To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20557 ) 2/20/2008 5:04:24 PM From: neolib Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 36921 What is missing is the correlation with increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by the GW community. You need the intermediate step of showing decreased ocean absorption. I would think there should be some good means of directly getting at that. Has anyone attempted a reconstruction of ocean sequestering rates, even just for the last century? BTW, the latest US News had an article on Salmon population plunging in CA this year. It noted that both Sacramento river issues (30% more water pumped down the central valley) but also ocean nutrient and current pattern changes. The ocean discussion was more from current flow changes altering nutrient delivery rather than from anything related to plankton. Apparently there has been significant changes in upwelling currents, which supply nutrient rich water. The article did not imply that the source of nutrients had decreased, just that flow patterns were no longer bringing the same source water to the same areas. Of course, GW was hinted at as being one source of problems. I suspect the main issue with plunging fish populations however is the much more obvious take problem. I'm reminded of this every time I visit one of the Army Corp dams on the Columbia, McNarrey Dam (SP??) They have a nice interpretive center there, and it notes the economic importance of fish to the eastern Columbia basin, (xx millions of dollars to the local economy) but then makes the astonishing claim that due to fishing in the open ocean, and fishing down river, the Salmon have been severely reduced for the local fishing industry! The problem is always somewhere else. We are acting responsibly, but those other people, they are to blame. LOL!