"One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the atmosphere, a scientists suggested today.
The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools the planet by reflecting solar radiation away from Earth. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060727/sc_space/scientistinjectsulfurintoairtobattleglobalwarming
Which, of course, is related to the fact that low-sulfur coal sells for a premium price?
Tell us how to isolate and transport appropriate sufur species into the stratosphere in sufficient quantities without burning a planet's worth of carbon as fuel. The usual injection mechanism is volcanic, e.g., Mt. Pinatubo - and that's a Hiroshima-sized boogie.
There was no acid rain until smoke stack particulates were scrubbed. The mineral fraction is alkaline. The combo is fertilizer downwind. Enviro-whinerism made it expensive, shoddy, and deadly.
Uncle Al wrote:
"Enviro-whinerism made it expensive, shoddy, and deadly."
No Al ... politicans ... of all stripes and colours make it expensive, shoddy, and deadly.
Unrestricted capitalism is alive and well in China. It is poisoning the planet.
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
Tell us how to isolate and transport appropriate sufur species into the stratosphere in sufficient quantities without burning a planet's worth of carbon as fuel. The usual injection mechanism is volcanic, e.g., Mt. Pinatubo - and that's a Hiroshima-sized boogie.
There was no acid rain until smoke stack particulates were scrubbed. The mineral fraction is alkaline. The combo is fertilizer downwind. Enviro-whinerism made it expensive, shoddy, and deadly.
not sure exactly what your asking for, but they do mine sulphur, and they can send it aloft in large balloons. sending it up that high would keep it in the atmosphere for years. therefore it would not take as much as it might be supposed. they have balloons that can carry 1000 lbs of man and equipment much higher than they need for this. send it up by remote control (and recover it that way) and they could carry 600 to 1000 lbs of sulphur a day per balloon. use a hundred balloons and do it for two years and there will be a very noticeable amount in the upper air. Whether or not it would be enough, i could not tell you.
The article said "millions of tons of sulfur".
With even half ton payloads thats `heluva a lot o` balloons.
Since Crutzens degree is in chemistry, I suppose
that he's evaluated the effects of all that sulfur
on the air & ozone chemistry????
IIRC sulfur oxidzes slowly in air at room temp.,
(much as iron rusts). What would happen under
U.V., and maybe in contact with ozone?
He sayeth not.
same thing that happens to it when its shot into the air by volcano's. It would mix with water to form sulphuric acid. At that altitude the sulphuric acid would form ice crystals that are extreamly light. it also blocks out the sun very well.
if they had 1000 balloons, it would only take about 5 years to put up 1 million tons of sulphur. send it up high enough and it will take 10 years to fall out.
All sulfur species are heavier than air. Air avg. MW=29. S atomic weight = 32. Helium lift capacity at sea level is 1 gram/liter less balloon weight.
1000 lbs of sulphur a day per balloon
500,000 liters of helium/balloon, STP. Idiot.
/_\P/_\V = energy, 101.325 J/liter-atm. You are already a loser just by storing and moving gas.
if all sulphur species are heavier than air, please explain the phenomenon of sulphur dioxide ice being in the air years after the volcanic eruption that that launched them there. For reference check out ANY volcano sites. there was evidence of sulphur from mount Pinatubo's eruption two years after the eruption. If its heavier than air it will fall in the first couple hundred miles.
before you start calling people idiots you better make sure you have your brain in full gear.
another point, if your going to try to make people look dumb, you should at least do so in some form that it readable by all the people that you are talking to. I mean, seriously, what kind of ignorant fool talks down to people with terms that they don't know and haven't the slightest chance of having the education to read.
All sulfur species are heavier than air. That is first semester high school chemistry.
Molecular mass of hydrogen (H2) = 2, helium (He)= 4, oxygen (O2) = 32, a single atom of sulfur (S) = 32. Combine that sulfur with oxygen (SO2) you get 64. The lightest gaseous form of sulfur possible, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), would be 34. Most of the atmosphere is nitrogen (N2) = 28.
Simple math ... not formulae.
then explain why the ice with sulphur in it stays in the atmosphere for decades after a super volcano eruption. Ice cores taken from a time up to 11 years after some of the biggest one still show traces of sulphur. test after Mount Pinatubo found traces of it 2 years afterwords. It was having a measurable effect on the entire world's temperature for 6 months. so did Mount St Helen. the ice forms very large, but low density crystals in the upper atmosphere. Only as they melt into the lower atmosphere do they fall out as sulphur rain.
they are heavy enough to fall out eventually, but its the mean time that there effect is felt. The sulphuric ice from the last super volcano eruption dropped the earths tempature something in the neighborhood of 20 degrees (if i remember correctly).
before you start saying that things like this cant happen, better find out if it does already happen in nature.
Marvelous. Two people with degrees in chemistry agree and you, who admits to having never studied chemistry, wish to disagree.
Had you a track record that indicated a willingness to learn ... I would. But YOYO!!
if all sulphur species are heavier than air, please explain the phenomenon of sulphur dioxide ice being in the air years after the volcanic eruption that that launched them there.
Where would religion be without stalwart ignorance? Hey git, name a sulfur species that is less dense than air, plus a literature citation.
Why does a gram of goose down float in the air and a gram of lead fall like a lead ball? Cesium iodide has a density of 4.51 g/cm^3. How does it stay homogeneously dissolved in water? (Hint: density gradient centrifugation).
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
if all sulphur species are heavier than air, please explain the phenomenon of sulphur dioxide ice being in the air years after the volcanic eruption that that launched them there.
Why does a gram of goose down float in the air and a gram of lead fall like a lead ball? Cesium iodide has a density of 4.51 g/cm^3. How does it stay homogeneously dissolved in water? (Hint: density gradient centrifugation). Seems like someone (Uncle Al) has made grandiose comments like "theory is the handmaden of experiment" or some such phrase (that even Uncle Al has forgotten).
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.
Either attack the facts or be consistent with your own philosophy.
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
if all sulphur species are heavier than air, please explain the phenomenon of sulphur dioxide ice being in the air years after the volcanic eruption that that launched them there.
Why does a gram of goose down float in the air and a gram of lead fall like a lead ball? Cesium iodide has a density of 4.51 g/cm^3. How does it stay homogeneously dissolved in water? (Hint: density gradient centrifugation). Seems like someone (Uncle Al) has made grandiose comments like "theory is the handmaden of experiment" or some such phrase (that even Uncle Al has forgotten).
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.
Either attack the facts or be consistent with your own philosophy.
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Marvelous. Two people with degrees in chemistry agree and you, who admits to having never studied chemistry, wish to disagree.
Had you a track record that indicated a willingness to learn ... I would. But YOYO!!
if theory does not fit the evidence, something is wrong with the theory.
Nuclear winter
"When a super volcano goes off, it is an order of magnitude greater than a normal eruption. It produces energy equivalent to an impact with a comet or an asteroid.
"You can try diverting an asteroid. But there is nothing at all you can do about a super volcano.
"The eruption throws cubic kilometres of rock, ash, dust, sulphur dioxide and so on into the upper atmosphere, where they reflect incoming solar radiation, forcing down temperatures on the Earth's surface. It's just like a nuclear winter.
"The effects could last four or five years, with crops failing and the whole ecosystem breaking down. And it is going to happen again some day."
please explain why chemistry experts don't know the chemistry that geologist and volcanologist know. It would appear to me that someone who has the ability to read has a better understanding of this particular part of chemistry than the supposed experts.
Recently, observations from ice cores have been made on the possible effects of the Toba super-eruption, 75,000 years ago. If these data do reflect the Toba event, they suggest that aerosol formation and fallout lasted for six years. The volcanic winter would not only be more severe than for a Pinatubo-scale eruption, but would last much longer. Models suggest that a Toba-sized super-eruption would inject so much sulphur gas into the atmosphere that the stratosphere chemistry would be substantially perturbed - allowing for more prolonged climate-forcing. Some models suggest super-eruptions can cause cooling of 3°C to 5°C, which in global climate terms represents a catastrophic change
Originally posted by Uncle Al:
if all sulphur species are heavier than air, please explain the phenomenon of sulphur dioxide ice being in the air years after the volcanic eruption that that launched them there.
Why does a gram of goose down float in the air and a gram of lead fall like a lead ball? Cesium iodide has a density of 4.51 g/cm^3. How does it stay homogeneously dissolved in water? (Hint: density gradient centrifugation). its not a religion or ignorance. it fact. try to read something save your own books. try to think about how its possible for things to happen that you are not told will by theories. If your theories dont meet known facts, perhaps you need to find new theories.
heres another site to read about the effects of sulphur in the atmosphere.
http://www.theweatheroutlook.com/commviewarticle.asp?id=95 it mentions a theory that the dark ages were caused by one of Krakatoa's lesser known eruptions.
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.
No, stupid boring critic troll. How does SF6 MW=146.06 so happily make it up into the stratosphere? F3CSF5 is also up there inciting Enviro-whiner outrage, MW=196.07. The atmosphere gets colder with altitude, not warmer. Cold air is denser than warm air, git. Why doesn't the atmosphere overturn?
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.
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. ok expert, what is the density of sulpher/water ice crystals?
if your going to be an idiot and not read what is there. then stop bothering trying to pretend you know everything. you obviously dont. otherwise you would know that sulpher and water freezes into very large but low weight ice crystals in the upper atmoshere.
why not try to find out what is happening in the real world before you pontificate on what can and cant happen.
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
lol hmm Uncle Al is looking stupid in this one.
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.
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.
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.
hes sulpher aresol molicules immeadiately!
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)
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.
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.
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."
Sulfur emissions from volcanos are not particulate.
Sources:
http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_10/10_5.htm http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://els/03770273/1998/00000083/00000003/art00033&unc=
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/gas_pubs.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract But I have to confess I am confused by something. Uncle Al stated correctly:
"0.05 micron sulfuric acid aerosol is the reflective moiety"
but you wrote:
"i dont know how big the droplets would have to be, but those that are found after a volcano eruptions are fairly big"
Can you reconcile the apparent inconsistency? Is 0.05 micron "fairly big"?
Thank you.
How's that Rose?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.