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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

They are in the open in full view. LOL. But there are numerous farms that have solar panels now across the Prairies. Keep looking! CASE better check all those guys with solar powered electric fence chargers and water pumps. They are probably Marxist too. Haha

We are waiting on your model that will put NASA and NOAA to shame! LOL

You already put NOAA to shame when you posted their "science" about CO2 residence time, in which they contradicted the IPCC, and admitted they haven't got a clue. I'm still waiting to see if you can find some data from NASA on this topic.

[chuckChuck]

You already put NOAA to shame when you posted their "science" about CO2 residence time, in which they contradicted the IPCC, and admitted they haven't got a clue. I'm still waiting to see if you can find some data from NASA on this topic.

Yes, well you certainly are the self declared world expert on this subject! Smarterthan all the scientist at NOAA combined! So we will take your word for it. LMAO

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Yes, well you certainly are the self declared world expert on this subject! Smarterthan all the scientist at NOAA combined! So we will take your word for it. LMAO

I can't claim to be a world expert on this subject, since I can't seem to find the answer.
I'm beginning to wonder if there are ANY world experts on this subject, surely if there were, in all of your searching, you would have found someone by now who claims to have the answer.
Please provide actual data from NOAA to prove me wrong then. Do they have the actual numbers, but don't want to let us uninformed laymen know what they are? Have you just been unable to find it? What numbers do they use to make their future projections, do they reveal that to us laypersons?
Why do their numbers differ so much from the broad range that IPCC is using?

[tweety]

While there is overwhelming data and studies about raising CO2, and the benefits to yield, water use efficiency, disease tolerance, shortening the growing season etc, data on lower CO2 levels is not nearly as in vogue, for obvious reasons. But here is an interesting source regarding greenhouses, where the CO2 level naturally falls to the 200 ppm range without supplementation:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm



So, just like CO2's benefit as a greenhouse gas is logarithmic, not linear, so are its benefits for photosynethis. As noted above, dropping the level from 340 to 200 causes as much loss of photosynthesis, as going up by almost 1000 ppm. Same with temperature, at very low levels of CO2, additional CO2 has significant benefits as a greenhouse gas, raising CO2 above 300 ppm has almost no additional warming benefits, and gets progressively less at higher concentrations.

Here are links to a bunch of papers on CO2 and wheat yields, I don't think any of them discuss lower CO2, only the large yield increases ( especially under water stress) under elevated levels of CO2, might be a reasonable starting point to apply the same logarithmic relationship in the above paper, to the yield benefits here and get a good first approximation at lower levels:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/agriculturewheat.php http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/agriculturewheat.php

Unlike Chuck's unknown quantity of the amount of time it will take for anthropogenic elevated levels of CO2 to decline, this is real quantifiable evidence based science. The benefits are tangible and provable, Chuck's crackpot doomsday scenarios are not.

But you are trying to prove what happens when you stop burning fossil fuels and the proposed impending crop production disaster to follow. Showing very high ppm isn't really helping much. Please show some data of dry grain production differences from about 300 (historical baseline, pre-industrial) to 400 as it is now. Interesting that biomass vs dry grain production itself isn't linear as CO2 increases. The "lots of straw" kind of crop also isn't necessarily better.

Closest I could find in Science daily. But even then the values are the still the wrong direction, as well the nutritional content was worse as ppm increased.

"The researchers grew wheat in greenhouses at normal (400 parts per million; ppm) or elevated (700 ppm) CO2 concentrations. The team found that wheat grown under elevated CO2 levels showed a 104% higher yield of mature grain. However, the nitrogen content of the grain was 0.5% lower under these conditions, and there were also small declines in protein content and free amino acids."

[AlbertaFarmer5]

But you are trying to prove what happens when you stop burning fossil fuels and the proposed impending crop production disaster to follow. Showing very high ppm isn't really helping much. Please show some data of dry grain production differences from about 300 (historical baseline, pre-industrial) to 400 as it is now. Interesting that biomass vs dry grain production itself isn't linear as CO2 increases. The "lots of straw" kind of crop also isn't necessarily better.

Closest I could find in Science daily. But even then the values are the still the wrong direction, as well the nutritional content was worse as ppm increased.

"The researchers grew wheat in greenhouses at normal (400 parts per million; ppm) or elevated (700 ppm) CO2 concentrations. The team found that wheat grown under elevated CO2 levels showed a 104% higher yield of mature grain. However, the nitrogen content of the grain was 0.5% lower under these conditions, and there were also small declines in protein content and free amino acids."

If I remember correctly Tweety, aren't you an agronomist or similar? You have the education and common sense to understand this.

First off, no need to use the Chuck tactic of distracting, trying to get off on a tangent about nutritional content. Any farmer can spot the fallacy in that. I believe we have addressed this before. By increasing yield by increasing the limiting nutrient, and not increasing all other nutrients in proportion, the plant will be starved for something else until we compensate for that. That is why wheat price increases based on protien, the market has this figured out already. By your logic, we shouldn't irrigate, shouldn't add CO2 to greenhouses, shouldn't fertilize etc.

But that misses the point. The Omafra CO2 greenhouse article clearly indicates the yield declines as CO2 levels go lower. As indicated in the graph:


Looks like a perfect logarithmic relationship, except it is shifted on the x axis, since photosynthesis stops long before CO2 reaches 0 ppm.
Take the wheat yield benefits from the other link ( you happened to chose the lowest of all of them), plot them on that same curve, and extrapolate down below todays levels. Not much more benefit to be had up at these levels, but yield falls off a cliff going down below ~350 ppm

[tweety]

If I remember correctly Tweety, aren't you an agronomist or similar? You have the education and common sense to understand this.

First off, no need to use the Chuck tactic of distracting, trying to get off on a tangent about nutritional content. Any farmer can spot the fallacy in that. I believe we have addressed this before. By increasing yield by increasing the limiting nutrient, and not increasing all other nutrients in proportion, the plant will be starved for something else until we compensate for that. That is why wheat price increases based on protien, the market has this figured out already. By your logic, we shouldn't irrigate, shouldn't add CO2 to greenhouses, shouldn't fertilize etc.

But that misses the point. The Omafra CO2 greenhouse article clearly indicates the yield declines as CO2 levels go lower. As indicated in the graph:


Looks like a perfect logarithmic relationship, except it is shifted on the x axis, since photosynthesis stops long before CO2 reaches 0 ppm.
Take the wheat yield benefits from the other link ( you happened to chose the lowest of all of them), plot them on that same curve, and extrapolate down below todays levels. Not much more benefit to be had up at these levels, but yield falls off a cliff going down below ~350 ppm

Well it does, but at pre industrial levels it is about 95% and today about 103%. So this is the end of the world for food production? If you're not burning fossil fuels any longer, difficulty accessing nitrogen would be of a much bigger concern.

Professional lobbyist actually But don't tell anyone.

[chuckChuck]

A5, are you sure you are a farmer and not a fisher? Because you sure seem to come up with a lot of red herrings!

[Guest]

A5, are you sure you are a farmer and not a fisher? Because you sure seem to come up with a lot of red herrings!

AF5, lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well it does, but at pre industrial levels it is about 95% and today about 103%. So this is the end of the world for food production? If you're not burning fossil fuels any longer, difficulty accessing nitrogen would be of a much bigger concern.

Professional lobbyist actually But don't tell anyone.

Actually, going back to the first page, accessing Sulphur is the biggest concern in a post fossil fuel world, N is easy, even intermittent unreliable renewable energy could pull N out of thin air whenever electricity supply exceeds demand, in fact it is a very good fit, since we have no way to cost effectively store the excess electricity, better to put it to use for a job task that doesn't have to fit any particular schedule.

Using your very conservative figure of 8%, that means we need to find a way to become 8% more efficient, or add 8% more farmland worldwide. That only means adding 3 more Canada's worth of farmland. The greens and NIMBY's and save the rain forest types should be tickled pink about that outcome. Using the other extreme of those studies, and adding in the much higher benefits seen during drought ( and other) stress, and this is not an insignificant issue.

Source: https://beef2live.com/story-countries-arable-land-world-0-108929 https://beef2live.com/story-countries-arable-land-world-0-108929

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Professional lobbyist actually But don't tell anyone.

On whose side...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A5, are you sure you are a farmer and not a fisher? Because you sure seem to come up with a lot of red herrings!

Chuck, I am so relieved that you were still able to make an intellectual contribution to this thread. I was worried that when we started using big words and technical terms that you might think it was above your pay grade and you would be too ashamed of your lack of knowledge and compehension of the issue, to have anything meaningful and relevant to add, and therefore refrain from embarassing yourself with further posts.

And in this era of inclusiveness, it would have been a shame if you felt excluded from the conversation just because you didn't know anything about the subject. That should never be a reason to keep quiet, it is always better to open your mouth ( or your keyboard) and remove all doubt as they say. Why, just the other day, the guys were sitting around discussing hockey, or Curling, or some winter type sport, and I wanted to feel like I fit in, so I chimed in that I think Expo's will go all the way to the Super Bowl this year.

But thanks to your post, and caseIH's research, I learned what a fisher is.

[chuckChuck]

We are still waiting for the science to support your red herring A5!

I think its going to be a long wait. Maybe we will get it when hell freezes over?

Without enough CO2 do you think hell would freeze over A5? LOL

[tweety]

On whose side...

The side of money. And the only way to do that is have the rules in your favor.

The red herring, that is pretty funny.

With the release of more CO2 comes the more violent weather extremes. Those losses are much higher then the issue of CO2. ppm

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The side of money. And the only way to do that is have the rules in your favor.

The red herring, that is pretty funny.

With the release of more CO2 comes the more violent weather extremes. Those losses are much higher then the issue of CO2. ppm

Can you provide some evidence of the violent weather extremes increasing. And the associated crop losses? Where are yields declining?

I hope you can do better than Chuck on this question, since he has failed completely to prove either in the past.

Why not respond to my previous post about yield loss due to declining CO2. Where do you propose we find 3 more Canada's to make up for the loss. Actually much more than 3, considering most of Canada's farm land is semi arid with only 1 ( or less) crop per year. Much lower yields than all of Europe, US, South America etc.

[chuckChuck]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab154b/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab154b/pdf

The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields

Abstract
Climate extremes, such as droughts or heat waves, can lead to harvest failures and threaten thelivelihoods of agricultural producers and the food security of communities worldwide. Improving ourunderstanding of their impacts on crop yields is crucial to enhance the resilience of the global foodsystem. This study analyses, to our knowledge for thefirst time, the impacts of climate extremes onyield anomalies of maize, soybeans, rice and spring wheat at the global scale using sub-national yielddata and applying a machine-learning algorithm. Wefind that growing season climate factors—including mean climate as well as climate extremes—explain 20%–49% of the variance of yieldanomalies(the range describes the differences between crop types), with 18%–43% of the explainedvariance attributable to climate extremes, depending on crop type. Temperature-related extremesshow a stronger association with yield anomalies than precipitation-related factors, while irrigationpartly mitigates negative effects of high temperature extremes. We developed a composite indicator toidentify hotspot regions that are critical for global production and particularly susceptible to the effectsof climate extremes. These regions include North America for maize, spring wheat and soyproduction, Asia in the case of maize and rice production as well as Europe for spring wheatproduction. Our study highlights the importance of considering climate extremes for agriculturalpredictions and adaptation planning and provides an overview of critical regions that are mostsusceptible to variations in growing season climate and climate extremes.1. Introduction Different types of climate extremes are projected tointensify and become more frequent in a number of regions worldwide due to climate change(IPCC2012).Extreme events, such as droughts and heat waves, can adversely impact agricultural production and haveimplications for the livelihoods and food security ofcommunities. Not only regions immediately experien-cing the extreme event are affected, but also regions in other parts of the world, which may suffer from indirect consequences such as.....

Climate change is affecting crop yields and reducing global food supplies

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897 https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897