From: "Mark" 

I don't think I've seen much in the line of numbers without skewing one way
or the other, but I'll keep my eyes open 

"John Beckett"  wrote in message
news:ri9m231or1g51p9k266p7frmoo72ahj6lj{at}4ax.com...
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news::
>> John, I thought it was you that has continually said that none of us
>> (including you) are qualified to comment on global warming
>
> Yes  - more specifically, none of us are qualified to talk about the
> physics involved.
>
> However, I am qualified to state:
>> it is absurd to say that 3E12 tons of CO2 doesn't matter, or that a
>> 35% increase in CO2 is unimportant.
>
> I was irritated that Geo was confusing the percentage of CO2 in the
> atmosphere (0.038%), with the percentage by which CO2 has increased since
> the industrial revolution (35%).
>
>> miniscule increase in CO2 (I mean like, wow, from 200 something to 300
>> something parts per **million**)
>
> The point is that there is LOT of CO2 in the atmosphere (3E12 tons is a
> really big number). Say whatever you like about it, but don't claim that
> it is an insignificant number.
>
> My quick calculations say that there is 5.8 kg of CO2 in the atmosphere
> for every square meter on the earth's surface. The question (which none of
> us are qualified to answer) is whether 5.8kg/m^2 is enough CO2 to
> significantly capture escaping infrared radiation.
>
> BTW does anyone have some good references for real numbers, such as I am
> trying to show above. Most stuff I've seen just does a bunch of hand
> waving.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5