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.
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... aga - 31-10-2016 at 15:30
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 - 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!
