reply to post by TheRedneck
Here is why you are totally wrong  enjoy.
The temperature rise is a gradual process, not isolated points of scale. Hence the calculations do not take into account the accumulative heat
process. Which in itself means that the hotter something is  the less energy required to raise it to a higher degree. How this of course drops off at
higher degrees  and of course is different for all materials.
You have calculated the increased temperature based on the absorptive capacity of the increased in Co2  what happened to everything else ? Did it
just suddenly stop absorbing ? What happened to the stuff already there ? Is this no longer absorbing either ?!! Fail.
You then subtract the earth from the troposphere  sorry  but all this does is decrease the size of the absorptive area of the earth  which in
itself is an inverse exponential deductive equation  EPIC FAIL!! Although you kindly add back in the absorptive impact of the oceans.
You also decided to simply calculate radial calculation as though only a static face of the earth were facing the sun  it rotates and accumulates.
Hence the entire surface area of the extremity of the earth is an absorptive area  So recalculate based on the absorptive impact of the entire cubic
circumference of the earth 
If you were to calculate CORRECTLY and without a predetermined bias (thats how i KNOW you have no idea about science) then you would have a very
different result  in fact  according to your premise we would have all been boiled alive in about two seconds flat  your desperate attempts to
distort the facts have just made a mockery of all science.
The reality is far, far different. Only a TINY fraction of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth  there is a REASON why things are COLDER at
the POLES and hotter at the EQUATOR  where is this in your calculations  in other words the VAST majority of the heat from the sun is deflected
from the earth 
AND A HUGE QUANTITY IS RADIATED BACK INTO SPACE WHICH IS THE POINT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE POINT YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS ENTIRELY !!!!!
Hence with a relatively steady sun the earth has fluctuated in temperature range fairly predictably over the millennium  so the the thing which you
NEED TO CALCULATE is in fact what this standard temperature fluctuation is  what are its trends and what is the trend we are in now  then assess the
impact of the .01% increase in fossil fuels on that temperature range because it is NOT the absorptive capacity of the earth from solar radiation
which has changed (we can keep on absorbing till we boil) rather it is our capacity to RETAIN HEAT  got that !!!!! How much more heat is being
retained in the earth by the increased GREEN HOUSE GASSES (ever worked why they are called green house gases and not solar panel gases ?!!)
In other words what you have calculated is simply the effect on
a pot of water by adding a pinch of salt  moronic  what you should be calculating is the rate of temperature rise on the pot of water when you place
a LID ON THE POT  as it is an accumulative, retained heat problem we are looking at  not merely the impact of increasing the heat absorbing capacity
of the atmosphere 
Hence you need to calculate how much faster will a pot of water (the earth) boil with a lid on it. Hence your calculations need to cover the following

With a steady pot temperature fluctuating within the realms of ice age  non  ice age the current temperature fluctation which is outside this
normal range is due to the LID or .01% c02 increase.
However this still does not reflect the calculation because the lid (Co2) is accumulative, so we are slowly filling in the lid, and the more we fill
it in the faster it raises the temperature NOT a steady curve. (Consider the opposite such as pouring water out of a hole, the larger the hole the
faster the rate of loss  pure logic). Hence we need to calculate what the RATIO of Co2 accumulation is on heat trapping  and i think you will find
that this has been done AD NAUSEUM by some of the most powerful computers available to humanity  calculations so complex they run in the quadrillions
of terraflops per microsecond  CHAMP!
Having now pointed out how far off your thinking is I would also like to point out that you have IN FACT POINTED TO ANOTHER SOURCE OF AGWE  well done
 I am not aware that anyone has in fact calculated the increased absorptive impact of a denser atmosphere on AGW  so although you have absolutely no
idea what you are talking about  you have bya serendipitous miracle proven exactly the opposite of what you set out to prove and provided a new line
of enquiry.
I must say though  I liked your spurious use of numbers  especially the random division of the volume by a factor of 10000 ??!!
Cheers  and keep on punching (even if it is waaaaaaay above your weight).
Here is a little test for you to help you UNDERSTAND  if Venus is 1.4 times closer to the sun, and the majority of the radiation and heat travels via
spectrum's which traverse the vacuum of space relatively easily at this short distance (earth included)  hence the inverse square law would imply
that it receiving twice the amount of radiation  (not withstanding the fact that it is significantly smaller in volume  your premise not mine )
then it should have an average surface temperature of around 80 degrees but it does not  it is 500  attributable to its carbon atmosphere  green
house effect.
In fact earth without its atmosphere would stabilize out at about 25 degrees below its current average. (Roughly ) the point here is that the
atmosphere is our blanket  our lid  it is the ability of the earth to retain heat which is in question  rather its ability to release heat which is
of paramount importance  NOT  its ability to absorb heat.
[edit on 7122009 by audas]
[edit on 7122009 by audas]