Positive Side of Carbon-dioxide....???

Yes, at first sight it can surprise. This is Nature, it has a deep meaning behind its every move....Same is with the CO2. The increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has the big positive effect other than increasing global-warming. What is it???

In high school, we learned about 'photosynthesis' in which CO2 plays a major role. The main factors which affects this process are -- favorable temperature, the level of light intensity, and availability of CO2. The increased concentration of photosynthesis in the atmosphere can affect the growth of plants by affecting its rate of photosynthesis. It is hidden secret in the climate change debate that the vegetation and plants can actually benefit greatly from increased CO2 levels.

How?

There are plenty of examples to show that if CO2 levels increase more than the present 360ppm, then most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. Higher levels CO2 can benefit the plants in several ways.Some of them are -- 

-- greater resistance at extreme temperatures.

-- better growth at low light intensities.

-- improved root/shoot ratios.

-- less harm from air pollutants.

-- more nutrients in soil as a result of more nitrogen fixation process.

There are two important reasons for this productivity boost...First, superior efficiency of photosynthesis and second, sharp reduction in water loss per unit area of leaf. The pores (stomata) of leaves are the respiration channels of the plants but they are also responsible for the transpiration or moisture loss from plants which leads to the need of more water to the plants. Higher levels of CO2 partially closes these pores hence lowering the moisture loss, it can be quite significant in the arid climates.                             

The biggest variation differences in response to CO2 in plant species are among -- C3, C4, and Crassulacean Acid Metabolism or CAM -- each with a different pathway for photosynthesis fixation of carbon dioxide.Most green plants, in forests that account for two thirds of global photosynthesis, algae, and most major food crops are C3 plants.C3 metabolism allows them to respond most dramatically to higher levels of CO2.

Cereal grains with C3 metabolism, including rice, barley, wheat, oat, and rye  show yield from 25%-60%. Rice (the most eaten food in the world) has shown increase in mass with less water and higher CO2 levels. The benefit C4 plants receive is from higher CO2 levels is reduced water loss by about 33% through leaf pores (stomata). The examples of C4 plants are corn, sugarcane, sorghum, millet, some tropical grass and etc. These plants grow under higher temperatures and limited soil moisture, they can show high yields of 10-55% even when there is low rainfall.

Evidences

In most green plants, productivity continues to rise up to CO2 concentrations of 1000ppm and above. In an indoor garden with the carbon dioxide amount increased from an ambient level of 300ppm to a high level of 2000ppm can nearly double plant growth. Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000ppm of CO2 with no ill-effects on maintaining all plant resources at maximum and at a temperature not exceeding 30deg.

Department of Energy(DoE) examined the responses to elevated carbon-dioxide levels in gum trees. DoE pumped tonnes of CO2 into the plots, raising concentration of CO2 in the trees. The average increase was 24%. Fine root and wood production has also increased. These fine roots are very important for water and nutrient absorption.

A Russian study from 1961-1998 found that as carbon dioxide increased the forest increased at same rate. Pine trees grown for 2yrs at 600ppm, grow more than 200% faster than normal. Trees and seedlings grown under controlled environments or in open top simulating the outdoors have shown remarkable growth responses to elevated levels of CO2. Michigan State University has produced plantable trees in months, rather than years, by subjecting seedlings to 1000ppm CO2 under optimal conditions.

A standard  practice for laboratory scientists working with algae cultures to conduct their research in CO2-enriched environments. They cut costs by shortening their season and better crops. For over 100 years, nurserymen around the world have been adding carbon dioxide to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants. These vegetables are tomato, cucumbers, lettuce, show early maturity, more no. of fruits, bigger size and reduction in riping time. Greenhouse grown flowers including roses, have shown early maturity with longer stem, long-lived and more colorful flowers. Increase in yield is 9%-!5%.

Good or Bad

So far we have seen that increase in carbon dioxide concentrations increases plants growth and its abundance. Its still early time and somewhat misleading to say that, if CO2 is good plants, its good for environments also. Research says, higher level of CO2 in atmosphere promotes to trees more rapidly, resulting in more no. of trees and therefore wood per year, but, with the higher temperatures there are also more pests.

Researchers and scientists says that doubling of CO2 would increase plant productivity by growing faster, bigger in size, increase in leaf size and thickness, more stem height, branches and seed production. No. of fruits and flowers would be also on a rise. Root system would also improve by nitro-fixation.

Out of 21 of the most important crops 17 falls under C3 category, and C3 are mostly trees. Since, C3 plants benefits more than C4 from higher carbon dioxide levels so, we can expect reforestation and enormous expansion of biomass. C3 plants includes rice, wheat, barley, chickpeas, potato, field beans, soybean, banana, coconut, sugar beet etc. On the other hand, 14 out of 18 most noxious weeds are C4 plants, and C4 grows slow with higher CO2 levels.

Plants and trees (forests) directly and indirectly produce 95% of the food, for human beings and also for birds and animals. Birds and animals are totally depended on the plants for their food. The increase in plants would also control or rather regulate the population of animals. 

Increase in carbon dioxide concentrations may not be good for environment. But, We don't know how far or to what extent, all  the predictions and assumptions made related to higher level of CO2 are true. We do not know any optimal level of CO2 should be in atmosphere. Many predictions and assumptions made in the early centuries have proved wrong about the ecological system and existence of earth itself. But, increase in plants means more forestation, more no. of trees, resulting more food production and the decline in food prices can be expected. If the no. of trees increase, the nature itself could balance the temperature levels keeping the environment clean and cool. But, again, CO2 also contributes to rise of temperature levels and it we can't afford to ignore this... 

Does anybody has answers...??? Part-3

The Law of Refraction and Newton's first Law
The most simplest and elementary level of refraction is explained by through glass slab.The glass slab experiment of refraction is being taught in 8th or 9th class in Indian education system.I'm not here to discuss this topic mathematically, lets discuss it more theoretically, because I know maths(specially trigo. and calculus) can prove anything right and also wrong.So, no angle of incidence, angle of refraction,emergence, normal etc.... nothing....just purely LOGIC. I just thought and got clicked a very simple and base level violation of Physical law in it, Newton's first Law of Motion.It says, a body will remain in motion or in stationary until any external or internal force is acted upon it.


Like in my earlier posts I mentioned, I'm not here to prove anything or anyone logical and illogical, I'm just an another student of engineering not more than that. I just got clicked this in my mind. So, I would welcome any type of supportive theories and explanations.
  The law says--


--> A light ray bends towards the normal as it enters into the optically more dense medium.

--> A light ray bends away from the normal as it enters from optically more dense medium to less dense medium.

The Glass slab experiment shows that, a light ray experience a decrease in its velocity when it enters into the glass slab, i.e., from optically less medium to more dense medium, as the particle cloud inside the slab is more dense which resist the light ray to move at its entering speed.True.

              As the light ray leaves the glass slab surface it is recorded that the light ray has automatically gained its original speed,i.e., the speed at which the light ray has entered into the glass slab.How can this happen??? It is quite understandable that the particles force the light ray to decrease its velocity inside the glass slab.But, what about when it enters a less dense medium from more dense...?? How come the light ray has gained its original speed after leaving the surface of glass slab...??? and that too without any external force action upon it.....This what I feel is disturbing....Even if we neglect the Newton's first law....then what unknown force is being applied on the ray of light to regain its original speed...???
            If Newton's law doesn't have the correct explanation and answer for this, then what is the correct explanation?? Does the logic hidden in Properties of Light??? or elsewhere? I'm still in search of new explanations and theories which can give the correct explanation of this irregularity of light ray without any much mathematics involved....If anyone has...then I would really appreciate and welcome....

Does anybody has answers...??? Part-2

This is about charged particles. Another name for charges is 'subatomic particles'. Like my earlier post, related to gravity, charges also do have a mystery. I might not be able to crack this mystery in my study.So, I would appreciate any type of explanations and theories.


Current and modern-science theory tells us the three main types of subatomic particles i.e. proton(positive), electron(negative) and neutron(neutral). But, what makes them to be so??? 

--> And 'charge is the property or energy of the particular particle', its not the name of the particle.

--> How can we judge and predict a particle to be positive or negative or neutral, without being told or already known?

Suppose, take a random situation where a particle is stable or kept. The energy is emanating out of it(as being said by the modern science theory), and this energy is known as the 'charge'. Then, how can the property of the particle can be judged, that, this particle is +ve or -ve or neutral in nature?? Energy is energy, how can we predict then the nature of energy of the particle....Unless we are already knowing that the particular atom has this and this, so and so number  of -vely and +vely charged particles.


--> Secondly, the same question also arises here as in gravitational force, How a particle emanates a never-ending energy without any known power-source???
A charge emanates the energy without diminishing by even 0.1% of its strength and that too without any known power-source. Is this possible??
            So, here charged particle also somewhere violates the 'Law of Conservation of Energy'.

--> And here is something i think is the biggest blunder theory related to charged particles.As charged paricles are also known as subatomic-particles, so, in an atom lies a nucleus, which is said to be +vely charged because the certain no. of protons revolving inside it(the no. of protons depends on the valency of the element). How can the all positively charged particles reside inside the nucleus overcoming the force of repulsion...??? The nucleus should explode in this case.
           The explanation given on this overcoming of repulsion force is the strong-nuclear force applied on the protons.Now, from Where and How does this strong-nuclear arises?? The source of this force is again unkown. Modern science theory doesn't have any clear and exact explanation of this, all it have is only the strong-nuclear force with no known originating point...(if we don't move to the mathematics to prove this, i know maths can prove anything.). This is like ...'a book is on the table because it is kept there.' [among our engg. friends we call it PJ ;-)]   This what I think is taping and patch-work to somehow prove the study and the research.


-->Modern-science theory claims the strong-nuclear force as the strongest known force in the nature.


May some other and new kind of theory has the answers and explanation of these questions.But, modern-science theory is what we are taught in our educational institutes, and I'm no different than just a student of an average educational institute.I'm in search of the new theories for the explanations. So, if anyone has any explanation related to this then...I would humbly appreciate the explanations.

Does anybody has answers...???

This is about Newton, considered as the greatest scientiest till the times. I was studying gravity and its forces applied in our daily life...i found a few loop-holes in the Newton's Gravitational theory....a few unexplained questions (why?) about the gravity. I'm mentioning here a few what i thought something unusual and lacking in scientific grounds during my study of 'Gravity and its forces'. I'm not trying to question Newton's theory and prove the theory wrong and fake....but its just...what i felt...something lacking or loop-hole....I might not be certain, so..  I would welcome any type of suggestions and explanations related to it...

                                                                                                               

-- > Newton's theory doesn't explain why objects attract each other...means,....Why the gravity is always an attractive force unlike other major forces in nature which are both attractive and repulsive....What i thought about this is ....it just can be a hypothesis of Newton(im not detailing here, how?)

-- >There is no known power source of the gravitational force...which claims to be emanating from earth(planet or just a object with mass). It seems just like a huge mass is emanating energy out of it without any power source....What's providing earth such unending and unlimited power ??? This power seems to b never ending from the numerous centuries and still not diminishing by even 0.1% of its strength. How this is possible ??

-- > This so strong and never-ending energy emanating actually violates our Law of Conservation of Energy, the most basic yet fundamental of modern science.
           This violation of law is generally explained by the improper use of the equation 'work-function' (im not detailing here what is work function and how it works).


There might be more violations or might be no violations....so, all the explanations are welcome....