Sentences with phrase «plants eat co2»

Plants eat CO2.

Not exact matches

But for most of the other plants humans eat — including wheat, rice and soybeans — «having higher CO2 will help them directly,» Moore says.

Instead, as suggested by the trickle - up theory of salmon restoration, the plankton tends to get eaten by tiny animals, which are then eaten by larger animals until, ultimately, all or most of the CO2 sucked up by the tiny plants during their photosynthetic life spans finds its way back to the atmosphere in relatively short order.

This could be from animals or plants, but ultimately the carbon we eat comes eventually from plant sources that photosynthesise — extracting CO2 from the air to build up the more complicated organic materials and structures that make up plants.

The CO2 we and all other organisms breathe out is just the perfect amount to be absorbed by plants and turned into sugar, which we eat and breathe out as CO2.

A cow doesn't make methane, bacteria in the cow's gut makes it, and similar soil bacteria and other organisms digest dead plant matter, if not eaten by the cow, to make methane and 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!

emission reductions per year) # 2 — Live car - free (2.4 tonnes CO2) # 3 — Avoid one round - trip transatlantic flight (1.6 tonnes) # 4 — Eat a plant - based diet (0.8 tonnes)

More ground foliage, more animals live to eat the plant material which emits Co2 / Methane when digested and more when the animals die.

CO2, the gas we all EXHALE does not stay there just looking down to earth in the atmosphere, it enters into the living organisms chain, first to make GLUCOSE (Plants do breath CO2 ya know, and btw exhale O2 - a gas we like to breath, ya know...), then cellulose, etc., etc. then we EAT those vegs in order to live, or cattle eats them to make the MEAT we eat, or chicken eat corn grains to make the EGGS YOU EAT scrambled every morning, ya know buddy.EAT those vegs in order to live, or cattle eats them to make the MEAT we eat, or chicken eat corn grains to make the EGGS YOU EAT scrambled every morning, ya know buddy.eat, or chicken eat corn grains to make the EGGS YOU EAT scrambled every morning, ya know buddy.eat corn grains to make the EGGS YOU EAT scrambled every morning, ya know buddy.EAT scrambled every morning, ya know buddy....

«By the way, yes, my plan will reduce the carbon pollution that is eating our planet because climate change is not a hoax,» President Obama said at a campaign rally last week, absurdly portraying the essential gas CO2 exhaled by humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulation.

But in a small volume of air, you've got bacteria eating up the oxygen like mad, plants producing oxygen, and CO2 goes into the plants and comes out from the bacteria.

Moreover the recent decline of the yearly increments d (CO2) / dt acknowledged by Francey et al (2013)(figure 17 - F) and even by James Hansen who say that the Chinese coal emissions have been immensely beneficial to the plants that are now bigger grow faster and eat more CO2 due to the fertilisation of the air (references in note 19) cast some doubts on those compartment models with many adjustable parameters, models proved to be blatantly wrong by observations as said very politely by Wang et al.: (Xuhui Wang et al: A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations, Nature, 2014) «Thus, the problems present models have in reproducing the observed response of the carbon cycle to climate variability on interannual timescales may call into question their ability to predict the future evolution of the carbon cycle and its feedbacks to climate»

In reality there is no equilibrium because more CO2 implies more green plants growing faster eating more and so on; the references in note 19 show that even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admit (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong!

This stock / (yearly absorption) analysis avoids all the pitfalls of the assumed equilibrium between absorption and out - gassing that is postulated by all the compartment models with constant inputs and outputs that lead to a set of linear equation and by Laplace transform to expressions like the Bern or Hamburg formulas; there is no equilibrium because as said more CO2 implies more green plants eating more and so on; the references in note 19 show even James Hansen and Francey (figure 17 F) admits (now) that their carbon cycle is wrong!

While all types of plants absorb carbon dioxide, known as CO2, most of them return it to the atmosphere quickly because their vegetation decays, burns or is eaten.

But last time i checked ch4 had an atmospheric life of 7 years, before it breaks down to co2 and h2o, but the C origin is ignored (last time i checked, cows eat plants, plants photosynthesis) So with a change in the total mass o cattle on the planet being able to possibly cause a perturbation, it should be neutral after 7 years.

when at the 1 - 2 % of the cost involved in taxing / trading you can plant enough trees to «eat» more CO2 than humans produce?

Within the category of plants known as «C3» — which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes — elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron.

To put a sharper point on this, if I grow a potato plant every year, using homemade fertilizers, and eat the resulting potatoes and burn them with my metabolism to release CO2, how much atmospheric CO2 accumulates from this practice?

The CO2 we expelled was absorbed by plants; the plants were eaten by animals; the plants and animals were eaten by humans.