Bruwin.. I find personal attacks EXTREMELY distasteful and I seldom engage in them unless provoked..
I really could care less who the messenger is, or their politics or morals.. Issues must be debated on the observable facts. And then we need to continue to examine and question those observations to make sure we eliminate all other possibilities.. Leaving only the truth..
That's called the Scientific Method...
.. which seems to support the possible conclusion that if sea temperatures are rising then a vital component of a coral reef’s food chain is being compromised by that very rise in sea temperature.
Look.. Have you EVER, before I brought it up, heard about the near 50% decline in Phytoplankton as a possible rationale for the plight of the coral reefs?
If not, you must ask yourself "why not?".. Because all living things need food. And if their food sources are declining by 50%, then it stands to reason and logic that competition for the remaining food sources increase. And since Corals cannot migrate, if the amount of plankton floating through their reefs is HALVED, then coral reefs will starve, and thereby diminish in size.
In fact, since corals are rivals for territory on the reef, they will increase their predatory attacks against other corals, leaving them their white skeletal husks (bleaching)..
But the most important "inconvenient truth" that Mr. Gore and his followers ignore is that the oceanic phytoplankton make up nearly 1/2 of photosynthesis on this planet.
Some consequences of a reduced population of phytoplankton..
1. The level of dissolved CO2 in the oceans increases because there is less phytoplankton to consume it.
2. Increased saturation of CO2 in the oceans leads to greater acidity. (creating a chicken or egg argument)..
3. Marine life decreases all along the Marine Food chain..
4. Because the oceans are saturating with uncomsumed (sequestered) CO2, then atmospheric levels of CO2 increase.
Plants thrive on CO2.. There is no doubt about that because Greenhouses commonly jacked up their CO2 levels to 1300 parts per million to increase the rate of growth of their crops. So long as there are no other limitations on their growth (minerals, temperature, water sunlight.. etc), they will grow as fast as they can. This argument also pertains to Phytoplankton, as they are one celled plants.
So if CO2 levels are going up because of anthropogenic reasons, then why are we not seeing increasing levels in phytoplankton? What is limiting their growth?? They have plenty of basic nutrients.. plenty of sunlight.. plenty of water.. So what is it..
Look up Chlorosis.. It happens to terrestrial plants.. But it also happens to phytoplankton.
Basically, it involves a deficiency of Iron in the oceans... Whether because of natural, or man-made (soil conservation) reasons, we have less Iron available for phytoplankton.
Doubt this? Research Mt. Pinatubo and phytoplankton blooms that resulted from it.
Here's one link..
humantouchofchemistry.com
But if you're really interested in pursuing the subject further, read these links..
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
palomar.edu
Bottom line.. Very few so-called "climate scientists" truly look at the phytoplankton as a potential cause of increased atmospheric CO2. They tend to think there is some "equilibrium" that must be maintained. But if you have a V8 engine, and you put a tiny fuel pump or carburetor to feed fuel to it, it will never meet it's expectations because you have limited that fuel. But add a 4 barrel, and fuel injection, then you have totally different engine..
So maybe, just maybe, we need to "soup up" the ocean phytoplankton to draw down that C02, as well as to augment the marine food chain..
Something to think about..
Hawk |
