• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

UK energy future

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
    I am awaiting the ad hominen attack on the researcher who did this
    Look somewhere else, Padfield is a bona fide scientist publishing in a reputable journal. I've just read the paper and its solid. Its a lab-based study however, so the next step would be field trials to see if the increase happens in the real world, or if increased plankton just leads to a corresponding increase in things that eat plankton, as tends to happen.

    Padfield says the new research should be included in the models, and he's right, seems a more sensible approach than rejecting them outright.
    My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

    Comment


      PS BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Ocean plankton absorb less CO2
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        This man has the answer

        Did Russ George's Geoengineering experiment actually work? : TreeHugger

        Which validates my assertion that Ocean fertilisation is the way to reduce CO2.

        US scientists said the tiny ocean plants were absorbing up to two billion tonnes less CO2 because their growth was being limited by a lack of iron.

        Iron deposits provide nutrients for the microbes, which in turn grow by absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

        Comment

        Working...
        X