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: Wharf Rat who wrote (36018)	12/3/2012 11:43:07 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"CO2 is plant food." Oh, I am so tired of that crap. Of course you are.. Because you have a bias.. But the people who own greenhouses LOVE CO2. They increase the levels of CO2 to up to 1500 PPM in order to accelerate plant growth.. more than 3 times the current CO2 levels. IF there wasn't some benefit to increasing CO2 levels in greenhouses, they wouldn't choose to bear the additional financial cost, now would they? novabiomatique.com If your "crusher crew" at skeptical science was so correct in asserting that current, or greater, levels of CO2 were detrimental to plant growth, it begs the question as to why plants flourished during the carboniferous (when most of the plant matter than makes up our current coal deposits were formed)?? They assert that excess CO2 can constrain root growth.. But it clearly was not the case 300 million years ago when CO2 were MUCH higher than today.. biocab.org Furthermore, phytoplankton don't have root systems to constrain. And there are vast regions of the oceans which are "high nutrient/low chlorophyll" regions. And they make up 50% of the photosynthesis on the planet. So all the conditions necessary for them to flourish exist, EXCEPT sufficient Iron. The oceans are anemic. And your skeptical science "crusher crew" fail to acknowledge this obvious fact. Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global population of phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950. That translates to an annual drop of about 1 percent of the average plankton population between 1899 and 2008. What's your point? The levels of CO2 increases over that same period of time have been from just less than 300 ppm to 380 ppm.. which is less than the decrease in phytoplankton per year. And the reason that the oceans could become more acidic it because LESS CO2 is being consumed by phytoplankton (40% reduction over 60 years), and that carbon is not being sequestered on the ocean floor as marine snow, or marine fecal matter. Oceanic Salps do a remarkable job of grazing on phytoplankton and sequestering carbon to the ocean depths in their fecal pellets. Increase the phytoplankton population in the oceans back to 1950's levels and LOGIC DICTATES that more Carbon will be removed from the ocean waters and sequestered to the ocean floor. This will permit the oceans to absorb more atmospheric CO2 and reduce those levels. Marine life, and sushi lovers like myself, will be happy as can be.. And btw, so will the coral reefs, which depend so much on phytoplankton and the zooplankton that feed on them.. Oceans may be warming, but temperatures are far from uniform. Ask any scuba diver who has dove in the tropics, as well as the California coast. Some regions are too cold for plant growth. But if the oceans warm, those regions will be more suitable to phytoplankton growth. Hawk