**Ok.**

**I have a non religious non wacko objection to Anthropomorphic Global Warming.**

This does not
mean I do not care about the environment

and it does not
mean I think Green energy and waste management are not key issues facing us
today.

It means

**I do not believe the global warming process can be slowed down or altered based on the magnitude of numbers involved**.
Follow me please
and save your questions to the end.

I will link
several sources for each point.

**First the Mass of the atmosphere of the planet Earth on which we reside.**

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth**

**http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/LouiseLiu.shtml**

**http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/plane.../factsheet/earthfact.html**

around

**5.97 x 10^24 kg**Large number. let that sink in.
Next is the
composition of the atmosphere...again contained in the same links.

If you have
different information then please link it.

**78% N2**

**20.9% O2**

**.93% Ar**

**.039% CO2**

These are the
Major Gases in the

**ATMOSPHERE**and the percentage by volume.
Now the atomic
weights can be found from the periodic Table.

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table**(do I need an additional source for the periodic table?)

here.

**http://www.webelements.com/****N2 = 14.007x2 g/mole = 28.014**

**O2 = 15.999x2 g/mole = 31.998**

**AR = 39.948x1 g/mole = 39.948**

**CO2= 12.011x1+31.998 g/mole = 44.009**

Follow me here. I
submit that the proportion of gas by mass is equivalent to the proportion of
gas by volume because the masses are similar.

this is a little
rough but according to the NASA link above the mean molecular weight is

**29.87 g/mole**that would make the assumed g/mole of
CO2 off by 34%
from its actual mass.

I do this because
it is hard to get the percentages by weight and I am short on time.

For arguments
sake I think it's fair to say that the mass

of CO2 is

**.039%*(5.97x10^24)Kg +/- 50%**(to cover my sloppy math)**2.3283 x 10^23 kg +/- 50% (1.16415 x 10^23 to 3.49245 x 10^23)**

Ok. we have the
first number. Mass of the CO2 in the atmosphere. with a wide margin of error but
I know the number is somewhere in that

range.

Next we will Look
at Mass of CO2 produced annually by Humanity.

**http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html**

is the EPA ok?

I can link
others...I don't want to link an anti global warming site as that is not the
point.

is

**6,000 million metric tonnes an ok estimate?**
it is an
emotionally large number.

that's

**6X10^12 kg**annually.....at the highest.
Ok. that's a huge
number. astounding really.

**http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.U6trU_ldXz5**

this site
contradicts my argument and gives a larger number.

it only compares
it to the amount absorbed and emitted by natural sources not the atmospheric
volume.

**26.4 Gigatonnes**or

**2.64*10^13 kg**Annually.

still with me?

take the amount
produced and divide it by the amount present(i will lowball this so that things
are skewed against me).

multiply by 100
to get the

**percentage increase in CO2 due to Humanity annually.****(2.64 x 10^13)/(1.16415 x 10^23) * 100 =**

**2.2677490014173431258858394536786 x 10^-8**percent increase in CO2 annually.

Taking into
consideration the way global warming works is energy reradiated by the earth
after absorption by the sun is absorbed by gas

molecules in the
atmosphere. there is a linear relationship between mass increase and number of
particles increase which is again linearly

related to the
energy capable of being absorbed. this is an idea in nuclear physics too.

Now let's link to
a page on how greenhouse gasses work.

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas**

Specifically
let's look at how much of the energy absorption of the atmosphere is due to CO2

**C02**used to contribute only

**9%**with

**H20**having a

**76%+**but i'll go with

**30%.**

so if we
contribute an additional 2

**.2 x 10^-8**percent of the mass we increase the energy absorbed by the atmosphere by 30% of that in the
worst case....or

**6.8032470042520293776575183610358 x 10^-9**percent.
ok so there are
the numbers.

If the percentage
of volume produced where not so pathetically small I would assume error. But
what kind of model of gas behavior can

close that gap?

I'd love to see
it. It is definitely needed because the gap exists.

Now I'm sure I'll
get abuse. But this is an evidence based analytical look at the data being
provided by the people that are telling me I am the cause of Global warming.

I am but in
amounts so small to be undetectable...it's an accident that the industrial
revolution corresponded with a warming trend....perhaps

better crop
yields resulted in more wealth and leisure for invention?

I digress. save
the insults and discuss the implications or the fallacies.

We need to save
the planet but that may involve preparing for climate change...not trying to
prevent it in vain.

thanks for
listening.

Logic.

Atmosphere of
Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

The atmosphere of
Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is... See More

I'm OK with the large margins on the math since we are only trying to prove a point. This is called a 'back of the envelope' estimate. But, your numbers go beyond 'back of the envelope."

The first number I have trouble with is the amount of man made CO2 emissions. You use 6,000 million tons per year (6 gigatons per year). That number represents U.S. emissions only, according to your own source. Worldwide emissions are well over 30 gigatons annually (also from the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html). I have even recently seen 40 gigatons as the amount, but lets go with the lower number.

You are way off on the mass of the atmosphere. Your second cited reference states the mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10^18 kgs, not 10^24. That's a factor of a million difference. When I multiply the area of the planet by atmospheric pressure I get about 5 x 10^18 kg (after converting from newtons to kilograms). That would be 5 million gigatons. So, let's go with that number.

I have not done the calculations myself, but Wikipedia gives about 3000 gigatons as the mass of atmospheric CO2. Using these numbers we get CO2 is about .06% of the atmosphere. Wikipedia lists it as .04%, so we are in the ball park.

Now, as we saw, humans produce in excess of 30 gigatons of CO2 per year, that would be a 1% increase in CO2 level per year. Fortunately, about one-half of what we emit is absorbed by nature. That would be an increase of around .5%. Measured CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of about 2 parts per million per year. The current density is about 400 ppm, so that means we again find we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at a rate of about .5% per year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)

The measurements taken in the late 1950s showed atmospheric CO2 levels to be at 315 ppm. Today, they exceed 400 ppm. That gives us an increase of about 27% over 55 years, or about .5% per year. Again, we get about the same number.

Your line of reasoning was OK and, based on your numbers, your objection was reasonable. But, your numbers were incorrect. When we use more accurate numbers we consistently get an annual increase of CO2 levels of about .5%.

If we had a linear relationship, then we could say the 30% of warming due to CO2 has increased by 27% over 55 years. It either started out as about 24% of the warming, or has increased to 38%. That all depends on when the 30% figure is good for.

But, it isn't linear because when CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere it causes other things to change. In particular, increasing the temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the air and water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. That shows why CO2 is the driver, even though the majority of warming is attributed to other gases.

I believe I have shown that this is not a proof that manmade global warming is not real.

**Response**I'm OK with the large margins on the math since we are only trying to prove a point. This is called a 'back of the envelope' estimate. But, your numbers go beyond 'back of the envelope."

The first number I have trouble with is the amount of man made CO2 emissions. You use 6,000 million tons per year (6 gigatons per year). That number represents U.S. emissions only, according to your own source. Worldwide emissions are well over 30 gigatons annually (also from the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html). I have even recently seen 40 gigatons as the amount, but lets go with the lower number.

You are way off on the mass of the atmosphere. Your second cited reference states the mass of the atmosphere is about 5 x 10^18 kgs, not 10^24. That's a factor of a million difference. When I multiply the area of the planet by atmospheric pressure I get about 5 x 10^18 kg (after converting from newtons to kilograms). That would be 5 million gigatons. So, let's go with that number.

I have not done the calculations myself, but Wikipedia gives about 3000 gigatons as the mass of atmospheric CO2. Using these numbers we get CO2 is about .06% of the atmosphere. Wikipedia lists it as .04%, so we are in the ball park.

Now, as we saw, humans produce in excess of 30 gigatons of CO2 per year, that would be a 1% increase in CO2 level per year. Fortunately, about one-half of what we emit is absorbed by nature. That would be an increase of around .5%. Measured CO2 levels are increasing at a rate of about 2 parts per million per year. The current density is about 400 ppm, so that means we again find we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at a rate of about .5% per year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)

The measurements taken in the late 1950s showed atmospheric CO2 levels to be at 315 ppm. Today, they exceed 400 ppm. That gives us an increase of about 27% over 55 years, or about .5% per year. Again, we get about the same number.

Your line of reasoning was OK and, based on your numbers, your objection was reasonable. But, your numbers were incorrect. When we use more accurate numbers we consistently get an annual increase of CO2 levels of about .5%.

If we had a linear relationship, then we could say the 30% of warming due to CO2 has increased by 27% over 55 years. It either started out as about 24% of the warming, or has increased to 38%. That all depends on when the 30% figure is good for.

But, it isn't linear because when CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere it causes other things to change. In particular, increasing the temperature increases the amount of water vapor in the air and water vapor is a more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. That shows why CO2 is the driver, even though the majority of warming is attributed to other gases.

I believe I have shown that this is not a proof that manmade global warming is not real.

I believe everything published made a lot of sense.

ReplyDeleteBut, think on this, suppose you composed a catchier post title?

I am not suggesting your content isn't solid., but what if you added something that grabbed people's attention? I mean "$10,000 Challenge Submission - Composition of the Atmosphere" is kinda vanilla.

You could peek at Yahoo's front page and note how they create news titles to get viewers to click.

You might add a related video or a pic or two to grab people excited about

everything've written. In my opinion, it would make your blog a little bit more interesting.

Here is my site; Louis Vuitton Discount