Don't feel bad - you can be bothered to spell correctly and form proper sentences, which officially puts you in the top 0.1% of the Internet.Oh yeah, I remember now. Animals produce carbon dioxide and plants produce oxygen. That's primary school biology. Christ, I can be dense sometimes.
That sounds a bit odd. I think plants respire (i.e. use up energy stores like animals do, giving off CO^2 as a waste product) at night, but that they generally give off less CO^2 than they absorb, which is how the early Earth's CO^2-rich atmosphere got converted into an O^2-rich one in the first place, allowing animals to evolve. Er. I think.Actually, some recent research has shown plants themselves (along with animals) produce a lot of "greenhouse" emissions - so simply re-foresting may not make things any better...
I will dig up the ref.
Yeah, there are all sorts of suspected feedback-type effects going on - I think seawater is meant to be able to absorb a certain amount of CO2, but its ability to do this is affected by temperature, which is in turn affected by CO2 levels. This introduces (yet more) non-linearities into the equations used to model climate change, making it (even) harder to predict future trends. Having said that, it looks like most of the predictions made in the last ten years or so were under-estimates.But as the planet heats up the recycling (rotting) process gets accelerated so more carbon is released...