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

To: neolib who wrote (20579)	2/21/2008 2:05:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

There appears to me to be another significant problem, which is that the plankton take dissolved CO2 in the ocean water, not CO2 from the surface atmosphere. Neo.. I'm not going to pretend to understand all the facets of phytoplanktonic interaction with CO2 and that's the reason research funding must increase. Because CLEARLY in past decades C02 levels were lower in both the atmosphere and oceans. Only with recent (over the past 100 years) have we seen large-scale losses in phytoplankton levels in the oceans. Sure.. Phytoplankton take CO2 from BOTH the oceans and the atmosphere. And the rising acidity of the oceans, and rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, seem to further the evidence that something is drastically off-balance with oceanic phytoplankton levels. But clearly, with the current bias against investigating and performing larger scale research into phytoplankton's role in GW, we're just never going to know, now are we? Until the GW scientific community gets with it and incorporates data based upon the distortions of oceanic flora, they're just going to find their efforts continuously thwarted in substantially reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. Hawk