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

[Guest]

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

good , maybe we will get paid for our work , too f-kn much now anyways
maybe we will get more that 2 weeks summer , its all good, hope you're right

[tweety]

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.

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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Thanks for getting back on topic Chuck, after 8 irrelevant posts about fish and small mammals etc. I thought you weren't coming back.

You are aware that the trend in yields is still positive? Do you think that if one requires machine learning to try to pick out yield changes due to weather anomalies, because they don't reveal themselves in any other statistics, that perhaps there might be a better reason?

I was reading some intersting papers this morning, including this one:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2010.0153 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2010.0153

Experimental evidence indicates that we can expect an average of 13% increase in yield by 2050 due entirely to predicted CO2 increasing to 550 ppm.

[chuckChuck]

High CO2 levels cause plants to thicken their leaves, which could worsen climate change effects, researchers say

https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/10/01/thick-leaves-high-co2/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/10/01/thick-leaves-high-co2/

Some more science to ponder.

[tweety]

AF5, you said we need 3 Canada's to compensate for a few percent in yield loss to a return of pre industrial CO2 levels. Your curves certainly do not show this at all. Please explain.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, you said we need 3 Canada's to compensate for a few percent in yield loss to a return of pre industrial CO2 levels. Your curves certainly do not show this at all. Please explain.

I used your figures from the previous page.

Well it does, but at pre industrial levels it is about 95% and today about 103%.

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.

[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