# CO2 vs H2O in the Atmosphere

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Wuwei, Jan 12, 2016.

Tags:
1. Offline

### WuweiGold Member

Joined:
Apr 18, 2015
Messages:
2,506
339
Trophy Points:
140
Ratings:
+1,235
One common argument against CO2 having any effect on the climate is that it is such a small quantity - only 400 parts per million. It is small compared to the full atmosphere, but how does it compare with the largest green house gas, water.

Water in the Atmosphere, the Water Cycle, from USGS Water-Science School

If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to
a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.

If the entire atmosphere were compressed to the density of water, the level would be about 10 meters high.
The portion belonging to CO2 would be .04%, or .004 meters.
The portion of water vapor is 25 mm or .025 meters
The ratio of water vapor to CO2 is 0.25 / 0.004 = 6.25.

But since the atomic weight of CO2 is 44 and the average atomic weight of air is lower, 29, conversion of volume to weight would be:
6.25 x 29/44 = 4.1

The Molecular Greenhouse Gas Composition of the Atmosphere Taking into Account Vertical Variation
The approximate mass of all water substances in the atmosphere is 12.9×1018 grams. The amount of carbon dioxide is 3×1018 grams.
Another way to calculate the ratio of water vapor to CO2 is to use the ratio of those figures.

12.9/3.0 = 4.3.

The two different methods agree that the volume of CO2 is about a quarter of the volume of water vapor.

In this light an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a much larger effect than your “gut feel” that the concentration of CO2 is so small. The amount of water isn't that much bigger.

Bottom line: This analysis is not about GW or AGW. If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere. Please compare it to the other green house gasses.

• Thank You! x 1
• Funny x 1
2. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902
The thing is, if you're telling us that CO2 is so powerful that going from 280 to 400PPM will destroy all life on Earth you should be able to point to one lab experiment showing us what happens when you control for a rounding error increase in this trace element

• Funny x 1
3. Offline

### WuweiGold Member

Joined:
Apr 18, 2015
Messages:
2,506
339
Trophy Points:
140
Ratings:
+1,235
Bottom line: This analysis is not about GW or AGW. If you want to argue against AGW you have to use arguments other than your feeling that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere.

4. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902
My feeling is that the AGW Cult is totally full of shit and has been count with their thumbs on the scale so many fucking times they no longer cares who thinks they're dishonest

• Agree x 1
5. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902

"The thing is, if you're telling us that CO2 is so powerful that going from 280 to 400PPM will destroy all life on Earth you should be able to point to one lab experiment showing us what happens when you control for a rounding error increase in this trace element"

Where's the lab work?

6. Offline

### CrickGold Member

Joined:
May 10, 2014
Messages:
11,958
1,061
Trophy Points:
215
Location:
N/A
Ratings:
+3,988
NO ONE has ever told you that "going from 280 to 400 ppm will destroy all life on Earth". You've been shown the lab work and you choose to simply reject it all out of hand. Responding to you is a complete waste of time as you lack the intellect or the education to understand the basics of this topic. Please, Frank, go fuck off and be a complete and total asshole somewhere else.

• Winner x 1
7. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902
Crick, charts with no temperature axis are not lab work demonstrating a casual relationship between a nominal increase in an atmospheric trace element and temperature

8. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902
Magentism can generate an electric current, we can show you this in a lab.

Particles have anti-particle companions, we can show you this in a lab.

A 120ppm increase in an atmospheric trace element will radically increase temperature and alter the very climate of a planet, just take our word on that

9. Offline

### WuweiGold Member

Joined:
Apr 18, 2015
Messages:
2,506
339
Trophy Points:
140
Ratings:
+1,235
You got the first two right, but the third is wrong. 2 out of 3 is pretty good for you. Water vapor is only about 4 times more abundant. That is also a trace.

10. Offline

Joined:
May 20, 2009
Messages:
97,826
17,895
Trophy Points:
2,220
Location:
NYC
Ratings:
+61,902
I know you don't read your own posts, but if you followed the delusional ramblings of the other members of the AGWCult you'd know that the current "Warming" we're experiencing is both "unprecedented" and "catastrophic", all due to a nominal increase in a trace element, and not H2O either

Title
Replies Views
Last Message

Replies:
0
Views:
1

Replies:
1
Views:
2

Replies:
22
Views:
117

Replies:
54
Views:
388

Replies:
13
Views:
74