English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Who determined that it was the other way around? Why? If its a direct correlation, who is to say the warming isn't causing the CO2?

Examples: warmer climates provides for healthier ocean populations. This increase in the number of fish in the sea creates more CO2

(this isn't a real suggestion, I'm just trying to show how there are other possibilities out there)

2007-03-07 05:04:09 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

TREES DO NOT GIVE OFF CO2!!

2007-03-07 05:11:20 · update #1

Just hang: That would be reasonable if CO2 was the ONLY factor in the temperature of the Earth... it also makes no sense for their to be a spike in the summer when there are more plants to absorb CO2... if anything there would be a dip.

2007-03-07 05:16:07 · update #2

7 answers

Yes, a warming earth causes an increase in CO2.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/16/MNGKKJFD5M1.DTL

Permafrost melt could speed up global warming
500 billion tons of extra CO{-2} could be released, study says
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

2007-03-07 18:21:46 · answer #1 · answered by a bush family member 7 · 0 1

This is the very question that got Gore interested in this back in the day. He had a professor in college introduce the CO2 level graphs. The levels dip in the winter, when the sun is not primarily striking the northern hemisphere, so plants take in less CO2, and then spikes in the summer, when plants take in more CO2. This happens apparently because there is a greater amount of land mass north of the equator, meaning more plants north of the equator.

However, the trend has been that each summer spike is greater on average than the spike before, indicating that CO2 levels are increasing overall.

We know this isn't a natural phenomena because the scientists can accurately predict CO2 levels in the past by studying ice cores, and the increases were not occurring before human triggered atmospheric interference began, notably during the 1800's at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

2007-03-07 05:12:10 · answer #2 · answered by powhound 7 · 0 0

No, that's not how it would work. For there to be an increase in the fish population, there would need to be a big increase in the plant population to support them. That would decrease the CO2 levels. I haven't seen any data showing changes in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If CO2 levels are higher, I would accept that global warming is real. Absent that, I will remain a skeptic.

2007-03-07 05:10:20 · answer #3 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0 0

They feed on each other - it gets warmer, then arctic tundra starts to become grassland and then scrub forest land and the plants give off more CO2, etc...

At least that's the theory for why CO2 increases actually LAG temperature increases based on proxy data.

My only point is that the correlation fits only in the intermediate time frame - hundreds of thousands of years - multi-century trends like the present global warming don't correlate to CO2 levels.

2007-03-07 05:08:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How do higher temperatures, in and of themselves, produce CO2? What is the mechanism? If you have a theory, it is up to you to provide proof for it.

Rather, Roger Revelle showed that CO2 concentrations were increasing in the atmosphere. CO2 changes the characteristics of the atmosphere, so that it retains more heat. Over time, average temperatures on the planet have risen. CO2 is largely produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

2007-03-07 05:10:21 · answer #5 · answered by John T 6 · 0 0

it particularly is actual the two. the great element is exponential. We started it, and now, with the already intense worldwide temperature, it particularly is in basic terms getting worse. think of of it like compounded interest. We started out with a undeniable volume of CO2 interior the ambience, which replaced into regulated by skill of the Earth itself. Then, the business Revolution began, and all of us started pouring in much extra. there is, of direction, a not on time reaction, so in basic terms NOW are we seeing the outcomes. the situation is that we've not achieved something to decrease our emissions different than interior the previous few many years; yet any efforts are thoroughly irrelevant at this element, because of the fact the aftereffects have rather all started to get closer us. And particular, the certainty that the international has already began to heat in basic terms hastens the technique. To be easy, even nevertheless I comprehend and help the "combat" against worldwide warming (I placed it in expenses because of the fact how are you able to truly combat something inanimate on a international scale?), the great element particularly supplies me a headache.

2016-11-23 13:26:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Trees and plant give off CO2 at night... its how they breathe.

2007-03-07 05:09:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers