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?

Aug 31, 2020 | 07:55 1 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 Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020 | 08:12 2 Buy it from Agrium,just like sulphur. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Aug 31, 2020 | 08:13 3 When everyone poor enough back to burning wood I guess. Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020 | 08:16 4 Cost me five grand for a nice wood stove in March, I’ll be nice and toasty when people can’t even buy toilet paper. Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2020 | 08:33 5 I've been burning grain for the last 15 years. 80 bushels a winter. Do the math. Still use some natural gas, but not much. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Aug 31, 2020 | 08:43 6 First of all, don't lower yourself to Chuck's level or IQ, it is CO2 he is supposed to be paranoid about, not elemental Carbon, even though he gets it wrong every time, and fails to comprehend that they aren't the same thing.
    But you bring up a very valid point. Earth has benefited to greatly from these slightly elevated levels of CO2, and eventually, we will have liberated all the easy sources ( burning hydrocarbons, even after we have moved on to more sustainable energy sources, we will likely have to keep burning hydrocarbons just to liberate the CO2), and have no cheap, non energy intensive ways to maintain levels high enough to feed the high population.
    There is very little academic work on this topic, yet this should be a much higher priority than figuring out how to eliminate CO2.

    Just trying to figure out what level would be ideal from a sustainability point of view ( ie. the energy required to release is and the amount of source rock available), compared to the benefits of ever higher levels, hasn't hardly been considered. Given the logarithmic relationship of temperature with CO2, those benefits peaked out almost 200 ppm ago, so that is irrelevant from here forward, plants continue to be net beneficiaries at many multiples of today's concentration,and it doesn't become even slightly harmful to humans until above 10,000 ppm.

    Figuring out what level we should maintain, and how to do it should be our first priority, even before we worry about what energy source is coming next, in fact we may need to design our next energy source around this most important goal.

    Regarding winter wheat, CO2 at 968 proves to be optimal, but benefits from levels much higher when compared to our current starvation levels.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26253981 Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Aug 31, 2020 | 08:50 7
    Quote Originally Posted by 6V53 View Post
    Buy it from Agrium,just like sulphur.
    Actually, that is an even bigger issue. Nearly all of the Sulphur we currently use as fertilizer comes from fossil fuels, sour gas and sour oil. As one U of C professor puts it, this is what keeps him up at night, how do we replace this vital nutrient without oil and gas extraction?

    In fact it is already an issue. Thanks to the frac'ing revolution, we are no longer pursuing sour formations. Sour gas plants in this area which have been shipping out sulphur for decades are switching over to processing only sweet gas. The local residents certainly aren't complaining, but the residents of planet earth may eventually take exception.

    In fact, our grey wooded soils are chronically short of S. Back when flaring and emissions were common from all the sour wells and processing, the deficiency wasn't as noticable. We cleaned up our industry, and now need to add copious amounts of S to grow canola or alfalfa. Our health likely appreciates it though.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Aug 31, 2020 at 09:22.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Aug 31, 2020 | 09:03 8
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Actually, that is an even bigger issue. Nearly all of the Sulphur we currently use as fertilizer comes from fossil fuels, sour gas and sour oil. As one U of C professor puts it, this is what keeps him up at night, how do we replace this vital nutrient without oil and gas extraction?

    In fact it is already an issue. Thanks to the frac'ing revolution, we are no longer pursuing sour formations. Sour gas plants in this area which have been shipping out sulphur or decades are switching over to processing only sweet gas. The local residents certainly aren't complaining, by the residents of planet earth may eventually take exception.
    What??? We don't have unlimited resources easily accessed for everything our opulent lifestyle requires? Reply With Quote
    Aug 31, 2020 | 09:06 9
    Quote Originally Posted by TSIPP View Post
    Cost me five grand for a nice wood stove in March, I’ll be nice and toasty when people can’t even buy toilet paper.
    Exactly what I m doing Toasty and you can always use the bark!! Reply With Quote
    Aug 31, 2020 | 09:17 10
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    What??? We don't have unlimited resources easily accessed for everything our opulent lifestyle requires?
    Now here is something we can agree on. Nothing we do is sustainable. No resource extraction, no energy source, no agriculture etc. Yet we devote all of our energies to fighting CO2, while ignoring all the other actual elephants in the room. And in the process, we are finding "solutions" which are less energy dense, require more land area, more resource extraction of finite materials, instead of looking at the big picture.

    I have a lot of faith in human ingenuity, but finite is finite no matter how creative we are. Reply With Quote

  • Aug 31, 2020 | 10:05 11
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    What??? We don't have unlimited resources easily accessed for everything our opulent lifestyle requires?

    Soylent Green extracted from algae grown in recycled grain bags. All inputs supplied by Agrium. One pill will be equivalent to a whole turkey dinner.
    Last edited by 6V53; Aug 31, 2020 at 10:28.
    Reply With Quote
    Aug 31, 2020 | 14:22 12 Did you arm chair “geniuses” forget that there is a natural carbon cycle capturing and releasing carbon? Where is the evidence that we are going to run out of carbon.? LMAO.
    It’s the most common element on planet earth.

    Is it being lost to space? Not in any significant amount. The idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to maintain carbon is loony. The opposite is true which is we need to lower carbon emissions into the atmosphere to prevent out of control global warming and Climate change!

    And I know the difference between CO2 and carbon. The phrase low carbon is used to cover energy sources that don’t release CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Our science education must have really missed the mark with some of the class dullards! LOL Reply With Quote
    Aug 31, 2020 | 16:45 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Did you arm chair “geniuses” forget that there is a natural carbon cycle capturing and releasing carbon? Where is the evidence that we are going to run out of carbon.? LMAO.
    It’s the most common element on planet earth.

    Is it being lost to space? Not in any significant amount. The idea that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to maintain carbon is loony. The opposite is true which is we need to lower carbon emissions into the atmosphere to prevent out of control global warming and Climate change!

    And I know the difference between CO2 and carbon. The phrase low carbon is used to cover energy sources that don’t release CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Our science education must have really missed the mark with some of the class dullards! LOL
    Wow Chuck, I am really proud of you, you just acknowledged so many scientific facts all in one post. I am so proud. The science lessons have seemed so futile all this time, and the student so hopeless, and suddenly you just understood multiple simple concepts all at once. And you also discovered the shortcomings of our global warming indoctrination system formerly known as schools.

    Perhaps now that you have mastered some simple concepts, we can attempt to have a more technical discussion, rather than the typical flat earth and soot comments?

    Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, constantly sequestering and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. Most of it ending up buried in ocean sediment. Which is really fortunate for us, because a small amount of that sequestered Carbon eventually ended up as the hydrocarbons we use to power our modern society. And like virtually all chemical reactions, when you increase the concentration of the limiting reactant, the reaction increases, so unfortunately, by increasing our CO2 output, we are depleting our easily available reserves even faster. At 280 ppm, the system was very close to being in balance, but at over 400, the earth is sequestering much more of what we continue to add, leaving less and less for our long term benefit.

    No one is concerned about running out of CO2 ( and certainly not worried about running out of Carbon, the 15th most abundant element on earth) on any human time scale, although on geologic time scales, atmospheric concentrations are slowly headed for levels so low that photosynthetic life will cease to exist.

    What any rational, forward thinking person is concerned about, is that without burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels will quickly fall back to their preindustrial near starvation levels( and eventually, and inevitably, much lower), however, populations, and their expectation to maintain their current diets will not immediately fall back to preindustrial levels. This will be even worse if it happens to coincide with the next cyclical cooling event, which causes the oceans to naturally sequester more CO2 as they cool down.

    The challenge will be to continue to produce enough food without the very real, very measurable benefits of the slightly increased levels of beneficial CO2 that we have grown accustomed to, and one of the reasons why so many (all) previous apocalyptic predictions of humans demise have failed so miserably.

    We either need to find a way to maintain these elevated levels by liberating it from limestone, or we need to find a balance that stretches our predicted fossil fuel reserves out as long as possible to keep levels at the best compromise, until we figure out a better way. None of this is being discussed in official circles, no plans are being made, and we aren't even making an effort to decide what the optimal level might be. If fossil fuels are infinite, then we should likely aim for closer to 1000 ppm, if fossil fuels are nearly exhausted already, then 350 ppm or less is likely a good compromise. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • fjlip's Avatar Aug 31, 2020 | 17:57 14
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Wow Chuck, I am really proud of you, you just acknowledged so many scientific facts all in one post. I am so proud. The science lessons have seemed so futile all this time, and the student so hopeless, and suddenly you just understood multiple simple concepts all at once. And you also discovered the shortcomings of our global warming indoctrination system formerly known as schools.

    Perhaps now that you have mastered some simple concepts, we can attempt to have a more technical discussion, rather than the typical flat earth and soot comments?

    Yes, there is a natural carbon cycle, constantly sequestering and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans. Most of it ending up buried in ocean sediment. Which is really fortunate for us, because a small amount of that sequestered Carbon eventually ended up as the hydrocarbons we use to power our modern society. And like virtually all chemical reactions, when you increase the concentration of the limiting reactant, the reaction increases, so unfortunately, by increasing our CO2 output, we are depleting our easily available reserves even faster. At 280 ppm, the system was very close to being in balance, but at over 400, the earth is sequestering much more of what we continue to add, leaving less and less for our long term benefit.

    No one is concerned about running out of CO2 ( and certainly not worried about running out of Carbon, the 15th most abundant element on earth) on any human time scale, although on geologic time scales, atmospheric concentrations are slowly headed for levels so low that photosynthetic life will cease to exist.

    What any rational, forward thinking person is concerned about, is that without burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels will quickly fall back to their preindustrial near starvation levels( and eventually, and inevitably, much lower), however, populations, and their expectation to maintain their current diets will not immediately fall back to preindustrial levels. This will be even worse if it happens to coincide with the next cyclical cooling event, which causes the oceans to naturally sequester more CO2 as they cool down.

    The challenge will be to continue to produce enough food without the very real, very measurable benefits of the slightly increased levels of beneficial CO2 that we have grown accustomed to, and one of the reasons why so many (all) previous apocalyptic predictions of humans demise have failed so miserably.

    We either need to find a way to maintain these elevated levels by liberating it from limestone, or we need to find a balance that stretches our predicted fossil fuel reserves out as long as possible to keep levels at the best compromise, until we figure out a better way. None of this is being discussed in official circles, no plans are being made, and we aren't even making an effort to decide what the optimal level might be. If fossil fuels are infinite, then we should likely aim for closer to 1000 ppm, if fossil fuels are nearly exhausted already, then 350 ppm or less is likely a good compromise.
    Wow that is worth repeating AF5, you are right on the bit ! LIKE your answers! Reply With Quote
    edl
    Aug 31, 2020 | 18:03 15 Carbon can not be created or destroyed it just cycles around at one time all the carbon in the ground on earth was on the surface Reply With Quote

  • Aug 31, 2020 | 18:49 16 And before anyone picks it apart, yes that is a gross oversimplification. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 07:50 17 A5, Drought, extreme weather, and rising temperatures because of climate change will cut yields of basic food crops in many parts of the world. Especially in many poorer countries with large populations and less food security.

    Where is the credible scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall to levels that will reduce food production in any significant way if we don't burn fossil fuels? Show us the published peer reviewed research that raises this issue.

    Greenhouse gas emissions are at risk of rising to uncontrollable levels when methane and carbon will be released from the thawing arctic and antarctic.

    This is the issue that scientists are really worried about. Not declining yields because of low CO2 levels. We are at over 400ppm now with no sign that they are falling anytime soon. And even if they fall they will go back to levels that will well support food production and human life for many many generations. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 08:08 18
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    A5, Drought, extreme weather, and rising temperatures because of climate change will cut yields of basic food crops in many parts of the world. Especially in many poorer countries with large populations and less food security.

    Where is the credible scientific evidence that CO2 levels will fall to levels that will reduce food production in any significant way if we don't burn fossil fuels? Show us the published peer reviewed research that raises this issue.

    Greenhouse gas emissions are at risk of rising to uncontrollable levels when methane and carbon will be released from the thawing arctic and antarctic.

    This is the issue that scientists are really worried about. Not declining yields because of low CO2 levels. We are at over 400ppm now with no sign that they are falling anytime soon. And even if they fall they will go back to levels that will well support food production and human life for many many generations.
    Always future tense with your arguments.
    I apologize, I thought you finally wanted to have a rational discussion involving science. Did you even read any of this thread? Or comprehend it? Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 08:45 19 CO2 is the least of our problems with food production. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 08:55 20
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    CO2 is the least of our problems with food production.
    At 400+ ppm, very true. At pre-industrial levels, it is very much limiting. But since this level is well within our powers, what level should we be aiming for?

    Here is a good question for Chuck, Tweety etc. Since the science is settled, what is the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere. Or, how long would it take for CO2 to return to natural levels if we stopped emitting tomorrow? Holding the temperature constant for simplicity.

    After answering that simple settled science question, perhaps you can move on to what the settled science has concluded is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. Should be even easier.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Sep 1, 2020 at 09:04.
    Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 09:01 21
    Quote Originally Posted by tweety View Post
    CO2 is the least of our problems with food production.
    of course, real big shortage of grain out there, FFS
    are you still falling for the world going to run outta food shit ????????
    the ****suckers that are ****ing us on prices , they want more , so they can keep getting our grain for 1970 prices . Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 10:43 22
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    of course, real big shortage of grain out there, FFS
    are you still falling for the world going to run outta food shit ????????
    the ****suckers that are ****ing us on prices , they want more , so they can keep getting our grain for 1970 prices .
    You should ask A5 that because he is the one who began by suggesting we are going to be food short if CO2 levels don’t keep rising! Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 10:47 23
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    You should ask A5 that because he is the one who began by suggesting we are going to be food short if CO2 levels don’t keep rising!
    Thank you for confirming that you don't bother reading anything before responding. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 14:49 24 A5 which climate scientists are raising alarm bells about this potential decline in CO2? You would think if this is a legitimate near term or mid term Or long term issue that some climate scientists would be bringing it up in their models or at least be mentioning it. Again share with us the science that backs up your claims. Dont hide behind the idea that this is not on anybody else’s scientific radar.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 1, 2020 at 16:27.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Sep 1, 2020 | 16:08 25 https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

    Here is NASA’s look at CO2 and it’s long term role in Earths climate. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 16:16 26 From NASA:

    “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 before someone brings it up there is a relatively long lag time between CO2 concentrations and the effect on climate.

    As you can see low CO2 levels and global cooling are not the problem we should worry about. Look at NASA’s 800,000 year graph of CO2. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 16:27 27 Good job Chuck, in spite of being busy harvesting your crop on a dry sunny day, you took the time to go researching for the answers to my two simple questions about the settled science.




    And answered absolutely neither of them.



    But keep looking. This will keep you busy for a long time. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 16:29 28
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Good job Chuck, in spite of being busy harvesting your crop on a dry sunny day, you took the time to go researching for the answers to my two simple questions about the settled science.




    And answered absolutely neither of them.



    But keep looking. This will keep you busy for a long time.
    Where is your evidence? Dont give up so easily A5 with a non answer! LOL. Driving truck today. Some time between loads. Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 16:33 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Where is your evidence? Dont give up so easily A5 with a non answer! LOL. Driving truck today. Some time between loads.
    Evidence for what? I asked you what the residence time is for CO2, and what the Charney senstivity is. Both should be easy answers since the science is settled, and both are necessary to know to a great precision before we can figure out the solution to the bigger problems that started this thread. Do you end every sentence will LOL when speaking in person?

    Edit, how are the crops? Reply With Quote
    Sep 1, 2020 | 17:24 30
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Evidence for what? I asked you what the residence time is for CO2, and what the Charney senstivity is. Both should be easy answers since the science is settled, and both are necessary to know to a great precision before we can figure out the solution to the bigger problems that started this thread. Do you end every sentence will LOL when speaking in person?

    Edit, how are the crops?
    Evidence from the scientific community that this issue is more important than The negative impacts of human caused climate change! Surely there must be some science out there to back up your idea that we are going to need fossil fuel emissions to maintain optimal CO2 levels!

    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.

    I think the reason why you aren’t providing any scientific backup is that it doesn’t exist. This is not on the radar because it is not an issue amongst scientists for the foreseeable future. It’s your version of we should worry about going into another ice age. Typical climate Change denial Fodder for the uninformed!

    Crops are average to better than expected.
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Sep 1, 2020 at 17:36.
    Reply With Quote