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

[tweety]

Your circular reasoning is keeping you from addressing the actual question.

Your thousands of years number is orders ( with an s) of magnitude too high. If this were an issue thousands of years from now, it would not be an issue, because we will have exhausted nearly every other resource long before that.

This is a much more immediate problem IF, the hairbrained politicians, inept UN bureaucrats, and mathematically challenged green movements actually succeed against all odds to "decarbonize" within a couple of decades.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, to alleviate my concerns.

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

[TASFarms]

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

My crop will suck that up next summer.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

The same sinks it has been disappearing into since we started releasing CO2.

According to the IPCC, first assessment report:

The report mentions the airborne fraction only a couple of times:

For the period from 1850 to 1986, airborne fraction was estimated at 41 ± 6%
For 1980-89, its estimate is 48 ± 8%
So according to the IPCC itself, the airborne fraction of CO2 in observations at the time of the report’s publication was 48%,

(I didn't verify if they carried this into subsequent assessment reports, they tend to eliminate inconvenient info in later reports).

Which is to say that of all the CO2 humans emit, less than half can be accounted for by the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Do you recall, many years ago when the mystery of the "missing carbon" was in the news? When scientists were trying to figure out why observations of increased atmospheric CO2 were so much lower than what total emissions indicated they should be.

So, if over half of it is sequestered as fast as we can emit it, does that lend credence to your theory that it will be with us for 1000's of years?

[chuckChuck]

A lot of the carbon has been absorbed by the oceans.

The oceans have also absorbed a lot of the extra trapped heat.

It takes a long time to heat and cool water so the effects of warming have been muted because over 71% of the planets surface is water.

Listen to the scientists.

Not one major world scientific organization is saying human caused climate change is not occurring or that we should be worried about falling C02 levels! Scientists are saying the exact opposite.

[furrowtickler]

NASA ... said the earth has been getting greener ... that must be bad

[chuckChuck]

Glad to see you support NASA's science!

[furrowtickler]

Glad to see you support NASA's science!

Interesting to see you conveniently ignore it

[tweety]

The same sinks it has been disappearing into since we started releasing CO2.

According to the IPCC, first assessment report:

(I didn't verify if they carried this into subsequent assessment reports, they tend to eliminate inconvenient info in later reports).

Which is to say that of all the CO2 humans emit, less than half can be accounted for by the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Do you recall, many years ago when the mystery of the "missing carbon" was in the news? When scientists were trying to figure out why observations of increased atmospheric CO2 were so much lower than what total emissions indicated they should be.

So, if over half of it is sequestered as fast as we can emit it, does that lend credence to your theory that it will be with us for 1000's of years?

Doesn't say much for your theory we will run out of CO2 either. Chuck is correct, the ocean is becoming more acidic, carbonic acid, and that is a much bigger problem.

the original question was what do we do when carbon runs out. No evidence to show it will go down to dangerous levels of food production in any meaningful time.

[chuckChuck]

Interesting to see you conveniently ignore it

Say What? I think you and your friends on Agrisilly are ignoring NASA and their evidence! I have been citing NASA in many of my posts. Here is what NASA says about human caused climate change. So do you believe what NASA says or not? LOL

https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/


The Causes of Climate Change
A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but some effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the ocean and partially melt glaciers and ice sheets, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

Outside of a greenhouse, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have both positive and negative effects on crop yields. Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth. However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may more than counteract anypotential increase in yield. If optimal temperature ranges for some crops are exceeded, earlier possible gains in yield may be reduced or reversed altogether.

Climate extremes, such as droughts, floods and extreme temperatures, can lead to crop losses and threaten the livelihoods of agricultural producers and the food security of communities worldwide. Depending on the crop and ecosystem, weeds, pests, and fungi can also thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels, and climate change will likely increase weeds and pests.

Finally, although rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, research has shown that it can also reduce the nutritional value of most food crops by reducing the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species. Climate change can cause new patterns of pests and diseases to emerge, affecting plants, animals and humans, and posing new risks for food security, food safety and human health.2

[chuckChuck]

So Furrow, do you believe what NASA says or not?