"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:

Dear Archimedes Plutonium:

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
...
Then the other solution in tandem is the addition
of vast amounts of ozone into the upper atmosphere.
The ozone absorbs UV energy and re-emits into
outer space so that the energy does not hit ground
and heat up Earth.

No. Ozone absorbs UV and dissociates in oxygen and monatomic
oxygen.


Yes, thanks for the correction, for I was tongue-tied, mind-tied, plus
typing-tied. I simply wanted to say that the Ice Dust reflects and the
Ozone absorbs sunlight to cool Earth. Yes the Ozone cycle in the
stratosphere for the temperature rise called the StratoPause. The ozone
is crucial to this temperature layer at 50 km otherwise the heat would
reach Earth.

David, can you tell us how much of the Global Warming at present is due
to the destruction of the Ozone layer to date. A rough percentage??

It is the fact of 2 methods, one of reflection and one of absorption
that is paramount to making a Air Conditioner. I would like both methods
employed simultaneously.

So I want an ozone enrichment and I want a Ice Dust shield reflector.


...
But can we produce ozone on the ground and
package it and then cargo haul it to the space
station to distribute?

No. It is explosive (self-decomposes), and your "cargo hauler"
will either consume the oxygen necessary for Earth to make her
own, or seed the atmosphere with moisture which will in itself
drastically curtail Earth's ability to make ozone. One pathway
to the production of ozone is temporary acceptance of a monatomic
oxygen onto a nitrogen gas molecule, which with the presence of
visible light. Water makes this N2O* into a stable compound.
Additionally, ozone, even at liquid ozone temperatures, has a
half-life of about a week.

Yes, I think a nitrogen-oxygen compound is the better bet to cargo haul
to begin to build back up the depleted ozone. And then to make more
ozone then ever before to counterbalance rising GlobalWarming.



I am thinking that the cost of this tandem
solution is not very costly at all. We certainly
can manufacture Ice Dust and ozone on the
surface and cargo haul them to the Space
Station. And I suppose the ozone can be liquidized.

And we could rename "astronauts" to Ice Dust(R) fairies!

Not sure if those particles will interfer in a big
way with the stations kinetics as it collides with ice
dust particles.

Yes it would. You can't just "release them", since they stay in
orbit with the ISS. You have to alter their momentum, to let
them fall into a "lower orbit". Now you need some sort of
thruster.


Well we have to determine where to release the Ice-Dust. Once we do that
we can then engineer a robot similar to the Mars robot of 2004 that was
so successful to deliver the Ice-Dust in a prescribed orbit around Earth
using the Space Station as a home base for the robots.



But I like this idea because we have control
over how much dust is released and we can control
over what spots on the surface need more or less
Ice Dust covering. We maybe able to control the
weather via the Space Station.

It is unimportant "what you like". We purportedly had a "global
warming episode" on the days after 9/11, when jet contrails were
not present to reflect the Sun's light back into space. We don't
need to go into space with this. If "global warming" is a
problem, we already have the means to reverse it.

But I still think we should replenish ozone

We shouldn't. Nature can do it herself, if we will leave her to
it.

David A. Smith

You are off-base and out of tune with reality. Earth as a planet can no
longer sustain itself as self-fixing and with rising human
overpopulations.

You deny the question that humanity can change Earth for the worse,
faster than Earth can respond to the change.

Humanity is the chief cause of Global Warming and it is we who must
solve and fix it.

Trouble with David is that he likes to counter every thing I say, even
if the countering makes him look stupid and illogical. And even if the
countering discredits him as being or acting like a scientist. David has
to learn to post on the Internet in such a manner that only the science
is discussed and not his hatred of me and my ideas.

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
...


"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:

Dear Archimedes Plutonium:

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
...
Then the other solution in tandem is the addition
of vast amounts of ozone into the upper atmosphere.
The ozone absorbs UV energy and re-emits into
outer space so that the energy does not hit ground
and heat up Earth.

No. Ozone absorbs UV and dissociates in oxygen
and monatomic oxygen.

Yes, thanks for the correction, for I was tongue-tied,
mind-tied, plus typing-tied. I simply wanted to say
that the Ice Dust reflects and the Ozone absorbs
sunlight to cool Earth. Yes the Ozone cycle in the
stratosphere for the temperature rise called the
StratoPause. The ozone is crucial to this
temperature layer at 50 km otherwise the heat
would reach Earth.

I disagree. If anything, ozone as a three atom molecule would be
slightly more likey to be an "insulating blanket", to very
slightly retard radiation of heat into space.

David, can you tell us how much of the Global
Warming at present is due to the destruction of
the Ozone layer to date. A rough percentage??

0%.

It is the fact of 2 methods, one of reflection and
one of absorption that is paramount to making a
Air Conditioner. I would like both methods
employed simultaneously.

So I want an ozone enrichment and I want a Ice
Dust shield reflector.

Neither are required. Both can be accomplished on *this* side of
space.

...
But can we produce ozone on the ground and
package it and then cargo haul it to the space
station to distribute?

No. It is explosive (self-decomposes), and your
"cargo hauler" will either consume the oxygen
necessary for Earth to make her own, or seed
the atmosphere with moisture which will in itself
drastically curtail Earth's ability to make ozone.
One pathway to the production of ozone is
temporary acceptance of a monatomic oxygen
onto a nitrogen gas molecule, which with the
presence of visible light. Water makes this
N2O* into a stable compound. Additionally,
ozone, even at liquid ozone temperatures, has
a half-life of about a week.

Yes, I think a nitrogen-oxygen compound is
the better bet to cargo haul to begin to build
back up the depleted ozone. And then to make
more ozone then ever before to counterbalance
rising GlobalWarming.

Just don't deliver more moisture to altitude than necessary.
Natural ozone production is hindered by such. And ozone will
have a very slight effect of increasing warming.

....
Not sure if those particles will interfer in a big
way with the stations kinetics as it collides with ice
dust particles.

Yes it would. You can't just "release them", since
they stay in orbit with the ISS. You have to alter
their momentum, to let them fall into a "lower orbit".
Now you need some sort of thruster.

Well we have to determine where to release the
Ice-Dust. Once we do that we can then engineer
a robot similar to the Mars robot of 2004 that was
so successful to deliver the Ice-Dust in a
prescribed orbit around Earth sing the Space
Station as a home base for the robots.

Not necessary. Such can be (and is) accomplished this side of
space.

....
But I still think we should replenish ozone

We shouldn't. Nature can do it herself, if we
will leave her to it.

You are off-base and out of tune with reality.

Rather than dignify your villification with a response, I suggest
you review your very lengthy list of *assumptions*. Most of them
are bogus.
- Ice Dust (R) is not necessary. Contrails can do this job much
cheaper.
- Ozone replenishment can be achieved by NOT delivering moisture
to high altitude, and not consuming oxygen at high altitude. It
takes days, if not weeks to get oxygen back to where commercial
traffic flys.
- Ozone is a greenhouse gas (as if that means a whole lot).

Goodbye.
plonk

David A. Smith

Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:30:34 -0700 "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote:
(some snipping to save space)


I disagree. If anything, ozone as a three atom molecule would be
slightly more likey to be an "insulating blanket", to very
slightly retard radiation of heat into space.

Well this is what I have been trying to extract from the literature
going back to 2004. Both, and all of us need the data as to whether the
Ozone layer was most abundant during the Ice Ages which signifies that
the Ozone layer has a major influence on Global Warming and must be
reckoned with as a Air Conditioner for Earth is built.

No use in either one of our opinions. We need the data as to whether
Ozone increases or decreases Global Warming and by how much.



David, can you tell us how much of the Global
Warming at present is due to the destruction of
the Ozone layer to date. A rough percentage??

0%.

Where I disagree, of course both of us are mere opinions and guesses.
I would say that the Ozone probably causes 20% of the Global Warming and
that if it is found out that the Ice Ages had a huge Ozone layer then I
would guess it can cause 50% of our present day Global Warming
predicament.



It is the fact of 2 methods, one of reflection and
one of absorption that is paramount to making a
Air Conditioner. I would like both methods
employed simultaneously.

So I want an ozone enrichment and I want a Ice
Dust shield reflector.

Neither are required. Both can be accomplished on *this* side of
space.

See, I do not understand why you would say that unless you have some
penchant for countering everything I say.

In fact, if you review everyone of your posts to my threads, David, is
there ever a moment in which you agree with anything I have written.
(snip what I wrote)


Just don't deliver more moisture to altitude than necessary.
Natural ozone production is hindered by such. And ozone will
have a very slight effect of increasing warming.


The Ice Dust layer will be separate from the Ozone replenishment layer.
The Ice Dust layer is in the Thermosphere to the Space Station. Whereas
the Ozone replenishment is in the Stratosphere, so the two are
nonintersecting.



Rather than dignify your villification with a response, I suggest
you review your very lengthy list of *assumptions*. Most of them
are bogus.
- Ice Dust (R) is not necessary. Contrails can do this job much
cheaper.
- Ozone replenishment can be achieved by NOT delivering moisture
to high altitude, and not consuming oxygen at high altitude. It
takes days, if not weeks to get oxygen back to where commercial
traffic flys.
- Ozone is a greenhouse gas (as if that means a whole lot).

Goodbye.
(plonk)

David A. Smith

I would have hoped you would not see it as villification. How would you
feel if a poster showed up periodically and never agreed with anything
you wrote. Who had an interest in the subject but seemed to only want to
contradict everything said. At a certain point it becomes personal.

And it is revealing how far removed from the science you have gone when
you suggest that Contrails is a solution. It shows to me that you are in
these threads of mine not for the advancement of science but to throw
darts at me.

How could you ever believe that Contrails can decrease Global Warming
and that an active solution of Ice Dust and Ozone replenishment is not
good.

We have had Contrails before Global Warming was ever an issue, why all
of a sudden are these Contrails going to decrease Global Warming. And
how silly it is of you to dismiss every idea I write yet you accept some
voodoo science that 11Sept decreased Global Warming and that Contrails
decrease Global Warming.

I am not villifying you. I am sick and tired of you contradicting
everything I say and that you seem to not see that you are countering
everything I say. A discussion in science is where 2 people have respect
for one another and you do not have respect of me when you counter
everything I say.

A healthy argument or healthy disagreement on occasion is good, but when
one always counters the other is not science discussion but a form of
mild hatred. So good bye to you. I do not need people to talk to that
have a psychological chip on their shoulder even though they start out
with "Dear Archimedes Plutonium".

Most people in science immediately sense when a person is genuine with
science, and not with some hidden psychological chip.

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