What would happened if we artificially saturated the atmosphere.

"jonathan" wrote in :


"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

it shouldn't be a big problem.

That's why we are discussing this, clearly we need to start to look at
water vapor in the stratosphere. It's the only realistic way to keep a
planet in a relatively stable temperature regime where land use changes
on a decadal basis. As far as I'm concerned, it's our only geoengineered
option on the table utilizing a preexisting non-toxic greenhouse gas.

Cryogenic rockets are one way to deliver this substance to altitude. It
has a residence time far shorter than carbon dioxide, that's for sure.

Consider the concept henceforth - on the table.



We're talking about a biosphere. Life regulates the atmosphere.

We need to tend to life on earth if we wish to keep it habitable.
And the answer to tending to life is rather simple. We need
to establish systems that govern life in the most natural
way possible. So that life remains stable, as that will maintain
a stable atmosphere.

The societal system that best mimics nature is, of course, democracy.
So the problem is quickly reduced to tending to democracy.

Such questions you pose have their answers in the political sciences.

Nature, and free democracies, have one property that this planet needs
the most. The ability to converge, or evolve, onto the best possible
solutions
for any given problems all by themselves.

And the greatest single opportunity to bioengineer the atmosphere is
rapidly approaching. In less than two years the entire world will
watch as ONE FOURTH of the world falls to democracy during
the upcoming Beijng Olympics. An upcoming critical point for
the largest and most brittle system the earth has ever seen.
It cannot survive it.

A proper system for life that best creates evolutionary beauty is
a dynamic balance between the opposite extremes of genetics
and mutation. Which creates the innovative marketplace and
ultimate problem solver of natural selection.

A proper political system that best tends to people is a dynamic
balance between the opposite extremes of the rule of law and
freedom. Which creates a web of self correcting feedback loops
that find the best solutions automatically.

We must be as clear about our morality and our politics as we are
about our engineering equations.

Life...Darwin... the abstact mathematics of evolution...
shows the way in all things.

http://www.calresco.org/
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html



Jonathan

s






http://cosmic.lifeform.org

An interesting and intelligent discourse, but with several flaws...

If Voting could change anything, it would be illegal, like it is in China.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

it shouldn't be a big problem.
That's why we are discussing this, clearly we need to start to look at
water vapor in the stratosphere. It's the only realistic way to keep a
planet in a relatively stable temperature regime where land use
changes on a decadal basis. As far as I'm concerned, it's our only
geoengineered option on the table utilizing a preexisting non-toxic
greenhouse gas.

Cryogenic rockets are one way to deliver this substance to altitude.
It has a residence time far shorter than carbon dioxide, that's for
sure.

Consider the concept henceforth - on the table.



We're talking about a biosphere. Life regulates the atmosphere.

Yes, until life self organizes enough to be able to artificially spike
the carbon dioxide, which we are demonstrably doing, with demonstrable
results. What I am proposing is artificially spiking water vapor, via
cryogenic rockets, and I need to know the results. Screw it, I'll get
back to you when I have some results, I'm just formulating the problem.

We need to tend to life on earth if we wish to keep it habitable.
And the answer to tending to life is rather simple. We need
to establish systems that govern life in the most natural
way possible. So that life remains stable, as that will maintain
a stable atmosphere.

Until it becomes unstable, as it is now, thus, the rockets.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


The issue has a number of variables. Polar contrals would on first
approximation have less effects than equatorial contrails, yet equatorial
launch has energy-saving benefits. Night launch has further benefits for
SSTOs, exactly because the higher atmosphere is then cooler and denser,
aiding any aerodynamics incorporated on fusilage to higher altitudes.

It requires some pondering.

Your initial postuates are bogus though -- it is insanity to think of
transplanting any significant fraction of the human population...

atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets,
operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to
space habitats.

They already are in a space habitat. Anybody who can't demonstrate
responsibility to keep the life-support systems maintained in good repair
is not being evacuated anywhere. No other habitat will accept them. This
is a prison world for miscreants.

Therefore a much more refined number of flights is required for base
assumptions.

The two-way flights is bogus. Most incoming would be parasailed, or
airbagged with little or no fuel expendatures.

At some point, maybe 20,000 flights at a 1st approximation, space habitats
would be self-sufficient from indigenous resources The moon, asteroids,
comets would be satisfactory raw materials supply, and Earth would be just
one of many tourist destinations. Any desired and needed population
increase would normally be available between your legs instead of
importing sides of spoiled beef that can't regulate their consumption
habits.

So that all narrows down the parameters of the problem significantly.

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

it shouldn't be a big problem.
That's why we are discussing this, clearly we need to start to look at
water vapor in the stratosphere. It's the only realistic way to keep a
planet in a relatively stable temperature regime where land use changes
on a decadal basis. As far as I'm concerned, it's our only
geoengineered
option on the table utilizing a preexisting non-toxic greenhouse gas.

Cryogenic rockets are one way to deliver this substance to altitude. It
has a residence time far shorter than carbon dioxide, that's for sure.

Consider the concept henceforth - on the table.




Carbon dioxide


At temperatures below −78 °C, carbon dioxide changes directly from a gas to
a white solid called dry ice through a process called deposition. Liquid
carbon dioxide forms only at pressures above 5.1 atm; at atmospheric
pressure, it passes directly between the solid phase and the gaseous phase
in a process called sublimation.

Carbon dioxide is soluble in water, in which it spontaneously interconverts
between CO2 and H2CO3 (carbonic acid). The relative concentrations of CO2,
H2CO3, and the deprotonated forms HCO3- (bicarbonate) and CO32-
(carbonate) depend on pH. In neutral or slightly alkaline water (pH 6.5),
the
bicarbonate form predominates, while in very alkaline water the predominant
form is carbonate. The bicarbonate and carbonate forms are very soluble,
such that air-equilibrated ocean water (mildly alkaline with typical pH
8.2–8.5) contains about 120mg of bicarbonate per liter—the equivalent of the
CO2 present in about 130 liters of the atmosphere.


It has long been recognized that it is impossible to obtain pure hydrogen
bicarbonate at room temperatures (about 20 °C or about 70 °F). However, in
1991 scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (USA) succeeded in
making the first pure H2CO3 samples. They did so by exposing a frozen
mixture of water and carbon dioxide to high-energy radiation, and then
warming to remove the excess water. The carbonic acid that remained was
characterized by infrared spectroscopy. The fact that the carbonic acid was
prepared by irradiating a solid H2O + CO2 mixture has given rise to
suggestions that H2CO3 might be found in outer space, where frozen ices of
H2O and CO2 are common, as are cosmic rays and ultraviolet light, to help
them react.

It has since been shown, by theoretical calculations, that the presence of
even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon
dioxide and water fairly quickly. Pure carbonic acid is predicted to be
stable in the gas phase, in the absence of water, with a calculated
half-life of 180,000 years.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide







..org

jonathan wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

Cryogenic rockets are one way to deliver this substance to altitude. It
has a residence time far shorter than carbon dioxide, that's for sure.
Consider the concept henceforth - on the table.

The societal system that best mimics nature is, of course, democracy.
So the problem is quickly reduced to tending to democracy.

*blink*

Uhhh.. oh of course. Why, just yesterday I saw a bunch of squirrels
lobbying for more nuts, and a pigeon rigging the votes for park
president...

Nature is anarchy. No-one is looking out for anyone other than
themselves or their own little clique. Admittedly, you could say the
same of most political entities, democratic or otherwise, but they are
at least required to maintain a facade of public interest. No-one or
nothing in nature knows, cares or pretends to care about the larger
consequences of their actions (which actually does NOT apply to most
anarchists I know, but I digress) or is attempting to work their way up
any heirarchy or influence decision-making outside their own little
family group. To be honest it's amazing nature maintains the diversity
and stability (although a definition of 'stability' here might be
tricky) that it has, and that no single species has gone rampant and
completely unbalanced everything. Then again, plenty of ppl would say
that humanity is in the process of doing just that.

Social structures in nature (wolf packs, ape truopes, whale pods etc)
tend to choose their leaders on either a "I'll fight you for it" or a
gerontocratic basis. Decisions are made exclusively by those leaders,
without any kind of discussion or negotiation with other members of the
group or compromise to their wishes. There's certainly no voting going
on which, last time I checked, was pretty much fundamental to any
democratic process. I suppose you might characterise ant/ bee/ termite
colonies and the like as socialist or communist, but democracy?

I'd like very much to read your arguments for your case.

wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...

Cryogenic rockets are one way to deliver this substance to altitude. It
has a residence time far shorter than carbon dioxide, that's for sure.
Consider the concept henceforth - on the table.

The societal system that best mimics nature is, of course, democracy.
So the problem is quickly reduced to tending to democracy.

*blink*

Uhhh.. oh of course. Why, just yesterday I saw a bunch of squirrels
lobbying for more nuts, and a pigeon rigging the votes for park
president...

Nature is anarchy. No-one is looking out for anyone other than
themselves or their own little clique. Admittedly, you could say the
same of most political entities, democratic or otherwise, but they are
at least required to maintain a facade of public interest. No-one or
nothing in nature knows, cares or pretends to care about the larger
consequences of their actions (which actually does NOT apply to most
anarchists I know, but I digress) or is attempting to work their way up
any heirarchy or influence decision-making outside their own little
family group. To be honest it's amazing nature maintains the diversity
and stability (although a definition of 'stability' here might be
tricky) that it has, and that no single species has gone rampant and
completely unbalanced everything. Then again, plenty of ppl would say
that humanity is in the process of doing just that.

Social structures in nature (wolf packs, ape truopes, whale pods etc)
tend to choose their leaders on either a "I'll fight you for it" or a
gerontocratic basis. Decisions are made exclusively by those leaders,
without any kind of discussion or negotiation with other members of the
group or compromise to their wishes. There's certainly no voting going
on which, last time I checked, was pretty much fundamental to any
democratic process. I suppose you might characterise ant/ bee/ termite
colonies and the like as socialist or communist, but democracy?

I'd like very much to read your arguments for your case.

Good points!