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

Commodity Marketing

Tools

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

Sep 1, 2020 | 20:12 31 Chuck you realize the computer models they are using to predict the future are based on conjecture? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 1, 2020 | 23:50 32
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Humans are going to keep releasing CO2 for the foreseeable future. The goal is not to let it get out of hand and bring it down to around 350. You are worrying about an issue on a geological time scale of 1000s of years which may never be an issue.
    Crops are average to better than expected.
    Thanks for the crop report. Is that representative of the broader area, or just your own? Better than expected given the challenging year, or better than long term average?

    You made an interesting response.
    You apparently did not do your homework, since you think this won't be a concern for "1000's of years"

    So either A), you think we have adequate fossil fuel reserves to last that long,
    or B), You think the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of 1000's of years,
    Either way, we would have nothing to worry about if either or both was true.
    Unfortunately, the science does not support scenario B, but I really do wish you would look up the actual answer, since that detail really is quite important, it must already be known very accurately, judging by the models and projections.

    At this time, we have no way of knowing if you are correct about A), but maybe you know something the rest of us don't? It seems improbable, and if it is true, it will require some highly unconventional and so far unknown extraction methods.

    And while you are researching the residence time of CO2, you are bound to run across the Charney sensitivity of CO2, please let us know how precisely known that is today. After all, there is no way politicians would be spending billions if we only guess the sensitivity to within a few hundred percent would they? Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 07:20 33 https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

    Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years. According to State of the Climate in 2019 from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society,

    In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.

    And A5 you don't seem concerned at all! Instead you bring up an argument that were are going to short of CO2 in the atmosphere? Whaaaat? Where is the science to back up this bogus concern?

    Name:  BAMS_SOTC_2019_co2_paleo_1000px.jpg
Views: 248
Size:  86.2 KB
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 2, 2020 at 07:29.
    Reply With Quote

  • Sep 2, 2020 | 09:24 34 Chuck, what thread are you responding to? Do you even keep track of what you are arguing about? We are talking about the "post carbon economy", which will happen sooner or later, either by finding a more sustainable energy source than hydrocarbons, or by running out of them. Usually one of your favrourite topics, and nearly all of your arguments on this topic typically involve future tense, what is going to happen, according to disproven models, not what really is. And in response to our discussion about the future you foresee, you are now stuck in the past, posting graphs of what once was, as if the trend will continue ad infinitum.

    And you accuse everyone else of having their heads in the sand. Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 09:33 35
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    We are talking about the "post carbon economy", which will happen sooner or later, either by finding a more sustainable energy source than hydrocarbons, or by running out of them.
    Never gonna happen. Discussion over. Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 09:49 36
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    Never gonna happen. Discussion over.
    Aren't you full of optimism today.

    If we continue to pursue the unsustainable path Chuck has us on, using unreliable energy backed up 100% by fossil fuels, then you are right. There will be no "post carbon" economy, because we will eventually run out of our finite supply of fossil fuels, and have nothing prepared to replace them, and society and the economy will collapse, taking population with them, problem solved.

    I'm not quite that pessimistic. Eventually, the adults will prevail over the Chuck's, and practical solutions will be implemented before we run out.

    Now, can you help Chuck find the settled science answers I have been requesting, he is trying very hard, but seems to be on a wild goose chase.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 2, 2020 at 09:52.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 10:00 37 I don't like getting on these threads but if this so called electric vehicle craze takes off shouldn't someone be doing an electric grid study to see if it is possible....

    And where is the hook up for my tractors coming from when they are electric...a pole at every field what if neighbours are working the same general area and need to plug in.....then of course there are are the odd power outages...

    Just saying ...I don't need to be called stupid ....I can admit that on my own ....but there is alot missing for this new future that people really don't understand. Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 10:10 38 There will always be enough CO2 and carbon. Has always been, will always be. Plants grew for millions of years before the internet, will grow millions more after.

    Humans at this point are just a bad blip in history and most likely short lived. (At least we can hope) Reply With Quote
    Sep 2, 2020 | 10:16 39
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    And A5 you don't seem concerned at all!
    Nope, not concerned in the least

    Name:  EETqIAEUYAE7rmF.jpg
Views: 217
Size:  95.6 KB Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 07:19 40 A5 why did you give up on defending your nonsensical idea that the world will be short of CO2 in a few thousand years of lower CO2 emissions from fossil fuels? Where is the science to back up your concern that this is an issue? We are still waiting!

    You tried to side track the issue with some incoherent pedantic babble and ignore the graph that contained CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years up to 2019 which you called "graphs of what once was" . 2020 is not finished so its not likely that NASA is going to put 2020 data in just yet! But that graph was so last year! haha

    "the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."

    But A5 thinks we should worry about low CO2 levels? Nobody's biting for that piece of fiction! LOL
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 4, 2020 at 07:24.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 07:34 41
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    A5 why did you give up on defending your nonsensical idea that the world will be short of CO2 in a few thousand years of lower CO2 emissions from fossil fuels? Where is the science to back up your concern that this is an issue? We are still waiting!

    You tried to side track the issue with some incoherent pedantic babble and ignore the graph that contained CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years up to 2019 which you called "graphs of what once was" . 2020 is not finished so its not likely that NASA is going to put 2020 data in just yet! But that graph was so last year! haha

    "the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."

    But A5 thinks we should worry about low CO2 levels? Nobody's biting for that piece of fiction! LOL
    I am curious Chuck2 were humans around 3 million years ago to measure sea levels?! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 4, 2020 | 07:49 42 And what is the correct sea level anyway? Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Sep 4, 2020 | 09:05 43
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    And what is the correct sea level anyway?
    I hope you have a lot of patience. Chuck and I had this discussion about sea level rise last summer, it took (edit, 8 pages, and 1 full month), and 100's of posts, and countless insults, and names called and deflections, to finally have him do the research and find some reputable sources and come close to acknowledging that it has been relentless long before we started emitting CO2, has a signifcant natural component, that there is no acceleration, that any human component is highly uncertain ( 2000% uncertainty according to chuck's sources) etc. It was rewarding in the end, but took countless hours that I will never get back again. We might have made even more progress, but dml realized that Chuck was about to realize and reveal some very inconvenient facts and came just in time to save him.

    But it is an easy answer, the correct sea level, is the same as the correct temperature, and correct flora and fauna distribution, and CO2 concentration, and glacier sizes, all of which obtained some goldilocks panacea value at the cherry picked date at the end of the little ice age, and in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary, would have remained at that ideal value forever more if not for humans.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 4, 2020 at 12:08.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 09:30 44 Chuck, you have spent days researching this, and you still keep repeating the phrase "thousands of years". Where are you getting that from? Have you found a reputable source that claims the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 1000's of years to back up your claim?

    Just 2 simple questions that you need to answer so that we can move on with this discussion. What is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, and what is the exact Charney sensitivity.

    Since we have agreed that a post hydrocarbon ( I assume that is what you mean when you say post carbon), is inevitable(even if we disagree on the reason and the means of getting there), then we need to establish how urgent this issue will be, if at all urgent.

    We need to answer the first so we know how soon CO2 will fall back to preindustrial levels.

    We need to answer the second to know if we will also be dealing with significantly colder temperatures simultaneously. And if it is worth dropping CO2 levels, or what is the ideal CO2 level.

    There is no debate( and not coincidental) that crop yields, and drought tolerance, water use efficiency etc. have increased concurrently with CO2 levels, along with global greening, forest land encroaching on grassland, and grassland encroaching on deserts. All of which has allowed earth to feed an ever increasing population, with an ever richer diet, against all odds, and all past prognostications. At these population levels, and with this diet, we are now addicted to these ever increasing levels of CO2, just like we are addicted to fertilizers. And as Tweety points out, none of it is sustainable. So we need to figure out the most sustainable levels of the inputs we can control. And we can control CO2 in the atmosphere, the questions are, how fast will atmospheric levels fall if we reduce our output of CO2, and what other negative consequences will that have.

    So, if you could be so kind as to post the exact values of these two, then we can establish if your "1000's of years" is valid, or has some extra zeroes.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 4, 2020 at 12:21.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 10:24 45
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    I am curious Chuck2 were humans around 3 million years ago to measure sea levels?!
    I am surprised Hamloc that you would ask this question! Do humans need to be around to measure the geological history of the earth? Nope

    Countless posters on Agriville have in fact used the timelines of various epochs in earths history to try to prove that human caused climate change is not real. “ the climate has changed before” etc etc.

    Do you think NASA is making this all up? LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 12:18 46 Maybe if we all work together, we can keep chuck focused and on task this time. Instead of falling for his distracting rants, and going off on a tangent about sea levels, historical CO2, the reliability of NASA or LOL, let's cooperate to ignore his temper tantrum's and just keep asking the same questions

    Maybe we can get him to discover the answer in less than 8 pages and a full month this time.

    I'll try one simple question at a time.
    What is the source for your claim of "1000's of years" for CO2 levels to subside? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 4, 2020 | 12:37 47 easy one , al gore , of course Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 13:27 48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Maybe if we all work together, we can keep chuck focused and on task this time. Instead of falling for his distracting rants, and going off on a tangent about sea levels, historical CO2, the reliability of NASA or LOL, let's cooperate to ignore his temper tantrum's and just keep asking the same questions

    Maybe we can get him to discover the answer in less than 8 pages and a full month this time.

    I'll try one simple question at a time.
    What is the source for your claim of "1000's of years" for CO2 levels to subside?
    You tell us! You are the one who raised the stupid idea that our biggest problem is going to be falling CO2 levels with no shred of scientific evidence! Haha

    Surely you must have a forecast of CO2 levels based on our current emissions, our projected decline in emissions and the earths carbon cycle response!

    If not just make it up like your original half baked “problem”! LOl Reply With Quote
    Sep 4, 2020 | 13:41 49
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    You tell us! You are the one who raised the stupid idea that our biggest problem is going to be falling CO2 levels with no shred of scientific evidence! Haha

    Surely you must have a forecast of CO2 levels based on our current emissions, our projected decline in emissions and the earths carbon cycle response!

    If not just make it up like your original half baked “problem”! LOl
    Well, if there no shred of scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall, What would be the purpose of alternate energy, CO2 taxes, the war on fossil fuels etc? I thought your goal was to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2.
    You brought the 1000's of years to the discussion, where did you obtain such a precise figure? Surely you didn't just make it up?
    And now you are discussing baking, I won't be distracted by this latest deflection. Reply With Quote
    Sep 5, 2020 | 07:19 50 A5, Do you think NASA is making this all up?

    Are you going to accuse NASA of being a Marxists organization? LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 5, 2020 | 07:40 51
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    A5, Do you think NASA is making this all up?

    Are you going to accuse NASA of being a Marxists organization? LOL
    So you are saying that NASA is the source for a residence time of 1000's of years?

    Can you please post a link to that, I can't find it. Reply With Quote
    Sep 5, 2020 | 07:49 52
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    I am surprised Hamloc that you would ask this question! Do humans need to be around to measure the geological history of the earth? Nope

    Countless posters on Agriville have in fact used the timelines of various epochs in earths history to try to prove that human caused climate change is not real. “ the climate has changed before” etc etc.

    Do you think NASA is making this all up? LOL
    You do realize geology is the study rocks, the make up of the earths crust not the atmosphere? Let’s be realistic, to this day scientists still have many different theories about what happened to the dinosaurs, to the Mayan, Inca and Aztec civilizations. So yes they can study ice cores and extrapolate what they think the atmosphere was like but to say it as an absolute is balderdash! Just like the computer models about the future of our climate, the bias of the scientist creating the algorithm that creates the computer model certainly skews the result. So go ahead and insult me and call me a Neanderthal but in my opinion the best way forward is to look at our available resources, land base, land utilization and chart our path forward. Climate change has become a religion and renewables have become the only answer, such narrow thinking doesn’t end finding the best solution. Also remember the strongest proponents of climate change also say capitalism is a failed economic model and there must be greater government involvement in the economy(socialism, communism), probably the biggest reason I balk at the whole premise!!! Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 5, 2020 | 08:06 53 Geology is an earth science and was used as an example science based on research and data. You don't seem to have a problem accepting the science underpinning geology correct?

    Climate science is just another science. Why dispute the findings of climate scientists but accept the science of geology?

    You are the one politicizing science! A5 trys to distract us with bogus issues. Nobody is falling for it. Reply With Quote
    Sep 5, 2020 | 08:20 54
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Geology is an earth science and was used as an example science based on research and data. You don't seem to have a problem accepting the science underpinning geology correct?

    Climate science is just another science. Why dispute the findings of climate scientists but accept the science of geology?

    You are the one politicizing science! A5 trys to distract us with bogus issues. Nobody is falling for it.
    You didn’t address any of my points, not at all surprised. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 6, 2020 | 09:00 55 Why bother answering when posters don't believe in science or the science of human caused climate change?

    I have presented information from the top world class scientific institutions and you as a layperson with probably no particular expertise except in agriculture question their scientific conclusions about climate change? LOL Give us a break! Are you doing your own surgery! Or do you go to the highly trained and experience surgeon?

    Suggesting that humans needed to be around to measure sea level from prehistory shows you have a very weak understanding and low trust in science. Its the anti vaxers of climate change! LOL

    As I said its the anti science club on Agriville! Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 09:10 56 Chuck, you have high standards for evidence and expectations that it must come from reputable sources. Hold yourself to the same standard, and please let us know what reputable organization states that the residence time for CO2 is 1000's of years? Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 09:16 57 Why not ask a climate scientist or NASA?

    I am just a layperson like you with no particular expertise, but at least I can read and present evidence to backup my opinions unlike some posters who make up pure fictional problems without a shred of scientific evidence! LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 09:39 58
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Why not ask a climate scientist or NASA?

    I am just a layperson like you with no particular expertise, but at least I can read and present evidence to backup my opinions unlike some posters who make up pure fictional problems without a shred of scientific evidence! LOL
    Well, it appears that you made up a fictional figure about 1000's of years with no evidence to back it up, then when pressed to reveal the reliable source, you deflected.

    Surely science must know the answer to this question? And surely the answer must be simple enough for a layperson to understand, after all, it will be a number followed by the word year(s). Nothing that requires a doctorate in atmospheric physics to understand.

    The longer you delfect and delay answering, the more it appears that either:
    1) you found the answer but it doesn't agree with your beliefs
    2) You found the answer, but the range and uncertainty are so massive that it ruins your mantra about the science being settled
    3) You can't find the answer because scientists don't know it either Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 09:53 59 But you are still sticking to your assertion that our greatest problem is going to be low CO2 levels? LOL. Where’s your evidence for this very grande statement! I will leave it to the climate scientists to explain your pet obsession the residence time of CO2 and the projections for CO2 levels as we reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. And since you have no degree in climate science you would be well advised to do the same! Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 09:59 60 For those of you care about the residence time of CO2 like A5 read this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

    “It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.“

    A5 you still sticking to your grande illusion? LOL
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 6, 2020 at 10:04.
    Reply With Quote