Different plants photosynthesise in different ways, most incorporate the CO2 into a three carbon compound via a one stage fixation reaction (C3 photosynthesis), some use a four carbon compound that fixes the carbon via the PhosphoEnolPyruvate carboxylase enzyme in the cells as opposed to the leaves (C4) and the remainder follows the same pathway as C3 and C4 but additionally it metabolises via crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM).
The C3 plants are better performers than C4 and CAM plants in low and normal light, in cool conditions and in conditions where water is plentiful. The cellular pathway used by C4 plants means they’re more responsive to the presence of CO2 because the PEPC sequesters CO2 more efficiently. CAM plants on the other hand can, if conditions so dictate, recycle their own oxygen for respiration and their own CO2 for photosynthesis – the plants effectively shutting down until their environment improves (usually a response to arid conditions).
Because all the reactions are balanced it’s not simply a case of increasing one component and the plants will thrive. You could put a plant into a CO2 rich environment but it will be a pointless exercise unless there’s sufficient nutrients, water and sunlight to enhance the photosynthetic reaction.
In many cases there is enough of the other components for the plants to benefit from additional CO2. This is especially true in controlled environments such as greenhouses where growers provide the right quantities of nutrients and water to achieve maximum growth.
However, just as the response of temperature decreases as CO2 increases, so too does the rate at which plants grow.
With atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently at just below 400 parts per million by volume, conditions are already very good for plant growth. Saturation point for CO2 sequestration is typically reached at about 1200ppmv – or triple the amount that’s currently in the atmosphere. But it’s subject to the law of diminishing returns and as such there’s little improvement in growth rates beyond 600ppmv.
If we take pre-industrial levels of CO2 as being the baseline (280ppmv) then the relative rate of net photosynthesis in the current atmosphere (400ppmv) is about 1.17, if this were increased to an optimal level (1200ppmv) then the value would be 1.32, Or to put it another way, the increase from 280 to 400ppmv has been more beneficial than an increase from 400 to 1200ppmv would be.
In theory then we could increase plant growth and yields by up to 13% by enriching the atmosphere with CO2. The drawback is that the warming associated with such a marked increase in CO2 would cause the average global temperature to increase by about 6°C and the resulting heatwaves, droughts and floods would result in losses far in excess of the 13% gain.
Hardest hit would be crop yields. The global farming and agricultural system was developed during a period of relative climatic stability and over millennia we’ve learned how to maximise yields in the prevailing climatic conditions. It only takes a small change in the environmental factors to upset the balance we spent so long creating.
We can of course plant different crops and this is what many farmers are already having to do, and they’re going to have to keep adapting in the future.
In a 1200ppmv environment we’d see vegetables such as potatoes, carrots and onions being replaced with nuts, seeds, pulses, grains and oils.
Just out of interest, in what year did you do your experiments with the plants? The reason I ask is that 340ppmv is a threshold point for plant growth and you’d get quite different results if your experiments were done in say 1970 as opposed to 1990 or 2010.
First of all, Heresy is a belief of contradiction to the teaching of the Christian Orthodox church, and has nothing at all to do with false science.
Secondly, the factor limiting plant growth is still the amount of Co2, even though there is a great deal of it in the atmosphere, because (as I'm assuming) the plants you did your experiment on were kept in the classroom. The amount of Co2 would have been limited, because the Co2 they got would mostly be from the Co2 you students were breathing out. Over the weekends, new Co2 wouldn't really get into the classroom, etc. The plants had enough water, nutrients, and light to preform photosynthesis, but they could only do it as long as they had enough Co2. A plant needs ALL of these things to grow, the limiting factor being the thing that the plants have the least of.
So, your teacher didn't lie to you, or switch your plants, the plants just had the least Co2 of all the materials they need to grow.
Therefore, no, you could not sue your school for teaching you lies, or leading you towards the 'wrong' kind of thinking. The teacher in this situation was teaching you that plants had a limiting factor of Co2 in this model.
---Edit Response--
If they plants got more Co2, that still doesn't mean that your limiting factor wasn't Co2.
(Giving a completely unrelated example) If you have 2 of something, and you add 1 to it, you have 3. If you have 4 of something else, and don't add anything to it, it doesn't mean that you have less of that. 3 is still less than 4. Therefore, Carbon Dioxide could still be the limiting factor in your experiment. Does that make sense?
Also, I'm curious as to what kinds of 'wrong' thinking your teacher may have been implying by this experiment's conclusion, since as far as I can tell the most she could have done is misinformed you about the experiment.
That is a factorial experiment and the way you have described it would require an unknown number of experiments depending on the number of levels of Heat, light, nutrients, and CO2 used. For example, if you had two levels for light (light and dark), three different temperatures, three nutrient categories, and CO2 - you would need to run at least 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 = 36 experiments.
I doubt the "experiment" was exactly as you describe. The fact that you chose intellectual dishonesty over education is your personal problem and not some school's.
======
>>I should add that as a gas co2 should diffuse <<
I conducted an experiment involving plants growing at their upper and lower elevations limits with those in a CO-controlled experimental greenhouse. It seem that CO2 may be precipitation out of the atmosphere at higher elevations and that the resultant change in growth may be related to water-use efficiency.
=====
edit ---
I did not mean 36 plants - I meant 36 experiments for each plant-type (to get every combination of variables for ever plant).
The growth of plants depends on light, heat, water, temperature etc and your teacher was showing you the effect of differing amounts of those necessities on the abilities of those plants to grow.
Rather like a fire that requires heat, fuel and air. Without all of those, the fire goes out.
You cannot sue a teacher/school for a scientific experiment, which you think went wrong, that's called education.
Why would your teacher want to hide in school just to swap some plants around? I used to avoid school if not going there for lessons.
The claim "CO2 is plant food" has nothing to do with AGW and is listed as denier myth number 43 on Skepticalscience dot com. An analogy you might understand is that your excrement is also plant food. (and no sane person would suggest we should vaporize ours and dump it into the atmosphere so we don't have to pay to dispose of it properly.)
The facts in relation to AGW are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one person who denies these facts.
Quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) :
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
"...given sufficent [sic]heat, light, water and nutrients the limiting factor for plant growth was a lack of co2 "
1. What order of growth did each plant show for each level of light? Did the plant grow better under more light, or less light? What level of light showed the best results for plant growth?
2. What order of growth did each plant show for each level of water? Did the plant grow better with more water, or less water? What amount of water showed the best results for plant growth?
3. What order of growth did each plant show for each level of nutrients? Did the plant grow better with more nutrients, or less nutrients? What amount of nutrients showed the best results for plant growth? Were different nutrients used and, if so, which nutrient showed the best growth rate?
4. What order of growth did each plant show for each level of CO2? Did the plant grow better with more CO2, or less CO2? What amount of CO2 showed the best results for plant growth?
Now, here is the killer question for you to answer. Did you continue adding CO2 to the plants until the controlled atmospheric level reached 400 ppm? 500 ppm? 1000 ppm? 500,000 ppm? ... In other words, did you continue the experiment by increasing the CO2 level to observe at what ppm the plant would begin to show no further growth or stunted growth? Should the experiment have truly been as to what levels of each environmental factors that promote plant growth not been tested to the extremes of both ends, then what you performed was an elementary school level science experiment. .... What grade are you in?
You did not mention what temperature conditions each plant was grown under. Was the temperature controlled at a fixed value, allowed to fluctuate with the ambient temperature of the room or was the temperature on each plant's temperature ranges for best growth rates also performed?
This certainly sounds to me that what the class performed was a very basic science experiment that absolutely no useful information could be determined from. Did you even try to repeat the test???? Did you double check the equipment and controls?
" We were taught and the experiment proved that given sufficent heat, light, water and nutrients the limiting factor for plant growth was a lack of co2 ?"
REALLY????? So tell us how you measured CO2 levels - at a few hundred ppm level - to reach that conclusion , with the equipment found in a high school lab?
As my business is in agriculture , including green house agriculture, I measure it - I bet you didnt
I suspect you are not telling the truth
EDIT : so you mean to say you cant answer my question about how you measured ppm CO2 levels with equipment in a high school lab? What a surprise
There are indeed other limiting factors to natural plant growth which your teacher may not have been aware of...not intentional deception. Some experiments and research have shown that variations in amounts or frequencies of bird songs can open up plant stomata which can increase CO2 absorption rates, plant growth and crop production....see a system called Sonic Bloom.
http://www.originalsonicbloom.com/
A few results....
"1. Strawberry yields, individual results have had increases of 300%.
2. 5 ft. alfalfa has been reported by users, with 100% increase in tonnage, 29% protein gives 30% increase in milk production.
3. Over 600 ft. Purple Passion Plant (Guinness World Record)
4. Sonic Bloom doubled the Active ingredient in Ginseng.
5. Apple yields increased 50%
6. Soybean harvest doubled.
7. Hot peppers mature 30 days sooner and produced twice as many peppers.
8. Sonic Bloom apples had 5-month shelf life.
9. Zinc content of apples increased 1750%.
10. Sonic Bloom matures tomato crop 35 days sooner and nearly doubled yield.
11. 16 foot high corn with three or four ears per stalk.
12. Accelerated growth of Black Walnut trees 300%. They are ready for sale in 20 years instead of 50 years.
13. Sonic Bloom increased sugar levels.
14. Sonic Bloom increased grape yields by 100% and sugars 2 percentage points
15. Sonic Bloom increased the size of cranberries by 66%.
16. Normally sterile tomato plant "suckers" are potted and produced tomatoes faster than from seed.
17. Blueberries were the diameter of a nickel and ripened 2 weeks sooner.
18. Cucumber plants produced 3 times as many cucumbers.
19. Sonic Bloom reduced irrigation requirements up to 55% in some cases.
20. Sonic Bloom tomatoes had a roadside, fruit stand and shelf life twice as long as untreated plants.
21. Produce buyers drove extra distances in order to buy Sonic Bloom produce because of its incredibly delicious flavor.
22. Chrysanthemum flowers doubled in quantity and mature in 4 weeks."
Feral and pet cats kill an estimated 500 million birds in the US every year..A 2010 study by the University of Nebraska also found that feral cats have driven 33 bird species to extinction worldwide, and that they prey more on native than non-native wildlife. Fewer birds = less activity to improve plant growth stimulated by bird songs. How many plants relied on the now-extinct birds to affect the opening of their stomata?
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals...
You are a bloody moron. Carbon dioxide is plant food and it is a greenhouse gas. If you think that plant food is all good, I have a truck load of plant food to dump in your front yard.
OH, hell this reminds me I forgot to list one of the best warmon Strawman arguments about CO2, given by Dana. It went something like, if CO2 were so great for plants Venus would be covered with them.
Today your teacher would be fired, which is hard to do in the public sector, for not predicting a future where the soil has turned to dust and the heat is more than the plant can take, and telling you the conclusion is that CO2 is bad.
Whilst studying biology at school we did a classroom experiment with plants. We germinated lots of seeds and grew the plants in different conditions. We set up controls and on different plants gave different conditions, more light. less light etc. We were taught and the experiment proved that given sufficent heat, light, water and nutrients the limiting factor for plant growth was a lack of co2 ?
In light of recent scientific discoveries about the dangers of co2 I can only conclude that the teacher must have lied and swopped the plants during the night.
Can I sue the school for teaching lies and leading me towards the 'wrong' kind of thinking?
Change your account name to Malfurion Stormrage and ask plants.
Repeat the experiment.
The dangers of CO2 only exist in the minds of Alarmists!
1) Higher CO2 creates a higher biomass in plants. A doubling of CO2 increases biomass by 40%. CO2 helps plants overcome drought conditions better.
2) “Research is showing that increases of 3, 4, and 5 times of CO2 increases will not have a detrimental effect on the Earth’s biosphere.” - Dr. Tim Patterson – Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
3) “The amount of water used by plants to produce the same amount of growth is decreased with an increase of CO2.” - Dr. James Arthur Bunce – Agricultural Research Service, USDA
Sueing people isn't the answer. Education is! Keep marching Pindar! Your point is taken.
You did the experiments you saw the results and no your teacher is teaching to think, not blindly believe what your told.
Nobody really knows how much CO2 is bad, but everyone knows that no Co2 equals no plant life and no people either.
If you have an open mind there is no wrong kind of thinking, not thinking just accepting is wrong.
You make a good point.
ANNE: Quote by Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK: “In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.”
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals."
Quote by David Suzuki, celebrity scientist, alarmist extraordinaire: “All life on Earth is our kin. And in an act of generosity, our relatives create the four sacred elements for us.”..."We have become a force of nature...Not long ago, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, forest fires, even earthquakes and volcanic explosions were accepted as "natural disasters or "acts of God." But now, we have joined God, powerful enough to influence these events."
Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General: "Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with 'divine,' its transcendence into higher forms of life."
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, mega-millionaire, and large CO2 producer: "The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth."
Now tell us all how disputing the 'saviors of the world' is not heresy.
Science is heresy to you denilsits, so try it. Let us know how badly you fail
Save your money; there would be no case to answer.
