Hi hope you are asking about the troposphere as part of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is roughly constant on its depth over different latitude. Its depth is high near the equator where you have warmer air (expands) and it is thinner in the extra tropics. To answer your question it expand as the results of warming near surface temperature, and it contract due to cooling near surfance temperature. Therefore the 0-2km must either be warmer or colder to have response of expansion or contraction of the atmosphere.

I believe the question is what happens when molecules are added to the atmosphere, not what happens when the atmosphere is heated. That question is more subtle. Initially the atmosphere could cool because the pressure provided by the added density will be offset by a decreased temperature. But that will not be in equilibrium. The density perturbation will smooth out and the atmosphere will return to more or less its initial state. (Burning stuff adds material to but that does not directly cool the atmosphere.) Of course, if you add enormous amounts of material then you move to a new atmosphere as well.

I updated my question to make it clearer. Dr. Pesnell understood what I asked. I look forward to updated answers from you and others. Thank you very much for answering!@William Dean Pesnell @Philbert Modest Luhunga

think the gas law can answer this question more density high temperature. Please revisit the gas laws.

This is a very complex question and the answer can be obtained only after analysis based on the virial theorem. This approach can permit a correct accounting of all chemical characteristics of new substances injected into the atmosphere. A very good discussion of the relevant methods is presented by Ferronsky et al.; in the book: "Jacobi dynamics: A unified theory with applications to Geophysics, Celestial mechanics, Astrophysics and Cosmology". There is also a research project posted on the RG which is relevant to your question. The title is: "Applying action dynamics to atmospheric physics and climate change"

janusz, I agree the question is complex since the man-made molecules or substances differs in their properties. I can see what I suggested is direct and the question need involments of many theories. It cannot be handed with single theorem

Thank you so much, Dr. Pudykiewicz and Dr. Luhunga!@Janusz Pudykiewicz; @Philbert Modest Luhunga

The virial theorem is the first tool used when analyzing parameters characterizing the gaseous systems in the gravitational field with spherical symmetry. It was used traditionally in astrophysics and only recently we see an application to the atmospheric problems. In some sense we can consider the use of this theorem as the illustration of the principle of the back-of-the-envelope calculations proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1940s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-of-the-envelope_calculation

I agree with Philbert that the additional theories should be considered when answering the original question. They should include the theory of atmospheric dispersion, chemistry and dynamic meteorology.

In order to provide some additional background numbers to help us in answering your question let us consider the following: 

According to Trenberth and Guillemont (1994) the total mass of the atmosphere is 

m=5.22371 x 10^{15}

where

is the global mean aerially weighted surface pressure in millibars, m is the mass in kilograms. 

(The Total mass of the atmosphere, J. Geoph. Res., Volume 99, Issue D11, 20 November 1994, Pages 23079–23088) 

Assuming for simplicity that

is around 10^3 mb we have the rough estimate 

m=5.22371 x 10^{18} kg

Now let us to compare this number to the mass of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere on a scale of one year. According to the current estimate the total amount of the CO2 emitted per year on a global scale is approximately 40 Gt or 40 x 10^9 x 10^3 = 0.4 x 10^14 in kilograms.  

The ratio of the emitted mass of CO2 to the mass of entire atmosphere is thus

$$\epsilon= 0.4 x 10^14 / 5.22371 x 10^{18}  \approx 0.0766 x 10^{-4}$$

This is a very significant ratio from the point of view of perturbing the radiative transfer. At the same time, this ratio is too small to lead to the significant effects on $T$ due to the changes of pressure or considerations resulting from the Jacobi virial theorem. I will continue to refine my calculations and I will keep you posted. One of the elements to consider is the ellipsoidal shape of our planet. According to the generalized Jacobi virial theorem it is quite important to consider this effect.

In summary, it will take some more time to provide the exact answer to your question but at least we have some rough estimates and the clear direction for the future research. 

Thank you for posting this question

With my best regards,

Janusz

You should add "atmospheric dust" as an additional "man-made" particle that is generated from plowing or grazing arid areas, and you can watch the impact of the daily local weather, like China or India from the NAAPS web pages.  

Also what may be of interest to add to your studies from the NAAPS site, is the daily Surface Smoke and how many forests are being burned by humans daily is a staggering sight, so that could be considered "man-made" 

Also from the NAAPS site, is the daily Surface Sulfates from burning fossil fuels, which along with the dust, smoke may have significant impacts on the weather.

Along with the NAAPS images, consider the 37 million airplane flights annually that are conducting a planetary-wide high altitude cloud-seeding experiment, that I just finished a painting of at http://www.ecoseeds.com/art3.html and is painting Number 51.

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/shared-bin/display_image.cgi?URL=/aerosol_web/globaer/ops_01/mongolia/current.gif

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/shared-bin/display_image.cgi?URL=/aerosol_web/globaer/ops_01/india/current.gif

http://www.ecoseeds.com/art3.html

Dear Kenneth, Glad to hear from you.

 I was just adding to the list of potential "man-made" atmospheric items that are being monitored on a daily basis by the NAAPS team here in Monterey California, plus to add the climate impact studies that have been done in the last 16 years on the high-altitude "cloud-seeding"  by the tens of millions of airplane flights annually.  

No solutions suggested, just wanted to make sure that these other "man-made" items that are being studied by other researchers, that might impact climate, were included in the whole planetary picture.

Kenneth, I don't know if there is organization which controls the atmosphere. Everyone is doing any thing pleases his country, emitting pollutants into the atmosphere. I am in Tanzania, we expected rainfall to start October for the october-November -December season but up to today there is nothing I don't know what will happen in next year in terms of food security as we depend 100% on rainfed agriculture. In some areas I can see some regions complaining about food shortages. Climate change is killing people, wild animals and our environment in Africa. It seems nobody cares.

There is a storm forming today called 99W invest at the Tropical Cyclone Tracker at SSEC at the University of Wisconsin, link attached below. If you match the storm images with the daily NAAPS atmospheric dust, you can see that interaction over the next week.  

http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/storm.php?&basin=indian&sname=99W&invest=YES&zoom=4&img=1&vars=11111000000000000000&loop=0

When I understand the question right, Mr Liang is referring to a very specific kind of a hypothetical geoengineering scenario. That is (!) distinctly expanding (!) the atmosphere, what he calls "air molecules" by feeding with artificial "man-made" oxygen+nitrogen molecules. He is not (!) referring to greenhouse gases. Let me try to answer:

Regardless of what happens with the radiative balance (determining the warmer or colder) in such an expanded atmosphere, it would at first increase the atmospheric pressure in particular at the surface due to the increasing mass of the air column above. Follows from simple hydrostatic equation. That leads to a completely different weather, globally, but much more important, it would prohibit life because of the distinctly increased air pressure. So finally, the idea is nice but useless, and the colder & warmer question doesn't play a role at all if nobody can live in such an atmosphere.

This geoengineering scenario makes more sense. It would be interesting if there was a reference for how this should work.

As already mentioned by Aleš burning fossil fuel shouldn't increase the amount of gas in the atmosphere as the CO2 formed replaces oxygen from the atmosphere. If the hydrogen in hydrocarbon is considered there is actually less gas molecules in the atmosphere after burning as some oxygen goes to forming water with the hydrogen: CnH2n+2(l,s) + (1.5n+0.5)O2(g) → nCO2(g) + (n+1)H2O(l)

Dear Kenneth,

That is exactly why I am suggesting setting up Ecological Restoration Preserves in the barren hot arid parts of the planet, and kick starting the carbon sequestration process with the local perennial grasses, because perennial native grasses sequester more carbon per hectare in the soil than other non-wetland vegetation like forests.  There are about one billion acres worldwide.

 Plus if every flat roof in hot places on the planet were fitted with a solar panel, then we could start the conversion to solar power from fossil fuels.  

Every time I fly into Los Angeles, Phoenix or Las Vegas, I see square miles of potential flat roofs, plus all of the shopping center parking lots, could supply a large part of the electricity needed by those cities, for example.  

Instead of basing them way out into the Mojave desert, put them on top of the buildings, and that would cut the cooling costs in summer, as the solar panels would shade the buildings.

Replanting arid areas with native vegetation with plants that are efficient in sequestering carbon in the soil, using local native grasses is the best answer, much better than space umbrellas or mechanical CO2 put into miles, or iron salting of the oceans.  

The nice thing about native perennial grass root sequestration, that carbon dating of that soil carbon indicates that the grass-sequestered carbon says pout for thousands of years, and is less liable to get re-airborne than a forest that could burn.

Along with the grasses, you add the local native Pseudomonas host plants, then you add to the annual rainfall, as the plants in the mountains of Salalah in Oman do for that area.

And in terms of vehicles, I see a future where we convert to electric vehicles and for long distance travel perhaps hybrids that we rend, and use the electric for commuting and local travel. And of course all of the electric and hybrid vehicles are recharged with solar power. 

If you watch the movie "Why Killed the Electric Car" you can see an auto industry 16 years ago, tried to eliminate all of electric vehicles, and they did that by crushing all the vehicles they had produced at the time.  Then the public spoke, and now you can buy electric vehicles, when only 16 years ago, the industry was trying to eliminate that possibility forever  for the future.

If humans need to do something, it is usually best to choose "The Most Mellow Means" to achieve their purposes.  That is why replanting native grasses in barren deserts, and putting solar panels on flat roofs, and converting commuting vehicles to solar electric, would be the Most Mellow Means to start mitigating the extra carbon that is getting airborne from our fossil fuel use.

I made a cartoon about these issues at http://www.ecoseeds.com/art.html that I have attached.

Dr. Towe,

I am just wondering (even though it is not subject of the original question): You are mentioning a climate that has been cooling for the last 20 years. Which climate are you talking about ?

Regards, Saskia Esselborn

Dear Kenneth,

The nice additional benefit about native revegetation of the arid barren hot parts of the planet with the perennial native grasses, is that the grasses themselves produce an insulating layer that keep the sun's heat from being absorbed by the soil.

That insulating layer of vegetation keep the sun's heat from getting radiated back to heat the air.  That is what I measured in the Mojave desert with a single native grass plant, image attached.  On barren soil, the sun was able to heat up that soil to quite a depth about 40 deg. F. above the air temp., but the little native grass cooled the surface to below the air temp. 

Then if we look at the sources of absorbed heat that radiates to heat the air, a large part are the barren parts of the planet, where the local native perennial grasses could be planted as an insulating layer.

You can see the difference that the insulating vegetation layer does if you check the daily difference in maximum daily temperatures on your Iphone between Riyadh KSA and Salalah, Oman.  

 It does not take a lot of native vegetation to make the change between a blazing hot plate of the Empty Quarter that starts just north of the vegetation in the mountains of Salalah,   The Salalah vevetation is only 5 by 25 miles, but you can see from my pictures from my discussions at http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html that the difference could be beneficial to all.  

http://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html

I am not suggesting burying iCO2 s a quick solution, just want to consider that the native vegetation of the hot barren parts of the planet, are worth preserving to keep insulate the ground and keep that heat from warming up the planet any further? 

And to pay for it the native revegetation of a billion acres of Ecological Restoration Preserves, we will need a carbon tax, and go on a carbon diet, as described in the book "The Carbon Diaries 2015"   Best book describing what a carbon-diet might look like for an industrialized society, the story is set in the UK.  

Even though this book was written for a teenage reader, I consider this the most important book written so far in the 21st century.

Kenneth, 

1. it is questionable to pick 3 years of data to estimate the trend if you have them every year.

2. From the  actual NOAA and NASA data there is no decrease in global surface temperature during the last 20 years, not even for the 3 years you picked:(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/).

Regards, Saskia

Kenneth, I feel your pain.  Before 1999, I was wondering how will a country like the USA pay for any type of mitigation to balance off their fossil fuel burning and CO2 production?

Then wars were started and then the Great  Economic Collapse hit, and all of a sudden  our country could find $20 trillion dollars to both fight wars and pay off the bankers for their frauds?

So in order to get off this sinking "Titanic" that everyone on the planet has bee put on by the political powers currently in charge, and we see the water rising all around us in the form of the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, there must be major societal changes in order to firmly tackle that issue.

For example, all the money that is used for armies, navies, air forces, military, bullets, bombs, the military-industrial complex must have the doors shut and the "Closed" sign hung on those doors, and convert those funds to mitigating the burning of carbon.

Peace will need to be declared world-wide, and decide that fighting each other is a useless exercise, and that we will start working on the real enemy-our addiction  to fossil fuels, and see if we can wean ourselves off it and onto a more sustainable power sources, like roof top solar on every roof on the planet?

All humans hopefully will start developing an Environmental Consciousness or awareness, in that care of the planet and its systems must trump economics and politics.  

That is what I am doing with my paintings at http://www.ecoseeds.com/art.html--a new school of artwork to tell stories about environmental awareness.

Also, the large empires will probably need to break up into smaller pieces, so they can focus on local issues like rebuilding the 100 year old sewer and water systems in San Francisco, instead of sending their tax money to Washington DC to "rebuild" some country in the Middle East?  

So to answer the question at hand--the temperatures might likely go up, probably will not go down, but since humans are now in control oft those planetary temperature controls, maybe it is time to ask what does our species want, and where are we going to put our money to get to that place?

Kenneth,

The sea level is rising. Read the paper I wrote about this where estuaria amplify sea level rise, to sometimes a rise of 10 mm/year depending on the shape of the estuarium. The paper can be found at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307876594_The_Solomon_Isles_disappear_in_the_Pacific_Scientific_evidence_for_Global_and_Local_Sea-level_rise

This evidence is not modeled but measured over the last 150 years, so it is not a forecast, but a now- and back-cast. The tidal amplitude in every estuarium where enough measurements are available shows an increasing amplitude and a deeper penetration of the tidal maximum amplitude land-inwards. Secondly, how do we explain this estuarium tidal amplitude rise? By lower ocean tidal amplitudes and lower global temperatures? Yes indeed, its the other way around.

Cheers,

Frank

Article The Solomon Isles disappear in the Pacific. Scientific evide...

OK Kenneth,

The Pacific Islands are under debate. But...,

How do you explain the rise in tidal amplification in many estuaries, and more specifically that of the Scheldt river as described in the paper in my previous thread. You seem to have focused on the Pacific islands, but nothing about the increase in tidal amplification in many estuaries, Have a look a the Scheldt estuarium, where the same phenomenon is observed?

By a decrease in global mean temperature and a lower global mean sea level?

Cheers,

Frank