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

[tweety]

Your circular reasoning is keeping you from addressing the actual question.

Your thousands of years number is orders ( with an s) of magnitude too high. If this were an issue thousands of years from now, it would not be an issue, because we will have exhausted nearly every other resource long before that.

This is a much more immediate problem IF, the hairbrained politicians, inept UN bureaucrats, and mathematically challenged green movements actually succeed against all odds to "decarbonize" within a couple of decades.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, to alleviate my concerns.

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

[TASFarms]

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

My crop will suck that up next summer.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Seriously, where will the release of stored CO2 from trillions of barrels of oil released over the last 100 years magically disappear to?

The same sinks it has been disappearing into since we started releasing CO2.

According to the IPCC, first assessment report:

The report mentions the airborne fraction only a couple of times:

For the period from 1850 to 1986, airborne fraction was estimated at 41 ± 6%
For 1980-89, its estimate is 48 ± 8%
So according to the IPCC itself, the airborne fraction of CO2 in observations at the time of the report’s publication was 48%,

(I didn't verify if they carried this into subsequent assessment reports, they tend to eliminate inconvenient info in later reports).

Which is to say that of all the CO2 humans emit, less than half can be accounted for by the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Do you recall, many years ago when the mystery of the "missing carbon" was in the news? When scientists were trying to figure out why observations of increased atmospheric CO2 were so much lower than what total emissions indicated they should be.

So, if over half of it is sequestered as fast as we can emit it, does that lend credence to your theory that it will be with us for 1000's of years?

[chuckChuck]

A lot of the carbon has been absorbed by the oceans.

The oceans have also absorbed a lot of the extra trapped heat.

It takes a long time to heat and cool water so the effects of warming have been muted because over 71% of the planets surface is water.

Listen to the scientists.

Not one major world scientific organization is saying human caused climate change is not occurring or that we should be worried about falling C02 levels! Scientists are saying the exact opposite.

[furrowtickler]

NASA ... said the earth has been getting greener ... that must be bad

[chuckChuck]

Glad to see you support NASA's science!

[furrowtickler]

Glad to see you support NASA's science!

Interesting to see you conveniently ignore it

[tweety]

The same sinks it has been disappearing into since we started releasing CO2.

According to the IPCC, first assessment report:

(I didn't verify if they carried this into subsequent assessment reports, they tend to eliminate inconvenient info in later reports).

Which is to say that of all the CO2 humans emit, less than half can be accounted for by the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Do you recall, many years ago when the mystery of the "missing carbon" was in the news? When scientists were trying to figure out why observations of increased atmospheric CO2 were so much lower than what total emissions indicated they should be.

So, if over half of it is sequestered as fast as we can emit it, does that lend credence to your theory that it will be with us for 1000's of years?

Doesn't say much for your theory we will run out of CO2 either. Chuck is correct, the ocean is becoming more acidic, carbonic acid, and that is a much bigger problem.

the original question was what do we do when carbon runs out. No evidence to show it will go down to dangerous levels of food production in any meaningful time.

[chuckChuck]

Interesting to see you conveniently ignore it

Say What? I think you and your friends on Agrisilly are ignoring NASA and their evidence! I have been citing NASA in many of my posts. Here is what NASA says about human caused climate change. So do you believe what NASA says or not? LOL

https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/


The Causes of Climate Change
A layer of greenhouse gases – primarily water vapor, and including much smaller amounts of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – acts as a thermal blanket for the Earth, absorbing heat and warming the surface to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by 47% since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases.

Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but some effects seem likely:

On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the ocean and partially melt glaciers and ice sheets, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

Outside of a greenhouse, higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have both positive and negative effects on crop yields. Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth. However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may more than counteract anypotential increase in yield. If optimal temperature ranges for some crops are exceeded, earlier possible gains in yield may be reduced or reversed altogether.

Climate extremes, such as droughts, floods and extreme temperatures, can lead to crop losses and threaten the livelihoods of agricultural producers and the food security of communities worldwide. Depending on the crop and ecosystem, weeds, pests, and fungi can also thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels, and climate change will likely increase weeds and pests.

Finally, although rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, research has shown that it can also reduce the nutritional value of most food crops by reducing the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species. Climate change can cause new patterns of pests and diseases to emerge, affecting plants, animals and humans, and posing new risks for food security, food safety and human health.2

[chuckChuck]

So Furrow, do you believe what NASA says or not?

[furrowtickler]

So Furrow, do you believe what NASA says or not?

Some yup ...
Still a lot of presumptions in your latest cut and paste there ..


You need to reread a previous post I made a few weeks ago .
No doubt humans play a role , but other factors like climate forcing and sun cycles are mostly ignored that explain a lot of climate changing factors that get solely blamed on CO2 .
Even NASA states in your cut and paste CO2 is a minor factor .
My stance is let’s not carbon tax our livelihoods into bankruptcy over a lot of assumptions as proven by your cut and paste .
It’s not what the carbon tax costs us today it’s how high they will take it in the near future that should be a massive concern to any farm.

[shortbox]

Don't worry guys, as long as Trudope takes carbon tax money from me (so I can't afford to buy fuel) and gives it to low income people (so that they can afford to buy more fuel) everything will be fine!

[furrowtickler]

Don't worry guys, as long as Trudope takes carbon tax money from me (so I can't afford to buy fuel) and gives it to low income people (so that they can afford to buy more fuel) everything will be fine!

True , add that to the undeniable fact that the UN itself admitted years ago that the whole carbon scheme is simply a wealth distribution set up and will have limited if any real impact on climate change . So all this banter back and forth is a waste of time actually.
When the number one objective is wealth distribution and not climate then the whole debate is pointless really.
Let the solar projects and wind projects do there thing In areas of the planet they make sense , again not one single post about the average yearly solar output from northern latitudes has ever been shown here with data from Russia, Sweden , Finland and other northern countries , Other than a couple small supplemental home projects .
Yes , cut back on non essential fuel use by utilizing electric vehicles in big urban areas , put More research Into small feasible nuke plants to supply that power . Utilize natural gas power plants in areas that have massive reserves.
And don’t tax the heck out of industry such as Ag that has no other choice but to burn fossil fuels at this time . All those other area have a choice , Ag does not at this time . Anyone who actually farms should know this .
It may be not that far off we will have electric tractors , JD concept looks intriguing and the best I seen so far , but yet to be proven and may be a decade away from being affordable and readily viable long term usage..... be able to run at max for 18-20 hr per day on 4-6 hr charge periods.
It’s not that most farmers are totally against non fossil fuel energy sources , they are against it being shoved down our throats without viable alternatives for the majority of the energy we need in the extremely short windows needed. Sure set up a little solar system to offset your day to day power if you have the money to do so and that makes you feel all important. Good on those that do.
End of the day , green energy is not so green and that is overshadowed by political agendas.
Hopefully a balance is in the future without destroying certain economies along the way .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just saw another new study about CO2 and tree growth.

Since 1901, the intrinsic water use efficiency of trees worldwide has risen by approximately 40% in conjunction with an increase of approximately 34% in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Both of these characteristics increased approximately four times faster since the 1960s compared to the previous years.

40% is not insignificant. That is the difference between surviving, even thriving in a drought or dry climate, and not surviving at all. That alone explains the global greening, especially in the Sahel.
And it applies to everything performing photosynthesis, with the exception of C4 plants.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/wvu-wbu020821.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-02/wvu-wbu020821.php

These earth shattering improvements caused by CO2 are all the reason we should ever need to do everything in our power to ensure that we ration our scarce finite supplies of fossil fuels out for as long as possible to maintain elevated CO2 levels as long as possible.

[chuckChuck]

The article you posted clearly states that trees are important to reducing the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. But there is no science to to suggest that we risk running low on CO2 in the future. CO2 is continuing to rise.

"This study really highlights the role of forests and their ecosystems in climate change," said Thomas, interim associate provost for graduate academic affairs. "We think of forests as providing ecosystem services. Those services can be a lot of different things - recreation, timber, industry. We demonstrate how forests perform another important service: acting as sinks for carbon dioxide. Our research shows that forests consume large amounts of carbon dioxide globally. Without that, more carbon dioxide would go into the air and build up in the atmosphere even more than it already is, which could exacerbate climate change. Our work shows yet another important reason to preserve and maintain our forests and keep them healthy."