Phytoplankton Declines and Rising CO2 levels: the missing link?

For a long time I've been a skeptic with regard to the effects of CO2 on our climate. CO2 levels have been higher and lower throughout Earth's history, long before mankind ever emerged as a parasite on the back of "mother earth":

500 million CO2 record

CO2 record for the past 400,000 years

Throughout those millions of years, nature has dealt with those excessive CO2 emissions that have emanated from various natural sources. Botanical life adapted to consume it until a form of equilibrium was established according to available resources. This floral bio-remediation took the form of both terrestrial plants, as well as oceanic plant life in the form of single celled phytoplankton that form the foundation of the marine food chain along with sequestering over 50% of all atmospheric CO2.

We been bombarded with warnings from folks like Al Gore, Tom Friedman, and so many others, all trying to convince us that our hydrocarbon emissions have increased CO2 levels to the point where we're on a unstoppable cycle of global warming (or is it climate change now?). It's claimed that CO2 levels are up to 30% above the known cyclical highs from previous warming periods and that ONLY man-made CO2 emissions can be responsible for that increase.

But could there be another reason that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased? Could it have something to do with the fact that phytoplankon levels have declined 20-30% over the past 30 years??

Isn't just a bit coincidental that CO2 levels have risen at a level that corresponds to observed phytoplankton declines?

If the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 diminishes by 20%, does it not make sense that atmospheric CO2 levels would rise by the same level?

This, of course, assumes that all the necessary nutrients exist to permit phytoplankton to flourish. Anyone with a green thumb knows that it requires the proper balance of nutrients, temperature, and solar exposure, to make a garden grow. If any of these elements are lacking, plant growth is inhibited.

Many scientists have noted this decline, but have attempted to blame it on increased ocean temperatures, although I'm not sure the science upholds their theories.

Phytoplankton declines of up to 30% in several oceans

Decline in phytoplankton due to warming oceans?

Historical Decline in Phytoplankton coincided with Global COOLING.

Now.. one of the elements that's critical to ALL plant life is Iron. Without it, plants can't produce chlorophyll. Without chlorophyll, plants cannot absorb CO2, or conduct photosynthesis, by which they produce both their food and oxygen. Iron deficiency results in a condition known as Chlorosis:

Chlorosis

In numerous areas of the planet's oceans are "dead spots". Despite being rich in nutrients, they do no sustain significant quantities of phytoplankton. Dr. John Martin proposed during the 1990's that the addition of a small quantity of iron in High Nutrient, Low Chlorophyll (HNLC) areas of the ocean would produce large blooms of phytoplankton and sequester tons of CO2. In fact, the very fact that these areas ARE HNLC, but not producing phytoplankton, seems the most damning evidence against blaming warming oceans being the cause of phytoplankton declines.

John Martin and the Iron Hypothesis

Pros and Cons of Iron Fertilization

Given sufficient nutrients, there should be no limit to how much CO2 can be sequestered by botanical life forms. Plants will grow until they lack a vital element they require to sustain that growth. But since Iron is a rare element in our oceans, blown there as eroded dust from terrestrial winds, it's the one factor that limits the growth of phytoplankton.

And I'll admit that it's possible that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from the burning of hydrocarbons has depleted oceanic deposits of Iron. But that only suggests that we have a responsibility to replenish that iron, if only because phytoplankton are also the foundation of the marine food chain. Every marine life form depend upon phytoplankton, directly or indirectly.

John Martin died many years ago, but his theories still live on. Various scientific expeditions have been launched to prove his theories, but have generated tremendous opposition from other scientists who reject the idea of "geo-engineering".

Yet.. we need Carbon Credits to "resolve" the alleged problem of "Climate Change"? We need to tax people, granting permission for them to emit a natural substance, CO2, which nature using as a vital element in the growth of botanical life on this planet?

This is crazy.. And it's dangerous because it leads us into Malthusian style thinking and population control. It's ultimately about the elite, who can afford to buy into the carbon credit scheme, controlling the masses, who cannot.

I'm just as much a conservationist as your average person.. But I'm not so stupid as to actually believe that CO2 is a "pollutant" as the EPA would like to have us believe. Too much of ANYTHING is bad. Too much oxygen would be just as bad for the existing ecosystem as too much CO2. But nature has experienced numerous periods where there was too much CO2 and plant life restored the equilibrium over time, as nutrients became available.

Scrutinizer