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 : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (3258)	11/14/2012 7:18:23 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

While I concur that enlisting the use of commercial shipping traffic plying the oceans might be a good way to spread dissolved Iron, I think putting it in bunker fuel to be used in an ICE diesel would harm the cylinders.. And if used in a boiler, it's likely the iron would melt and adhere to the sides of the boiler. It just makes more sense to add a tank of dissolved iron to the back of any ship, with distribution hoses/meters at the stern, to be stirred up by the propeller wash and pay the shipping companies via some form of additional tax on seafood and fishing. In fact, it wouldn't cost much if fishing ships were enlisting to fertilize the very ocean area they are harvesting.. It actually makes a lot of sense. But it's more than just Iron. We want to promote the growth of Diatoms, which have the skeletal structures that cause them to sink and sequester that excess carbon as "Marine Snow", rather than decaying on the surface and releasing Methane. This will require the addition of minerals that promote Diatomic growth, namely Silica.. etc.. But once again,... I think I've finally discovered the "smoking gun" that clearly demonstrates that CO2 increases in the atmosphere are correlated with the 40% reduction in phyto-plankton levels over the same time period. I've never seen charts so glaring in their correlation before. I just can't see a different interpretation to be made.. Reduce the size of the C02 "scrubber" that previously existed, and it only makes sense that CO2 levels will increase. I've long suspected that Dr. John Martin was correct about how the oceans are facing "chlorosis" (lack of iron). But these too links are the first that I've ever seen that make that correlation nearly irrefutable: scientificamerican.com climate.nasa.gov The question is why this occurred?.. And the Iron Hypothesis (now theory, if not fact, IMO) seems to make the most sense of all plausible scenarios. It certainly should receive far more funding and attention than has been the case, to date. It could also be a consequence of excess CO2 emissions exceeding the amount of available Iron "fertilizer" being normally deposited, as well as soil conservation measures that prevent airborne iron from being carried by the wind into the oceans. And the potential that exists for augmenting the Marine Food chain and feeding millions of people (as well as marine species) should make it damn near imperative that we pay more attention.. Bottom line.. forget about the 33% increase in CO2.. Fix the 40% decline in phyto-plankton levels and the CO2 problem will resolve itself. And Marine Fisheries will prosper and assist in feeding the people of this planet. My opinion. Hawk