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

[chuckChuck]

And no rocket scientist is worried about adding CO2 to the atmosphere Chuck.

That’s probably true because rocket scientists are focussed on rockets not climate science! It doesn’t take a “rocket surgeon”to figure that out! LOL

But you still stand by your opinion that no scientists are concerned about adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Okay then......LMAO!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, let's review what you have accomplished in 4 pages so far.
After much goading, and deflecting, you finally went looking for the answer I requested. Your first source broke your own rule about credible scientific organizations, and it did not even attempt to provide the answer. Skeptical Science is a blog by an Australian evangelival Christian cartoonist and Web developer with no climate scientists in sight. But I wouldn't hold that against him, if he would have at least attempted to answer instead of deflecting and avoiding(seems to be a common theme amongst science deniers).

Before that, you repeatedly claimed that it was 1000's of years, ranted about NASA being Marxist, but never found any evidence from NASA to back up your made up #.

The rest of your posts have been insults, name calling, and distractions unrelated to the topic.
So in consideration of the difficulty you are having, I will help you get started.
The IPCC (one of your favorite credible sources). Does attempt to answer this. The range they provide is a number, and another number a mere 3900% bigger than the first. Followed by a long list of excuses involving the word uncertainties. And for the record, 1000's of years fallsfar outside of even the IPCC's most generous guess. So you can give up and quit looking for a citation for your fabricated number.

So try Google searching with that information, and come back when you have the answer. Then we can discuss if that level of uncertainty is adequate for the policies being made.

[chuckChuck]

Give up A5! You can’t provide any science to back up any of your misguided denialist opinions! If you could, we might take you seriously.
But so far you have failed dramatically and are only impressing the “rocket surgeons” with your excessive and incoherent babble! LOL Haha and all that!

[6V53]

Well Elon must be carbon neutral. He builds EVs and rockets.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Give up A5! You can’t provide any science to back up any of your misguided denialist opinions! If you could, we might take you seriously.
But so far you have failed dramatically and are only impressing the “rocket surgeons” with your excessive and incoherent babble! LOL Haha and all that!

The problem is, we don't even know if my opinions are misguided and or denialist until we have the answer to the question.

The answer to which will allow us to establish if, in the absence of human emitted CO2, can CO2 levels realistically decline on a time span that has any relevance to human life spans. If it is 1000's of years, then the solution is much different than if it is only 10 minutes.

Since you refuse to answer that, how can you know if my assertions are valid, or misguided? Did you just invent that, like you did the thousands of years figure?

This alarmist mania regarding CO2 is your obsession, I just thought you might want to make sure you know some of the more important details so that you will be better equipped to debate it. Nothing worse than someone asking you a very simple question that wasn't in the script, and looking like a fool since you don't know the answer.

( yes, Skeptical science and others provide a script just for laypersons such as Chuck, that is why he is able to produce sciency sounding answers, which are irrelevant to the topic, yet still doesn't have a clue what he just said.

[furrowtickler]

Give up A5! You can’t provide any science to back up any of your misguided denialist opinions! If you could, we might take you seriously.
But so far you have failed dramatically and are only impressing the “rocket surgeons” with your excessive and incoherent babble! LOL Haha and all that!

[chuckChuck]

A5 residence time of CO2:

"It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

https://www.climate.gov/taxonomy/term/3415 https://www.climate.gov/taxonomy/term/3415

"Natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere operate slowly when compared to the processes that are now adding it to the atmosphere. Thus, carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere today may remain there for a century or more. Other greenhouse gases, including some created by humans, may remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years."

Now show us the science that indicates that low C02 levels are going to be a problem if we don't continue burning fossil fuels! There is a reason that you said it is not on the "radar" of scientist because its not going to be a problem! Its denialist BS! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for getting back on topic Chuck, and doing some research.

So NOAA gives the very precise number of "may" remain for a century or more. I wonder how they plug that into the climate models that they discuss further down the page? Does your calculator have a button for "may"? One would be inclined to think that by inputing that size of uncertainty, then with propagation of errors, that the output would have a range of uncertainty so wide as to be worse than useless.

I wonder why NOAA gives an answer that is so much different than IPCC? I thought the science was settled. Did you look up what IPCC has to say about it? They are much more certain that it will remain in the atmosphere for a numerical range where the top end is a mere 3900% longer than the bottom end. Whereas NOAA seems to leave both ends open, essentially an infinite range both ways.

Your NOAA site also provides this inconsistency, first they state:

It addresses the issue that even if global emissions begin to decrease, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will continue to increase, resulting in increased global temperatures.

Then they swtich around and tell us this:

discussing the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions in order to reduce the concentration in the atmosphere.

Completely contradicting themselves. Perhaps NOAA is no longer on the list of credible scientific organizations? Perhaps you can find a cut and paste that explains how both of those statements can be true at the same time. And these are from the same page of the same website.

So even they don't know hte answer, yet you make fun of me for asking the question.

[tweety]

On farm studies and research shows that adding carbon based fertility is showing major positive effects to plant growth .
We have seen it our selves here .
Here is a picture of a soil based carbon additive vastly improving soil structure in one year , actually 3 months ...


Soil on right has the added carbon fertility. Mellow texture
Soil on left is hard and blocky , typical clay soil , blocky and compacted

Carbon based fertility?

[tweety]

A5 residence time of CO2:
Now show us the science that indicates that low C02 levels are going to be a problem if we don't continue burning fossil fuels! There is a reason that you said it is not on the "radar" of scientist because its not going to be a problem! Its denialist BS! LOL

I am also curious to hear the explanation. Plants grew just fine 200 years ago before Otto discovered the compressed internal combustion engine.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I am also curious to hear the explanation. Plants grew just fine 200 years ago before Otto discovered the compressed internal combustion engine.

Plants grew just fine at 280 ppm, because the plants only goal is to reproduce, they are not concerned with feeding xbilllions of people and their livestock, and their cars and powerplants and sawmills, and pulp mills etc.

Humans on the other hand, have very different goals for plants.

Estimates of pre industrial/pre colonial agriculture are somewhere between 2 and 4 hectares per capita, we are currently at 0.18 hectares per capita, it was nearly 3 times that as recently as 1950. We have very high expectations of our plants now, compared to 200 years ago, when famines, malnutrition and mass starvation were just facts of life. Obviously, there are many other factors that have led to these drastic increases in yield, primarily fertilizers, also mechanisation, genetics, chemical pest control, collective knowledge, improving weather, global warming, etc. But increased atmospheric CO2 is well documented as an important factor, even more so in arid, drought prone areas.

200 years ago, farmers (and plants) only had just over a billion people to feed with a very meagre diet, and very often, they failed at even feeding that number.

If you want to go back further to the depth of the past ice ages, CO2 dropped as low as 180 ppm, just ~30 ppm above the level necessary for life. While not a concern on human life timescales, it is humbling to think about.

Everyone has seen the drawing of the barrel with the differnt lengths of staves representing the limiting factors for crop growth. CO2 is most definitely one of the biggest staves, along with water and sunshine, the rest are minor in comparison.

[chuckChuck]

A5 so you are sticking to your opinion that we should worry about low CO2 levels more than human caused climate change?

Why are you so reluctant to show us the research and data that raises this issue?

If this was going to be an important issue anytime in the next several hundred years don't you think scientists would be discussing it?

Its pretty obvious why you want to bring it up because it fits with your scientifically unsupported view that human caused climate change and burning millions years of fossil fuels and releasing the resultant CO2 into the atmosphere in a relatively short period of human history have no negative impacts!

Its climate change denialist fodder for the simple minded!

[furrowtickler]

HTF do you two get anything done lol

[chuckChuck]

HTF do you two get anything done lol

Says the man who posts substantially more than I do! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

If this was going to be an important issue anytime in the next several hundred years don't you think scientists would be discussing it?

See, you are learning. You started out claiming 1000's of years. You tried to find evidence to back up your claim, failed and went off on a tangeant ranting about unrelated issues to distract.

After much prompting, you found a source that gave a vague number more than an order of magnitude shorter than your 1000's of years. But refused to aknowledge the IPCC's range which, I will help you even further, by telling you that their range starts as low as 5 years.

So after finding a source (NOAA) that claims it might be a century, you still proceed to claim hundreds ( that is hundreds with an s, plural hundreds) of years. So you have knocked an entire zero off your guess, but still are substantially higher than both NOAA and IPCC. Niether of which is able to narrow it down to a useful number that my calculator can handle. IPCC gives a range 3900% higher than their lowest guess, and NOAA leaves it wide open to infinfity both ways.

Surely some scientific authority must have the exact answer? How are they inputting this factor into their models if no one knows what it is?

And you haven't even attempted to narrow down the Charney senstivity, it makes this look like settled science.