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 (56339)	8/1/2014 12:52:52 AM
From: teevee	1 Recommendation Recommended By russet Respond to of 86363

I think you are upset because ocean cooling and warming cycles, phytoplankton CO2 sequestration and nutrition, CO2 solubility in the oceans, and solar cycles not only all impact climate, but are all not considered by inadequate and poor climate models that can't forecast or hind cast temperatures.....and that is on top of the fact that humans are only responsible for 3% of annual CO2 additions. Furthermore, CO2 absorption and release between oceans and lands are not in balance, which in itself is a fundamental flaw of climate models.....Give it up, admit your AGW climate stupidity and get a life.......

To: Land Shark who wrote (56339)	8/1/2014 7:59:36 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86363

So you have no clue about how much CO2 absorption from the ATMOSPHERE has changed due to the drop in plankton population. Dude, the actual research and observations didn't actually occur UNTIL 2010, with the issuance of the secchi disk findings. And given the utter opposition from people of your ilk, the climate modelers aren't exactly in a hurry to further the research.. It stands to dramatically alter causality factors for your CO2 figures. But the facts are clear.. Marine life are declining dramatically, so if for any other reason, we should be concerned about the depletion of phytoplankton in the oceans because it represents 40-50% less ocean "pasture" for zooplankton to graze upon. Which means even larger fish and mammals are having to compete far more aggressively for the diminishing phytoplankton. And scientists widely agree that phytoplankton are responsible for AT LEAST 50% of all photosynthesis. So BASIC LOGIC tells us if there is less phytoplankton, then there is less photosynthesis. And less photosynthesis means les CO2 sequestration. If you disagree with that logic, then I guess there is no reason to assert CC arguments against cutting down the rain forest. Photosynthesis is photosynthesis, whether from trees, grass, or marine flora. Hawk