Plan to dump iron into the oceans to capture carbon.

Quote from Jason McNamee

Thanks for the welcome Shane D. !

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread by robert bryant that we developed (and peer reviewed and patented) a superior Fe delivery mechanism for plankton. It turns out this material also works excellent to deliver Fe (and other elements) to enhance the soil microbial community + from the soil microbial community to crops. Our field trials (90+ so far) have shown an improved micronutrient uptake and yield in plants. A bonus is the carbon sequestered as soil carbon. So by default we now have an Agtech company and are not actively pursuing OIF research. You can read about it on our website or social media - http://www.soileos.com.

Very impressive work Jason.

Quote from JedRothwell

Seriously, I hope nothing like this will be needed. I hope all fishing ends within a century, along with all meat production. To be replaced with in vitro meat production from cells. They are working on fish cells.

This is not the same as the Impossible Burger and other meat-like products made from plants. In vitro meat is actual meat. If this can be perfected, I assume it will be indistinguishable from the meat of an entire animal. I suppose people who really like the taste of meat will prefer that to Impossible Burger. Interestingly, my wife prefers the Impossible Burger. She says it has a more delicate taste. The texture is remarkably similar to hamburger.

In vitro meat opens up the possibilities described by Arthur C. Clarke in the short story, "Food of the Gods."

sounds more like Soylent Green to me...

Quote from Jason McNamee

Thanks for the welcome Shane D. !

I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread by robert bryant that we developed (and peer reviewed and patented) a superior Fe delivery mechanism for plankton. It turns out this material also works excellent to deliver Fe (and other elements) to enhance the soil microbial community + from the soil microbial community to crops. Our field trials (90+ so far) have shown an improved micronutrient uptake and yield in plants. A bonus is the carbon sequestered as soil carbon. So by default we now have an Agtech company and are not actively pursuing OIF research. You can read about it on our website or social media - http://www.soileos.com.

Jason, does your micronutrient mechanism for ocean phytoplankton contain Si?

Traditional farmers in Cornwall will be up in arms about this because their traditional values are under threat by vegetarians and especially by vegans. They take pride in their work to produce the healthiest beef, knowing that a happy cow is the best producer of, milk, yoghurt and other dairy products. Chickens are all bred free-range as much as is possible for the local economy to provide. Again, one's quality of eating, quality of life, is determined by local culture and pounds, shillings and pence . Agriculture like fishing and smuggling are proclivities traditional to the Cornish People and whilst change must be embraced - its all down to the individual's economic circumstances.

Quote from Dr Richard*

They take pride in their work to produce the healthiest beef, knowing that a happy cow is the best producer of, milk, yoghurt and other dairy products.

Not for long. Researchers have now made engineered microflora that produces the same protein as in cow's milk, with no cows. They say it produces 97% less greenhouse emissions, uses 99% less water, and 60% less energy. Note that this is not artificial milk similar to the artificial meat in Impossible Burgers. This is chemically the same as milk. It is similar to cultured meat grown from the cells of animals.

They are already selling this kind of milk.

Sustainable Animal-Free Dairy & Protein - Perfect Day

Animal-free protein naturally creates kinder, greener dairy that is just as delicious as dairy from cows. That means what’s best for you is also best for the…

perfectday.com

Meet the Flora

Get to know the microflora at the heart of our technology.

perfectday.com

1. No impoverished,exploited Haida

2 . No rust

3. No "George Russ"

were used in in this shallow video

Two bit Da Vinci knows a lot more about solar panels/Tesla2..than the oceans..

Quote from RobertBryant

No impoverished,exploited Haida

Russ George

Haida Salmon restoration...

humans are more complicated than salmon

" this research suggests that geoengineering technologies are always going to be contested because they interact with the multiple and diverse ways in which people understand human nature in relation to the non-human world.

This study has therefore revealed that any claim to one “unanimous”, “comprehensive”, “rational”, “correct” or otherwise “superior” knowledge of geoengineering would be an inherently political act, only achievable in settings where the multiplicity of competing values and beliefs has been silenced."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325337875_Geoengineering_at_the_Edge_of_the_World_Exploring_perceptions_of_ocean_fertilisation_through_the_Haida_Salmon_Restoration_Corporation

Quote from Daniel_G

Jason, does your micronutrient mechanism for ocean phytoplankton contain Si?

Why yes it does Daniel. Here is the patent for this material: https://www.patentguru.com/assignee/lucent-biosciences-inc

Here is the patent we were granted with respect to calculating carbon sequestered by Ocean fertilization:

https://brevets-patents.ic.gc.…tent/2970408/summary.html

Quote from Alan Smith

Good find Robert. Russ doesn't give up does he!

What happened to that surefire cold fusion play you were helping out with? Because clearly this new source of clean free energy is a hell of a lot more important than OIF.

Quote from Alan Smith

But it's all important.

Opinion | Iron Dust Could Reverse the Course of Climate Change

The oceans may be our best shot at addressing the climate catastrophe.

www.nytimes.com

OIF gets an opinion piece in the New York Times,,

"

All of these prior experiments, however, were short-term, lasting only months, and tiny relative to the vastness and variability of the ocean. Key questions remain, including how long the carbon would stay in the ocean. A new round of experiments needs to cover a much bigger area, patches at least 200 to 500 miles in diameter, and continue over multiple years.

If we did several of these experiments in parallel, in multiple oceans, we could potentially have answers within a decade or less. That would give us the best shot we’ve got against the catastrophic effects of climate change.

This kind of geoengineering has prompted two kinds of worries, both legitimate. First, activists and scientists feared geoengineering might give industries an excuse not to adopt cleaner technologies. Also, there was concern about inadvertent effects, including toxic algae blooms and impacts on commercially important fish species. In 2012 an entrepreneur added 100 tons of iron to the ocean and created a substantial short-term plankton bloom. Many scientists and policymakers worried about what else could happen if commercial entities scaled up without government oversight. By 2013 a de facto ban on this research was in place.

But today with the impacts of climate change around the world growing ever more dangerous, the most important question is how potential consequences of ocean fertilization compare to the damage we are already doing to the oceans and the rest of the planet by burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. The oceans are warming rapidly.

A recent study, published in Nature Climate Change, estimated that even under a low-emission scenario, more than half of marine species are at high or critical risk of extinction by 2100. Coral reefs are at risk from acidification and warming of the ocean surface.

The National Academies recently recommended that we study this and other approaches, and the U.S. government has the capacity to support these studies at scale. It only needs the will and the budget.

The good news is that ocean fertilization should cost less than other options like solar radiation management, a geoengineering approach that has received far more attention, including a recent report from the White House. Ocean fertilization also reduces the ocean acidification that plagues coral reefs and shellfish and should have more long-lasting effects than solar radiation management.

We urgently need more aggressive measures to reduce atmospheric carbon on a large scale. Whatever questions ocean fertilization presents, they pale compared with what we already know about the escalating climate catastrophe if we continue on our current path.

More on oceans and climate change

By John T. Preston, Dennis Bushnell and Anthony Michaels Mr. Preston is an investor and was the director of technology development at M.I.T. in the 1990s. Mr. Bushnell was the chief scientist at NASA Langley Research Center from 1995 to 2023. Dr. Michaels is an oceanographer and farmer who has conducted research on global ocean carbon and nutrient cycles since 1982.

Except the Nature Climate Change paper is complete bull poo poo. Peter Ridd, the Australian authority on the GBR, found that corals actually thrive on warmer temperatures and ocean acidification is not a thing. Whatever signal they claim is in the empirical data is lost in depth, diurnal, and season variation. In fact my close friend is an authority on marine diatom ecosystems and his data unequivocally proves that additional CO2 does change pH but in the opposite direction (higher) not lower because the climate scientists who came up with this ocean acidification story ignore biology and focus only on chemistry. Take any diatom based ecosystem and add CO2 and with the addition of sunlight the pH goes up not down. Oh and back to the Great Barrier Reef situation with all the ocean acidification and warming what happened to total reef coverage? Hint: it’s at record highs. Sucks when the data doesn’t fit your narrative.

As you can see all this ocean acidification and warming has really taken its toll on the Great Barrier Reef! 🙄

Quote from Daniel_G

Except the Nature Climate Change paper is complete bull poo poo. Peter Ridd, the Australian authority on the GBR, found that corals actually thrive on warmer temperatures and ocean acidification is not a thing. Whatever signal they claim is in the empirical data is lost in depth, diurnal, and season variation. In fact my close friend is an authority on marine diatom ecosystems and his data unequivocally proves that additional CO2 does change pH but in the opposite direction (higher) not lower because the climate scientists who came up with this ocean acidification story ignore biology and focus only on chemistry. Take any diatom based ecosystem and add CO2 and with the addition of sunlight the pH goes up not down. Oh and back to the Great Barrier Reef situation with all the ocean acidification and warming what happened to total reef coverage? Hint: it’s at record highs. Sucks when the data doesn’t fit your narrative.

I recall from my years on microalgae aquaculture that we added CaCO3 to the water to increase pH and this created a constant supply of C towards the liquid medium from

the air, it was a net carbon sink that greatly helped algae growth. High pH also was great to minimize saprophite and pathogen microorganisms growth in the liquid medium.

Quote from RobertBryant

It only needs the will and the budget.

David Bushnell ex NASA and John Preston ex MIT are technologists asking the US Government to give a tens of million of $ from multiple tests in multiple oceans.. over decades,, I doubt whether that's going to happen anyway,,,

Quote from Daniel_G

Oh and back to the Great Barrier Reef situation with all the ocean acidification and warming what happened to total reef coverage?

Very good hint: Covered by 90% dead corrals...