CO2 vs H2O in the Atmosphere

[flacaltenn]

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.

Can't argue with the numbers there -- HOWEVER. The material that is more abundant also covers MORE of the surface emission of IR and completely covers MOST of absorption opportunities of CO2.

In addition -- the general BULK of CO2 in the atmos is seen as BENIGN and natural. In that the PERCEPTION is that about 300ppm is completely natural and orderly. Just as benign as the water content.

So it's only the 5% of the carbon cycle that MAN contributes which is evil and in question here.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny how in THIS case the govt and pseudo-science can brand a trace gas as a pollutant for a mere 30 or 40% increase over it's NATURAL background level. If you look at all the "other pollutants" you usually setting limits at 300 or 400% above the background..

So in your calculations, maybe we only consider 1/4 of the weight/volume as relevant to the issue..

 

[Wuwei]

In addition -- the general BULK of CO2 in the atmos is seen as BENIGN and natural. In that the PERCEPTION is that about 300ppm is completely natural and orderly. Just as benign as the water content.

So it's only the 5% of the carbon cycle that MAN contributes which is evil and in question here.

You say that 300ppm is natural. The increase to 400ppm is 30%. You then say the evil part is 5%. Where do you get that? Are you subtracting the overlap in the two spectra of H2O and CO2? If so it seems that it is a lot more complex than that.

 

[Wuwei]

Funny how in THIS case the govt and pseudo-science can brand a trace gas as a pollutant for a mere 30 or 40% increase over it's NATURAL background level. If you look at all the "other pollutants" you usually setting limits at 300 or 400% above the background..

Well, yeah. I guess if you drown in a lake then water is also a pollutant.

So in your calculations, maybe we only consider 1/4 of the weight/volume as relevant to the issue..

Yes, that's what I would say. Since the heat of the earth leaves at the TOA where there is no water vapor, and CO2 is the main GHG it seems that a 30-40% would be a serious matter. Just how serious depends on the altitude that the absorption of IR in the CO2 spectra gets saturated. It seems that would be easy to model since the calculationally troublesome water is absent.

 

[flacaltenn]

In addition -- the general BULK of CO2 in the atmos is seen as BENIGN and natural. In that the PERCEPTION is that about 300ppm is completely natural and orderly. Just as benign as the water content.

So it's only the 5% of the carbon cycle that MAN contributes which is evil and in question here.

You say that 300ppm is natural. The increase to 400ppm is 30%. You then say the evil part is 5%. Where do you get that? Are you subtracting the overlap in the two spectra of H2O and CO2? If so it seems that it is a lot more complex than that.

Just sloppy with explanation.. The 300ppm is not really benign and natural. It's considered natural and VITAL TO LIFE on the planet. The evil part is the 100ppm above the "blissful" level. That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

(I think it's 300Gtons land, 300Gtons sea and something like 30Gtons charged to mankind (That's the 5%) in some kind of bad accounting. Termites alone account for a couple Gton)

So it's that accumulation that accounts for the evil portion. Except that it's not easy to find out EXACTLY what part of the excess is CAUSED by the warming and what parts are actually re-absorbed in the yearly carbon cycle.

Point is -- MOST of that CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life. Probably 60% OR 70%..

 

[Wuwei]

That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

I didn't realize that. The thinking seemed to be that the 120ppm increase that happened in the industrial age was all caused by "industry". If that's not the case, where does the rest of it, the 95%, come from. It seems that deforestation etc would not add to the increase by plant life.

 

[flacaltenn]

That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

I didn't realize that. The thinking seemed to be that the 120ppm increase that happened in the industrial age was all caused by "industry". If that's not the case, where does the rest of it, the 95%, come from. It seems that deforestation etc would not add to the increase by plant life.

It's decomposition of living things, waste from living things and a HUGE reservoir of CO2 held in the seas and the geology of the crust. MASSIVE amounts are constantly cycling. And the Net Exchange is thought to be close to zero. The warmers even admit that of the 5% that man emits, about 1/2 of that is taken up in excess sea/land sinking capacity.

When the planet WARMS -- the land gives more, the sea slightly less. And the land can sink MORE but the sea can sink less (generally speaking).

But anyways -- that's what's BUILDING the "excess evil 100ppm". Either contributions from man (entirely believable) or changes in the "natural" SINK/SOURCE rates.

Even THIS accounting ain't as simple as it looks. We agree there's a lot of quantifying needed most everywhere we look. But remember -- the science is settled..

 

[Wuwei]

That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

I didn't realize that. The thinking seemed to be that the 120ppm increase that happened in the industrial age was all caused by "industry". If that's not the case, where does the rest of it, the 95%, come from. It seems that deforestation etc would not add to the increase by plant life.

It's decomposition of living things, waste from living things and a HUGE reservoir of CO2 held in the seas and the geology of the crust. MASSIVE amounts are constantly cycling. And the Net Exchange is thought to be close to zero. The warmers even admit that of the 5% that man emits, about 1/2 of that is taken up in excess sea/land sinking capacity.

When the planet WARMS -- the land gives more, the sea slightly less. And the land can sink MORE but the sea can sink less (generally speaking).

But anyways -- that's what's BUILDING the "excess evil 100ppm". Either contributions from man (entirely believable) or changes in the "natural" SINK/SOURCE rates.

Even THIS accounting ain't as simple as it looks. We agree there's a lot of quantifying needed most everywhere we look. But remember -- the science is settled..

I still don't understand. According to the graph below, the increase started happening only one hundred years ago. Why the sudden acceleration in CO2 that coincides with the industrial age that leads many to assume a cause and effect.

Is this graph accepted by most? Fossil fuel records would probably give a good idea of man's input and may be what gives you the 5%, but I don't have time to look that up now.

 

[flacaltenn]

That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

I didn't realize that. The thinking seemed to be that the 120ppm increase that happened in the industrial age was all caused by "industry". If that's not the case, where does the rest of it, the 95%, come from. It seems that deforestation etc would not add to the increase by plant life.

It's decomposition of living things, waste from living things and a HUGE reservoir of CO2 held in the seas and the geology of the crust. MASSIVE amounts are constantly cycling. And the Net Exchange is thought to be close to zero. The warmers even admit that of the 5% that man emits, about 1/2 of that is taken up in excess sea/land sinking capacity.

When the planet WARMS -- the land gives more, the sea slightly less. And the land can sink MORE but the sea can sink less (generally speaking).

But anyways -- that's what's BUILDING the "excess evil 100ppm". Either contributions from man (entirely believable) or changes in the "natural" SINK/SOURCE rates.

Even THIS accounting ain't as simple as it looks. We agree there's a lot of quantifying needed most everywhere we look. But remember -- the science is settled..

I still don't understand. According to the graph below, the increase started happening only one hundred years ago. Why the sudden acceleration in CO2 that coincides with the industrial age that leads many to assume a cause and effect.

Is this graph accepted by most? Fossil fuel records would probably give a good idea of man's input and may be what gives you the 5%, but I don't have time to look that up now.

It's complicated. Couple of things. Ice core measurements of CO2 do not have adequate resolution to show CO2 variance because the gas migrates in the slices over distances equivalent to multi-centuries. But I'm not complaining about that -- just that the actual curve is NOT as flat as your graph. Plant studies routinely show a variance of at least 40 or 60 ppm coming thru this recent interglacial..

And there WAS an increase coming out of the LittleIceAge that SEEMS to drive the surface temperature. Again- not something I want to "deny". IN FACT -- my belief is that what we've seen is ENTIRELY consistent with the "raw" warming power of CO2. I just do not accept all the flippant "accelerations" and feedbacks that GW theory uses to give SUPER powers to the gas.

I can believe that say 15Gtons/yr (assuming it's not sunk in the Carbon Cycle) could have added "the majority" of that evil 100ppm. I just haven't seen an honest accounting for it. Those Gtons include domestic animals -- which replaced just as plentiful "wild animals" (not accounted for) and Land Use changes which is some cases IMPROVED on the carbon sinking ability of the land. So it's more complicated than "fossil fuel" use.

And the C12/C14 isotope methods used to "fingerprint" the old carbon associated fossil fuels in the atmos have a large overlap (uncertainty) and cannot discriminate between "old carbon" coming from a coal plant or "old carbon" that the ocean routinely burps up that has been stored down deep for millenia. And cows and land use don't deal in "old carbon" generally.

 

[waltky]

If ya add CO2 to H2O...


... do ya get CH2O3?

 

[jc456]

If ya add CO2 to H2O...


... do ya get CH2O3?

what channel is that?

 

[waltky]

I think it's the Popeye channel.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have a lot of pretty colored pictures to show CO2 is a trace green house gas in the atmosphere. Everyone already understands that. You are only proving my point that,

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. ​

None of your pictures compare CO2 with H2O. None show that H2O is also a trace gas with only four times the mass of the CO2 trace gas.

CO2 may be a trace gas but it does not have a trivial effect compared to the trace of H2O vapor.

Those graphs show why water vapor is the dominate control in our atmosphere. The fact that CO2 has not been shown to influence water vapor, as the IPCC and the EPA claim, pretty much lays your claim waste overall.

 

[Wuwei]

If ya add CO2 to H2O...

... do ya get CH2O3?

Ya get sody pop if you add flavoring.
Science fellas like to call it carbonic acid, H2CO3

 

[flacaltenn]

If ya add CO2 to H2O...


... do ya get CH2O3?

It's in your beer.. But its a very weak acid. Will break down easily..

 

[waltky]

flacaltenn wrote: It's in your beer.. But its a very weak acid. Will break down easily.

Must be why Uncle Ferd gets an acid stomach.

 

[IanC]

Convection/latent heat already takes the lion's share of surface energy to the cloudtop. 100W by the water cycle, 40W through the transparent atmospheric window not affected by GHG, 25W by other radiation.

Yes, I agree there is a surface loss to the cloud boundary.

We are talking about increased CO2 having some affect on the CO2 portion of 25W moving from the surface boundary to the cloud boundary. A small and already filled niche.

I was talking more about the radiation moving from above the cloud boundary to space. That is the region of the final heat loss and where CO2 has the larger effect because that is where it becomes the major trace GHG. Am I wrong?

Yes, I think you are wrong. We are concerned about the surface temps, and how that equilibrium is affected. As I see it, the small perturbation from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle. If our concern was above the water we would be talking more about things like ozone, etc.

 

[Wuwei]

That purportedly comes from the additional human loading of CO2 into the atmos which is only 5% of the Gtons emitted on the planet every year.

I didn't realize that. The thinking seemed to be that the 120ppm increase that happened in the industrial age was all caused by "industry". If that's not the case, where does the rest of it, the 95%, come from. It seems that deforestation etc would not add to the increase by plant life.

It's decomposition of living things, waste from living things and a HUGE reservoir of CO2 held in the seas and the geology of the crust. MASSIVE amounts are constantly cycling. And the Net Exchange is thought to be close to zero. The warmers even admit that of the 5% that man emits, about 1/2 of that is taken up in excess sea/land sinking capacity.

When the planet WARMS -- the land gives more, the sea slightly less. And the land can sink MORE but the sea can sink less (generally speaking).

But anyways -- that's what's BUILDING the "excess evil 100ppm". Either contributions from man (entirely believable) or changes in the "natural" SINK/SOURCE rates.

Even THIS accounting ain't as simple as it looks. We agree there's a lot of quantifying needed most everywhere we look. But remember -- the science is settled..

I still don't understand. According to the graph below, the increase started happening only one hundred years ago. Why the sudden acceleration in CO2 that coincides with the industrial age that leads many to assume a cause and effect.

Is this graph accepted by most? Fossil fuel records would probably give a good idea of man's input and may be what gives you the 5%, but I don't have time to look that up now.

It's complicated. Couple of things. Ice core measurements of CO2 do not have adequate resolution to show CO2 variance because the gas migrates in the slices over distances equivalent to multi-centuries. But I'm not complaining about that -- just that the actual curve is NOT as flat as your graph. Plant studies routinely show a variance of at least 40 or 60 ppm coming thru this recent interglacial..

And there WAS an increase coming out of the LittleIceAge that SEEMS to drive the surface temperature. Again- not something I want to "deny". IN FACT -- my belief is that what we've seen is ENTIRELY consistent with the "raw" warming power of CO2. I just do not accept all the flippant "accelerations" and feedbacks that GW theory uses to give SUPER powers to the gas.

I can believe that say 15Gtons/yr (assuming it's not sunk in the Carbon Cycle) could have added "the majority" of that evil 100ppm. I just haven't seen an honest accounting for it. Those Gtons include domestic animals -- which replaced just as plentiful "wild animals" (not accounted for) and Land Use changes which is some cases IMPROVED on the carbon sinking ability of the land. So it's more complicated than "fossil fuel" use.

And the C12/C14 isotope methods used to "fingerprint" the old carbon associated fossil fuels in the atmos have a large overlap (uncertainty) and cannot discriminate between "old carbon" coming from a coal plant or "old carbon" that the ocean routinely burps up that has been stored down deep for millenia. And cows and land use don't deal in "old carbon" generally.

According to AR5, anthropogenic GHG emissions of CO2 total 38 GTons in 2010.
That is compared to the 3000 GTons already in the atmosphere
That is a 1.27% increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 was about 2 ppm for 2010
The measured atmospheric CO2 was 390 ppm
That is an increase in CO2 by 0.51 %

Your figure was 15 Gtons / yr. I don't know where you got that but it would imply an increase in 0.50% in GHG for 2010. That is almost an exact match to the observed increase.

As to the sudden increase in CO2 since 1890 as shown in my graph. I agree that there could easily be a diffusion of CO2 in the ice samples, but the older samples would have more smoothing than newer samples. I can believe that 2000 years could easily get rid of spikes, but the previous couple hundred years would have much less time to diffuse. It's hard to believe that there is little diffusion the century after 1890 but a lot the century before 1890. So to me it seems that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with human release, both in the timing and quantitatively.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, I think you are wrong. We are concerned about the surface temps, and how that equilibrium is affected. As I see it, the small perturbation from CO2 is mostly shunted into the water cycle. If our concern was above the water we would be talking more about things like ozone, etc.

Yes, I agree the surface temperature is what the hoopla is about. My concern was that above the troposphere where H2O disappears, all that's left is CO2, and yes, ozone. It is there that the IR is finally released to space, except of course earth IR that escapes through the windows between spectral lines.