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: Eric who wrote (50808)5/6/2014 10:06:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Maurice Winn

  Read Replies (1) of 86355
 
The decline in oceanic phytoplankton was brought up but she said it was not a big problem. The phytoplankton population varies around the world and goes through cycles that they still do not fully understand.

So phytoplankton populations can be reduced by 40%, resulting in 40% loss of food for the marine food chain.. and people say "not a big problem"..

And it goes through cycles.. "they still do not fully understand"..

Yet, when the climate starts to warm over the course of 150 years (since the last micro-ice age ended) and it's catastrophic..

Global temperatures in a pause (or to satisfy WR, still barely trending upward) over the past 17 years..

But 40% of the food for Marine life has disappeared in 64 years and no one thinks its a "big problem"..

Make people in Africa live on 40% less food and see what happens..

Are you really going to buy into that Eric? Does it sound like 40% less food for our fisheries isn't a "big problem"..

And isn't it POSSIBLY more than a coincidence that at the same phytoplankton populations went down by 40%, atmospheric CO2 levels went up 50%?

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