Global warming & carbon emmissions

I may be off on a tangent to reality, but I wonder if there are any statistics available on the effect of all the Tonnage Oxygen plants around the world sucking in all the oxygen, separating the various gases & storing them in pressurised liquid form. I did a quick search today and 2 countries alone were 'manufacturing' (sucking in our air, separating the elements and producing) 26,000 tonnes of approximately 99% pure oxygen per day!

To the crux of my question:
Is this action (carried out on a worldwide scale and potentially growing) upsetting the balance of our atmosphere - we are all informed by the press and by the scientists that global warming is (or may be) attributed to mankind burning fossil fuels and dumping the excess carbons into the atmosphere.
I just view this as the flip side of the argument........ has anyone ever considered the tonnage of oxygen drawn in from the atmosphere by these plants which is sold-on essentially as bottled gas or piped to be used for oxidising other materials (blast furnaces, basic oxygen steel-making, scrap cutting  etc), could be having an equal or bigger impact on our atmosphere and global warming than the straight burning of fossil fuels by power stations and automobiles etc?

Just 'throwing the idea out there' (Liquid oxygen when spilt and viewed as a puddle, appears blue like the sky, the deeper the oxygen puddle, the more vivid the blue became ..... reminded me of when I was a kid the sky looked a lot bluer than it does these days).

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 11Next »
1recruit4 years ago
Global warming is fraud of elites with face of AlGore. All planets are warming up and it is a cycle if you look back in medivial times. Aim of this fraud is Environment based Taxes.
kelseymh4 years ago
By the way, if you really want something to "worry about" (in order to ignore actual planetary environmental threats), consider the helium problem.

Although the matter content Universe as a whole is 25% helium, the Earth contains essentially no primordial helium at all -- any helium which was part of Earth's original constitution has long since been lost to space by evaporation.

All of the helium present on our planet today is formed from radioactive decay, specifically alpha decay of uranium, thorium, and their daughter radionuclides. Most of this helium is trapped in the deep mantle and core; the rest, formed in the Earth's crust, is either "stored" in porous rock, or escapes to the atmosphere and thence is lost to space.

The primary method to collect helium gas is as a side effect of natural gas production (the same rocks which can collect methane also collect helium). Most of it is just vented off and is lost to the atmosphere, but some is collected, stored, and sold for commercial use.

Unfortunately, the current use of helium far exceeds the production rate. Besides the obvious trivial uses (mylar balloons, voice-changing party tricks), helium has important industrial uses: refrigeration for superconducting magnets, used world-wide for high-resolution MRI machines; neutron detectors used to monitor nuclear proliferation treaties; and many other specialized functions.

What is going to happen to those important areas of technology when we "run out" of helium?
Judging by the exhibits at the recent PittCon in Philadelphia last week, helium users in many areas like GC are transistioning to hydrogen
oooo, we may have another big bang :-P
Interesting take on the 'helium shortage.' My assumption is that if this was to ever actually happen, then nuclear fusion becomes a really hot topic. Similar to how global warming/climate change and going 'green' have become a culture; how would a culture surrounded by a need for helium react to a need for nuclear fusion? I like to this of how technologies help influence and change our cultures. Not just new cutting-edge technologies, but how the first tools shaped and changed how the first humans started to interact with each other. Fun stuff to think about! Sorry for the rant, I just enjoy the subject is all. =)



kelseymh4 years ago
No, it's not. You can calculate the total mass of the atmosphere very easily.

The pressure at sea level is ~15 lbs per square inch. That means a column of atmosphere 1 square inch in cross section weighs 15 lbs, of which 20% is oxygen.

The radius of the Earth is 6,384 miles, or 404,490,240 inches. The surface area of the Earth is 4πr2 = 2 × 1018 square inches. So the total mass of the atmosphere is 30 × 1018 lbs, or 15,000,000,000,000,000 tons. How does 26,000 compare with that?
Ttrick (author)  kelseymh4 years ago
Thanks for that Kelseymh, your'e right - based upon those facts, it has negligible influence.
My statement only took into account the tonnage per day output of two producers in two countries - I wouldn't know how many TOP's there were in the world, but if the total of all plants were to be determined -- it may still be a trivial proportion of the oxygen surrounding and produced by our biosphere.

End of that train of thought.
kelseymh Ttrick4 years ago
You're welcome! The right way to answer a quantitative question is to do the calculation, or at least estimate the result :-) Even if I'm off by a factor of four or so, the order of magnitude (how many zeroes there are ;->) is still correct.
kelseymh4 years ago
The color of the sky is not determined by the oxygen content. It is determined by Rayleigh scattering. The scattering (that is, the deflection of a light ray away from its original direction) scales like the inverse fourth power of the wavelength, so short wavelength light is scattered much more than long wavelengths.

Near sunset, you see the longer wavelengths coming more directly from the direction of the sun. In the middle of the day, with the whole sky illuminated, you see the scattered bluish light coming from all directions.
1-10 of 11Next »