Can we add ozone to the ozone layer?

[barfbag]

@ Arete,

 

I was merely comparing cost analysis and have real interests outside of this thread. I only came into this thread because someone said the topic was not worth even discussing, and I think discussing any topic is beneficial. Especially if it has global ramifications.

 

However the method I listed the costs for (and I did show labour and profits) is meant to be a working farm for profit and food. Should these farms simply expand repeatedly in thousands of locals then the 180kg of biomass per week you speak of would not be harvested but be allowed to grow and multiply.

 

A poster had suggested that an acre of seaweed would cost $20k to plant. Real estate costs would be relevant as you say, but the target growth regions would be out of the way "Big Sur" type environments ideally. Setting up on Santa Monika Boulevard would be unlikely. We have many island communities predicted to sink over the next 100 years. I am sure some of them would do their share to offset GW.

 

However the consensus of this science forum is that we should do nothing and just sit back and watch them all die. I have no problem with that. I don't know any of them hopefully.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This is starting to get off topic. Please return to the discussion outlined by the OP or otherwise, please open another thread.

[Arete]

However the consensus of this science forum is that we should do nothing and just sit back and watch them all die. I have no problem with that. I don't know any of them hopefully.

 

That has to be one of the daftest strawmen I've ever seen. No one suggested we do nothing about climate change or the ozone layer - many posters simply stated your idea didn't sound like it would either work or be in any way feasible.

 

In terms of getting back on topic, as I posted earlier - it looks like the ozone layer is a glimmer of good environmental news among a lot of bad news, in that it may repair itself in the next 60 years. One less sin of the baby boomer generation to be visited upon future generations.

[barfbag]

@ Arete,

 

hat has to be one of the daftest strawmen I've ever seen. No one suggested we do nothing about climate change or the ozone layer

 

 

No. A Straw Man argument would be if that was not the opinion of several heavy contributors to this thread.

 

In fact; someone had stated (and was backed up),

"Why are we even discussing this still", and "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?"

 

I did NOT enter this thread with any ideas or notions. I entered this thread because someone was saying statements like above and basically suggesting there is no reason to even discuss this topic because no solution can ever be found.

 

One proposal in the second post said creating Ozone on the ground and transporting it up (despite it's inherent instability) would be the only real method to do this and was not cost effective.

 

It would help if you followed the conversation instead of getting this recap.

 

Then I said just dropping a mirror on the ground would reflect UV and thus create a miniscule amount of O3. I Also said encouraging GW is beneficial to the Ozone. If you think my Seaweed solution was impractical take a stab at those.

 

No. That was theexact opposite of Straw Man, because if you read the thread through the first and second page my standpoint was suppressing discussion just because someone assumed they were clever enough to know no solution could be reached was akin to censorship.

 

I stand by my previous statement, however I will exclude your opinion from the consensus seen thus far.

 

@ Arete still,

 

To simplify things I invite you to read post 12 (linked below) which was my first posting in this thread. That should clarify things for you.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83661-can-we-add-ozone-to-the-ozone-layer/?p=811136

 

it looks like the ozone layer is a glimmer of good environmental news among a lot of bad news, in that it may repair itself in the next 60 years.

 

 

Maybe, but the repair is not even expected to start for another 20 years. We are just watching the decline of cfc's at the moment. An paper in Nature Magazine suggested GW may shift the hole towards the tropics which would really cause havoc. I will cite it if requested.

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

OK, Since Barfbag seems very concerned that I wrote "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?"

perhaps I should remind people of the context. What I wrote was

OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer?
If, after some consideration, we realise that such shouting won't ever help, should we carry on discussing it, or should we turn our attention to other matters- possibly other solutions (like axing CFC use), or possibly other uses to which you could productively dedicate a trillion dollars?

By the same token, why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?

 

and I think it's clear from that I meant we shouldn't waste time on things like C/W multipliers, shouting at clouds, or mirrors because they are never going to work.

 

Discussion of things that might possibly work (like, as I said, axing the use of CFCs) is obviously not a waste of time, but, so far, nobody here has come up with one.

 

 

Incidentally, if one of the mods could remove the interesting, but irrelevant stuff about algae farming to another thread, that might make things clearer.

 

 

 

 

(1) I gave two other methods to create ozone without electricity and yet you never mention them at all. That would have been the scholarly choice and not the grade school one.

 

@ John c,

 

 

(2)

You are speaking of electric energy. This was your "Friggin Dumb idea" (Quoting Ophiolite) that got you so worked up.

 

I gave two solutions that require no electricity yet you ignore them in favour of what? Relating how thermodynamics is related to replenishing the ozone. Seriously?

 

(3)

I am a Soil Engineer which basically makes me a glorified driver these days, but I bet my CV is more impressive than 90% of the posters here. I do not need to be an ozone expert to know that problems often have many solutions and deserve discussion despite your complaints otherwise.

 

(4)

Placing a mirror on the ground would reflect the sunlight back into space and the remaining UV (especially if under the Ozone Hole) would split the O2 molecules and allow them to bind into O3 molecules. How can you not grasp this?

 

(5)

I also said Global Warming is helping fix the Ozone so any (not cfc's) use of greenhouse gasses might help fix it sooner than 2070.

(6)Another solution that has been applied without electricity is the Montreal Protocol which limited chlorofluorocarbons.

(7)I forgot I had put forward three ozone creation ideas, not two. In post 12 I had said,

 

(8) So I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger since you said, "why are we still discussing this?" in post 11.

 

(9) Tell me how my above plan wouldn't work? Funding? I already said campaign to have companies voluntarily (or force them) to have a carbon footprint of zero.

 

(10) Any other reasons why my last idea does not increase global Oxygen levels (also Ozone (two birds)), decrease Carbon in our atmosphere (Global Warming is often attributed to Carbon (three birds)), and also solve world hunger as towing a few hundred acres of yummy algae (That is smart talk for seaweed) to countries suffering droughts (World Hunger (Four birds same stone)).

 

(11) So while you guys just want to argue for the sake of it I have been contributing to the thread and solving the problems.

 

(12) Admit it.. I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger in one shot.

 

Now back to Ophiolite,

 

 

I proposed the above idea long ago in post 12. How is that impractical? Funding will be your only choice of answer here because planting more trees is my basic proposal. Do you know 80% of our Oxygen comes from Algae already?

 

I am an avid sailor and would like to retire on the oceans sailing from continent to continent as I have strong archeological interests, and I can tell you that even in patches of the ocean with little nutrients it is common to see seaweed attaching itself to the floating refuse. The concept of a seaweed rainforest (alluding to size of it and Oxygen benefits) I am proposing here would encompass long lasting floats attached with seaweed supporting connections likely in triangular shapes when attached.

 

So Ophiolite,

 

I just solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger.... You can go all ad hominem on my butt now (referring to his/her (idk) last post which was mostly ad hominem).

 

What have you solved?

 

NOTE: I might start a thread with that idea so I may quote your responses to it. You know my idea would work, but I am saying that whatever your stance is it might be reviewed by many others. In other words try to reply intelligently and without ad hominem or straw man attacks. I honestly am expecting a combination of both based on previous posts. Maybe we can discuss Thermodynamics some more (LMAO).

(1)

OK, for the record, I already explained why the mirror idea wouldn't work in post 21.

The "shooting UVc from ground level won't work for two reasons- firstly the cost of the energy involved and secondly because they would generate ozone near ground level where it's acutely poisonous to us and to all other living things.

(2)

No, I am talking about the energy needed to create ozone.

If you can find a way to do it that doesn't take as much energy as is released when the ozone is decomposed then you have done two things, you have broken the law of conservation of energy and you have solved all the world's energy problems.

However, because the law is a law, you can't do it.

That's why I talked about thermodynamics.

(3)

Nobody here (apart from you) cares about your CV

(4)

No, it won't. There's essentially no hard UV in the sunlight when it reaches the ground- partly because organic stuff in the air (from plants etc) absorbs it. I already pointed that out (post 21), how come you couldn't grasp it?

(5)

I think you have that the wrong way round. According to this

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#Does_climate_change_have_an_impact_on_th

"temperatures in the lower stratosphere are decreasing as a result of increased carbon and other heat-trapping emissions"

"Cooling of the lower polar stratosphere enhances PSC [polar stratosphere cloud] formation, and thus contributes to ozone loss."

 

(6) Since that's already in place it's not a new solution,

But, perhaps I can remind you of what you previously said about it in post 14

"Work already done? Like what; realizing it wasn't hairspray doing the damage?"

(7)

you also seem to have forgotten that they can't work.

(8)

Oh no you didn't.

(9)

I already did. Funding would be an issue if they would work. They won't.

(10)

There's only a little CO2 in the air (about 0.04%). So, even converting the whole of it to CO2 (which isn't possible- because all the plants would die) wouldn't significantly increase the amount of oxygen (roughly 20.8% to 20.84%) and so any change in the ozone concentration (Perhaps a 0.2% increase) would be too small to matter.

(11) You are deluding yourself if you think you have saved anything there.

(12) LOL

All the rest of the stuff talking about algae is hogwash for the reason given in 10

Edited June 22, 2014 by John Cuthber

[barfbag]

@ JohnC,

 

Perhaps websites such as

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#Does_climate_change_have_an_impact_on_th

 

do have an iota of correct information and possibly is reviewed at some peer level.

 

This Magazine has a fairly known reputation though.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460792a.html

In 1992, researchers predicted that greenhouse warming would speed up the destruction so strongly that it would cause ozone holes to open above the Arctic as well⁷. But that analysis left out an important effect, says John Austin, an author of the study and a modeller at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. Normal atmospheric flow, called the Brewer–Dobson circulation, causes air to rise into the stratosphere over the tropics, and then travel towards the higher latitudes, where it sinks back into the lower atmosphere (and heats up as it gets compressed). If climate change accelerates that cycle, it will speed up the downward flow above the polar regions, which would enhance the compression of the sinking air and raise atmospheric temperatures there. Especially in the Arctic, that heating effect in the polar stratosphere will impede ozone loss, says Austin.

 

 

There are a variety of opinions on the matter it seems. Maybe you are right or maybe this article is?

 

Another increase in CO2 will come from the melting ice .

 

So according to you any UV light reflected from a mirror on the ground would not make it back to the stratosphere to make regular ozone?

 

I'm not as inclined to believe things in that website you quoted 100%. Maybe it is right, but I trust Nature Magazine more.

[John Cuthber]

"So according to you any UV light reflected from a mirror on the ground would not make it back to the stratosphere to make regular ozone?"

For the third time, no.

Because the short wave UV you need to make ozone (typically <200 nm) doesn't reach the ground because it's absorbed by oxygen, ozone etc, on the way down.

Why can't you grasp that?

 

I note the nature article refers to work that's 20 years old.

This is a very slow computer so I'm not able to check the date of the other page at the moment.

It doesn't matter because increasing the greenhouse effect isn't a practical solution , it's a disaster.

[barfbag]

Because the short wave UV you need to make ozone (typically <200 nm) doesn't reach the ground because it's absorbed by oxygen, ozone etc, on the way down.

 

 

The mirror on the ground idea was simply to show a very simplistic way to add a tiny amount of Ozone and to refute an earlier notion that this topic was a waste of thought.

 

However now you are suggesting it won't work because (in your opinion) none of the UV-C or UV-B could cause ozone by reflection. UV-B can and does cause Ozone and is well known to impact the Earth so any argument otherwise is wrong.

 

Do I need to cite papers that show UV-B can be reflected and can create ozone?

 

This is merely a point however, as my main position was that discussing this topic cannot hurt, and your position you clearly outlined again ...

 

OK, Since Barfbag seems very concerned that I wrote "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?"

perhaps I should remind people of the context. What I wrote was

OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer?

If, after some consideration, we realise that such shouting won't ever help, should we carry on discussing it, or should we turn our attention to other matters- possibly other solutions (like axing CFC use), or possibly other uses to which you could productively dedicate a trillion dollars?

 

By the same token, why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?

 

and I think it's clear from that I meant we shouldn't waste time on things like C/W multipliers, shouting at clouds, or mirrors because they are never going to work.

 

Discussion of things that might possibly work (like, as I said, axing the use of CFCs) is obviously not a waste of time, but, so far, nobody here has come up with one.

 

 

 

 

That quote is pretty much how I had summed it up previously even with context. You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's.

 

I am not even clear why you are saying "shouting at clouds". Who is endorsing shouting at a cloud? Is that supposed to be a Straw Man suggesting someone has said to do such a thing. I assumed "Shouting at the clouds" was possibly a cliche I was unaware of, but I cannot find the meaning if it is. Shouting at anything to get it to work sounds silly.

 

My reasoning for entering this thread was because you said basically what you stated (in context) in the above quote. You seem to be of the opinion that nothing good can come from it. This assumes you know more than all on the topic. I thought it seemed mildly oppressive and vain to suggest nothing else (no other solutions) are possible.

 

That was the discussion.

 

Yes I know Global Warming is likely not good for our planet especially based on the overwhelming data that says so. Several of the ideas I suggested were obviously not practical, but they both would add ozone (or retard depletion).

[John Cuthber]

"The mirror on the ground idea was simply to show a very simplistic way to add a tiny amount of Ozone and to refute an earlier notion that this topic was a waste of thought."

And you keep banging on about it even after it has been shown not to work.

 

UV-B is 315 to 280 nm

And this

http://www.macalester.edu/~kuwata/classes/2011-12/Chem%20222/O2%20Absorption%20Spectrum.pdf

is the UV absorbtion spectrum of oxygen.

As you can see, it doesn't absorb UV-B

And, since the light isn't absorbed, it can't transfer energy to the oxygen.

And, since the energy isn't transferred, it can't convert oxygen to the (higher energy) ozone.

 

That's not my "opinion" as you keep seeking to pretend.

It's thermodynamics (again).

Incidentally, it's also irelavant, since ozone near ground level is poisonous (as I already pointed out, but you ignored)

 

 

But I see we are finally making progress when you say

"I am not even clear why you are saying "shouting at clouds". Who is endorsing shouting at a cloud? Is that supposed to be a Straw Man suggesting someone has said to do such a thing. I assumed "Shouting at the clouds" was possibly a cliche I was unaware of, but I cannot find the meaning if it is. Shouting at anything to get it to work sounds silly."

 

OK, do you realise that shouting at clouds won't work and that it's silly to waste time discussing it further?

 

Do you also see that, for example seeking to breed flying fish that make ozone is silly and it would be wasteful to spend more time discussing it?

 

Do you see that any prolonged discussions of any method that will clearly never work is silly?

 

OK, now you just need to realise that, since your proposals all break the first law of thermodynamics (whether you understand that or not), they are just as daft as shouting at clouds.

 

 

So there's (still) no point in discussing them.

Nobody is actually endorsing shouting at clouds, but you are repeatedly endorsing something just as futile- even after that fat has been pointed out (repeatedly)

So, once again,

why are you still going on about it?

 

Incidentally, this assertion

"You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's." is plainly wrong too.

If I thought that was the only game in town, I wouldn't have said "of things that might possibly work"

Did you not understand the use of the plural there, or did you just nort read it?

 

 

Re.

"UV-B can and does cause Ozone and is well known to impact the Earth so any argument otherwise is wrong.

Do I need to cite papers that show UV-B can be reflected and can create ozone?"

Go on, I could use a laugh.

Of course, if they are referring to the production of ozone by secondary reactions- the interaction of UV with organic pollutants for example, they are not going to work properly because the organic stuff is destroyed in the process- you can only use it once and, of course the ozone still isn't in the right place.

 

That's before we address the issues of reflecting lots of sunlight into space and the effect that would have on the earth.

So, even if it worked (it can't ) and it produced ozone in the right place(it won't) and if it didn't produce toxic by-products (and it would) then it's still not any more sensible than shouting.

 

As you say "Several of the ideas I suggested were obviously not practical"

Yep, and so there's no real point to discussing them- just like shouting at clouds.

[barfbag]

You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's." is plainly wrong too.

If I thought that was the only game in town, I wouldn't have said "of things that might possibly work"

Did you not understand the use of the plural there, or did you just nort read it?

 

 

Yes I had missed this part. It seems like a reverse in thinking, but this is all you had to say..

[John Cuthber]

You also seem to have missed the other questions I asked.

Here they are again so you can answer them this time.

 

OK, do you realise that shouting at clouds won't work and that it's silly to waste time discussing it further?

Do you also see that, for example seeking to breed flying fish that make ozone is silly and it would be wasteful to spend more time discussing it?

Do you see that any prolonged discussions of any method that will clearly never work is silly?

 

Nobody is actually endorsing shouting at clouds, but you are repeatedly endorsing something just as futile- even after that fat has been pointed out (repeatedly)
So, once again,
why are you still going on about it?

[Noah_Thiccling]

So I see this forum has been inactive for a few years but I still have a few ideas for this ozone replacement method. The first idea is a solution to the need for more use of coal or other sources of power to provide electricity to these massive ozone generators. I believe that in theory this would be possible (not realistic). I think that if the use of solar energy was greatly increased and funded by whoever or whatever government or investors we managing the ozone generators, then instead of there being an increase in Carbon Dioxide causing more ozone depletion we would then just be combating the current Carbon Dioxide levels. These things could be done but with massive ontributions from multiple countries. And to add onto that solar panels require a considerable amount of silver for production which would lead to a need for some alternative metal of synthetic alternative. This is all possible on the fundamental level, but very very unlikely to ever occur. Perhaps if a committee of nations were formed for the joint research and funding of this project it would be possible. Let me know what you guys think.