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: Land Shark who wrote (50900)	5/8/2014 10:45:07 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86355

I'm talking GLOBALLY applying, not for just one small BC fishery. Gigatonnes would be required, in all likelihood. You think fishing won't be enhanced in ANY region where a Haida style experiment is implemented? Again.. apply a REASONABLE tax on fishing harvests/sales to pay for it. Your bozos have already spent well over $78 Billion and accomplished nothing.. We will NEVER know if the research isn't carried out.. And it will likely pay for itself by providing enhanced fishing harvests.. As well as replenishing our fisheries.. The reality is that people are going to continue fishing, regardless of whether the Haida experiment is implemented. And already depleted fisheries will only become even more so, until the point where they approach near extinction.. In sum, despite all of your foolish reservations and doubts, fertilizing the oceans with iron is a win-win scenario. And if it reduces CO2, that's even better.. Consider it "icing on the cake".. But quit trying to call it "ocean dumping".. That's just plain STUPID when all we're doing is replicating natural processes of iron fertilization via airborne erosion and volcanic activity. It doesn't address the problem of ocean acidification What evidence can you present to support that assertion? NONE!! But basic logic tells us that when there is 25-35% less photosynthesis taking place, that's 25-30% less CO2 being consumed and converted to organic carbon, eventually sequestered to the ocean bottom, or as organic waste via the phyto-plankton being consumed. The point, once again, for the intellectually DENSE ilk, like yourself, is that there is no real downside to performing more research. Without the research being conducted, your opposition is only based upon your biased emotions. Hawk

To: Land Shark who wrote (50900)	5/8/2014 10:45:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I'm talking GLOBALLY applying, not for just one small BC fishery. Gigatonnes would be required, in all likelihood. You think fishing won't be enhanced in ANY region where a Haida style experiment is implemented? The oceans are STARVING because there are 40% less phytoplankton than there were 64 years ago.. Get that through your head.. ok? And again, to pay for it.. apply a REASONABLE tax on fishing harvests/sales. Your bozos have already spent well over $78 Billion and accomplished nothing.. You don't even acknowledge that a 40% reduction in oceanic photosynthesis has an major impact on CO2 levels and ocean PH. We will NEVER know if the research isn't carried out.. And it will likely pay for itself by providing enhanced fishing harvests.. As well as replenishing our fisheries.. The reality is that people are going to continue fishing, regardless of whether the Haida experiment is implemented. And already depleted fisheries will only become even more so, until the point where they approach near extinction.. In sum, despite all of your foolish reservations and doubts, fertilizing the oceans with iron is a win-win scenario. And if it reduces CO2, that's even better.. Consider it "icing on the cake".. But quit trying to call it "ocean dumping".. That's just plain STUPID when all we're doing is replicating natural processes of iron fertilization via airborne erosion and volcanic activity. It doesn't address the problem of ocean acidification What evidence can you present to support that assertion? NONE!! But basic logic tells us that when there is 25-35% less photosynthesis taking place, that's 25-30% less CO2 being consumed and converted to organic carbon, eventually sequestered to the ocean bottom, or as organic waste via the phyto-plankton being consumed. And there is NO OTHER process that pulls CO2 out of the ocean more directly than phyto-plankton conducting photosynthesis and consuming dissolved CO2 out of the ocean waters. The point, once again, for the intellectually DENSE ilk, like yourself, is that there is no real downside to performing more research. Without the research being conducted, your opposition is only based upon your biased emotions. Hawk