What would happened if we artificially saturated the atmosphere.

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front, what
would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the atmosphere
with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets, operating 24
hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher level
water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be severely screwed
up, but I would be interested in the resultant fallout of such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

What a interesting achivement!
Universal bereavement!

(LOL)!

That would be a hell of a show!

It would be better to do a more important mission with that idea.

Not as many rockets will be required:

1. Load all U.N. Del.
2. Load all Pop. of City of Alanta
3. Load all Pentagon Contract Neg.
4. Load all Relig. Zelots.
5. What the hell, load evryone who is screwing up the world!
6. Liftoff!!!

Wait a min.! That would still be what you prop. at the start, (Sorry
for waste of bandwidth, (LOL))!


Carl

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front, what
would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the atmosphere
with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets, operating 24
hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher level
water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be severely screwed
up, but I would be interested in the resultant fallout of such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places.
That's what we call rain, bucko.

Remember, even with something like 70% of its surface covered with
water, not enough evaporates from them to create 100% relative humidity,
everywhere, all the time.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Frank Glover wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front, what
would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the
atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets,
operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to
space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher level
water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be severely screwed
up, but I would be interested in the resultant fallout of such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places. That's
what we call rain, bucko.

Yes, and in America, all rain is the same!

Idiot. plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front, what
would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the
atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets,
operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to
space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher level
water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be severely
screwed up, but I would be interested in the resultant fallout of
such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org



It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places.
That's what we call rain, bucko.


Yes, and in America, all rain is the same!


In the sense that all rain is water (in any country), yes.

So tell us, plonkmaster, what do *you* think would happen if you
could saturate Earth's atmosphere with water?

Or do you just believe in drive-by plonkings with no meaningful
response?



--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Frank Glover wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front, what
would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the
atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets,
operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to
space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher level
water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be severely
screwed up, but I would be interested in the resultant fallout of
such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org



It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places.
That's what we call rain, bucko.


Yes, and in America, all rain is the same!


In the sense that all rain is water (in any country), yes.

So tell us, plonkmaster, what do *you* think would happen if you
could saturate Earth's atmosphere with water?

Or do you just believe in drive-by plonkings with no meaningful
response?

No, but it makes me feel better, until I install new software or
computers and the filter file gets deleted.

Certainly a cryogenic contrail all the way to LEO is vastly different
than a jet contrail. One can make an order of magnitude estimate our
current position of 10,000 aircraft transporting a billion passengers a
year, to some point in the future where a million reusable cryogenic
spacecraft are transporting 100 billion passengers a year. That's a lot
of water injected into the upper atmosphere. One can extrapolate where
solar energy cracks water and injects it into the upper atmosphere in
lieu of natural evaporation. Plus there are a lot of reentry trails. If
an entire industrialized planet of 10 billion people went over to solar
powered electrocatalysis that's a lot of water into the lower atmosphere
too, but that indeed would just precipitate out. It's the upper levels
that I am more concerned about.

I'm just curious if anyone had critically addressed any of the issues.
Something like that should be easy enough to simulate at the lower
levels, but the atmospheric chemistry of the upper atmosphere certainly
could yield some surprises. We discuss these kinds of things all the
time. For instance, if you want to remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, you can grow plants, or make carbonate. It doesn't take a
whole lot of energy to make carbonate, but it proceeds very slowly, and
that carbonate must be removed from the ocean to prevent pH limiting.
Physically then the problem is speeding up and controlling carbonate
precipitation. I suspect this isn't commonly pursued research.

Certainly we need to remove a great deal of carbon dioxide from our
atmosphere in a very short period of time. We're also going to have to
replace our current energy infrastructure entirely, conserve energy
extremely, and start growing a lot more trees and crops, in addition to
massive geoengineering and global carbon dioxide remediation projects.

As far as I can tell, that looks like a Manhattan project space program.

Apparently you haven't thought about these things. Forget it then.

http://www2.unine.ch/Jahia/site/lamu...fonce/pid/9667

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front,
what would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the
atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic rockets,
operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human population to
space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher
level water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be
severely screwed up, but I would be interested in the resultant
fallout of such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org




It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places.
That's what we call rain, bucko.



Yes, and in America, all rain is the same!



In the sense that all rain is water (in any country), yes.

So tell us, plonkmaster, what do *you* think would happen if you
could saturate Earth's atmosphere with water?

Or do you just believe in drive-by plonkings with no meaningful
response?


No, but it makes me feel better, until I install new software or
computers and the filter file gets deleted.


Then I submit that you amuse far too easily.


Certainly a cryogenic contrail all the way to LEO is vastly different
than a jet contrail. One can make an order of magnitude estimate our
current position of 10,000 aircraft transporting a billion passengers a
year, to some point in the future where a million reusable cryogenic
spacecraft are transporting 100 billion passengers a year. That's a lot
of water injected into the upper atmosphere. One can extrapolate where
solar energy cracks water and injects it into the upper atmosphere in
lieu of natural evaporation. Plus there are a lot of reentry trails. If
an entire industrialized planet of 10 billion people went over to solar
powered electrocatalysis that's a lot of water into the lower atmosphere
too, but that indeed would just precipitate out. It's the upper levels
that I am more concerned about.

I'm just curious if anyone had critically addressed any of the issues.
Something like that should be easy enough to simulate at the lower
levels, but the atmospheric chemistry of the upper atmosphere certainly
could yield some surprises. We discuss these kinds of things all the
time. For instance, if you want to remove carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, you can grow plants, or make carbonate. It doesn't take a
whole lot of energy to make carbonate, but it proceeds very slowly, and
that carbonate must be removed from the ocean to prevent pH limiting.
Physically then the problem is speeding up and controlling carbonate
precipitation. I suspect this isn't commonly pursued research.


So far you're actually interesting...


Certainly we need to remove a great deal of carbon dioxide from our
atmosphere in a very short period of time. We're also going to have to
replace our current energy infrastructure entirely, conserve energy
extremely, and start growing a lot more trees and crops, in addition to
massive geoengineering and global carbon dioxide remediation projects.

As far as I can tell, that looks like a Manhattan project space program.

Apparently you haven't thought about these things. Forget it then.

It's true that I hadn't thought about *upper* atmosphere effects
(understand that I regard the entire idea as somewhat preposterous,
anyway), but *you* seem not to have thought about the increase in
Earth's albedo that would come with injecting this much water (which
would rapidly become ice crystals) at those altitudes...global cooling,
anyone?

Of course, cooler ocean surface tempratures make them a more
efficent CO2 sink, possibly enhancing the cooling...it's really a path I
don't recommend going down.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Frank Glover wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:

[Politics trimmed, sci.space.policy added]

Ok, here's an idea, on the geoengineering and simulation front,
what would be the total effect of just artificially saturating the
atmosphere with water vapor, by say, billions of cryogenic
rockets, operating 24 hours a day, evacuating the entire human
population to space habitats.

It would probably be good for crops at least. Would the higher
level water wash out the CFC's? Probably the ozone would be
severely screwed up, but I would be interested in the resultant
fallout of such an event.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org




It's going to precipitate out, espically in the colder places.
That's what we call rain, bucko.



Yes, and in America, all rain is the same!



In the sense that all rain is water (in any country), yes.

So tell us, plonkmaster, what do *you* think would happen if you
could saturate Earth's atmosphere with water?

Or do you just believe in drive-by plonkings with no meaningful
response?


No, but it makes me feel better, until I install new software or
computers and the filter file gets deleted.


Then I submit that you amuse far too easily.


Certainly a cryogenic contrail all the way to LEO is vastly different
than a jet contrail. One can make an order of magnitude estimate our
current position of 10,000 aircraft transporting a billion passengers
a year, to some point in the future where a million reusable cryogenic
spacecraft are transporting 100 billion passengers a year. That's a
lot of water injected into the upper atmosphere. One can extrapolate
where solar energy cracks water and injects it into the upper
atmosphere in lieu of natural evaporation. Plus there are a lot of
reentry trails. If an entire industrialized planet of 10 billion
people went over to solar powered electrocatalysis that's a lot of
water into the lower atmosphere too, but that indeed would just
precipitate out. It's the upper levels that I am more concerned about.

I'm just curious if anyone had critically addressed any of the issues.
Something like that should be easy enough to simulate at the lower
levels, but the atmospheric chemistry of the upper atmosphere
certainly could yield some surprises. We discuss these kinds of things
all the time. For instance, if you want to remove carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, you can grow plants, or make carbonate. It doesn't
take a whole lot of energy to make carbonate, but it proceeds very
slowly, and that carbonate must be removed from the ocean to prevent
pH limiting. Physically then the problem is speeding up and
controlling carbonate precipitation. I suspect this isn't commonly
pursued research.


So far you're actually interesting...


Certainly we need to remove a great deal of carbon dioxide from our
atmosphere in a very short period of time. We're also going to have to
replace our current energy infrastructure entirely, conserve energy
extremely, and start growing a lot more trees and crops, in addition
to massive geoengineering and global carbon dioxide remediation projects.

As far as I can tell, that looks like a Manhattan project space program.

Apparently you haven't thought about these things. Forget it then.

It's true that I hadn't thought about *upper* atmosphere effects
(understand that I regard the entire idea as somewhat preposterous,
anyway), but *you* seem not to have thought about the increase in
Earth's albedo that would come with injecting this much water (which
would rapidly become ice crystals) at those altitudes...global cooling,
anyone?

Of course, cooler ocean surface tempratures make them a more efficent
CO2 sink, possibly enhancing the cooling...it's really a path I don't
recommend going down.

It's a habitat, it gets warm, and it gets cool. Clearly we have to
reduce carbon dioxide concentration back to under 350 ppm or less within
the next 50 years or so, if we want a planet anything like what it was.

By the year 2050, I expect the planet to be monitored and simulated down
the the square meter, so maintaining 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.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

"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

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