Oxygen Airlift & Release Program Discussion part 1&2 Don Darcy Evans

Don begins a new discussion on the logistics and delivery of oxygen to remediate global warming and provided a second installment on this for our readers so that we have had that cost discussion.

Part 1 previously published

Oxygen Airlift the Eng. rev 0

Part 2

Oxygen Airlift Eng. addendum rev 2

Call to replace CH2Cl2 with less ozone depleting compounds

A popular industrial solvent, Dichloromethane is damaging the ozone layer over human populations. It’s already listed in the Montreal Protocol as a hazardous substance but it needs to be replaced with greener alternatives. While this solvent is classed as a very short lived substance, it is taking a large toll on the ozone layer.

When we combine this with the loading of atmospheric bromine and for every 5 ppt of that, we have an ozone loss of 1.3% and it could get as high as 350 ppt ( Impact of Very Short-Lived Substances on Stratospheric Bromine Loading, Jan Aschmann Doctoral Dissertation). Just the Bromine releases could wipe out 90% of the ozone layer.
“Several human-produced chlorocarbons not controlled by the Montreal Protocol are present in Earth’s atmosphere. Among the most abundant of these compounds is dichloromethane (CH2Cl2)—an industrial solvent also used as a feedstock in the production of other chemicals, among other applications 13,14. Unlike CFCs, which are virtually inert in the troposphere and have long atmospheric lifetimes (decades to centuries), CH2Cl2 is a so-called very short-lived substance (VSLS)15. Historically, VSLS have been thought to play a minor role in stratospheric ozone depletion due to their relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (typically <6 months) and therefore low atmospheric concentrations. However, substantial levels of both natural and anthropogenic VSLS have been detected in the lower stratosphere 15,16,17,18 and numerical model simulations suggest a significant contribution of VSLS to ozone loss in this region 19,20,21. Long-term measurements of CH2Cl2 reveal that its tropospheric abundance has increased rapidly in recent years 15,21,22,23. For example, between 2000 and 2012, surface concentrations of CH2Clincreased at a global mean rate of almost 8% per year, with the largest growth observed in the Northern Hemisphere (NH)21. Given that natural emissions of CH2Cl2 are small, this recent growth likely reflects an increase in industrial emissions 15. While the precise nature of the source remains poorly characterized, industrial CH2Cl2 emissions from Asia—in particular from the Indian subcontinent—appear to be growing in importance 23”   https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15962

These growth rates are exponential, and we seriously risk another ozone crisis in addition to the one addressed by the Montreal Protocol. In order to reduce the risk, a call to replace dichloromethane with alternatives needs to be made, and upgrade it to at least a partially-banned, controlled substance. If we do not take measures like this in the near term, we run the risk of even more dangerous UV radiation in the environment and cancelling out the benefit we see from the Montreal Protocol.

What’s worse, we run the risk of losing our ozone layer while we watch greenhouse gases and miss this very real risk which could lead to the need for an emergency oxygen airlift to replenish ozone.



Observed trends and growth rate of surface CH2Cl2 and simulated stratospheric loading of chlorine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490265/

Not doing an oxygen airlift is suicidal

How many degrees of demise will we allow if we have the power?

The New York Time magazine is coming out with a big spread tomorrow, August 1, entitled “Losing Earth”, about how policymakers have been aware as far back as the 1980’s that emissions were a climate problem, but did not act. Neighbors, friends, and family have now internalized how deep and steep the warming trajectory is ahead of us. We all know that we need an answer like an oxygen airlift to cleanse the culprit gases and reinstate the ozone layer at the same time.

The truth is, oxygen is the only answer we have ever had; it has been our maid and butler in the environment since it appeared on Earth. It makes toxins inert and removes unneeded junk everywhere it is applied. Its use and optimization is a staple of the environmental engineering profession for contaminated water and soil. In its forms of O2 and O3, and hydrogen peroxide it is prescribed to oxidize the vast majority of endangering pollution. Even in incineration, it is the exposure time to the oxygen of the combustion process which is maximized in standard operating procedures.

We need to take this to heart. We know we are missing oxygen at the level of the ozone layer and that synthetic greenhouse gases are building up there. Oxygen and Ozone both block ultraviolet radiation and cool the Earth, at this point we can model how well it does this by computer. We need to compel authorities to model this, and if it looks promising, they should do it. Expense, when compared to the degrees of demise we are all contemplating now, is going to be irrelevant either way.

Should we look to oxygen for its potential as a panacea as the environmental profession often does? Yes. I don’t see any other candidates. Do you?

Please share this article and teach others that oxygen is a tool to reduce global warming that triggered glaciation as known in the fossil record. It happens to be widely available, which we can produce in quantity and airlift to where it should do a lot of good.

A liquid oxygen airlift and dispersal at the lower stratosphere would address these six issues:

  1. Reduction and removal of synthetic greenhouse gases which are causing 80 ppm of CO2 equivalent warming to the planet.
  2. Ozone depleting substances removal or reduction.
  3. Thickening up the ozone layer, increasing needed UV protection by reducing the relative chlorine, fluorine and bromine fractions.
  4. Methane gas removal which appears to be becoming extremely urgent.
  5. Reduce acceleration of global warming and species extinction.
  6. Slow and may even reverse ice loss.

Oxygen links greenhouse gases and ozone depletion in global warming predicament

Many people do not know that ozone depletion is considered a cause of global warming as well and it is very significant. Ozone absorbs the high heat UV radiation UVB and UVC. Because the layer is depleted, this heat is getting through at 48 times the hotness of infrared radiation.  Dr. Peter L. Ward is a prominent retired Geophysicist who teaches the science behind ozone depletion as the main cause of warming and what he writes highlights this problem as relevant from a physics perspective which is what we need. http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/index.html

If we combine these two theories, greenhouse gas warming and ozone depletion theory, we have the main culprit problems causing global warming and it’s no surprise that it is accelerating. These two theories are both dependent on oxygen to solve their problems. Ozone needs oxygen to form and greenhouse gases need them to be removed by oxidation. Oxygen could be used at the lower stratosphere where the ozone is the most depleted and the greenhouse gases also persist at the same place.

There is possibly twice as much justification for the oxygen airlift because of its links to both of these predicaments.

Solar radiation and volcano activity also influence the temperature, but mankind’s part in this problem may be cataclysmic, so, we may need the man made intervention that can solve both theoretic situations, the oxygen airlift. In this blog we discuss the aspects of the idea and have proposed that it be computer modeled so that we gain a full picture of how effective it might be. We will update as we get new information about modeling activities. What you can do to help is become informed and inform others so that this idea is vetted and finds a way to becoming funded.

For more information about Dr. Peter L. Ward’s teachings on climate change go to: https://whyclimatechanges.com/; where an important side effect of erupted volcanic aerosols is ozone depletion after a short lived and relatively minor cooling phase.

The sooner we computer model an oxygen airlift -the better


I recently asked 15 atmospheric computer modeling groups around the world to model the oxygen airlift to see what the effect would be according to their algorithms. Computers are the only place where the interference of EMF frequencies and chemicals can be removed if a basic study is done. We are almost inundated with interference in the atmosphere and it looks like it is going to continue that way. This is leading to the outgrowth of negative feedbacks from ice loss and methane explosions which are set to continue possibly up to tripling the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

The third world has acknowledged global warming because their agricultural droughts are causing loss of crops and life around them. They are prisoners of the industrial revolution on combustion.

We will have enough oxygen at ground to borrow it and place it up in the atmosphere for a limited time, because the methane explosion occurring is going to use up these reserves over time. If the oxygen airlift cooled the atmosphere, it may at least partially arrest this warming by slowing the explosions. This can be computer modeled and the modeling exercise would give us insight into a different option than solar radiation management. We have to have an idea of how much oxygen affects the computer model results. To increase oxygen at ground is important and can only feasibly be done by plats and the ocean plankton and algae, so we are faced with thinking about planting more greenery and more properly shepherding the ocean so that it does not continue to have anoxic zones.

Perhaps the large emitters should be planting the equivalent of their fossil fuel emissions of CO2 as CO2 converting plants.

The truth is that we are faced with up to 6 degrees of warming and so the sooner we look at these ideas, the better. If we start thinking in terms of generating an additional million Tonnes of dry plant matter from added plants, this equates to a million tonnes of carbon. If we are emitting 100 million Tonnes of CO2 per day, 27.2 million tonnes per day of dry, dead plant matter would completely offset this by fixing that carbon and giving off needed oxygen. 70% of the CO2 is given off by large emitters, so, the attribution has been made to them. Can they generate 19.04 million Tonnes of dead plant matter per day?

Plants convert 5 Tonnes of CO2 per year per hectare, which is 1.36 Tonnes of carbon, so the emitters would have to plant and bury the carbon on 14,000,000 Hectares of land per day.

There are 2.7 billion Hectares of arable land available so the 5.1 billion hectares needed for a year are out of reach for the emitters with business as usual. We would need to halve their emissions and plant all of the arable land.  http://www.everythingconnects.org/arable-land.html

Another way to view this statistic is that we have trapped oxygen in the CO2 molecule by double what we could potentially reverse with plants, so the oxygen reservoir is being lost to CO2.

This is the cost of our reliance on combustion in simple terms. Are we willing to face this situation with a shortening time window on our way to a 6 degree warming set to topple the web of life at that point.

We definitely need to know if an oxygen airlift will help because it has triggered ice ages in the past; we won’t be able to trigger an ice age, but we could trigger removal of methane and synthetic greenhouse gases and give ourselves a needed delay to the 6 degree warming we face. We deserve to know what this option might do for us.