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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As CO2 increases weather changes and more violent swings. You already know that. And its not 3 more Canada's, it is at worst a few percent 100 years from now. And again, CO2 is the least of the problems with food production without fossil fuels.

Here is the solution to your non existent problem. Hybrid Rubisco, very recent discovery. It's like putting a turbo on crops such as wheat especially. It would be a disaster for farmers to ever have supply less then demand, just think of the income tax you would have to pay. So keep growing more and more and more.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200915090123.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200915090123.htm

I neglected to ask where you obtained the "100's of years from now" figure?
The politicians are claiming complete decarbonization within a few decades.
Then we are back to the root of my question for the past 6 pages, of how long does it take for that CO2 to return back to baseline levels.
Chuck's source at NOAA only claims it may be 100 years singular, but don't seem to be able to provide a precise number.
IPCC claims it could be as little as 5 years. But also aren't willing to pin it down.
Chucks claims 1000's of years, but can't provide evidence.
dml usually comes to Chuck's rescue, but hasn't said a peep.
You claim hundreds of years. Can you back that up with a credible source?

Then we can close this case and move on to the Charney sensitivity.

As it stands, I have been forced to the conculsion that this quantity is not known, and therefore, all the science based on this is at best useless.

[Guest]

I used your figures from the previous page.

Admittedly, I did not check your work. I presume you did as I suggested and plotted the yield inreases rom the studies onto the logarithmic graph provided, and extrapolated yields at pre industrial levels. Is that how you arrived at the 8% reduction?

According to the link I posted with data from FAO, Canada is in 7th place in the world, at 2.64% of the worlds arable land. I performed the mathematical wizardry of 8% / 2.64% and arrived at 3 Canada's to make up the 8% shortfall from your figures.

god damn details eh tweety ??

[fjlip]

That's where the DEVIL is....in the LEFT details, or their souls, or their heads!
That deserves a LOL! get them boys! Enjoying their shit show.

[tweety]

god damn details eh tweety ??

Well it is important to explain why 3 Canada's. There was no reference.

Also C4 isn't affected by CO2 changes, so now you are down to less then 1.

god dam details eh caseih?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Here is someone offering a solution:

Imagine the benefits to Africa and Arabia, and other arid equatorial regions, if global warming restored the ancient Monsoons, which failed 6000 years ago after the end of the Holocene Optimum? Northern Africa and Arabia could once again be like the Garden of Eden.

I suspect we shall run out of fossil fuel long before we release enough CO2 to make the climate that benign. Perhaps when recoverable fossil fuel runs out, our descendants will maintain elevated atmospheric CO2 levels by using nuclear powered furnaces to roast limestone and other CO2 rich minerals, to alleviate the suffering of our planet’s CO2 starved plants.

[tweety]

Here is someone offering a solution:

What makes you think that once fossil fuels are no longer used that CO2 concentration would drop?

[furrowtickler]

What makes you think that once fossil fuels are no longer used that CO2 concentration would drop?

Best point I have heard ....... so why the carbon tax if we don’t know ?
Tax on a speculation is not right .

[tweety]

Best point I have heard ....... so why the carbon tax if we don’t know ?
Tax on a speculation is not right .

We do know, it won't go down. The carbon tax is an incentive to not compound the problem. At least in theory, or rather the hope. But the problem to date of CO2 levels will remain for a millennia or more.

[furrowtickler]

We do know, it won't go down. The carbon tax is an incentive to not compound the problem. At least in theory, or rather the hope. But the problem to date of CO2 levels will remain for a millennia or more.

Tax a theory based on hope ?
Don’t worry we will plant more trees and the CO2 will come down , unless we use them all for wood pallets .. then we in trouble

[AlbertaFarmer5]

We do know, it won't go down. The carbon tax is an incentive to not compound the problem. At least in theory, or rather the hope. But the problem to date of CO2 levels will remain for a millennia or more.

Who is we, and how do we know it won't go down?
I've spent this entire thread trying to get an answer to this very question, it is fundamental to the entire CAGW argument, and to the models.

What is your credible source for the millenia or more? Chuck started the thread claiming thousands of years, but could find no evidence of that, one of his go to sources claims it could be as low as single digits, now after all the effort we put into it, you start over at the same place.

[TASFarms]

Just a Reminder. Carbon tax is a wealth transfer scam. Nothing more.

[burnt]

Just a Reminder. Carbon tax is a wealth transfer scam. Nothing more.

What is totally despicable is how (farm) organizations that are supposed to represent our interests are fully involved to the scam, using its language, working with its falsehoods, giving it another layer of false legitimacy.