I'll respond later today; I'm GMT - 6, and You

Robert L Hamiltonn, Engineer

Robert Wrote;

"At 300 parts per million the CO2 weighs about 5*(10**15) pounds so the Keeling curves requires over 10**13 pounds per year addition. This amount cannot be produced by anthropogenic processes."

Total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 × 10^18 kg.

80ppm(v) for CO2 in air (Molecular Mass of CO2 about 44, mean atomic mass of air about 29) = 121ppm(m).

5.2 × 10^18 kg * 121/10^6 = 6.29200 × 10^14 kilograms = 3.5*10^13 pounds per year for forty years.

Which is produced by Anthropogenic processes.

In fact over the last decade we have produced about 6.5 Pg of C per year from fossil fuels alone. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/fluxtimeseries.php?region=All_Land#imagetable)

That is about 27.5 Pg of CO2, which is about 6.1*10^13 pounds per year.

At sea level the mass of the air exerts a weight of 14.7 pounds per square inch. Take sea level as 70% of the earth's surface and 30% at 13.7 PSI and Earth's radius as 4000 miles. Earth's surface is 4*3.14*(4000*5280*12)**2 and 70% of this is at sea-level with a pressure of 14.7 #/sq.in. Take 30% of the surface at 13.7 #/sq.in. and you get about 10**19 pounds. At a volumetric fraction = 300 ppm =(molar fraction) and air's molecular weight of 30 #/#Mole the CO2 weighs about 5*10**15 pounds. Cf. Humphreys, "Physics of the Air" p. 76. So to get the Keeling Curve over 40 yrs you have to add 10**13 pounds per year which is preposterous as is the entire AGW hoax. Thanks for your time and enjoy your day. DR Robert L Hamilton, Engineer; BOX 835065, Richardson, Texas 75083-5065.

I do not regard any such information from the US government nor from the United Nations as anything but propaganda. . . The information from API and Electric Power Institute indicates CO2 generation per year at about 10**11 pounds unsequestered. Another 'problem' with AGW is the so-called Greenhouse Effect. Cf. "National Geographic Magazine," December, 2009, p. 27 which purports to show how the Greenhouse 'works.' The illustration shows a molecule near the earth's surface radiating energy upward -- That Molecule Has to Cool and the entire process illustrated can result in cooling only. If there was such a thing as greenhouse effect, the atmosphere would be many 100's of degrees hotter. In 1909 Johns Hopkins Physics Professor R W Wood showed by experiment that there was no such effect. An interesting point of the problem this presents AGWers occurred when AIP -- in an EAU moment -- removed a reference to Professor Wood's experiments from their AGW bibliography; it was re-inserted when some of us complained. This entire imbroglio has been festered by the Green Horde who want us back in caves burning corn shucks to stay warm. Heaven forbid their success. Dr Robert L Hamilton, Engineer; Richardson, Texas, USA

"I do not regard any such information from the US government nor from the United Nations as anything but propaganda. . . "The information from API and Electric Power Institute indicates CO2 generation per year at about 10**11 pounds unsequestered"

This is researchgate. Please try to keep the discussion academic.

"The information from API and Electric Power Institute indicates CO2 generation per year at about 10**11 pounds unsequestered"

The EIA gets about 100 times that in 2007 for energy related emissions alone. You're using an entirely new meaning of sequestered if your claim is that 99% of this is sequestered.

As the Keeling curve shows, about half of it remains in the atmosphere.

And it turns out that the majority of the remainder has dissolved in the oceans.

Neither of which are usually considered "sequestered"

"Another 'problem' with AGW is the so-called Greenhouse Effect. Cf. "National Geographic Magazine," December, 2009, p. 27 which purports to show how the Greenhouse 'works.' The illustration shows a molecule near the earth's surface radiating energy upward -- That Molecule Has to Cool and the entire process illustrated can result in cooling only."

I've not seen the diagram, but the National Geographic has some of the best photography I have ever seen.

Unrelated to that, I think that the greenhouse effect works as the theory details. And the temperature of Earth, Venus and Mars only make sense if this is correct.

The basics are that a greenhouse gas is one whose absorbance spectrum is such that a greater proportion of the thermal radiation of the planet is absorbed than the proportion of thermal radiation of the sun. This slows the energy radiation from the planet into space proportionally more than it slows the energy radiation from the sun onto the planet. Consequently that planet will warm until the increased radiation due to the increased temperature balances the energy in and out again.

"If there was such a thing as greenhouse effect, the atmosphere would be many 100's of degrees hotter."

Not so much. It's about 30 K warmer that it would have been. And each doubling of CO2 from here will result in only a few extra Watts per square metre.

"In 1909 Johns Hopkins Physics Professor R W Wood showed by experiment that there was no such effect."

I think that we have a better understanding of optics now.

I don't see how an experiment involving the comparison of rock salt to glass on the top of a box on the temperature inside says anything about the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gasses.

You can read about Professor Wood's experiment here

1909 R.W. Wood, "Note on Theory of the Greenhouse." Philosophical Magazine ser. 6 Vol. 17: 319-20

It is my suspicion that he started the experiment to show there is a greenhouse effect but found - instead - there is no such 'effect.'

It's not correct to say that he found no such effect. What he found was that the effect was about 1K, for his glass and rock salt glasshouses.

He is certainly correct that a glasshouse works mostly by eliminating heat loss by convection.

But even with his thin layer of glass vs rock salt, and even with his bulb thermometers, the warming due to the blocking of some of the radiative heat loss was measured.

"There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures." - R.W.Wood, in the paper that you cite.

Perhaps we can agree that he found a small effect, rather than none?

Are you posing a question? This does not sound like a question

"I am interested in the History of Anthropogenic Global Warming".

I read your statements and I am very astonished. You can easily calcualte yourself the amount of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels from the fuel use? As written here this about twice the increase in CO2 concentraion; what is your point then in view of the history of the AGW.

Professor John Leconte (of Berkeley, Calif.) did some of your calculations (attached) back in 1883, and he did it in metric units too!

An easier link to RW Wood's paper is at the link below.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-04/msg00498.html

fb Mudge

Please note that this question is asked by someone who is a very prolific writer on the subject in other blogs. Also: read through the rest of this discussion above.

Harry,

I did read through the whole thing - it just struck me that this person must be remote from the current science community if he is unable to use metric units - Leconte managed it 130 years ago, as I tried to show!

mr Mudge

I did not get your joke on the metrics; good you explain

Here is a quote from another issue here in Researchgate; question

"Climate change and landfills"

Also, see also the rest of Hamilton's comments in that disgussion

Robert Hamilton · 1.34 · The University of Oklahoma

Get a copy of "Physics of the Air," by Humpphreys. It's older, but still a good place to start. From sea-level atmospheric pressure = 14 pounds per square inch, we can calculate the weight of the air is about 10**19 pounds and at a volumetric fraction of 300 parts per million the CO2 weighs about 5*10**15 pounds. We add no more than 10**11 pounds per year. When the 'Warmers' are presented these physical facts, they come up with Feedback science and Tipping Point science ad nauseum . . . It's an interesting Subject. Good Luck.

DR Robert L Hamilton, Engineer

Richardson, Texas USA