This is hilarious. I cherry picked nothing, that is just basic plant physiology. And it doesn't support your point at all.
The stomata open to let in CO2, you know, the carbon in question. The problem is that leaf structures are spongy materials filled with high humidity air. This means water loss through transpiration. As a result, the stomata tend to be closed when the plant doesn't need CO2. Like at night. No light, no photosynthesis. No photosynthesis, no need for CO2.
Is that clear? I don't want to lose you.
Now plants in arid conditions modify this. Conserving water is critical. So they often have a waxy cutical to cut vwater loss that way. But they also use a modified form of photosynthesis called CAM. This allows them to open their stomata at night when the relative humidity is high(er) and store the CO2 until morning. The stomata then close and the photosynthesis resumes using the stored CO2. Between the waxy cutical and the closed stomata, water loss is minimized.
Now, to your nitwit WAG. If a plant has less water loss in high CO2 levels, that is because the leaf stomata aren't open as wide and not because they have developed superpowers. This tells you that there is more available CO2 than they need, so might as well conserve the water.
Again, biology 101, with non-goal oriented reasoning skills.
Basic, non-goal oriented reasoning skills would have revealed a flaw in your thesis because, if that mechanism had nontrivial effects, then high CO2 eras would have experienced low temperatures and vice-versa, geologically speaking. But the opposite is observed.
Science is not about making shit up and then cherry picking your support. |
