/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11343494
coal?

>>11343502
My rough guestimates so far today seem to suggest that oil burning has produced less than 1/3 the co2 since the industrial revolution.

We also need to take into account that supposedly up to 1/2 the co2 produced is reabsorbed by the biosphere.

>>11343494
Important thread because it could help regular people interpret what a given project means for actual atmospheric co2 levels.

Another thing not taken into account in this analysis is that up to 1/3 of oil is used to make plastics, which doesn't immediately turn into atmospheric co2.

>>11343494
Wouldnt 6*10^23 be only one mole of carbon, something like 12 grams? I might be wrong cause I dont get you but i think a barrel should have a lot more C-atoms

How does one barrel of oil contain only 5 mols of carbon? That is the equivalent of 60 grams. Check your math and your source numbers again.

>>11343629
>>11343638
Correction, it's less than a mol. Your barrel contains less than 12 grams of carbon.

>>11343494
According to my calculations
The 90 million barrels of oil produced per year today if burnt translates to roughly 1.05 ppm co2 increase per year.
Current co2 increases are in the range of 2.5 ppm per year.

If half of the co2 emissions are absorbed by the biosphere, then coal and nat gas must account for about 4 times the amount of emissions than oil.

These numbers don't make sense. Where have I gone wrong??

>>11343638
That's supposed to say 5.97*10^23 molecules

>>11343647
you haven't, your calculations are good its just global warming thats pure bullshit

>>11343652
global warming isn't bullshit.

>>11343518
>We also need to take into account that supposedly up to 1/2 the co2 produced is reabsorbed by the biosphere.
and emitted back - carbon cycle

>>11343494
You're forgetting about the CO2 absorbed into oceans.

>>11343662
>and emitted back
If that were the case then the 2.5 ppm increase per year would work out to roughly 270 million barrels burnt annually.
>>11343687
If I included that then the discrepancy would be even bigger.
Jesus how dumb are the people on this site?

>>11343694
*225 million, not 270

>>11343629
6.0*10^23 = number of molecules in a mole
12 grams is the amount that 6.0*10^23 atoms of carbon weighs.

>>11343651
And a mol is 6.022 x 10^23 you moron. Your math or your initial data is wrong. Check your shit again.

Isn't coal a huge problem, though? Why is it unreasonable it'd be so much more? And I was under the impression that turbine engines are typically not as efficient as reciprocating engines in terms of fuel used, they just burn cleaner with less pollutants, so it seems reasonable they'd emit a significant amount of CO2. I suppose you could look at nat gas extraction and see how much carbon is extracted, as well as coal? That would help bring in the ballpark a bit. Also, aren't there other sources of CO2? I see envirotards reeing about concrete a lot.

>>11343710
Yes, his point that the oil in barrel weighs far more than just 12 grams. Oil has some added hydrogen yes, and other gunk in it as well, but the added mass sure as fuck isn't going to be 99% of the barrel.

>>11343714
>he doesn't know the difference mole vs molecule
>calls people morons
rich

If you're so smart then you can probably tell us how many carbon atoms are in a barrel of oil and why its not 5.97*10^23

ITT: OP baits people into questioning climate change because people can't spot a basic math error.

er 10^27

my bad... haha

>>11343727
ok its 5.60*10^27 molecules per barrel of oil
that was a typo
Ill redo the thread if I have to

>>11343494
>I calculated a barrel of oil to contain about 5.97∗10^23 molecules of carbon
You fucked up hard somewhere. A barrel of oil contains way more than ~12g/1mol of carbon.

>>11343732
ya I know its 5.61*10^27 carbon atoms per barrel
that was a typo.
the other numbers are good though

>>11343732
probably should redo the thread now... haha

>>11343725
Dude 1 mol is 6.022*10^23 molecules/atoms. It's like a dozen eggs. You are saying that there is less than one mol of carbon in an entire barrel of oil. Observe.

1 oil barrel = 0.16 m^3
0.16*870 kg/m^3 (density of oil) =139.2 kg
139.2 kg *.87( average percentage carbon content of oil) = 121.1 kg of carbon

1 mol of C=12 g = 6.022*10^23 C atoms
A barrel of oil has several orders of MAGNITUDE more Carbon than your initial calculation suggests.
QED go back to high school chemistry.

>>11343732
I figured a barrel was about 70% carbon by weight
you could go to 100% but it still doesn't account for the 2.5 ppm per year.

>>11343742
ya ya I know I caught all that while you were working on your post. it was a typo.
there is around 5.6*10^27 atoms of carbon in a barrel.

OP contains a typo. the [math]5.97*10^{23}[/math]

should be

[math]5.60*10^{27}[/math]

All other numbers are good. my bad.

>>11343494
So basically the climate change argument against a 4 billion barrel project is retarded because it literally only increases co2 concentration by 0.122 ppm at the very most.

>>11343651
that is about 36 mol, or 430g of C12.
I would love to see the density of your oil, because as far as I know a barrel is at the range of 40 l

>>11343777
I get an increase of .66 per annum. The only assumption I used that is probably different from yours is that I assumed almost all the C02 in the atmosphere is kept within 11km of the planetary surface which is where 3/4ths of mass of the atmosphere lies. Regardless huge variations can result as the numbers used in this back of the envelope calculation account for only oil and that we are dealing with gases whose volume and density change constantly with state conditions.

>>11343829
>>11343832

new thread guys. due to my stupid typo in OP
(hopefully mods can delete this one)

>>11343833 (OP)

>>11343494
carbon dioxide is plant food.

literally.

pic related is the chemical equation proving so.

>>11343907
ya and oxygen is animal food.
or maybe you're just a retarded fuckwit