Is there any reason why we couldn’t make manufacturing companies install Ozone generators to counter balance all the carbon monoxide they produce?
What does ozone have to do with the greenhouse effect?
The ozone would need to be deposited at the height of the greenhouse belt. AFAIK, the only secure methods of delivering a payload (of any kind) to that altitude are by rocket. So the method of delivery far outweighs the benefit.
We can have all the ozone we like up there. It wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the greenhouse effect. Ozone doesn’t counteract greenhouse gases in any way.
Apologies - I misread from start to finish, and disown what I said earlier
SHAKES, you’re confusing two environmental problems:
- The “Greenhouse Effect”, the build-up of certain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere leading to increases in average global temperatures, caused by industrial pollution, car exhaust and the loss of trees which consume these gases; and
- The destruction of the Ozone Layer, a form of oxygen high in the atmosphere which plays a role in preventing dangerous radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface, caused by CFCs, kinds of catalysts released by industrial processes and aerosols.
As to making (non-greenhouse related) ozone, the urban areas across the planet are extremely good at this. Which is not good. Ozone is bad for humans and reacts with other pollutants to make even worse stuff. The best place for ozone is up very high away from humans, i.e., the ozone layer. The best way to generate ozone is to use ultraviolet light, which streams in from the Sun in large quantities for free.
So, the Earth naturally produces plenty of ozone in the right place. The issue is stopping the destcruction of the ozone that has been made there. That solves the problem far better than anything else.
SHAKES, you are also confusing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is produced by burning fossils fuesl such as coal and petroleum, and is the most important greenhouse gas. Carbon monoxide is a dangerous compound produced by incomplete combustion that often kills people when it builds up in confined spaces due to faulty space heaters and the like.
Though they still get wide mention, it has been quite some time since aerosol cans contributed much to the problem. From this site:
A couple of years ago, I was trolling through channels in a near-catatonic state. The remote control slipped from my hand just when I hit an afternoon cartoon (I forget which). Not wanting to expend the massive effort to pick of the remote, I decided to watch the cartoon. By now, drool was rolling down my chin and my eyes were glassy.
So anyway, the evil villains in the cartoon used an evil death ray aimed skyward to destroy the ozone layer with the express purpose of destroying the Earth by accelerating the greenhouse effect. Within minutes, the temperature of the city rose form below freezing (this was in winter) to over 90 degrees. Fortunately, the heroes were able to shut it down, and in a few days everything was back to normal.
Are you guys implying that the large and well-educated scientific consulting staff of an afternoon cartoon would create a scientifically implausible plot scenario?
Even if it were possible to deliver large quantities of ozone to the upper atmosphere, the process of producing it would consume fuel and would produce large quantities of pollutants, so it would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Brane Damaj, your cartoon wouldn’t have been set in the 1920’s, would it?