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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (6880)	4/4/2009 1:15:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

It is written by a reputable physicist and historian of science who also is a lucid writer. Not to discount his research, but I searched his essays and found NOTHING related to diminished capacity for CO2 absorption due to decreased phytoplankton levels. This is what I'm trying to say about the current GW climate modeling. They seem to be completely excluding one of the biggest climatic "elephants" linger in the discussion room. Yet, there is substantial evidence of both depleted phytoplankton and fish populations. And this LOGICALLY shouldn't be the case given that flora thrive on CO2. So something else must be missing. seakeepers.org adsabs.harvard.edu gsfc.nasa.gov And no discussion of increasing CO2 levels can be complete if it does not address how other factors such as diminished oceanic sequestration. It's like a sponge and water. The GW advocates are claiming that the sponge has reached its saturation point. But people like me are saying that they are ignoring the fact that the sponge is shrinking, so NATURALLY the water levels are increasing. Maybe we should focus on restoring the sponge to previous size and maybe even making it bigger. Hawk