SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: koan who wrote (7761)4/27/2009 5:22:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) of 86356
 
So using the scientific method, we would be testing a hypothesis, and do he experimentation with no expectations and let the data fall where it does.

Tell that to all of those atmospheric scientists, who your SIL says, assert that humanity has induced GW.

I can tell you right now that if the atmospheric scientists are not incorporating the 20-30% decline in oceanic phytoplankton, then their data regarding human influence on CO2 levels is flawed. If the planet's flora is diminished, but CO2 emissions remain steady, it will STILL REFLECT AN INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS!!

This ALONE should indicate to you that making such conclusions about human induced GW is a bit premature.

Ask your SIL if any atmospheric scientists have incorporated data related to diminished ocean phytoplankton in their analysis.

I'd be surprised if you find more than 1 or 2 who claim they have.

In fact, I'd be surprised if you find ANY who have.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News