Food from thin air!

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
Unfortunately this is a completely inaccurate article.
This is microbe based food. It's not free nor is it really from air and the concept of using carbon capture rather than carbon diversion actually makes it impossible to be "carbon neutral" as they claim(also very inefficient).
While being able to generate a tasty bacteria/microbe based wheat analog with very little local resource requirements beyond water and co2 is awesome for poorer countries this type of product is nowhere near as CO2 neutral or as economical as claimed.

Honestly think about it from this point of view... the more steps required to actually produce a thing the more cost and more waste is required.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,362
While being able to generate a tasty bacteria/microbe based wheat analog with very little local resource requirements beyond water and co2 is awesome for poorer countries
Maybe more for rich countries with little arab land (Japan/petrol-desert heavy one, spatial station) than poor countries.

Solar Foods is also working with the European Space Agency to supply astronauts on a mission to Mars after devising a method it says creates a protein-heavy product that looks and tastes like wheat flour at a cost of €5 (£4.50) per kilo.

$6 US for raw cost of wheat is quite a lot, the current price of wheat after profit is currently around 0.18$ a kilo.

Regular wheat is around 13% protein, so for $6 US of it you would have much more of them I think.
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,222
This sounds about as real as that one Californian company that claims to make plastic from sucking air out of a pipe on their roof. Sort of strange how they used massive quantities of natural gas as well, like most of the plastic was being made from it.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,287
This sounds about as real as that one Californian company that claims to make plastic from sucking air out of a pipe on their roof. Sort of strange how they used massive quantities of natural gas as well, like most of the plastic was being made from it.
Now now, let’s not let facts get in the way of a feel good story
 

Susquehannock

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
4,268
Made from "CO₂, water and electricity" you say? Hmmm ... tell me where that is free.

Does 'thin air' make diet food? If so gimme some fat air food. Should be far more tasty.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
Not all cows are destined for meat production, there is an estimated 9 million dairy cattle in the US alone.
That is fine with me, that makes ice cream, yum yum.

Now since Methane is like 28x more heat absorbing than CO2, just convert Methane into CO2 and H20 and decrease the overall greenhouse effect, while increasing CO2 it will still decrease the greenhouse effect. CO2 is like fertilizer to plants to obtain the carbon atom for growth etc. Higher CO2 levels do lead to more plant growth as a by product besides being a greenhouse gas. Not all bad in other words. More plants -> more cows, more fishes, more steaks :).
 
Last edited:

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,222
That is fine with me, that makes ice cream, yum yum.

Now since Methane is like 28x more heat absorbing than CO2, just convert Methane into CO2 and H20 and decrease the overall greenhouse effect, while increasing CO2 it will still decrease the greenhouse effect. CO2 is like fertilizer to plants to obtain the carbon atom for growth etc. Higher CO2 levels do lead to more plant growth as a by product besides being a greenhouse gas. Not all bad in other words. More plants -> more cows, more fishes, more steaks :).

Not really sure how you're supposed to capture methane from cows.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
That is fine with me, that makes ice cream, yum yum.

Now since Methane is like 28x more heat absorbing than CO2, just convert Methane into CO2 and H20 and decrease the overall greenhouse effect, while increasing CO2 it will still decrease the greenhouse effect. CO2 is like fertilizer to plants to obtain the carbon atom for growth etc. Higher CO2 levels do lead to more plant growth as a by product besides being a greenhouse gas. Not all bad in other words. More plants -> more cows, more fishes, more steaks :).
The effects of methane in the atmosphere while technically correct are also incorrect as methane processes far faster than the original studies suggest. It's impact on the environment is much less than expected. Additionally once actual studies were done people found out that cows(nonfactory) actually are a major CO2 sink because Poop+Grass=Worlds greatest carbon sink(extremely oversimplified). Prairies are more efficient at capture and reduction than forests.

Also because well... I actually work with it. If you wanted to reduce methane and CO2 at once... Methanol. Permanent capture of CO2. Permanent irrevocable reduction of methane to a non greenhouse gas state. Additional effect of CO2 consumption greater than production or burning of the final product. Chemical alcohol production is often very efficient at removing CO2 forever.

------------
@LukeTbk
I think you misunderstood me. This product is not remotely economical and is likely even worse than their public figures suggest. The concept of an algae or bacterial wheat analog that doesn't taste like dogcrap is still worth exploring though. ANY proteins production is good when you consider there are still significant portions of the world population that suffer permanent degradation to their health via chronic protein shortage. Theoretically if they give up the ecowank nonsense and go straight for maximum efficiency they MIGHT actually make it economical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
The effects of methane in the atmosphere while technically correct are also incorrect as methane processes far faster than the original studies suggest. It's impact on the environment is much less than expected. Additionally once actual studies were done people found out that cows(nonfactory) actually are a major CO2 sink because Poop+Grass=Worlds greatest carbon sink(extremely oversimplified). Prairies are more efficient at capture and reduction than forests.

Also because well... I actually work with it. If you wanted to reduce methane and CO2 at once... Methanol. Permanent capture of CO2. Permanent irrevocable reduction of methane to a non greenhouse gas state. Additional effect of CO2 consumption greater than production or burning of the final product. Chemical alcohol production is often very efficient at removing CO2 forever.

------------
@LukeTbk
I think you misunderstood me. This product is not remotely economical and is likely even worse than their public figures suggest. The concept of an algae or bacterial wheat analog that doesn't taste like dogcrap is still worth exploring though. ANY proteins production is good when you consider there are still significant portions of the world population that suffer permanent degradation to their health via chronic protein shortage. Theoretically if they give up the ecowank nonsense and go straight for maximum efficiency they MIGHT actually make it economical.
The general impression that C02 is bad, with no relevance to the whole cycle is garbage. Without C02 in the atmosphere, virtually all life on this planet would die. Reducing C02 dramatically in the atmosphere would reduce food production throughout the world which most likely would cause mass starvations. Reducing C02 would also cause a colder climate making crop production and where you can grow things decrease.

The C02 levels during the Jurassic period was 5x higher than it is today at times. 5X! The climate from equator to the poles were much less severe, more consistent, whole areas now covered with ice were flourishing with animal and plant life. Comparing the amount of life then and now, we would look like a dying planet. In a weird sort of way, by using fossil fuels (carbon locked up in crude and coal from life long ago) we are putting back into the air that was taken out. What is the correct balance, right amount of C02, Methane etc.?

Then it goes into how much real difference can one country do while the rest or large number of other countries do little? Destroy your own economy, people lively hood for no real difference in the outcome.

With zero scientific study or even evidence, the forest fires in California were blamed on climate change, not the total lack of forestry control that use to be in California where wide fire breaks were maintained, old trees were moved, areas thinned out, fire fighting dirt roads maintained. When there is a heat wave, or cold wave or hurricanes (not too many here in Florida, what does that mean -> more C02 is better??? :D) it is due to climate change. Ahmmm climate changes all the time.

Anyways, if Methane is removed from the atmosphere to make more C02 -> More food can be made from air. More fossil fuels burned, more food can be made from air. More cows -> more food from air -> more steak :D and Ice Cream :D
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
This is a bit off topic for this thread but there are some misunderstandings that just really need to be addressed.
The CO2 issue isn't quite what you think. While yes there have been periods in earths history where there have been far higher amounts in the atmosphere the issue is where it came from, how long it took to get in the atmosphere, and a complex web of other factors. The issue is we know we've added CO2 that isn't part of the natural climate cycle. We don't know what that is going to do. People have attempted models but frankly my own experience with hydrosphere models alone tells me there are compounding errors and missing variables. That doesn't change what we can assume though or that simple physics tells us we've changed something as a species to the planets normal processes and that this change is not going to automatically be good for us. Smart people bet on bad because then they don't get surprised by it.

CO2 is actually not as important to growth patterns as you assume. That is a horrifically oversimplified meme. Warmth has considerably more impact on growing seasons and yields. A shift of 5C would add an entire crop harvest to Canada for example.. though at the same time many crops which might have grown in Texas... suddenly wouldn't be as viable or productive. It's weird. Complex as hell... and absolutely CANNOT be boiled down as much as people think.

California is.... California. They have a population so focused on doing eco centric things that few there really questions if it's actually ecologically friendly.
Their wildfires are not a result of forestry. They are mostly caused by dumbass humans and critically under maintained infrastructure. It is compounded by allowing developments in fire zones en masse. A few years back everyone talked about how bad the BC fires were... every news paper and every TV channel loved to talk about how horrible it was. What they neglected to mention is that year we had a normal fire season... and 114% more fires caused by humans(lots of camp fires and road fires). If you take a pack of city folk and get them to love nature... you'll get fires.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
This is a bit off topic for this thread but there are some misunderstandings that just really need to be addressed.
The CO2 issue isn't quite what you think. While yes there have been periods in earths history where there have been far higher amounts in the atmosphere the issue is where it came from, how long it took to get in the atmosphere, and a complex web of other factors. The issue is we know we've added CO2 that isn't part of the natural climate cycle. We don't know what that is going to do. People have attempted models but frankly my own experience with hydrosphere models alone tells me there are compounding errors and missing variables. That doesn't change what we can assume though or that simple physics tells us we've changed something as a species to the planets normal processes and that this change is not going to automatically be good for us. Smart people bet on bad because then they don't get surprised by it.

CO2 is actually not as important to growth patterns as you assume. That is a horrifically oversimplified meme. Warmth has considerably more impact on growing seasons and yields. A shift of 5C would add an entire crop harvest to Canada for example.. though at the same time many crops which might have grown in Texas... suddenly wouldn't be as viable or productive. It's weird. Complex as hell... and absolutely CANNOT be boiled down as much as people think.

California is.... California. They have a population so focused on doing eco centric things that few there really questions if it's actually ecologically friendly.
Their wildfires are not a result of forestry. They are mostly caused by dumbass humans and critically under maintained infrastructure. It is compounded by allowing developments in fire zones en masse. A few years back everyone talked about how bad the BC fires were... every news paper and every TV channel loved to talk about how horrible it was. What they neglected to mention is that year we had a normal fire season... and 114% more fires caused by humans(lots of camp fires and road fires). If you take a pack of city folk and get them to love nature... you'll get fires.
So should we make food from the air?

So are you saying that mankind in general is not a natural process of this planet? That what we do is not natural? That there is some other higher order that must be followed and mankind, in general, must be suppressed? Maybe not but we are part of the natural process and if we change the planet climate or can, goody for us if we can responsibly change it for the better. Would bacteria be considered unnatural on an earlier stage of this planet which changed C02 in the atmosphere with virtually zero Oxygen to an atmosphere with Oxygen? Of course not. We are as much a natural process as that bacteria that made Oxygen present in our atmosphere allowing other life forms to develop.

Yes previously when the earth was much more active in Volcanism, releasing a lot of C02 in the atmosphere, there were plenty for plant to covert C02 and make carbohydrates, process of photosynthesis, which without, animal life would die off, life flourished during those periods. What happened to all that C02 over the millions of years? The Carbon, C, got locked up in layers of sediments making Coal and Crude oil from life. Without Carbon in the Atmosphere we would not be able to survive or at least most of the life forms on this planet. Volcanism slowed way down, so release of C02 from that source became significantly less than earlier periods. Mankind re-releasing that Carbon in C02 allows access to that Carbon by plants and bacteria, circle of life. In general we are at lower levels of C02 for the history of this planet. The question should also be if man was not here, what level would C02 be at? At what point would there not be sufficient quantity of C02 to maintain a healthy lively planet? Ice ages also would most likely come about which also coincides with some of the lowest levels of C02 levels. Ice ages are rather detrimental to growing crops, animals and so on and for removing C02 since plant life becomes much more limited.

There is also natural balancing for C02 levels. As C02 levels rise so does plant life which will convert that C02 into Carbon and water. If the planet gets warmer like in the Jurassic period, with up to 5x the C02 levels and higher 02 levels, there were no polar ice, oceans were higher but yet there was more land mass available for life to thrive, meaning even more plants to convert C02 into 02 and Carbon. Since the planet was hotter, yet the temperature difference from the poles to the equator was minimal, not like today. The planet was more moist, more rainfall and actually more mild:
https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html

The current C02 discussion, end of the world etc. is way more political to gain power, control by groups then actual science or with a cursory if not fake understanding of the process. Can mankind be detrimental to themselves and the world in general, yes but a clear non political motivated research and data would have to be used. The corrupted data and how compiled and limited sphere of peer review with conflicting data, conclusions with politicians picking the ones they want to enforce with some controls like Carbon credits, which for some would get rich and powerful for not creating or making anything.

The question now comes to, should we remove C02 from the air and make food with it? Could that become very detrimental if significantly large in scope and actually reduces C02 affecting crop production and the natural current level of life on this planet? So far all predictions have been off, like the president polls, why would anyone listen now to the so called experts which are no experts at all and just spit out gibberish with ever changing predictions?
 
Last edited:

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
So should we make food from the air?

So are you saying that mankind in general is not a natural process of this planet? That what we do is not natural? That there is some other higher order that must be followed and mankind, in general, must be suppressed? Maybe not but we are part of the natural process and if we change the planet climate or can, goody for us if we can responsibly change it for the better. Would bacteria be considered unnatural on an earlier stage of this planet which changed C02 in the atmosphere with virtually zero Oxygen to an atmosphere with Oxygen? Of course not. We are as much a natural process as that bacteria that made Oxygen present in our atmosphere allowing other life forms to develop.

Yes previously when the earth was much more active in Volcanism, releasing a lot of C02 in the atmosphere, there were plenty for plant to covert C02 and make carbohydrates, process of photosynthesis, which without, animal life would die off, life flourished during those periods. What happened to all that C02 over the millions of years? The Carbon, C, got locked up in layers of sediments making Coal and Crude oil from life. Without Carbon in the Atmosphere we would not be able to survive or at least most of the life forms on this planet. Volcanism slowed way down, so release of C02 from that source became significantly less than earlier periods. Mankind re-releasing that Carbon in C02 allows access to that Carbon by plants and bacteria, circle of life. In general we are at lower levels of C02 for the history of this planet. The question should also be if man was not here, what level would C02 be at? At what point would there not be sufficient quantity of C02 to maintain a healthy lively planet? Ice ages also would most likely come about which also coincides with some of the lowest levels of C02 levels. Ice ages are rather detrimental to growing crops, animals and so on and for removing C02 since plant life becomes much more limited.

There is also natural balancing for C02 levels. As C02 levels rise so does plant life which will convert that C02 into Carbon and water. If the planet gets warmer like in the Jurassic period, with up to 5x the C02 levels and higher 02 levels, there were no polar ice, oceans were higher but yet there was more land mass available for life to thrive, meaning even more plants to convert C02 into 02 and Carbon. Since the planet was hotter, yet the temperature difference from the poles to the equator was minimal, not like today. The planet was more moist, more rainfall and actually more mild:
https://sciencing.com/climate-jurassic-era-4932.html

The current C02 discussion, end of the world etc. is way more political to gain power, control by groups then actual science or with a cursory if not fake understanding of the process. Can mankind be detrimental to themselves and the world in general, yes but a clear non political motivated research and data would have to be used. The corrupted data and how compiled and limited sphere of peer review with conflicting data, conclusions with politicians picking the ones they want to enforce with some controls like Carbon credits, which for some would get rich and powerful for not creating or making anything.

The question now comes to, should we remove C02 from the air and make food with it? Could that become very detrimental if significantly large in scope and actually reduces C02 affecting crop production and the natural current level of life on this planet? So far all predictions have been off, like the president polls, why would anyone listen now to the so called experts which are no experts at all and just spit out gibberish with ever changing predictions?
Ugh don't use that argument. I'm a scientist and an engineer. Yes we are not "natural" as "natural" is a colloquial term for "things not made by man".
I can categorically tell you that your sources of information on CO2 in history are significantly flawed. I'm sorry you don't understand the chemical processes involved. This is NOT a subject that is truly understandable by the average person. "Climate" science falls into a category that requires multiple fields working in conjunction that all traditionally didn't work together all that much. For example, if you only listen to chemists... you'll get wrong information because no chemist is also a physicist, biologist, or the numerous advanced fields required to understand biospheres and atmospheres in general.

I do not care about your political views on the subject. I take the practical view. We've undone something that took millions of years to do in the blink of an eye in a manner that typically would require a catastrophic event such as a meteor strike or a mega colossal eruption. We know these processes can be similar to other processes seen in labs and other planets such as Venus. We don't know enough to understand if we need to panic or not so we look at the data and conservatively react now rather than be f***ed later. I will say I am in the camp that says invent new instead of suppress old. Oil is not a devil. That doesn't mean I want to burn crude for fun either.

There is no "food from air". This product isn't new. Its been done before. It basically is a byproduct or farmed product using algae, bacteria, or simple microbes which is then dried and refined into a powder. This product apparently doesn't taste like raw horses ass so that's an improvement. It's still to expensive and not remotely carbon neutral or environmentally friendly no matter what hogwash they claim. The idea has merit though its just not close to being "game changing" yet.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
Ugh don't use that argument. I'm a scientist and an engineer. Yes we are not "natural" as "natural" is a colloquial term for "things not made by man".
I can categorically tell you that your sources of information on CO2 in history are significantly flawed. I'm sorry you don't understand the chemical processes involved. This is NOT a subject that is truly understandable by the average person. "Climate" science falls into a category that requires multiple fields working in conjunction that all traditionally didn't work together all that much. For example, if you only listen to chemists... you'll get wrong information because no chemist is also a physicist, biologist, or the numerous advanced fields required to understand biospheres and atmospheres in general.

I do not care about your political views on the subject. I take the practical view. We've undone something that took millions of years to do in the blink of an eye in a manner that typically would require a catastrophic event such as a meteor strike or a mega colossal eruption. We know these processes can be similar to other processes seen in labs and other planets such as Venus. We don't know enough to understand if we need to panic or not so we look at the data and conservatively react now rather than be f***ed later. I will say I am in the camp that says invent new instead of suppress old. Oil is not a devil. That doesn't mean I want to burn crude for fun either.

There is no "food from air". This product isn't new. Its been done before. It basically is a byproduct or farmed product using algae, bacteria, or simple microbes which is then dried and refined into a powder. This product apparently doesn't taste like raw horses ass so that's an improvement. It's still to expensive and not remotely carbon neutral or environmentally friendly no matter what hogwash they claim. The idea has merit though its just not close to being "game changing" yet.
Frankly I don't care what your paper hanging on the wall says. Good as toilet paper. It is you data, argument etc dealing with the subject at hand that counts. Anything else other than sound reasoning is BS.

You want people to just bow down because of a piece of paper will probably not work. Assuming people cannot understand because they don't have a piece of paper hanging is laughable.

I guess mankind is alien with your understanding and not a natural process on this planet. Ignore past historical C02 levels and climatic periods but prescribe to voodoo science and histaria. Like green new deal, for example, no fossil fuels, no cows at the extreme and than admitting not understanding really what is going on.

There is another aspect dealing with CO2 levels which never seemed to be analyzed is equilibrium level with a given introduction rate, remover rate is mostly determined by lifeforms which naturally increase with higher levels of C02.

Where is the coherit testable model for climate change? Does not exist, if it does let me know where.

Should we make food from air by depleting CO2 levels, taking it away from other food sources is a good question. Seems like most so called scientist don't even realize what they eat is only possible if you have C02 in the air. Yet think using that Crayon University degree has a significance in any argument.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,460
Cow eats grass and farts and burps about 440 pounds of methane per cow a year.

And so do people: https://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/citizenscientist/silent-but-deadly/. and there are about what 8 billion of us?

Now back to our regularly scheduled "amazing discovery that will change the world." Looks like, as others have pointed out, they are failing to account for where some of their "ingredients" come from. Plus it probably tastes like shit. Steak tastes amazing. And no no impossible burger or steak will EVER reach the level of prime beef or hold a candle to Japanese wagyu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
Wow, so much _____ in this thread..

Climate science deniers, random guy on forum is suddenly an "Expert" because "plant life requires CO2"...

Amazon rainforest is(was) a majority of the landmass in south Amercia. Great massive forest. Just one example of one. It was living and thriving just fine before humans rapidly added 2,000 Billion metric tons of CO2 into the air since the start of the industrial age. Rapidly on planetary timescales.
More CO2= more trapped heat = much much faster polar ice melting = more CO2 released from the dead stuff in the soil that has been under ice for millenia = more heat
It becomes self-propelling. For an example of a runaway greenhouse effect, see Venus. Go actually read up on it, you will figure out why this would be bad for Earth. Now, I do not think that Earth's atmosphere would run away to the extent as seen with Venus, but it will still be a huge hit for human life. To keep that from happening, earth would need all of it's CO2 eaters. But massive portions of the previously mentioned Amazon rainforest have been cut down or burnt down, just in the last few years. So while more CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, the natural processes that consume it are in decline.

Primary factors of climate change that will affect human life: Changing weather patterns.

Changing weather patterns will affect: freshwater for both drinking and farming.

This alone is reason to be very concerned. So with shifting weather patterns, the plains states could see year-on-year droughts (we've already seen this). Unabated, this means huge food shortages, which means rapidly increasing food costs, and for some parts of the world: war, death. Water will become the new oil and nations will go to war over it. States will go to war over it. Arizona is a desert, it might start getting year-round rain. But it's a sandy desert, so adding lots of water, doesn't mean the land will be suitable for farming. You will have water where you can't use it, don't need it, where it causes flooding and damage, and other areas that need that water, will have a drought. Sudden changes = bad. What we have now in planetary crust that millions of years of rain and weather have shaped, have deposited soil where it is good for growing, have filled underground aquifers with lots of freshwater. But those underground aquifers are being rapidly depleted, and they take centuries to refill. Go research California's aquifers to see what I am talking about.

Not to mention to longer fire seasons, that are no longer "seasons" but are year-round. Increasingly destructive weather events, with increased frequency.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere also increases to CO2 concentration in the oceans. This is in fact where much of the 2,000 billion tons has went. More co2 = greater acidity. Rapidly changing oceanic acidity means the lifeforms do not have the time to adapt, and instead many will go extinct. See the deaths of many barrier reefs, which is due to increased acidity. These are important pieces to ocean life.

Humans ARE a part of the global ecosystem, but we are not integral to it. These other lifeforms that are being rapidly affected, are integral. Life is a chain, the food-chain, and we need it to survive. Microbes and bacteria in the oceans feed the smaller lifeforms, which in turn feed the larger, which in turn feed the larger, all the way up to the fish that we eat. It starts are the bottom. If those bottom lifeforms die, everything else in the chain dies because they will run out of food. We are at the top of the food chain, not needed for any other life on earth to survive, except maybe poodles.

tl:dr The numbers of ways this rapid climate change can go badly are incalculable, but some amount of the impending trouble is already well known, well understood, and is coming no matter what. It's already too late to prevent it from ever happening. All we can do now is lessen the impact, so that your grandkids will not have as much of a shitshow to deal with.
5x C02 levels during Jurrassic period, planet did not turn into Venus. Biggest difference is life balances the levels. Did not run away, plant and animal life flourished. Your list is hysteria at best.

If the North Pole ice was turned into water, Ocean level would not change. ICE at the North Pole sits on top and displaces the water.

South Pole if melted, estimate is 200 foot rise in sea level, Greenland also holds a lot of ice, if that melts, add another 20 feet. The rise is both from the melted ice and the expansion of the hotter water. Many cities would be devastated, other areas under water yet overall planet would flourish in other ways. It would be a different world no doubt. South pole would support a wide range of animal and plant life with warm weather not much different than the equator.

The average planet temperature during the 5x C02 levels was 6F warmer than today, mostly the planet evened out in the temperture from equator to the Poles.

1 Allepo Pine tree will absorb 50 tons of C02 per year. 100 Allepo Pine trees in a city will absorb C02 from 103730 vehicles, a small town. Where is the plant tree strategy vice the obscene make food from air? Tax deductions for planting trees?
https://www.gotreequotes.com/how-much-co2-do-trees-absorb/

California gross mismanagement of their forresty, allowing fires to spread, is calculated to release 80% of the total C02 in a given year in California. The most restrictive state for Enviromental laws yet by far polluted the most due to negligence. Dead trees not removed, fire lanes not maintained, fire breaks not maintained, controlled fires not used to minimize a large spreading fires. Less trees to absorb C02 since now they are gone.

60% of the greenhouse gas is water except clouds refect light energy away from the planet which in a fashion cancels out the greenhouse gas effect of water.

There has been many climate changes, the worst ones was when the planet cooled off vice warmed up. Do I think the planet climate is changing due to people actions, yes I do. Is that climate change bad? It can be both good and bad, good in having food supplies, feeding people etc. Bad if it is not effectively managed, if real science is not used but political hacks use it to gain control and power.

Anyways looks like methane would be a more prudent greenhouse gas to control or manage and allowing C02 levels to go even higher to better feed the world. How warm do we want the planet to be? 1 degree, 2 degree? We are basically terraforming our planet in a sort of fashion.

As for making food from air -> this planet has been doing that for hundreds of millions of years.
 
Last edited:

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,362
1 Allepo Pine tree will absorb 50 tons of C02 per year. 100 Allepo Pine trees in a city will absorb C02 from 103730 vehicles, a small town. Where is the plant tree strategy vice the obscene make food from air? Tax deductions for planting trees?
Not sure what is obscene, but tree planting strategy are multiple:
https://liberal.ca/liberals-move-forward-to-plant-two-billion-trees/
So are tax credit effort:
https://forestsontario.ca/en/article/plant-a-forest-and-lower-your-tax-bill

All western country plant significantly tree than they cut I think and all have extensive tree planting policy, often run by making deal with forest industry (you can cut X tree if you plant 2X of them and so on)
The most restrictive state for Enviromental laws yet by far polluted the most due to negligence. Dead trees not removed, fire lanes not maintained, fire breaks not maintained, controlled fires not used to minimize a large spreading fires. Less trees to absorb C02 since now they are gone.
Over a long enough period of time I imagine that certain type of fire end up quite neutral, new tree growing in the place the previous fire (unlike say burning tree to make farmland), but emission and absorption timing matter.

Biggest difference is life balances the levels. Did not run away, plant and animal life flourished.
Speed of change is really important, if in less than 200 year's south dakota climate become arkansas climate that is asking a lot to acclimate for life (it will at some point but human do not work in those 10-100 thousand of year's timeline, from our point of view a bad 1000 year's is really bad)
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,362
So does a vegan liberal. Point?
well no human do not cultivate bacteria to digest cellulose in multiple intestins like ruminants:

A human direct methane emissions should under a pound I think, if you count their part of the natural gas industri/landfills and so on on maybe.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
Frankly I don't care what your paper hanging on the wall says. Good as toilet paper. It is you data, argument etc dealing with the subject at hand that counts. Anything else other than sound reasoning is BS.

You want people to just bow down because of a piece of paper will probably not work. Assuming people cannot understand because they don't have a piece of paper hanging is laughable.

I guess mankind is alien with your understanding and not a natural process on this planet. Ignore past historical C02 levels and climatic periods but prescribe to voodoo science and histaria. Like green new deal, for example, no fossil fuels, no cows at the extreme and than admitting not understanding really what is going on.

There is another aspect dealing with CO2 levels which never seemed to be analyzed is equilibrium level with a given introduction rate, remover rate is mostly determined by lifeforms which naturally increase with higher levels of C02.

Where is the coherit testable model for climate change? Does not exist, if it does let me know where.

Should we make food from air by depleting CO2 levels, taking it away from other food sources is a good question. Seems like most so called scientist don't even realize what they eat is only possible if you have C02 in the air. Yet think using that Crayon University degree has a significance in any argument
There is a fundamental flaw in your argument when you can only reference information and have none of your own.
The CO2 processes you have mentioned in this thread are just... wrong. All of them. A tree absorbing CO2? They don't really. Trees store it for a short period of time then die and release it. The only time a tree "takes" co2 from the atmosphere is when they die and get compressed during geological events or in areas with very specific biomass and terrain. Coal doesn't just appear everywhere... think about that. A tree in... say north west Texas or Florida will never become coal. It will never "trap" that Carbon with a physical process.

The CO2 levels in the Jurassic period also corresponded with a vastly different atmospheric composition. Oxygen was damn near 30%. Today its 21%. That will sound like "not that much" to you but to a scientist that's the difference between high CO2 inhibiting life vs enhancing life. Also plants REQUIRE oxygen as much as CO2. I don't know why the rank and file internet generation cant get it into their thick skulls that you cant stick a plant in a tank of CO2 and have it survive. It wont. It WILL die. CO2 increases without fundamental changes to the atmosphere WILL not be automatically beneficial. Temperature and water availability is the single greatest pair of factors with plant life existing or growing. Without those a perfect atmospheric mix will yield reduced results.

Additionally methane does not have anywhere near the greenhouse gas potential as the first idiots to calculate it said. The methane cycle is extremely short. Methane does not propagate through the atmosphere like CO2. Cows do not actually burp that much methane. The earlier studies have been greatly over exaggerated and just like autism and vaccines have been perpetuated by the uninformed who read the 2 lines a TV host reads rather than the report.

If you want to know why we cant model the climate very well then welcome to science. When we have to break down a problem to 10000 little ones because we physically do not have the computational power to calculate a hydrosphere let alone a climate. Hell we use SUPER COMPUTERS to calculate the weather and we BARELY have greater than 95% accuracy beyond visible sight. When a scientist(not a wacko) says "worry about this" we aren't saying we know. We are saying "Everything I CAN measure says this MIGHT be bad... and fixing it isn't going to actually hurt all that much so why don't we play it safe?" Think about it like Russian roulette. Sure if you play with more friends you MIGHT be safer... but not playing at all you WILL be safer.

To close the California wildfires are caused by human activity. Most significantly utility fires(10-15%), arson(5-10%), random acts of human stupidity(10-30%), and Lighting (5-15%). Percentages are their swing over time during different fire seasons. Forestry services cant stop dumbasses from using a campfire in a dry forest. Most actual forest fires start as grass fires in California. Prairie grass is basically tinder. Toss in spiny thistle(tumbleweeds) and its 10000% x as bad. Tumbleweeds cause more fires than you would believe possible and they bypass any human control measure currently deployed or invented. If someone lights one on fire with their tractor or truck(happens way more often than you think) you get a ball of burning fire that can travel at 70kmh in California wind. Please tell me how a forestry agent can do anything to stop powerline fires, human stupidity or dare I say.. the mighty spawn of Cthulhu that is the tumbleweed?
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
Thanks for the feedback.

Yes I am well aware of how plants use Oxygen for energy for their cells and when light is not available they will use 02 from the air. Overall plants produce more 02 than they use in general when C02 is converted by photosynthesis to basically make sugars. That Carbon, from plants is also consumed by animals, insects etc. and not just left on a tree which when it dies then all returns back into the air. Your right, it takes a rather long period of time, process for that Carbon to be locked away in sediment turning into coal and oil. Millions and millions of years. Volcanism on the planet reduced, introduction of C02 from that process reduced and over those millions of years resulting in Ice Ages. Thank God for man burning fossil fuels returning that Carbon back into the atmosphere locked up for millions of years :D. hmmmm
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mystery-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-ice.html

You might ask yourself, why with ~3-4 billion years of life on an estimated 4.5 billion year planet, with the sun luminosity increasing from 70% to now (more energy output received by Earth presently since formation); Why the Ice Ages only occurred recently in our planet history with a significant higher Sun luminosity level? Could the major contributing factor be the depletion of C02 in the air over millions of years due to the entrapment of sediment turning into Coal and Oil? Notice on below timeline, at the very top, near present time so to speak in the scheme of things Ice Ages.

Image1.png

So why was the 02 level so high during the Jurassic period? Briefly, it mostly, predominately, comes from life, bacteria and plants using C02 from air. What does 30% O2 levels tell you about the Jurassic period? Probably there was a shit ton of plants covering this planet producing a hell a lot of Oxygen! Some of those plants and animals over millions of years will deposit sediment locking in that Carbon from returning to the atmosphere. Even with increase sun luminosity, C02 levels declined, Ice Ages occurred. Life on a large scale died, plant life and animal life. The introduction rate of C02 due to volcanism would slowly build up C02 levels, millions of years, planet would warm, life will flourish, consuming more C02 then was being released from volcanism, C02 levels decreased and repeat. Now some would argue that volcanism can create Ice Ages, except why did that not occur earlier especially when the sun output was less? Thank God for mankind releasing C02, C02 that was previously in the atmosphere to begin with :D. A good thing! Now if that continue to be a good thing is the debate.

Dealing with Methane - Bingo! Conflicting conclusions just like CO2, no real working model but yet drastic measures must be taken, which also conflict with each and we end up with the New Green Deal insanity from idiots.

So you admitting we do not have an accurate model, present predictions are almost 100% wrong yet we are suppose to take action based on what? Plus since for the USA, that is a fraction of the population of the planet, would it even make any difference in the scheme of things? Wait, how would we know, since as you say, we can't even predict the weather beyond our sight so to speak. Yet we are suppose to do what? How would that be measured? No cows, no fracking, no fossil fuel usage (hey that is the platform put forth from some). Lets get rid of all C02 and kill the planet and evil mankind, just jesting.

I grew up in California, there was previously huge maintenance to prevent wild fires, there is absolutely no excuse for the spread this year what happened in California yet some blame it on Global Climate change which as you indicate is a tough problem to model and basically is not there yet. Yet I don't hear scientist arguing that point (need that money from those politicians is my assumption) correcting the false claims ignoring the very obvious.

Yes it will take scientist, honest hard working ones to identify the correct cause and effect, make a true working model, with a long term understanding and what actions can and should be taken to benefit not only Earth but Mankind in general.

As for OP article, food from air or protein. This is not even remotely new lol, it is almost embarrassing to read. Plants and even bacteria has been doing just that for billions of years. And the removal of C02 from the air, yep, been happening for billions of years.
 
Last edited:

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
Thanks for the feedback.

Yes I am well aware of how plants use Oxygen for energy for their cells and when light is not available they will use 02 from the air. Overall plants produce more 02 than they use in general when C02 is converted by photosynthesis to basically make sugars. That Carbon, from plants is also consumed by animals, insects etc. and not just left on a tree which when it dies then all returns back into the air. Your right, it takes a rather long period of time, process for that Carbon to be locked away in sediment turning into coal and oil. Millions and millions of years. Volcanism on the planet reduced, introduction of C02 from that process reduced and over those millions of years resulting in Ice Ages. Thank God for man burning fossil fuels returning that Carbon back into the atmosphere locked up for millions of years :D. hmmmm
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mystery-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-ice.html

You might ask yourself, why with ~3-4 billion years of life on an estimated 4.5 billion year planet, with the sun luminosity increasing from 70% to now (more energy output received by Earth presently since formation); Why the Ice Ages only occurred recently in our planet history with a significant higher Sun luminosity level? Could the major contributing factor be the depletion of C02 in the air over millions of years due to the entrapment of sediment turning into Coal and Oil? Notice on below timeline, at the very top, near present time so to speak in the scheme of things Ice Ages.


So why was the 02 level so high during the Jurassic period? Briefly, it mostly, predominately, comes from life, bacteria and plants using C02 from air. What does 30% O2 levels tell you about the Jurassic period? Probably there was a shit ton of plants covering this planet producing a hell a lot of Oxygen! Some of those plants and animals over millions of years will deposit sediment locking in that Carbon from returning to the atmosphere. Even with increase sun luminosity, C02 levels declined, Ice Ages occurred. Life on a large scale died, plant life and animal life. The introduction rate of C02 due to volcanism would slowly build up C02 levels, millions of years, planet would warm, life will flourish, consuming more C02 then was being released from volcanism, C02 levels decreased and repeat. Now some would argue that volcanism can create Ice Ages, except why did that not occur earlier especially when the sun output was less? Thank God for mankind releasing C02, C02 that was previously in the atmosphere to begin with :D. A good thing! Now if that continue to be a good thing is the debate.

Dealing with Methane - Bingo! Conflicting conclusions just like CO2, no real working model but yet drastic measures must be taken, which also conflict with each and we end up with the New Green Deal insanity from idiots.

So you admitting we do not have an accurate model, present predictions are almost 100% wrong yet we are suppose to take action based on what? Plus since for the USA, that is a fraction of the population of the planet, would it even make any difference in the scheme of things? Wait, how would we know, since as you say, we can't even predict the weather beyond our sight so to speak. Yet we are suppose to do what? How would that be measured? No cows, no fracking, no fossil fuel usage (hey that is the platform put forth from some). Lets get rid of all C02 and kill the planet and evil mankind, just jesting.

I grew up in California, there was previously huge maintenance to prevent wild fires, there is absolutely no excuse for the spread this year what happened in California yet some blame it on Global Climate change which as you indicate is a tough problem to model and basically is not there yet. Yet I don't hear scientist arguing that point (need that money from those politicians is my assumption) correcting the false claims ignoring the very obvious.

Yes it will take scientist, honest hard working ones to identify the correct cause and effect, make a true working model, with a long term understanding and what actions can and should be taken to benefit not only Earth but Mankind in general.

As for OP article, food from air or protein. This is not even remotely new lol, it is almost embarrassing to read. Plants and even bacteria has been doing just that for billions of years. And the removal of C02 from the air, yep, been happening for billions of years.
Thank you for taking a position of rationalism and debate.

The Jurassic period was interesting but it was more related to higher CO2+higher H20. There is suspected(we cant get weather reports from the past) to have been far more and thicker cloud cover as well. Water is always key. Humidity causes all kinds of things to suddenly be possible in an atmosphere because well... water is weird. What current scientists are saying in a nutshell is we cannot directly compare the same effects as we have not seen a slow heating which would introduce that water back into the atmosphere and cause a gradual warmup. What we have done is just dumped an entire extinction period into the atmosphere in 300 years. We DONT know if the biosphere will survive enough to MAINTAIN human civilization. Life? The biosphere wont care it will go on. Us? We are a species that has much power... but are tied to very specific things to maintain that power. Our food supply is actually very fragile and honestly the organic movement hasn't really helped that front. We know CO2 levels of the Jurassic period without the abundance of microbial life COULD be catastrophic to the groups of plants we absolutely need to survive. So yes. There is no certainty. In fact I will be honest that life surprises people more than any other phenomenon. I can tell you that in the area where I live the early predictions of the effects of climate change has been entirely backwards. We've had more moisture and its triggered an unprecedented verdant season. It's also shattered hundreds of years of farming knowledge and caused huge swaths of cropland every year to fail to suddenly new weather cycles. Just next door there are areas that benefit from this and areas that no longer have water suitable for cattle use due to lack of rain.

We know its going to disrupt human life. We know it has the potential to actually destroy our civilization(not life... key difference). We know the natural technology processes we were on were actually helping. Most scientists are simply saying lets accelerate that technology improvement and do a simple efficiency pass on society. I'm not talking about the econuts who think solar everything death to oil change your entire life to suit their narrative people. I'm saying the sane of us are saying build nuclear, accelerate car development to electric(it was going that way anyway), and try to shift our manufacturing to a more loop system that has responsibility for its waste(coke and glass bottles come to mind. Plastic bottles weren't made for YOUR benefit).

It's absolutely ok to doubt. The first rule of a scientist is "show me the data". No one who is actually worth listening to will ever trust anything without checking it first... and still doubting it afterwards. Cynicism of data has been lost by the younger generation of scientists imho so I will not try to tell you to listen to democrats' or liberals around the world. I've read some IPCC reports that had obvious data shaping going on and I've seen ones that were rock solid. I've also seen those same reports skewed by so much personnel politics it makes me sick. I know the information network everyone has access to is full of BS on both sides of this argument. The problem is the rational among us are still worried because those groups that have integrity and are actually backing up their results are not showing happy days ahead for humanity. All an old fart like me can do is ask that you consider being worried(not terrified) to and adjust what you can where you can.

-
I actually grew up in cali myself. North of Sacramento in fact. The fire issue is still people based. Cali is a really smart state run by really stupid people. It's a fire state where wildfires are common and expected so what do they do? Open development into fire zones. The state actually is one of the "three big" for forestry workers in the USA. Historically there hasn't really been a change there. I'm not sure where the push to blame them came from but its not backed up by any actual data anywhere. They've done the same job they've done since they started. The three things that have changed is the state has allowed people to build within fire zones far more freely than ever before, the power grid is so poorly managed it causes fires constantly, and tumbleweeds have continued to propagate across the state. Frankly the dumbasses who blame it on climate change didn't bother to look at the statistics for what causes the fires. A dry field is a dry field. It still takes a spark which apparently people in California are only to happy to apply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,783
Thank you for taking a position of rationalism and debate.

The Jurassic period was interesting but it was more related to higher CO2+higher H20. There is suspected(we cant get weather reports from the past) to have been far more and thicker cloud cover as well. Water is always key. Humidity causes all kinds of things to suddenly be possible in an atmosphere because well... water is weird. What current scientists are saying in a nutshell is we cannot directly compare the same effects as we have not seen a slow heating which would introduce that water back into the atmosphere and cause a gradual warmup. What we have done is just dumped an entire extinction period into the atmosphere in 300 years. We DONT know if the biosphere will survive enough to MAINTAIN human civilization. Life? The biosphere wont care it will go on. Us? We are a species that has much power... but are tied to very specific things to maintain that power. Our food supply is actually very fragile and honestly the organic movement hasn't really helped that front. We know CO2 levels of the Jurassic period without the abundance of microbial life COULD be catastrophic to the groups of plants we absolutely need to survive. So yes. There is no certainty. In fact I will be honest that life surprises people more than any other phenomenon. I can tell you that in the area where I live the early predictions of the effects of climate change has been entirely backwards. We've had more moisture and its triggered an unprecedented verdant season. It's also shattered hundreds of years of farming knowledge and caused huge swaths of cropland every year to fail to suddenly new weather cycles. Just next door there are areas that benefit from this and areas that no longer have water suitable for cattle use due to lack of rain.

We know its going to disrupt human life. We know it has the potential to actually destroy our civilization(not life... key difference). We know the natural technology processes we were on were actually helping. Most scientists are simply saying lets accelerate that technology improvement and do a simple efficiency pass on society. I'm not talking about the econuts who think solar everything death to oil change your entire life to suit their narrative people. I'm saying the sane of us are saying build nuclear, accelerate car development to electric(it was going that way anyway), and try to shift our manufacturing to a more loop system that has responsibility for its waste(coke and glass bottles come to mind. Plastic bottles weren't made for YOUR benefit).

It's absolutely ok to doubt. The first rule of a scientist is "show me the data". No one who is actually worth listening to will ever trust anything without checking it first... and still doubting it afterwards. Cynicism of data has been lost by the younger generation of scientists imho so I will not try to tell you to listen to democrats' or liberals around the world. I've read some IPCC reports that had obvious data shaping going on and I've seen ones that were rock solid. I've also seen those same reports skewed by so much personnel politics it makes me sick. I know the information network everyone has access to is full of BS on both sides of this argument. The problem is the rational among us are still worried because those groups that have integrity and are actually backing up their results are not showing happy days ahead for humanity. All an old fart like me can do is ask that you consider being worried(not terrified) to and adjust what you can where you can.

-
I actually grew up in cali myself. North of Sacramento in fact. The fire issue is still people based. Cali is a really smart state run by really stupid people. It's a fire state where wildfires are common and expected so what do they do? Open development into fire zones. The state actually is one of the "three big" for forestry workers in the USA. Historically there hasn't really been a change there. I'm not sure where the push to blame them came from but its not backed up by any actual data anywhere. They've done the same job they've done since they started. The three things that have changed is the state has allowed people to build within fire zones far more freely than ever before, the power grid is so poorly managed it causes fires constantly, and tumbleweeds have continued to propagate across the state. Frankly the dumbasses who blame it on climate change didn't bother to look at the statistics for what causes the fires. A dry field is a dry field. It still takes a spark which apparently people in California are only to happy to apply.
Exactly. Now about California what I've seen reported was a regression or poor maintenance for forest/fire control. Those fires should not have spread as wide as they did was the issue.

Other factors I did not want to initially dive into since they too contribute to changing weather patterns, ocean levels etc. These Earth orbital and rotational factors can also combined during certain periods to make things more drastic for weather. Better explanation by Nasa here as a note:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=Earth's axis is currently tilted,about 9,800 years from now.

For example:

Precession or wobble of our planet with a 26,000 year cycle. This affects the Northern and Southern hemispheres. When the South pole is more to the Sun while the North Pole is further away due to tilt position, the South Pole receives more sunlight throughout the year which I would suspect will cause a higher temperature and less buildup of ice or melting of ice which would increase sea levels. We are virtually at that point where the Southern hemisphere is exposed more than the North. In about 13000 year that would be the opposite where the North Pole would be tilted more to the Sun receiving more Sun. Since the Ice on the North pole sits on top of the water that would have no effect on ocean levels. With the South Pole is receiving less light/heat, 13000 years from now, Ice build up can occur more and I would expect Ocean levels to go down from that effect if anything else was not a factor.

Precession26000.gif

Eccentricity where our orbit around the Sun changes in a 100,000 year period. Currently we are almost eccentric, meaning our summer and winter days are about even. When at the most eccentric, a change of 23% for solar radiation (heat) in one year compared to the change of 6.8% currently for radiation levels from the Sun to Earth. Linked to Ice Ages time periods. Except as far as I can tell Ice Ages are more recent events on Earth (C02 levels in combination of Eccentricity?).

Eccentricity100000.gif

Then Obliquity, how much tilted, has a period of 41,000 years. This affects how severe seasons are.

Obliquity41000.gif

Even without man intervention the weather will change on this Planet and will continue to change. While the factors above are long term factors and should not necessarily affect the last 100 years except maybe a slow rising of sea level over a period of time due to current Precession position of our planet. Your right in focussing on the rate of change and the direction it may lead to.

The question becomes what levels are ideal for our planet or more exactly what temperature? For life in general a warmer planet seems way more friendly to life than a frigid wasteland, maybe less friendly to some of the land owners and countries which would be subjected to the changes. Looking at chart below, we are at some of the lowest if not lowest levels of C02, previous warmer periods thrived and was more full of life:

EarthC02history.jpeg

One could think without mankind making the first fire and burning fossil fuels, this planet would be one frigid and maybe a dead planet. Even the conclusion or idea that current C02 levels as some kind of fringed high level condition on this planet, harmful to life seems way way off from the sanity mark. Yet the beat goes forward with endless drones repeating the same non-sense over and over again. What is the ideal level? Max and Min levels? How controlled? Then we get this make food from air reduce C02 shit like that is something new.
 
Last edited:

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
382
Exactly. Now about California what I've seen reported was a regression or poor maintenance for forest/fire control. Those fires should not have spread as wide as they did was the issue.

Other factors I did not want to initially dive into since they too contribute to changing weather patterns, ocean levels etc. These Earth orbital and rotational factors can also combined during certain periods to make things more drastic for weather. Better explanation by Nasa here as a note:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/#:~:text=Earth's axis is currently tilted,about 9,800 years from now.

For example:

Precession or wobble of our planet with a 26,000 year cycle. This affects the Northern and Southern hemispheres. When the South pole is more to the Sun while the North Pole is further away due to tilt position, the South Pole receives more sunlight throughout the year which I would suspect will cause a higher temperature and less buildup of ice or melting of ice which would increase sea levels. We are virtually at that point where the Southern hemisphere is exposed more than the North. In about 13000 year that would be the opposite where the North Pole would be tilted more to the Sun receiving more Sun. Since the Ice on the North pole sits on top of the water that would have no effect on ocean levels. With the South Pole is receiving less light/heat, 13000 years from now, Ice build up can occur more and I would expect Ocean levels to go down from that effect if anything else was not a factor.


Eccentricity where our orbit around the Sun changes in a 100,000 year period. Currently we are almost eccentric, meaning our summer and winter days are about even. When at the most eccentric, a change of 23% for solar radiation (heat) in one year compared to the change of 6.8% currently for radiation levels from the Sun to Earth. Linked to Ice Ages time periods. Except as far as I can tell Ice Ages are more recent events on Earth (C02 levels in combination of Eccentricity?).


Then Obliquity, how much tilted, has a period of 41,000 years. This affects how severe seasons are.

Even without man intervention the weather will change on this Planet and will continue to change. While the factors above are long term factors and should not necessarily affect the last 100 years except maybe a slow rising of sea level over a period of time due to current Precession position of our planet. Your right in focussing on the rate of change and the direction it may lead to.

The question becomes what levels are ideal for our planet or more exactly what temperature? For life in general a warmer planet seems way more friendly to life than a frigid wasteland, maybe less friendly to some of the land owners and countries which would be subjected to the changes. Looking at chart below, we are at some of the lowest if not lowest levels of C02, previous warmer periods thrived and was more full of life:

One could think without mankind making the first fire and burning fossil fuels, this planet would be one frigid and maybe a dead planet. Even the conclusion or idea that current C02 levels as some kind of fringed high level condition on this planet, harmful to life seems way way off from the sanity mark. Yet the beat goes forward with endless drones repeating the same non-sense over and over again. What is the ideal level? Max and Min levels? How controlled? Then we get this make food from air reduce C02 shit like that is something new.
Orbital wobble and the fact that orbits are not static do not significantly change the amount of raw energy that hits the planet per square meter. This is the only metric in which the sun matters to our planet. The suns output is 380ish Yw and has not appreciable varied from that amount since we began measuring it nor has any model(simple or complex) shown believable data that it has significantly changed over the last several million years. Honestly it being stable is pretty much the reason life was possible on earth.
All orbital wobble does is change where the energy lands. It does not change total world temperatures or really the general climate all that much without atmospheric changes. In no way shape or form was the earth headed to a "world ending" ice age. An ice age would impact Canada a great deal but America not so much especially over the time frames involved(ie no one alive at any period during an ice age would notice any weather beyond the normal and farming would have considerable time to adapt to the weather changes). Considering that well over 80% of the world exists in the band that would be "low impact" of an ice age this is the metric I use to say "not that much". I am also required to point out that there is absolutely zero credible model of what triggers an ice age. This is one mystery we have not solved at this time.

The answer as to what amount of CO2 is good for plants is whatever amount of CO2 is currently expected by them. This changes over time. Your graphs are still terrible btw. They are horrifically short on critical context. I will try to explain.
While yes increasing CO2 in a lab setting will cause an increase in photosynthesis in most plants this is not reflected by the real world. In the real world biomass production(the product of photosynthesis) is limited by nitrogen. This means that practically any gains CO2 increases give plants will rapidly be outpaced by the lack of nitrogen sources to fuel that biomass growth. The longer the atmosphere has higher CO2 the less CO2 will fuel plant growth basically.
For agriculture in the context removed function CO2 is going to be a net gain for most crops(5-20% yields) due to the use of fertilizer. However, when context of CO2s other effects are factored in this yield gain quickly vanishes. Additionally CO2 technically benefits weeds more which will reduce yields in real world scenarios.
An increase of 1-2 degrees starts to change the water cycle. Soil will dry much faster and solar energy reaching the crops will be more intense. If you've ever grown something like lettuce or cucumbers you will know that intense hot sun will actually stop them from growing during those days as the plants go into survival mode. This is true with any plant though it triggers at different temperatures and intensity levels. High CO2 in the atmosphere inhibits cloud formation which is oddly critical to healthy plant growth in many "hot" areas.

In short plants in the current environment and predicted environments are not going to gain the boon people expect. Physics just says no. They have not had enough time to adapt to the CO2 levels and the oxygen levels are not high enough to enhance the nitrogen cycle. All of the theories that assume plants will gain because of CO2 increases are all fundamentally flawed because the people doing the theories are ignoring every other element of the atmosphere and soil cycles.

At best plants adapt quickly and natural shifts away from coal and oil already in progress since the 1970s will leave the planet warmer and fine. At worst you are looking at crop failures in traditionally "good" growing regions like the Midwest of America due to lack of water(in the soil) and more intense weather(due to the way heat alters weather patterns).
 
Top