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 (38674)	3/2/2013 1:25:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I'm not sayng CO2 went up because of my testosterone. You're saying CO2 is up cuz plankton is down 40% cuz Fe went down. Ok.. apparently you can't grasp the point.. So you're asserting that Phytoplankton have been dying due to acidification of the oceans and that it's NOT due to Iron deficiency.. What was the level of ocean PH 50 years ago when the phytoplankton population was 40% larger? You can't tell us, can you? And you know why you can't tell us? Because EVEN NOW oceanic PH levels vary WIDELY from region to region, sometimes with tremendous fluctuations over the course of a SINGLE DAY.. And you can't do with Iron levels from 50 years ago. You can't measure oceanic Iron, or PH, from 60 years ago because no one thought to do so.. Dr. John Martin's "Iron Hypothesis (fertilization) wasn't even presented until the '80s.. You simply can't measure it with any accuracy.. Not then.. Not now.. And certainly not on a global basis at varying ocean depths... And there's simply no way I can tell you what the Iron levels were because, due to source of that Iron, it varies widely from spot to spot. And since we didn't start to satellite map phytoplankton blooms until 1997, the only way that we can measure (via 500,000 data points using secchi disks) is that we've seen a 40% decrease. scientificamerican.com You knew that and you've just been wasting time with the question. BUT WHAT CAN BE MEASURED AND OBSERVED is that when Iron is added to HNLC zones in the oceans, DESPITE your assertion of acidification killing off the phytoplankton, HUGE ALGAL BLOOMS GROW ALMOST OVERNIGHT. Blooms that should not be able to grow in the acidified oceans you claim are killing off their species because of higher levels of dissolved CO2.. So the bottom line is that Phytoplankton will grow when fertilized with Iron even in your acidified waters. And there is specific scientific research that has been done with CO2 fortified sea water. Scientists have pumped upwards of 1000PPM of CO2 into controlled containers of sea water, with the result that phytoplankton EXPLODE in population increase. co2science.org That's science WR.. It can be replicated and confirmed (and has been according to the link above).. But according to your assertions.. that much CO2 pumped into those controlled experiments should have resulted in an acidic environment that would prevent the growth of diatoms or other skeletal.. It didn't.. But what WOULD HAVE limited phytoplankton growth would have been a lack of Iron.. Because when iron is added, it promotes the production of chlorophyll, which promotes photosysthesis and CO2 uptake/sequestration. Not sure if they performed such an experiment, but it wouldn't be difficult to do.. So stop mucking around.. There is far more evidence supporting what I'm stating than any BS you're spewing forth.. If the Iron Fertilization theory pans out, it could solve the "problem" (where there is one or not) of excessive CO2 levels. But more importantly, it will restore the marine food chain and ecosystem.. Hawk