Ravenwood - 05/10/07 06:00 PM
When it comes to Global Warming, I had it figured out years ago. My Global Warming theory dates back to the early 1990s, and it's been documented on this blog as early as 2003.
"...the largest consumer of carbon dioxide (and maker of oxygen) is not trees, it's plant plankton. Who destroys all of this preciousss, life giving plant plankton? Whales. I say, we slaughter all the whales to prevent them from eating the plant plankton." -- Ravenwood, 01/03/2003
"Most people think that most of our oxygen comes from trees. But with two-thirds of the Earth's surface covered with water, it actually comes from oceans full of plant plankton, who dutifully convert CO2 to oxygen through photosynthesis. The biggest harm to plant plankton is not global warming, since a spike in CO2 would just mean that plant life thrives. Instead, plant plankton's biggest predator is whales. Whales scoop up plankton by the truckload. It would seem obvious then, that the solution is to protect plant plankton by slaughtering whales. With an absence of predators, plant plankton will overpopulate and drastically cut CO2 levels". -- Ravenwood, 03/03/2005
At the time people called me nuts, but then there's this, and this:
Can plankton production address the climate change problem? A crew from a company called Planktos will travel to waters near the Galapagos Islands later this month to create plankton "blooms," or large-scale growth, by seeding the ocean with iron, which stimulates plankton growth. As the plankton grows, it consumes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and removes it from the atmosphere.All this is going to do is make the whales flourish. This may help some, but they should also try eliminating the predators (whales) to yield bigger gains.
Category: Global Warming
Comments (4) Trackback (0) top link me
Allright! This means I can get carbon offsets by investing in Japanese whaling ships.
Better than sex.
I can hardly wait to see what eco-disaster this action precipitates (the law of unintended consequence). But, since they were trying to do good, they will be forgiven by the greenies.
Posted by: bogie at May 13, 2007 5:32 AMActually, this has been done previously. The initial attempts to create plankton "blooms" by seeding a selected area of the Pacific with iron oxide worked so well that they called off the experiment long before they had planned to.
Posted by: Blackwing1 at May 13, 2007 10:10 AMSorry, I forgot to include an attribution for this. I first saw it mentioned in:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30433.html
A brief excerpt:
"First proposed by Martin in 1988, the "Geritol solution" of adding iron to the ocean had a rocky history. Many derided it automatically as foolish, arrogant, and politically risky. But in 1996 the idea finally got tested by the U.S. government, and it performed well. Near the Galapagos Islands lies a fairly biologically barren area. Over 28 square miles of blue sea, scientists poured 990 pounds of iron during a week of testing. Immediately the waters bloomed with tiny phytoplankton, which finally covered 200 square miles, suddenly green. Plankton production peaked nine days after the experiment started. One thousand pounds of iron dust stimulated over 2,000 times its own weight in plant growth, far greater than the performance of any fertilizer on land. The plankton soaked up carbon dioxide, reducing its concentration in nearby sea water by 15 percent. It quickly made up this deficiency by drawing carbon dioxide from the air."
Posted by: Blackwing1 at May 13, 2007 10:16 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
