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

[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.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Here is NASA’s look at CO2 and it’s long term role in Earths climate.

[chuckChuck]

From NASA:

“In fact, 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.“

And before someone brings it up there is a relatively long lag time between CO2 concentrations and the effect on climate.

As you can see low CO2 levels and global cooling are not the problem we should worry about. Look at NASA’s 800,000 year graph of CO2.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Good job Chuck, in spite of being busy harvesting your crop on a dry sunny day, you took the time to go researching for the answers to my two simple questions about the settled science.




And answered absolutely neither of them.



But keep looking. This will keep you busy for a long time.

[chuckChuck]

Good job Chuck, in spite of being busy harvesting your crop on a dry sunny day, you took the time to go researching for the answers to my two simple questions about the settled science.




And answered absolutely neither of them.



But keep looking. This will keep you busy for a long time.

Where is your evidence? Dont give up so easily A5 with a non answer! LOL. Driving truck today. Some time between loads.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Where is your evidence? Dont give up so easily A5 with a non answer! LOL. Driving truck today. Some time between loads.

Evidence for what? I asked you what the residence time is for CO2, and what the Charney senstivity is. Both should be easy answers since the science is settled, and both are necessary to know to a great precision before we can figure out the solution to the bigger problems that started this thread. Do you end every sentence will LOL when speaking in person?

Edit, how are the crops?

[chuckChuck]

Evidence for what? I asked you what the residence time is for CO2, and what the Charney senstivity is. Both should be easy answers since the science is settled, and both are necessary to know to a great precision before we can figure out the solution to the bigger problems that started this thread. Do you end every sentence will LOL when speaking in person?

Edit, how are the crops?

Evidence from the scientific community that this issue is more important than The negative impacts of human caused climate change! Surely there must be some science out there to back up your idea that we are going to need fossil fuel emissions to maintain optimal CO2 levels!

Humans are going to keep releasing CO2 for the foreseeable future. The goal is not to let it get out of hand and bring it down to around 350. You are worrying about an issue on a geological time scale of 1000s of years which may never be an issue.

I think the reason why you aren’t providing any scientific backup is that it doesn’t exist. This is not on the radar because it is not an issue amongst scientists for the foreseeable future. It’s your version of we should worry about going into another ice age. Typical climate Change denial Fodder for the uninformed!

Crops are average to better than expected.