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

[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.

[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]

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]

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?

[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]

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.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

People who have no scientific background are so easily duped. And that’s 90% of the mass insanity.
Incredulous, preposterous suppositions are the foundation for destroying a somewhat vibrant economy.

You have just described Chuck to a T.

And when confronted with his gullibility complete lack of knowledge about the topic he is so passionately crusading about, he just resorts to insults and name calling instead of educating himself and coming back armed with knowledge to back up his unscientific propaganda.

But to his credit, he isn't alone, this is the knowledge level and type of personal attacks that is common to the entire global warming industry.

[chuckChuck]

Funny how he never responds to any of your posts on this topic...

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

Funny how he never responds to any of your posts on this topic...

He knows that i know that he knows

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So Chuck, if carbon tax and climate change mitigation are the solution to things like the wildfires in California, how long till we see that problem solved?

Next year if we try hard, ten years, 100 years, or maybe 100,000yrs like your chart shows ???

Pick the one you think is most probable relate your answer to your chart from post 33

First he will need to figure out how long the CO2 will stick around. But after 5 pages of Chuck searching for an anwer, and Chuck insulting me because the answer apparently doesn't exist, I'm thinking you won't get an answer from Chuck, or anyone else. Apparently the settled consensus science is based on completely unknown values. I wonder if our political leaders could answer these same simple questions with a precise numerical value, after all, they are spending our tax dollars, and sacrifcing our industries and standard of living based on this.