Listening to the banter of know-it-alls gets very tiring.
I don’t know about the details about the relative stocks and flow of CO2 and Water, but global CO2 PPM (parts per million) is increasing over the decades.
Theoretically, planting more trees would fix the problem, but over the entire globe there is net DEforestation going on. Africa and Brazil are deforesting very quickly. So contributing to a fund to plant a tree is fine, but it’s like bailing out the Titanic with a thimble. Just in my neck of the woods we used to have woods 30 years ago… now all convenience stores and nail salons, and that hard impervious surface helped to drown Houston during Hurricane Harvey 2017.
Water and CO2 are not the same. CO2 allows light to proceed to the surface of the earth… the light hits objects (or you), heats them up, that head gets re-reradiated as IR (infrared), but the CO2 BLOCKS IR, it doesn’t let it back out into space.
There are lots of bad feedback mechanisms which are now engaging… as we lose snow and ice on the planet (hint - they are white) more light doesn’t get reflected out to space, they hit earth or water and heat it. As permafrost emelts in the tundra, it releases methane which is a worse offender than CO2.
The question was not about the CO2 debate. At many points in earth’s history atmospheric CO2 levels have been higher; at many points they have been lower.
CO2 is essential for life on earth. All animals exhale it, yet it is now classified as a pollutant.
You are about the 5th expert I have asked about where all the water from hydrocarbon combustion is going, and nobody appears to have even thought about it. Combustion of one methane molecule nets ONE molecule of CO2, yet it yields TWO molecules of H2O. Strange that nobody can say where the new water is going, yet they yak all day about the CO2.
The water is going into atmosphere, clearly. But water isn’t a heat one-way mirrow like CO2 is.
No one disputes that there was more CO2 and more heat in past geologic epochs. The point for humanity is that our agriculture and infrastructure, where we live, and our bodies themselves function within narrowly engineered (by God you might say) bands.
The heat which is becoming quite common in parts of the world is outside of the limit of frail people to survive, and if they are in poor places without AC, they will die. Correction… they are dying.
“While 2023 was the hottest year on record and led to at least 2,325 heat-related deaths in the U.S., more than 21,518 people have died from heat since 1999 , according to a study published Monday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association.”
" The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that between 1998 and 2017, over 166,000 people died due to heatwaves."
Let’s not think like Ebenezer Scrooge: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
We had billions upon billions of dollars damage in my City, Houston, and many more lives lost in New Orleans, in extreme weather events that have all come in a cluster in the last couple decades… “unthinkable”, “once in 1000 year events”, “Five standard deviation events” now coming every few years.
Agriculture in the US South is having serious issues with heat and aridity. Farmers here in Texas are way stressed out and going bust.
And arid areas are indeed moving North… into Canada. Is that why the current government of our wants to annex it? A cynical land grab, while ignoring the very forces that are motiviating them to contemplate such an illegal act?
This is not some airy-fairy discussion about chemistry and geology… this is people’s lives, right here and now. I don’t so much care if people “believe” in the causes behind extreme weather… I just want them to recognize that events are happening, and not bury their heads in the sand in order to relieve their personal cognitive dissonance over politics.
Oh yes, my homeowners insurance just went up $500. We had a derecho and a hurricane in my neighborhood last year. It’s $2500 now, and I shop it around constantly. It has doubled in the last seven or so years. Will it be $5000 in seven more years? Will I be “renting” from Allstate and my local property taxing jurisdictions, even though the home is paid for?
As a high-school dropout-out maybe I can answer your question. 
I’m sure that you are already aware of the essential and elementary basics of the question you are asking so I’ll not waste your time going over those items. I’m assuming your question concerns the hydrocarbons in question are coming from fossil fuels.
The easy and most straightforward answer to your question is that the amount of water produced is miniscule and too small to be of notice when compared to the total amount of water on our planet.
The logic behind that statement is pretty easy to come by. All you have to do is take the amount of hydrocarbons produced an burned multiply by the water vapor created and compare that number to the to the total amount of water on earth.
So, from the info I could come up with it appears that the total petroleum produced so far is about 17-35 cubic miles. The total amount of coal is about 450 cubic miles. So the total amount of water molecules produced would be about 450 + 35 = 485 cubic miles of water produced since we began burning coal and petroleum products.
There’s roughly 333,000,000 cubic miles of water on earth. If you divide 485 by 333,000,000 you get .000,001,456,456,460. That’s a 0.00015% increase in the earth’s water.
For comparison just look at how much water that 0.00015% of an olympic-sized swimming pool would be, 660,000 x .00015 = 99 gal. I don’t think that you would be able to see the difference that 99 gals of water would make in the pool’s water level, especially over a period of 300 years.
In addition, it’s accepted as fact in the scientific community that our earth is continually losing H2O molecules in the outer reaches of our atmosphere to photolysis which allows hydrogen atoms to escape to outer space.
So… It may seem like a lot of water to us, but in the overall picture of things, it’s too small to make a real difference.
More people die of cold every year than heat. But I don’t want to debate manmade global warming or not. Plenty of people do that. My interest is the water produced in combustion of hydrocarbons.
Never heard that water vapor escapes into outer space. Why does not CO2 do the same thing, then?
If water vapor escapes into space, without man to burn hydrocarbons, our planet would get drier over time, right?
Notice oxidation depletes oxygen. For every molecule of fuel combusted oxygen is consumed. If vegetation is being burned quicker that it can be replanted, would not O2 levels go down?
But lest we forget, photosynthesis is not limited to trees. Grasses and crops recycle CO2 as well. The only way to “lock it up” is by turning trees into building materials. But houses burn down and release CO2, and termites eating the lumber releases C02 as well. In the end, CO2 is recyled. How it worked before the advent of animal life is a mystery. Maybe that is when CO2 concentrations were the highest.
Water vapor is susceptible to photolysis which breaks it down to hydrogen and oxygen. Some of hydrogen escapes earth’s gravity and goes into space. Because of it’s weight CO2 is not as susceptible to photolysis because it doesn’t make it to the thinner atmosphere like H2O does.
Half or more of the earth’s oxygen is generated in the oceans by phytoplankton and some of that oxygen we breathe. The Amazon rainforest produces about as much oxygen as the decaying organic matter in that zone uses up, it is essentially carbon neutral. Much of the oxygen supply in our atmosphere comes from the northern hemisphere’s temperate forests.
For every carbon dioxide molecule in our atmosphere there are 525 oxygen molecules and it makes up 21% of earth’s atmosphere. CO2 makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere, that’s why a little bit of CO2 makes a big difference and a man-made change in oxygen makes little or no difference.
Thanks for the information. My head is spinning (pun intended) after watching the videos.
I find it easier to wrap my head around Quantum-related concepts if I approach the subject at a high (meaning a general, not detailed) level of information. Then I drill down a little on the areas that I find interesting. I first encountered Quantum Mechanics when I built a crystal radio, (that’s why they work,) around age 12 or 13. I’ve been an on-and-off frustrated student of the phenomena since that time. I have 7 decades of that frustrating experience behind me and I’m still trying to understand more about it.
I don’t think anyone fully understands Quantum Theory (aka Quantum Mechanics,) if they say they do, they’re lying.
I will check with a physics major about this. Ions have mass. It is inconceivable that particles with mass would ignore gravity and start flying off into space.
You said before that the majority of our oxygen comes from plankton in the ocean. Now you claim it comes from our temperate forests.
Yet just like in the Amazon, other forests have trees decaying and oxidizing, releasing CO2. Why would one be carbon neutral and the other not? You realize that every year trees fix carbon when they sprout their leaves, and every fall they slowly release carbon when they shed their leaves, which decompose and release CO2? Or release CO2 quickly when we burn the leaves.
Lost on climate change advocates is the fact that other plants fix CO2, not just trees. It appears that the only way CO2 could be permanently fixed was the production of petroleum from ancient plant mass. However, even before man drilled for it, petroleum leaked from the ocean floor and was metabolized by microorganisms. That was observed after the BP offshore drilling disaster.
If the Amazons were carbon neutral, cutting them down and planting crops would not make much of a difference in CO2 concentration, would it? Except for the tragic loss of biodiversity.
I read an article where they measured old world forest growth. Concluded that growth rate had increased recently, probably as a result of CO2 percent increase. As you know, greenhouses pump in CO2 to expedite growth. There are feedback loops in the carbon cycle we do not think about.
Classifying CO2 as a pollutant is absolutely ridiculous. We all expire it, and life would die without it.
You may want to point your physics major to this web page, it has 27 referenced sources.
Well, if hydrogen and oxygen ions escape, earth would be drying up over its long history, and we are doing a good think when we burn hydrocarbons, as we produce more water.
If more hydrogen ions escape than oxygen, earth’s oxygen concentration would increase.
So the source of your Great Knowledge is Wikipedia?
I repeat: classifying a gas that we all exhale, and necessary for all life on earth, as a “pollutant” is absurd. The founder of Greenpeace agreed with that in a radio interview recently.
Here’s what I said in my post #67: “Half or more of the earth’s oxygen is generated in the oceans by phytoplankton and some of that oxygen we breathe. The Amazon rainforest produces about as much oxygen as the decaying organic matter in that zone uses up, it is essentially carbon neutral. Much of the oxygen supply in our atmosphere comes from the northern hemisphere’s temperate forests.”
"Estimates range from 50% to 80% of the earth’s total oxygen supply comes from the ocean. Logically then, the balance of the usable oxygen on earth, would be found within the atmosphere and the soil and rocks in the thin uppermost layer of earth’s outer crust.
Earth’s total oxygen supply includes what’s in the ocean, the atmosphere and the rocks and soil. Some of the oxygen from the sea enters the atmosphere, some of the oxygen from the atmosphere enters seawater and some of the oxygen in the rocks & soil enters atmosphere.
That’s an easy one, the co2 from rotting vegetation in the Amazon Rainforest goes on year-round. Conifers in our temperate forests produce oxygen year-round but low winter temperatures there bring co2 emissions to a standstill 5-6 months of the year. So o2 production keeps on going while co2 production ceases in the winter.
Additionally, the Amazon Rainforest growth/decay cycle is supercharged by virtue of the fact that it is fed rich nutrients from Saharan Desert brought by the Northeasterly trades which also provides the catalyst causing the tropical downpours that help provide the water to make the whole thing keep going.
Aside from the fact that for one cycle of natural die-off of living vegetation being replaced by immediate destruction and burning of it, it would probably not make a big difference.
But despite those steps our co2 keeps rising and the end result, from a human perspective, appears to be a climate catastrophe.
That might be why earth’s oxygen content has varied so much in the last billion years or so.
No, I read a lot… avg from 3-5 books a month for six decades. I find Wikipedia a handy tool when online. Kinda like the folks at Harvard.
What’s Wrong with Wikipedia? | Harvard Guide to Using Sources.
I would say a sucker stock since what goes up eventually goes down.
Funny, except for the advent of animal life, one would expect the concentration of oxygen to be increasing pretty much at a constant rate, if hydrogen ions have constantly defied gravity and escaped into outer space.
Every religion has its prophets. Here is a rundown of the accuracy of the Greatest Climate Prophet’s predictions:
Oh, and here are some other predictions by “scientists” that have proved wrong:
Just like Mark Twain said, it is easier to fool a person than convince him he has been fooled.
Of course, if the REAL cause of climate change is man and his inventions, it would seem that the doomscryers’ rallying cry would be population control and reduction. Even they don’t have the guts to advocate government control of reproduction.
Our earth loses tons of mass every day and some of that mass is in the form of light weight gases like helium and hydrogen. There are a lot of things that contribute to that loss and some things, like meteorites that add to our mass. As far as hydrogen gas supplies go, we may very well have huge stores of it trapped in the earth’s crust that have yet to surface.
It doesn’t take a prophet to see that the CO2 in our atmosphere is, and will continue, to cause global temps to rise. It’s more than likely wishful thinking to believe it’s just a coincidence that that rise coincides with the burning of fossil fuels by us.