September 21-27 is Climate Week in New York City. Join us for a series of online events and blog posts covering the climate crisis and pointing us toward action. This week we are dedicating our You Asked series to tackling reader questions related to climate change.
The following question was submitted by a reader, and the response comes from climate scientist Ángel Muñoz.
Q:
How does CO2 get high up into the atmosphere? With a specific gravity of about 1.5, it should fall to the earth as it cools when rising. The airlines tell us that it is -40 degrees at 30,000 ft. So why or how is it that some CO2 works its way up into the upper atmosphere?
A:
Carbon dioxide is a gas. The density of a gas increases as temperatures get colder. So, because temperatures decrease as we reach higher altitudes, gases become denser at higher altitudes. Denser objects tend to sink, pulled down by gravity. (In fact, the force of gravity pulling gas molecules towards the Earth’s surface is what maintains our atmosphere.) Different gases also have different molecular weights. CO2 is heavier than oxygen, so we might expect every CO2 molecule to sink below a layer of oxygen molecules. Generalizing this idea to the other gases in the air, we might deduce that this would result in a perfectly stratified atmosphere with separate layers of each type of gas.
We can see an example of a stratified atmosphere inside a bottle of wine. When the bottle is sealed, air between the surface of the wine and bottom of the cork includes both oxygen and CO2. Because CO2 is heavier than oxygen, gravity forces CO2 molecules to form a “layer” beneath the oxygen molecules, helping to separate the wine from the oxygen. Desirable properties of wine, such taste and smell, begin to change once the liquid is fully exposed to oxygen. Without the stratification inside the sealed bottle, we wouldn’t have that cushion of CO2 to protect the wine from oxygen, giving unopened wine a much shorter shelf life or even turning it into vinegar over time.
Earth’s atmosphere is not like the air inside a sealed wine bottle. Atmospheric gases are well-mixed, not stratified. This due to the force of diffusion. Gas molecules want to move, and they will expand to fill the volume within which they are contained. Confined to a tightly sealed container such as a corked wine bottle at constant temperature of about 52-57 degrees F, gasses have no room or enough “excitement” to expand and move around. They settle into layers based mostly on their molecular weights. However, the Earth’s atmosphere is much more expansive than a wine bottle. CO2 does not break down until about 80 kilometers from the Earth’s surface, giving atmospheric gases a huge expanse to occupy. Excited by the heat radiating from the Sun into the atmosphere, molecules move rapidly. As they bang into each other (for example, at 63 degrees F, CO2 molecules crash together about 7 billion times per second), the gas molecules intermingle, rather than settling in stratified layers. It is mainly diffusion that allows CO2 to integrate at altitudes higher than what its molecular weight alone would suggest, although other processes, like strong updraft and downdraft air currents, are also involved.
Similarly, upon uncorking that wine bottle for the first time and bringing it from the cellar to a warmer room temperature, the trapped gasses become a part of the larger atmosphere. Gas molecules mix, and after the bottle’s vacuum seal has been broken, replacing the cork means well-mixed molecules remain in the bottle once you replace the cork yourself. Oxygen is now able to reach the wine, eventually causing the wine to taste “off.” Anyone who has opened a bottle of wine to “let it breathe” before drinking it knows that some amount of oxygenation can improve the wine’s taste, but eventually oxygenation will ruin those desirable qualities. So, remember to responsibly consume a bottle of wine within a few days for best flavor. And remember that even in an airplane at 30,000 feet, gas molecules in an open bottle of wine will mix just as they do in the rest of atmosphere!
For details on how carbon dioxide contributes to climate change, check out these posts: How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? and If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?
Hi,
I just read Angel Munez explanation about CO2 rising in the atmosphere. Sorry but I rate this as a non-answer. He made a comparison of CO2 and oxygen, but seemed to forget that nitrogen makes up 78% of air while oxygen makes up 21%. The specific density of nitrogen is 97, while that of oxygen is 1.1 – they will mix quite well, and make up 99% of the air or atmosphere.
CO2 has a specific density of 1.51, and is less likely to mix with the other two – in fact the majority of CO2 falls to the ground level where is is either synthesized (photosynthesis) or absorbed by the great sinks of water, forests or prairie. While Angel’s comparison to wine is charming, it just isn’t credible!
If scientists could determine the mechanism that causes some CO2 to rise, perhaps something could be done to prevent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from increasing. If is doesn’t rise, it won’t be up there to absorb heat. The following scientific table should be reviewed – water vapour for example has a specific density of 0.62, and it does rise up into the atmosphere. CO2 will fall, unless something happens – what is the something?
Specific Weight is defined as weight per unit volume. Weight is a force. The Specific Gravity – SG – is a dimensionless unit defined as the ratio of density of the material to the density of water at a specified temperature. The specific gravity of some common gases can be found in the table below:
As a reference, normal air has a specific gravity of 1.
If the specific gravity is greater than 1 the gas is heavier than air and the vapor will be found low; the larger the number the heavier the gas is and the lower vapors will be found.
If the specific gravity is less than 1 the gas is lighter than air and the vapor will be found high; the smaller the number the lighter the gas is and the higher vapors will be found.
Various vapors can be “layered” when multiple gasses are present.
Gas Specific Gravity
– SG –
Acetylene (ethyne) – C2H2 0.907
Air 1.000
Ammonia – NH3 0.596
Argon – Ar 1.379
Arsine 2.69
Benzene – C6H6 2.6961
Blast Furnace gas 1.02
Butadiene 1.869
Butane – C4H10 2.0061
Carbon dioxide – CO2 1.5189
Carbon monoxide – CO 0.9667
Carbureted Water Gas 0.63
Chlorine – Cl2 2.486
Coke Oven Gas 0.44
Cyclobutane 1.938
Cyclopentane 2.422
Cyclopropane 1.451
Decane 4.915
Digestive Gas (Sewage or Biogas) 0.8
Ethane – C2H6 1.0378
Ethylene (Ethene) – C2H4 0.9683
Fluorine 1.31
Helium – He 0.138
Heptanes 3.459
Hexane 2.973
Hydrogen 0.0696
Hydrogen chloride – HCl 1.268
Hydrogen sulfide – H2S 1.1763
Isobutane 2.01
Isopentane 2.48
Krypton 2.89
Methane – CH4 0.5537
Methyl Chloride 1.74
Natural Gas (typical) 0.60 – 0.70
Neon 0.696
Nitric oxide – NO 1.037
Nitrogen – N2 (pure) 0.9669
Nitrogen – N2 (atmospheric) 0.9723
Nitrous oxide – N2O 1.530
Nonane 4.428
Octane 3.944
Oxygen – O2 1.1044
Ozone 1.660
Pentane 2.487
Phosgene 1.39
Propane – C3H8 1.5219
Propene (Propylene) – C3H6 1.4523
Sasol 0.42
Silane 1.11
Sulfur Dioxide – SO2 2.264
Toluene-Methylbenzene 3.1082
Water Gas (bituminous) 0.71
Water Vapor 0.6218
Xenon 4.53
You first say that CO2 sinks to the ground and is absorbed by plants or sinks into water then you say the CO2 is up in the atmosphere absorbing heat. Is it some of each and if so how much of each?
what I ‘ve always heard is it reflects heat rays back to earth..hence the ‘glass – or green house’ effect..that’s the theory
seems by your chart Co2 is one of the heaviest gases out there…
For anyone in the west to go on about the need for ALL humanity to stop using fossil fuels demonstrates sheer ignorance or a brutal callousness. On any real issue affecting your life, it would be idiotic to have not looked into the detail. You would not do this with nearly anything else affecting your life. Yet, i find that a vast potion of my compatriots are perfectly contentr to have nefver thoghtr threu what- accoring to their very words- is the #1 issue of our times, likely the largest threat to all humanity.
But, for most westerners, US, UK and EU – i doubt they really spent any time critically thinking about the real challenges that some with the glib “stop fossil fuels” idea being pushed by activists and politicians. Arguably, if we would even be able to accomplish it, it would be the cruelest, most inhumane atrocity we would ever be able to commit onto the world population.
Refined petrol is an amazingly CLEAN fuel if only you take a second to remember that COAL, it’s far more vilified brother is STILL a VERY refined byproduct of natural synthesis- when compared to the what these things were BEFORE they were fossilized – biomass
Humans and nature have REFINED what other wise is a dirty agglomeration of energy containing biomass and made it denser.
As such, when we burn it, a LOT LESS harmful particulates are emanated.
As “dirty” as we like to think petrol products or coal are, let’s take a minute and realize that fully 75% of the world is NOT as wealthy as the west.
What does that mean from a practical point?
They cook and heat their homes with FAR dirtier alternatives like wood,straw,dung or other versions of energy dense biomass.
Poorer countries lack the strict regulation of developed industrial standards.
That quaint artisanal product you Amazon-ed from a mom and pop in rural Thailand or some small factory Mogadishu? Likely they did not produce it in a facility what had it’s effluents checked by the EPA on a monthly basis. But you don’t want to know anything about that.
It would harsh your mellow, planet saving outlook. You cut the plastic loops on a six pack and you recycle. You march for climate awareness and vote only for people that “get it”.
We could stop ALL fossil use in the US, and it would not contribute a sub-fraction of what getting the rest of the world AWAY from burning biomass and using at least centrally refined petrol or burned coal. In fact, fossil use is their sole ticket in advancing from poverty- something the ENTIRE world never could until fossil energy on a industrial scale became possible.
What does anyone propose we do about the poorer, larger part of the population – the majority?
Are we to condemn them to poverty or worse yet, interdict whatever meager means of survival they currently have access to? It seems to me we figured out how to be the world’s mosty evil a-holes while being able to keep up a convincing story that we are in fact doing good.
The entire climate movement lost me decades ago when, in the same year singers recorded “We are world” as a benefit for hunger in Africa, they did so in the same country that turned 15 million tons of corn into fuel. Despite that, we still made strides against poverty and hunger, so much so, that the world now contains more obese people than malnourished. Why? Fossil fuels!
I couldn’t even read your comment all the way. It sounded like a long, dragged out joke and I wasn’t able to keep entertained until the punch line.
Fossil fuels do need to be abolished forever and for you to suggest how “cruel” that would be shows your ignorance.
Cruel is forcing me to filter out the chemicals being pumped into the air from the fossil fuel industry through my lungs. Cruel is contaminating our only planet with air that is slowly making it un-inhabitable. Cruel is acidifying the oceans and killing phytoplankton, the things responsible for over half of the O2 that you breathe. Cruel is burying synthetic waste that we intentionally create to be “disposable” and creating mountains of contaminated land. Cruel is burying the organic waste that we produce in landfills, while replacing those nutrients with chemicals that kill the soil.
Don’t come at me with your nonsense about how fossil fuels are good for the environment. They should’ve been banned long ago, but people like you are the problem.
In the constitution, I should have the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I need those things to live so you shouldn’t be able to contaminate them for profit.
Ban fossil fuels and there will be many more jobs and a much healthier planet. FACT!
A global ban on fossil fuels would spell the end to worlds forest within a decade and an ecological disaster beyond imagination. There is no other alternative for our energy needs except for nuclear fission. Relax son, the air is fine.
Cruel is understanding humans cows or other animals simply do not create c02 it like all energy is transferred. You calling people ignorant about ffossil fuels. You want less carbon, stop eating.
And as far as fossil fuels oil and gas arent made from dino bones. The fact it comes from the ground the morgans put a “carbon date” on it so they could control the price of it. Oil well replenish themselves and natural gas will vent into the atmosphere at any given point. You are ignorant. As well heat waves dont follow higher carbon levels the higher carbon levels follow the heat cycles. And also if the c02 didnt rise the hydrogen molecules wouldnt be able to produce h20 and provide our eco system with a sustainable system. The fact that you think the world is 8 billion years old and weve maybe see half a day of its lifetime and think you know whats best for it proves your ignorance.
You should go home ask your hamster the best way to get to work by driving and take his advice and see where you get.
Get real! Without fossil fuels, your world would not exist. Virtually everything you own, wear, eat, live in, drive, float on, fly in, read, watch movies on, etc, etc, .. would not exist without fossil fuels.. Neither would the clean air and water you think you would have if fossil fuels were not used. There may come a time when fossil fuels are no longer needed but that time is way into the future.
Your basic premise that the specific weights of molecules determining how a gaseous mixture might stratify in a closed environment subject to gravity is correct, all things being equal. (I should say, that I personally don’t believe CO2 is the driver of climate change, that is variability in solar irradiance and interstellar gamma radiation reaching us). All gases would stratify if there was no turbulence, caused by changes in gas temperature, water temperature and reflected heat from light coloured surfaces (albedo), and the fact that the earth rotates at 16,000 kph at the equator, but slower at the poles. The Gulf stream which a very turbulent pattern of wind movements in the upper atmosphere have a lot to do with the mixing of gases and water vapor that get that high (creating the blanketing affect that is the green house affect [a green house traps heat which allows people to grow vegetables in winter]). But below the jet stream, are other wind turbulence mechanisms that are constantly moving gases from one place (on the northern side of the equator they circulate in one direction on the southern side they circulate in the opposite direction). to another place around the globe. (remember what a low and high pressure air system is? That’s wind doing its thing together with changes in Temperature over land and sea). Often coming off the ocean surfaces and coming in to contact with updrafts once over a warmer land masses (not sure where you live but those big birds called condors and vultures need these updrafts and thermal (warm) winds to get air borne). You could think of gases being like a condor needing the updrafts to gain elevation. This is the exact principle that allows Glider planes and Para-gliders and delta wing gliders to even fly, with people attached to them. All of these things are heavier than CO2. Without wind turbulence or updrafts, none of these air craft or birds could take to the wing easily or at all. Final note: If there were no wind turbulence (moving air), at all on Earth, gravity would create a stratification of the gases due to there specific weight differences. But because the force of wind movement is greater than the weak force of gravity, they tend to mix.
As an aside, during the last ice age or glacial maximum (when it was at its coldest) places on Earth regularly experience winds of hurricane strength at more than two hundred kph. Due to there being a great deal of ice, there was an increased amount of Albedo also.
Hope that helped.
You lost me at “Gulf Stream”, which is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Perhaps you are thinking of “Jet Stream”.
That kind of killed any interest in reading the rest.
i think you have 1 too many zeros in your equator earth speed
It helped me. Thank you. I am doing a yearlong study of weather and climate, measuring Temp, Humidity, pressure, wind speed, CO2 to mention a few. I have noticed a direct correlation to surface wind speed and CO2 levels; as wind speed increases the surface concentration of CO2 levels decrease.
As minute amounts of gaseous Co2 are contained in ambient air, along with oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other rare gases, and freezes when reduced in temperature during a cryogenic distillation process, can dangerous amounts of frozen Co2 accumulate and remain in a liquid oxygen cryogenic vessel, over many many years (decades) of service, as the Lo2 is continuously withdrawn and vaporized? Or, is the frozen Co2 withdrawn in equal percentage ratio amounts along with the Lo2. If so, how can one be certain the frozen Co2 is withdrawn in equal percentage ratio amounts along with the Lo2? I do not believe the Co2 is soluble at the colder L02 tempeatrures when the Lo2 being stored in the vessel at 50 t0 70 PSIG.
All pertinent cooments are most certainly welcome.
Many thanks.
The explanation provided by Mr. Munez is completely wrong. Gases do not stratify, not even when confined in closed spaces. The very definition of a gas as is taught in any beginner’s physics class is that is has no shape and will fill a container uniformly of its own will. The “excitement” that Mr. Munez claims molecules need to move around the container is provided by the kinetic energy of molecules which at temperatures above 0°K (absolute zero) is always greater than zero. As a matter of fact at room temperature the molecules making up a gas travel at speeds that reach or exceed the speed of sound but as they keep bouncing off each other actual diffusion rates at the macroscopic level are much lower. This happens without an external energy source unlike what Mr. Munez claims as even without energy being provided for example by the sun’s radiation molecules will retain their kinetic energy indefinitely unless they can transfer some of it to other molecules (heat exchange) or convert it into some other form of energy such as electromagnetic radiation. In summary, gases would behave as Mr. Munez claims only at absolute zero, where the kinetic energy of its molecules would be zero, a condition that will never be found in nature. I respectfully request that this page be removed ASAP as it only serves to spread misinformation.
What are the “radiation molecules ” of which you speak?
Sorry for the bad punctuation. It should have read “sun’s radiation, molecules will retain…”
Oh well, at least I did get my facts right instead of making it all up as I go, which I think is more important than punctuation especially in science…
You’re partly right: in a physic book for beginners, gas is going to be interpreted as an “ideal gas”, as it is a good model that describes the behavior of gases with few degrees of freedom. As the size of a gas molecule increases, normally the shape of a gas molecule will also increase in complexity leading to a deviation from the ideal behavior. Under “normal” conditions (p, T) CO2 can still be seen as an ideal gas. Transport phenomena for ideal gases can be completely modeled applying kinetic theory of ideal gases. That’s why from this theory, more generalized transport models (or “laws”) can be derived such as Fourier’s Law for thermal energy (“heat”) or Fick’s Law for mass in general.
Transport phenomena such as diffusion and convection can be applied on more complex molecules and can be used to predict how well and fast a given gas will diffuse through a medium (gas or liquid). So, in this sense, the homogeneous distribution of CO2 in a room can be explained by both models (ideal gas models and generalized transport models), that doesn’t mean that they are contradictory.
The transport phenomena occuring in the wine bottle are however a little more complex, since carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water unlike oxygen or nitrogen , as it undergoes chemical reactions in contact with water. This means that CO2 molecules are constantly (and more frequently than N2 and O2 molecules) entering and leaving the gas phase from and to the liquid phase (the wine). This phenomenon enriches the concentration of CO2 directly over the wine surface (the wine/air interface), and creates an inhomogeneous concentration profile (a concentration gradient) in the micro climate of the wine bottle, since diffusion in this case is not fast enough to homogenize the gas molecules. Of course, if you introduced more transport variables, for example, by opening the wine bottle, more natural convection and a larger CO2 concentration gradient will lead to the CO2 molecules escaping the bottle and to a reduction of the CO2 concentration over the wine surface.
I don’t know much about your physics explaination about gas molecules smashing into each other forcing them to stay unstratified even in confined spaces. I do know that when I was 12 years old my family (9 people) lived in an 8 X 36 house trailer and we heated by letting the gas oven burn all night. My little brother and I slept on the floor and my older brother slept on the sofa, just 17 inches above us. My little brother and I suffered from a condition where blood clots formed in our legs causing a lot of pain and put us in danger of those clots moving to more critical parts of our bodies. It was determined that our condition was caused by breathing too much CO2 as a result of burning the gas oven to keep warm. My older brother, whose head was only a few inches above ours, never suffered this condition, all because of the fact that CO2 is heavier than air and would fall to the floor where my little brother and I were breathing but would not be as concentrated where my older brother was breathing. I think this case demonstrates that gases do stratify.
Blood clotting is actually caused by carbon monoxide (CO) inhalation and not carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon monoxide is actually lighter than air (1.14 kg/m3 versus 1.293 kg/m3) which openly contradicts your theory. You and your little brother were more heavily affected by it simply because you were closest to an actively emitting source of carbon monoxide and therefore suffered the heaviest exposure through inhalation.
When a volcano erupts we get along with some other gases and carbon oxide some times it erupted more that 5000 meter in to the sky. All scientists says that carbon dioxide will lay down on the ground. What’s the difference between co2 from a vulcanised co2 than from a car? Have anyone ever made any calculations on the difference. Best regards per wallen
Actually not a single scientist says that.
The ambition is zero carbon mmissions..big question mark as to how this can be acheived.How would plants, trees, crops react to a drastic cut to Co2 ? could it be they would not grow as well ? Co2 is being painted as ‘the enemy’ .. but i’m not so sure …I think the world needs a re think on ‘zero emmissions’ before we waste huge amounts on something futile and not all beneficial…
The atmosphere will still have plenty of CO2 in it if we stopped burning fossil fuels, because they will get it from natural sources.
Plants survived for hundreds of millions of years before we started burning fossil fuels, and they will definitely be fine afterwards, too.
you say natural…where would most of it come from ?
It’s pretty cool actually — CO2 gets constantly recycled by nature:
For example, plants take it in during photosynthesis and turn it into sugar. We eat the plants and break the sugar back down into CO2, which the plants can use again. CO2 can also come from the oceans, soils, and volcanoes.
The problems happen when we bring up fossil fuels from deep underground, where they would have stored lots of carbon for millions of years. By burning them, we’re adding a lot more CO2 into the equation, and the rest of the cycle can’t keep up.
How can it heat up the earth if the co2 is up in the cold? Please explain that for me….
Earth’s temperature is determined by how much energy comes in from the Sun minus how much goes out to space. CO2 makes it hard for heat to get out into space. If you sit in your car on a cold day, even if the car itself is cold, it will still keep you warmer than if you were not inside the car, because it traps some of your heat.
ok thanks. Do you know the details how co2 can make that ”car effect”. I mean there is small amount of it compared to the other ”gases” up there.
Good questions. A lot of people are wondering about that, so the Earth Institute is preparing another article about this now. I’ll share the link when it’s published! In the meantime, this post might help, too: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
But yeah, I agree that it seems kinda crazy that even though CO2 only makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere, it can have such a big effect! What I’m learning is that thinking about it as a percentage can be kind of misleading… Even .04% still adds up to a LOT of CO2 in our atmosphere — like billions and billions of tons up there.
Another thing: It’s not like the CO2 has to trap ALL of the heat to have an effect. Since Earth’s temperature = incoming energy – outgoing energy, all CO2 has to do is prevent some of the energy from leaving in order to cause heating. Sort of like how a blanket doesn’t have to be airtight to keep you warm.
I hope some of this is helpful. More details in a blog post coming soon!
it would be intersting to know how this is measured (the Co2) Bill Gates recently spoke of the world aiming for zero carbon emmissions…I think thats a long shot.. Planes wont run on batteries, neither will big cargo ships, even big trucks.. there is always a trade off. Ultimately it will also mean lowering our standard of living =less consumerism..
You’re right, reaching net-zero emissions is probably not going to be easy. Thankfully we do already have a lot of tools to work toward that goal, including renewable energy, biofuels, electric vehicles, and carbon sequestration. And research suggests that taking these steps now will save a lot of trouble, money, and human lives later.
How to build a healthier and more sustainable economy is another interesting question! Earth Institute experts think it’s possible to maintain a good standard of living while trying to preserve the planet for future generations. Here are a few of their ideas on how it could work: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/10/26/the-sharing-economy-is-transforming-sustainability/ and https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/12/04/create-circular-economy/
Since this is not working globally, and the less we use we buy it from other countries, then it will not make a difference, will it. We will be spending more to get it from them, but it will still be drilled in other parts of the world to meet the needs of everyone. Its a trade off, something only whereby our nation will suffer the most, economically.
.
IF CO2 blocks heat escaping, it should also block heat from entering. Your car analogy is flawed because the source of heat (you) are within the system.
False. The energy enters the Earth system as sunlight. When the sunlight hits Earth’s surface, that’s when it gets transformed into infrared (“heat”) energy. They’re two different forms of energy, and the molecules interact differently with each. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
overall.. moisture, cloud cover , plays the biggest part in trapping heat and when ou think about it, we need that heat trap for life to be sustainable. Without it,it would be too damn cold ! It’s a question of balance though. I do wonder if we ended up with zero emmissions or net zero..what effect that would have on plant life, food, world temperatures ? maybe not all positive..industry & governments need to tread carefully…
Solar radiation includes infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, radio waves, X-rays and gamma rays. Source: NOAA
“Scientists haven’t determined with precision how the fluctuations in the Sun’s output of visible wavelengths differ from near infrared or from ultraviolet. The dearth of spectral data presents another serious obstacle for climate modelers since distinct wavelengths are absorbed by different components of the Earth’s climate system, which react differently with one another as their energy levels change.” Source: NASA
That NASA source is 20 years old, amost two solar cylces. Is there any new info?
It would be great if someone could explain how that during our entire life, atmospheric CO2 levels has been increasing by 2PPM (4 gigatons) and we are emitting 43 gigatons. It would appear that atmospheric CO2 levels are associated with ocean temperatures and the biosphere is processing at least 90% of the emitted CO2.
Hi Dan, just wanted to tell you that we’ve published a blog post that may help to answer your questions: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/ Hope this helps! Take care.
How much of the sun’s energy is blocked or reflected by our atmosphere, incl6from clouds?
Please anyone can be explain me , my question is why do we feeling CO2 is up rise on oxygen bottom phase at rooms.?
Surprisingly, there is no conclusive scientific explanation why gas stratifies in layers of the atmosphere and yet mixes on the earth surface. Only some theories that all contradict each other.
Online Shopping..I dont think this gets enough scrutiny-and not just for finance issues. The shift from retail stores/shops to online webstores has meant more warehouses that take up a lot of land..and more traffic .A lot of the trucks & vans clogging up & polluting the highways are in effect , internet traffic..so many people clicking a mouse which sets off a whole chain of events..often for a low number of cheap items
This statement is scientific Incorrect. All gases densities are altered at different elevations and temperatures… not just one particular gas as you increase in elevation.
Air is made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Neon, Argon & Krypton, or so I have always been led to understand. So where does Carbon dioxide fit into the mix ? Surely this must be generally low down for plant life to exist.
Anyway, we should have listened to the hippies, & what some of the rock groups were telling us some 60 or more years ago. They were prophets of their time, & no one cared or took any notice!
It is logical that the denser CO2 molecule can diffuse. But there have been theories claiming the upper atmosphere is an important contributor to the greenhouse effect. With 0.04% CO2 perfectly diffused the argument would be strong. But isn’t it logical to assume that density does influence diffusion versus elevation? Do measurements conclusively prove an identical concentration of CO2 independent of altitude?
The root mean square (R.M.S) speed V of the molecules of an ideal gas is given by the expression, v=sqrt(3RTM) and v=sqrt(3KTm) where R is universal gas constant, T is the absolute (Kelvin) temperature, m is the molar mass, K is Boltzmann’s constant and M is the molecular mass.
Speeds of gasses
Gas Molar mass/grms speed of molecules at 300 K
Helium 4 1370m/s
Nitrogen 28 517 m/s
Carbon dioxide 44 413m/s.
Basically the molecules are constantly moving and colliding with each other and the walls so they will never stratify in a container (unless they undergo a transition change)
In the atmosphere there will be a height and temperature where the gas is moving too slowly and will fall back to earth under gravity.
Hydrogen is the only gas that has sufficient speed to escape the earths gravity and that is why H2 in the atmosphere is only 0.00005%.
Similarly although CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly originating in the Northern Hemisphere (especially in spring/summer) it is pretty much evenly distributed across the planet. The readings in Mauna Loa are nearly the same as Cape Grim. The Cape Grim readings show the seasonal variation even though the Southern Hemisphere largely does not have deciduous plants.
A bottle of wine is, when stored long-term, stored tilted on its side to keep the cork, made of real cork, not a modern screw cap with plastic seal. moist.
Any gases in the bottle rise to the “top”, or the upper side of the bottle. They can stratify there, with CO2 in contact with the wine and lighter gases near the glass.
The bottle is tilted so sediment will gather in the lower corner of the base.
Thermal action by solar heating on rocks, buildings, roads, roofs, desert sands and oceans is far more powerful than gravity and this results in constant mixing of atmospheric gases. Tornados, hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones mix the gases in a violent way. All these are basically created by solar heating.
The heavier gases have no chance to sink to the ground while being pulled by the weak force of gravity when they are being sucked upwards by the huge force of these weather events and other violent storms
I needing an answer to the best position to place a CO2 alarm regs in the UK state six inches 150mm from ceiling height . One to three meters away from source of burning . I work in construction an feel bad for this error in regs which i dont agree with.
Cheers Billy
There is no requirement or need for a CO2 alarm. The hazard is CO, carbon monoxide.
What is the behavior of CO2 when against a setting in a house in 0 degrees temperatures? The house is sealed off from outside to keep warmth from escaping. Does the CO2 buildup behave similarly or not?
Why is ice at the poles increasing and getting thicker?
If oil is a Fossil Fuel why is oil found in huge quantities far deeper than any fossils below impermeable hard rock with no fossils even close to that depth, presumably formed long before any evidence of life.
If there is a real concern for Global Warming/Climate Change resulting in mandates for electric vehicles as the only way to combat it then why the insistence on only electric when there are other effective options such as Hydrogen or Propane ( cleaner than electric when you consider that most electricity is produced from “fossil fuels anyway” ) and no embracing of nuclear reactor power production with zero emissions which, seemingly, would produce the cleanest power. It appears that the real goal is to eliminate personal automobile ownership, part of an effort to eliminate the middle class since there isn’t enough of the needed rare earth metals to be able to ever produce enough EVs to even replace the cars in just America much less the entire world, making it an impossible goal.
Hybrids are the short and medium term answer. The problem is that they are beneficial to the middle class while doing less harm to the environment.
The earths population has doubled since the 1950’s to 2023. Think about that as an impact on the need for food, clothing, accommodation and the like, if we ban fossil fuels today the impact would be catastrophic as there is currently no direct replacement to keep $8billion people alive , most of which would die as they have no skills to survive. There would be no transport no phones, no cables, no mining, except for the country’s that keep using fossil fuels. I have Yet to see a solution that is affordable to all the countries of the world and think the brains of the world needs to come up with a solution on how the world can sustain the ever increasing population, or in reality is that the world’s problem.
The answer made no sense to me. Newton told me things heavier than air tend to drop to the earth.
You’re treating atoms as if they behave like solid objects like an apple. If Newton’s apple was vaporized into gas how much of it would fall back to the ground (as separate atoms)?
Molecular weight of CO2 is !44g/mol and the molecular weight of air is ~29g/mol. A hot air balloon only rises when the air inside the balloon is about 100-deg F warmer than ambient air temperature outside the balloon. Now, my question is how does CO2 get off the ground and into the atmosphere? This is not a trick question.
I have lived in many places in the world and been an early solar energy developer. First of all, CO2 is the very foundation of life on this planet. Without CO2 everything dies on earth. There are two issues I have with the bogus theory that the slight increase of 1/10,000 of CO2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming. First of all any CO2 high in the atmosphere can have a temperature of -60 C (-76 f) or lower. So clearly the sun is not heating it very much. But somehow these well-funded “climate experts” want us to believe that the intense infrared radiation from this -60 C air is going to shine infrared radiation on the surface of the earth so intense that it will raise the temperature of the surface and cause catastrophic warming. The problem is that the sun’s intense radiation and the radiation from the surface are both much more intense than any cold atmospheric CO2 that they contend is going to cause this global warming. In third-grade science, it is taught that heat energy can only flow (rather through radiation, convection, or conduction) from hot materials to cold material, heat energy can never flow from a cold material to a warmer material. This would be especially so if the delta T (temperature difference) is close to 75 C (135 f).
The second, issue has to do with the fact that CO2 stops or absorbs radiation in only a very narrow bandwidth of light, 15 μm (micrometers), of the light spectrum (infrared). CO2 being heavier (specific density of 1.51) is mostly found at lower elevations. Less than 1% of sunlight has wavelengths greater than 4 μm. This means 99% of the sun’s heat-carrying radiation passes through the few CO2 molecules in the air without heating it. Just how few are those CO2 molecules? Only 4 CO2 out of 10,000. If you do the math that means the air’s CO2 is absorbing just 1/100,000 of the sun’s energy as it warms the air mass. The other 99% of the sun’s energy heats the surface.
This explains why on a day when the surface temperature is nice 22 C (72 f) higher up at say 3,000 meters the temperature is just – 20 C (-4f). (This is why there is snow on mountain tops even at the equator.) Less than 1% of sunlight has wavelengths greater than 4 μm. This is why so little of the sun’s heat is captured by 4/10,000 molecules of CO2 in the air. CO2 is therefore a minor player in the greenhouse effect. (You would know this unless you are getting a large government grant and feeling this way could hamper your future grants.) Another issue, except very close to the surface CO2 and the air around it are so cold it does little to keep the heat in so it plays virtually no part in global warming. However, while CO2 absorbs 1% of the incoming solar energy “about 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface. Thus, about 71 percent of the total incoming solar energy is absorbed by the Earth system.” see https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page4.php#:~:text=About%2023%20percent%20of%20incoming,absorbed%20by%20the%20Earth%20system.