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: bruwin who wrote (3415)	11/24/2013 11:28:52 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

I haven't come across that before. There's a reason that Climate Change "Wingnuts" don't want us to be exposed to this information. There's not nearly the kind of money involved in augmenting (fertilizing) nature's natural process of C02 consumption/sequestration, as their is in developing technological sequestration processes (terrestrial injection.. CO2 reduction.. etc, etc, etc.. ).. And many of them call it "Geo-Engineering" in an attempt to scare us into believing that it may result in some negative and irreversible change.. But logically speaking, it's BS.. We fertilize our lawns each and every year.. to include adding Iron to ward off Chlorosis (caused by a lack of Iron).. And we can stop fertilizing those lawns anytime we so desire and let our lawns die. The same argument goes for ocean phytoplankton. There is nothing that is irreversible about Iron fertilization of the oceans to augment and encourage growth of desirable phytoplankton (Diatoms, which fall to the ocean floor as "marine snow" when they die).. The late Dr. John Martin, once stated, jokingly, that if he was given a tankership full of Iron, he could create an Ice Age.. I believe that he was definitely exaggerating, but it created a discussion/debate among oceanagraphers, which was quickly stifled by the Global Warming "Illuminati" who, I submit, want to control people by controlling their access to energy. So the try and make CO2 a "pollutant", even though every botanical species on this planet require it to thrive. Better that they stick to focusing on Methane as a pollutant, since very few forms of life require Methane to live. Logically speaking, so long as there is sufficient Iron, and other nutrients (which apparently there are in the High Nutrient/Low Chlorophyll zones of the oceans), then any added human emissions of CO2 should be consumed and sequestered by Oceanic Flora. We don't know why there is insufficient Iron in the oceans. Maybe it's being consumed because of added emissions of C02 by people. But it doesn't really matter the source of the C02, or the reason for the lack of Iron.. What does matter is that it's proven if you add Iron to the oceans, HUGE blooms of phytoplankton result. But climatologists are caught up in this "Chicken/Egg" argument, claiming that phytoplankton populations are being threatened by "acidification". But that very acidification is the result of saturated CO2 in the oceans.. And the best way to deal with that is to increase the amount of natural flora to consume, and sequester, that Carbon at the ocean bottom. We simply cannot ignore the impact on atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 caused by a 50% decrease in Phytoplankton. Not to mention the impact on the Coral Reef and Marine food chain.. It's the 800 pound gorilla sitting there in the IPCC's living room.. But yet, they still ignore it... Hawk