Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (187700)	5/30/2006 12:26:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Because we are taking lots of CO2 which has been sequestered in oil and coal and are liberating it back to the atmosphere. Wharf.. that should be resulting in massive phytoplankton blooms, and a greening planet, since plants NEED CO2 to survive and elevated levels of it should result in elevated levels of plant growth. Something is out of whack here.. Why aren't we seeing increasing levels of Flora manifesting themselves in the oceans, where 90% of all transpiration reportedly occurs in response to this elevated CO2 level. If I fertilize and water a desert, it will bloom in a fantastic manner. (Happens each year in Arizona when the Monsoons come in around Aug-Sep).. So why are plants responding to increased CO2 levels?? Like I been repeatedly stating, John Martin, IMO, is really on to something. Due to a deficiency in nutrients, the oceanic "lungs" are "Asthmatic", and unable to take advantage of the increased CO2 levels via elevated phytoplankton growth. Theoretically speaking, the levels of CO2 are reflective of a balance of CO2 production and C02 sequestration. Should one of those levels get out of balance, then there should be a return to some level of equilibrium. N'est Pas?? Phytoplankton should be growing at far larger quantities than they currently are in response to elevated C02 levels. This is a self-evident aspect of the established "balance" that has governed C02 levels as far back as paleo-climatic evidence exists. So there should be no reason that oceanic plant growth is not responding. After all, phytoplankton has no problems with obtaining water or sunlight that land-based flora might be deprived of, right?? But they might be lacking some of the crucial part of the "growth equation" necessary for them to take advantage of these C02 levels. And that's a lack of necessary nutrients. So maybe THE PROBLEM ISN'T THE RISE IN CO2 LEVELS, IT'S THE INABILITY OF THE OCEANS TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NUTRIENTS TO FACILITATE THE GROWTH OF PHYTOPLANKTON THAT WOULD CONSUME THAT C02. CO2 levels could rise for any number of reasons, whether natural or man-caused. Volcanology.. tectonic activity... But what if the oceans are failing to produce sufficient nutrients to support PREVIOUS levels of phytoplankton growth?? Wouldn't a reduction in previous levels of phytoplankton cause CO2 levels to elevate?? So maybe, just maybe, we're looking at this WHOLE problem from the wrong angle.. We shouldn't nearly be as worried about the rising levels of C02 as we should about DECLINING LEVELS OF PHYTOPLANKTON. Because EVEN IF we completely reduce our man-made production of C02 to ZERO, a declining phytoplankton population will skew the data and reflect increased CO2 levels. If folks don't understand this, they need only ask themselves whether C02 levels would go up, or down, if all the plantlife that consumes that CO2 on the planet suddenly died off?? Theoretically speaking, levels of CO2 should be balanced by the ability of available plant life to absorb and sequester it. Thus, to decrease C02 levels, we really need to think about how to foster the increase in oceanic plant life to counter-act the rise in C02. fisherycrisis.com gsfc.nasa.gov sciencedaily.com Hawk