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: Hawkmoon who wrote (6899)	4/4/2009 1:57:16 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Your theory is that our dustbowls are the fertilizer for the ocean? I haven't seen white papers on that and that doesn't seem like the most plausible theory, because simpler ones exist. For example, a theory I have read about is that as marine life dies and decomposes, it settles to the ocean floor, which is a lot colder and heavier than warm water closer to the surface. This decayed matter on the bottom of oceans is nutrient rich. Ocean circulation patterns are responsible for cool, nutrient rich water at the bottom of the ocean floor rising up and mixing with warm water at surface levels. As cool and warm water mix, the surface level ocean gets its dose of nutrients. Phytoplankton are known to be much more plentiful in nutrient rich waters. More phytoplankton help draw down CO2. However, we know that excessive warming of oceans from rising temperatures disrupts normal ocean circulation patterns, which inhibits nutrient rich, cool water from rising to mix with warm water, which means less surface level nutrients in the oceans, which means less phytoplankton. So excessive CO2 seems to be having exactly the opposite effect that you'd think it would with phytoplankton. Even otherwise benign substances can be malign in excessive quantities. CO2 is turning out to fit that category. All things must be kept in balance, even CO2.