Sentences with phrase «co2 plant food»

Everybody KNOWS that CO2 is totally and absolutely beneficial to all life on Earth, so why would you want to keep a track of it, unless to thanks those countries providing CO2 plant food to feed the rest of the world.

Plenty of co2 plant food.

These two are real destruction of the environment, unlike producing CO2 plant food to feed the biosphere.

Yes, Springer, if Oklahoma's wilted crops had just been fed more of that CO2 plant food, the farmers would be thanking God for polluting spewing coal power.

Lost in all the comments on CO2 plant food and nitrate starvation (most important point of this blog is we should agree to cut all the mindless banter), Judith Curry said: «Focusing on the «warmest year» is a pointless exercise, unless the warm anomaly is as large as 1998.

I'm amused that Bill Clinton called CO2 plant food, but he only did so once.

Not exact matches

The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.

Dr Paschalis added: «Understanding the responses of plants to elevated concentrations of CO2 is of major importance with potential implications on the global economy and water and food security under a changing climate.»

When plants engage in photosynthesis, sunlight breaks apart water and CO2 to release oxygen and build plant — and people — food.

The CO2 will come from a plant that processes corn into multiple products, including corn syrup, food chemicals and ethanol.

«On the one hand, more CO2 is known to be good for plants, at least in the short - term because this drives up photosynthesis and plant growth including crop growth and food production.

But day and night, plants, microbes and animals like humans are always producing CO2 by respiration, which is the breaking down of organic material (food) to get the energy out of it, releasing CO2 in the process.

Plants and other organisms that photosynthesize use energy from the sun to capture CO2 for food.

The real important question is what is Earth's climate sensitivity since this will determine if doubling the amount of CO2 (say, by 2100AD) will increase the temperature by 1 or by 5 °C, and whether CO2 is just plant food or also a pollutant.

It wouldn't be an understatement to say we owe all the wonders of life to photosynthesis — the ability of plants and certain bacteria to convert CO2 into energy (sugars) and food.

Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes trees to grow faster because CO2 is a vital food for all plants and crops.

The CO2 content of the oceans decrease, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, depriving plants of their food source, causing agriculture to fail, and the dreams of the humanity - is - a-cancer-on-the-face-of-the-planet types comes true: the extinction of human life, and much animal life with it.

in just a few years, after you have maintained a studied reticence on this issue, you will be amply rewarded for your independence of mind, your courage and your steadiness of vision, while the sheep who baaah and blather about the imminent catastrophe supposedly to be caused by an increase in atmospheric plant food (co2).

That said I find it amusing to read all the comments that equate pooping with emitting CO2... which is what plants need to make the food we eat!

I pointed out that fossil fuel CO2 is superior plant food.

(2) Hoskins: «Additional atmospheric CO2 significantly improves all plant growth and thus food production.»

CO2 is plant food, not a danger.

There are a lot of hypothetical deliberations on where this «missing» CO2 is going: into increased terrestrial plant photosynthesis or soil absorption, dissolved into the ocean, where it is buffered chemically or converted by photosynthesis from phytoplankton, entering the food chain and possibly getting converted to carbonates that eventually end up on the ocean floor, into limestone through weathering or dissipated into space, etc..

The production of ethanol for fuel in the US uses huge amounts of land, some of which was brought back into production for this purpose, large amounts of energy to the point there is probably a net loss, major water consumption, and little savings in net CO2 emissions (which are plant food anyway.)

The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster.

Joseph Bast, who works with the group, highlighted some of the group's conclusions in Forbes: There is little risk of global food insecurity owing to higher levels of CO2, as higher CO2 will greatly aid plant productivity; «No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well - being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2»; and little risk to aquatic or dry - land ecosystems.

Photosynthesis: Plants / Plankton turning Sunlight / CO2 / H2O into Plant Food / O2 — the Foundation of Life on Earth.

I propose that that we refer to CO2 in a more friendly way... Lets start referring to it as «plant food» since that's what it is.

You are not accounting for the great flexibility of the biosystem to expand to fill the food source available, and CO2 is a food source for plants.

As CO2 has been 4 to 10 times higher than now over the vast majority of the last 600 million years, they clearly have the ability to handle any changes CO2 might impose, as, from their point of view, it's plant food not pollution.

CO2 is plant food, not pollution.

«So you do not actually get more food,» said Pitman, «you just get a bigger plant, so it's a myth that higher CO2 helps lift yields, in the sense that those yields reflect food.»

It is found that trees are growing faster for the past thirty years or so, sequestering CO2 naturally, perhaps in response to the increased «plant food» available.

CO2 is causing huge increases across the board in the plant world, which produces more food for the animal world.

Nevertheless, sequestering CO2 (gaseous plant food)-- when human population is at an all - time high — seems to be a very unsound policy.

Also, we are producing more plant based foods than ever, using up vast qua ties of co2.

What happens when plants get too much CO2 food?

To gloss over these complexities with the simplistic «CO2 is plant food» argument is an insult to the readers» intelligence.

Greenhouse operators give their plants lots of CO2, because it's plant food, and all the water the plants want.

They couple this with the grossly oversimplistic «CO2 is plant food» myth.

No, you're right, CO2 is the food of plants.

After all, it only controls emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is simply plant food.

Christy began with the misleading argument that CO2 is plant food, which is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue, and which is frankly an insult to the intelligence of his audience.

Without sufficient CO2 as food, plants die.Fact.

Photosynthesis — Plants / Plankton turning Sunlight / CO2 / H2O into Food / O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2.

CO2 is a boon to humanity, being the essential plant food.

The Grapes of Change will determine whether CO2 is important or not — but it is the temperature that is decreasing — and the increase in CO2 is maintaining the plant growth neccessary for our food etc..

Thus what we see as a 300ppmv trace gas just shows the efficiency of the co2 removal (plant food) of the environment.

Now to have comment on «12,13, & 14 CO2 isotope ratios» in relation to plants growth and the info that «these 1/2 lives are variable depending on the major food group harvesting» makes FEs assumptions unsustainable.

However we should maximize the positive impacts of CO2 on global economy (energy production), natural resources (plant growth) and human health (plant food)