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

[6V53]

Chuck you realize the computer models they are using to predict the future are based on conjecture?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.
Crops are average to better than expected.

Thanks for the crop report. Is that representative of the broader area, or just your own? Better than expected given the challenging year, or better than long term average?

You made an interesting response.
You apparently did not do your homework, since you think this won't be a concern for "1000's of years"

So either A), you think we have adequate fossil fuel reserves to last that long,
or B), You think the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of 1000's of years,
Either way, we would have nothing to worry about if either or both was true.
Unfortunately, the science does not support scenario B, but I really do wish you would look up the actual answer, since that detail really is quite important, it must already be known very accurately, judging by the models and projections.

At this time, we have no way of knowing if you are correct about A), but maybe you know something the rest of us don't? It seems improbable, and if it is true, it will require some highly unconventional and so far unknown extraction methods.

And while you are researching the residence time of CO2, you are bound to run across the Charney sensitivity of CO2, please let us know how precisely known that is today. After all, there is no way politicians would be spending billions if we only guess the sensitivity to within a few hundred percent would they?

[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

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years. According to State of the Climate in 2019 from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society,

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 A5 you don't seem concerned at all! Instead you bring up an argument that were are going to short of CO2 in the atmosphere? Whaaaat? Where is the science to back up this bogus concern?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, what thread are you responding to? Do you even keep track of what you are arguing about? We are talking about the "post carbon economy", which will happen sooner or later, either by finding a more sustainable energy source than hydrocarbons, or by running out of them. Usually one of your favrourite topics, and nearly all of your arguments on this topic typically involve future tense, what is going to happen, according to disproven models, not what really is. And in response to our discussion about the future you foresee, you are now stuck in the past, posting graphs of what once was, as if the trend will continue ad infinitum.

And you accuse everyone else of having their heads in the sand.

[tweety]

We are talking about the "post carbon economy", which will happen sooner or later, either by finding a more sustainable energy source than hydrocarbons, or by running out of them.

Never gonna happen. Discussion over.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Never gonna happen. Discussion over.

Aren't you full of optimism today.

If we continue to pursue the unsustainable path Chuck has us on, using unreliable energy backed up 100% by fossil fuels, then you are right. There will be no "post carbon" economy, because we will eventually run out of our finite supply of fossil fuels, and have nothing prepared to replace them, and society and the economy will collapse, taking population with them, problem solved.

I'm not quite that pessimistic. Eventually, the adults will prevail over the Chuck's, and practical solutions will be implemented before we run out.

Now, can you help Chuck find the settled science answers I have been requesting, he is trying very hard, but seems to be on a wild goose chase.

[bucket]

I don't like getting on these threads but if this so called electric vehicle craze takes off shouldn't someone be doing an electric grid study to see if it is possible....

And where is the hook up for my tractors coming from when they are electric...a pole at every field what if neighbours are working the same general area and need to plug in.....then of course there are are the odd power outages...

Just saying ...I don't need to be called stupid ....I can admit that on my own ....but there is alot missing for this new future that people really don't understand.

[tweety]

There will always be enough CO2 and carbon. Has always been, will always be. Plants grew for millions of years before the internet, will grow millions more after.

Humans at this point are just a bad blip in history and most likely short lived. (At least we can hope)

[jazz]

And A5 you don't seem concerned at all!

Nope, not concerned in the least

[chuckChuck]

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

[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