Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

Spongy Iris wrote: There is evidence the glass has cracked before. The Lybian glass fields.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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? .

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.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
That is already getting pretty close to heaven's glass.

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.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium and hydrogen gas leave the atmosphere and go to outer space far more easily than water vapor.

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...

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".

Im a BM wrote:
But Trump discussion... unless you want to talk about the idiotic POLICIES regarding the environment.

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

Im a BM wrote:
Did you ever study ANY science?

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?