist, is saying, is that the carbon cycle for annual crops is shorter than for perennials, (big duh! there), and that trees grown on the same acreage would sequester more carbon for longer periods.
    At least, I hope that is what the scientists are getting at, since all plants take in carbon dioxide for growth and release it as they decompose.
    The only way these crops would be contributing to an increase in CO2 would be if they were displacing plants with a longer carbon cycle.

    Reply
  12. d1032

    Anything to continue to keep the “global warming” fantasy alive and well – first it automobiles as the bad guys so we invented catalytic converters to reduce their emissions – then it was all fossil fuels – then it was cattle passing their noxious gas into the atmosphere – then it was us, the human race – then it was our industrial plants and now (altho I have no doubt left out any number of others) it is our very own food sources which is causing the damage.
    My unscientic theory after evaluating all these previous sources derived by “experts” (and by the way who decides that these clowns are experts?) is that we all should cease to eat, then perish which eliminates all humans from the planet and that makes the planet the utopia these “experts” wish to create.
    Ahhh, but that can’t occur because that would put these global warming pessimists out of work – shoot, guess we will just have to “discover” another source (which will be just as phoney as all of the last 10/30 or so).
    It might do well if these climatologists of the earth’s warming venture up to Buffalo, NY and check out their rising temperature, or that matter anywhere north of Oklahoma City.

    Reply
    • heirloomtomato

      Lordy you are science ignorant. First off, climate does not equate to WEATHER. smh. Second, something provable cannot be a fantasy. The temperature of the oceans has indeed risen and continues to rise and you can garble on endlessly about nonsense but it won’t change that fact. Since everything is way too advanced for you to grasp, apparently that is really the only thing you need to remember: global warming (to your simpleton mind) means the temperatures of the oceans are warming. Always.

      Reply
      • d1032

        Lordy, I apologize to you “scientific intellectuals” for my utter stupidity but I do believe that this planet has been undergoing these “changes” for centuries and for some strange reason, particularly this planet earth, has multiplied in population and evolved into an industrial giant for the good of mankind.
        And for you “scientific intellectuals” I believe 50 or so years ago the scientic experts (intellectuals) predicted that all of the earths ice at the poles would melt and raise the ocean levels to the point that it would totally destroy literally all of the coastal cities worldwide.
        Whatever happened to that accurate prediction? You go on and be an intellectual and I shall remain stupid and live to an old age (currently 83 and counting but I suppose I should be concerned now that some unidentified gremlin will consume me.)

      • Jesse4

        “Whatever happened to that prediction?”

        It’s coming true at 3.2mm/yr
        And I’ll forgive you for your utter stupidity this time, but try to think a tiny bit, and learn something, before you spew next time.

      • cdw

        The question is whether atmospheric CO2 is a significant driver for retaining infrared blackbody radiation from the earth, a mechanism that keeps the earth at a balanced temperature.

        During the Jurassic Period, 150-200 million years ago, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 1950 ppm, 4-5 times greater than the modern level of 400 ppm.

        However, the average earth surface temperature was only 3 degree Celsius greater than the modern temperature, not ANY kind of catastrophe, whatsoever.

    • RamonMendozaGA

      The only scientists I trust are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity!

      Reply
      • cdw

        Check out conservative climatologist Roy Spencer, PhD. at DrRoySpencerDotCom.

        He seems reasonable to me.

  13. markeagleone

    What they are really saying is the fault belongs to our seasons. If crops grew year around, the better. Soon someone will want a million dollar grant to study how to change earth’s orbit around the sun.

    Reply
  14. Joe

    I’ll believe it when those short, mild winters Al Gore promised actually materialize.

    Reply
    • cdw

      From The Independent on 20 March 2000 we got the headline: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”

      Reply
    • RamonMendozaGA

      …or maybe these record-shattering mid-November snowstorms could be an indicator of something too.

      Reply
  15. ynapa456

    So corn absorbs CO2 in the summer and releases it in the fall winter. Sounds like a zero sum game..

    Reply
    • cdw

      Actually, no. The carbon absorbed from atmospheric CO2 and used in photosynthesis is taken to market in the form of foods rich in protein and sugars.

      The article is misleading.

      Reply
    • mikechicago

      No it is not a zero sum, crops are a major CO2 trap, in order to produce biomass you need to capture CO2 which stays there

      Reply
      • Jesse4

        It only stays there until the biomass decays, or is digested, then it’s back into the air again.

  16. Kritzinger

    So.. we shouldn’t eat anymore to save the polar bears?

    Fuck you “scientists”, you are just genocidal maniacs in white lab coats. Go spend your time developing technologies to colonize other planets.

    Reply
    • cdw

      Perhaps we should harvest and eat the polar bears, put them in the deli. You will need to cook them thoroughly, however – they are full of trichinosis, a parasite.

      Reply
  17. jnffarrell1

    And only crops absorb CO2 in the summer and release CO2 in the winter. C’mon man. PR types should skip the pretense of science.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.