[zackees]

I just want to point out that Global Warming as an existential threat is more of a political position and less of a scientific one.

If the scientific method were applied to real planetary destruction we would rank the use of farmland as #1. If you doubt this, use Google earth and zoom in and notice the absolute scale of destruction farmland has done to the planet.

The planet has been 15 degrees hotter than it is today 150 million years ago. The fossil records show that this was an abundant time for the planet. Extinctions (including the most recent one) happen during ice ages. A hotter planet with more CO2 load would increase the greening of the planet.

Additionally, there is 33x H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. Look at the total spectrum absorption of H2O vs CO2 and you’ll find H2O is a more potent green house gas, having nearly the same dipole moment. If the run away green effect was possible with CO2, it would have already happened with H2O, but this has never occurred in geological timeframe, ever.

Additionally, all CO2 increases can already be mitigated via several technology stacks. One is the use of nuclear, which despite some accidents has the lowest death rate per terrawatt hour by an order of magnitude. Despite this astounding safety, the media has pushed to eliminate nuclear power even going so far as BANNING it under the green new deal.

Additionally, it was discovered by oceanographers in the 1980’s that surprisingly, phytoplankton, the largest natural sequestered of CO2 on the planet was bottle necked by... drum roll please... iron in the ocean!

Phytoplankton feeds zooplankton feeds fish. This is why there are record fish catches four years after a volcano eruption.

And when this was discovered by oceanographer John Mayer, who proclaimed “give me half a tanker of Iron and I will produce a new ice age”, the UN finally addressed this claim by systematically banning ALL study of any size of iron ocean fertilization in 2008, despite the immense protests of oceanographers around the world.

This embargo was violated in 2012 by rogue scientists off the coast of Vancouver BC who dropped a large quantity of iron off the coasts to prove that the iron would sequester this CO2, as well as Chili bucking the UN and going forward with its own studies on ocean fertilization.

And I’m not even going to touch on all the verified scandals in the IPCC other than to say that if CO2 was responsible for the warming then the international community could lay the whole issue to rest immediately by an experiment whereby liquifying the air into an 11 meter vertical column and throwing a heat lamp at the top and showing that tube A heated up X% more than tube B. But despite such an obvious and dead simple experiment that would forever win the global warming argument forever, has astoundingly, never been performed.

Infact if any millionaire is reading this and wants to settle this once for all, I offer to do the experiment, at cost, just to prove the world whether going from 300 parts per BILLION to 400 parts per BILLION actually makes that much of a difference, if any, to the two tubes.

To put that in perspective, if 11 meters of liquified air in a vertical tube represents the amount of air between your head and space, then the amount of CO2 floating on that 11 meters would measure 3mm, increasing to 4mm (+1mm from the industrialized era), while the amount of H2O would be a full 10 centimeters, give or take.

Once the scale of the difference of CO2, as a trace gas measured in PARTS PER BILLION is fully accepted onto the mind, the true absurdity of the failure to prove the CO2 super magic awesome heat trapping properties becomes so apparently rediculus that one can only go to the science papers to find this magic property. For surely, if CO2 was this great at trapping heat then it should be abundantly clear by SOME physical property that it is leaps and bounds above any other trace has that this is the case.

Yet when one looks into the “science” of human caused global warming, one gets bricked walled by a complexity argument driven by computer models with secret algorithms from the IPCC, who’s board members will benefit from the carbon credit tax, which would completely unravel with (1) the large scale adoption of nuclear or (2) the dusting of the oceans with iron composites.

Anyone can verify this narrative. I am not some an intel agent or compensated for this post in any way. Just an engineer that has spent WAY too many years going down every single rabbit hole that could have solved this problem but instead slowly realized that we as a human species have been guided down this fake environmental problem while the REAL environmental problem - farming, has all the air sucked out of it.

This post, despite being verifiable, will likely be deleted. For those that see this post before this happens, please do your due diligence and fact check this narrative. Do your own math.

Thank you for your consideration.

[stonogo]

This post is a little insane, but I think the most important delusion to address is the iron claims. For one, in the interest of making this searchable, I'll point out that the oceanographer quoted was in fact John Martin. For the rest, you can look up EIFEX, and then read the May 30, 2008 Convention on Biological Diversity summary, which placed a moratorium on commercial iron-seeding efforts, leaving research on the matter completely unaffected. The concern was that companies were being founded to sell carbon credits based on this possible sequestration mechanism, and it isn't clear what effect this would actually have on ocean biodiversity. Reputable and recent papers in this vein can be found here: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00022 and https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-5847-2018

The rest of the post is better off speaking alone.

[Nemo_bis]

Fascinating read:

> A key question concerns the amount of iron dust that would be required to induce draw down of CO2 from the atmosphere. [...] In total, this estimate concludes that ~2.8 million tons of biogenic iron oxides would be delivered over 100 days per year to the iron-limited regions of the global ocean to reach conditions where iron was not limiting primary productivity.

Many other sources are available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#References and friends, please add this one too!

[sarabob]

Parts per million, not parts per billion. [1]

Yes, H2O is the strongest greenhouse gas, but its concentration (~5000ppm average) is limited by temperature and it will condense out as mist/clouds/rain. CO2 is nowhere near saturation levels, so atmospheric levels of CO2 have been growing. [2]

By all means you can tell the world that we should go back to a planet that looks like it did 15M years ago (miocene), but a 40m sea level increase is a pretty hard sell and IMHO does not match the "this is fine" tone of your post.

CO2 tends not to liquify but forms solid dry ice, so CO2 is not present in "liquid air" [3] (nor is anything with a boiling point <80K). Your proposed "obvious and dead simple" experiment is flawed.

"an engineer that has spent WAY too many years going down every single rabbit hole" is hard to justify based on the easily-debunked assertions you make, but even if you are correct and farming is the biggest cause and that it can/should bear the brunt of reduction efforts, it does not follow that we should therefore ignore all other avenues to address the problem. Yes, iron may be a part of the solution, but can you not see that building wind turbines, insulating houses and having electric cars is less risky than dumping huge quantities of iron in the sea?

Please consider that there _is no conspiracy_ and that scientists are mostly underpaid humans with a deep interest in their areas of study. Also consider that we know that fossil fuel companies have been funding AGW-denial. If you want conspiracies, try looking there.

[1]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [2]https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesci... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_air

[imtringued]

I always wonder how people can fight tooth and nail for something small and local like their neighborhood to never change and then once there is a global phenomenon that is directly threatening the culture of every human on the planet they don't give a damn.

How is your neighborhood supposed to stay the same if the planet is getting hotter over time? It might only be 1°C right now but since nobody really cares we are likely to head to something less reasonable like 4°C and that will definitively impact culture.

[brianwawok]

To a 50-60 year old person with 10-30 years to live? I doubt global warming will have a major impact on their life. The cost of what is needed to change anything WILL be visible on their very next paycheck.

Now compare this with voter turnout by age bracket, and the current path of the world is pretty easy to see as people looking out for their own best interest, which is rational and what we are hardwired to do.

[zackees]

Thanks for the correction on PPM not PPB.

Let me address the H20 issue with the runaway global warming theory.

There is literally an ocean of H20, therefore the total load of H2O is elastic (unlike CO2). Hotter temperature -> more H2O in the atmosphere -> hotter temperature -> repeat.

Yet this hasn’t happened. The point about water condensing is besides the point, because water is also vaporizing and the equilibrium point is determined by temperature, which the runaway theory says is a divergent phenomenon.

Let’s rewrite the original assertion:

Higher Temperature -> Higher water vapor equilibrium —> higher temperature. This cycle can repeat endlessly because of the ocean.

As far as independent scientist doing global warming research on their own dime, this just isn’t true. There is public and private money set aside to study this.

Highly credentialed global warming skeptics like Judith Curry have generated around ~150 papers which conclude that global alarmism over human caused global warming is a “hoax”. Her actual words.

Astoundingly, there is a complete media blackout on this scientist and others like her. Infact a huge case the msm won’t cover anymore is the case of Tim Ball who decried global warming alarmism as pseudo science (Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years," Jan 10, 2011).

He was sued for defamation by Michael Mann, the same person who was caught up in email scandal or manipulating climate data.

Tim Ball went to court and got discovery of Michael Mann’s climate date. 10 years later, the judge finally dismissed the case because Michael Mann failed to produce the data by the judges orders.

This is not “science” this is a religion run by a corrupt cartel.