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: Brumar89 who wrote (7563)	4/24/2009 11:04:05 PM
From: The Vet	Respond to of 86356

Apparently feedback loops are positive some times and negative other times and if pressed for further explanation the "it's all to complex for you simple folk" becomes the mantra... You will notice phytoplankton as a oft quoted factor in the negative feedback that "caused" the "runaway" CO2 levels and associated temperatures to reverse back to present levels as if by magic. However phytoplankton are common and ubiquitous and still absorb massive amounts of CO2 in todays oceans and as simple organisms they are capable of logarithmic reproduction rates under ideal conditions, far greater than any increase in the levels of man made CO2 that could possibly occur. So why the delay? If the eventual drops in CO2 that must have occurred following these historical events was brought about by increase utilization of the CO2 by phytoplankton then it should have been almost immediate! They are not rainforests that take thousands of years to reach maturity.