The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Brumar89 who wrote (16242)	9/12/2007 5:22:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 36917

I hope so. Modification of the climate sufficient to avoid the next ice age will require us to make an awful lot of global warming. Gotta disagree with that. Because Paleo-climatic data reflects that most ice ages have been preceeded by global warming. It's the whole theory behind the possibility that dilution of sea water near Southern Greenland and Iceland will dilute the Oceanic conveyor (of which the gulf stream is the final leg at surface level) to the extent that it halts the circulation of warmer water to the northern hemisphere. Stop it's flow and it's like turning off the central heating in your home and those areas receiving less sunlight will grow colder, and hence, the initiation of the next ice age. whoi.edu whoi.edu whoi.edu Now the question is whether this is man-caused, or a natural event that takes place at various periods of time that makes up part of the global climatic cycle. Are the recent decreases in phytoplankton in the Northern Hemispheric oceans due to reductions of nutrient rich water not rising to the surface from the ocean depths? Are the decreases in oceanic phytoplankton a "red flag" that the force of the oceanic conveyor is weakening?: news.nationalgeographic.com An estimated three-quarters of all marine life is maintained by a single ocean-circulation pattern in the Southern Hemisphere that pulls nutrient-rich waters from the deep ocean, brings them to the surface, and distributes them around the world. This is a scary thought, IMO.. all joking aside. Because I firmly believe that GW will only be temporary. It will be followed by a period of tremendous global cooling. So thus, we have a "chicken or the egg" problem here. Are atmospheric CO2 levels rising due to increase man-made CO2 production? Or is the decrease in phytoplankton pointing to an even greater problem wherein the oceans will face a long-term reduction in nutrient rich water so necessary to nourish those phytoplankton blooms (whether man cause by harvesting the oceans and transferring those nutrients to land, or natural disruptions in the ocean conveyor). And untimately it leads to the question of whether mankind should act in such a manner as to supplement those nutrient losses in the oceans in order to stave off further GW due to CO2 increases? I don't really know the answer (and don't pretend to). But I know that fertilizing the oceans to increase phytoplankton blooms is a "win-win" scenario from the perspective of reducing CO2 and replenishing the marine food chain. And it's something we can start NOW, while the eco-moralists focus upon trying to make us all stop breathing CO2 into the atmosphere. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next