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 6, 2020 | 10:08 61 So you are admitting that the requirement for scientific evidence is a double standard that only applies to anyone but you? You can make outrageous ficticious claims about CO2 with no sources at all?

Maybe you are right, and the CO2 we have released already will last for 1000's of years, and my concerns about levels declining back to pre-inustrials are unfounded. But until you provide the source for your claim, we don't know. Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020 | 10:13 62 Humans will be releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years. The carbon cycle will continue. And all that excess carbon released from the burning of millions of years of stored carbon in fossil fuels won’t just disappear in 5 years! Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020 | 10:33 63
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Humans will be releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere for hundreds if not thousands of years. The carbon cycle will continue. And all that excess carbon released from the burning of millions of years of stored carbon in fossil fuels won’t just disappear in 5 years!
So now you claim we have enough recoverable fossil fuels to last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Do you have a source for that? That is very reassuring if it is true.

So you have now narrowed down the residence time to somewhere between 5 years and thousands of years(but still no source). Do you think that estimated range is accurate enough to justify the actions being proposed? I I would have thought we would have a more precise value for CO2 residence time by now, considering how long the science has been settled already.
Do you think the mitigation efforts and the urgency are on the same scale if the answer is 5 years, vs if it is 1000's of times longer than that?
Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 6, 2020 at 10:39.
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020 | 11:16 64
Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
So now you claim we have enough recoverable fossil fuels to last for hundreds if not thousands of years. Do you have a source for that? That is very reassuring if it is true.

So you have now narrowed down the residence time to somewhere between 5 years and thousands of years(but still no source). Do you think that estimated range is accurate enough to justify the actions being proposed? I I would have thought we would have a more precise value for CO2 residence time by now, considering how long the science has been settled already.
Do you think the mitigation efforts and the urgency are on the same scale if the answer is 5 years, vs if it is 1000's of times longer than that?
Fossil fuels are not the only source of stored carbon and other greenhouse gases will also continue to be released. Agriculture and land use plus other industrial uses will have some impact on stored carbon.

But now that you have given up on the fallacy that the short residency of CO2 is a significant factor in human caused climate change, You can move on to other details that laypersons can’t answer? LOL

Why not just ask a climate scientist or look it up yourself? Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2020 | 11:16 65
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
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
In your highlighted article it states that the C02 in the atmosphere has the potential to warm the atmosphere for 500 years. That shows me that any changes we make will have little affect for possibly hundreds of years, money would be better spent on adaptation! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 6, 2020 | 12:39 66
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    In your highlighted article it states that the C02 in the atmosphere has the potential to warm the atmosphere for 500 years. That shows me that any changes we make will have little affect for possibly hundreds of years, money would be better spent on adaptation!
    We need to do both or risk out of control warming that melts the greenland and antarctiac ice sheets and raises oceans many feet.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 7, 2020 at 07:00.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 12:45 67
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Fossil fuels are not the only source of stored carbon and other greenhouse gases will also continue to be released. Agriculture and land use plus other industrial uses will have some impact on stored carbon.

    But now that you have given up on the fallacy that the short residency of CO2 is a significant factor in human caused climate change, You can move on to other details that laypersons can’t answer? LOL

    Why not just ask a climate scientist or look it up yourself?
    I was trying hard not to get distracted by your irrelevant side stories, but you have piqued my curiosity. What are these other sources of stoed Carbon (or do you mean CO2, i'm never sure, as you seem to think the two products are interchangeable?), that we can continue to release? That could solve the original dilemma if you have that answer.

    As for questions that a layperson can't answer, I was hoping you knew of an expert scientist who would be able to answer, since you as a layperson can only narrow it down to a range between 5 years and at least 1000 times longer than that. Surely the policy makers must have a more exact answer than that. After all, they are proposing to spend trillions, sacrifice the first world and our standard of living, that must be based on settled science? Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 12:49 68
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    We need to do both or risk out of control warming that melts all the ice sheets and raises oceans many feet.
    Do you really want to go through this all over again? We just spent 8 pages helping you learn about sea level rise. Please reread that thread before beating that dead horse again.

    Also, can you provide a citation for the claim of melting "all" the ice sheets? What credible scientific organization is claiming that as a reasonable possibility?
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 6, 2020 at 13:08.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 13:37 69 Let me rephrase that. Melting significant amounts of all the ice sheets. Which Is well underway at relatively modest amounts of warming. Backed up by all the major world class scientific organizations which you think are wrong. LOL
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 6, 2020 at 13:47.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 13:44 70 All ice sheets are losing mass, some more than others. You can read about it here :

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html Reply With Quote
    Sep 6, 2020 | 17:09 71
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    All ice sheets are losing mass, some more than others. You can read about it here :

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
    I don't know why I continue to let you distract me from the topic at hand. But did you bother to read the article you posted?

    You say ALL ice sheets yet again. Do you know how many ice sheets there are on earth? A total of 2. And as per the article which appears to be ~13 years old, only one is losing ( with caveats), and they don't know about the other one( lots of scientific debate about Antarctic cooling, and net ice gain but that is a subject for another thread). All they say is :
    some stations appear to be cooling slightly. Overall, scientists believe that Antarctica is starting to lose ice,
    There is that believe word you are so fond of again. So policy is not only being based on CO2 residence time which you don't have any idea what the range might be, but it is also being based on someones belief, how reassuring.

    Nowhere does it substantiate your bewilering claim that all of the ice sheets will melt.

    This is what passes for settled science.

    Do you just put up the first sciency sounding article you find on google, and hope it has some relevance? Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Sep 6, 2020 | 21:50 72 poor chuck , god damn details, lol Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 06:41 73 A5, you are wrong again on ice sheets! At least you are consistent. LOL

    And yes "all" meaning the 2 major ice sheets greenland and antarctica are both losing mass.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

    Antarctica ice sheet is losing 148 Gigatonnes per year on average.

    Greenland is losing 279 Gigatonnes per year on average.

    Data from NASA's GRACE and GRACE Follow-On satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower chart) have been losing mass since 2002. The GRACE mission concluded science operations in June 2017.

    GRACE Follow-On began data collection in June 2018 and is now continuing the mass change data record for both ice sheets. This data record includes the latest data processing improvements and is continually updated as more data are collected (with a lag of up to two months).
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 7, 2020 at 07:15.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:14 74 A5 we are all waiting for you to spin the ice sheets mass loss into a bogus denial claim! LOL

    In the meantime when are you going to post any science from a credible scientific organization to back up your opinions? You seem to be a big talker but you never seem to have any backup for your wacky denial ideas!

    Instead you like to nitpick and distract to avoid the meat of the issue. Its not working! LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:30 75 Chuck you should move on, find a new pet project to make yourself important. Obviously you aren’t a farmer so your cut and paste environmental spew has no value to most on here. In fact farmers are great friends to the environment so Im not sure what your purpose is,. I think the very few on here would appreciate you much more if you were somewhere else. So if you are thinking of moving to another forum to spend some time it was nice having you here and good luck over there. Reply With Quote

  • Sep 7, 2020 | 07:34 76 Nice try bread. Try coming up with a credible counter argument on human caused climate change!

    Many farmers are concerned about the environment but many don't care much and will criticize every little move to protect the environment.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 7, 2020 at 07:39.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:37 77
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    A5 we are all waiting for you to spin the ice sheets mass loss into a bogus denial claim! LOL

    In the meantime when are you going to post any science from a credible scientific organization to back up your opinions? You seem to be a big talker but you never seem to have any backup for your wacky denial ideas!

    Instead you like to nitpick and distract to avoid the meat of the issue. Its not working! LOL
    Interesting article:nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops.

    As for your concern about glacial melt, it would seem very logical that since the end of the last ice age that glacial sheets would continue to retreat, and to end it like you Chuck lol! Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:49 78 I have never denied that increasing CO2 levels will be of some benefit to some types of crops in some regions but corn tells a different story.

    "According to the study, the impact of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations on crop water productivity and yield varies regionally. Results show that maize suffers yield losses with doubled carbon dioxide levels, due in large part to the plant’s already greater efficiency at using carbon dioxide for photosynthesis compared with the other crops. Maize yields fall by 15 percent in areas that use irrigation and by 8 percent in areas that rely on rain. Even so, losses would be more severe without the carbon dioxide increase: yields would decrease 21 percent for irrigated maize and 26 percent for rainfed maize."

    Are you going to post research that discusses all the positive and negative impacts of climate change and accept the conclusions or are you going to be selecting only the positive changes and conclusions? Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:51 79
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    if these whacked out chrysters were ever to pull this "zero carbon" pipe dream ??????
    we need a lot more now than the earth needed a hundred thousand years ago
    Hang up your stocking for Christmas and hope Santa brings you a lump of coal or a jar of tar. Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 07:59 80 Nobody cares Chuck they are just baiting you!!! You really are stupid just like a cat chasing a laser light. You do realize the farmers on here can't control Trump or the Environment.... Reply With Quote

  • Sep 7, 2020 | 08:56 81 Don’t worry Bread I don’t mind. It’s good fun pointing out how lame the climate change deniers arguments are. A5 works very hard to try to post denialist tidbits and then provide no credible science To back them up! LOL Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 09:00 82 And just what is the correct amount of ice on Greenland and Antarctica anyway? Reply With Quote

  • Sep 7, 2020 | 09:05 83
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    And just what is the correct amount of ice on Greenland and Antarctica anyway?
    The amount that doesn’t melt and flood all the major coastal cities in the world! Reply With Quote

  • Sep 7, 2020 | 09:15 84 According to some models at the maximum of the last ice age the oceans were 120 meters lower than they are now.
    The oceans have been rising ever since and it seems logical will continue to rise.
    People will have to move.
    In the last 20 years it is thought 930,000,000 people were added to the world's urban population.
    There is plenty of time to move people out of harms way. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Sep 7, 2020 | 09:23 85
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    The amount that doesn’t melt and flood all the major coastal cities in the world!
    ha, they did a study showing the earths crust without the ice sheet on it is rising faster than the oceans. Parts of the northern hemisphere have risen half a meter in the post glacial period.

    another hoax debunked. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 7, 2020 | 10:29 86
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    And just what is the correct amount of ice on Greenland and Antarctica anyway?
    The amount that doesn’t melt and flood all the major coastal cities in the world! Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 10:32 87
    Quote Originally Posted by jazz View Post
    ha, they did a study showing the earths crust without the ice sheet on it is rising faster than the oceans. Parts of the northern hemisphere have risen half a meter in the post glacial period.

    another hoax debunked.
    And Why is southern Florida and Miami experiencing increases in the risk of flooding? Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 10:38 88 Maybe the cities and the people that built them are wrong and they should not of built that close to the ocean, the water was on earth way before humans. Humans don’t control global heating or cooling the sun does. Reply With Quote
    Sep 7, 2020 | 10:45 89 https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ity-worldwide/

    Miami-Dade County and the Tampa Bay region will feel some of the greatest effects from rising seas, for example, which are projected to gain between 8 and 12 inches in elevation by 2040. Nearly a half-million Floridians living less than 3 feet above current high-water levels could experience regular flooding, experts said, threatening $145 billion in real estate value.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 7, 2020 at 10:48.
    Reply With Quote

  • Sep 7, 2020 | 10:47 90 Most of the posters on this forum grow crops on what used to be an inland sea, do you think humans made the water disappear. 🧐 Reply With Quote