Skip to comments.Study: Too Little Carbon Dioxide Will Destroy Earth
Posted on 07/07/2013 12:21:09 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
A recent study says life on Earth will suffer a carbon-dioxide-related extinction--not from too much of the gas, but from too little of it.
The big picture is that there is nothing we can do to change God’s design.
The EPA & Al Gore are JERKS!!!
Well then, really, what’s the point of going on?
Ok, I didn't read the article, but isn't this a "no shit Sherlock," moment?
Correct — carbon dioxide is life.
I wanna start the “carbon liberation front” where we liberate carbon from the earth’s crust for plants to use!
Actually, it is hard to get “too little” carbon dioxide, as naturally occurring phenomena tend to restore the CO2 balance. As the CO2 is used up, plants, which normally convert water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates and free oxygen, revert from the formation of carbohydrates to the metabolic breakdown of these various polysaccharides back into carbon dioxide and water again. The natural order of the life cycle breaks proteins, cellulose and other forms of organic matter back down into carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, water, and ammonia, which are used to recreate these same compounds as new proteins, new carbohydrates, and even as fats or oils, all of which are energy storage mediums.
There is a cruel economy which tends to conserve the existing balance very close to the norms which have persisted on earth for millions of years, since oxygen and nitrogen became the dominant atmospheric gases.
Only extreme cold conditions actually reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide, because at very low overall temperatures, carbon dioxide combines with water at greater concentrations than at warmer overall temperatures. So the hydrosphere takes over and holds the carbon dioxide that is “lost” from the atmosphere. The net amount of carbon dioxide remains roughly the same.
Yes, it is.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Depends on the plant type. The C4 plants http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html#c2 may not break down as easily (e.g. corn stover). But AFAIK, that problem is only with the cultivated or hybrid varieties. In most cases I think the C3 trees can store carbon for longer periods, but not suck it as easily from the atmosphere.
In physics class our text gave a percentage of CO2 that was perfect for plantlife. I don’t remember the exact amount (anyone?)but let’s say it was 30%. Historically, the plant period where the trees and vegetation were huge, would have required a high amount of CO2. Maybe our plants are smaller cause they don’t get enough? Just wondering.
decided to search:
“Plants began spreading beyond the wetlands during the Devonian, with new types developing that could survive on dry land. Toward the end of the Devonian the first forests arose as stemmed plants evolved strong, woody structures capable of supporting raised branches and leaves. Some Devonian trees are known to have grown 100 feet (30 meters) tall. By the end of the period the first ferns, horsetails, and seed plants had also appeared.
The new life burgeoning on land apparently escaped the worst effects of the mass extinction that ended the Devonian. The main victims were marine creatures, with up to 70 percent of species wiped out. Reef-building communities almost completely disappeared. Theories put forward to explain this extinction include global cooling due to the re-glaciation of Gondwana, or reduced atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide because of the foresting of the continents. A major asteroid impact has also been suggested.”
The Coal Age
“Carboniferous coal was produced by bark-bearing trees that grew in vast lowland swamp forests. Vegetation included giant club mosses, tree ferns, great horsetails, and towering trees with strap-shaped leaves. Over millions of years, the organic deposits of this plant debris formed the world’s first extensive coal depositscoal that humans are still burning today.
The growth of these forests removed huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, leading to a surplus of oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels peaked around 35 percent, compared with 21 percent today. It also may explain the giant creepy-crawlies that now emergedthe size reached by insects and similar creatures is thought to be limited by the amount of air they are able to breathe.
Deadly poisonous centipedes some six feet (two meters) in length crawled in the company of mammoth cockroaches and scorpions as much as three feet (one meter) long. Most impressive of all were dragonflies that grew to the size of seagulls. One exquisitely detailed fossil of a dragonfly that died 320 million years ago shows it had a wingspan of 2.5 feet (0.75 meters).”
I love dragonflies!
The most intriguing question for evolutionists involves FLOWERS. For me, the last thing you buy when company is coming, are the flowers. The Creator provided the food, set the table, then, the flowers arrived.
“Just when and how did the first flowering plants emerge? Charles Darwin pondered that question, and paleobotanists are still searching for an answer. Throughout the 1990s discoveries of fossilized flowers in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America offered important clues. At the same time the field of genetics brought a whole new set of tools to the search. As a result, modern paleobotany has undergone a boom not unlike the Cretaceous flower explosion itself.”
Maybe it’s the increase in the number of mouth breathers which caused the higher CO2 levels. Interesting info at the link.
Al "the boob" Gore wanted to amuse God, so he told God of his plans for the climate.
A three-foot cockroach? Forget the Raid, grab a shotgun! ;)
Maybe that’s what Algore has in mind.
Anyone who went to High School already knew this, and still the Envirowhackos, and their idiot pResident are fighting CO2.
In the study to end all studies, it has been determined that climate is what it is, and will be what it will be. And mankind can’t do a damn thing about that.
No problem. We’ll just make more SUVs.