Why Doesn't Air Get Sucked into Space?

[jamesabc]

pressure is high at low altitudes but pressure decreases at higher altitudes. so why doesn't air get sucked into space which is a vacuum? the pressure difference should cause air to flow into space. or am i missing some simple explanation.

 

[hamster143]

Same reason oceans don't get sucked into the air (even though pressure rises as you go down): gravity.

 

[jamesabc]

Same reason oceans don't get sucked into the air (even though pressure rises as you go down): gravity.

i understand for water, but for air where gravity is weaker the further you are away. i guess there is no air flow into space because the pressure difference will be getting smaller and smaller as you get higher. but is that to say no air will be expelled into space? like how water evaporates into the air. dono if this is the same thing but gives you the idea.

 

[Pengwuino]

Think of it this way, if air were to get ejected further out into space, where would it wind back up again soon after?

 

[Dadface]

Fire something up and gravity pulls it back down,fire it faster and it goes higher and still comes back down but,throw it at a speed equal to or greater than the "escape velocity", then it can keep going and not return.The escape velocity of Earth is about eleven thousand km/s and atmospheric temperatures are such that the vast majority of atmospheric molecules do not reach velocities anywhere close to the escape velocity.In short, gravity holds the atmosphere down.

 

[Dale]

i understand for water, but for air where gravity is weaker the further you are away.

There is no big difference in the strength of gravity at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level. The atmosphere is a really thin film of gas.

 

[ernestpworrel]

i understand for water, but for air where gravity is weaker the further you are away. i guess there is no air flow into space because the pressure difference will be getting smaller and smaller as you get higher. but is that to say no air will be expelled into space? like how water evaporates into the air. dono if this is the same thing but gives you the idea.

I just wanted to point out that you seem to have the wrong idea about air pressure. Air pressure is caused by the space between the molecules. The difference in air pressure with increasing altitude is due to the molecules being farther apart. For example a certain volume of air at the top of Mount Vernon has fewer molecules than the same volume of air at sea level even though the chemical makeup of both volumes of air is the same. But the fact that air pressure decreases with increasing altitude is not the reason that air does not escape into space. The reason is, as so many have stated, gravity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Think of it this way, if air were to get ejected further out into space, where would it wind back up again soon after?

Wihle this is not a direct answer to your question, I do think it really warrants some careful thought because it will give a very satisfactory understanding of what happens.


Remember, gravity always pulls downward. If there were air molecules floating around between the Earth and the Moon (yet not at orbital speed), they would quite simply fall Earthward until they encountered enough bouyancy to keep them aloft.

 

[ernestpworrel]

Think of it this way, if air were to get ejected further out into space, where would it wind back up again soon after?

Well I certainly find this to be an ambiguous statement.

 

[ernestpworrel]

Question for Dave: Why do you feel the need to remind us that gravity pulls downward? And make it clear that you mean towards the center of the Earth as downward is ambiguous.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well I certainly find this to be an ambiguous statement.

It is not a statement at all; it is an interrogative.

The OP's question was most definitely ambiguous. Not that it was his/her fault at all...

It's just that the list of assumptions is large. Ask a dozen people the question without first stating 'all other factors being the same' and you'll get a dozen assumed scenarios - the most obvious of which is 'a bicycle would not get any traction on moondust, so it will fall over before it even gets moving. This is a percfectly valid assumption - given the ambiguity of the OP's stated scenario, but it probably* doesn't get at what the OP wanted to know.
* a guess. i.e. an assumption.

 

[DaveC426913]

Question for Dave: Why do you feel the need to remind us that gravity pulls downward?

What is this "us" thing? I am reminding the OP - the one asking the questions about why air doesn't fly upwards.

And make it clear that you mean towards the center of the earth.

Did you not know that? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

 

[ernestpworrel]

Alright, Dave. Why do you think the OP should think carefully about the direction in which gravity always pulls?

 

[ernestpworrel]

Same reason oceans don't get sucked into the air (even though pressure rises as you go down): gravity.

This isn't really a clear answer either.

 

[DaveC426913]

Alright, Dave. Why do you think the OP should think carefully about the direction in which gravity always pulls?

Because the OP clearly seems to think that there is some cause for the air to go flying upwards - and contuinue to fly upwards. Once it loses its initial velocity, there is only one force acting on it, and that force is, of course, downward.

The OP knows this, he just hasn't realized that it is the most important factor.


(We are, hopefully, all agreeing to ignore solar winds and such, which will simply complicate the answer without illuminating it.)

 

[qraal]

I just wanted to point out that you seem to have the wrong idea about air pressure. Air pressure is caused by the space between the molecules.

Well, no. The ideal gas equation tells us:

PV = nRT

thus pressure and volume vary with the number of moles of gas components and the temperature of the gas. "Space between the molecules" doesn't cause the pressure, though it does have a relationship with it. Decrease the volume and you increase the pressure of a given number of moles at a given temperature.

But change the temperature and the volume a gas occupies increases, so its density decreases. A gas can have the same pressure at a lower density by getting hotter.

The difference in air pressure with increasing altitude is due to the molecules being farther apart. For example a certain volume of air at the top of Mount Vernon has fewer molecules than the same volume of air at sea level even though the chemical makeup of both volumes of air is the same. But the fact that air pressure decreases with increasing altitude is not the reason that air does not escape into space. The reason is, as so many have stated, gravity.

Surface pressure is due to the weight of the air on top of a given area. At Earth's sea-level surface , on average, some 10.33 tons of air is weighing down on every square metre. In fact the pressure at every altitude in the atmosphere is principally caused by the weight of the air above it. Air gets compressed by that weight, so it gets denser the closer we get to the ground. So you're right about the molecules being closer together, but the pressure is from the weight of the air itself.

But why doesn't it escape? Any mass of gas at a given temperature has a certain amount of energy per unit mass. Temperature is actually a measure of the average energy of the particles of air. At the very top of the atmosphere, where molecules no longer collide with other molecules if they go straight up, then particles with sufficient energy can escape. There's usually a small probability that a fraction of particles will have enough energy to escape, but it's a very low probability. Only hydrogen atoms typically escape in any number because they're the lightest particles and require the least escape energy. This region of the atmosphere is called the exosphere and it is very, very tenuous. The number of particles at the top, in a given volume, is similar to the solar wind.

 

[rcgldr]

From wiki:

Due to thermal energy, some of the molecules at the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere have their velocity increased to the point where they can escape from the planet's gravity. This results in a slow but steady leakage of the atmosphere into space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Upper_atmosphere

I don't know how much is gained from capture of solar winds.

 

[Dadface]

Well, no. The ideal gas equation tells us:

PV = nRT

thus pressure and volume vary with the number of moles of gas components and the temperature of the gas. "Space between the molecules" doesn't cause the pressure, though it does have a relationship with it. Decrease the volume and you increase the pressure of a given number of moles at a given temperature.

But change the temperature and the volume a gas occupies increases, so its density decreases. A gas can have the same pressure at a lower density by getting hotter.



Surface pressure is due to the weight of the air on top of a given area. At Earth's sea-level surface , on average, some 10.33 tons of air is weighing down on every square metre. In fact the pressure at every altitude in the atmosphere is principally caused by the weight of the air above it. Air gets compressed by that weight, so it gets denser the closer we get to the ground. So you're right about the molecules being closer together, but the pressure is from the weight of the air itself.

But why doesn't it escape? Any mass of gas at a given temperature has a certain amount of energy per unit mass. Temperature is actually a measure of the average energy of the particles of air. At the very top of the atmosphere, where molecules no longer collide with other molecules if they go straight up, then particles with sufficient energy can escape. There's usually a small probability that a fraction of particles will have enough energy to escape, but it's a very low probability. Only hydrogen atoms typically escape in any number because they're the lightest particles and require the least escape energy. This region of the atmosphere is called the exosphere and it is very, very tenuous. The number of particles at the top, in a given volume, is similar to the solar wind.

Because of its greater mass the escape of helium is much smaller than that of hydrogen but nevertheless is enough to keep the helium content of the atmosphere in reasonable balance,helium constantly being pumped in by the decay of radon gas.

 

[qraal]

Because of its greater mass the escape of helium is much smaller than that of hydrogen but nevertheless is enough to keep the helium content of the atmosphere in reasonable balance,helium constantly being pumped in by the decay of radon gas.

Radiogenic helium escapes largely via the Polar Wind, which is due to ion pick-up by the Solar Wind around the magnetic poles. Heavier atoms can escape with the Polar Wind that wouldn't otherwise escape, like nitrogen and oxygen. But only a small amount presently does so - mere kilograms per second. As there's thousands of quadrillions of kilograms of atmosphere that means the atmosphere will last for many aeons yet.

The amount of hydrogen and helium that escape via thermal processes is presently negligible. Not because they can't escape, but because the stratosphere is very dry and so the hydrogen levels available for escape are very low. If the stratosphere became wetter - meaning the troposphere was much hotter - then hydrogen could escape en masse via what's called hydrodynamic outflow. That's how Venus's ocean is believed to have flowed away into space.

Radon decay is one source of radiogenic helium, though radon itself is produced by uranium decay, of course.

 

[Dadface]

Radiogenic helium escapes largely via the Polar Wind, which is due to ion pick-up by the Solar Wind around the magnetic poles. Heavier atoms can escape with the Polar Wind that wouldn't otherwise escape, like nitrogen and oxygen. But only a small amount presently does so - mere kilograms per second. As there's thousands of quadrillions of kilograms of atmosphere that means the atmosphere will last for many aeons yet.

The amount of hydrogen and helium that escape via thermal processes is presently negligible. Not because they can't escape, but because the stratosphere is very dry and so the hydrogen levels available for escape are very low. If the stratosphere became wetter - meaning the troposphere was much hotter - then hydrogen could escape en masse via what's called hydrodynamic outflow. That's how Venus's ocean is believed to have flowed away into space.

Radon decay is one source of radiogenic helium, though radon itself is produced by uranium decay, of course.

Thanks graal.Is it true that lighter atoms such as hydrogen and helium tend to migrate to the upper regions of the atmosphere and therefore become more likely to be carried away by the solar wind?

 

[D H]

Thanks graal.Is it true that lighter atoms such as hydrogen and helium tend to migrate to the upper regions of the atmosphere and therefore become more likely to be carried away by the solar wind?

In a sense, yes. The lowest three layers of the Earth's atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere, and mesophere) are of pretty much uniform composition, particular so with long-lived chemical species. (Aside: Short-lived species such as ozone and pollutants tend to be concentrated near their points of origin.) These three lower layers collectively form the homosphere, where turbulent mixing is the dominant atmospheric process. The upper layers of the atmosphere collectively form the heterosphere, where molecular diffusion is the dominant process. The relative concentration of lighter species grows with altitude in the upper atmosphere.

 

[qraal]

In a sense, yes. The lowest three layers of the Earth's atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere, and mesophere) are of pretty much uniform composition, particular so with long-lived chemical species. (Aside: Short-lived species such as ozone and pollutants tend to be concentrated near their points of origin.) These three lower layers collectively form the homosphere, where turbulent mixing is the dominant atmospheric process. The upper layers of the atmosphere collectively form the heterosphere, where molecular diffusion is the dominant process. The relative concentration of lighter species grows with altitude in the upper atmosphere.

The lightest atoms and ions of course are the ones that dominate in the exosphere, from which they can escape, albeit as a rather thin trickle.

 

[Lsos]

pressure is high at low altitudes but pressure decreases at higher altitudes. so why doesn't air get sucked into space which is a vacuum? the pressure difference should cause air to flow into space. or am i missing some simple explanation.

The simple answer is gravity. The stronger the planet's gravity, the more it will pull anything from space towards it. Rocks, spaceships, mountains...and certainly air. Yeah, if there's too much atmosphere and not enough gravity, then probably the top layers WILL escape into space. Which is probably what happened, and which is why we have the atmosphere we do, and not more.

Please note this is a very simplified view of this. In reality the reasons why planets have the atmospheres that they do are probably much more complex.

 

[Borek]

The escape velocity of Earth is about eleven thousand km/s

For the record: either about 11 km/s or about 11 thousand m/s

 

[Dadface]

For the record: either about 11 km/s or about 11 thousand m/s

Thanks for pointing that out Borek.I can be so dopey at times(most times)

 

[Molydood]

Yeah, if there's too much atmosphere and not enough gravity, then probably the top layers WILL escape into space. Which is probably what happened, and which is why we have the atmosphere we do, and not more.

Surely not, where is this excess atmosphere heading and for what reason?

 

[Lsos]

Into space...because maybe there's not enough gravity to hold the atmosphere? The sun heats up the gas, probably to beyond escape velocity in some instance, and the gas escapes...

I'm not sure about the exact mechanism, but I see either very thin or no atmosphere around small planets, and I never heard of an asteroid with an atmosphere. This leads me to believe a planet can only hold so much gas around it. Up to a certain point I'm sure, where the atmosphere itself will make its own gravity.

And as per my disclaimer, I'm open to correction, and I'm not certain if Earth itself is large enough to hold as big an atmosphere as we throw at it. I imagine there's a limit...

 

[Molydood]

Is it a question of sufficient gravity to hold it or is it a question of insufficient external forces to take it away...

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, now that we've addressed why the atmo doesn't disappear into space, we can add in the wrinkle: it does - a little.

Some of the atmo is constantly escaping and going into solar orbit. In part, this happens due to solor winds and magnetic fields.

 

[qraal]

Is it a question of sufficient gravity to hold it or is it a question of insufficient external forces to take it away...

Gravity is what makes an atmosphere by keeping gases confined against their own tendency to expand to fill a void. Thus the struggle is internal to the gas itself. Warm gases are moving around at great speed and oppose any confinement by exerting pressure.

At the very wispy fringes of an atmosphere the hold of gravity is overcome for a few atoms by the energy supplied by the solar wind. But don't make the mistake of thinking the solar wind is some atmosphere-stripping almighty force - it was once much stronger, a thousand times or so. Back then it could strip atmospheres, as no doubt it can around other stars with stronger solar-winds. Now it is much, much weaker.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it a question of sufficient gravity to hold it or is it a question of insufficient external forces to take it away...

If the primary mode is molecules reaching escape velocity, there need not be any external forces to take it away.

 

[qraal]

Into space...because maybe there's not enough gravity to hold the atmosphere? The sun heats up the gas, probably to beyond escape velocity in some instance, and the gas escapes...

I'm not sure about the exact mechanism, but I see either very thin or no atmosphere around small planets, and I never heard of an asteroid with an atmosphere. This leads me to believe a planet can only hold so much gas around it. Up to a certain point I'm sure, where the atmosphere itself will make its own gravity.

And as per my disclaimer, I'm open to correction, and I'm not certain if Earth itself is large enough to hold as big an atmosphere as we throw at it. I imagine there's a limit...

There several limits, though they require some interesting circumstances. One limit is when the atmosphere is no longer of negligible mass and it causes a planet to capture more gases - that's about 10 Earth masses. The cores of the gas giants hit that size, then began "sucking up" the surrounding nebula gas with their gravity. Jupiter was most successful at this, but the nebula gas was eventually blown away by the young Sun's solar-wind.

Another limit is when the atmosphere of a body overflows the gravitational boundaries between it and a larger mass that it's orbitting. A small Moon-like object compresses an atmosphere only very slightly and if the atmosphere is too heavy it extends out to several times the size of the body, eventually coming under the control of the larger planet that the moon is orbitting. But such a small object is unlikely to retain such an atmosphere for very long. Instead back when the ice moons of the gas giants were newly formed they would have had large, dense and hot atmospheres that would have extended out to their gravitational boundaries. What atmosphere cooled before it escaped was retained by the moon - mostly water vapour that condensed as very temporary oceans before they froze over.

But not all the moons formed quick enough to ever get so hot. Callisto formed so gradually that the ice/rock mix it is composed of never separated out. Instead Callisto's interior is frozen water-logged mud. Ganymede formed hotter and separated out into a core, mantle and crust. Likewise Europa and Io, though both are much drier than their outer cousins.

 

[DaveC426913]

Another limit is when the atmosphere of a body overflows the gravitational boundaries between it and a larger mass that it's orbitting. A small Moon-like object compresses an atmosphere only very slightly and if the atmosphere is too heavy it extends out to several times the size of the body, eventually coming under the control of the larger planet that the moon is orbitting.

And the other way around, too.

Apparently, during Pluto's summer, its atmo expands enough that some of its extremely tenuous atmo is swapped with its moon Charon.

 

[qraal]

And the other way around, too.

Apparently, during Pluto's summer, its atmo expands enough that some of its extremely tenuous atmo is swapped with its moon Charon.

Possible, though no gas stays for long on Charon. It's spectrum is consistent with age darkened water ice and seems free of methane or nitrogen, both of which feature prominently on Pluto. So there's a good example of what mass is needed for retention of a minimal atmosphere (N2/CH4 in equilibrium with their solid phase) after 4.5 Gyr. Charon apparently has lost all its open-to-the-sky volatile ices, probably via them merely subliming away and being blown off by the solar-wind. Other large TNOs like Eris show signs of freshly resublimated methane ice, then below a certain radius there's only cosmic-ray darkened methane ice - in otherwords no atmosphere sticks around long enough to resolidify as fresh ice.

 

[Kmenex]

So the force of gravity is large enough that it keeps the gas molecules from filling the void...

I have heard that space is an almost perfect vacuum, with some very small pico torr pressures. I know that down here on earth, gas filling a vacuum can be a violent affair.

If i have a dual chamber down here on Earth where one chamber is a vacuum and the other is filled with a gas, if i open a gateway between the two chambers the gas will very quickly move to fill the vacuum. However, can i affect the "speed" at which it fills to vacuum by cooling the gas, logically it seems so. This happens even if i arrange the apparatus so that the vacuum chamber is above the gas and it's all inline with the direction of gravity.

So, why does the gas quickly fill the vacuum down here at earth? why does the gas not stay in the bottom chamber due to gravity? Does it have anything to do with the volume of the evacuated chamber?

If i increase the volume of the evacuated chamber by a very large amount will the gas reach a "volume of equilibrium" whereby the volume of the gas does not change much?

 

[qraal]

So the force of gravity is large enough that it keeps the gas molecules from filling the void...

I have heard that space is an almost perfect vacuum, with some very small pico torr pressures. I know that down here on earth, gas filling a vacuum can be a violent affair.

Because the gas is under pressure at sea level conditions. Think about it... 10 tons of force on every square metre of area. 100 kiloNewtons per square metre. Violent.

If i have a dual chamber down here on Earth where one chamber is a vacuum and the other is filled with a gas, if i open a gateway between the two chambers the gas will very quickly move to fill the vacuum. However, can i affect the "speed" at which it fills to vacuum by cooling the gas, logically it seems so.

How cool do you want to go? The energy of individual gas molecules decreases linearly with temperature, but their speed with the square root of the energy. Low mass molecules - even nitrogen and oxygen are in that class - have high speeds at STP. Dropping from 298 K to just 29.8 K only decreases the average molecular speed to "merely" 163 m/s in the case of N₂... or it does if it doesn't freeze. Hydrogen is still moving at 600 m/s and helium is doing 430 m/s.

Problem with going really cold is that intermolecular forces begin to dominate and the molecules become "sticky" with each other, forming liquids or ices.

This happens even if i arrange the apparatus so that the vacuum chamber is above the gas and it's all inline with the direction of gravity.

So, why does the gas quickly fill the vacuum down here at earth? why does the gas not stay in the bottom chamber due to gravity? Does it have anything to do with the volume of the evacuated chamber?

How high do you want the chamber? Consider N₂ again. At 29.8 K its molecules are doing 163 m/s. How many metres of fall at 1 gee (9.80665 m/s²) is that equal to? Easy computation g.h = 1/2.v² ...which means the required h is 1,355 metres. This is known as the scale height, and because the temperature is a measure of average energy, that means a gas thins out 1/e for each scale height the gas rises against gravity, at constant temperature.

However there is a complication. If a gas suddenly goes from one small volume to a larger one, then it undergoes what's called adiabatic cooling
because it expends internal energy by expanding. This cooling can be quite significant and can even cause a gas to change phase.

If i increase the volume of the evacuated chamber by a very large amount will the gas reach a "volume of equilibrium" whereby the volume of the gas does not change much?

If you expand the volume quickly and the amount of gas remains constant, then it will get colder and colder. But it will still move to try to fill the volume - so long as it doesn't freeze.

 

[hasnain721]

Fire something up and gravity pulls it back down,fire it faster and it goes higher and still comes back down but,throw it at a speed equal to or greater than the "escape velocity", then it can keep going and not return.The escape velocity of Earth is about eleven thousand km/s and atmospheric temperatures are such that the vast majority of atmospheric molecules do not reach velocities anywhere close to the escape velocity.In short, gravity holds the atmosphere down.

You mean eleven km/s ?

[edit] ah been pointed out already!

 

[Rhine720]

Earth's Gravity Is pulling even past the moon. The air would have to be "sucked" pretty far.

 

[Kmenex]

Because the gas is under pressure at sea level conditions. Think about it... 10 tons of force on every square metre of area. 100 kiloNewtons per square metre. Violent.

If i have a dual chamber down here on Earth where one chamber is a vacuum and the other is filled with a gas, if i open a gateway between the two chambers the gas will very quickly move to fill the vacuum. However, can i affect the "speed" at which it fills to vacuum by cooling the gas, logically it seems so.

How cool do you want to go? The energy of individual gas molecules decreases linearly with temperature, but their speed with the square root of the energy. Low mass molecules - even nitrogen and oxygen are in that class - have high speeds at STP. Dropping from 298 K to just 29.8 K only decreases the average molecular speed to "merely" 163 m/s in the case of N₂... or it does if it doesn't freeze. Hydrogen is still moving at 600 m/s and helium is doing 430 m/s.

Problem with going really cold is that intermolecular forces begin to dominate and the molecules become "sticky" with each other, forming liquids or ices.



How high do you want the chamber? Consider N₂ again. At 29.8 K its molecules are doing 163 m/s. How many metres of fall at 1 gee (9.80665 m/s²) is that equal to? Easy computation g.h = 1/2.v² ...which means the required h is 1,355 metres. This is known as the scale height, and because the temperature is a measure of average energy, that means a gas thins out 1/e for each scale height the gas rises against gravity, at constant temperature.

However there is a complication. If a gas suddenly goes from one small volume to a larger one, then it undergoes what's called adiabatic cooling
because it expends internal energy by expanding. This cooling can be quite significant and can even cause a gas to change phase.



If you expand the volume quickly and the amount of gas remains constant, then it will get colder and colder. But it will still move to try to fill the volume - so long as it doesn't freeze.

Qraal,

I just read your response and wanted to thank you for the extremely interesting response and for sharing your knowledge. After reading i was pondering the possibility of "micro phase patterns" that existed in the upper atmosphere. I mean how much gas mass is floating around the earth? and how big is the space (aka container) which the gas is expanding into? Seems like it would def be "big enough" for the phase change you were talking about... Discounting the violent display of cosmic energies.

Perhaps this could play a role in how a planet traps it's gases? I wonder about the "gravitational" attraction of a small "micro domain" of "phase" is vrs the same attraction to the same mass of element within a different phase...

 

[qraal]

Qraal,

I just read your response and wanted to thank you for the extremely interesting response and for sharing your knowledge. After reading i was pondering the possibility of "micro phase patterns" that existed in the upper atmosphere. I mean how much gas mass is floating around the earth? and how big is the space (aka container) which the gas is expanding into? Seems like it would def be "big enough" for the phase change you were talking about... Discounting the violent display of cosmic energies.

Perhaps this could play a role in how a planet traps it's gases? I wonder about the "gravitational" attraction of a small "micro domain" of "phase" is vrs the same attraction to the same mass of element within a different phase...

Hi Kmenex
What kind of phase changes did you think I was referring to exactly?

As for gas mass, there's quite a lot very close to the ground, but not so much further up. In the real atmosphere there's of course the ionosphere and its interaction with Earth's magnetic fields, the incoming solar wind and a whole bunch of other energy flows and mass sources which my idealisation doesn't capture. But such extremely rarefied gases and plasmas are a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and don't really play a role in 'capturing' the gas. Gravity is sufficient. On a smaller world then the magnetic environment plays a much more prominent role, as a potentially erosive and preservative force.

 

[Kmenex]

I thought you were referring to a change from gas to liquid or solid during the adiabatic cooling.

So we have a gravitation force that holds gas close to the earth. I was wondering if this minuscule amount of gas that makes it "high enough" undergoes a phase change, perhaps forming micro liquid droplets or ice-lets.

Also i was wondering if these "micro phase domains" might have different gravitational attraction then say, an equivalent mass of gas in the gas phase.

 

[qraal]

I thought you were referring to a change from gas to liquid or solid during the adiabatic cooling.

So we have a gravitation force that holds gas close to the earth. I was wondering if this minuscule amount of gas that makes it "high enough" undergoes a phase change, perhaps forming micro liquid droplets or ice-lets.

Some rather unexpected chemicals undergo phase changes in unexpected parts of the Earth's atmosphere - sulfuric acid being the most surprising to my mind, which forms droplets just like in the atmosphere of Venus, but not as prominently. Such condensate gets water clouds started, so it's an important phase change. Water vapour freezing out before it hits the stratosphere is the most important example because it stops hydrogen loss. But the chief atmospheric gases never get cold enough.

Also i was wondering if these "micro phase domains" might have different gravitational attraction then say, an equivalent mass of gas in the gas phase.

No. Same mass has the same attraction. Of course droplets fall when they get big enough, but that's caused by a difference in viscosity, not gravity. However non-gravitational forces can be important - ice crystals can pick up a charge and conceivably could be electromagnetically levitated in the right conditions.