What will we do for Carbon , for life and plant growth?

[furrowtickler]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[furrowtickler]

So science proves that higher CO2 is helping which means lower CO2 will lead to restrictive plant life
Green houses pump in CO2 for maximum plant growth and higher efficiency of photosynthesis

[chuckChuck]

Yep we know higher CO2 levels help plant growth but A5's assertion is that CO2 levels will fall to levels that will cause problems for future generations and that we must continue to burn fossil fuels to prevent this problem.

Rising CO2 levels and climate change are a risk for causing massive positive feedbacks releasing large amount of stored methane and CO2 which will cause uncontrollable warming.

No climate scientists are worried about falling CO2 levels because we stop burning fossil fuels. A5 has failed to show us any science to back up this bogus denialist issue.

[furrowtickler]

On farm studies and research shows that adding carbon based fertility is showing major positive effects to plant growth .
We have seen it our selves here .
Here is a picture of a soil based carbon additive vastly improving soil structure in one year , actually 3 months ...


Soil on right has the added carbon fertility. Mellow texture
Soil on left is hard and blocky , typical clay soil , blocky and compacted

[6V53]

And no rocket scientist is worried about adding CO2 to the atmosphere Chuck.

[chuckChuck]

And no rocket scientist is worried about adding CO2 to the atmosphere Chuck.

That’s probably true because rocket scientists are focussed on rockets not climate science! It doesn’t take a “rocket surgeon”to figure that out! LOL

But you still stand by your opinion that no scientists are concerned about adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Okay then......LMAO!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, let's review what you have accomplished in 4 pages so far.
After much goading, and deflecting, you finally went looking for the answer I requested. Your first source broke your own rule about credible scientific organizations, and it did not even attempt to provide the answer. Skeptical Science is a blog by an Australian evangelival Christian cartoonist and Web developer with no climate scientists in sight. But I wouldn't hold that against him, if he would have at least attempted to answer instead of deflecting and avoiding(seems to be a common theme amongst science deniers).

Before that, you repeatedly claimed that it was 1000's of years, ranted about NASA being Marxist, but never found any evidence from NASA to back up your made up #.

The rest of your posts have been insults, name calling, and distractions unrelated to the topic.
So in consideration of the difficulty you are having, I will help you get started.
The IPCC (one of your favorite credible sources). Does attempt to answer this. The range they provide is a number, and another number a mere 3900% bigger than the first. Followed by a long list of excuses involving the word uncertainties. And for the record, 1000's of years fallsfar outside of even the IPCC's most generous guess. So you can give up and quit looking for a citation for your fabricated number.

So try Google searching with that information, and come back when you have the answer. Then we can discuss if that level of uncertainty is adequate for the policies being made.

[chuckChuck]

Give up A5! You can’t provide any science to back up any of your misguided denialist opinions! If you could, we might take you seriously.
But so far you have failed dramatically and are only impressing the “rocket surgeons” with your excessive and incoherent babble! LOL Haha and all that!

[6V53]

Well Elon must be carbon neutral. He builds EVs and rockets.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Give up A5! You can’t provide any science to back up any of your misguided denialist opinions! If you could, we might take you seriously.
But so far you have failed dramatically and are only impressing the “rocket surgeons” with your excessive and incoherent babble! LOL Haha and all that!

The problem is, we don't even know if my opinions are misguided and or denialist until we have the answer to the question.

The answer to which will allow us to establish if, in the absence of human emitted CO2, can CO2 levels realistically decline on a time span that has any relevance to human life spans. If it is 1000's of years, then the solution is much different than if it is only 10 minutes.

Since you refuse to answer that, how can you know if my assertions are valid, or misguided? Did you just invent that, like you did the thousands of years figure?

This alarmist mania regarding CO2 is your obsession, I just thought you might want to make sure you know some of the more important details so that you will be better equipped to debate it. Nothing worse than someone asking you a very simple question that wasn't in the script, and looking like a fool since you don't know the answer.

( yes, Skeptical science and others provide a script just for laypersons such as Chuck, that is why he is able to produce sciency sounding answers, which are irrelevant to the topic, yet still doesn't have a clue what he just said.