I recently asked 15 atmospheric computer modeling groups around the world to model the oxygen airlift to see what the effect would be according to their algorithms. Computers are the only place where the interference of EMF frequencies and chemicals can be removed if a basic study is done. We are almost inundated with interference in the atmosphere and it looks like it is going to continue that way. This is leading to the outgrowth of negative feedbacks from ice loss and methane explosions which are set to continue possibly up to tripling the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
The third world has acknowledged global warming because their agricultural droughts are causing loss of crops and life around them. They are prisoners of the industrial revolution on combustion.
We will have enough oxygen at ground to borrow it and place it up in the atmosphere for a limited time, because the methane explosion occurring is going to use up these reserves over time. If the oxygen airlift cooled the atmosphere, it may at least partially arrest this warming by slowing the explosions. This can be computer modeled and the modeling exercise would give us insight into a different option than solar radiation management. We have to have an idea of how much oxygen affects the computer model results. To increase oxygen at ground is important and can only feasibly be done by plats and the ocean plankton and algae, so we are faced with thinking about planting more greenery and more properly shepherding the ocean so that it does not continue to have anoxic zones.
Perhaps the large emitters should be planting the equivalent of their fossil fuel emissions of CO2 as CO2 converting plants.
The truth is that we are faced with up to 6 degrees of warming and so the sooner we look at these ideas, the better. If we start thinking in terms of generating an additional million Tonnes of dry plant matter from added plants, this equates to a million tonnes of carbon. If we are emitting 100 million Tonnes of CO2 per day, 27.2 million tonnes per day of dry, dead plant matter would completely offset this by fixing that carbon and giving off needed oxygen. 70% of the CO2 is given off by large emitters, so, the attribution has been made to them. Can they generate 19.04 million Tonnes of dead plant matter per day?
Plants convert 5 Tonnes of CO2 per year per hectare, which is 1.36 Tonnes of carbon, so the emitters would have to plant and bury the carbon on 14,000,000 Hectares of land per day.
There are 2.7 billion Hectares of arable land available so the 5.1 billion hectares needed for a year are out of reach for the emitters with business as usual. We would need to halve their emissions and plant all of the arable land. http://www.everythingconnects.org/arable-land.html
Another way to view this statistic is that we have trapped oxygen in the CO2 molecule by double what we could potentially reverse with plants, so the oxygen reservoir is being lost to CO2.
This is the cost of our reliance on combustion in simple terms. Are we willing to face this situation with a shortening time window on our way to a 6 degree warming set to topple the web of life at that point.
We definitely need to know if an oxygen airlift will help because it has triggered ice ages in the past; we won’t be able to trigger an ice age, but we could trigger removal of methane and synthetic greenhouse gases and give ourselves a needed delay to the 6 degree warming we face. We deserve to know what this option might do for us.