Dear John, We know that the more water rich a sulfate aerosol is, the faster the recycling of Cl reserviors is on their surfaces. But do we know surface/water properties of these other materials? Is anyone like Maggie Tolbert, Dave Hansen or Mario Molina working on this?
Ideally a particle would only reflect light to minimize diffuse light. More diffuse light leads to less direct gain in passive solar homes and commercial building. Oliver On Dec 10, 11:58 pm, "John Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote: > It is obviously possible to distribute SO2 (or indeed SiO2) by an additive > in aircraft fuel although, as Alvia has said the aircraft industry do not > want to know-at the moment. > > The disadvantage is the possible damage to the engine. Without > listing those obvious possibilities may I list some possible advantages of > this > route. > > 1)No hardware development so much quicker atmospheric testing. > > 2)with aerosol droplet size being so important and diffficult to control, it > might be possible to produce silica particles of defined size.(Greg > Benfold's diatoms) > > 3)These might be more reflecive and lighter platelets-or not. > > 4)non acid -sand particles. > > etc.more in my submission to the parliamentiary committee > atwww.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/memo/1264/... > on page 86 or my websitehttp://www.naturaljointmobility.info/globalwarming.htm > > since Alvia has already homed in on a fighter like the F15 as the best > delivery mechanism the poossibility exists to use the additive only in the > fuel injected into the afterburner which would avoid most of the probable > problems.Those with suitable test beds will still not be interested until > someone can come up with some money! > > John Gorman > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > > Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:16 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: delivering aerosols > > Seems planes are the best method then? > > 2008/12/9 Oliver Wingenter <[email protected]>: > > > 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: <[email protected]> > >> > 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 <[email protected]> > >> >> 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
