I believe in the science behind AGW, but would be ecstatic if the science turned out to be wrong and there’s nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, that’s looking less and less likely.

4.99 x 10 ^18 kg
5.0  x 10 ^18 kg
5.0  x 10 ^18 kg
5.1  x 10 ^18 kg
5.12 x 10 ^18 kg
5.2  x 10 ^18 kg
5.2  x 10 ^18 kg
5.27 x 10 ^18 kg
5.3  x 10 ^18 kg
5.4  x 10 ^18 kg
5.5  x 10 ^18 kg

Now Trenberth, NCAR, in 1994 wrote up 5.1441 x 10^18 kg, but then NCAR corrected that value and is now using 5.1353 x 10618 kg. Since Trenberth has not been found correct before, I’m tempted to go with the NCAR number as the most accurate answer – because, obviously, it is the one with the highest number of digits!
Thus, if warrenlib agrees, we will use NCAR’s 5.1353 x 10^18 kg as the atmospheric mass.
More important, then, can all readers agree that N2, O2, and Ar are the most important non-IR absorbing gasses?
If so, can we consider them constant while looking at the small number of tons of CO2 emitted by man?
If so, would all readers check the following, since warrenlib apparently cannot?

      ppmv  mass pct  total mass
N2 780,840  75.3      3.866  x 10^18 kg
O2 209,460  23.1      1.1886 x 10^18 kg
Ar   9,340   1.288    0.0661 x 10^18 kg

From this starting point, and the data in the graphs above on this page that assume a pre-1800 CO2 level of 280 ppmv, we should be able to determine how many ppmv’s of CO2 were emitted by man at any particular year in question, right?

Mainstream science conclusions are similar, but not as black and white as yours. The analysis and evidence shows anthropogenic contributions as non-zero, and less than natural forcings up to around 1945. After that, anthropogenic forcings accelerate.

See! I agree with you.
Now, WHAT WERE THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS before 1945 due to Man’s release of CO2? Nothing else. Just man’s CO2 release.
That is, after all, why YOU are demanding the death of millions more innocents each year between now and 2100 – to stop the future releases of CO2 into the atmosphere. If today’s releases of tens of billions of tons each year for 17 years have no effect on temperatures, surely you have some evidence somewhere that 1/1000 of that much CO2 released over 50 years had – what “more” effect on global temperatures? If satellite measurements “prove” a release of tens of trillions of tons of CO2 into the air between 1979 and 2014 increased global temperatures by 1/5 of one degree in 45 years, surely the release of 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, or even 1 billion tons of CO2 between 1800 and 1945 would be demonstrable, right?
Surely you do not condemn millions to death for no reason but the “hand waving” of your so-called experts, do you? What are those numbers: How much do you believe temperature rose each year prior to 1945 due to man’s release of CO2 between 1800 and 1945?

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2013-0-18-deg-c-again/

GISS

Anomalies are relative to the 1951-80 base period means
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

HadCRUT4

Time series are presented as temperature anomalies (deg C) relative to 1961-1990

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/download.html
RSS

Anomalies are computed by subtracting the mean monthly value (averaged from 1979 through 1998 for each channel) from the average brightness temperature for each month.
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#rss_msu_data_analysis

Beginning in December 2010, all lower troposphere, middle troposphere, and lower stratosphere satellite data are reported here with respect to the 1981–2010 base period. Prior to December 2010, data were reported with respect to the 1979–1998 base period. Remote Sensing Systems continues to provide data to NCDC with respect to the 1979–1998 base period; however, NCDC readjusts the data to the 1981–2010 base period so that the satellite measurements are comparable. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

NOAA NCDC

“The global and hemispheric anomalies are provided with respect to the period 1901-2000, the 20th century average.”
“Why do some of the products use different reference periods?
The maps show temperature anomalies relative to the 1981–2010 base period. This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average. For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average). The adjustment does not change the shape of the time series or affect the trends within it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

NOAA CPC

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has already changed their Normals to the 1981 – 2010 base period? Why are those Normals not available?
Many organizations, including NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC), develop their own averages and change base periods for internal use. However, NCDC’s climate Normals are the official United States Normals as recognized by the World Meteorological Organization and the main Normals made available for a variety of variables. Below is a brief summary of changes to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.phpthe CPC products due to the change in climate base period from 1971 – 2000 to 1981 – 2010:

NOAA Climate Prediction Center’s CAMS station temperature anomaly dataset. “CAMS” is an acronym for the “Climate Anomaly Monitoring System” in use at the Climate Prediction Center (CPC).

CAMS station surface air temperature anomalies for the globe with respect to the 1971-2000 climatological base period.
http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/Global/Atm_Temp/Monthly_stn_anom.html

”
I’ll begin to add base periods when I get an opportunity.
2. You knew there had to be a “2″ didn’t you?
Add please the Antarctic long term temperature trend (it has been negative for many years!) below the long term Arctic trend. That source can be the same as on the Sea Ice page.
I am hesitant to add regional temperature graphs, e.g. like these;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/
to the “Global” Climate page, as this page is broader than just regional temperature. The Global Temperature page has Northern and Southern Hemisphere sections at the bottom and I’ve added the RSS Northern and Southern Polar Temps there. I also might build out a Regional Temperature page when I get an opportunity.

@RACook:
You asserted that the CO2 rise cannot be attributed to man. Show your evidence that invalidates that it has.

FALSE!
I told YOU to show by specific evidence HOW MUCH of the CO2 increase at each of seven specific dates was due to man’s release of CO2.
YOU are the man demanding tens of thousands of innocents die because YOU want to unnaturally and artificially restrict CO2 emissions worldwide. “I” am merely trying to get YOU to admit in public exactly how little of the CO2 increase that did occur was emitted by man at those specific dates earlier in history. YOU refuse to provide those values because those numbers prove YOUR theory is wrong.

My case is that of the IPCC, backed up by evidence and the Science.

Rather “My case is that of the IPCC my chosen priests of my religious faith who are rewarded based on their faith in my religion, backed up by evidence that I refuse to present (because I refuse to present information that contradicts my religious faith) and the Science my sacred Text as written by the chosen priests of my religious faith.” Well, that is what you mean, right?

I welcome your evidence that disproves this case.

CO2 levels were steady. Global average temperatures rose at the same rate they were rising between 1975 – 1996.
CO2 levels were steady, temperatures were steady.
CO2 levels were steady, temperatures fell at the same rate that they fell between 1945 and 1975.
CO2 levels rose, temperatures fell.
CO2 levels rose, temperatures were steady.
CO2 levels rose, temperatures rose at the same rate that they rose when CO2 levels were steady.