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 (38788)	3/7/2013 11:39:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

And my response that I made privately to you.. (with minor edits).. "Bottom line.. your climate scientists have had their worst fears about Global Warming proven wrong over these past 16 years, so their credibility is lacking.. That's why it's called "Climate Change" now.. not Global Warming.. Because the evidence is not (yet) supporting their predictions.. The difference between recycling what is currently in the biosphere, and desequestering fossil carbon and releasing an additional load is a distinction obvious to 5 year olds, Apparently it's beyond you.. A good portion of what we eat is a product of fertilizers, most of which are derived from petroleum products (Ammonia and Nitrogen) We pull potash from underground mines and relocate it to different locations to alter topsoil PH all the time.. YET, you claim that we shouldn't do the same thing by fertilizing Phytoplankton with just a trace amount of Iron?? Remember, NATURE Magazine, stated that just ONE atom of Iron can sequester 13,000 Atoms of CARBON!!! It's hardly a waste when ratios of Carbon sequestration approach that level!! ALL through a totally natural process.. And we certainly don't need "every craft" in the world spreading Iron on the oceans. We're not even to the point of carrying out in a methodical manner. What we need is MORE RESEARCH, especially on a bigger scale, to ascertain the risk/benefit of Iron Fertilization.. Are you against scientific research too??!! What are you so afraid of? It's not like an fertilization experiment will get out of control, anymore than fertilizing your lawn will create a jungle, or kill off all the animals. This is what phytoplankton have done for BILLIONS OF YEARS!! The only think you fear, IMO, is that this might undermine any argument for curtailing Carbon emissions. You talk about "recycling" whats in the biosphere.. I presume you mean "closed cycle".. But "Gaia" permitted that CO2 to spew out billions of years ago to be sequestered by plants during the carboniferous... And the amounts of CO2 that existed then were far in excess of today.. Yet, plants flourished.. Algae flourished in your "acid seas".. and eventually that CO2 was sequestered and drawn down to today's levels.. I'm a fan of using biological intervention to deal with everybody's waste, like this So am I.. and that's why I believe that restoring phytoplankton to 1950's levels, or even augmenting it's growth to a higher level, is critical to understanding how the ocean's flora impact global CO2 levels. SCIENTIFIC LOGIC suggests they should be consuming all the excess CO2 as it increases. But for some reason, with Iron deficiency being the likely culprit, it is not. Again.. it's not going to take a fleet of ships dumping Iron all over the oceans. There are only certain HNLC zones that seem suitable for fertilization purposes. It does nothing to add Iron if the other nutrients required by Diatoms do not exist. All I would ask from you is that you support further research into the process so that, like how we deal with solid human waste, we can best support nature's existing processes to sequester any carbon that is released because of anthropogenic influences. Quit being so negative on the idea of Iron Fertilization. Even if it doesn't result in sequestration of excess CO2, it will nourish the marine food chain. And we've serious over-harvested our oceans and it's necessary to restore them. The reality is that it's easier to assist nature to compensate for our excesses than it is to keep people from doing what they are going to do.. Again.. Only ONE atom of Iron will sequester 13,000 atoms of Carbon. That is a number you just can't ignore if you're as concerned about rising CO2 as you claim that you are.. I really don't want to continue this via private message, ok? This is not between you and I.. I'm just a messenger for those scientists who have convinced me that their research is sound and worth pursuing.