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

[furrowtickler]

Don't worry guys, as long as Trudope takes carbon tax money from me (so I can't afford to buy fuel) and gives it to low income people (so that they can afford to buy more fuel) everything will be fine!

True , add that to the undeniable fact that the UN itself admitted years ago that the whole carbon scheme is simply a wealth distribution set up and will have limited if any real impact on climate change . So all this banter back and forth is a waste of time actually.
When the number one objective is wealth distribution and not climate then the whole debate is pointless really.
Let the solar projects and wind projects do there thing In areas of the planet they make sense , again not one single post about the average yearly solar output from northern latitudes has ever been shown here with data from Russia, Sweden , Finland and other northern countries , Other than a couple small supplemental home projects .
Yes , cut back on non essential fuel use by utilizing electric vehicles in big urban areas , put More research Into small feasible nuke plants to supply that power . Utilize natural gas power plants in areas that have massive reserves.
And don’t tax the heck out of industry such as Ag that has no other choice but to burn fossil fuels at this time . All those other area have a choice , Ag does not at this time . Anyone who actually farms should know this .
It may be not that far off we will have electric tractors , JD concept looks intriguing and the best I seen so far , but yet to be proven and may be a decade away from being affordable and readily viable long term usage..... be able to run at max for 18-20 hr per day on 4-6 hr charge periods.
It’s not that most farmers are totally against non fossil fuel energy sources , they are against it being shoved down our throats without viable alternatives for the majority of the energy we need in the extremely short windows needed. Sure set up a little solar system to offset your day to day power if you have the money to do so and that makes you feel all important. Good on those that do.
End of the day , green energy is not so green and that is overshadowed by political agendas.
Hopefully a balance is in the future without destroying certain economies along the way .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just saw another new study about CO2 and tree growth.

Since 1901, the intrinsic water use efficiency of trees worldwide has risen by approximately 40% in conjunction with an increase of approximately 34% in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Both of these characteristics increased approximately four times faster since the 1960s compared to the previous years.

40% is not insignificant. That is the difference between surviving, even thriving in a drought or dry climate, and not surviving at all. That alone explains the global greening, especially in the Sahel.
And it applies to everything performing photosynthesis, with the exception of C4 plants.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/wvu-wbu020821.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/wvu-wbu020821.php

These earth shattering improvements caused by CO2 are all the reason we should ever need to do everything in our power to ensure that we ration our scarce finite supplies of fossil fuels out for as long as possible to maintain elevated CO2 levels as long as possible.

[chuckChuck]

The article you posted clearly states that trees are important to reducing the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. But there is no science to to suggest that we risk running low on CO2 in the future. CO2 is continuing to rise.

"This study really highlights the role of forests and their ecosystems in climate change," said Thomas, interim associate provost for graduate academic affairs. "We think of forests as providing ecosystem services. Those services can be a lot of different things - recreation, timber, industry. We demonstrate how forests perform another important service: acting as sinks for carbon dioxide. Our research shows that forests consume large amounts of carbon dioxide globally. Without that, more carbon dioxide would go into the air and build up in the atmosphere even more than it already is, which could exacerbate climate change. Our work shows yet another important reason to preserve and maintain our forests and keep them healthy."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Our work shows yet another important reason to preserve and maintain our forests and keep them healthy."

Yes, and it also shows that the best way to not only preserve and maintain forests, but to expand and make them even more prolific and productive is to increase the CO2 available to them.

[chuckChuck]

Wrong answer A5. Which scientific organizations are calling for us to increase global atmospheric CO2 to increase plant growth? None!

We need to reduce and stabilize CO2 levels to reduce the negative effects of climate change and global warming.

[shortbox]

Wrong answer A5. Which scientific organizations are calling for us to increase global atmospheric CO2 to increase plant growth? None!

We need to reduce and stabilize CO2 levels to reduce the negative effects of climate change and global warming.

I usually just ignore your left wing rhetoric but when you come on here and preach about global warming when it’s been -40 for days, I must say you are a special kind of #######!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We need to reduce and stabilize CO2 levels to reduce the negative effects of climate change and global warming.

See my previous comment. I agree, we need to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels at the most sustainable levels. Whatever level will optimize the benefits to photosynthetic life, while ensuring we can stretch the finite (and easy to liberate) fossil fuels sources for generations to come. Releasing CO2 from calcium carbonate in a post fossil fuel world is going to be an energy intensive, but necessary process. Right now, as a convenient bonus to liberating CO2, we also get energy out, without fossil fuels, we will be consuming precious energy just to maintain CO2.

We are on the same side, just for completely different reasons.

[chuckChuck]

So A5 you are in favour of reducing fossil fuel energy use to stabilize greenhouse gases?

BTW, cold weather and winter will still happen with global climate change unless you believe that the tilt of the earth will change?

In fact some scientists are saying that climate change is weakening the jet stream which move weather systems across the globe and is one of the reasons we are seeing longer periods of blocking patterns with persistent weather patterns.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So A5 you are in favour of reducing fossil fuel energy use to stabilize greenhouse gases?

Yes, always have been. Stabilize at what level is yet to be determined.
Just because I can do math, and comprehend the laws of physics doesn't mean I don't care about sustainability in the long run.
That is why it is so upsetting that society is wasting such vast resources fighting imaginary climate change, with imaginary and unworkable solutions such as wind and solar, instead of concentrating on finding and funding actual solutions to the very real problems of unsustainable growth in virtually everything we consume. And most importantly finding a sustainable energy source to use for solving the rest of the imminent problems.

The unsustainable process of consuming farmland, concrete, steel, hydrocarbons, energy, copper, rare earth metals in massive quantities to build a power grid that can't even reliably rebuild itself, is just costing us valuable time and finite resources which we so desperately need to solve the real problems. Most of which are very energy intensive problems. Such as extracting increasingly difficult Phosphate, Potash, Sulfur, or recovering them from waste and getting the back to where they are needed. The very real problems of subsidience and natural sea level rise, which will need to be dealth with regardless of CO2 levels. Actual pollution, habitat and diversity loss, loss of and contamination of drinking and irrigation water. Erosion, loss of top soil, loss of organic matter, resistant bacteria, weeds, parasites etc etc.

All of these problems are only compounded by the natural cooling cycle we are in for the next few decades, on top of that, if we can't maintain CO2 levels, and have energy shortages, it will be a disaster. Even worse, throw in geoengineering to cool the earth or reduce CO2 artificially and the consequences are unthinkable.

CO2 caused global warming is sucking all of the attention, and research dollars, and investment, while the real ( and solvable) problems are completely ignored.

[jazz]

Just love the arguments from insanity. we need to do this and this and this to save the planet from global warming, except there is no global warming.

[chuckChuck]

Yes, always have been. Stabilize at what level is yet to be determined.
Just because I can do math, and comprehend the laws of physics doesn't mean I don't care about sustainability in the long run.
That is why it is so upsetting that society is wasting such vast resources fighting imaginary climate change, with imaginary and unworkable solutions such as wind and solar, instead of concentrating on finding and funding actual solutions to the very real problems of unsustainable growth in virtually everything we consume. And most importantly finding a sustainable energy source to use for solving the rest of the imminent problems.

The unsustainable process of consuming farmland, concrete, steel, hydrocarbons, energy, copper, rare earth metals in massive quantities to build a power grid that can't even reliably rebuild itself, is just costing us valuable time and finite resources which we so desperately need to solve the real problems. Most of which are very energy intensive problems. Such as extracting increasingly difficult Phosphate, Potash, Sulfur, or recovering them from waste and getting the back to where they are needed. The very real problems of subsidience and natural sea level rise, which will need to be dealth with regardless of CO2 levels. Actual pollution, habitat and diversity loss, loss of and contamination of drinking and irrigation water. Erosion, loss of top soil, loss of organic matter, resistant bacteria, weeds, parasites etc etc.

All of these problems are only compounded by the natural cooling cycle we are in for the next few decades, on top of that, if we can't maintain CO2 levels, and have energy shortages, it will be a disaster. Even worse, throw in geoengineering to cool the earth or reduce CO2 artificially and the consequences are unthinkable.

CO2 caused global warming is sucking all of the attention, and research dollars, and investment, while the real ( and solvable) problems are completely ignored.

So we should listen to the scientists and let them produce the science and data without denial by some of all the problems that you listed? I am glad to see you are worried about resource depletion and habitat loss. That makes you an environmentalist! LOL

Whether we are in a mild natural cooling cycle or not human influences on the climate are currently much stronger so says the science! Most of the last century's warming has gone into the oceans.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just love the arguments from insanity. we need to do this and this and this to save the planet from global warming, except there is no global warming.

Not true, there really is global warming, and it really is man made:

The man made adjustments to the actual temperature record have absolutely created global warming, and casued it to corellate with CO2 very closely too.

Oh, wait, you meant measured global warming, not adjusted, sorry about that.