Why has everyone forgotten that CO2 is necessary for plants?

Question

With all the fuss over CO2 emmisions it seems as if biology is no longer taught in school. CO2 and photosynthesis equals O2 and carbon which is necessary for the fauna sector of nature. Therefore it seems to me that we should be more concerned with the reduction of CO which is deadly to everyone and everything and let the other gases actually rejuvenate the flora. I watch and pray for Global Warming everyday as the sun comes up. If it did not heat the earth as rapidly as it does we would cease to exist. This only shows me the idiocy of the claims we have such a profound effect on the weather as the sun changes the temperature faster everyday than we could ever hope to. As for the changes being experienced, has anyone ever considered the effect the tsunami of 2005 had on the climate? The earth shifted 1 degree and that has a bigger effect than anyone has recognized. There is a bigger area subjected to the sun now in the NORTH and the south's ice is growing.

Answer 1

Wow...how refreshing....someone actually thinking instead of just accepting the politco-pseudo-science that Al Gore and the UN are putting out.

Even if you read their report it doesn't say man is causing global warming -- it says that man is likely causing warming to occur more than would occur by natural means. In their own words they are saying man may be contributing to global warming, BUT man is NOT the cause. However, the news people will not say that.

Now having gotten that off my chest...Branson and Gore and others are offering a reward for how to get the CO2 out of the system. What morons!!

For years, companies have been injecting the CO2 derived from generating plants into Coal Seams in a process called CO2 Sequestration. But they will not mention that or credit that process because it is not in their politcal best interest to do so. (They also will not pay the oil companies who developed the process.)

As you correctly point out, there is a lot more going on that just man's activities.

Answer 2

Very good, shows that you're thinking. Poorly, and with absolutely no understanding of science, but thinking none the less.

And here are the flaws in your thinking:

1) there is now, and has always been, since the first photosynthesizing plant arose, enough CO2 for plants to grow.

2)the rain forests are the biggest scavengers of CO2, and they are disappearing

3)the primary source of CO2 is burning of fossil fuels which come from....wait for it....plants. The formation of fossil fuels takes specific conditions, and millions of years. So this argument will become moot in about a century when the final coal reserves run out (much sooner for oil)

4)global warming does mean more total heat in the environment, but you have to think of the Earth as an energy system. More heat means more motion, which will ultimately mean more severe storms, changing air and water currents.

That CO2 is rising in the environment is not disputable, the monitoring stations (in remote locations) clearly show this increase. There is not one measuring station showing a decrease. You can prove that CO2 causes warming in a laboratory.

So if you can prove global warming is caused by CO2 (as I have explained) and you can show the effects right now (and you can, in many many ways) why would you be for global warming?

The real reason for objections to this are that for the next 40 or fifty years (when the oil runs out) Big Oil wants you to continue to use the products they sell, the ones they understand, the ones in which they are heavily invested.

And what business are the Bushes, Cheney, and all of their friends invested?

I'll let you figure that out yourself

Answer 3

Here's why all the fuss, with actual data.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" which recycles carbon dioxide. But it's a delicate balance.

We're messing up that balance by digging up carbon the natural cycle buried over a very long time, and burning it really fast. That overwhelms the natural process.

You can see it clearly in this carefully measured data.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The small teeth are the natural cycle in operation. CO2 goes down a little during the summer, when plants are active, and up a little in the winter. The huge push upwards is us burning fossil fuels. Unfortunately we're kicking natures' butt on this one.

It is true that the Earth has a natural "Greenhouse Effect". But man is creating excess greenhouse effect, or "Global Warming". Left unchecked that will flood coastal areas and seriously disrupt agriculture. It would be the biggest disaster in human history.

That's why all the fuss. The thousands of climate scientists understand how CO2 and plants work. They didn't forget about it, it's considered in their work. Or they'd be laughed at. Scientists aren't laughing.

This is not a drill. This is real.

Answer 4

I believe it has just begun- the shift/ because the earth s poles were in balance aprx 15,000 yrs and now with hydro-carbon emission from the sixties is catching up , but oh no methane from the tundra is escaping and the earth is getting pretty warm- more hydro-carbons.now we dont have enough of the rain forest to take in so the co2 remains and the sea of oceans are less salty,so now it rains more at the coast than inland, why because salt retain precipatation in the clouds-it is called salination -cloud seeding .we are just getting started in begin the end .in example the the last process of a dieing planet is that it atmosphere concentration of co2 go up (mars)-yes there was life on mars i believe- but its cycle was much quicker in starting and dying.
another hunch like the atom the first two planets(electrons)
too hot 1sp the 1 st of second layer 2sp just right and 2d 4 electrons to cold /the next cycle noviate and the saturn jupiter merge creates a white dwarf.ect ect

Answer 5

CO2 is indeed necessary for plants, and there has been reserach done that shows that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will make plants grow quicker. Unfortunately, the result of that is that the nutritional value of the seeds produced by those plants is decreased, so we will need to eat more of them to get the same benefit.

Could you cite some evidence of the change in the earth's axis? I am particularly curious to understand how a change in the axis can result in increased sunlight in only one hemisphere.

Answer 6

There really is only so much plant matter. And no one forgot that plants convert CO2 to O2...

But the fact is that for plants to make the conversion, you need more plants to convert more CO2... plants don't just binge on CO2.

Plants also need more resources than just CO2, they need access to sunlight and nutritious fertilizer...

So, your premise is flawed.

Answer 7

If the CO2 story was real, the increase forecast in the next century would SUFFOCATE people. It CAN'T HAPPEN. Besides, more CO2 just means more food for diatoms, which will reproduce more and break more CO2 down into oxygen and carbon. Like you said. But Liberals can't exist without fearmongering the common man. They can't deal with reality.

Answer 8

You need to watch "An Inconvenient Truth." We have WAY more CO2 in the atmosphere than the plants need. Biology is still taught in schools--it seems that you need a refresher!!!

Answer 9

Yeah, and the oceans rising..
have you ever done the experiment where you take a glass of icewater and let the ice cubes melt, and the water level stays the same! "An Inconveinent Truth" is a propaganda tool made by a politician.

Answer 10

EXACTLY!!
all this trash about global warming.........
the plants are contributing immensly to stopping this
we just need to stop trees from getting cut down