Volume in m3
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Conceptual computer artwork of the total volume of water on Earth (left) and of air in the Earth's atmosphere (right) shown as spheres (blue and pink). The spheres show how finite water and air supplies are. The water sphere measures 1390 kilometres across and has a volume of 1.4 billion cubic kilometres.
Dear @ Drlatief Ahmad
Please if you have an image for explanation. Good luck
Good question. Willing to get the answer to the question.
Drlatief Ahmad sir your answer is correct, i am adding this answer some addition Left: All the water in the world (1.4087 billion cubic kilometres of it) including sea water, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, clouds, etc. Right: All the air in the atmosphere (5140 trillion tonnes of it) gathered into a ball at sea-level density. Shown on the same scale as the Earth. This includes all the water in the oceans, seas, ice caps, lakes and rivers as well as ground water, and that in the atmosphere. The air sphere measures 1999 kilometres across and weighs 5140 trillion tonnes. As the atmosphere extends from Earth it becomes less dense. Half of the air lies within the first 5 kilometres of the atmosphere.
Kenneth M Towe
. No, a few "enlightened" don't say that was a bad thing to do. An overwhelming consensus (numbering in the thousands - not a "few") of dedicated, hard-working, and intelligent climate scientists accept the scientific evidence that clearly shows that even a small amount of carbon in the atmosphere results in a greenhouse effect, keeping the earth warmer than it otherwise would be and that adding further carbon from burning of fossil fuels amplifies that warming. While there have been great benefits from burning of fossil fuels, it has a cost in additional warming that affects human health and economies. Climate scientists are well versed in geology and the role it plays in the carbon cycle. Human activities are far outpacing change on geological time scales.
Hi
I suggest that you read this site ''https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65923/is-the-total-mass-of-earths-atmosphere-essentially-constant-in-time''
Kenneth M Towe
You misunderstand what "scientific consensus" means. It's not scientists getting together and voting. It's a consensus of scientific evidence that has been collected by numerous scientists. And again, no, the geological and geochemical evidence hasn't been ignored. There is a full chapter on paleoclimate in the IPCC AR5 report. And oh, by the way, the Pearson et al. reference you note above? - it's referenced in the AR5 report. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf.
Kenneth M Towe
, Ales, you're making straw man arguments. While there is sometime hyperbole, the science doesn't indicate the end of life on earth or even the end of human life. But there will be a cost to change. Yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past. And in such conditions, ferns grew in the Arctic. Would say that such a climate would have no effect, no cost on human society? Would you say that sea levels several meters higher than now would not have an effect on people living in coastal cities? And Ales, yes, scientists have been wrong past. For example, they used to think that CO2 wouldn't change climate. There have been some revolutions in the past, but those came up about because due to large increases in knowledge or theoretical breakthroughs. The earth as the center of the universe was overturned after the telescope was invented. Evolution came about because of scientists being able to explore a far larger part of the world. Newtonian physics came about, at least partly, due to the invention of calculus. Newtonian physics is actually a good example. While Newton is no longer completely correct, it is applicable to 99+% of human experience. So Einstein and quantum theory didn't overturn Newton, they merely expanded on it and generalized it for more cases. I'm sure greenhouse gas theory will be tweaked over the years as more data is collected. But what do you think would completely overturn the vast research over decades that has established the GHG-climate relationship?
Dear Audience
Thank you for the excellent discussion but no one here could tell me his expectation to the volume in cubic meters.
The precise answer to the question of what is the volume of the atmosphere is very difficult, despite that we have a reasonably good mass estimate; for more details please consult Trenberth & Guillemot (1994)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD02043
The main reason for this difficulty is the pronounced temporal variability of the upper part of the atmosphere caused by solar gravitational and thermal tides as well as lunar gravitational tides.
Asymmetric heating disrupts the spherical symmetry of the upper envelope of the atmosphere, leading to a rather complicated formula for volume. Laplace suspected this fact, but the confirmation did not arrive until the 1960s.
Ken....The main purpose of my note was to provide an answer to the comment:
“...no one here could tell me his expectation to the volume in cubic meters”
When we talk about mass changes, we can refer to numerous studies dealing with all the relevant mechanisms such as degassing, sequestration, the escape from the Earth's gravity field and the mass accumulation from space. An interesting article with very good graphics illustrating the problem was published in Scientific American (The planetary air leak, Sci. Am., May 2009)
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Catling2009_SciAm.pdf
Even after accepting a certain trend of mass change, it is still difficult to answer the initial question about volume change. This will require some additional assumptions about the vertical profiles of ozone and greenhouse gases needed to calculate the position of upper lid.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Atmosphere