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

[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]

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?

[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.

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 ??

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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