I'm not talking about the proportion of the gases that make up the atmosphere.I mean the amount of gas in the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure. Plants are composed of hydrocarbons.So the elements that make up plant are: hydrogen and carbon.(And contain water and various minerals.) During growth, they take in their mass hidregen and carbon. Where do get these elements? If they manage to unlink the water (that I do not think), when hydrogen and oxygen can take it from there but carbon can only take from air. So plants take from the air hydrogen and carbon and fixed them in their mass. What happens after death of the plant? Some elements are released by microbial action but some remain fixed in the earth.This is what happened with fossil hydrocarbons. So plants take hydrogen and carbon from the atmosphere and it stays in the ground and through this they destroy the atmosphere.
Plants collect carbon from sun. They transform it to oxygen. The level of oxygen we have in the atmosphere is due to plants and some bacteria. Without them the atmosphere wouldn't be in its current chemical composition anyway.
The energy for photosynthesis comes from the Sun, but the carbon source is terrestrial (atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]). According to wiki, 20-30% of the Earth's photosynthetic productivity is due to cyanobacteria (most of which is oceanic). I recall other estimates that say the majority of the Earth’s photosynthesis is cyanobacterial.
We have had plants and in the larger regard photosynthesis for over 500 million years- they are not our enemy- we evolved with them. I just don't see a point to this thread.
No. In fact, in this era of global warming, we want plants to take carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in their tissues.
Thanks for correction. I would like to ask two questions: I heard that there wasn't any fire (in flame form) on this planet before plants filled the atmosphere with enough amount of oxygen. What is the correctness level of this claim? Secondly, if the majority of oxygen is produced by cyanobacterial activity, can we say that massive loss of plants will not make a major change in atmosphere? This is also very much related to OP: If plants don't have a major definitive role in the chemical composition of earth's atmosphere, OP shouldn't worry about plant activities.
So far, not succeeded to transform one chemical element into another. Alchemists tried to turn lead into gold but failed.So do not turn carbon into oxygen.
I came with some arguments in supportwhat I said. Besides that say "No", you can argue with something?
Do you know what you are talking about? Have you checked the links? Nature doesn't give any shit about your Alchemists.
Yes, I know what I speak. "Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of bacteria, but not in archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since they can create their own food. In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product" Quantity of elements is constant on earth. (perhaps only to get rid of gravity is lost). Substances may change. (chemical reactions) But elements of Memdeleev's table can not turn one element into another element. Nothing ventured, nothing gaine but everything is transformed from one state to another.
Electron's can shift from one atom to another. It's been done many times, obviously the most impressive ones involve nuclear fission like Einsteinium, There is also a method to turn Gold to Lead, of course people might think you a little crazy for doing that. Plants in general do not cause damage to the atmosphere, in fact most of the time plants absorb most of the pollutants that would otherwise damage the atmosphere, plants are even know to be able to absorb radiation however obviously this can generate observed reactions. (You only have to look at the area around Chernobyl to see that it's not a barren wasteland but the plants hold a great deal of radioactivity). Plant's are exceedingly important to our ecosystem, without them life would not be sustainable. (Plants are an important part of the food chain) Obviously photosynthesis has already been stated as a function that plants also play. If you wanted to suggest what destroy's the atmosphere, then you might as well attempt to identify something more feasible like combustion engines, venting of toxic clouds from poorly controlled industrial facilities, radiological abuse from telecommunications arrays, the venting and inefficient flaring of waste gases (as opposed to conversion to power generation etc) and of course Cows (Methane polluters and fast food instituters) . Take your pick.
Check out what verb I used in my short description. I didn't know you were after the full description of photosynthesis (yet in case I gave a link). If you are so keen about the exact "transformation", take the exact formula instead of your partly extracted quote: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and look for sugar production as well. However, OP asks and comments: and actually answers the question: If there is no major systematic transformation mechanism -similar calibre to photosynthesis- to transform ground carbon back to atmosphere, what makes you think that it will be dissolved back into atmosphere? We already know that Volcanoes and/or naturally occurring combustion releases some carbon oxide, but they do not create a systematic production as photosynthesis displays. Only regular carbon release system happens to be created by us, humans. So, natural process of plant dying and leaving their carbon on the ground would not make a great hustle in atmospheric composition.
. that'sstupid, do you think nature is such foolish or unorgenized, nature is presisecily orgenized in all details, then, if what you saytrue, do you sugest destroy all planbts on earth? hmm, good step, that will help our mother earth and nature to survive! waaw lol
I thought long to post this thread or not. Know what feelings will give these ideas. I decided to post, considering that it is scientifically forum. It all started, several years ago,with the question:"the fossil hydrocarbons,where they come from?" I agree. I do not want to suggest anything.Is an observation and deductive logic where I could be wrong,of that, I submitted to the discussion. This example does not say that I am right? 6CO2 turn in to 6O2. CO2 is heavier than O2, atmospheric pressure does not drop? I think not.That I told myself. Carbon remains fixed in the ground in the form of hydrocarbons. Depends on the time to consider. Front on the appearance of animals was so much CO2 into the atmosphere and almost no O2,and atmospheric pressure was higher. Plants, through photosynthesis,were fixed carbon from CO2 in the soil and have released the O2 into atmosphere.
Plants have already destroyed the atmosphere once. Before they came along, the earth had a reducing atmosphere. Most life at that time would have been anaerobic. Then plants began pumping out oxygen as a waste product of their metabolism and wiped out most life on earth.
For the first billion years of life on earth oxygen existed in only trace amounts in the atmosphere. So all life up to that point was anaerobic. Oxygen was, in fact, a potent toxin. When photosynthesizing organisms (mostly blue-green algae or cyanobacteria) began pumping out O2, there was probably a massive extinction event. I'm sure that, from the point of view of most life extant on earth 2.5 billion years ago, the never before seen high levels of atmospheric oxygen on earth would be considered "ruining the atmosphere. Of course, without that high atmospheric O2, we'd never have existed. Early Earth and the Origin of Life
Just one thing. Blue-green algae are not plants, they are bacteria. According to theory they are the ancestors of the chloroplasts found in plants today. Also, the anaerobic life that was all but wiped out by them were all single-celled organisms. Not that that negates your point but I thought it was unclear from your earlier post.
"Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal and methane. Many of the coal fields date to the Carboniferous period of Earth's history. Terrestrial plants also form type III kerogen, a source of natural gas." "Coal is composed primarily of carbon along with variable quantities of other elements, chiefly sulphur, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen." "This trapped atmospheric carbon in the ground in immense peat bogs that eventually were covered over and deeply buried by sediments under which they metamorphosed into coal."
