Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing? - Science Video
Science Daily ^ | June 1, 2007 | North American Carbon Program

Posted on 03/22/2009 1:38:04 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleagues from the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able to elucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying. The NACP is employing methods, such as the use of cell phone and aircraft towers to monitor and retrieve carbon data for their continuing study.

Too much carbon dioxide can be a bad thing, but sometimes it can have a positive effect on plants and trees. The more carbon emissions we dump into the air, the faster forests and plants grow.

This new revelation is the result of research done by the North American carbon program. Scott Denning, Ph.D., a physicist from Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, explains the North American Carbon Program, "We are measuring CO2 in the atmosphere at dozens of places every hour around the United States and Canada."

About 100 cell phone and aircraft towers dotting the North American landscape are providing a network to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Physicists tracking the data have found an unexpected benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Denning says it's unusual. "Stuff is growing faster than it's dying, which is weird," he says.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: basicbiology; carboncult; climatechange; co2; globalhoaxing; globalwarming; gradeschoolscience; greenreligion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
We need to seriously consider taxing newsprint.
These Newspaper people are fully aware that millions of trees are felled every year to supply material for newspapers.
Trees and plants need CO2 for growth and therefore should not be destroyed to make paper.
A tax of 33% of the papers price needs to serve as carbon offset, encouraging users to cut down on paper usage and switch to wireless information.
As Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: I need to save the planet.
Let's make a beginning for the good of all.
21 posted on 03/22/2009 4:59:15 PM PDT by hermgem (Will Olmr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnEBoy
Thanks for the news, I learned this in the third grade, fifty years ago!

Same here. I think we finally figured out why Global Warming® has so many believers--they don't teach basic biology in schools anymore.

22 posted on 03/22/2009 5:06:49 PM PDT by randog (Tap into America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

Don’t forget that the released oxygen comes from the water the roots take up, not from the CO2.


23 posted on 03/22/2009 5:17:00 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
...discerned and confirmed the unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels...

Like warming/cooling cycles, many of us caught those lectures from our fourth grade teachers. Have all of the "leaders" of the world gone daft?

24 posted on 03/22/2009 6:26:53 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randog

Yeah really! This has been bugging me ever since they started all of this stuff about carbon dioxide. If I can remember learning this in elementary school why can’t all of those so-called environmentalists figure this out?


25 posted on 03/22/2009 7:16:09 PM PDT by NellieMae (Here...... common sense,common sense,common sense,where'd ya go... common sense......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
About 100 cell phone and aircraft towers dotting the North American landscape are providing a network to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Physicists tracking the data have found an unexpected benefit of rising carbon dioxide levels. Dr. Denning says it's unusual. "Stuff is growing faster than it's dying, which is weird," he says.

Doesn't say much for Dr. Denning. I'm not a scientist, and I could have told him that! CO2 is what plants THRIVE on!

26 posted on 03/22/2009 7:41:37 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

That is about as correct as your spelling of professor.


27 posted on 03/23/2009 8:13:18 PM PDT by 3niner (Hoover turned a recession into a depression, FDR turned it into The Great Depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

Actually, it is so; there is a detailed explanation in Life and Energy by Issac Asimov PHD ISBN:0-380-00942-0 Avon Books.

A brief explanation from Yahoo answers states:

What exactly converts CO2 to O2 in plants during photosynthesis?

by ecolink Member since:
December 26, 2006
Total points:
59526 (Level 7)

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
“CO2 isn’t converted to O2, but photosynthesis does take in carbon dioxide to use as a raw material and it does give off oxygen gas as a waste product. The oxygen given off does not come from carbon dioxide. The oxygen comes from splitting water molecules. Photosynthesis keeps the hydrogen ions and the hydrogens’ electrons. The oxygen diffuses out.”


28 posted on 03/24/2009 8:37:31 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

If you really want to get confused, it is also well known that the entire process of uptake of H2O is dependent on free oxygen in the water or soil the roots live.


29 posted on 03/24/2009 8:58:23 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Photosynthesis uses energy from photons to convert a CO2 molecule and two water molecules into, a link in a carbohydrate chain (CH2O), a water molecule, and an oxygen gas molecule.

The water is cracked in the process, but it is also recombined, with the net result that one water molecule remains, and the other is combined with the carbon atom from the CO2 molecule, to become part of a carbohydrate.

Thus, one water molecule remains a water molecule, the other becomes part of a carbohydrate, the CO2 molecule is cracked so that the carbon becomes part of the carbohydrate and the O2 is released as gas.

What you are talking about are intermediate steps. Photosynthesis won't work without these intermediate steps, but to the world outside the plant, the net effect is that CO2 is split, the carbon retained, and the O2 released.

30 posted on 03/25/2009 3:56:11 PM PDT by 3niner (Hoover turned a recession into a depression, FDR turned it into The Great Depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

Click on this link and magnify three times for best viewing:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gOUmxGLOpaQC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=ruben+and+kamen+o18&source=bl&ots=OqsBa_RPXu&sig=Pzhh4fCj4PYJGf9TwyNqt7tAJSU&hl=en&ei=cJbLSdDkC42stgfsyOjLCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result


31 posted on 03/26/2009 7:58:29 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
You are fixated on which oxygen atom is which, while I am concerned with net changes.

You are saying that one water molecule loses its oxygen atom and replaces it with a (normally identical) oxygen atom from the CO2 molecule, while the other loses its oxygen atom then combines with the remaining CO from the CO2 molecule to become part of a carbohydrate, thus the O2 comes from the water.

I am saying that the final result of the reaction is that one water molecule is still a water molecule, the other gets combined with the carbon atom from the CO2 molecule to form part of a carbohydrate, and an O2 molecule replaces the CO2 molecule from the air.

One could argue that half of the released oxygen comes from water, while the CO2 retains one of its oxygen atoms, but you can't argue that the other water molecule contributes anything, since the oxygen atom it gives up is replaced with another (to no net effect, unless you care whether it's O14 or O16.

32 posted on 03/26/2009 3:53:09 PM PDT by 3niner (Hoover turned a recession into a depression, FDR turned it into The Great Depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 3niner

Did you bother to read rhe text?

That discovery received an award; science is the business of certainty, not odds.


33 posted on 03/27/2009 8:13:58 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

WOW Karl......I think I was drinking too much wine the night of my post. I do know better as I owned a propane company for many years.

You did cause me to do some further investigation along the lines of my gaseous thinking that night. I found some interesting reading on the subject at this site

http://www.heptune.com/farts.html


34 posted on 03/28/2009 6:41:24 AM PDT by jcon40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson