# Atmosphere increasing in size?



## semipro (Jun 12, 2012)

I was listening to a piece on the news this morning describing how oil production is up 6% in the US and wondered:

If all this conversion of fossil solids and liquids (coal and petroleum) from the earth into gas (CO2+) is increasing the volume of earth's atmosphere? 
If so, what effects would this create?
Is the atmosphere getting taller?
Would atmostpheric pressure at the surface increase?
Would all the additional CO2 dissolve into the world's waters at higher rates because of the elevated pressure? 
If so would this result in acidificaiton of these waters?  What are the effects of that?


----------



## Delta-T (Jun 12, 2012)

I would think any extra pressure would cause a greater "venting into space" effect. The bad part is that CO2 is fairly heavy, so we lose smaller stuff like hydrogen and helium pretty regularly.


----------



## btuser (Jun 12, 2012)

I don't think it will get any bigger. It's mostly to do with gravity.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 12, 2012)

The additional mass in the atmosphere is pretty insignificant re pressure and height (i.e. <0.01% increase), but a warmer atmosphere expands and gets taller (happening).  CO2 is acidifying the (upper layers of the) ocean, and that will continue to accelerate.  CW is that corals and shellfish will struggle from the acid, but research is still ongoing.


----------



## pdf27 (Jun 14, 2012)

1 mole of CO2 has the same number of oxygen atoms as 1 mole of O2. At any given temperature and pressure, the volume of 1 mole is IIRC constant, hence since fossil fuel burning uses atmospheric oxygen the total volume of the atmosphere shouldn't change.


----------



## semipro (Jun 14, 2012)

pdf27 said:


> 1 mole of CO2 has the same number of oxygen atoms as 1 mole of O2. At any given temperature and pressure, the volume of 1 mole is IIRC constant, hence since fossil fuel burning uses atmospheric oxygen the total volume of the atmosphere shouldn't change.


 
One mole of CO2 is 44 grams.
One mole of 02 is 32 grams.
Both occupy the same space.
So our atmosphere becomes denser instead of larger in volume.
This would increase atmospheric pressure if thickness (height) remains constant.


----------



## semipro (Jun 14, 2012)

It just struck me that increased atmosheric pressure will result in lower pan evaporation rates. 
These are already in decline due to global dimming.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
The next century or so is going to be interesting.


----------



## semipro (Jun 15, 2012)

Related piece just out today.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...op+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

"Since preindustrial times, ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent. By 2100, ocean acidity is expected to rise by as much as another 150 percent."


----------



## dougstove (Jun 16, 2012)

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans has been (partially) offsetting the CO2 releases from fossil fuel combustion.
We are just starting to see all sorts of effects on ocean biogeochemistry.


----------



## begreen (Jun 17, 2012)

Well, it ain't humans that caused that. Nosiree, can't prove that by me. Must be volcanoes and termite farts. There's been a lot of them in the last 6000 yrs since the earth was created.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 18, 2012)

semipro said:


> One mole of CO2 is 44 grams.
> One mole of 02 is 32 grams.
> Both occupy the same space.
> So our atmosphere becomes denser instead of larger in volume.
> This would increase atmospheric pressure if thickness (height) remains constant.


 
Not correct. It's a LOT more complex than that.

The pressure exerted by a gas is independent of the mass. Pressure is due to the collision of molecules: larger molecules move slower, and this all equals out. Remember Boyle's law and the ideal gas law- there is no mass term in either, only "n", which is independent of gas type.

Further, remember that CO2 is not the only combustion product. One O2 yields 2 H2O in the process- an entropic increase (of course) and an increase in "n", therefore an increase in the PV term.H2O is only 18- so average those in with your CO2's etc- has the average mass increased?

There are other combustion products as well as an increase in entropy. These are spontaneous reactions, therefore the Gibbs free energy is NEGATIVE.
G= H - T S Of course H is negative and S positive each contribute to pressure. Higher pressure drives many other equilibria in reverse (Think 2NO2 <--> N2O4 in smog)

While we're at it- The concept of the atmosphere "pushing down" on you is incorrect; think about it- you would have high pressure on top of you, and none under you. This is the sort of thing that gets beaten out of you after a couple/few P Chem classes 

Now- is the gas confined closer to the earth because of higher mass, therefore increasing pressure as more molecules are smashing into you? Maybe


----------



## btuser (Jun 18, 2012)

begreen said:


> Well, it ain't humans that caused that. Nosiree, can't prove that by me. Must be volcanoes and termite farts. There's been a lot of them in the last 6000 yrs since the earth was created.


 The calender is almost out.  I'm using up my vacation days.


----------



## semipro (Jun 19, 2012)

Adios Pantalones said:


> Not correct. It's a LOT more complex than that.
> 
> The pressure exerted by a gas is independent of the mass. Pressure is due to the collision of molecules: larger molecules move slower, and this all equals out. Remember Boyle's law and the ideal gas law- there is no mass term in either, only "n", which is independent of gas type.
> 
> ...


 
I guess I didn't write my response to PDF well.  The point that I was trying to make is that even if the volume didn't change (PDF's point) , something else would.  You can't take mass from the earth and introduce it into our atmosphere without consequences. 
I agree, its a very complex issue and we're fools to think:
1) Its a natural climate change event
2) Its going to be good for us.


----------



## Jags (Jun 19, 2012)

I agree with what AP said.


----------



## begreen (Jun 19, 2012)

semipro said:


> I guess I didn't write my response to PDF well. The point that I was trying to make is that even if the volume didn't change (PDF's point) , something else would. You can't take mass from the earth and introduce it into our atmosphere without consequences.
> I agree, its a very complex issue and we're fools to think:
> 1) Its a natural climate change event
> 2) Its going to be good for us.


 
It's getting very hard to explain this to our children and grandchildren.

http://www.upworthy.com/the-speech-no-grandfather-wants-to-give-their-grandchildren


----------



## semipro (Jun 19, 2012)

begreen said:


> It's getting very hard to explain this to our children and grandchildren.
> 
> http://www.upworthy.com/the-speech-no-grandfather-wants-to-give-their-grandchildren


 
I used to blame my parents' generation but realize now that mine shares the blame equally if not more.


----------

