Absolutely! Greenhouses pump up the CO2 content inside their greenhouses with great commercial results.
In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387% or 387 parts per million (ppm). At the scientific recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm for the first time in May 2013, although this level had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012. There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.
The current CO2 level is 397.23ppm and it is generally measured this way rather than as a percentage.
Although CO2 is beneficial to trees and plant life, there is already more CO2 in the atmosphere than the existing vegetation can absorb. keep in mind that vegetation is only a 90% carbon sink as it emits @ 10% of it's carbon daily intake at night time absorbing an equal amount of O2
Even the oceans release more CO2 than they can possible absorb
BTW 60-90% of our oxygen comes from algae, not plants
The plants require CO2 in only limited amount. There is no use and and if there is high amount of CO2 it has negative effects on the plants. The CO2 is used for photosynthesis in the plants and it the O2 is the output of this photosynthesis and it is necessary for the respiration of the animals. So, your hypothesis is wrong.
Increasing CO2 does not increase the rainfall, soil nutrients, or the amount of sunlight plants are exposed to. Plants, like all living things, need many factors to survive so the argument that 'increasing CO2 is good for plants' is overly simplistic.
A good example is this - plants need water but you can still over-water a plant, rot the roots, and have it die. The fact that plants need CO2 does not imply that more CO2 will be better for plants. If, for example, more CO2 means an increase in temperature then what does that do to the moisture levels of the soil, the ecosystem of bacteria, worms, etc that aerate that soil, break down organic material, and add nutrients to it, the life cycle of the insects that pollinate the plants, the pests that infect the plants, etc?
This is why global warming worries me. It is not the effect on humans I think is the biggest problem, since we have (in theory) technological solutions to some of those issues. It is the effect on complex ecosystems, where many many factors are intertwined and (often) not well understood, that I think is the biggest threat from global warming. To give you an idea of why, bees throughout Europe are dying off (not because of global warming but for a whole host of possible reasons). If you wanted to artificially pollinate plants, a job bees do for free, it would cost billions. If we damage ecosystems, who knows what impact and what cost it will ultimately have?
It can be good for having extra CO2, but first more plants have to be planted. Then as they grow up, they can utilize the extra CO2 so that they can release more Oxygen. So we can breathe better. However, in order to achieve this, deforestation should be completely stopped. Then we can achieve good results.
It does help plants grow if there are no other changes.
But there are other changes that can be bad for plants
* Deforestation directly reduces plant life and is one of the causes of the CO2 increase.
* Weather patterns are changing in ways that make it wetter in wet places and dryer in dry places. We are seeing increases in both droughts and flooding, neither of which is good for crops.
* Some places such as the Western U.S. depend on snow pack for summer irrigation for crops. Here already researchers have found that the snow is melting a little earlier than 50 years ago. With snow melting earlier and warm Spring rains, there is greater risk of early melt, Spring flooding too little water stored in the snow pack for late summer. This can be especially bad for the fruits and nuts crops in California's Central Valley which is too dry for agriculture without irrigation and the Sierra snow pack.
* It appears that the reduce Arctic ice is altering the jet stream in ways that is causing more heat waves and more blizzards further south in the Northern Hemisphere. The jet steam is slower and wavier.
Crops need water in amounts that can be controlled, and heat that is somewhat predictable and right for the specific crop. The less of these we get, the more that crops are harmed and farming has to change. A little extra CO2 is good but only if everything else that is needed is available.
More plants also grew in the no-mans land killing zone along the border between East and West Germany.
Their is a lot of evidence that it is improving our plant biomass and greening our planet, and perhaps warming some of our frigid parts of earth might be good, but it is not happening, it seems CO2 is not so good at warming.
Our O2 will not rise, not for a long time, because we are using O2 when burning fossil fuels, and it will not be until plant biomass has increased enough and fossil fuels run out that O2 levels will rise again, however at 21% O2 in our atmosphere a minuscule reduction does not matter.
This is a common comment : that the greening of earth will result
If it were true , why is the atmospheric CO2 level increasing - why isnt it all being "soaked up" with the increasing biomass?
Wouldn't this extra CO2 be good for plants and slightly warm the more frigid parts of Earth allowing more planets to grow and thrive therefore producing more oxygen?
Maybe. I don't think it would produce significantly more O2 though.
Yes, some one gets it.
This is a glass half full/half empty type of question. It all depends on what point of view you have coming into it.
