Some months ago I submitted a patent pending concept for brightening
clouds by releasing large amounts of liquefied air or liquid nitrogen
(June 12th entry "Proposed Method to Offset Global Warming").  One
aspect of the application would be to increase the number of droplets
in clouds to boost their reflectivity.

I believe it is imperative that this concept be considered along with
those which are being evaluated for the "approved" list.  This concept
could be relatively easy to validate, and relatively straightforward
to execute unlike many other options being considered.

The concept also has several additional applications of great
significance, including potentially fighting large wildfires and
reducing the severity of destructive weather.  It therefore might be
used to not only reduce global warming but also reduce some of the
natural disasters that may arise due to global warming (including
preventing tornados and reducing hurricane strength).  The potential
multi-use capability of this concept is one unique advantage it has
over most other concepts being considered.

In terms of feasibility, the Chinese have inadvertently created
significant proof of this in trying to prevent rain during the
Olympics.  Here is a quote from one of the news articles:

"Finally, any rain-heavy clouds that near the Bird's Nest will be
seeded with chemicals to shrink droplets so that rain won't fall until
those clouds have passed over. Zhang Qian, head of Beijing's Weather
Modification Office, explains, "We use a coolant made from liquid
nitrogen to increase teh number of droplets while decreasing their
average size. As a result, the smaller droplets are less likely to
fall, and precipitation can be reduced."

The Chinese have therefore given a significant level of proof that
cooling of clouds can "increase the number of droplets while
decreasing their average size".  This is exactly the effect that I
believe would be desired to brighten clouds.  The Chinese are using
this to prevent precipitation on a limited scale.  I believe this
provides proof that large scale cooling using cryogenic liquids could
also be used to increase cloud albedo by increasing droplet density.

My concept would be scaled much larger than the Chinese by utilizing
heavy lift aircraft to release large amounts of liquefied air or
liquid nitrogen precisely where it could have maximum effect (i.e.
close to the equator and on targeted cloud types), and on a rotating
basis to maintain the desired albedo increase.  This process may also
serve to enlarge existing clouds or create new clouds under the right
conditions.

One valuable aspect of the concept is that the working fluid would be
naturally absorbed by the atmosphere.  The process could therefore be
safely scaled as large as necessary to obtain the desired result.  So
most importantly, it should have no adverse effect to the atmosphere,
unlike most concepts being considered.  This removes an enormous
potential roadblock for other concepts, giving this concept a much
greater chance of obtaining public support in addition to widespread
government approval, which otherwise will be extremely difficult as
this is of course an international issue.

Another feature of this approach is enabling very large scaling due to
the enormous expansion ratio of liquefied air and liquid nitrogen,
enabling it to cool very large atmospheric volumes with minimal
effort.  These liquids expand over 800 times at sea level into their
respective gases, and more importantly expand much more than this at
higher altitudes.  For example, at 40,000 feet these liquids expand
over 4,000 times into gaseous air or nitrogen, so that one payload
from a 10 foot diameter by 40 foot long tank could cool an atmospheric
volume of 6 miles in diameter by 30 miles long.  If for example 10 or
20 aircraft were outfitted with cryogenic tanks, one can imagine an
almost constant delivery of cryogenic payloads that would expand
thousands of times each, to enable the type of scaling that would be
required to increase global cloud albedo by 5% (the amount considered
in previous scientific reports to offset a doubling of pre-industrial
CO2).

Testing would need to determine how droplet density will dissipate
over time (reducing albedo with time).  This effect is actually
desired, to ensure that albedo levels stay safely in control.
However, this will also determine how often re-treatment is required,
and how large the fleet of aircraft will need to be in order to
maintain desired overall albedo.  I don't believe that this answer can
be obtained without running real-world tests at a reasonable scale.
In other words, I don't believe this concept can be considered for
elimination until real-world tests can be run.

My hope is that brightened clouds will remain brighter long enough to
allow a global increase of 5% to be obtained with a reasonable amount
of aircraft and mission frequency.  And in this fashion, allow mankind
to reduce global CO2 within a reasonable timeframe.

To minimize CO2 created in executing this concept, power for creating
liquefied air or liquid nitrogen could be provided by windfarms
wherever possible.

Potentially, an ideal aircraft for this concept would be the KC-135
air-fueling tanker.  Since these are in the process of being replaced
with a new fleet of tankers, some of the 500-large fleet of KC-135's
could be modified for cloud-brightening missions.  These modifications
should be limited mainly to tanks and tank controls, by making the
existing tanks safe for cryogenic storage or by replacing them with
specially designed cryogenic storage tanks.  By using existing
aircraft, the infrastructure cost for this concept can be greatly
reduced.

In terms of other applications for this concept, I will provide two
examples.  In the case of fighting wildfires, liquid nitrogen could be
release via aircraft onto and upwind of firelines, where upon reaching
the ground the liquid will expand over 800 times into gaseous
nitrogen.  This very cold vapor would be blown over the firelines,
blanketing fire with enough gaseous nitrogen to dispel oxygen levels
below the combustible limit (reducing oxygen from 21% down below
15%).  This would literally snuff out large burning areas, and cooling
them in the process to help prevent re-ignition.

In the example of hurricanes, large numbers of liquefied air payloads
could be safely delivered up and over the cloud system and released
into the hurricane eye.  These payloads would fall by gravity onto the
eye's surface, expanding in the process and spreading a huge layer of
cool air over the water.  As the hurricane proceeds, the cool air is
pulled up and into the heat of the storm.  This cools the vertical
flow of moisture, slowing atmospheric expansion that is driving the
storm and therefore reducing the storm's intensity.  In addition, the
large amount of expansion caused by many payloads in the eye volume
could serve to increase eye pressure by some significant amount.  This
could also serve  to weaken the storm.

Hopefully one can see that this concept has enough potential to
warrant further investigation.  I truly believe that there are at
least one or more applications of the concept that are potentially
very significant.  If offsetting global warming with the concept
simply did not work, I am confident that development would still be
warranted for fighting wildfires or moderation adverse weather events
such as hurricanes or tornadoes.

Please contact me if you have any comments or questions.  My email
address is m2des...@cablespeed.com or feel free to contact me by
phone.  I am interested in partnering with the "right" individuals or
corporations in development of these applications, which as mentioned
are currently patent pending in nature.

Mark Massmann
President
M2 Design LLC
425-208-9798

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to