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: RetiredNow who wrote (6888)	4/4/2009 11:57:22 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

If levels of phytoplankton are plummeting due indirectly to rising CO2 levels, then we have two problems. No.. you have that backwards. CO2 levels should be maintained in balance so long as phytoplankton have the other necessary elements they require to grow. Thus, with increased CO2 levels we should be seeing MORE phytoplankton, not less (regardless of acidity of ocean which mainly impacts diatomic algae). Thus, the following HAS to be the problem: CO2 drawdown doesn't occur as rapidly in nutrient-poor oceans That's right.. lack of the PROPER nutrients (iron, silica.. etc) is the inhibiting factor preventing phytoplankton growth from absorbing the excess CO2, just like a lack of fertilizer might prevent your lawn from growing. And there hadn't really been any major problem with oceanic nutrients until we started to implement soil conservation efforts to our agricultural programs over the past 100 years. You see, our "dust bowls" are the ocean's fertilizing mechanism. But these things never come up on the GW discussion.