CO2 levels too low?

Commodity Marketing

Tools

CO2 levels too low?

May 23, 2020 | 07:56 1 CO2 monitor in my house is often showing the low alert warning. Below optimal for plant growth. Im going to take it and put it in the field to see what it says out there. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 09:13 2 Yes, CO2 levels, while slightly improved thanks to recent warming compared their starvation level lows over a century ago(resulting from the little ice age), they are still precipitously low. If you had your monitor out throughout the era of life on earth, todays level is so low in comparison, that your monitor likely wouldn't even be designed to read this low, and you would have all sorts of warnings and error messages right now. Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 09:17 3 CO2 bad, tax good, so we have been told by the people with the crayons up their noses. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 09:27 4 Is the conclusion drawn from a junior high climate science project? Your grade is an F!

    Since you think you have this climate change thing figured out take your home science kit And work on a Covid vaccine! Reply With Quote
    LEP
    May 23, 2020 | 09:44 5 I would say there isn't enough heavy breathing going on in your house. Reply With Quote

  • May 23, 2020 | 10:01 6 Lame junior high science matched by junior high Intellect and insults by some posters. Are we starting to see a pattern here? Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 10:44 7
    Quote Originally Posted by LEP View Post
    I would say there isn't enough heavy breathing going on in your house.
    See, now this is how science works. Someone noted a measured observation. Now another poster has put forth a hypothesis as to what maybe causing that. Now we just need To devise an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis and draw a conclusion. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 10:52 8 Chuck, perhaps you could apply some of your scientific credentials and prove me wrong. Please show that 400 ppm CO2 is not dangerously close to the lowest level since life began on earth. And while you are at it, you could perhaps attempt to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature over that same time span.

    My kids are in Junior high science right now(at home of course) and I am pleased to report that they are still teaching the concept of photosynthesis. Not sure what era Chuck went to school in? Reply With Quote

  • May 23, 2020 | 11:18 9
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Chuck, perhaps you could apply some of your scientific credentials and prove me wrong. Please show that 400 ppm CO2 is not dangerously close to the lowest level since life began on earth. And while you are at it, you could perhaps attempt to show the correlation between CO2 and temperature over that same time span.

    My kids are in Junior high science right now(at home of course) and I am pleased to report that they are still teaching the concept of photosynthesis. Not sure what era Chuck went to school in?
    No need to plow this ground again is there? It’s all well documented at NASA, NOAA etc. But there both Marxist organizations correct? Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 11:28 10
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    No need to plow this ground again is there?
    Yet another reference to agricultural practices. You're credibility is improving quickly. Even if your understanding of tillage methods in the semi arid Canadian plains is about a century behind.

    It is interesting that you use the American spelling of Plough though. Given your anti American stance on everything else. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 11:40 11 It’s a metaphor. A figure of speech. Are you still into literal interpretations of the bible? If you can’t seed do your own research on CO2 and temperature. But try to source your information from credible scientific organizations.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; May 23, 2020 at 11:45.
    Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 11:58 12 Chuck why do think the liberals won't release a number on reduction of carbon dioxide in tons as a result of the carbon tax.

    1) they didn't do the math.
    2) they don't know how to do math.
    3) they did the math and realize the reduction by Canadians would be absolutely insignificant on a global scale.
    4) they just want to remind the us how arrogant they are.
    5) the number is soooo big they want to surprise us before the next election.

    Usually when Governments can brag about something positive they have done or will be doing it's all over the news backed by actual numbers. Reply With Quote

  • May 23, 2020 | 12:03 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    It’s a metaphor. A figure of speech. Are you still into literal interpretations of the bible? If you can’t seed do your own research on CO2 and temperature. But try to source your information from credible scientific organizations.
    I just did a quick search and it seems to indicate that NOAA and NASA only claim to show the instrument record. Life on earth predates the instrument record by quite a lot actually. So if the entirety of your sources only deal with the instrument record that doesn't explain why you would be deluded into thinking these are dangerously high levels.

    As for your reference to the Bible, I don't read fiction books, Let alone waste any time trying to interpret them. I thought you were trying to discuss scientific literature, why did you bring storybooks into it ? Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 12:13 14 To funny
    Mention C02 and Chucky jumps to life!
    Talk farming Yawn💤💤💤 Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 12:40 15
    Quote Originally Posted by seldomseen View Post
    To funny
    Mention C02 and Chucky jumps to life!
    Talk farming Yawn💤💤💤
    How true, he must have some sort of filters set up to notify him when his presence is required to straighten us all out.

    However in this case I get the impression that it may have been the crayon comment that hit a little too close to Home that triggered him rather than the CO2 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 13:10 16 It’s the flat earth club!

    Don’t try to prove your theory with a homemade rocket! Or any wacky climate change denial science project ideas! LOL

    Stay safe and happy seeding. Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 13:33 17 Good thing we listen to all the so called experts. With all their expert leadership look where it’s lead us in the Corona virus bullshit. No different than the climate change crap. Anything to stir up fear and division. If u can’t scare em it won’t sell. If they wanted to scare people explain to them the economic shit storm that’s gonna hit after this virus horseshit is done. Not that it wasn’t coming without the virus garbage but people are so dumb they have no clue that borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today eventually bites u in the ass. Part that pisses me off even more is the fact that some of us tried to run a fiscally responsible ship while others spent like drunken sailors and now this fiasco is gonna hurt all of us especially if u have equity. I’m sure our donkey in Ottawa will try and steal more of that from us as well. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 13:36 18 CO2 levels too low?

    Ok everyone take afew deep breaths
    Take another one and count to ten....
    Exhale...

    Better now?

    Everyone needs to start breathing more if you want to increase CO2 levels! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 13:53 19
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    CO2 levels too low?

    Ok everyone take afew deep breaths
    Take another one and count to ten....
    Exhale...

    Better now?

    Everyone needs to start breathing more if you want to increase CO2 levels!
    I blame the cursed grain farmers. They keep planting crops which keep enjoying the CO2 that me, my family and my livestock work so hard to produce. Maybe if you straight grain guys could take a few years off, we could make some real progress.

    I can think of a few folks who are really worked up about CO2, for whom if they were to hold their breath long enough to have a measurable impact on CO2 levels would be doing a service to humanity. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 13:55 20
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    It’s the flat earth club!

    Don’t try to prove your theory with a homemade rocket! Or any wacky climate change denial science project ideas! LOL

    Stay safe and happy seeding.
    SO predictable I could write the responses myself. Rather than fact check anything that might not confirm your bias, just resort to the old standby of flat earth club and insults. Thanks for being reliable. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 14:27 21 I only keep repeating myself because you and your club members keep repeating your bizarre unscientific theories and untruths.

    Dangerously low CO2 levels is wacky idea. They were significantly lower in the mid 1800s and have been rising ever since. But don’t let scientific facts get in the way of your thinking!

    If CO2 is dangerously low and cooling is occurs wouldn’t the glaciers in the Rockies be growing? They are still shrinking!

    The Human caused climate change period of the last 170 years or so iS the period most relevant to the increase in CO2 levels and human impact.

    All other eras prior to this period are irrelevant to measuring human impact. Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 14:38 22
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    I only keep repeating myself because you and your club members keep repeating your bizarre unscientific theories and untruths.

    Dangerously low CO2 levels is wacky idea. They were significantly lower in the mid 1800s and have been rising ever since. But don’t let scientific facts get in the way of your thinking!
    So there you have it folks. Any scientist who dares to point out the evidence of much higher CO2 levels in earths geological history is unscientific, speaking untruths, wacky, bizarre etc. Sounds like a good starting point to have an open rational scientific debate about the dangers of or unprecedented nature of our current dismal levels of CO2. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 14:41 23
    Quote Originally Posted by LEP View Post
    I would say there isn't enough heavy breathing going on in your house.
    Ache4acres hasn't yet responded to your suggestion. I assume that means that he is performing the experiment, and showing his true dedication to science, has had to repeat it over and over to get reliable repeatable results. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • May 23, 2020 | 15:12 24 If you are so worried about global cooling look up up what is the cause of the glacial periods. There are several factors. None of which is having a significant impact at the moment.

    Human caused climate change period data is the most important because the periods prior to human influence had millions of years of other causes. The earth is a few billions of years old. Do you think the billions of years of the planets history is relative to the last 170?

    Where do you think all the carbon from burning millions of barrels of oil and other fossil fuels is going? Is it all “just soot“ as you once said? LOL Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 15:38 25
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    If you are so worried about global cooling look up up what is the cause of the glacial periods. There are several factors. None of which is having a significant impact at the moment.

    Human caused climate change period data is the most important because the periods prior to human influence had millions of years of other causes. The earth is a few billions of years old. Do you think the billions of years of the planets history is relative to the last 170?

    Where do you think all the carbon from burning millions of barrels of oil and other fossil fuels is going? Is it all “just soot“ as you once said? LOL
    Well, thanks for clarifying that. So for millions of years, there were other causes, now there is just humans...
    And historical lack of corellation between CO2 and temp (97% of the time there has been no corellation) is not relevant today, only models.
    Got it. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • May 23, 2020 | 18:00 26 Never ever said it was just humans. Significant Natural changes Took place over 1000s and 10000s of years,a very different time scale compared to human caused changes since the industrial revolution.

    It’s a good thing we have you to explain the history of the worlds climate in a few sentences. All those 1000s of climate and geo scientists I guess there not needed. It can all be explained by a small group of skeptical farmers who barely understand the difference between weather and climate. LOL
    Last edited by chuckChuck; May 23, 2020 at 18:15.
    Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 18:26 27 I hope you got something done today? Thanks to auto steer I got 250 acres seeded while chatting with you listening to music. Sure makes the day go faster.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; May 23, 2020 at 18:31.
    Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 20:26 28 Chuck I sense you are in favor of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

    Assuming you ran a scandal free campaign and were elected leader of the world, how would you reduce CO2
    levels without causing world economies to slow down, which would lead to more poverty and deaths, remembering what this present slow down has done.

    A natural reduction of oil use through progressive taxation would only be a slower death for many.

    There are more people, some high profile, rolling off the climate change band wagon.

    Do you think you will ever at some point in time really start to question this movements validity and the wealth transfer that is taking place under the guise of climate cooling/warming . . . .they made sure to cover both directions, that way the probability of being wrong is very close to zero.

    If some liberal MP's came forward and said the carbon dioxide tax was a hoax, would that start some skepticism in your thinking or would the UN have to admit their scientists have miscalculated the effect of CO2 on global warming/cooling or what if Al Gore said it's all a scam. What would it take?

    Or would you and a small group of diehards still be on the battlefield hill swinging your empty guns. Reply With Quote
    May 23, 2020 | 20:31 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    I hope you got something done today? Thanks to auto steer I got 250 acres seeded while chatting with you listening to music. Sure makes the day go faster.
    ....u bet! 👍
    Name:  index.jpg
Views: 655
Size:  6.7 KB Reply With Quote

  • May 24, 2020 | 00:29 30
    Quote Originally Posted by rumrocks View Post
    Chuck I sense you are in favor of reducing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

    Assuming you ran a scandal free campaign and were elected leader of the world, how would you reduce CO2
    levels without causing world economies to slow down, which would lead to more poverty and deaths, remembering what this present slow down has done.

    A natural reduction of oil use through progressive taxation would only be a slower death for many.

    There are more people, some high profile, rolling off the climate change band wagon.

    Do you think you will ever at some point in time really start to question this movements validity and the wealth transfer that is taking place under the guise of climate cooling/warming . . . .they made sure to cover both directions, that way the probability of being wrong is very close to zero.

    If some liberal MP's came forward and said the carbon dioxide tax was a hoax, would that start some skepticism in your thinking or would the UN have to admit their scientists have miscalculated the effect of CO2 on global warming/cooling or what if Al Gore said it's all a scam. What would it take?

    Or would you and a small group of diehards still be on the battlefield hill swinging your empty guns.
    You are wasting your time, I've asked similar question, about his line in the sand. The response seems to indicate that there is none, as is to be expected from an idealogue. Like any adherent to a religious cult, you don't dare question the belief.

    On the other side of the equation, if you ask any realist what evidence it would take to change their mind, they will have a reasonable answer, likely with a quantifiable metric, and within a short time frame. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like