Remember me
▼ Content

Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change


Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change15-12-2023 22:17
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.


16-12-2023 00:19
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

OKEEDOKEE



IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-12-2023 01:14
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

OKEEDOKEE


Hey did you make this audio?

http://popdefectradio.blogspot.com/2012/04/mental-defect.html?m=0


16-12-2023 01:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

OKEEDOKEE


Hey did you make this audio?

http://popdefectradio.blogspot.com/2012/04/mental-defect.html?m=0


No is your name Jack




IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
16-12-2023 02:48
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

OKEEDOKEE


Hey did you make this audio?

http://popdefectradio.blogspot.com/2012/04/mental-defect.html?m=0


No is your name Jack



No but I like to think I got a lot of Shining


16-12-2023 23:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14338)
Spongy Iris wrote: Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Nope.

Creating plant food that will be consumed by plants effectively removes all of that oxygen mass and all of that carbon mass from the atmosphere when it is ultimately consumed by plants.

Also, you specified that the magickal, indestructible, invisible glass resides at an altitude of 60 miles. There is effectively no atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Only a major cosmic event in our solar system could result in there actually being some discernible atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Thereafter, it would take a substantially grander such event for there to be any discernible pressure at 31 miles altitude. Those, such as myself, who subscribe to the Hawking expanding universe theory, don't see the universe as having enough time before dying a heat death for any quantity of "human activity" to produce enough additional atmosphere as to add discernible atmospheric pressure to, say, an altitude of 32 miles. Add to that the fact that your earth-glass is apparently indestructible, i.e. mountain-sized meteors traveling beyond mach 7, that cratered the moon sufficiently to be visible from earth, apparently couldn't even make a crack in the earth's glass ... possibly because the meteors couldn't see the invisible glass to hit it ... or the cracks themselves are also invisible. In any event, the underside of this already indestructible glass is facing a life-long pressure-free existence.

Spongy Iris wrote: Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Could this "cosmic energy" be used by engineers to power satellites? Could we drill through the glass and place special batteries atop the glass to harness the cosmic energy?
17-12-2023 01:17
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Nope.

Creating plant food that will be consumed by plants effectively removes all of that oxygen mass and all of that carbon mass from the atmosphere when it is ultimately consumed by plants.

Also, you specified that the magickal, indestructible, invisible glass resides at an altitude of 60 miles. There is effectively no atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Only a major cosmic event in our solar system could result in there actually being some discernible atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Thereafter, it would take a substantially grander such event for there to be any discernible pressure at 31 miles altitude. Those, such as myself, who subscribe to the Hawking expanding universe theory, don't see the universe as having enough time before dying a heat death for any quantity of "human activity" to produce enough additional atmosphere as to add discernible atmospheric pressure to, say, an altitude of 32 miles. Add to that the fact that your earth-glass is apparently indestructible, i.e. mountain-sized meteors traveling beyond mach 7, that cratered the moon sufficiently to be visible from earth, apparently couldn't even make a crack in the earth's glass ... possibly because the meteors couldn't see the invisible glass to hit it ... or the cracks themselves are also invisible. In any event, the underside of this already indestructible glass is facing a life-long pressure-free existence.

Spongy Iris wrote: Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Could this "cosmic energy" be used by engineers to power satellites? Could we drill through the glass and place special batteries atop the glass to harness the cosmic energy?


There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

The Tunguska blast may also be an example of what happens when just a tiny crack briefly opens.

And we also have the universal rumors of a worldwide flood, famously mythologized by The Book of Genesis.

I know you want to dismiss the Lybian glass fields as freak never seen before lightning.

And you also think you have super vision that can see an all encompassing glass wall 60 miles away.

And you also believe that invisible light radiation shines blue or red depending on the short to long wavelength. It suddenly became visible based on the agreed upon imaginary color coding scale! That one is a mass delusion of super vision. You're not alone in having this delusion.

Anyway, when i consider all the weight in the atmosphere, as well as the force from the spinning Earth, I don't think it all, or even most, of the atmospheric particles, have to reach the high heavens, for the overall pressure to reach dangerous levels.

I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

More so I want just to point to the potential risk, promote disclosure of this secret, promote the real reason for the climate change rumor, and think of solutions.


17-12-2023 01:17
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Nope.

Creating plant food that will be consumed by plants effectively removes all of that oxygen mass and all of that carbon mass from the atmosphere when it is ultimately consumed by plants.

Also, you specified that the magickal, indestructible, invisible glass resides at an altitude of 60 miles. There is effectively no atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Only a major cosmic event in our solar system could result in there actually being some discernible atmospheric pressure at 30 miles altitude. Thereafter, it would take a substantially grander such event for there to be any discernible pressure at 31 miles altitude. Those, such as myself, who subscribe to the Hawking expanding universe theory, don't see the universe as having enough time before dying a heat death for any quantity of "human activity" to produce enough additional atmosphere as to add discernible atmospheric pressure to, say, an altitude of 32 miles. Add to that the fact that your earth-glass is apparently indestructible, i.e. mountain-sized meteors traveling beyond mach 7, that cratered the moon sufficiently to be visible from earth, apparently couldn't even make a crack in the earth's glass ... possibly because the meteors couldn't see the invisible glass to hit it ... or the cracks themselves are also invisible. In any event, the underside of this already indestructible glass is facing a life-long pressure-free existence.

Spongy Iris wrote: Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Could this "cosmic energy" be used by engineers to power satellites? Could we drill through the glass and place special batteries atop the glass to harness the cosmic energy?


There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

The Tunguska blast may also be an example of what happens when just a tiny crack briefly opens.

And we also have the universal rumors of a worldwide flood, famously mythologized by The Book of Genesis.

I know you want to dismiss the Lybian glass fields as freak never seen before lightning.

And you also think you have super vision that can see an all encompassing glass wall 60 miles away.

And you also believe that invisible light radiation shines blue or red depending on the short to long wavelength. It suddenly became visible based on the agreed upon imaginary color coding scale! That one is a mass delusion of super vision. You're not alone in having this delusion.

Anyway, when i consider all the weight in the atmosphere, as well as the force from the spinning Earth, I don't think it all, or even most, of the atmospheric particles, have to reach the high heavens, for the overall pressure to reach dangerous levels.

I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

More so I want just to point to the potential risk, promote disclosure of this secret, promote the real reason for the climate change rumor, and think of solutions.


17-12-2023 01:39
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Another confirming indication to note about this risk, is the Tunguska blast happened directly above a massive area that was being extensively mined for coal at the time.

Perhaps a lot of coal-seam fires were being released into the atmosphere from the mining...


RE: water vapor also added, doubling weight23-12-2023 09:15
sealover
★★★★☆
(1234)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

technical note:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H2O

Octane plus oxygen makes carbon dioxide plus water.

Twelve and a half gas molecules of oxygen are removed.

Eight gas molecules of carbon dioxide are added to atmosphere.

NINE GAS MOLECULES OF WATER are also added to the atmosphere.

So, you have removed twelve and a half at the same time you added seventeen.


Ideal gas law - PV = nRT

Since the volume of the atmosphere is rigidly fixed within a glass enclosure, only the pressure can change in response to change in some part of "nRT".

In this case, "n" has increased. The pressure couldn't care less how much the molecules weigh, just how many of them there are. There is no mass term anywhere in the equation.

Water vapor molecules count as gas in the atmosphere.

But even if mass were a factor, at 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is only 0.042% of the gas in the atmosphere. How much weight is really being added?

But there is another part of PV = nRT that would have a predictable response in a glass enclosure of unchangeable volume.

If TEMPERATURE increases, pressure increases in a direct linear way.

T is in degrees Kelvin, so a one degree increase in temperature is an increase of about 1/300. Pressure would increase by roughly 0.33%

If there were a direct linear increase of pressure with weight added to the atmosphere, increasing carbon dioxide from 350 ppm to 420 ppm. Even if we count 100% of the added CO2 without subtracting O2 removed in the process.

70 ppm increase in CO2, or roughly 0.007% increase of total atmosphere weight... even if it WERE somehow increasing pressure, the increase is tiny.

Water vapor can go in and out of the atmosphere with the greatest of ease, and its concentration is highly variable. It outweighs carbon dioxide by a LOT (total H2O versus CO2 as gas in atmosphere), and the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher now with the higher temperatures.

But it probably isn't enought to break the glass, either.
23-12-2023 18:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Another confirming indication to note about this risk, is the Tunguska blast happened directly above a massive area that was being extensively mined for coal at the time.

Perhaps a lot of coal-seam fires were being released into the atmosphere from the mining...


Time for your Thorazine shot


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-12-2023 20:51
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Another confirming indication to note about this risk, is the Tunguska blast happened directly above a massive area that was being extensively mined for coal at the time.

Perhaps a lot of coal-seam fires were being released into the atmosphere from the mining...


Time for your Thorazine shot


Yikes, I need to calm down before my scary surgery


23-12-2023 21:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Another confirming indication to note about this risk, is the Tunguska blast happened directly above a massive area that was being extensively mined for coal at the time.

Perhaps a lot of coal-seam fires were being released into the atmosphere from the mining...


Time for your Thorazine shot


Yikes, I need to calm down before my scary surgery


Indeed brain transplants like you need are rather scary


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-12-2023 21:41
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
sealover wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

technical note:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H2O

Octane plus oxygen makes carbon dioxide plus water.

Twelve and a half gas molecules of oxygen are removed.

Eight gas molecules of carbon dioxide are added to atmosphere.

NINE GAS MOLECULES OF WATER are also added to the atmosphere.

So, you have removed twelve and a half at the same time you added seventeen.


Ideal gas law - PV = nRT

Since the volume of the atmosphere is rigidly fixed within a glass enclosure, only the pressure can change in response to change in some part of "nRT".

In this case, "n" has increased. The pressure couldn't care less how much the molecules weigh, just how many of them there are. There is no mass term anywhere in the equation.

Water vapor molecules count as gas in the atmosphere.

But even if mass were a factor, at 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is only 0.042% of the gas in the atmosphere. How much weight is really being added?

But there is another part of PV = nRT that would have a predictable response in a glass enclosure of unchangeable volume.

If TEMPERATURE increases, pressure increases in a direct linear way.

T is in degrees Kelvin, so a one degree increase in temperature is an increase of about 1/300. Pressure would increase by roughly 0.33%

If there were a direct linear increase of pressure with weight added to the atmosphere, increasing carbon dioxide from 350 ppm to 420 ppm. Even if we count 100% of the added CO2 without subtracting O2 removed in the process.

70 ppm increase in CO2, or roughly 0.007% increase of total atmosphere weight... even if it WERE somehow increasing pressure, the increase is tiny.

Water vapor can go in and out of the atmosphere with the greatest of ease, and its concentration is highly variable. It outweighs carbon dioxide by a LOT (total H2O versus CO2 as gas in atmosphere), and the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher now with the higher temperatures.

But it probably isn't enought to break the glass, either.


Hmm... was it a mistake to ignore the water part of the equation and focus only on carbon dioxide and oxygen?

I doubt it.

My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere.

Like you said water is way heavier than carbon dioxide.

There will always be some carbon dioxide and oxygen that reaches the high heavens.

But there will probably never be, or almost never be, water vapor that reaches the high heavens.

The highest clouds documented are the rare night shining "noctilucent" clouds that are said to reach heights of about 55 miles high. That seems a bit lower than the high heavens.

Just think, you would have to fill a glass container with water past it's containing walls to crack it. But fill it just half with water, drop a small cube of dry ice, seal it, and stand back far, cuz it will violently explode pretty soon.


23-12-2023 21:44
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Swan wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Another confirming indication to note about this risk, is the Tunguska blast happened directly above a massive area that was being extensively mined for coal at the time.

Perhaps a lot of coal-seam fires were being released into the atmosphere from the mining...


Time for your Thorazine shot


Yikes, I need to calm down before my scary surgery


Indeed brain transplants like you need are rather scary



RE: tail pipe water23-12-2023 22:18
sealover
★★★★☆
(1234)
Sealover said:

"technical note:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H2O

Octane plus oxygen makes carbon dioxide plus water.

Twelve and a half gas molecules of oxygen are removed.

Eight gas molecules of carbon dioxide are added to atmosphere.

NINE GAS MOLECULES OF WATER are also added to the atmosphere.

So, you have removed twelve and a half at the same time you added seventeen.


Ideal gas law - PV = nRT

Since the volume of the atmosphere is rigidly fixed within a glass enclosure, only the pressure can change in response to change in some part of "nRT".

In this case, "n" has increased. The pressure couldn't care less how much the molecules weigh, just how many of them there are. There is no mass term anywhere in the equation.

Water vapor molecules count as gas in the atmosphere.

But even if mass were a factor, at 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is only 0.042% of the gas in the atmosphere. How much weight is really being added?

But there is another part of PV = nRT that would have a predictable response in a glass enclosure of unchangeable volume.

If TEMPERATURE increases, pressure increases in a direct linear way.

T is in degrees Kelvin, so a one degree increase in temperature is an increase of about 1/300. Pressure would increase by roughly 0.33%

If there were a direct linear increase of pressure with weight added to the atmosphere, increasing carbon dioxide from 350 ppm to 420 ppm. Even if we count 100% of the added CO2 without subtracting O2 removed in the process.

70 ppm increase in CO2, or roughly 0.007% increase of total atmosphere weight... even if it WERE somehow increasing pressure, the increase is tiny.

Water vapor can go in and out of the atmosphere with the greatest of ease, and its concentration is highly variable. It outweighs carbon dioxide by a LOT (total H2O versus CO2 as gas in atmosphere), and the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher now with the higher temperatures.

But it probably isn't enought to break the glass, either."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spongy Iris replied:

"Hmm... was it a mistake to ignore the water part of the equation and focus only on carbon dioxide and oxygen?

I doubt it.

My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere.

Like you said water is way heavier than carbon dioxide.

There will always be some carbon dioxide and oxygen that reaches the high heavens.

But there will probably never be, or almost never be, water vapor that reaches the high heavens.

The highest clouds documented are the rare night shining "noctilucent" clouds that are said to reach heights of about 55 miles high. That seems a bit lower than the high heavens.

Just think, you would have to fill a glass container with water past it's containing walls to crack it. But fill it just half with water, drop a small cube of dry ice, seal it, and stand back far, cuz it will violently explode pretty soon."




I did not mean to imply that "water is way heavier than carbon dioxide".

Molecule per molecule, CO2 outweighs H2O.

But the total mass of H2O in the atmosphere, in the form of water VAPOR, far outweighs the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere."

Have you ever observed the tail pipe of a motor vehicle while the engine was running?

Did you see a stream of water going into the ground?

On a hot day, you don't see much of anything, although the hot exhaust causes light to bend in ways that make it look kind of weird.

On a cold day, you see water vapor from the tail pipe exhaust condensing into tiny droplets of liquid water, making a foggy cloud.

You don't see much of that water going into the ground either.

Often that foggy plume simply disappears as the tiny liquid water droplets evaporate back into water vapor.

A few months back, a massive plume of water vapor DID shoot very, very high into the atmosphere.

Some of that water vapor plume shot all the way to outer space. Maybe there is a pressure relief valve in the glass that let it out.

It was a massive volcanic eruption on the sea floor, the biggest ever seen since scientists learned about their existence.

For a time, there was a lot more water vapor than usual in the atmosphere, and we got some "thousand year storm" events.

But water has a short average residence time as vapor in the atmosphere. Sooner or later, and usually it is sooner, the vapor will condense into liquid water droplets.

Some of these will fall to the surface. Some will go into the ground. Most will go into the sea.
23-12-2023 22:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
Sealover wrote:
Sealover said:

"technical note:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H2O

Octane plus oxygen makes carbon dioxide plus water.

Twelve and a half gas molecules of oxygen are removed.

Eight gas molecules of carbon dioxide are added to atmosphere.

NINE GAS MOLECULES OF WATER are also added to the atmosphere.

So, you have removed twelve and a half at the same time you added seventeen.


Ideal gas law - PV = nRT

Since the volume of the atmosphere is rigidly fixed within a glass enclosure, only the pressure can change in response to change in some part of "nRT".

In this case, "n" has increased. The pressure couldn't care less how much the molecules weigh, just how many of them there are. There is no mass term anywhere in the equation.

Water vapor molecules count as gas in the atmosphere.

But even if mass were a factor, at 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is only 0.042% of the gas in the atmosphere. How much weight is really being added?

But there is another part of PV = nRT that would have a predictable response in a glass enclosure of unchangeable volume.

If TEMPERATURE increases, pressure increases in a direct linear way.

T is in degrees Kelvin, so a one degree increase in temperature is an increase of about 1/300. Pressure would increase by roughly 0.33%

If there were a direct linear increase of pressure with weight added to the atmosphere, increasing carbon dioxide from 350 ppm to 420 ppm. Even if we count 100% of the added CO2 without subtracting O2 removed in the process.

70 ppm increase in CO2, or roughly 0.007% increase of total atmosphere weight... even if it WERE somehow increasing pressure, the increase is tiny.

Water vapor can go in and out of the atmosphere with the greatest of ease, and its concentration is highly variable. It outweighs carbon dioxide by a LOT (total H2O versus CO2 as gas in atmosphere), and the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher now with the higher temperatures.

But it probably isn't enought to break the glass, either."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spongy Iris replied:

"Hmm... was it a mistake to ignore the water part of the equation and focus only on carbon dioxide and oxygen?

I doubt it.

My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere.

Like you said water is way heavier than carbon dioxide.

There will always be some carbon dioxide and oxygen that reaches the high heavens.

But there will probably never be, or almost never be, water vapor that reaches the high heavens.

The highest clouds documented are the rare night shining "noctilucent" clouds that are said to reach heights of about 55 miles high. That seems a bit lower than the high heavens.

Just think, you would have to fill a glass container with water past it's containing walls to crack it. But fill it just half with water, drop a small cube of dry ice, seal it, and stand back far, cuz it will violently explode pretty soon."




I did not mean to imply that "water is way heavier than carbon dioxide".

Molecule per molecule, CO2 outweighs H2O.

But the total mass of H2O in the atmosphere, in the form of water VAPOR, far outweighs the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere."

Have you ever observed the tail pipe of a motor vehicle while the engine was running?

Did you see a stream of water going into the ground?

On a hot day, you don't see much of anything, although the hot exhaust causes light to bend in ways that make it look kind of weird.

On a cold day, you see water vapor from the tail pipe exhaust condensing into tiny droplets of liquid water, making a foggy cloud.

You don't see much of that water going into the ground either.

Often that foggy plume simply disappears as the tiny liquid water droplets evaporate back into water vapor.

A few months back, a massive plume of water vapor DID shoot very, very high into the atmosphere.

Some of that water vapor plume shot all the way to outer space. Maybe there is a pressure relief valve in the glass that let it out.

It was a massive volcanic eruption on the sea floor, the biggest ever seen since scientists learned about their existence.

For a time, there was a lot more water vapor than usual in the atmosphere, and we got some "thousand year storm" events.

But water has a short average residence time as vapor in the atmosphere. Sooner or later, and usually it is sooner, the vapor will condense into liquid water droplets.

Some of these will fall to the surface. Some will go into the ground. Most will go into the sea.


And a crack pipe in a pear tree


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
24-12-2023 22:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14338)
Spongy Iris wrote: There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

Nope. The glass discovered in Libya is entirely visible, not invisible, as would be required for it to have come from the globo-glass. The Libyan glass is simply what you get when lightning strikes the Libyan sand in that region.

Spongy Iris wrote:I know you want to dismiss the Lybian glass fields as freak never seen before lightning.

Nope. I dismiss the Libyan glass fields because I can see that glass.



Spongy Iris wrote: And you also think you have super vision that can see an all encompassing glass wall 60 miles away.

And you also think that people somehow can't see the moon because it is 240,000 miles away. That's pretty silly. You also think that people can't see the sun because it's way too far away to be seen. I have news for you. Some people have gotten irreparable eye damage from looking at the sun. Yes, it can be seen despite being 93 million miles away.

Spongy Iris wrote: Anyway, when i consider all the weight in the atmosphere, as well as the force from the spinning Earth, I don't think it all, or even most, of the atmospheric particles, have to reach the high heavens, for the overall pressure to reach dangerous levels.

I'll let Swan explain to you how the weight of the atmosphere is pressing down on the surface of the earth, and not pressing upwards in an effort to escape the planet.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

Isn't that what I just finished explaining to you a few posts back?

Spongy Iris wrote: ... and think of solutions.

There has to be a problem in order to have a solution. No problem = no possible solution.
25-12-2023 14:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5642)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

Nope. The glass discovered in Libya is entirely visible, not invisible, as would be required for it to have come from the globo-glass. The Libyan glass is simply what you get when lightning strikes the Libyan sand in that region.

Spongy Iris wrote:I know you want to dismiss the Lybian glass fields as freak never seen before lightning.

Nope. I dismiss the Libyan glass fields because I can see that glass.



Spongy Iris wrote: And you also think you have super vision that can see an all encompassing glass wall 60 miles away.

And you also think that people somehow can't see the moon because it is 240,000 miles away. That's pretty silly. You also think that people can't see the sun because it's way too far away to be seen. I have news for you. Some people have gotten irreparable eye damage from looking at the sun. Yes, it can be seen despite being 93 million miles away.

Spongy Iris wrote: Anyway, when i consider all the weight in the atmosphere, as well as the force from the spinning Earth, I don't think it all, or even most, of the atmospheric particles, have to reach the high heavens, for the overall pressure to reach dangerous levels.

I'll let Swan explain to you how the weight of the atmosphere is pressing down on the surface of the earth, and not pressing upwards in an effort to escape the planet.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

Isn't that what I just finished explaining to you a few posts back?

Spongy Iris wrote: ... and think of solutions.

There has to be a problem in order to have a solution. No problem = no possible solution.


Gasses in the atmosphere have weight and as such are influenced by gravity, as every third grader knows


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-12-2023 06:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14338)
Swan wrote:Gasses in the atmosphere have weight and as such are influenced by gravity, as every third grader knows

Great, Swan not only thinks "gases" is spelled "gasses," but he thinks that atmospheric gases somehow weigh in to influence the gravity of the third-grade situation. What does that even mean?
28-12-2023 17:18
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
sealover wrote:

But water has a short average residence time as vapor in the atmosphere. Sooner or later, and usually it is sooner, the vapor will condense into liquid water droplets.

Some of these will fall to the surface. Some will go into the ground. Most will go into the sea.


Yes this was my reason for not considering water vapor in my analysis.


28-12-2023 17:25
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

Nope. The glass discovered in Libya is entirely visible, not invisible, as would be required for it to have come from the globo-glass. The Libyan glass is simply what you get when lightning strikes the Libyan sand in that region.

Spongy Iris wrote:I know you want to dismiss the Lybian glass fields as freak never seen before lightning.

Nope. I dismiss the Libyan glass fields because I can see that glass.



Spongy Iris wrote: And you also think you have super vision that can see an all encompassing glass wall 60 miles away.

And you also think that people somehow can't see the moon because it is 240,000 miles away. That's pretty silly. You also think that people can't see the sun because it's way too far away to be seen. I have news for you. Some people have gotten irreparable eye damage from looking at the sun. Yes, it can be seen despite being 93 million miles away.

Spongy Iris wrote: Anyway, when i consider all the weight in the atmosphere, as well as the force from the spinning Earth, I don't think it all, or even most, of the atmospheric particles, have to reach the high heavens, for the overall pressure to reach dangerous levels.

I'll let Swan explain to you how the weight of the atmosphere is pressing down on the surface of the earth, and not pressing upwards in an effort to escape the planet.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

Isn't that what I just finished explaining to you a few posts back?

Spongy Iris wrote: ... and think of solutions.

There has to be a problem in order to have a solution. No problem = no possible solution.


We can't see the moon, just it's reflection on Heaven's glass. And I doubt it is 240,000 miles away either.

Another point is, Earth cannot really surrounded by an infinite vacuum of empty space. The entire planet would be ripped apart into tiny specks of dust.


28-12-2023 17:29
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote][b]I'm not even sure if we are anywhere near dangerous levels these days.

Isn't that what I just finished explaining to you a few posts back? .


The coal mining in Tunguska shows dangerous levels were reached from that mining activity.


RE: ozone proves heavy gases go highest?03-01-2024 08:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Spongy Iris wrote:
sealover wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Click bait title, yes. Though, I have concluded, technically, it is true.

As the very few posters on this site have come to know about me, my position is that Earth is enclosed in a glass container.

If there is more weight added to the atmosphere, then that makes more pressure on the container.

Displacing oxygen with carbon dioxide adds weight to the atmosphere, puts more pressure on the container, and could eventually risk cracking the glass container.

Cracking the container would expose Earth to the cosmic energy from Outer Space, and would kill all life on land.

Anyhow, not all fuels burn equally.

Here is the equation for burning gasoline.

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 400 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 352 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for burning natural gas.

CH4 + 2O2 —> CO2 + H20

Break this down, and it says, for every 64 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This decreases the weight of the atmosphere.

These reactions will both mitigate the risk of climate change.

However, burning coal, and breathing, will both increase the risk of climate change.

Here is the equation for burning coal.

C + O2 → CO2

Break this down, and it says, for every 32 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 44 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.

Here is the equation for breathing.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O

Break this down, and it says, for every 192 grams of oxygen used, it results in the production of 264 grams of carbon dioxide. This increases the weight of the atmosphere.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

technical note:

C8H18 + 12.5 O2 = 8CO2 + 9H2O

Octane plus oxygen makes carbon dioxide plus water.

Twelve and a half gas molecules of oxygen are removed.

Eight gas molecules of carbon dioxide are added to atmosphere.

NINE GAS MOLECULES OF WATER are also added to the atmosphere.

So, you have removed twelve and a half at the same time you added seventeen.


Ideal gas law - PV = nRT

Since the volume of the atmosphere is rigidly fixed within a glass enclosure, only the pressure can change in response to change in some part of "nRT".

In this case, "n" has increased. The pressure couldn't care less how much the molecules weigh, just how many of them there are. There is no mass term anywhere in the equation.

Water vapor molecules count as gas in the atmosphere.

But even if mass were a factor, at 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is only 0.042% of the gas in the atmosphere. How much weight is really being added?

But there is another part of PV = nRT that would have a predictable response in a glass enclosure of unchangeable volume.

If TEMPERATURE increases, pressure increases in a direct linear way.

T is in degrees Kelvin, so a one degree increase in temperature is an increase of about 1/300. Pressure would increase by roughly 0.33%

If there were a direct linear increase of pressure with weight added to the atmosphere, increasing carbon dioxide from 350 ppm to 420 ppm. Even if we count 100% of the added CO2 without subtracting O2 removed in the process.

70 ppm increase in CO2, or roughly 0.007% increase of total atmosphere weight... even if it WERE somehow increasing pressure, the increase is tiny.

Water vapor can go in and out of the atmosphere with the greatest of ease, and its concentration is highly variable. It outweighs carbon dioxide by a LOT (total H2O versus CO2 as gas in atmosphere), and the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher now with the higher temperatures.

But it probably isn't enought to break the glass, either.


Hmm... was it a mistake to ignore the water part of the equation and focus only on carbon dioxide and oxygen?

I doubt it.

My thinking is water would go into the ground, not into the atmosphere.

Like you said water is way heavier than carbon dioxide.

There will always be some carbon dioxide and oxygen that reaches the high heavens.

But there will probably never be, or almost never be, water vapor that reaches the high heavens.

The highest clouds documented are the rare night shining "noctilucent" clouds that are said to reach heights of about 55 miles high. That seems a bit lower than the high heavens.

Just think, you would have to fill a glass container with water past it's containing walls to crack it. But fill it just half with water, drop a small cube of dry ice, seal it, and stand back far, cuz it will violently explode pretty soon.





You are not the first poster to suggest that how high a gas goes into the atmosphere depends on how "heavy" the gas is.

Let's look at the three most abundant gases - nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

nitrogen (N2) = 28 grams per mole
oxygen (O2) = 32 grams per mole
argon (Ar) = 40 grams per mole

and compare to carbon dioxide, water, and ozone.

carbon dioxide (CO2) = 44 grams per mole
water (H2O) = 18 grams per mole
ozone (O3) = 48 grams per mole


The lightest one on the list is WATER (18 grams per mole).

The heaviest one on the list is OZONE (48 grams per mole).

The heaviest one (ozone) exists a tiny bit close to the surface, but most ozone is found high in the stratosphere.

That is already getting pretty close to heaven's glass.

If such a heavy gas can get so high up there, imagine how much higher water vapor could go, being so much lighter.

Point of actual fact: Water IS one of the gases that is light enough to leave the atmosphere. It can leave a planet like Venus or Mars pretty dry after a while.

Helium and hydrogen gas leave the atmosphere and go to outer space far more easily than water vapor.

If you weren't a Trump supporter wasting space in a manner that helps make the website unusable for discussion of actual science...

I mean, it's not like there is any risk any reader would take the glass enclosure theory seriously.

There is no need or particular value for correcting anti scientific statements when they are so far out there, there is no risk of them having propaganda value for those with vested interest in promoting climate "denial".

But Trump discussion... unless you want to talk about the idiotic POLICIES regarding the environment.

No, water isn't that heavy. In fact, it's one of the lightest gases up there.

Did you ever study ANY science?
04-01-2024 03:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21535)
Im a BM wrote:
You are not the first poster to suggest that how high a gas goes into the atmosphere depends on how "heavy" the gas is.

Let's look at the three most abundant gases - nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

nitrogen (N2) = 28 grams per mole
oxygen (O2) = 32 grams per mole
argon (Ar) = 40 grams per mole

and compare to carbon dioxide, water, and ozone.

carbon dioxide (CO2) = 44 grams per mole
water (H2O) = 18 grams per mole
ozone (O3) = 48 grams per mole


The lightest one on the list is WATER (18 grams per mole).

The heaviest one on the list is OZONE (48 grams per mole).

The heaviest one (ozone) exists a tiny bit close to the surface, but most ozone is found high in the stratosphere.

Unit error. A mole is not a measure of density.
Im a BM wrote:
That is already getting pretty close to heaven's glass.

There isn't any.
Im a BM wrote:
If such a heavy gas can get so high up there, imagine how much higher water vapor could go, being so much lighter.

Point of actual fact: Water IS one of the gases that is light enough to leave the atmosphere. It can leave a planet like Venus or Mars pretty dry after a while.

Unit error. A mole is not a unit of density. No gas or vapor leaves a planet by ignoring gravity.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium and hydrogen gas leave the atmosphere and go to outer space far more easily than water vapor.

No gas ignores gravity, dummy.
Im a BM wrote:
If you weren't a Trump supporter wasting space in a manner that helps make the website unusable for discussion of actual science...

You deny science and you don't support Trump.
Im a BM wrote:
There is no need or particular value for correcting anti scientific statements when they are so far out there, there is no risk of them having propaganda value for those with vested interest in promoting climate "denial".

You deny climate...the very meaning of the word.
Im a BM wrote:
But Trump discussion... unless you want to talk about the idiotic POLICIES regarding the environment.

...such as?
Im a BM wrote:
No, water isn't that heavy. In fact, it's one of the lightest gases up there.

Water vapor is not a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
Did you ever study ANY science?

Obviously YOU didn't!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-01-2024 06:33
Spongy IrisProfile picture★★★★☆
(1637)
Im a BM wrote:


You are not the first poster to suggest that how high a gas goes into the atmosphere depends on how "heavy" the gas is.

Let's look at the three most abundant gases - nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

nitrogen (N2) = 28 grams per mole
oxygen (O2) = 32 grams per mole
argon (Ar) = 40 grams per mole

and compare to carbon dioxide, water, and ozone.

carbon dioxide (CO2) = 44 grams per mole
water (H2O) = 18 grams per mole
ozone (O3) = 48 grams per mole


The lightest one on the list is WATER (18 grams per mole).

The heaviest one on the list is OZONE (48 grams per mole).

The heaviest one (ozone) exists a tiny bit close to the surface, but most ozone is found high in the stratosphere.

That is already getting pretty close to heaven's glass.

If such a heavy gas can get so high up there, imagine how much higher water vapor could go, being so much lighter.

Point of actual fact: Water IS one of the gases that is light enough to leave the atmosphere. It can leave a planet like Venus or Mars pretty dry after a while.

Helium and hydrogen gas leave the atmosphere and go to outer space far more easily than water vapor.

If you weren't a Trump supporter wasting space in a manner that helps make the website unusable for discussion of actual science...

I mean, it's not like there is any risk any reader would take the glass enclosure theory seriously.

There is no need or particular value for correcting anti scientific statements when they are so far out there, there is no risk of them having propaganda value for those with vested interest in promoting climate "denial".

But Trump discussion... unless you want to talk about the idiotic POLICIES regarding the environment.

No, water isn't that heavy. In fact, it's one of the lightest gases up there.

Did you ever study ANY science?


Maybe if you could boil all the water in the seas, I would say you have a point.

But it's way too cold, so added water from burning gasoline and natural gas, will wind up back on the Earth in short order.

I can't support Trump, with my vote, because I'm Canadian. And I generally don't concern myself with who the president is.

But I think this 14th Amendment invocation, headed to the Supreme Court, is a Catch 22, with $hit hits the fan potential. Thus, it has engaged my interest.






Join the debate Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
A Gas Can Be ing A Barrier012-02-2024 04:51
A Gas Can Be A Barrier104-02-2024 23:11
Proof that a gas stove ban is nonsense, and that dempcraps are retards425-06-2023 12:58
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10205-06-2023 13:19
What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory?8204-02-2023 20:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact