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

[Hamloc]

A5 why did you give up on defending your nonsensical idea that the world will be short of CO2 in a few thousand years of lower CO2 emissions from fossil fuels? Where is the science to back up your concern that this is an issue? We are still waiting!

You tried to side track the issue with some incoherent pedantic babble and ignore the graph that contained CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years up to 2019 which you called "graphs of what once was" . 2020 is not finished so its not likely that NASA is going to put 2020 data in just yet! But that graph was so last year! haha

"the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."

But A5 thinks we should worry about low CO2 levels? Nobody's biting for that piece of fiction! LOL

I am curious Chuck2 were humans around 3 million years ago to measure sea levels?!

[farming101]

And what is the correct sea level anyway?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And what is the correct sea level anyway?

I hope you have a lot of patience. Chuck and I had this discussion about sea level rise last summer, it took (edit, 8 pages, and 1 full month), and 100's of posts, and countless insults, and names called and deflections, to finally have him do the research and find some reputable sources and come close to acknowledging that it has been relentless long before we started emitting CO2, has a signifcant natural component, that there is no acceleration, that any human component is highly uncertain ( 2000% uncertainty according to chuck's sources) etc. It was rewarding in the end, but took countless hours that I will never get back again. We might have made even more progress, but dml realized that Chuck was about to realize and reveal some very inconvenient facts and came just in time to save him.

But it is an easy answer, the correct sea level, is the same as the correct temperature, and correct flora and fauna distribution, and CO2 concentration, and glacier sizes, all of which obtained some goldilocks panacea value at the cherry picked date at the end of the little ice age, and in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary, would have remained at that ideal value forever more if not for humans.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you have spent days researching this, and you still keep repeating the phrase "thousands of years". Where are you getting that from? Have you found a reputable source that claims the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 1000's of years to back up your claim?

Just 2 simple questions that you need to answer so that we can move on with this discussion. What is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, and what is the exact Charney sensitivity.

Since we have agreed that a post hydrocarbon ( I assume that is what you mean when you say post carbon), is inevitable(even if we disagree on the reason and the means of getting there), then we need to establish how urgent this issue will be, if at all urgent.

We need to answer the first so we know how soon CO2 will fall back to preindustrial levels.

We need to answer the second to know if we will also be dealing with significantly colder temperatures simultaneously. And if it is worth dropping CO2 levels, or what is the ideal CO2 level.

There is no debate( and not coincidental) that crop yields, and drought tolerance, water use efficiency etc. have increased concurrently with CO2 levels, along with global greening, forest land encroaching on grassland, and grassland encroaching on deserts. All of which has allowed earth to feed an ever increasing population, with an ever richer diet, against all odds, and all past prognostications. At these population levels, and with this diet, we are now addicted to these ever increasing levels of CO2, just like we are addicted to fertilizers. And as Tweety points out, none of it is sustainable. So we need to figure out the most sustainable levels of the inputs we can control. And we can control CO2 in the atmosphere, the questions are, how fast will atmospheric levels fall if we reduce our output of CO2, and what other negative consequences will that have.

So, if you could be so kind as to post the exact values of these two, then we can establish if your "1000's of years" is valid, or has some extra zeroes.

[chuckChuck]

I am curious Chuck2 were humans around 3 million years ago to measure sea levels?!

I am surprised Hamloc that you would ask this question! Do humans need to be around to measure the geological history of the earth? Nope

Countless posters on Agriville have in fact used the timelines of various epochs in earths history to try to prove that human caused climate change is not real. “ the climate has changed before” etc etc.

Do you think NASA is making this all up? LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Maybe if we all work together, we can keep chuck focused and on task this time. Instead of falling for his distracting rants, and going off on a tangent about sea levels, historical CO2, the reliability of NASA or LOL, let's cooperate to ignore his temper tantrum's and just keep asking the same questions

Maybe we can get him to discover the answer in less than 8 pages and a full month this time.

I'll try one simple question at a time.
What is the source for your claim of "1000's of years" for CO2 levels to subside?

[Guest]

easy one , al gore , of course

[chuckChuck]

Maybe if we all work together, we can keep chuck focused and on task this time. Instead of falling for his distracting rants, and going off on a tangent about sea levels, historical CO2, the reliability of NASA or LOL, let's cooperate to ignore his temper tantrum's and just keep asking the same questions

Maybe we can get him to discover the answer in less than 8 pages and a full month this time.

I'll try one simple question at a time.
What is the source for your claim of "1000's of years" for CO2 levels to subside?

You tell us! You are the one who raised the stupid idea that our biggest problem is going to be falling CO2 levels with no shred of scientific evidence! Haha

Surely you must have a forecast of CO2 levels based on our current emissions, our projected decline in emissions and the earths carbon cycle response!

If not just make it up like your original half baked “problem”! LOl

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You tell us! You are the one who raised the stupid idea that our biggest problem is going to be falling CO2 levels with no shred of scientific evidence! Haha

Surely you must have a forecast of CO2 levels based on our current emissions, our projected decline in emissions and the earths carbon cycle response!

If not just make it up like your original half baked “problem”! LOl

Well, if there no shred of scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall, What would be the purpose of alternate energy, CO2 taxes, the war on fossil fuels etc? I thought your goal was to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2.
You brought the 1000's of years to the discussion, where did you obtain such a precise figure? Surely you didn't just make it up?
And now you are discussing baking, I won't be distracted by this latest deflection.

[chuckChuck]

A5, Do you think NASA is making this all up?

Are you going to accuse NASA of being a Marxists organization? LOL