This diagram is wrong on so many levels. Ozone is “charged Oxygen” (O1 rather than the usual O2) so it’s saying you get Ozone out of the Hydrogen side. The bubbles are forming in a place where they can’t get to the output vents, so the accumulating gases would slowly force the water level in the inner chamber down, and thus up through the vents. It’s pretty shit. Is it AI slop?
Putting Ozone on the Hydrogen side was my mistake, I haphazardly added the hearts last minute and just put 2 great things about the gases there, not realising they were about the same gas. For what it’s worth, you got it wrong too, as Ozone is O3.
The diagram itself is from here. While there are plenty of reasons to doubt the promises of clean hydrogen companies, I at the very least trusted them when it comes to understanding electrolysis… might want to rethink that. But AI it is not, as far as I can tell.
The solution to global warming is to artificially heat earth to Planck temperature, this ensuring it cannot possibly become any hotter.
How does the saying go, the only thing that can stop a bad air pollutant with a gun is a good air pollutant with a gun?
More dense atmosphere means strapping some feathers to your arms and flapping like a bird could actually work.
This would work best in an atmosphere of tungsten hexafluoride, which is the heaviest gas in the world. It’s ~11 times heavier than air. The downside is that you would melt down to a brown sludge.
What if I’m already brown sludge?
It’s the sludge part that really throws a wrench into it for me.
Sounds like a win to me
Wait how does Hydrogen -> Ozone?
It doesn’t… I may have replaced the wrong text.
In any case, what would you say is the best property of having more hydrogen gas in the atmosphere? Make it quick, I need to sell a few pentawatthours to world leaders.
We can react the hydrogen with CO2 in the atmosphere to produce hydrocarbons and water. The water goes back into the electrolysis system, and the hydrocarbons can be put back underground where they belong. As a bonus it gets rid of some extra CO2!
Capture it and use it for nuclear fusion.
Then capture the helium produced as a byproduct and use it to build a city supported entirely by weather balloons
Human fusion technology currently only works with heavy hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium in neutronic fusion). Fusion of normal hydrogen requires pressures and temperatures we’re unable to control at the moment.
Aneutronic fusion is currently explored in fusing hydrogen and bor, this results in clean helium-4 and no neutron radiation, meaning it leaves no radioactive waste. But it needs temperatures FAR exceeding the core of the sun and it’s self-cooling via Bremsstrahlung, so it’s nowhere near a working technology.
Hydrogen is its normal state exceeds the escape velocity of Earth
It floats up and gets striped first by solar winds, like a shield protecting the ozone layer.
Even if this would work without any complications from increasing atmospheric pressure, electrolyzing 0.5% of the ocean with present-day technology would take more than 200,000 years. That’s plenty of time to invent new tech to speed it up, but even if some miracle invention next week sped it up by 2 orders of magnitude, it would still take more than 2000 years. So in feasibility terms I would rate this concept lower than building space elevators to save rocket fuel.
Cool sci-fi concept tho - let’s get Arnold on it right away!
wouldnt it be easier to have more photosynthetic organisms, like ocean algae and rainforests.
This is an ironic post
Obviously ocean algae and rainforests are superior
I don’t think adding other gases will reduce the amount of radiation carbon dioxide absorbs lol
But the scary news are always “Carbon dioxide reached 430 parts per million”. So I thought instead of reducing the carbon, we could increase the “per million” for the same effect and have no scary news any more!
It will dilute it and reduce the effect, sorta like reducing the reflectivity of a mirror.
I don’t think so. There’s still the same amount of carbon between the earth and space, so it’s still going to have the same effect of blocking IR that’s moving to escape the earth’s climate system.
If anything the extra gases will simply trap more heat on their own, although probably less so than the CO2 does.
The concentration matters, not the absolute amount. Spectroscopy confirms this. 1g of CO2 will reflect IR much differently if it’s in 1mL or 1L of volume.
The volume doesn’t change. It’s still the same amount of CO2 in the same volume. There’s just more of the other gasses in that same volume.
Since it’s not clear what will happen let’s just try. What could go wrong?
I don’t know enough about planets and atmospheres to say for sure, but I reckon adding gas would increase the volume of our atmosphere to some extent.
Well I’m no expert but that does not make sense to me. I don’t think CO2 is reflecting IR but rather absorbing it.
Not sure where I can read more about this to confirm or deny this idea.
It’s absorption and re-emission of IR. Instead of IR leaving our planet, some gets redirected back at the surface by CO2.
Ok, ok, ok. But hear me out. Instead of ozone, zeppelins!
What could go wrong, I wonder
HUH?!! WHATS THAT? I CANT HEAR YOU OUT OF THE BLOOD IN MY EARS.
