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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: bruwin who wrote (3418)11/25/2013 10:55:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) of 4326
 
But that DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN that any "warming" or "cooling" or "deficiency" in food chains or plant life is being caused, SOLELY, by our actions.

I would agree.. but the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) folks would have us believe that humanity is the major problem and we need to be controlled.. primarily through limiting our access to energy.. taxed on our emissions of CO2.. (which to them, is a poison, not plant food)..

So be careful.. either you're a true believer, or you're a denier.. ;0)

And is it also not possible that the decrease in Phytoplankton content in our oceans is possibly also being adversely affected by what has been introduced into our environment in the last 80 to 100 years, apart from what you stated in your post ?

It's entirely possible. As I've mentioned previously, there is a theory that agricultural soil conservation efforts may be limiting the amount of airborne Iron being distributed into the oceans.

Or it may be that a hundred or so years of additional CO2 emissions have exhausted the available supply of Iron available to oceanic phytoplankton.

Those are TWO anthropogenic possibilities that may have increased CO2 levels.

But let's remember.. CO2 is plant food, not a poison. CO2 is ESSENTIAL in order for plants to thrive.. And if that botanical flora has all the other elements it requires, then there is little to stifle it's growth. Therefore, no matter how much additional CO2 we emit, plant life with all the required elements to thrive, should consume it until some limitation arises.

And I think the argument is pretty compelling that this limitation is Iron (and maybe a few other trace minerals).

So thus, it stands to reason that we're far better off trying to augment natural forces of atmospheric equilibrium, instead of trying to make Billions of people emit less Carbon.. Or being stupid enough to declare it a pollutant.
Methane as a Pollutant? I can understand that.. But not CO2..

So we fertilize our lawns to make them grow because we exhaust the available minerals (because lawns don't normally grow in those places)..

Why not the oceans? Do it responsibly.. Feed the fish.. Sequester and balance out further CO2 levels NATURALLY..

They way we're doing it now is like taking a sledgehammer to a thumbtack..

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
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News