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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ScatterShot who wrote (105432)	9/25/2009 10:50:45 PM
From: arun gera	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

>That means that CO2 is .00038 of the atmosphere, or 380 parts per million. Without citing references, (excuse me please) I seem to remember that it might have recently climbed to ~420 ppm.> Good question. In case of water, your drinking water pH variation depending on where you are, could be between 6.5 and 8.5, that is basically two orders of magnitude in concentration and no one will know the difference. Of course, you can tolerate pH from 3-4 (vinegar)to 9 to alkaline materials. Now the sensitivity to concentration may be different in air. And maybe the increase in concentration may just result in 2 degree C difference in temperature which is the error in your home air conditioner. However, 2 degree C above zero maybe enough to melt ice at north pole. And that may matter because the boundary conditions now change in terms of light reflection and absorption. -Arun

To: ScatterShot who wrote (105432)	9/28/2009 11:19:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 110194

Scattershot, Here's something else the GW'rs aren't incorporating in their data. All of them are reporting that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing and I think the science supports that. That represents about a 30% increase since 1960: en.wikipedia.org HOWEVER, what they haven't told you is that phytoplankton levels have declined at least 20% (and in some places 30%) since 1980. gsfc.nasa.gov Now.. why is this relevant? Because the level of CO2 is actually a balance between what is emitted (from whatever source) and what is absorbed and sequestered. And most scientists will freely admit that the largest botanical source of CO2 absorption involves oceanic phytoplankton. Therefore, any significant decrease in oceanic phytoplankton must result in increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But one missing, but very important, point remains. In a CO2 enriched environment, it should be expected that oceanic phytoplankton would thrive and restore the balance. However, many portions of the oceans are nutrient poor, lacking basic minerals required to sustain algal growth. I hope that John Martin receives a Nobel prize someday: palomar.edu Seakeepers has also brought up the importance of zooplankton, which eat the phytoplankton and then descend to the ocean depths to avoid predators (and presumably die with their Carbon cargo intact): seakeepers.org Just some additional data to add to your knowlegebase. Hawk