RogueRose
International Hazard
Posts: 1585
Registered: 16-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
CO2 increase predictions with "Climate Change" - A graph to show amounts
For the longest time I always heard that there were concerns that CO2 was rising by 2-3% a year. Well I had a hard time believing that as it sounded
crazy high. IMHO the media makes it sound like out of 100% elements in air (nitrogen @ 78%), that CO2 was going to be 2% or so soon. Well after
investigating and found that CO2 was .0314% of total air volume, that 2% increase of the .0314% wasn't AS alarming.
So I made a little chart to show what elements are present in air. Note, the column on the far right that is white, is blank to show where the chart
ends. It is 100 x 100 = 10,000 squares.
Attachment: Air element composition.pdf (33kB)
This file has been downloaded 273 times
|
|
|
mayko
International Hazard
Posts: 1218
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline
Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)
|
|
| Quote: | | For the longest time I always heard that there were concerns that CO2 was rising by 2-3% a year. |
Example? Percent of what? When I read this, I am led to believe that the change in CO2 concentration is 2-3% of the total concentration, but...
| Quote: | | Well I had a hard time believing that as it sounded crazy high. |
Punching the MLO data (Here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html ) through excel real fast gives me a noisy but clear increase from 0.1-0.8%/year
| Quote: | | IMHO the media makes it sound like out of 100% elements in air (nitrogen @ 78%), that CO2 was going to be 2% or so soon. |
That's an odd interpretation, but I haven't read the articles you're referring to.
| Quote: | | Well after investigating and found that CO2 was .0314% of total air volume, that 2% increase of the .0314% wasn't AS alarming.
|
You've certainly set yourself a high bar (ha!) for concern by worrying about a 20,000 ppm CO2 atmosphere! Simply observing that the numbers involved
are small doesn't tell us much about their impact. For example, all greenhouse gasses are trace gasses in earth's atmosphere; without their effect,
the planet's thermal equilibrium would be much colder than it currently is (one back-of-the-envelope calculation puts it at ~-20C).
Thanks for the infographic though; it's a good representation of the composition of the atmosphere! If you wanted to go further you might lump the
trace gasses into a single category, and then do a blow-up and break-down of CO2, Ne, Methane, N2O, water vapor, etc...
al-khemie is not a terrorist organization
"Chemicals, chemicals... I need chemicals!" - George Hayduke
"Wubbalubba dub-dub!" - Rick Sanchez
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
From whence does that Number come ?
A Number requires Backup on a Science Forum, otherwise it is regarded as complete bollocks and is ignored, entirely.
Much in the same way as one would regard a dog turd that one managed to Not step in.
Science does not advance by hearsay.
(heresy helps occasionally).
|
|
|
Metacelsus
International Hazard
Posts: 2531
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
The .0314% number for carbon dioxide is wrong. It is currently above .04% (or 400 ppm). Source: Mauna Loa observatory.
These are relevant:
https://xkcd.com/1379/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Note that the historical carbon dioxide concentration during the Holocene, as measured by ice cores, was on average 285 ppm.
[Edited on 11-1-2016 by Metacelsus]
|
|
|
ziqquratu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The media reporting of absolute versus relative rates of change is typically this sort of misleading drivel.
Relative risks make for great headlines like "exposure to chemical X increases your risk of cancer by 50%", because most people read that to mean if
you're exposed to chemical X, then there's a 50% chance you'll get cancer. In reality, of course, you're only 50% more likely than a person who was
never exposed to chemical X, not actually 50% likely!
The same thing here - 2% sounds absurdly high, as it should given the low concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, but when you recognise
the difference between relative increase (2%) and absolute increase (2% of 0.03-0.04% - I don't know the actual number so I'll avoid picking one!), it
makes perfect sense. Just another technique by which the media - often unconsciously - biases our understanding of reality in the name of an
impressive headline.
That said, though - just because the absolute change is small, doesn't mean it's not concerning!
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
