Interesting article in the paper yesterday about algae and global warming.?

Question

Made me think of yet another reason why computer models suck. An increase in the ocean temperatures that is part of the accepted outcome of the GW thing will lead to a complimentary increase in the annual algae blooms and seaweed growth. Both of those organisms are huge carbon absorbers. That would seem to have at least an ameliorating effect on the whole balance of things, wouldn't it?

How much you want to bet there's not a single computer model out there that took that into account?

Answer 1

Please name the amount of money you would like to bet (make it a large amount) then you can come to my place of work and observe the computer models that take algae, phytoplankton, acidification, thermal expansion and many other oceanic factors into account.

The primary factor affecting CO2 sequestering marine growth is the availability of essential nutrients. The oceans can be at an optimal temperature for growth but with the absence of nutrients such as nitrogen and iron, the algae, phytoplankton etc won't bloom. It's for this reason that research is being conducted and small scale experiments have been carried out with the aim of specifically nourishing mineral deficient parts of the oceans. The logic being that by creating a more condusive environment for photosynthesis and calcim carbonate production, natural processes can be enhanced and additional CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere.

Answer 2

They do study the interaction of global warming and algae. One problem is that increasing CO2 in the air is causing acidification of the warming ocean and hurting algae. Another is that the plants aren't even close to keeping up with the huge increase in us burning fossil fuels.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702142947

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. Plants like algae buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

The bottom line is this:

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

RWCRUFLER - The reason that we can "see" this is that the effects of greenhouse gases are so overwhelming. In statistical terms the "signal" from greenhouse gases is very strong, and the mathematical model can be pretty rough (and they're a lot better than that), and it's still unmistakeable. See:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 3

1. You are wrong, and the effect of additional CO2 in the air and water on increase in the global weight of flora is part of every simulation.
2. That algae bloom which has corresponding bloom on dry land, is seasonal, and the carbon that was captured returns to the air and water when the plant die, unless it is buried or preserved, so ir can not recycle.

Answer 4

Another Rational Human! I am becoming quite encouraged. Thank you!

Merry Christmas and a star for your Tree!

.

Answer 5

It is sheer arrogance to think all the variables involved with the earth's climate and weather are fully understood by scientists.