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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: neolib who wrote (20546)2/20/2008 1:34:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36921
 
I suspect the current research would be coming from marine biologists rather than climate scientists.

Neo.. I think you're missing my point. Until climate scientists recognize the importance that marine biology makes to atmospheric CO2 balances, there will continue to be a gap in the information.

It's easy to just say "lookie!! CO2 is increasing above historical norms.. It must be caused by man's emissions" without recognizing that those "norms" can fluctuate and diminish due to other causes.

And, by the same token, marine biologists need to assert themselves into the GW debate and bring to focus the problem with decreasing phytoplankton blooms (which they primarily imply -and rightly so- being responsible for depletion of oceanic fauna).

Decreases in oceanic algal sequestration of atmospheric CO2 is the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the living room of the GW scientific community. But since they can't communicate with it (since they don't see it's relevance) they just ignore it and focus on what they can understand.

All this reminds me of my college days where I studied Political Science. I would see my professors busily trying to formulate theorems and equations that totally disregarded datum from other social science fields (economics, social psychology, history.. etc)

I guess I'm just more inclined to "wholistic" science and not the current state of specialization.

Hawk