|
0 members (),
716
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540 |
No, stupid. 0.05 micron sulfuric acid aerosol is the reflective moiety. HCl on ice is ozone depletion. Nicht einmal falsch, Wolfgang Pauli. If you want to nucleate ice, that's different, [url=hhttp://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/2059/acpd-6-2059_p.pdf]hhttp://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/2059/acpd-6-2059_p.pdf[/url] http://www.cosis.net/copernicus/EGU/acpd/6/S514/acpd-6-S514_p.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 30 |
lol hmm Uncle Al is looking stupid in this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
al, please explain.
first you called me stupid for saying that volcanos put sulphiric acid ice in the atmosphere, causing it to block the sunlight, since every body with a brain knows that sulphur is heavier than air,
then
you called me stupid for not knowing that sulphuric ice could reflect sunlight in the upper atmosphere after a volcano put it there.
which is it. you need to pick one. was i right or wrong saying that volcano's put sulphuric acid ice in the upper atmosphere, and if i was wrong, why are you now saying that it does.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
We know that fish are dense than air. And that fish can stay aloft for quite some significan amount of time.
That updrafts and mixing and keep something suspended is literally a no-brainer. It is also irrelevant to the discussion.
Sulfur can be lofted into the atmosphere. And it will, based on density, be removed. But its removal via rain and absorbtion onto particulates will be far more significant as almost any sulfur compound that could be put into the atmosphere would be polar.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
wrong again da. the discussion is about sulpher being put into the upper atmosphere so that it can block out some of the heating from the sun.
once again you have reversed yourself and claim to be in the same spot. as i said before this guys plans are based on what happens when volcanos send sulphur into the upper atmosphere. do you think hes planning on sending a solid rock into the upper atmosphere, expecting it to stay aloft? no of course not. he knows from research what the sulphur sent up then is like. only someone like you would expect it to be any other way. perhaps he's planning on sending it up in using aresol form just like volcanos do. every think of that. no of course not. it has to be sent up in huge molicules so that it will fall down immeadiately or the plan might actually work. cant have that after you made your global statement that it could never happen.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
hes sulpher aresol molicules immeadiately!
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540 |
perhaps he's planning on sending it up in using aresol form just like volcanos do. The International Sulphur Flit Gun pointing straight up from the Mariana Trench into the stratosphere. It is powered by water pressure so no energy is needed. Being corn starch/bagasse composite lubricated with sucrose polyester it is a biodegradable renewable resource. School children everywhere will paint its sides to send a message of international socialist solidarity. Empowerment can be ours! (as long as somebody productive is dunned for it)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
if there was any thought behind either of these two post, i was never able to find any evidence of it.
1st off, who ever claimed the guy was talking about putting millions of tons of sulpher into the air obviously did not read the story. it said that a volcano put millions of tons, not that this guy was planning on doing so.
2ndly, i dont know how big the droplets would have to be, but those that are found after a volcano eruptions are fairly big, yet they still stay up quite well, remaining for upto 3 years. Since they people involved did not spell out exactly how they plan on doing it, how do you know that its not workable. After all you were claiming just a few post ago that it was impossible to put any form of sulphur into the atmosphere in a way that it would float for even a few minutes.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
dehammer wrote:
"i dont know how big the droplets would have to be, but those that are found after a volcano eruptions are fairly big"
You "don't know how big" but yet you know they "are fairly big."
No additional comment required.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
I've done some reading on it, seen some pictures of what aircraft have picked up on other side of a globe and near the volcano. I'm not an expert, but some of them are comparatively large, by the description of the people who made the reports (USAF people). perhaps you've heard of reading up on a subject before pontificating about it. just reading on it does not make you an expert, so i don't claim to me, unlike others.
another point is that according to the records the earths temperature has risen less than one degree c. Tuba caused the planet to cool by over 3 degrees c and its not the biggest in history.
mount pinatubo droppe the world tempature by .9 degrees. (im not sure if this was c or f) the point is that IF you could put a little bit more sulphur in the air as it did you would reverse the entire global warming. In reality he is not saying this is the cure, merely one stopgap measure. If the tempature was dropped enough in the right places, it would increase the amount or ice there, and that would increase the albeto which would be a permanite fix. (or at least as permaninte as the tempature of the earth gets). i do agree with you though. "No additional comment required."
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142 |
Originally posted by Uncle Al: The man says that experimentally the sulfer compounds are found in the air years after they are ejected by volcanos. Uncle Al states that theoretically this can't happen.
Quartz has a density of 2.635 g/cm^3. Air has a density of 0.0013 g/cm^3 - a factor of 2000 less. Ever seen a sandstorm, git? Stokes law, Brownian motion, wind. What is the density of 1 ppm SO2 in air vs. pure air?
It's a convention of idiots plus a retarded clown. I direct your attention to figure 1 in this paper. Apparantly SO2 can be measured years after an eruption. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~raman/papers/BluthJG.pdf The data in table 3. Apparantly the removal rate (similar to a half-life) is measured in months. So, it is reasonable to expect some sulfer compounds after years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142 |
Originally posted by Uncle Al: The man says that experimentally the sulfer compounds are found in the air years after they are ejected by volcanos. Uncle Al states that theoretically this can't happen.
Quartz has a density of 2.635 g/cm^3. Air has a density of 0.0013 g/cm^3 - a factor of 2000 less. Ever seen a sandstorm, git? Stokes law, Brownian motion, wind. What is the density of 1 ppm SO2 in air vs. pure air?
It's a convention of idiots plus a retarded clown. By the way, if your simple calculations don't match with experimentally measured data...well, you probably made the mistake. If multiple groups show experimental results that run counter to your calculation, it is fairly certain the mistake is yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142
Senior Member
|
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 142 |
Originally posted by Uncle Al: The man says that experimentally the sulfer compounds are found in the air years after they are ejected by volcanos. Uncle Al states that theoretically this can't happen.
Quartz has a density of 2.635 g/cm^3. Air has a density of 0.0013 g/cm^3 - a factor of 2000 less. Ever seen a sandstorm, git? Stokes law, Brownian motion, wind. What is the density of 1 ppm SO2 in air vs. pure air?
It's a convention of idiots plus a retarded clown. I direct your attention to figure 1 in this paper. Apparantly SO2 can be measured years after an eruption. http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~raman/papers/BluthJG.pdf The data in table 3. Apparantly the removal rate (similar to a half-life) is measured in months. So, it is reasonable to expect some sulfer compounds after years. This paper took under 2 minutes to find using Google Scholar ( www.scholar.google.com). Perhaps you should try it sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
when they do the test, they use a filter that picks stuff up in the air. some of it is rather small, other of it is actually much larger. what they get out of clear air is about (if memory serves any thing close, its been a while) 1/30 the size of the particles size of the "sulfuric acid aerosol" the get in the filter after the eruption. if particles that can stay at that altitude is that much smaller, then relatively speaking, the aerosol is what i would consider to be fairly big. also from one of your links there is this quote "The sulfate aerosols tend to be less than 1 microm in diameter and tend to dominate the mass of this submicron size mode." ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract ) if most are less than 1 microm, then i would say that 5 microms are fairly large. thanks for taking the time to look things up. J. Arthur God, thanks for that link too.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136 |
Jag wrote:
"I direct your attention to figure 1 in this paper. Apparantly SO2 can be measured years after an eruption."
No need to do that as no one will disagree. What will cause disagreement is if you claim SO2, always a gas at STP, to be particulate.
DA Morgan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089 |
so2, mixed with water in the upper atmosphere creates a form of ice that is highly reflective, and is very light. im not an expert but i believe that ice is considered a particulate.
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Bring on global warming! It is -36 here today and will remain v cold for the next week. David Suzuki should move to the north and quit his whining.
|
|
|
|
|
