Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: CO2 increase predictions with "Climate Change" - A graph to show amounts
RogueRose
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1573
Registered: 16-6-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 31-10-2016 at 12:29
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 146 times

aircontent.png - 70kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1077
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous

[*] posted on 31-10-2016 at 15:15


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
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 31-10-2016 at 15:30


Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose  
For the longest time I always heard that there were concerns that CO2 was rising by 2-3% a year.

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).




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2469
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 31-10-2016 at 18:08


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]




As below, so above.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ziqquratu
National Hazard
****




Posts: 385
Registered: 15-11-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 31-10-2016 at 21:09


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!
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top