PDA

View Full Version : How much Co2 in Atmosphere???



RodSBT
12-07-2009, 11:21 AM
After adding to the drift on a thread in another forum I thought it best to bring it (i.e. man caused global warming) over here.

Some here at WB question my numbers with regard to the total atmospheric Co2 content.

So enlighten me please.

Show me what the real number is? I am more than willing to change my tune if anyone can prove me wrong.

Here is another source, a former NASA climatologist that shows a very low percentage as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/)or-manmade/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/)

"It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earthís atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankindís CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40."

I would also like someone to provide any data that can accurately prove real temps. anywhere on the planet before 1800. Data showing ranges of + or - 5, 10, 15 degrees not accepted considering the man-caused global warming claim even a 1 or 2 degree average increase will send us over the edge.

LeeG
12-07-2009, 11:26 AM
Besides, if there was an increase in C02 we'd see a pile of cannisters somewhere.

RodSBT
12-07-2009, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the post Norman.

"the idea that small changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations might be producing large changes in temperature..." N.B.

You bring up an important point with this quote. It's an idea, not fact. It's a theory. The problem is organizations like NASA can't even get their basic numbers straight:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/?page=2

So how can I expect to trust them in this theory when I can't even trust the basic temp. readings they come up with.

"...NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999...."


This is simple math not rocket science. (maybe NASA should stick to rockets :D )



And this :


"The institute blamed a "minor data processing error" for the changes but says it doesn't make much difference since the top three years remain in a "statistical tie" either way."


Great, but compared to what? Accurate instrument temp. readings only go back to 1850 and it appears NASA can't even read the thermometers they have! :mad:



"NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.
On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade." More confusion.

We have "climategate" with a bunch of people over at East Anglia running around like eighth graders who just got caught cheating on their mid year exams and world leaders jetting over to Denmark with absolutely no regard for how much Co2 they create but expect me to give up my car and walk three miles to town for food and then eat my cold food in the dark, not to mention wiping my a$$ with the left over food wrapper.

That being said, what have any of you here on WB actually done in any practical terms to stop "global warming"? Have you stopped driving your car? Put up solar to power your house? Quit drinking your stop and go Latte's? How about quit using your boat or stop building them because nearly everything about our common passion is directly related to expelling Co2 into the atmosphere. I'd bet a $20 bill (for what thats worth!) there is less then 5 % of the WB forum members who "need" their boats for moving forward in life.

Wood is the theme but we build them with oil, haul them with oil, drive them with oil, make them out of oil. All the tools we use are made with, delivered by, run on.... oil. etc. etc. etc.

Dan McCosh
12-07-2009, 03:36 PM
At present, it averages 387 ppm (parts per million) by volume. 10,000 ppm is the point at which people become nauseated and sleepy.

The issue of atmospheric CO2 with respect to global warming has to do with it's opacity to infrared and near infrared, so it's not an issue of the fact that it's only 0.0387% of the atmosphere... it's related to just how much infrared and near infrared cannot impinge on the earth due to blockage, and/or how much infrared or near infrared cannot escape into space due to blockage. The debate has to do with sensitivity, i.e., the idea that small changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations might be producing large changes in temperature... so the apparent 'scarcity' of CO2 might not be proportionally related, or representative, to the amount of global warming we may or may not be experiencing, or might experience in the future.

Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with opacity. They convert infrared radiation to kinetic energy, while the bulk of atmospheric gases do not.

huisjen
12-07-2009, 03:45 PM
And in order to convert the IR they intercept it. By intercepting it, they don't let it through. Since not so much of it can get through, we term the atmosphere as being more opaque to IR. Therefore McCosh may want to rethink his statement. :rolleyes:

Dan

Kaa
12-07-2009, 03:47 PM
You're being lobbied. We are ALL being lobbied. The lobbyists don't have much of an interest in fact or truth... unless it's selective enough to distort the fact and truth.

Yep. :-) Though that might be an inconvenient truth for someone like Al Gore :D

Kaa

Dan McCosh
12-07-2009, 04:03 PM
And in order to convert the IR they intercept it. By intercepting it, they don't let it through. Since not so much of it can get through, we term the atmosphere as being more opaque to IR. Therefore McCosh may want to rethink his statement. :rolleyes:

Dan

If greenhouse gases were simply opaque, they would not heat up the atmosphere. In fact, they would cool it down, along with the earth itself.

Kaa
12-07-2009, 04:10 PM
If greenhouse gases were simply opaque, they would not heat up the atmosphere. In fact, they would cool it down, along with the earth itself.

Except for the fact that a lot of energy passes the atmosphere as visible light, gets absorbed by Earth's surface, and then gets re-emitted in different bands, notably infrared -- that is exactly how the greenhouse effect works.

Kaa

Dan McCosh
12-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Except for the fact that a lot of energy passes the atmosphere as visible light, gets absorbed by Earth's surface, and then gets re-emitted in different bands, notably infrared -- that is exactly how the greenhouse effect works.

Kaa

Roughly half the light energy reaching the earth is infrared. A gas in the atmosphere simply opaque to infrared would reduce the amount of infrared reaching the earth, which would cool it down, regardless of how the visible spectrum behaves.

Uncle Duke
12-07-2009, 04:37 PM
Rob (et alia):
There is a nice write-up in Scientific American which includes a section (the first one, actually) about the CO2 issue. Part of it notes this:

Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.

Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.
If you are dead-set against global warming being "real", you won't like the title, but there is good information there regardless.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Kaa
12-07-2009, 04:47 PM
Roughly half the light energy reaching the earth is infrared. A gas in the atmosphere simply opaque to infrared would reduce the amount of infrared reaching the earth, which would cool it down, regardless of how the visible spectrum behaves.

Well, why don't you try a simple experiment. Ordinary glass is transparent to visible spectrum but opaque to infrared. You seem to be saying that the inside of a glass greenhouse should be colder than that outside on a sunny day. Does that work like that?

Kaa

Dan McCosh
12-07-2009, 05:11 PM
Well, why don't you try a simple experiment. Ordinary glass is transparent to visible spectrum but opaque to infrared. You seem to be saying that the inside of a glass greenhouse should be colder than that outside on a sunny day. Does that work like that?

Kaa


It doesn't and I'm not. Are you saying a glass greenhouse transparent to infrared would be cooler than one that is opaque to infrared? (Note that lots of glass manufacturers make a lot of money on this one.)