"Matt Barrow" wrote:
Regarding the environmentalists' concern over CO2, here are some facts
nobody argues with:

I'm not an environmentalist, but I do in fact dispute some of the
following alleged facts:

1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).

Close enough - no argument.

2. Earth's radius is about 4,000 miles.

Close enough - no argument.

3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950--.

Disputed. See sources [1][2][3]. It was ~0.03%. (~300 ppmv)

4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.

Disputed. See sources [1][2][3]. It is now ~0.038%. (~380 ppmv)

From #2 we calculate that the Earth's surface area is 0.8 billion
billion
square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion
billion pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04
per cent is 2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is
1,200 billion tons. Let's call this fact #5:



5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950;
3,600 billion tons now, give or take a psi or two--.

Disputed. Arithmetic based on erroneous input. Revision yields ~1,800
billion tons in 1950 and ~2,280 billion tons now. The _entire_ change is
~480 billion tons. A dispute of a factor of 2.5.

6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Disputed. See source [4]. It is currently around 25 billion tons of CO2
per year.

7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.)
releases 200 billion tons of CO2 per year--.

Disputed - source and relevance?

Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if
every molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production
stayed in the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the
post-1950 change to be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus
200 years takes us back to before the Industrial Revolution, it means
that if every CO2 molecule from every factory, car, steam engine,
barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast that ever was since the first
liberal climbed down out of a tree right up until today was still in
the atmosphere. It still wouldn't account for the change in CO2 since
1950.

Disputed. See revisions in steps above. At current human production rates
the observed increase would take only ~20 years, not 200.

Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any
piddling 200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12
yearsfor the average CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the
atmosphere.

Disputed. See above revisions and reference [4]. The amount of CO2 dumped
into the atmosphere since 1950 appears to _exceed_ the amount of change
seen in atmospheric concentrations - not the other way around.

Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with
and still claim to be a reasoning creatu

Premises are in dispute so the conclusions are in fact arguable.

8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinately (more
than 12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the
observed change in CO2 levels.

Disputed. See above corrections - human activity produced _more_ CO2 than
the increase observed in the atmosphere.

9. Entirely shutting off civilizationor even killing everybodycould
only have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such
thing--.

Disputed. Strawman. No sane participant is proposing to "shut off"
civilization or kill everyone.

That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:

Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want
to end civilization?

Non sequitur. No previous mention or references were made of these crazy,
er, "sane" and "civilized" people. Names and sources?

Q-2. Since humanity can't possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up,
isn't it time to start wondering about what is?

Premise is disputed so the question is erroneously founded. See above.

L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

A Google search indicates the above quoted material probably originated
as a letter to the magazine "National Review" allegedly around 1992.
Proper and full attribution would be helpful since so many of the alleged
facts are reasonably disputed.

Sources:

[1] http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html
[2] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
[3] http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
[4] http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html