Do some research on heat islands and get back to us.

As for CO2 usage, one of the earliest models that took plant CO2 consumption into account was NASA in 2009 which stated that increased plant CO2 consumption would have a cooling effect on the planet. This was quickly followed by a highly flawed psyuntwific studee that stated increased plant CO2 consumption would increase global warming due to decreased evapotranspiration. Highly flawed because it did not take into account the amount of water available to plants; they left it at a constant for both a 'normal' O2/CO2 environment and an enriched CO2 environment. The flawed assumption is that there would be no excess water available to the plant - that it absorbs all available moisture in a normal O2/CO2 environment.
In a nutshell, the studee ensured that the plants in the enriched CO2 environment were deprived of the amount of water required for normal evapotranspiration to take place. This results in lower humidity.
Now here's the really funny kicker to all of this. Globull warming psyuntwists claim that increased atmospheric moisture cause higher global temperatures.
So depending on what globull psyuntwists want to prove, they'll claim completely opposite conditions result in global warming!

Here's the beauty of all of these studees. They're paid for with tax dollars. KaChing! That's right, they're funded with government grants. And you think that these psyuntwists are acting in an ethical manner? They're modern PT Barnums who are fleecing the taxpayers.