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 (56336)	7/31/2014 6:02:18 PM
From: teevee	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86363

clearly, you are an idiot. CO2 solubility in the oceans is temperature dependant; and water temp also affects phytoplankton: earthobservatory.nasa.gov phytoplankton growth is constrained by availability of iron. By far the most important factor was the availability of nutrients. In oceanic environments devoid of essential nutrients such as iron there is very little plankton but in the mineral rich waters there is an abundance. Sources and more info: biolbull.org aslo.org int-res.com Ocean temperature changes has been shown to be responsible for rapid terrestrial temperature changes: An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970 nature.com David W. J. Thompson, John M. Wallace, John J. Kennedy & Phil D. Jones Affiliations Contributions Corresponding authorNature 467, 444–447 (23 September 2010) doi:10.1038/nature09394Received 19 January 2010 Accepted 20 July 2010 Article tools Citation Reprints Rights & permissions Article metrics The twentieth-century trend in global-mean surface temperature was not monotonic: temperatures rose from the start of the century to the 1940s, fell slightly during the middle part of the century, and rose rapidly from the mid-1970s onwards 1. The warming–cooling–warming pattern of twentieth-century temperatures is typically interpreted as the superposition of long-term warming due to increasing greenhouse gases and either cooling due to a mid-twentieth century increase of sulphate aerosols in the troposphere 2, 3, 4, or changes in the climate of the world’s oceans that evolve over decades (oscillatory multidecadal variability) 2, 5. Loadings of sulphate aerosol in the troposphere are thought to have had a particularly important role in the differences in temperature trends between the Northern and Southern hemispheres during the decades following the Second World War 2, 3, 4. Here we show that the hemispheric differences in temperature trends in the middle of the twentieth century stem largely from a rapid drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperatures of about 0.3?°C between about 1968 and 1972. The timescale of the drop is shorter than that associated with either tropospheric aerosol loadings or previous characterizations of oscillatory multidecadal variability. The drop is evident in all available historical sea surface temperature data sets, is not traceable to changes in the attendant metadata, and is not linked to any known biases in surface temperature measurements. The drop is not concentrated in any discrete region of the Northern Hemisphere oceans, but its amplitude is largest over the northern North Atlantic.

To: Land Shark who wrote (56336)	8/1/2014 1:43:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86363

You see photosynthesis by land based plants derives its carbon source from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis by land based plants derives its carbon source from the ocean. You know.. I'm trying (in vain) to give you the benefit of a doubt by re-reading the above two sentences several times.. But I STILL can't figure out exactly what point you're trying to make. Clearly the available carbon in the oceans is sufficient to not be a limiting factor to planktonic photosynthesis, Sure, and the available nitrates and other requisite nutrients are as well.. Google HNLC zones. As has been presented to you OVER and OVER and OVER, without sufficient trace quantities of IRON, Flora CANNOT produce sufficient Chlorophyll (google Chlorosis). This is NOT up for conjecture. it's a PROVEN FACT. And it applies to BOTH terrestrial, as well as Marine, Flora. Again.. Photosynthesis requires Chlorophyll. For Chlorophyll to be produced, Iron is a CRITICAL (and limiting) component. And Chlorophyll is highly unstable in direct sunlight, causing it to decompose, which requires Flora to constantly synthesize it.. scifun.chem.wisc.edu forestry.usu.edu Photosynthesis is photosynthesis, whether it occur in trees, shrubs, grass, or marine algae.. The process, AND the need for Iron to produce chlorophyll, is the same. The DIFFERENCE is that Iron suspended in ocean water molecules will eventually migrate to the ocean depths, if not utilized by flora. Therefore, it MUST be replaced at the surface, either by airborne deposition from land erosion sources, or oceanic upwellings that churn Iron particles back to the surface. Iron fertilization is a fact.. We do it all the time for our lawns, as well as in agriculture. So there is NO DOUBT that marine flora ALSO require it. The ONLY question is why Iron supplies are diminishing and inhibiting growth of phytoplankton in HNLC zones. It could be due to soil conservation efforts that prevent airborne Iron from finding it's way to the oceans. OR, it could be that industrial production of CO2 has increased the demand for Iron by ocean flora beyond what can be replaced. Either way we look at it, Marine Flora requires Iron to conduct photosynthesis. The actual rate of photosynthesis will depend upon other factors. But if you don't have the Iron, you can have all of the other favorable conditions for Marine Floral growth, but phytoplankton will remain in dormancy. So planktonic photosynthesis does NOT affect the atmospheric concentration of CO2, human activities do. I challenge you to show me ONE credible, peer-reviewed, scientific paper that states the planktonic photosynthesis doesn't affect atmospheric CO2.. You cannot have 50% of the global photosynthesis conducted by marine flora and NOT have an impact on atmospheric CO2. THAT is just an insane notion and is indicative of your utter ignorance, if not deliberate denial of proven science. Hawk