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: Hawkmoon who wrote (3421)	11/26/2013 2:25:26 PM
From: bruwin	Respond to of 4326

I must say, it’s come as a pleasant surprise to find the following positive phrases contained in recent replies to my posts …. ”I would agree …” and ”It's entirely possible …” and ”Bruwin, What you say is true …” …. because, prior to that, I was beginning to feel somewhat isolated . (:-) However, I won’t be tempted to take those comments out of context ! There’s no doubt, from what I’ve read in posts directed to me, that much time and personal research has been done by those authors, … and I’ve certainly gained more insight into several aspects of what has and hasn’t affected our environment. Apart from one of the central themes of several posts, which I’d say was CO2, it seems to me that there are also the important (IMO) considerations of (a) pollution and (b) deforestation. Pollution comes in many forms and from a wide variety of sources. In some parts of the world what industries discharge into our environment is better controlled and regulated than in others. Unfortunately much of what is illegally discharged seems to eventually end up in the oceans via rivers or canals or by direct discharge. In addition elements of pollution can be extremely toxic so that it takes only a minute quantity to severely compromise a substantial volume. The question that could be asked is to what extent have important components in the ocean’s food chain, such as the phytoplanktons, etc.., been compromised by pollutants? Several references have been made regarding the fact that plant life requires CO2 to thrive, and indeed they do. However, their photosynthesis process also produces a vital component, viz. Oxygen, which we, in turn, cannot do without. But what have we been doing to an ever greater extent, … we’ve been cutting down large swages of precious forests which go a long way to supplement atmospheric oxygen levels, as well as playing their part in the interaction of numerous forms of fauna which inhabit them and which play their part in nature’s various food chains and cycles. So here we have two aspects that have probably only been playing a part in our environmental processes in recent times, as we weren't doing what we've been doing for the last 80 years or so, 5000 or more years ago.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3421)	11/26/2013 9:17:56 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Recommended By John Hayman Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

It's entirely possible. As I've mentioned previously, there is a theory that agricultural soil conservation efforts may be limiting the amount of airborne Iron being distributed into the oceans. Of course, we will have to be careful here, because if we point out that our agricultural processes have likely limited the amount of iron going into the oceans, the libs will want us to stop growing food in anything but backyard gardens. I suspect that the human tendency to control inland water (rivers) also has a big impact on iron distribution to the oceans. Between flood control and hydroelectric power generation and iron being a heavier sediment, much of the iron that would normally end up in the seas and oceans, ends up behind dams. Another important element to the phytoplanktons is Calcium. Ocean acidification from excessive CO2 is used as an explanation as to why the phytoplanktons and other biogenic calcium carbonate producing animals (including corals) are not able to produce strong shells/hard material. Of course, the process of creating calcium carbonate does remove CO2 molecules from the system. But the fact is, the calcium concentration in the oceans has gone down for at least the past 40 years. Without calcium and iron, there is a dramatic affect on the bio-cycles. Living things have a built in change mechanism. Living things tend to sequester the elements that they need and use as a part of living. Most people don't know that most iron ore deposits are the result of oceanic biogenic processes where both iron (Fe) and O2 have been sequestered. For details, google "banded iron formations". Limestone, Chalk and Marble are all examples of biogenic sequestration of calcium carbonate. Oil is an example of biogenic sequestration of hydro carbons. Coal is an example of biogenic sequestration of carbon. Phosphorous is a critical element for life to exist. Think back to high school biology and the discussions about the natural chemical tendency of phospholipids to form bilayer membranes that allowed cells to form. Once again, phosphorous tends to get sequestered in marine layers. We mine phosphates today to replenish the soil used to grow our crops. Since plants need phosphorous to create cell walls, they will need to pull the phosphorous out of the soil in order to grow. Thus rapidly depleting the soil of an essential component for successful crops. One of the biggest phosphate deposits is in what is called "Bone Valley" in central florida. The phosphate mining in this area is extensive and the "bone" reference is accurate. The phosphates that they are mining are essentially millions of years of accumulation of the bony materials of marine life. the marine biogenic sequestration of Carbon, Iron, Oxygen, Calcium, Phosphorous and even hydrogen is comparatively fast compared to geologic de-sequestration. An example of this is with Banded Iron Formations in the Pilbara region of Australia where the rocks in the area are somewhere around 3.7 billion years old. If you think about it, the tendency of living organisms to cause the sequestration of the essential building blocks of life, is also the mechanism that causes dramatic changes in their environment that will demand that the living organisms change (evolve) or die. The environmental changes can be as simple as not having the building blocks available for a life form to persist or they can be complex climate change where it is nearly impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. This further implies that the natural state of life forms is to naturally (and unconsciously) cause change to their environment that will eventually make the environment hostile to them. Change is the natural state of this planet....(and this universe). The mere existence of life accelerates change. Humans are the only living organism on planet earth whose behavior offsets the constant sequestration of the building blocks of life. Without fossil fuels like coal and oil, we would never have had the industrial revolution that created conditions that allowed the human population to grow at an accelerated rate. The CO2 released in the process of creating energy is beneficial to plants, which means that food is more abundant. Organized agriculture and higher growth rates due to CO2 caused the phosphorous in the soil to be depleted faster, which necessitates that they are replenished with mined phosphates....which allows an even greater population of humans. the need for machines and stronger building materials that allowed us to live in greater population densities by building up instead of out, has also facilitated population growth. So simply by doing the things that naturally promote the proliferation of the species, we are putting more of the building blocks of life back into the equation. Though some things like irrigation, agriculture, dams and pavement can upset the flow of those building blocks, like iron, and cause a shortage. But with the current situations where both iron and calcium levels in the oceans are low, I would be looking at a natural cyclical reaction to conditions that caused a phytoplankton population boom such that they depleted the ocean of these necessary building blocks such that subsequent generations would naturally be reduced due to the lack of iron and calcium (pretty much the same thing as the coyote/rabbit population cycle). The best way for humans to be green isn't to use renewable energy or reusable bags. The best way is to limit our population. The Chinese do this through government mandated population control policies. Western cultures actually provide incentive for increased population through entitlements and cultural and political bias to support the weak and unproductive. Getting rid of welfare, food stamps, free housing and other entitlements is probably the most green thing we could do. That's probably enough rambling for now.