/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11343829
>>11343832

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

>>11343833

>>11343833
I didn't understand your answer to the >coal question.

>>11343861
coal and gas is a pretty big source (maybe bigger than oil) but once you take into account supposed absorption by the biosphere as well oil that is turned into plastic (not burned) they'd need to be more than 4 times bigger than oil to account for the 2.5 ppm per year increase. I don't think that's the case.

>>11343833
Use google OP

>>11343887
How about next time you try reading the OP before posting?

>>11343833
carbon dioxide is literally plant food.

pic related is the chemical equation that proves it so.

>>11343833
Where'd you get that number for molecules in the atmosphere?

>>11343833
>Stop having industrial civilization so we can conquer you!!!

>>11343915
That was a typo. Not sure how it ended up there. Other numbers are correct
New thread here:
>>11343833

[math]whatisthistext,whatisthisboard[/math]
so funky

>>11343915
159 L per barrel
density of oil 825 kg/L
oil is 85% carbon
divide by 12 g/mol
multiply by avogadro #

>>11343919
Bud, this is the new thread.
Also what type of ppm are you comparing to?
PPM can be mass fraction volume fraction or mole fraction.

>>11343915
>>11343929
sorry 825 g/L or kg/m^3, not kg/L

>>11343929
I was asking about the atmosphere.
How did you get 1.75*10^44 molecules in the atmosphere.

>>11343932
volume is what is used

>>11343938
This calculation looks correct
https://socratic.org/questions/estimate-the-total-number-molecules-in-the-atmosphere-of-the-earth-take-the-radi

>>11343877
Well then all your math is busted anyway. Tip for the future, try to assemble the equation before looking for numbers to insert.
Also, that visible vapor spelling "CO2" makes me think you're trolling. That's a meme on the denialer camp.

>>11343946
Tip for the future, don't be comletely useless and be more like >>11343932

>>11343932
Anyway, I don't think it changes the results much either way, but I suppose it would have to be mole fraction in this case wouldn't it.

>>11343833
Check my math here.
(80,600,000 barrels/day)*(365 days/year)*(0.159[math]m^3[/math]/barrel)*(870kg/[math]m^3[/math])*(87%)=[math]3.5x10^{12}[/math]kg carbon/year, or [math]3.5x10^{15}[/math]grams of carbon per year.

(3.5x[math]10^{15}[/math]g C/year)*([math]\frac{1molC}{44g C}[/math])*([math]\frac{1mol CO_2}{1mol C}[/math])=8.0x[math]10^{13}[/math] mol CO2/year, or 4.8x[math]10^{37}[/math] molecules of CO2 produced per year.

(4.8x[math]10^{37}[/math] molec.CO2) / (1.09x[math]10^{44}[/math] molec.Atmos) = 4.4x[math]10^{-7}[/math], or 0.44ppm [math]CO_2[/math] per year

# of barrels are from wiki
volume, density, and %C are from this guy >>11343742
# of molecules in the atmosphere are from some HW problem on Chegg, apparently. Any better sources?

>>11343967
I think.... you can ignore the O2 and the Hx because its mole fraction?
Anyway your numbers make the discrepancy even larger.

>>11343965
It is volume fraction and it does matter.

>>11343914
It's not food, it's a nutrient. Light is the food, it's the energy source. CO2 is just a resource the plant uses to capture the energy of light into a storeable form (sugar).

>>11343877
>gas
I just went through wiki and got ~3.86 million million, or [math]3.86x10^{12}[/math] [math]m^3[/math] of natural gas produced per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

A "normal cubic meter" is measured at 0 degrees C and 1atm. Assumed density is 0.8kg/[math]m^3[/math]

>>11343992
>It's not food, it's a nutrient.

So, you're saying that mammals inhale oxygen for food, and use everything they put in their mouths and eat as a "Nutrient"

Considering that oxygen metabolism is the energy source for our cellular processes?

>>11344053
CO2 *IS* plant food, it's what they manufacture their sugars, starches, cell walls, etc from...

The relative increase in CO2 on the surface of the earth creates a corresponding increase in plant growth (a.k.a. carbon sequestration), feeding more hydrocarbon based life forms that are themselves ALSO a form of carbon sequestration.

The carbon tax based climate change fear mongering is not only greedy and tyrannical, but also VERY stupid.

Classified amounts of stupid.

>>11343914
>>11344053
>muh plant food
Yeah and humans need water so you should tie some bricks to your ankles and throw yourself into a nearby body of water you fucking idiot

>>11344065
>Classified amounts of stupid.

it's almost majestic, and on the far side.

>>11344071
>>11344065
Stupid tripfag forgot to turn it off before blatantly samefagging

>>11344067
>Yeah and humans need water so you should tie some bricks to your ankles and throw yourself into a nearby body of water you fucking idiot

So, you're paid to shill by the carbon tax crowd, eh?

>>11344076
>Stupid tripfag forgot to turn it off before blatantly samefagging

and you must be mossad.

>>11343914
Unless the plants are getting mangled by UV and the soil is full of aluminum, blocking their uptake of required nutrients, acidifying the soil, killing microbes[...]

Yes, I'm talking about chemtrails eg "solar radiation management".
www.geoengineeringwatch.org

>>11344053
Fire
>Fuel + air = heat
Metabolism
>Food + air = motion
Photosynthesis
>Energy + air = fuel or food

Air is not food.

>>11344081
Take your meds and fuck off back to /pol/. This will be the last (You) you get from me you pathetic tripfag vermin.

https://larryniven.fandom.com/wiki/Wunderland_Treatymaker

It's always the chemtrails with these faggots isn't it

>>11344092
Just go to the site, check it out, make up your own mind.
>I don't have to
Not scientific.

>>11343989
That doesn't make sense

NOAA measurements show CO2 levels rising ~3ppm every year.

Natural gas appears to be ~65% carbon, someone check that.
(3.86x[math]10^{12}m^3[/math] gas/year)*(800g/[math]m^3[/math])*(65%C)*([math]\frac{1molC}{44gC}[/math])=45.6x[math]10^{12}[/math] moles Carbon

Using the less retarded number 1.79x[math]10^{20}[/math]moles atmosphere, you get:
(4.56x[math]10^{13}[/math] moles CO2) / (1.79x[math]10^{20}[/math] moles atmosphere) = 2.54x[math]10^{-7}[/math], or 0.254ppm CO2 from natural gas

>11344053>11344065>11344067>11344071>144076>11344081>11344083>11344085>11344086 fuck off it's an interesting thread

>>11344105
0.254 ppm/year from CH4
So that's still way too small.
And why are you using 1molC/44gC when the molecular weight of C is 12g/mol?

Anyway you get my point about the numbers I think

>>11344140
it's the weight of CO2 are you trying to use only the mass of carbon in your mass calculations?

each C atom = 1 part in ppm

>>11344149
No it isn't it takes 10 moles of carbon to make 10 moles of CO2

>>11344149
>>11344151
So you divide by 12g/mol, not 44 g/mol

>>11344140
>molecular weight of C is 12g/mol?
Thanks. Corrects to 0.931ppm CO2 from natural gas. Almost a whole ppm, out of 3ppm/year.

Gross coal production is 7.73x[math]10^{15}[/math]g per year, and accounts for 14x[math]10^{15}[/math]g CO2, or 3.8x[math]10^{15}[/math]g of just Carbon.
https://webstore.iea.org/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-2018
>free, but requires registration
>165.00 eurobucks
comeonnow.jpg

And finally, 3.8e15 grams, or 3.8gigatonnes of carbon from coal is roughly the same as the 3.5gigatonnes from crude oil. Thus:
0.44ppm from crude
0.91ppm from natural gas
0.48ppm from coal
Total: 1.83ppm CO2 per year (mol/mol).

>>11344182
No. you still have to fix the 44 in the crude and coal calculations.

>>11344182
seems fishy. i don't think nat gas is that much more than oil or col.

>>11344182
And as a correction: data from AIRS/NOAA shows ~11ppm rise from beginning of 2006 to the end of 2012, at a rate of (11ppm/6years), or 1.83 (wow) ppm CO2 per year.

>>11344197
Ok, so the biosphere is not absorbing any then?

https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/

>>11344196
>>11344202

>>11344191

>>11344196
It isn't, oil is worse per kwh than natural gas and coal is worse per kwh than both.

Per >>11343887 they produce roughly the same ammount of energy from all three with crude having the slight edge so the number should be something like 3-4ppm depending on how much worse crude and coal are compared to Ngas.

>>11344208
the biosphere absorbing about half of annual emissions sounds about right, though the ocean should be saturated fairly soon.

>>11344210
I don't know if I can communicate with someone that has your level of spectrum disorder.
Please reply to posts content don't just continue your thoughts replying to whatever the most recent post is.

>>11344208
the amount of energy produced is irrelevant here because were talking about known quantities (or at least what should be known quantities).

>>11344218
Why do you think energy consumption is less knowable than barrels of crude?

>>11344191
Yes, the correction for the crude turns out to be (44/12) or 3.6 times higher. So 0.44ppm -> 1.5ppm.
However, nobody else has been getting near that, so please check my work.

I did not calculate much for coal, but simply looked up the 14 gigatonnes of CO2/year.
(14x[math]10^{15}[/math]gCO2) * ([math]\frac{1molCO2}{44gCO2}[/math]) = 0.318x[math]10^{15}[/math]mol CO2
(0.318x[math]10^{15}[/math]mol CO2) / (1.79x[math]10^{20}[/math]moles atmosphere) = 1.7x[math]10^{-6}[/math], or 1.7ppm CO2 per year.

Corrections so far are:
1.5ppm from crude
0.91ppm from natural gas
1.7ppm from coal

>>11344203
Ya fair enough.
But if you use this calculation for moles in the atmosphere (which I believe is the most accurate)
https://socratic.org/questions/estimate-the-total-number-molecules-in-the-atmosphere-of-the-earth-take-the-radi

then we're back at having a large discrepancy again, which doesn't come anywhere close to the 2.5 ppm especially once you consider carbon absorption by the biosphere.

>>11344217
jesus Christ anon reading comprehension. I guess I need to spell this out for you.
increase in atmospheric co2 per year is approx 2 PPM, you estimated 3-4 PPM per year by mass from emissions. Which is about double the actual annual increase but the biosphere absorbs ~ half of human emissions so the ~4PPM figure is about right.
Not sure why i need to spell this out like I'm talking to a toddler though.

>>11344228
go away please

>>11344085
>Air is not food.

>>11344241
See the reason I know you didn't read my post is because you completely ignored what I was trying to tell you and just continued being a moron.

Go ahead and read >>11344217 again maybe reply to me with the entire post quoted.

>>11344086
>This will be the last (You) you get from me you pathetic tripfag vermin.

thanks

bitch

>>11344250
Do you eat much air anon?

>>11343833
OP HERE
THIS IS NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE THREAD.
I REPEAT.
THIS IS NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE THREAD
SHILLS OF ALL STRIPES CAN NOW IMMEDIATELY PISS OFF.

>>11344254
I really need to learn not everyone is a human being capable of basic communication.

>>11344264
You're right OP this thread actually belongs in sqt because the entire thing is us pointing out how bad your math is.

>>11344267
What part of
>I don't know if I can communicate with someone that has your level of spectrum disorder.
Makes you think I don't know that there are humans incapable of basic communication.

>>11344274
My math is solid its that other dweeb who wanted to divide by 44gC/mol who's bad at math. Are you him? Why don't you respond to this post?>>11344236

>>11344274
>us pointing out how bad your math is
sorry. wasnt trying to hurt your feelings, but now you've gone and hurt mine :(

>>11344257
>Do you eat much air anon?

plants do.

but they are plants, and I'm a mammal, so your strawman doesn't make much sense, does it?

but then, you already knew that, didn't you?

but you go ahead and play dumb, since that's what you love to do.

>>11343833
Pic related question /sci/

Does steam when it leaves a chimney undergo cold fusion where the hydrogen instantly forms carbon and bonds with the oxygen causing it to turn liquid and go through a transition phase? If not then why the bloody fucking gay lord artist making it sound like steam=CO2?