Dear Andrew, Paul Crutzen suggested artillery. But this won't work. Never trust the Germans with artillery.
(Before I get any hate mail, Prof. Crutzen is not German. He is Dutch. I am the only one in my family not born in Germany, so I guess that makes me German.) Oliver Wingenter On Dec 8, 8:13 am, "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please don't make personal digs just because I suggested an idea that > may not work. > > Why is a nuclear bomb worse than a volcano anyway? > > And what about artillery as a method? > > 2008/12/8 Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > The only people seriously considering using nuclear weapons to put lots of > > particulate matter into the stratosphere live in the tribal areas of > > Pakistan. Alan Robock showed what happens if India and Pakistan play > > nuclear ping pong with their meager arsenals. The particulate matter > > carried into the stratosphere absorbs enough solar energy to heat the > > stratosphere to the point where reactions that destroy ozone are maximized. > > The net result is that everyone and everything on the surface of the Earth > > is killed by UV radiation. Now you wouldn't want that, would you Andrew? > > Your organization is called Friends of the Earth, isn't it, although the > > acronym FOE is a little disturbing. > > > I've looked at the delivery system issue (see the group files for some of > > what I've written) and concluded that airplanes and balloons could be used. > > To get precursor gas to circulate globally, it must be released above 53,000 > > ft, the boundary between the tropical tropopause and the stratosphere. In > > fact, due to the fall rates of aerosol, it should be released at above > > 65,000 ft to guarantee at least a one-year residence time in order to make > > it practical. The B-52, the KC-135 and other large subsonic aircraft cannot > > fly this high, their ceilings right at around 50,000 ft. To fly as high as > > would be necessary and carry enough payload to make it worthwhile would > > require supersonic aircraft. I settled on the F-15c with a ceiling of > > around 65,000 and the ability to carry about 8 tons of payload of which half > > could be the gas. > > > You are correct about the balloons in that using hydrogen as the lifting gas > > instead of helium doubles the lifting capacity. Using H2S instead of SO2 > > doubles the precursor quantity that can be carried again as well. So > > balloons containing hydrogen and H2S within the envelope of the balloon > > could deliver the gas to the stratosphere in the quantities required and to > > much higher altitudes as well, up to 120,000 ft. The technology to inflate > > and recover payloads from large football stadium sized stratospheric > > balloons exists today and has been used since the 1940's to deliver payloads > > of up to 8000 lbs to 120,000 ft and recover them. > > > The real issue about the delivery systems is whether or not the gas will > > form the proper sized aerosol using the existing water vapor in the > > stratosphere. This will requre field tests to determine its feasibility as > > well as whether gas can be released from tanks quickly enough to vaporize in > > the time that the planes can spend in flight at these altitudes, probably > > about an hour. Balloon residue can be addressed through a collection > > program and I doubt the residue would come close to that already floating in > > the middle of the Pacific from land based plastic waste. Alan Robock's > > statement in his AMS slides that "billions of weather balloons would be > > required" is only accurate if weather balloons were used. High altitude > > stratospheric balloons are not weather balloons. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:14 AM > > Subject: [geo] Re: delivering aerosols > > > As they are just converted old bombers you could easily convert a > > different bomber to do the job. B52s are an obvious choice as there > > are loads lying about and they are very large, reducing the costs. I > > think they fly very high. > > > A > > > 2008/12/8 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> These planes cannot reach the sub-stratosphere at all. > >> Gregory > > >> Has anyone looked at using firefighting planes to deliver aerosol > >> particles? > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Andrew Lockley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > >> Sent: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 5:46 pm > >> Subject: [geo] delivering aerosols > > >> Has anyone looked at using firefighting planes to deliver aerosol > >> particles? These are designed to spray powder. There are a lot of > >> them about in Northern latitudes, and for much of the year they really > >> don't do a lot. > > >> I've seen several other methods, all of which have disadvantages: > >> 1) Space lift - still scifi > >> 2) Balloons - could work, but would have to be hydrogen, not helium > >> due to the volumes needed. Unless the balloons are programmed to > >> deflate and float back down, there will be a lot of 'litter'. To get > >> a decent payload, a very large flammable balloon would be needed. > >> 3) artillery - possibly useful, but may be a lot more polluting, > >> expensive and energy intensive than a plane. > > >> ________________________________ > >> Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations – including songs for > >> the holidays – FREE while you browse. Start Listening Now! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
