In article ,
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:58:12 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Maybe Ozone itself acts as a reflector of sunlight and thence what we
need
to do is to add onto the existing ozone in the upper atmosphere. So can
we
produce ozone on Earth that drifts up into the upper atmosphere.

Perhaps the solution was there all along in simple form. Perhaps it is
ozone
that when mass produced on the surface of Earth and released will self
transport into the upper atmosphere

A chemist would know ozone is far too reactive to "self-transport into the
upper atmosphere."

and reflect a portion of Sunlight that
will cool Earth and act as an AirConditioner.

Ozone is transparent. Plus the layer is very diffuse.


Perhaps the ozone layer on Earth during the Ice Ages was double the amount
of
present day status. If so, then to cool Earth all we need do is mass
produce
on surface of Earth and release.

So instead of Kyoto Accords for Global Warming what is needed is for those
largest air polluters is to enforce a law that says you have to release
Ozone
in proportion to the amount of air pollution you create. Thus the USA
would
have to mass produce the equal amount of ozone that it contributes to
causing
Global Warming.

Perhaps ozone is that compound and not some CFC variant or Methyl variant.

So how much would it cost for the USA to double the amount of ozone in the
upper atmosphere?

How much would it cost to build a colony on another planet and transport
everybody there? Geez, this isn't a sci-fi group!


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:58:12 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Maybe Ozone itself acts as a reflector of sunlight and thence what we need
to do is to add onto the existing ozone in the upper atmosphere. So can we
produce ozone on Earth that drifts up into the upper atmosphere.

Perhaps the solution was there all along in simple form. Perhaps it is ozone
that when mass produced on the surface of Earth and released will self
transport into the upper atmosphere and reflect a portion of Sunlight that
will cool Earth and act as an AirConditioner.

Perhaps the ozone layer on Earth during the Ice Ages was double the amount of
present day status. If so, then to cool Earth all we need do is mass produce
on surface of Earth and release.

So instead of Kyoto Accords for Global Warming what is needed is for those
largest air polluters is to enforce a law that says you have to release Ozone
in proportion to the amount of air pollution you create. Thus the USA would
have to mass produce the equal amount of ozone that it contributes to causing
Global Warming.

Perhaps ozone is that compound and not some CFC variant or Methyl variant.

So how much would it cost for the USA to double the amount of ozone in the
upper atmosphere?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sat, 11 Dec 04 11:54:56 GMT Lloyd Parker wrote:



A chemist would know ozone is far too reactive to "self-transport into the
upper atmosphere."

and reflect a portion of Sunlight that
will cool Earth and act as an AirConditioner.

Ozone is transparent. Plus the layer is very diffuse.


I may have a way around the self transport desire. I found out that ozone is
produced in the Troposphere but deleted in the Stratosphere via the reaction
of NO2 and NO. So if I can find a way to increase ozone production of NO2 in
Troposphere to enter that increase into the Stratosphere.

Ozone is not reflective as per O3 + energy --- O2 + O. So instead of
reflecting Sunlight it absorbs it which is still a coolant.

Does anyone have a mathematical relation as to how much ozone increase will
cool entire Earth of 1 degree C per year of average temperature?

Again, has anyone found out whether ozone was most abundant during the Ice
Ages and whether there is a direct correlation of amount of ozone and whether
an ice age ensues.

There is a modern correlation that we have the least amount of ozone due to
depletion by CFCs and other chemicals and Global Warming that Earth is the
hottest it has ever been recorded.

Finding the chemical to make Earth AirConditioner is not easy project. And
there is the possibility that no chemical exists. But we have to make this
search to see whether a chemical does exist that is able to materialize a
AirConditioner.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

few minutes ago I wrote:


I may have a way around the self transport desire. I found out that ozone is
produced in the Troposphere but deleted in the Stratosphere via the reaction
of NO2 and NO. So if I can find a way to increase ozone production of NO2 in
Troposphere to enter that increase into the Stratosphere.

Ozone is not reflective as per O3 + energy --- O2 + O. So instead of
reflecting Sunlight it absorbs it which is still a coolant.


Years ago when I started this quest of finding the chemical for Earth
AirConditioner I was focused on reflecting Sunlight such as aluminum foil
or mirrors. But I should now move onto Absorption of Sunlight as the coolant and
not as reflector.

Perhaps an increase in NO2 will be a double benefit because it absorbs Sunlight
to create ozone.

So let me ask the question as to whether the Ice Ages had a low stock of NO2 as
well as a low stock of O3? And whether the stock of NO2 and O3 by 2004 is the
lowest in recorded history, making a direct link to the hottest weather on
Earth.

Another question: is there a way to make CO2 absorptive of hv (Sunlight energy)?
Is there a way to convert CO2 into ozone?

I do not know if Antarctica can tell us whether during the Ice Ages the stock of
ozone and NO2 in the upper atmosphere were the highest in recorded history,
suggesting that the ice ages were facilitated by the high abundance of ozone and
NO2

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
| Sat, 11 Dec 04 11:54:56 GMT Lloyd Parker wrote:
|
|
|
| A chemist would know ozone is far too reactive to "self-transport into
the
| upper atmosphere."
|
| and reflect a portion of Sunlight that
| will cool Earth and act as an AirConditioner.
|
| Ozone is transparent. Plus the layer is very diffuse.
|
|
| I may have a way around the self transport desire. I found out that ozone
is
| produced in the Troposphere but deleted in the Stratosphere via the
reaction
| of NO2 and NO. So if I can find a way to increase ozone production of NO2
in
| Troposphere to enter that increase into the Stratosphere.
|

The bad news is that ozone doesn't really go anywhere at all. It is so
reactive that it has to be maintained in equilibrium by processes which both
create and destroy it. No matter how much you produced near the ground it
would not make its way to the stratosphere.

The supply of ozone in the stratosphere is totally separate from that at the
ground and is maintained a different way. That near the ground is generated
by reactions involving pollutants and sunlight, which act together with
atmospheric oxygen to make the ozone. This is rapidly destroyed by
reactions with other atmospheric gases and so the supply of pollutants,
sunlight and calm conditions (to keep dilution and the rates of the
destruction reactions to a minimum) must be maintained if there is to be an
extended "ozone episode".

In the stratosphere the UV component of sunlight is weakly absorbed by
oxygen, breaking it up and allowing it to recombine to form ozone. This is
a much stronger absorber of UV and, as most of us know, prevents us all
rapidly getting a fatal sun-tan. The ozone is partly broken down by this UV
absorption and also by reaction with atmospheric gases. The worst culprits
contain chlorine and flourine atoms, which is why the release of artifical
compounds containing these has caused so much damage and they are now
strictly controlled. How can weak absorption by oxygen maintain the ozone
layer if it is much more strongly absorbed by the ozone which is therefore
broken down? Answer - there is a lot more oxygen than there is ozone and
the equilibrium is established in such a way that weak production by a lot
of oxygen matches rapid breakdown of a little ozone. The fact that the
breakdown of one oxygen molecule can generate two ozone molecules (one
molecule of "ordinary" oxygen can release two atoms, each of which can
combine with another "normal" molecule to produce the tri-atomic ozone
molecules) also has to be taken into account.

So the polluters cannot evade their guilt and responsibility by producing
loads of ozone down here in the hope that it will plug the ozone hole up
there. It just doesn't work that way. Ozone near the ground does little to
absorb UV - the main part of that job has already been done by the
stratospheric ozone - but its reactivity is such that it is damaging to
living systems and even at fairly low concentrations can cause serious
injury or even death to living things.

Oxides of Nitrogen are also very reactive and damaging to living things.
Generating large quantities of these, even with the best of motives, is
unlikely to be a good idea. Even when carefully controlled these gases are
dangerous - NO2 or "laughing gas" is no longer used as an anaesthetic in the
UK after a spate of deaths resulting from errors in the dosage.

Things will be better for all life on earth if the polluters accept their
responsibilities and clean up their act.
--
- Yokel -
oo oo
OOO OOO
OO 0 OO
) ( I ) (
) ( /\ ) (

"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:42:56 -0000 Yokel wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


The bad news is that ozone doesn't really go anywhere at all. It is so
reactive that it has to be maintained in equilibrium by processes which both
create and destroy it. No matter how much you produced near the ground it
would not make its way to the stratosphere.


Okay, so I need a chemical that self transports and once it gets to the
stratosphere will then react in such a manner as to increase the overall
production of Ozone.

But I need also to find out whether the Ozone layer of Earth during the Ice
Ages was double its present amount and thus contributing to the causing of the
Ice Ages.


The supply of ozone in the stratosphere is totally separate from that at the
ground and is maintained a different way. That near the ground is generated
by reactions involving pollutants and sunlight, which act together with
atmospheric oxygen to make the ozone. This is rapidly destroyed by
reactions with other atmospheric gases and so the supply of pollutants,
sunlight and calm conditions (to keep dilution and the rates of the
destruction reactions to a minimum) must be maintained if there is to be an
extended "ozone episode".

In the stratosphere the UV component of sunlight is weakly absorbed by
oxygen, breaking it up and allowing it to recombine to form ozone. This is
a much stronger absorber of UV and, as most of us know, prevents us all
rapidly getting a fatal sun-tan. The ozone is partly broken down by this UV
absorption and also by reaction with atmospheric gases. The worst culprits
contain chlorine and flourine atoms, which is why the release of artifical
compounds containing these has caused so much damage and they are now
strictly controlled. How can weak absorption by oxygen maintain the ozone
layer if it is much more strongly absorbed by the ozone which is therefore
broken down? Answer - there is a lot more oxygen than there is ozone and
the equilibrium is established in such a way that weak production by a lot
of oxygen matches rapid breakdown of a little ozone. The fact that the
breakdown of one oxygen molecule can generate two ozone molecules (one
molecule of "ordinary" oxygen can release two atoms, each of which can
combine with another "normal" molecule to produce the tri-atomic ozone
molecules) also has to be taken into account.

So the polluters cannot evade their guilt and responsibility by producing
loads of ozone down here in the hope that it will plug the ozone hole up
there. It just doesn't work that way. Ozone near the ground does little to
absorb UV - the main part of that job has already been done by the
stratospheric ozone - but its reactivity is such that it is damaging to
living systems and even at fairly low concentrations can cause serious
injury or even death to living things.

Oxides of Nitrogen are also very reactive and damaging to living things.
Generating large quantities of these, even with the best of motives, is
unlikely to be a good idea. Even when carefully controlled these gases are
dangerous - NO2 or "laughing gas" is no longer used as an anaesthetic in the
UK after a spate of deaths resulting from errors in the dosage.



(snip)


Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.

I am reasonably sure that a chemical exists that when produced and either self
transported or that we aeronautically transport it will act as a Earth
AirConditioner.

It would not hurt to find a way of increasing the ozone for the ozone layer.

Instead of thousands upon thousands of people working in Global Warming, it
would be more prudent for a group of the best scientists to work on finding
*the chemical* that will act as Earth AirConditioner. Too many scientists are
involved with the affects of Global Warming and the further evidence of its
rising calamities. But what is needed is for some top notch chemists to find a
chemical that cools Earth.

I have high expectations that some variant form of CFC molecule will not
deplete ozone but will absorb Sun energy and thus cool Earth.

There maybe some chemical I am not aware of that is perfect for cooling Earth,
perhaps some fibrous organic compound, say perhaps like nylon which when
released by rockets will stay in the upper atmosphere for a long time and
reflect and thus cool Earth.

So the search for a chemical that acts as Air Conditioner should be the top
priority of the Chemistry community. Politicians should call on the chemistry
community demanding that they find such chemicals that stop and reverse Global
Warming.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Dear Archimedes Plutonium:

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:42:56 -0000 Yokel wrote:
(snip what I wrote)


The bad news is that ozone doesn't really go anywhere at all. It is so
reactive that it has to be maintained in equilibrium by processes which
both
create and destroy it. No matter how much you produced near the ground
it
would not make its way to the stratosphere.


Okay, so I need a chemical that self transports and once it gets to the
stratosphere will then react in such a manner as to increase the overall
production of Ozone.

Easy to answer: oxygen, and nitrogen
Things you don't want up the heat, moisture

David A. Smith

Yokel wrote in message
...

In the stratosphere the UV component of sunlight is weakly absorbed by
oxygen, breaking it up and allowing it to recombine to form ozone. This
is
a much stronger absorber of UV and, as most of us know, prevents us all
rapidly getting a fatal sun-tan. The ozone is partly broken down by this
UV
absorption and also by reaction with atmospheric gases. The worst
culprits
contain chlorine and flourine atoms, which is why the release of artifical
compounds containing these has caused so much damage and they are now
strictly controlled.

Do you know of any studies of fluorine in the upper atmosphere? AFAIK, the
only chlorine is sampled, and fluorine just assumed to be there. Chlorine,
of course, has many natural sources (i.e. the oceans). So it would be nice
to see some actual verification that the upper atmosphere chlorine came from
CFCs.

NASA ADS search has a cute little quirk that makes finding any directly
difficult. When you type "fluorine" into the abstract search, it's so
"smart" that it also tries to find the chemical symbol "F". Which results
in a "hit" for any author with any initial "F" in their name.

Hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

{snip}

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}