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 (36057)	12/5/2012 12:36:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

WR.. you're referring to terrestrial plants. Drought has been common throughout recorded, and un-recorded, history.. Nothing new there.. Water availability is a critical "LIMITING FACTOR" to terrestrial plant growth.. But don't you think they would grow if there was sufficient water, either natural rainfall, or via irrigation? Yep.. And btw, most of those crops are NOT natural.. They were planted by humans in areas where they are not native.. In fact, most crops today look nowhere near their non-genetically modified ancestors. So ocean phytoplankton NEVER face drought conditions. Their limiting factors are availability of nutrients, particularly Iron for the production of Chlorophyll, and to a much lesser extent, water temperature. Provide that Iron to them and only the availability of dissolved CO2 in the surrounding ocean waters, and nitrogen (nitrates) will limit their growth. But we need to emphasize the growth of certain phytoplankton, such as Diatoms, which sink to the ocean depths as marine snow, when they die. In sum, water (and nutrients) is a limiting factor to terrestrial plant growth, whereas only nutrients and Iron are limiting factors to Phytoplankton, which are responsible for 50% of global photosynthesis, whereby CO2 is converted to solid Carbon. Startng to get it now? Hawk

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (36057)	12/5/2012 12:44:14 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 86356

Wharfie, it's nice that we have at least one person on the Doomster side who does at least offer some reasoning [sometimes]. It saves me having to adopt the Doomster position because there is of course a possibility that more CO2 could turn out to be a utilitarian negative [in the John Stuart Mill sense of utilitarian]. Meanwhile, while we wait to find out whether extra CO2 is good or bad, <A warming planet will impact our entire food supply, despite the presence of more atmospheric plant food. > Yes, climate changes, so food crops have to change location sometimes. Farming in Greenland went bad with the onset of the Little Ice Age/Maunder minimum which also made life problematic for the previously marauding Mongols. For example, Gibbston wines is located in a previously glacial valley in the south island of NZ. With 2020 foresight, 2020 could see the need to relocate wine growing to warmer climes. Only a couple of centuries ago, grapes would NOT have been grown there and survival for humans would have been problematic. Yes, fruit production is temperature dependent so you are right that places which are currently good for some fruit might not be good in future. Maybe Alaska will grow bananas. But probably not. Farmers for millennia have been very well aware that their survival has depended on the right rain dances and incantations to the climate gods. Plus ca change. It's more scientific now, with precise knowledge of temperature requirements, but predictions remain in the realm of chicken entrails or computer-based climate models, which are comparable. My 2020 foresight predictions are better than either, judged by actual results. Mqurice