[flaja]

ScienceDaily: NASA Study Finds Snow Melt Causes Large Ocean Plant Blooms

NASA has discovered that low snow cover over Eurasia (which I presume is caused by global warming) leads to greater temperature differences between land and ocean surfaces. This changes wind patterns which allows cold water from deep in the Indian Ocean to come to the surface. The cold water is nutrient rich. The nutrients allow more phytoplankton to grow. The phytoplankton allows more fish to grow. So global warming leads to more fish.

BTW: Wouldn’t the extra phytoplankton use up carbon dioxide- which means the phytoplankton helps use up the excess carbon dioxide that humans are supposedly putting into the atmosphere. So if plants can deal with the excess carbon dioxide, why do we need Kyoto?

[deciduous]

Flaja,.. global warming is good ? why do we need kyoto ? there are too many points of contention in your post to even warrant a reply. If your not for saving the environment why don`t you go post on a republican forum instead ?

[flaja]

Originally Posted by deciduous

Flaja,.. global warming is good ? why do we need kyoto ? there are too many points of contention in your post to even warrant a reply. If your not for saving the environment why don`t you go post on a republican forum instead ?

Why don't you actually address the post I made instead of insulting me by implying that I am a Republican?

Tell me how extra plants and extra fish are not good things.

Tell me how the lack of snow cover in Eurasia (that leads to the extra plants and fish) is not caused by global warming.

[deciduous]

I`ll say this. Any percieved benefit of global warming such as the one you mentioned, will be offset entirely by the more numerous negative impacts.
*extra fish and plants* as you put it, are not always a good thing. Generally speaking, when you change the structure of an ecosystem, you are messing with something soo complex that the repercusions might be horrible in ways you can`t imagine, and may not be known for years.

[collegecat]

Flaja, please say you are just being devil's advocate....please...

[flaja]

Originally Posted by deciduous

I`ll say this. Any percieved benefit of global warming such as the one you mentioned, will be offset entirely by the more numerous negative impacts.
*extra fish and plants* as you put it, are not always a good thing. Generally speaking, when you change the structure of an ecosystem, you are messing with something soo complex that the repercusions might be horrible in ways you can`t imagine, and may not be known for years.

If humans are not responsible for global warming and the extra plants and fish are the result of global warming, then humans are not doing anything to disrupt this particular ecosystem.

Can you cite any examples of why the extra fish and plankton would be harmful? I realize that the fish and plankton may die off, thus polluting their ecosystem. But, I would venture that they would just as likely lead to an increased food supply for their ecosystem's food web (not to mention any extra food the fish could provide the human population).

[flaja]

Originally Posted by collegecat

Flaja, please say you are just being devil's advocate....please...

Yes and no. I posted this to make others here think about what they believe regarding global warming. But, I fail to see how extra food could be detrimental to an ecosystem. I also see a benefit in putting the deep water nutrients back into circulation- think of how a deep-rooted tree brings up nutrients from the soil and adds them to the topsoil when its leaves drop.

[deciduous]

you said it right there, EXTRA.

when there is an extra it throws things out of balance.

[Matt Kuzma]

flaja, you only need to look as far as the bottom of the article you linked to see why large phytoplankton blooms might be bad.

According to Goes, while large blooms of phytoplankton can enhance fisheries, exceptionally large blooms could be detrimental to the ecosystem. Increases in phytoplankton amounts can lead to oxygen depletion in the water column and eventually to a decline in fish populations. The Arabian Sea hosts one of the world's largest pools of oxygen-poor water at depths between 200 and 1,000 meters (656 to 3,281 feet). Since the Arabian Sea lacks an opening to the north, the deeper waters are not well ventilated. Also when organic matter produced by phytoplankton breaks down and decomposes, more oxygen gets consumed in the process. An increase in phytoplankton could therefore cause oxygen deficiencies in the Arabian Sea to spread, leading to fish mortality.
Oxygen-depleted waters also provide the perfect environment for the growth of a specialized group of bacteria called denitrifying bacteria. These bacteria convert a nitrogen-based nutrient readily consumable by plants in seawater, called nitrate, into forms of nitrogen that most plants cannot use.
One form of nitrogen that plants cannot consume is nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. In the atmosphere, nitrous oxide is 310 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Thus, as very large phytoplankton blooms deplete more oxygen from the water, the creation of nitrous oxide in the Arabian Sea could exacerbate climate change, Goes said.

Ecosystems tend to be very complex and any imbalance tends to upset the whole system. At the simplest, large fluctuations in phytoplankton can cause large fluctuations in fish populations which can lead to alternate years of bounty and famine for humans who depend on those fish for survival. If, as the article suggests, the bloom in phytoplankton levels could cause a depletion of oxygen levels in the Arabian Sea, you could see the entire ecosystem in that area destroyed. Keep in mind that phytoplankton aren't just "extra food". They also, like any living thing, consume resources and space, and when their population grows by 350%, it can have a massive destabilizing effect on the ecosystem.

[cats3]

Here's a thought: Certain medicines in certain quantities can help to heal a person. However, the same medicine but in other dosages can cause life-threatening illness.

While plants "breathe in" carbon dioxide and "breathe out" oxygen that is great for us who need oxygen. However, have you ever been with a person relying on breathing through a tube attached to an oxygen canister?

The amount of oxygen present dramatically increases various things such as heat intensity in the room (machine in action?), risk of fast fire (dramatic change in level of oxygen in the air as opposed to what would normally be present?) and more.

The key here, as I see it, is balance. When the balance in the environment tips there is a ripple effect of change leading to waves of change.

My understanding is that Global Climate Change represents changing weather patterns that we do not know enough about yet and rapid unpredictable change is difficult to plan for - take the levee system in New Orleans and the strength of Hurricane Katrina as an example.

We tend to think of risk assessment. Such and such could happen but the chances of it happening are low. However, when it happens - watch out!

Do people actually heed warnings or just say "oh, scientists are just making predictions" it's not real - AS IF those predictions have no basis in fact or continuing changing patterns documented over time.