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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Did you arm chair “geniuses” forget that there is a natural carbon cycle capturing and releasing carbon? Where is the evidence that we are going to run out of carbon.? LMAO.
It’s the most common element on planet earth.

Is it being lost to space? Not in any significant amount. The idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to maintain carbon is loony. The opposite is true which is we need to lower carbon emissions into the atmosphere to prevent out of control global warming and Climate change!

And I know the difference between CO2 and carbon. The phrase low carbon is used to cover energy sources that don’t release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Our science education must have really missed the mark with some of the class dullards! LOL

Wow Chuck, I am really proud of you, you just acknowledged so many scientific facts all in one post. I am so proud. The science lessons have seemed so futile all this time, and the student so hopeless, and suddenly you just understood multiple simple concepts all at once. And you also discovered the shortcomings of our global warming indoctrination system formerly known as schools.

Perhaps now that you have mastered some simple concepts, we can attempt to have a more technical discussion, rather than the typical flat earth and soot comments?

Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, constantly sequestering and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. Most of it ending up buried in ocean sediment. Which is really fortunate for us, because a small amount of that sequestered Carbon eventually ended up as the hydrocarbons we use to power our modern society. And like virtually all chemical reactions, when you increase the concentration of the limiting reactant, the reaction increases, so unfortunately, by increasing our CO2 output, we are depleting our easily available reserves even faster. At 280 ppm, the system was very close to being in balance, but at over 400, the earth is sequestering much more of what we continue to add, leaving less and less for our long term benefit.

No one is concerned about running out of CO2 ( and certainly not worried about running out of Carbon, the 15th most abundant element on earth) on any human time scale, although on geologic time scales, atmospheric concentrations are slowly headed for levels so low that photosynthetic life will cease to exist.

What any rational, forward thinking person is concerned about, is that without burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels will quickly fall back to their preindustrial near starvation levels( and eventually, and inevitably, much lower), however, populations, and their expectation to maintain their current diets will not immediately fall back to preindustrial levels. This will be even worse if it happens to coincide with the next cyclical cooling event, which causes the oceans to naturally sequester more CO2 as they cool down.

The challenge will be to continue to produce enough food without the very real, very measurable benefits of the slightly increased levels of beneficial CO2 that we have grown accustomed to, and one of the reasons why so many (all) previous apocalyptic predictions of humans demise have failed so miserably.

We either need to find a way to maintain these elevated levels by liberating it from limestone, or we need to find a balance that stretches our predicted fossil fuel reserves out as long as possible to keep levels at the best compromise, until we figure out a better way. None of this is being discussed in official circles, no plans are being made, and we aren't even making an effort to decide what the optimal level might be. If fossil fuels are infinite, then we should likely aim for closer to 1000 ppm, if fossil fuels are nearly exhausted already, then 350 ppm or less is likely a good compromise.

[fjlip]

Wow Chuck, I am really proud of you, you just acknowledged so many scientific facts all in one post. I am so proud. The science lessons have seemed so futile all this time, and the student so hopeless, and suddenly you just understood multiple simple concepts all at once. And you also discovered the shortcomings of our global warming indoctrination system formerly known as schools.

Perhaps now that you have mastered some simple concepts, we can attempt to have a more technical discussion, rather than the typical flat earth and soot comments?

Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, constantly sequestering and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. Most of it ending up buried in ocean sediment. Which is really fortunate for us, because a small amount of that sequestered Carbon eventually ended up as the hydrocarbons we use to power our modern society. And like virtually all chemical reactions, when you increase the concentration of the limiting reactant, the reaction increases, so unfortunately, by increasing our CO2 output, we are depleting our easily available reserves even faster. At 280 ppm, the system was very close to being in balance, but at over 400, the earth is sequestering much more of what we continue to add, leaving less and less for our long term benefit.

No one is concerned about running out of CO2 ( and certainly not worried about running out of Carbon, the 15th most abundant element on earth) on any human time scale, although on geologic time scales, atmospheric concentrations are slowly headed for levels so low that photosynthetic life will cease to exist.

What any rational, forward thinking person is concerned about, is that without burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels will quickly fall back to their preindustrial near starvation levels( and eventually, and inevitably, much lower), however, populations, and their expectation to maintain their current diets will not immediately fall back to preindustrial levels. This will be even worse if it happens to coincide with the next cyclical cooling event, which causes the oceans to naturally sequester more CO2 as they cool down.

The challenge will be to continue to produce enough food without the very real, very measurable benefits of the slightly increased levels of beneficial CO2 that we have grown accustomed to, and one of the reasons why so many (all) previous apocalyptic predictions of humans demise have failed so miserably.

We either need to find a way to maintain these elevated levels by liberating it from limestone, or we need to find a balance that stretches our predicted fossil fuel reserves out as long as possible to keep levels at the best compromise, until we figure out a better way. None of this is being discussed in official circles, no plans are being made, and we aren't even making an effort to decide what the optimal level might be. If fossil fuels are infinite, then we should likely aim for closer to 1000 ppm, if fossil fuels are nearly exhausted already, then 350 ppm or less is likely a good compromise.

Wow that is worth repeating AF5, you are right on the bit ! LIKE your answers!

[edl]

Carbon can not be created or destroyed it just cycles around at one time all the carbon in the ground on earth was on the surface

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And before anyone picks it apart, yes that is a gross oversimplification.

[chuckChuck]

A5, Drought, extreme weather, and rising temperatures because of climate change will cut yields of basic food crops in many parts of the world. Especially in many poorer countries with large populations and less food security.

Where is the credible scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall to levels that will reduce food production in any significant way if we don't burn fossil fuels? Show us the published peer reviewed research that raises this issue.

Greenhouse gas emissions are at risk of rising to uncontrollable levels when methane and carbon will be released from the thawing arctic and antarctic.

This is the issue that scientists are really worried about. Not declining yields because of low CO2 levels. We are at over 400ppm now with no sign that they are falling anytime soon. And even if they fall they will go back to levels that will well support food production and human life for many many generations.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5, Drought, extreme weather, and rising temperatures because of climate change will cut yields of basic food crops in many parts of the world. Especially in many poorer countries with large populations and less food security.

Where is the credible scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall to levels that will reduce food production in any significant way if we don't burn fossil fuels? Show us the published peer reviewed research that raises this issue.

Greenhouse gas emissions are at risk of rising to uncontrollable levels when methane and carbon will be released from the thawing arctic and antarctic.

This is the issue that scientists are really worried about. Not declining yields because of low CO2 levels. We are at over 400ppm now with no sign that they are falling anytime soon. And even if they fall they will go back to levels that will well support food production and human life for many many generations.

Always future tense with your arguments.
I apologize, I thought you finally wanted to have a rational discussion involving science. Did you even read any of this thread? Or comprehend it?

[tweety]

CO2 is the least of our problems with food production.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

CO2 is the least of our problems with food production.

At 400+ ppm, very true. At pre-industrial levels, it is very much limiting. But since this level is well within our powers, what level should we be aiming for?

Here is a good question for Chuck, Tweety etc. Since the science is settled, what is the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere. Or, how long would it take for CO2 to return to natural levels if we stopped emitting tomorrow? Holding the temperature constant for simplicity.

After answering that simple settled science question, perhaps you can move on to what the settled science has concluded is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. Should be even easier.

[Guest]

CO2 is the least of our problems with food production.

of course, real big shortage of grain out there, FFS
are you still falling for the world going to run outta food shit ????????
the ****suckers that are ****ing us on prices , they want more , so they can keep getting our grain for 1970 prices .

[chuckChuck]

of course, real big shortage of grain out there, FFS
are you still falling for the world going to run outta food shit ????????
the ****suckers that are ****ing us on prices , they want more , so they can keep getting our grain for 1970 prices .

You should ask A5 that because he is the one who began by suggesting we are going to be food short if CO2 levels don’t keep rising!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You should ask A5 that because he is the one who began by suggesting we are going to be food short if CO2 levels don’t keep rising!

Thank you for confirming that you don't bother reading anything before responding.

[chuckChuck]

A5 which climate scientists are raising alarm bells about this potential decline in CO2? You would think if this is a legitimate near term or mid term Or long term issue that some climate scientists would be bringing it up in their models or at least be mentioning it. Again share with us the science that backs up your claims. Dont hide behind the idea that this is not on anybody else’s scientific radar.