It is possible that could be part of the factor but CO2 was rising in the atmosphere way, way before 1950. And Phyto-plankton levels were declining PRIOR to 1950 as well.. The Nature article that links to the 2010 study says that their data goes back to 1899
Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year.
scientificamerican.com
nature.com
The only reason I've mentioned 1950 is that GISS states that CO2 has risen by 50% since then, so it was convenient to use that year as a starting point for correlation between PP decline and CO2 rise.
climate.nasa.gov
Secchi disk data is just as good as satellite observations of phytoplankton populations, as they both basically measure surface phytoplankton (which is where the Sun is.. ;)
They measured 500,000 data points, going back (implied, but not explicitly stated) to 1899, so it seems pretty representative..
HOWEVER, NONE of these articles suggest anything other than AGW "forcing" is creating the decline.. So they are using the data to support some AGW argument and that, somehow, extra CO2 is "killing" off the PP (increased CO2 = AGW = PP decline)..
But the Haida tribe just demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY, and BEYOND DOUBT, that adding Iron to nutrient rich HN/LC zones helped to spur IMMENSE PP blooms, with corresponding POSITIVE impact on Salmon populations (quadrupling the harvest)..
It's just ridiculous that none of these "esteemed" scientists can see the correlation.. Or maybe they aren't permitted to see it.. at risk of losing their funding..
But for me, it's the 800 pound Gorilla sitting in the middle of the AGW/Co2 debate..
Hawk |
