Talk:Atmosphere of Earth/Archive 2

New York Times resources, with some internal links, regarding Methane
See Tipping point (climatology), Arctic methane release and Clathrate gun hypothesis 99.109.125.85 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Puzzle of Rising Methane by Justin Gillis December 29, 2011, 7:23 AM; excerpt ...
 * THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI) Updated fall 2011
 * FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION on Coldwar.org
 * Curbing Emissions by Sealing Gas Leaks by Andrew C. Revkin and Clifford Krauss published NYT October 14, 2009
 * Learning Too Late of Perils in Gas Well Leases December 1, 2011 by Ian Urbina NYT
 * As Permafrost Thaws, Scientists Study the Risks by Justin Gillis published December 16, 2011; excerpts ...
 * http://nsidc.org/ National Snow and Ice Data Center
 * High risk of permafrost thaw Edward A. G. Schuur, Benjamin Abbott and the Permafrost Carbon Network.
 * Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region published 27 June 2009. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, VOL. 23, GB2023, doi:10.1029/2008GB003327 with Citation: Tarnocai, C., J. G. Canadell, E. A. G. Schuur, P. Kuhry, G. Mazhitova, and S. Zimov (2009), Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23, GB2023,
 * http://www.wildfirepire.org/sites/default/files/hu_2010_tundra_burning_in_alaska_linkages_to_climatic_change_and_sea_ice_retreat.pdf
 * http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/wildfires.pdf
 * NOAA greenhouse gas index continues climbing November 9, 2011 from NOAA

User:Jpalme
Edit by jpalme: I tried to add a link to an external diagram, but it did not work as intended. What was wrong in my editing? This diagram in more detail] It looks OK here in the talk page, but not like that in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpalme (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Category
This article should be added to Category:Solar system planetary atmospheres.--140.160.195.39 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --JorisvS (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ozone Layer Depletion
Of course CFCs are bad for many reasons and should be ditched in favor of more useful technologies like EcoCute, but Ozone layer depletion is best accomplished by such natural and anthropogenic processes as Volcanic Eruptions.


 * With respect, ONE technology isn't noteworthy on its own, hence EcoCute isn't worthy of note at present (2012). Your later statement seems to say that volcanic eruptions are both natural AND human caused, which is NOT accepted in science at all, as I know of NO research that claims that humans can cause volcanic eruptions (save mud volcanoes, which are not volcanic eruptions, nor PROVED human caused).Wzrd1 (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxygen - air confusion
Shouldn't there be a part of this article about the common confusion between air being oxygen, even though it's obviously not? Because there are definately some people out there who believe air = oxygen, and need to be proven wrong so they can get it right in the future.

Needs to be done IMO.


 * Perhaps a review of the article, with the objection above, IS in order. I've noticed many laypersons think that our atmosphere is MUCH higher in oxygen than it truly is.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

teratonnes
teratonnes aren't a real SI unit. Please can you either use the appropriate SI unit, or don't use the 'tera' prefix and use standard form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.129.117 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense: see SI prefix Plantsurfer (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Plantsurfer. Granted terabytes would be unnatural to John von Neumann, for whom kilobytes would have been the limit had bytes been invented then (bytes came in with the IBM 360 in the mid 1960s, before then 6 bits was a popular unit because it was enough for upper case, decimal, and a few punctuation characters).  But once you get used to teratonnes at this scale it is very annoying whenever someone edits your carefully chosen 3.72 teratonnes to 3.72&times;1015 kg, which is unreadable, unpronounceable, incomprehensible, and indistinguishable from 3.72 googols to the man in the street.  The only reason I don't revert such edits is that God only granted each of us finitely many reverts and I'm not about to waste mine that way.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I far prefer SI, scientific notation (FAR prefer that) and imperial, as I'm not very young and from the US, even being well traveled, I tend to still "naturally think" in imperial and convert. Adding SI into the mix only causes more effort in triple converting, rather than imperial to metric/scientific notation metric conversion.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mesosphere is not "on Earth"
I would like to point out an error existing on this page and on the "Mesosphere" page. Both state that the top of the mesosphere is "the coldest place on Earth." The mesosphere simply does not qualify as being "on Earth," it never touches the ground. I suggest these phrases be modified to say "the coldest part of Earth's atmosphere." I fixed this error in the "Temperature" section of the mesosphere page, but I cannot fix the other instances since I'm not a registered user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.71.212 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the Mesosphere around Sol? Mars? Jupiter? Neptune? No, it's around Earth, being gravitationally bound. Hence, it's part and parcel of Earth.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding Photo of Atmospheric Layers
I have absolutely loved this photo, as it is an actual photograph that clearly demonstrates each of the bottom layers of the atmosphere in some significant detail:



Clouds can be found in the troposphere, the stratosphere even shows the stratification toward the bottom of the photo in the bands (that is the "white" band), the mesosphere is in blue, and the blurring to the mesosphere is also visible.

For the purposes of this article I'll admit that the Shuttle Endeavor sort of gets in the way, but it also acts as "proof" that this is a photo and not an artistic rendering. It is a gorgeous sunset image from space too, but the point is that a photo can certainly add some significant impact to articles of this nature.

Now the question is where to place the image in the article, and if the "details" of this image should be perhaps be rendered upon the image as captions and arrows noting the various layers, or simply left as-is for the artistic beauty that the photograph offers and the layer details simply be done as a pure textual description?

It should be added, I'm just looking for some feedback on how to treat it. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added this photo to the article. Pine✉ 10:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation for stratosphere temperature
As the live feed from Felix Baumgartner's stratospheric jump has shown, the temperature does indeed get back up to about 0 F (which is fairly close to 0 C). See a log for example here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/10/14/red-bull-stratos-live-watch-as-felix-baumgarter-goes-supersonic/ at the 1:37 PM mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.70.80 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 0F is way below 0C. It is -17.7778C in fact.  C and F scales coincide at -40 Plantsurfer (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Images moved from lead
I've moved 4 images to a gallery of space images way down before see also. Also chopped the rather irrelevant/redundant/poor "hand mnemonic" as simply dumb (sorry 'bout that). Also, it seems the CO2 "video" is rather misplaced - doesn't belong as a lead image. Vsmith (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC) ...Maybe use one of the space images instead ? Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2013
Hi, the greenhouse effect paragraph on this page is somewhat erroneous. The greenhouse effect has always been in place. Without it Earth would be a frozen planet. The paragraph equates the greenhouse effect with climate change and uses a very sloppy phrase "too much of these greenhouse gases".

Here is the original paragraph:

The greenhouse effect is directly related to this absorption and emission (or "blanket") effect. Some chemicals in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, but do not interact with sunlight in the visible spectrum. Common examples of these chemicals are CO2 and H2O. If there are too much of these greenhouse gases, sunlight heats the Earth's surface, but the gases block the infrared radiation from exiting back to space. This imbalance causes the Earth to warm, and thus climate change.

My description of the greenhouse effect is based mainly on my reading of "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer ISBN 978-0-470-94341-0 Here is my substantial rewrite:

The greenhouse effect causes the surface of the Earth to warm to a higher temperature then it would otherwise be if there were no greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is directly related to the absorption and emission (or "blanket") effect created by these gases. Some chemicals in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, but do not interact with sunlight in the visible spectrum. Common examples of these chemicals are CO2 and H2O. Visible light passes downward through the atmosphere unhindered where a portion of it is absorbed and warms the surface. The warmed surface emits infrared radiation upward. Some portion of this radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warms them. The warmed greenhouse gases emit infrared radiation in all directions: nominally 1/2 upward out to space and 1/2 downward where it adds to surface warming. The surface of the earth and atmosphere will warm in this way until a steady state is reached where the flux of outbound infrared radiation exactly balances the flux of absorbed inbound radiation from the sun.

You could add the following paragraph as well, however, it is not actually necessary for the purpose of defining the greenhouse effect.

Since the industrial revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased with the result that the rate at which infrared radiation is absorbed and emitted by greenhouse gases has increased (thickening of the "blanket"). The thickened blanket traps more infrared causing the surface temperature to rise higher. The higher temperature increases the outgoing infrared flux until it reaches a point where it again balances the flux of absorbed inbound radiation from the sun, now with a warmer steady state surface temperature. This warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere has resulted in observable climate change.

Robdellis (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the existing text is poor. Rather than adding to that section I've stripped it back; lets not repeat other articles here. We already have, elsewhere Currently, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this increase is the main cause of global warming which will do William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar sucks
Some sections appear to be written by a fourth-grader who skipped most of his/her English classes. Phrasing, word choice, plurals, etc., are all out-of-whack. Under 'Third atmosphere', for example:
 * The Earth had a lot of iron in the beginning, and higher amounts of oxygen was not available in the atmosphere until all the iron had been oxidized.
 * The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has gone up and down during ...
 * Plants converts carbon dioxide into the bodies of the plants ...
 * But volcanos also emit carbon dioxide, so that plants can convert this to oxygen.

Really? It that why volcanoes emit carbon dioxide?

Sad.
 * I suggest that you fix it! This is Wikipedia after all. --JorisvS (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the IP can edit it—the page is semiprotected.—Kelvinsong (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I have taken a crack at it. It can probably use some more, however. --JorisvS (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2013
The height of the orbit of the ISS is not right. According to astronauts of ISS and this page (http://iss.astroviewer.net/) the maximum altitude is higher than written in wikipedia.

94.69.4.146 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC) purple
 * I can't see anything on your link. The numbers in Wikipedia come from http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I don't see any altitude figures on the linked page either. Then again, I can't find the heavens-above.com link in the refs, so go figure. Here's a graph that appears to more or less confirm the figures given in the article. (Please reopen this edit request if you can provide a link to reliably-sourced figures that contradict the article.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Should the mention of the 'protection of life on earth' in the opening para not read the correct version of this
That is that the earth's atmosphere does absorb certain types of radiation and deflects/destroys/changes physical objects such that the evolution of life on it is based on these conditions. To say it 'protects' is not correct in real terms. It 'creates the conditions that are exploited by the subsequent life forms'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.96.148 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

pie chart
The numbers in the pie chart are out of date with respect to the conc. of and other trace gases, and the caption neither agrees with the pie chart or the table in the body of the text. Is there any way to update it to reflect current values for ? Plantsurfer (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor grammatical edit request on 30 June 2013
Please change section header for 2.1 from using "Principal" to "Principle". Principal is a noun, generally referring to a person (like the principal of a school), whereas Principle is an adjective meaning "fundamental". The second sense is what is desired in this context, as we're talking about "Principle layers" of the atmosphere.

Andygryc (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See wikt:Principal and wikt:Principle. You've got it pretty much exactly backwards: Principle is always a noun, referring to an axiom or precept. Principal is typically an adjective, referring to the primary or most important things in a group. It is also occasionally used as a noun (as in school principal). Do a quick Google search for "principal vs principle" to see more info. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Density and mass
I couldn't work out what exactly was meant by this:
 * According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate. The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003 kg."

Could use a reference (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-3299.1), I had to look it up to make sense of the quotation. And maybe rephrase it slightly? Perhaps something like:
 * According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research, the total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 kg with an estimated mean mass of water vapor of 1.27 kg and a dry air mass of 5.1352 ±0.0003 kg. The range of total mass during the annual cycle is estimated to be 1.2 to 1.5 kg as more moisture is stored in the atmosphere in northern summer, when temperatures are highest.

There seems little point in mentioning the discrepancy between surface pressure data and water vapor data, since it begs the question: "which data is correct?" And there's no real or simple answer to that. The paper is an evaluation of the results from the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40), so an evaluation of a reanalysis of data, data that is probably the result of evaluation and analysis of measurements and models that have changed through the years. Some of the problems mentioned are models that don't conserve mass, changes in global topography and mean height estimates, changes in instrumentation, new technologies and types of measurements, spurious variability, platform heating effects, instrument degradation, decaying satellite orbits, changes in local equator crossing times, problems in assimilating satellite data, discontinuities in fields, database degradation, climate change in general and a climate shift in 1976. Besides, both surface pressure data and water vapor data produce some impossible results, either changes in total dry air mass or regions with excessive water vapor content. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I cant find it, but I was looking for the molecular weight, does anyone know why that is not included? (and molar mass)

CO2 concentration
The numbers for the percentage of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are contradictory. The table says 383 ppmv (0.0383%). The pie chart in the right hand columns says 0.035%. c.pergiel (71.117.211.59 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * That's because the numbers are changing, specifically, increasing. The current trailing 12 month value for the Mauna Loa site is 387 ppmv (0.0387%). This time next year it will probably be just shy of 389 ppmv. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated CO2 and CH4 to 2008 levels per Mauna Loa and NOAA records respectively (both table on left and pie chart on right). Happy to update these and other values further as needed (but give the source).  (I'm only aware of significant changes to CO2 and CH4, perhaps because their increasing levels are allegedly the ones having the biggest impact.)  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am hesitant to make the change myself because there could be something I am missing, but I am under the belief that the value for CO2 should now be 0.039x%.Mycologyauthor (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a tad high unless you're rounding. At the beginning of 2010 the Mauna Loa reading (column 8 which removes the annual cycle and stiffens the curve a bit) was close to 388 ppmv, so go with that.
 * For future reference the derivative of the Keeling curve is remarkably accurately approximated over its whole 62-year range by the amazingly simple formula exp(t) where t is time in units of 60.0 years since 1718 AD. Taking that as the nominal onset of the Industrial Revolution, we can call the present year 2010 - 1718 = 292 IR (Industrial Revolution).  Since exp(292/60) = 129.89 and exp(293/60) = 132.1, and since the integral of exp(t) is exp(t) plus a constant that doesn't impact differences, it follows that the CO2 level is increasing by very close to 2 ppmv per year or 1 ppmv per 6 months.  Taking 388 to be the January 2010 level, updating it to 389 or .0389% would be very reasonable for June 2010.  At year's end it should be updated to .0390%.  Or consult the Mauna Loa records, but my procedure is simpler. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the concentration of CO2 is increasing by X amount, some other gas mus be decreasing proportionally, but I don't see that listed, so I would suggest that this comment be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einslaten (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we are talking percent or ppm, then yes, you are right. And indeed, we see a corresponding decrease in oxygen . But there is so much more oxygen in the atmosphere that we measure it in percent, not ppm. Thus, the effect is relatively minor, and does not show up if we only report oxygen percentage to 3 significant digits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Percent and PPM are both ways to express relative concentration. When you say "we measure", I assume you have measured this concentration yourself?  If so, can you update this page? I think you're missing my point. When rational people see the hubbub raised by scientists about carbon dioxide in the media, they expect this level of detail to be readily available, and that those scientists would have this information at their fingertips.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einslaten (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm...hubbub... Anyway seems a rational person might think, if a tiny amount of a gas is added to a mixture and nothing is removed -- then the relative concentration of all the other gases goes down by a tinier amount. But wait, a rational person should know that carbon dioxide is formed by the oxidation of carbon (2 atoms of oxygen attach to a carbon atom) whether by cellular respiration or combustion of carbon based fuels. So by that rational thinking, oxygen goes down. Further that rational observer should realize that making a few parts per million of carbon dioxide will reduce the oxygen content by a few parts per million. The rational observer would also know that oxygen constitutes around 21% of the atmosphere and removing a few parts per million from 21 parts per hundred, although quite real, is also quite insignificant ... Just sayin' :) Vsmith (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All of which is why Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, and not the rational gut feelings of the editors. We are not climatologists or scientists studying the atmosphere. Leave the data to the experts. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you're all missing my point. While it may be that the concentration of CO2 is increasing, it's irrational to draw the conclusion that the total volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.  Also, I've worked with many so called "experts" and throwing around that term as you just did shows your inexperience.  There are many experts in obsolete fields of science.  The problem with self-professed experts is that they suffer from tunnel vision and faulty assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.76.30 (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to get your rational viewpoints published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Until then, we go with what is already published. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to insert code so articles can auto-update themselves?

If you go to the website, CO2now.com, you could find the most recent measurement of CO2 from Mauna Loa. As of November, it was 395.10 ppm, which would round up to 0.040%, meaning the page is currently out-of-date.

The wikipedia homepage includes some scripting, but I haven't done much editing here, so I don't know if you can do include scripts within articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.130.5 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014
Hi,

I put this on the talk page, but it may belong here, as it speaks to a feature rather than this particular article.

Given the high interest in CO2 concentration, and the fact that it is constantly changing, might it be possible to include a script that would go to a site like CO2now.com, get the most recent measurement of CO2 concentration, and make appropriate updates within the page.

I don't know if the normal edit functions include the ability to write scripts, but it might be a useful feature, not just for this article, but for many others.

97.80.130.5 (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit semi-protected requests on article talk pages are a facilty to request very specific changes to the text of the article in question. If you want to, you could make your suggestion at Village pump (proposals). (If you do, please don't use spaces or tabs to indent your paragraphs, as doing so makes them unreadable. To see how to format things here, take a look at Help:Wiki markup.) --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2014
The atmosphere doesn't have any boundary between outer space ANYMORE!

75.141.0.217 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Technical 13 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

molecular iodine
The mixing ratio of molecular iodine, I2, may be closer to 10 ppt than 10 ppb. Novel iodine chemistry in the marine boundary layer Alfonso Saiz-Lopez and John M. C. Plane, GRL, 2004. otherwise nice work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRDickerson (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good spot. I'm not really happy with the whole table - its basic reference is AR3 which is very out of date, there are compounds in it which are not in the cited reference and several compounds have highly variable concentrations - especially iodine, ammonia and NO2. It also does not include the CFCs We need to think what the purpose of this table is - it cannot list all the compounds found in the atmosphere. Once you include the hydrocarbons, and their degradation products, it becomes at least tens of thousands of compounds. This table should be the major constituents of air. I would propose we adapt a table from a standard work like Seinfeld and Pandis. My copy is at work, so I will do this on Monday. Meanwhile, I am removing everything from the table with a concentration less than 1 pmmv. This is an arbitrary threshold, but good enough for now I think. .--NHSavage (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated Paleoclimatology with evolution
Since the content on the evolution of the atmosphere was copied in the past to Paleoclimatology, i updated the content with the current version. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#History_of_the_atmosphere Prokaryotes (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo: thermosphere is missing the 'r' in two places. Nesin (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Nesin
Typo: thermosphere is misspelled without the r as themosphere in two places.
 * ✅. Thank you for pointing out. --JorisvS (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory oxygen level charts
There is a simple chart labeled "Oxygen Content of Earth's Atmosphere" in the "Third atmosphere" section of the article, which shows oxygen levels as being well above current levels for most of the Mesozoic. Below that there is a link to a more elaborate external chart, with the link text "This diagram in more detail." However the external chart completely contradicts the chart displayed on the page, and shows oxygen levels for the Mesozoic at well below current levels! Given that this was The Age Of The Dinosaurs -- very large and active animals -- I think it is of considerable interest to know what the oxygen levels actually were, so it would be nice if someone who knows more than I do could straighten this out. 173.68.57.139 (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014
The section on Third Atmosphere contains in the first and only paragraph the erroneous statement: "However, volcanic eruptions also release carbon dioxide, which plants can convert to oxygen. ". Any student of biology will tell you that photosynthesis releases oxygen from the photolysis of water, releasing the O2 and allowing hydrogen and CO2 to form simple sugars through the Calvin Cycle. The sentence may be better written as "However, volcanic eruptions also release carbon dioxide, which plants can convert to sugar releasing oxygen from the photolysis of water in the process. " Sources: Sources: Shakeyruth (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakeyruth (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That seems too detailed for this brief of a mention. Something like "...which plants absorb, releasing oxygen" might be better than the current text, but the current text isn't wrong, it is merely oversimplified. Older and ... well older (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen content of the atmosphere over the last billion years.
The small graph in the main article is completely different from the one which is supposed to show more detail. In the small graph with the blue line, the level of oxygen rises to 30% after the Permian/Triassic extinction in 251 Ga. However, the chart with more detail shows that oxygen never reached 30% again, but rather oscillated between about 18% and 23% before reaching actual levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencebookworm (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pity you failed to provide a link to the data you claim. No citation, not mention.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I gather this is the same problem JPalme (above) flagged. Since then, another post (below) also described the same problem with the Atmospheric O2 chart (in History section): the thumbnail image (even when you Enlarge it) is nothing like the "This diagram in more detail" view of the same chart. What can be done to fix this error? I too don't have the skill. --Egmonster (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Evolution on Earth Section, Theory
I believe this section should specify that this is a Theory and NOT fact. One may try to article that there is evidence pointing one direction or the other, however Evolution is STILL just a Theory and has not been proven as Scientific fact. I recommend the following Section Title "Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere, Theory" This is a simple change and is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordneeko (talk • contribs)

Off-topic as the above complaint may be, it requires refuting. The strongest evidence of the Fact of the evolution of humans from paleozoic life-forms is the same as the evidence generally deemed conclusive in human paternity disputes. It is DNA. The DNA and RNA encoding language is arbitrary, but it is the same for all living Terran organisms.

The staggeringly complex molecule of DeoxyriboNucleic acid with the sequence of "nucleobases" (A,C,G,T) that bind it and carry the genetic information, encodes the amino acids of proteins (for example) with a triplet of the bases. It has been shown that the encoding of the 64 possible combinations to the set of amino-acids used is arbitrary, just like any code or language. Even in the recent field of computer-represented human letters, there is a plethora of variations. In the natural world of animals, plants, fungi, amoebae and the like, bacteria, and archeans, there is no such variation in that essential primary language. When your flu virus's RNA gives instructions to your infected cell to fetch an amino acid, it uses the same three-letter word that your own DNA/RNA does. Such a universal language, all by itself, proves common ancestry.DaveyHume (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no section "Evolution on Earth" in the article. I assume you are talking about Atmosphere_of_Earth? This is not an article on biological evolution but uses the word in its normal, general meaning. See evolution. You may also want to take a look at Scientific theory. Fact and theory are not incompatible things. A well-supported theory is the best and most certain thing science can give us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first poster is right. People should stop blinding themselves to the debate,it's very real. And it IS just a theory,not a fact by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.120.41 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No Evolution is one of the most robust theories out there. It is a fact as far as the general understanding of the term fact. Nothing in science actually becomes a fact, just a well proven theory. This is not the place for denialism of Evolution or Gravity or any such accepted theory and if either of the commentors want to 'discuss' it they should do it at the correct location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.96.148 (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

While there is a discussion of how the chemical composition of the atmosphere evolved over earth's history there is no discussion of how atmospheric pressure may have changed over time. Are there studies?Lou (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Language in Specific Fields
Actually, the problem is that the word, “theory” means something very specific in science and academia, notably regarding “the scientific method,” and different ways of acquiring knowledge (deductive reasoning for example). However, in common parlance, it has a different connotation. A “theory” in common parlance has connotations of guessing, something that is “thrown out” as a possible explanation for something. This difference has been used to attempt to disparage a mounting body of evidence regarding climate change, an even greater body of knowledge regarding evolution, and other areas of other scientific fields. “Well, its only a theory after all.” But gravity is also, technically, “just a theory” and most people realize that the bulk of the aspects of gravity are well established and accepted. My field, psychology, suffers from a similar phenomenon where several terms are conflated and a great deal of misunderstanding and frustration can be the result. “Insanity” is a term in common use and enjoys a great breadth of different connotations based on context. But the legal system has a concept of, “innocent by reason of insanity” which has turned into a sort of dodge, a defense technique whereby very bad stuff are done by people who are ulatimely not held accountable as our society understands criminal accountability. But, in the case of someone who keeps human heads of some of his lovers in his refrigerator, suggesting that this is not bat-shit-crazy (and horrible and terrifying) is nonsensical. If this guy is found “innocent by reason of insanity” the headlines read, “Refridgerator-head-guy innocent!” Which leaves people shaking their heads in disbelief.

Regarding climate change, I am always baffled. The idea that climate change is actually happening seems to be reaching unequivocal levels scientifically. The issues appears to be mainly if mankind is causing it. But here is the thing, if, for example, 50 miles of coastline will be disappearing over the next 50 years, I don’t need absolute proof. If the people who study this stuff think this is the case, and our behavior might, even might be making this happen or make it worse, why wouldn’t we do anything and everything we can to address this issue? This is particularly given that active, new solutions put into place may develop into entirely new problems, why not stop everything we can? Does anyone think cars might be causing this? Oh, Bob does? Well, lets stop doing that and put all the people working jobs producing cars now to produce bicycles. What else? When we have a list of 50 things that might be doing this or making it worse stopped, then we can think about relaxing. But common. How can there possibility be an argument about this? - Baffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3016:204:b1e0:10f2:5c85:14e1:3e56 (talk • contribs) 04:02, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014
Insertion of citation for mass of atmosphere, beginning of paragraph 3: Lide, David R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1996: 14-7.

Walpurgishacked (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References for volume fractions of atmospheric gases
Neither Ref. 1 nor Ref. 6 contain complete information about the volume fractions of gases in the atmosphere. Ref. 1 does not contain any numbers. Ref. 6 has data for carbon dioxide. Where do the other numbers come from and can they be properly referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.1.27 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

contradicting numbers in the article
hej, In the introduction it reads : Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. I don't know where this number stems from, maybe it is the amount of all water, liquid or gas or ice that can be found in the athmosphere ? Or maybe it stems from the article Atmospheric chemistry : Water vapour	Highly variable; typically makes up about 1% I would see "typically" as a problematic modifier. In living rooms, or what would be "typically" ? makes no sense. Back then, I learned values that go more d'accord with what is written in this article's body, namely in the tabella following the introduction. It reads : Water vapor (H2O)	~0.25% by mass over full atmosphere, locally 0.001%–5%

well, up to you, I sure won't touch any article where I am scared away by some whatever SANCTIONS! warning. so long Pardon my German (Fiiiisch!) (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "maybe it is the amount of all water, liquid or gas or ice that can be found in the athmosphere ?" As the article clearly states, this is the amount of water vapor (i.e. water in gas form) in the atmosphere, not ice and not liquid water.


 * "what would be typically ? makes no sense" Typically can be a bit vague, yes, but changes to Atmospheric chemistry should be discussed on its talk page, not here.


 * "I learned values that go more d'accord...~0.25% by mass" Thats 0.25% by mass, wheras the 1% listed is by volume.


 * Also, the sanctions you refer to were applied because of the very strong views editors might hold relating to climate change. As long as you are not disruptively editing, you aren't going to be blocked or banned.  Reatlas   (talk)  06:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made a small edit that I hope clears up the "contradicting numbers." The 1% value is the approximate average volume concentration at sea level; the 0.25% later in the article is the mass fraction taken over the entire atmosphere. Taken over the entire atmosphere, the volume fraction is approximately 0.4%. You get this number from the 0.25% by multiplying by the ratio of the average molecular mass of the atmosphere (29) to the molecular mass of water (18). The reason the average over the entire atmosphere is less than the average at sea level is because water vapor is not well-mixed in the atmosphere, and falls off with a smaller scale height than does the dry atmosphere. Pegminer (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Values in lede add up to more than 100%
An editor noted an issue with this article recently at WP:EAR. Note this sentence: "By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases." These values add up to 100.009%. It's apparent that this is a rounding issue, if you look at the table in the "Composition" section... but if you add those values up, they also give a number greater than 100%. This should probably be addressed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This idea is theoretically sound, but practically suffers from the facts surrounding most, if not all, actual measurements. First and foremost: all ANY measurement can hope to tell us is what the composition was at a particular time in a particular place. It seems to me that a LOT of the confusion here relates to the mistaken belief that the atmosphere is monolithic, meaning very well mixed and homogeneous. Composition varies by location (or sampling path), time and altitude. Repeat: the composition of the Earth's atmosphere varies with time, location and altitude. ANY article which tells us what "THE" composition is is either giving rough numbers OR is lying. At any one moment the atmosphere is changing in that mass is lost to space (very very small effect), meteors are raining down (most of which is characterized as "dust), and both emr and ultrahigh velocity ions are hitting it. On the other side, oceans are absorbing gasses and emitting gasses, volcanism is emitting water, sulfur dioxide, and CO2, among other things, vegetation is rotting, decomposition and sedimentation (and other erosion (geochemical) processes) are going on. All of these things add or subtract (or both) from the overall composition. Some of the "information" in this article is taken out of context, possibly directly from a primary source. This means there are a couple of obvious problems. One: reporting composition "by volume" as in volume percent or ppmv (parts per million by volume) ONLY works if pressure is held constant. In order to compare 1 v/v (v/v means volume ÷ total volume x 100%) at 10 miles altitude with 1 v/v at sea level, the presure differences MUST be taken into account. (Sea level air pressure varies by almost 10%, and by about 10 miles up, that variation is MORE than the total amount of gas present!) In skimming this article, I find some good parts and too many poorly written or downright mistaken claims. Too many to fix myself.Abitslow (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The pie hart picture is the best: it tells the rest after argon sum to 0.03768%, while CO2 is 0.04% of that. That is impossible, and probably due to different roundings. 82.141.95.68 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with 82.141.95.68. It is not good to state that the combined concentration of a group of several gases is exceeded by that of a single one of them. Furthermore, the figures given in different parts of the article should be constrained to agree. The figure and tables should be amended so that the numbers add up to 100% and the number of significant figures significantly reduced. The combination of six-figure precision with failure to add up correctly is unacceptable. Plant surfer 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015
103.247.48.56 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  14:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Atmosfere of Earth
In the entry "Atmosphere of the Earth", there is an obvious inconsistency between the two cake plots in the second figure (Composition of the Earth's atmosphere by volume), as in the first cake the total amount of trace gases stands at 0.03768%, whereas in the second the concentration of CO2 alone is 0.04% (i.e., greater than the total amount given above). The caption tries some hand-waving, but I'd think the figures in the cakes must be adjusted. Good article nonetheless

Mr Nyet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.nyet (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere faster than standard reference books are updated, and that we track those fast-moving fractions in more and faster publications than the rest of the atmosphere. Can we pick a recent standard work and stick to it with a footnote or comment on the current trends?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Composition wrong? Sum >100%
Pavel.taborsky (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC) In the composition, when I sum up just the four most abundant species (N2, O2, Ar, CO2), the sum is 100.0027 %. Does NASA have it wrong? Perhaps in some moment they just increased the CO2 level and did not compensate that by decreasing other fractions?


 * True, it is wrong. The values in the table add up to 1000054.49 (that is about 100.0055%). Furthermore, the side diagram shows the sector for "all others" (not labeled) on the top disk as 0.037680% of the total, but just the CO2 portion, as shown on the bottom disk, is greater than that (0.0387%). Could someone please check the sources? Cema (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(BCM - I can confirm the calculation. The tables in the article and percentages quoted are errorneous. They don't add up to 100%.)

Oh, good, I'm not crazy. Bottom pie chart adds up >.004%, significantly higher that .003768Skptk (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)skptk


 * I noticed this too. The sum of the first four values

Nitrogen (N2)	780,840 ppmv (78.084%) Oxygen (O2)	209,460 ppmv (20.946%) Argon (Ar)	9,340 ppmv (0.9340%) Carbon dioxide (CO2)	390 ppmv (0.039%)
 * is 1,000,030.  I started to look at the sources to see where, I presume, vandalism could be undone, but it was far from clear which source contains the original data.  It appears the table is an amalgam of several sources.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of CO2, those are the numbers in Table 1-2 of Lutgens and Tarbuck, The Atmosphere, 8th edition (2001), which gave CO2 as 360 ppm (its value in 1995---the 390 figure is for July 2010 at Mauna Loa).

Meteorology texts usually settle for giving mixing ratios to four decimal places. While it's true that gases mix pretty uniformly in the atmosphere, I would doubt that they do so enough to make a fifth digit of precision meaningful for any constituent of the atmosphere given that oxygen in particular is in constant use. If we could track CO2's fifth digit as accurately as implied by http://know-the-number.com we'd see it changing every two days, and by 2050 it would be changing daily!

In any event it is wishful thinking adding trace gases to main gases and expecting the result to come out exactly. To balance iodine for example you'd have to know nitrogen to eight decimal digits when even five is implausible.

Interestingly well-known AGW denier William Happer wrote an appendix to chapter 3 of the 14-author 1981 book "The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels" describing how to use Raman spectroscopy to measure the oxygen-nitrogen ratio to high accuracy. With enough measurements of this ratio around the globe at many altitudes, conceivably a globally meaningful average of the ratio, and hence the values of each, could be estimated to five digits, but that would be quite a tour de force. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's word the problem concisely: Having ppmv values with this many digits while they don't even add up correctly with one digit less is misleading because it implies accuracy that isn't there. --JorisvS (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O2 and N2 concentrations are indeed measurable to tens of of ppm or even less. See e.g., . Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the numbers did add up, when CO2 was at 360 ppmv. But now it has gone up to 390, and no-one has adjusted the others. As I understand it, since the inc of CO2 is about 1/2 the C burnt, the O2 number should come down by 2*30, err, which leaves the result under by 30, instead. So they could all be rescaled. But would there be much point? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the chief point is that by adding up over 100%, the article invalidates itself. At the very least, the big four should add up slightly less than 100%, so that casual inspection leaves room for the remaining trace gasses.  —EncMstr (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we can't just arbitrarily change the values. We would have to find a better source and use figures from there. HumphreyW (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Though I spent some time, I couldn't find consistent sourcing for the current values.  Maybe if someone has a modern copy of the CRC chemical reference, they could enter all its values and cite?  —EncMstr (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article cited by SBHB shows an annual O2 variation of 20 ppmv at latitude 24 N and 30 ppmv at latitude 43 N (using the authors' divisor of 4.8 to convert d(O2/N2) "per meg" to ppmv O2---the high precision was achieved by measuring O2/N2 ratio rather than O2 directly, as per Happer (ibid.)).  The declines in O2 averaged over several years at those latitudes were respectively 3.8 and 4.0 ppmv.
 * Since we're injecting about 5 ppmv/yr CO2 into the atmosphere we must be taking 5 ppmv O2 out, so the measured 4 ppmv decrease in O2 corresponds to Earth putting back about 1 ppmv O2 at the same time as it takes out 3 ppmv = 60% of our CO2 contribution. Assuming no change in nitrogen that leaves a net annual decrease in total volume of the atmosphere of 3 &minus; 1 = 2 ppm, in exact agreement with WMC's 30 ppm decrease over 15 years if not via the same math.  Just needs a source.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that the values all be of the same measurement year and annotated as such. If there is a wish, further values/years can also be documented. Either to further document seasonal/annual variability of the our atmosphere OR to consider trends in environment (which really should be in another article that shall not be mentioned, as political nonsense would then flood this page).Wzrd1 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[fieraloca] The error is in the %CO2, all other figures are consistent with other sources, but CO2 should be 0.0314% and not 0.03945%. Perhaps someone changed this figure to account for changes in CO2 in the atmosphere, but if you are going to do that, you should also change the %values for all other components. CO2 should be changed back to 0.00314 until updated tables that reflect all other % are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieraloca (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An outstanding topic that is not reconciled within this talk forum is the difference in precision between sources listed on this Wiki page. Many people have noted the mathematical issues with the numbers as shown. Additional information has been provided to justify the values used. These justifications include: undocumented changes in atmosphere that occurs over time, anecdotal references to other precision used elsewhere, difficulty in measuring CO2 accurately, inconsistencies in alternate sources, and heuristically assumed rates of gas proliferation. However, this article contains contradicting information. Even when using precision to only the fourth decimal place, the value shown in pie chart for all the trace gases 0.0377% (rounded to 4th decimal place from 0.037680%) is less than the value shown in the table 0.0397%, under the section titled "Composition". This is mathematically inconsistent, as one gas molecule cannot exceed the combination of all of the trace gases. One or both of these sources have an error that is not reconciled within this talk forum.74.195.138.100 (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Robert M. Murphy

Third Atmosphere claim needs reference.
Third atmosphere

The constant re-arrangement of continents by plate tectonics influences the long-term evolution of the atmosphere by transferring carbon dioxide to and from large continental carbonate stores.

The first sentence for the section "Third Atmosphere" (above) needs a reference for the claim of plate tectonics (which is a link to another wiki) influencing the atmosphere. The plate tectonics wiki page has no such information about the influence on carbon dioxide stores. 132.3.61.81 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Physical properties
I can't able to edit the original page, but i would add the voice "particle physics properties"; i add the same topic in the italian page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicist14 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

angle to exit earths atmospherr
The angle to exit earths atmospher is 73.097845631276 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.157.225 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Emotive language
Emotive language should be removed, in keeping with encyclopaedic style. For example: words like "beautiful" should be omitted from the text, as they are subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.181.158 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical error
You refer to different periods of the history of Earth's atmosphere as "eons". If you are are referring to the time frame of one billion years or more, the correct abstract noun for use is 'aeon' and the plural is aeons. With all due respect, but the mispelling of this abstract noun in your case has actually resulted in the use of the proper noun 'Eon', which as you may or may not know is a proper noun because it is the name of a British energy company called Eon Energy (as you may have already discerned from the rest of this discourse). Trekkie45 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed it as Eon is a unit of geologic time, and yes the Brits would prefer it as Aeon ... but seems it is eon when used in geological terminology around here. When used as a part of the time name in is capitalized ... for example Archean Eon, altho there be a bit of inconsistency on that. Eon Energy is just a commercial thing (and a red link). You are welcome to turn that link blue if you wish. --Vsmith (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Atmosphere of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701030705/http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/atmosphere/older/mesosphere.html to http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Mesosphere.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614054213/http://www.bambooweb.com:80/articles/e/a/Earth's_atmosphere.html to http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/e/a/Earth's_atmosphere.html
 * Added tag to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412032526/http://www.geomon.eu:80/outreach/ to http://www.geomon.eu/outreach/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced meteors
In the graphic showing "Earth's atmosphere Lower 4 layers", the meteors appear in the stratosphere. They should be in the mesosphere and slightly above.

84.92.95.43 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is just an artefact of the attempt at a 3D depiction of the layers in the triagular part of the lower part of the graphic. They are depicted in the mesosphere 3D layer, but they unfortunately lie in front of the stratosphere layer on the back wall of the 3D graphic. If you see what I mean. TimOsborn (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thermospheric heating
The thermosphere is not hot because the densities are low. Lower densities does not heat gases, in fact if you let a gas freely expand it cools off (adiabatic cooling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_cooling). Rather the thermosphere has a temperature inversion because of the absorption of EUV and XUV, and due to a lack of coolants since everything is now pretty much ionized. You could read the wiki dedicated to the thermosphere where this is correctly stated within the first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

It may also be of importance if anyone edits this, to read over the energy budget section, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere#Solar_XUV_radiation. I'm hoping others can compile references that link outside of wikipedia, I have a set of notes in mind if I can find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.52.52 (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atmosphere of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009044345/http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/atmosphere/older/Trace_Gases.html to http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere/Older/Trace_Gases.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615161122/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement
There is no "Scientific consensus". Science does not revolve around conscensus. Science is the search for the truth, and relies only on verifiable data, correctly analysed. Consensus does not prove anything, if it did, then the Earth would have been flat until Copernicus, and suddenly became round thereafter. Science today does not show that CO2 causes "Global warming", nor "Climate change". In fact, science shows that CO2 levels began to rise AFTER the end of ice ages, so it could not be the cause. Most likely the rise in CO2 was due to a profound drop in vegetation due to the ice, since plants absorb CO2 and produce Oxygen O2. CO2 is not a polutant, it is plant food, without which there would be no life, since carnivores and omnivores eat herbivores. Commercial food growers create "Greenhouses" and pump in CO2, producing plants that grow faster stronger and with bigger roots and leaves. We are now at the tail end of the last ice age, of course that means we are getting warmer. The biggest "Greenhouse" producer in our atmosphere by far is water vapour (clouds), which is impossible to measure as it is ever changing. CO2 levels on Earth vary with climate, falling in the Autumn and Winter as plants die off or go into winter mode. The biggest causes of CO2 production is not man, but volcanos (there are around 15 active volcanos at any given moment), decaying plasts and leaves,cattle and termites!!! The current "consensus is spurious, thete is none, there cannot ever be one, and the notion is manufactured by those with an agennds and echoed by the ignorant (which means the media). This line about "Scientific consensus" must be removed, it is misleading nonsense. This real scientists who oppose this hysteria have been drowned out, their funds have disappeared,some have been threatened and some dismissed. We are back to the days of Gallileo, except now the inquisitors are the media, "Activists" and vested interests. For the record, I am a retired Organic and biochemistHistorygypsy (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Atmosphere of earth diagram
I create this diagram of the atmosphere of earth and i think i should be in this page in the composition paragraf. --Marco.sapo90 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a very nice diagram, though it omits any mention of the ionosphere. But how does it support the composition section, which concerns the proportions of gases in the atmosphere?  Your diagram would seem more relevant to the following structure section, and would nicely illustrate a separate section or even article on how natural and artificial airborne entities are distributed across the various layers (how about including insects and birds?).  This would also provide a place for the sources documenting your choices of locations for those entities.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have another proposal for a chart. It was an educational chart that I made but the scale indications are accurate. All the information I got from the other Wikipedia pages. --CVersteeg (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atmosphere of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528143343/http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/control_tseries.pdf to http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/overview_ms/control_tseries.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Percentages of gas components of air do not add to 100%
The percentages in this article for the composition of air (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.) do not add to 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvotapka (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Already covered in earlier discussion on this talk page... look higher up. TimOsborn (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Image caption fix
In the first image where it says the image was taken from the ISS at 402-424 km up? I think a miles conversion should be added so people know how many miles 402-424 km is, and it's about 249-263 miles. So, it should be added, as I cannot add it due to the page being locked. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ TimOsborn (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The maximum altitude of the orbit listed is incorrect - the correct apogee (maximum) is 407km or 452.9 miles Same reference used on the ISS page. New user here who cannot edit - thanks for any help! AsthMattic (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * changed to actual altitude of this photo TimOsborn (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018
This two images, one at scale and the other not at scale PedroAlex.20 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: The labels on these images need to be clearer (in a graphic sense) before they will be helpful on this page. Using both images together may not be the best use of space. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

First sentence is out of place
The very first sentence on the article is currently: "It is relatively thin compared to the Earth's diameter but still sufficient to protect organisms from cosmic rays." While this is useful information, it feels very out of place as the first sentence.
 * ✅ Thanks for bring this up. I've removed the offending sentence. Oftentimes in situations like this, it's the most recent change that is the problem. That was what happened here. Feel free to check any article's history and compare "diffs" in the future. Dawnseeker2000  18:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Slight math problem with percentages
Paragraph 2 states, "By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases."

That adds up to 100.01% not counting the "small amounts of other gases."

A correction by a qualified source is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkurzweil (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Round-off error Meters (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request June 10, 2018
I suggest a change in the lead of the sentence:"Atmospheric effects become noticeable during atmospheric reentry of spacecraft at an altitude of around 120 km (75 mi)." to "During the atmospheric reentry of spacecraft, effects become noticeable at altitudes of about 120 km (75 mi), but the lowest altitude at which an object following a circular path can complete at least one full orbit (without propulsion) is approximately 150 km (90 mi)." The added prose was taken (slightly modified) from the Wiki article "Orbital decay" An orbit at say 130 km theoretically takes 87 minutes (in vacuum) and clearly you might notice that your orbit was decaying as you crash into the Earth, but no doubt the effects aren't as obvious as with higher velocity re-entry. I also think the lead should mention that the volume (or density? or perhaps pressure??) of the atmosphere is quite variable. Wikipedia claims the boundary of the Thermosphere (upper or lower or both, I'd have to find it again to be sure) can vary by 100 km (!) which given that we're talking about numbers of similar size means it is MORE variable at height than at sea level (where the range is typically much smaller, relatively).174.131.63.233 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018
Please change "scientific consensus" in the "Air Pollution" section to "a viable theory" or "the consensus of some of the scientific community", because there are some of us who theorize it is simply a warming stage in the history of earth's atmosphere. Cerulean Dragon1 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

nitrogen-thing
so, if there is 4x oxygen of nitrogen sitting in the upper reaches of the atmosphere (directly above the oxygen, as i am made to understand) does this not have a significant effect on air pressure? the density of these two gases is not so different (in fact, for them to be so clearly separated by density seems strange considering the abundance that this article credits them with), and hydrogen in a relatively pure state, despite being of a lower density then oxygen floats rather freely in it (rather than rising into the nitrogen layer), what accounts for this significant nitrogen presence and its absolute atmospheric segregation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.224.28 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sio, stop asking trolling questions. You've been warned about this already. Consider this a final warning; any more of this and you'll be blocked. – iride scent  22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not asking 'trolling questions', and am not exactly sure what you referring to with this phrase in this context: my questions are genuine. Likewise, my concern is genuine.  The idea that 78% of the atmosphere is nitrogen does not agree with my understanding: the presence of both oxygen and hydrogen (which are given as significantly smaller than nitrogen in this article) is apparent in processes within the planet's biosystems equilibrium (what is referred to on Wikipedia as the 'hydrologic' cycle, for instance, which accounts for phases changes of hydrogen and oxygen), and by apparent I mean physically apparent, observable.  The high percentage of nitrogen that is provided does not come with any equally apparent evidence: for you to suggest that the atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, I would suppose that there would be an abundance of available physical evidence to support this fact, which I do not believe is a accurate figure-- unless there are nitrogen clouds floating above us which I am not aware of?  Big clouds, too, considering the 78% we are provided?  Or, otherwise, that nitrogen is either concentrated in highest region of atmosphere (which I do not see in this article) or is the largest component of air we breathe?  Which also does not seem accurate, but I am not sure if these (mis?)statements of the facts are intended to be educational, or unintended. Sio6629 (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot begin to address your thought processes. Multiple measurements, taken by tens of thousands of scientists, all over the planet, measure the atmosphere at 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and other stuff, including CO2 at about 400 parts per million.  Hydrogen is a trace gas - it is measureable but never more than a few parts per million.  I presume you are talking about water vapor, which ranges from around 0% to as high as 3.5% in wet climates.  Clouds are not composed mostly of water; if they were, airplanes would be shredded by them as they are when they crash into lakes and oceans.  If you take a very small sample of atmosphere, you can get water (not hydrogen and oxygen) concentrations as high as 100% -- if you take a sample that happens to be inside of a raindrop.


 * It is customary when talking about H2O as a percentage of the atmosphere to refer to water vapor, not raindrops. If every molecule of a parcel of atmosphere happens to be water vapor then that parcel is 100% water vapor (and lighter than air by a factor of 18/28.97).  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oxygen, nitrogen, ozone, hydrogen do not form "layers" per se. By and large the atmosphere is mostly uniform throughout.  It is true that light gases like hydrogen do tend to be at a higher percentage at higher altitudes, but the potential gravitational energy available from putting heavy gases "down" and light gases "up" does not nearly make up for the enthalpy of mixing.  The atmosphere is more stable mixed than segregated.


 * The "Ozone Layer" is a separate thing, and not a layer of gas. At very high altitudes, there is not enough oxygen to make much ozone - not enough air, period.  At very low altitudes, there is not enough ultraviolet to form much ozone.  In the middle, there is a "layer" - really a region - where oxygen can absorb ultraviolet and be converted to ozone.  However, ozone is not stable, and is decomposed as fast as it is formed - exactly as fast.  How much ozone there is in the ozone layer depends critically on the rate at which ozone is formed and the rate at which it decomposes.  Things like CFC's accelerate the decomposition, so there is less ozone in the layer than there would be if they did not take it apart.  It is a continuous process, ozone is formed and destroyed continuously.  The reason that there is an ozone layer at all is because in a relatively narrow band of atmosphere - that plain, ordinary 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen atmosphere - ozone can be created in amounts large enough to hang around for a little while before it is destroyed.


 * Hydrogen and oxygen do not equilibrate in the atmosphere with water. Water is exceedingly stable, and once combined, water stays water.  Some very small quantities of water can decompose into hydrogen and oxygen in the very upper atmosphere when bombarded by radiation, but this is never as much as even one part per million.  Nitrogen does not form clouds because it does not start to condense into droplets until around -196°C.  These conditions may be found on Neptune, but not on Earth. Norm Reitzel (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect, Norm, it's a LOT more complicated than that. One has to add into the mix, ionization from both the sun and cosmic sources (ignoring terrestrial sources for now). THEN add into the mix pressure, which reflects density. Granted, water tends to be rather stable ALONE, but in a compound environment, it gets a bit, erm, complicated. THAT is chemistry 101. Add into it environments INSANELY outside of STP, one gets a highly complicated environment that you seem to ignore.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 4, 2019
The early Earth atmosphere has been shown to be oxidizing and not reducing despite the absence of atmospheric oxygen. The primary gases would be: CO2, SO2, H2O, and N2 rather than methane and ammonia as stated currently. Citation: Trail, D., Watson, E. B., & Tailby, N. D. (2011). The oxidation state of Hadean magmas and implications for early Earth’s atmosphere. Nature, 480(7375), 79. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyHerr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed "Earliest atmosphere" from the Template:Edit semi-protected in the above request to correct the display/categorization of the request. I believe the request for an edit tp that section of the article, i.e. Atmosphere of Earth. I have no comment on the validity of the request, NiciVampireHeart</b> 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm unsure what changes you want made to the article or section. Could you re-review your request and resubmit it by mentioning the specific changes in a "change X to Y format" then re-open this request by changing answered from "yes" to "no".     Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    13:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: add geocorona to Stratification section
I don't have exact language to propose, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. The ESA has confirmed that another atmospheric layer, the geocorona, extends out as far as 630,000 km. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Earth_s_atmosphere_stretches_out_to_the_Moon_and_beyond Background in brief: The SOHO space observatory at L1 has been collecting data since 1996. (Launched in December 1995.) Recent analysis confirmed what was initially seen but not understood by Apollo 16 astronauts: the Moon orbits within the geocorona. While this layer differs greatly in characteristics from the lower strata, it certainly seems to be an actual layer worth adding to the Stratification section. Some details about density at different distances are in the cited article. Arcanista (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Plants don't covert carbon dioxide to oxygen
Under the sections on the "Third atmosphere" it states "However, volcanic eruptions also release carbon dioxide, which plants can convert to oxygen." Please note that plants do not covert carbon dioxide to oxygen. During oxygen-producing photosynthesis, oxygen is released from water. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere via carbon fixation. While both oxygen generation and carbon dioxide sequestering occur in this type of photosynthesis, one is not converted to the other. This is a common misconception b/c the equation for photosynthesis if often given showing carbon dioxide on the reactant side of the equation and oxygen on the product side of the equation - but this is an over simplification of many reactions. Non-oxygen producing photosynthesis will still remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but without the generation of oxygen. SGHarvey (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * SGHarvey please go ahead and make the relevant edits. GregKaye 09:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019
Below the image on top right, the altitude of ISS when the picture was taken was *181* nautical miles, not 208. This can be easily seen in the page pointed to footnote [1]. Frip0uille69 (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The caption is referring to "regular" miles, not nautical miles, so it is correct. RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Needs edit
The lead contains a sentence which starts:"Air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers...". Oh, my. I suggest that this poor English to be revised. Here's the changes I'd make:"Air composition, temperature, and atmospheric pressure vary with altitude...". (I note that that these properties also vary with season, time of day (insolation) and weather, (and latitude) but that may be a bit too wonky to include in the lead.)40.142.185.108 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that sentence was a bit clumsy; now fixed. Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Air - the gas
The page for "Air" directs here. The article does not say anywhere that the density of air stp is 1.2754 kg/m3. In general, there should be more about the physical properties of the gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.161.143 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Other properties of air e.g. the heat capacity are also missing.150.227.15.253 (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC) I think there should be a seperate article. The sea and sea water are seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ææqwerty (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space"
If the atmosphere just continued to thin, it would reach a distance at which it would drain away to other bodies with gravity, like the sun or the moon. A sensible limit would be the distance at which an atom of gas moving away from the earth would have a less than 50% chance of meeting another atom on its way. As this point, the effect of earth gravity must be strong enough to slow it down and eventually pull it back before it reaches the point where the gravity of another body becomes stronger than the gravity of the earth (if it was travelling at 343 metres per second, the speed of sound at sea level, it would be able to gain another 6 km of altitude before being pulled back at sea level gravity). New Thought (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
redirects here. This needs to be handled for various concepts of airspeed. Please add the hatnote:


 * "Air velocity" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Airspeed.

-- 70.51.44.93 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an old redirect that eventually linked here as bots updated double redirects. I've converted it to a disambiguation page. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Axis on chart is inconsistent with explanation
Under the Composition section, there’s a chart showing volumetric composition of various gases with respect to altitude. I believe the x-axis (altitude) on that chart is 10x what it’s supposed to be. A cited statement before the chart says (paraphrasing) “atmospheric composition is constant below 10,000 meters”. The graph then shows atmospheric composition remaining constant to 100 km, or 100,000 meters. So either the statement is wrong or the graph is wrong, or else there’s a need for clarification if it isn’t inconsistent. Znarfyarn (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sodium
I think it might be worthwhile to mention sodium in the atmosphere, as especially at high altitudes its emissions are easily visible (yellow / orange glow) as a very thin layer, and it is also commonly used for things like artificial stars (excited by lasers) in adaptive optics terrestrial telescopes. 2A02:168:2000:5B:1903:1E00:B3BB:B0DD (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Composition
The second paragraph gives the composition of air. The numbers add up to 100.01%, not 100%. The 0.01% discrepancy appears to be a typo, not rounding as the figure gives a nitrogen concentration lower by 0.01%. (All the other numbers agree.) That is, the text says 78.09% nitrogen, but the figure says 78.084%. If I had edit rights, I would change the value in the text to be 78.08% nitrogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryhi5 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed the % in the lead to 78.08% to match rounding the value in the table farther down the page. --Error9312 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph - mention breathing
Could you add something about breathing to the introductory paragraph? Thanks! 117.193.6.209 (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like something was added, but it has no citation anywhere in the article. --Error9312 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Any change at 10 km / 33,000 ft MSL?
Why does the source claim "The composition of air is unchanged until elevation of approximately 10.000 m"? Don't they actually mean 100.000 m (100 km / 62.14 mi)? The relative composition of the atmosphere is constant until the meso- and turbopause around 85 km (53 mi) with the exception of the ozone layer at 25-40 km (15.5-25 mi) altitude. 2001:4BC9:A44:1310:4115:A3DA:F4FB:7283 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Different colors
Why would each layer of the atmosphere have a different unique color or shade as in ? The layers are being differed from by their temperature. Why would the question whether temperature rises, falls or remains constant with altitude affect a layer's color? 2001:4BC9:A41:A94B:2C3A:D70:C171:F59 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)