Global CO2 Levels

https://www.co2levels.org/

by kloch • 3 years ago

286 306 3 years ago

jbaczuk4• 3 years ago

oh good, it's finally starting to level off

A plot of an absolute quantity like this should really have a zigzag line at the bottom of the y-axis indicating that it does not start at zero. Or else, it should start at zero and / or be logarithmic.

jbaczuk4• 3 years ago

I think the point is that the CO2 levels were relatively stable until recently, so it doesn't need to start at 0.

jetbooster• 3 years ago

It's still misleading. a naive glance would make someone think co2 levels had risen to 800% of original value, when it's only 150% of original (which is obviously still terrifying)

IshKebab2• 3 years ago

I disagree. Clearly the absolute amount of CO2 is more important than the relative change.

It would have much more impact and be less misleading if they started at 0.

Not starting at 0 both lets people dismiss the graph because they used the stupid not-starting-at-zero trick, and it hides the fact that CO2 concentration has increased by 50% which is insane!

Haemm0r• 3 years ago

Opened the site, realized the vertical axis configuration, closed the site again.

Offsetting zero is an annoying practice.

foobarbecue7• 3 years ago

To be fair, it's a dynamic zoom / pan plot so a little less eggregious, but still bad.

laserbeam2• 3 years ago

I don't think 0 makes sense here. Nor does "50% lower in preindustrial times" makes sense either. The correlation between temperature and co2 exists, but the absolute values involved are not intuitive.

"The co2 level is N standard deviations out of the ordinary compared to preindustrial times" feels more useful here, but reading that requires basic statistics (which general audiences probably lacks).

anigbrowl3• 3 years ago

That's just shallow.

boringg4• 3 years ago

The values below 150 have little value since we have always had CO2 except for maybe when earth was created. Look at the 800k view to get a better perspective.

That said I do feel like when people do that it is not a great practice.

shtack• 3 years ago

I think the misleading aspect in this case is that when looking at the 800k view, it seems that CO2 levels have doubled (or more) compared to previous peaks, whereas it's actually a ~30% increase. It's still a very significant increase, and should be shown accurately.

mr_mitm4• 3 years ago

When I was a physics undergrad, they drilled it into us to always choose axis limits such that they just perfectly frame all measurement points (with some reasonable padding). This way, you see the most amount of detail. Like you say, having a graph that is mostly whitespace is of little value. Axes must be labeled properly anyway, so there is nothing misleading about it. If people who don't look at the axes are misled, well, that's always going to be the case.

LastTrain3• 3 years ago

You have just explained why the graph _should_ be zero based, not why it should not be.

BurningFrog4• 3 years ago

Off topic, but Earth's atmospheric history is a lot more complicated.

We didn't even get oxygen until 2.4 billion years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

goodpoint3• 3 years ago

The y-axis range is very clearly visible on the left. Using ranged charts is perfectly normal.

LastTrain3• 3 years ago

They are normal where you need precise detail, this is not o of those cases. This just provides fodder for deniers.

GuB-42• 3 years ago

Came to say that, I hate graphs that don't start at zero.

I understand that for line graphs, where you are looking at variations rather than absolutes, this is acceptable, but in this case.

- This is an interactive graph, at least give us the option of starting at zero.

- CO2 went from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, it is significant enough to see the variations even on an absolute scale.

- Don't make the bottom line (x axis) stand out as it does now, especially considering that the y axis doesn't stand out.

etrautmann• 3 years ago

"I hate graphs that don't start at zero."

Why? I think there's some intuitive idea that something is being hidden or there's cheating in the presentation, but that doesn't have to be the case if the purpose of the plot is to illustrate relative change (and the y axis is clearly labeled).

The counter-argument is that it makes it look like CO2 has 10x'd instead of doubling, but since those values aren't calibrated in units that we can intuitively understand, it's not obviously the correct choice to start at 0.

hokkos• 3 years ago

The demand that every graph should start at zero is completely absurd, probably from teachers that try to enforce random demands, nobody expect CO2 levels to go to 0 and it is better to use the full space of the screen.

helloplanets• 3 years ago

What is the zigzag pattern that starts on May 1958, and why does it start on that date?

Xophmeister• 3 years ago

I suspect it's the earliest date from when they have more granular data. The zigzag was still there pre-1958, but it was never recorded, so the smooth line is the best you're going to get.

winrid• 3 years ago

More granular data capture + variance in seasons (?)

rahen• 3 years ago

Likely continuous measurements rather than ice cores. We can clearly see the difference between winter and summer (what you call the zigzag pattern), when a small portion is absorbed by the biomass.

boringg4• 3 years ago

Seasonality nature of CO2 with greater ability to measure

cromulent3• 3 years ago

The modern record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels began with observations recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
The seasonal cycle of highs and lows (small peaks and valleys) is driven by Northern Hemisphere summer vegetation growth, which reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide, and winter decay, which increases it.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

citrin_ru• 3 years ago

Likely reflects the seasonal cycle (vegetation cycle) and before 1958 likely was no frequent measurements to see it.

rsecora2• 3 years ago

it starts 1958 because it changes the source [1]. Before 1958 law dome & ice cores. After 1958 air measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.

[1] https://www.co2levels.org/#sources

Eumenes• 3 years ago

That's fear

Matumio2• 3 years ago

Basically the northern hemisphere has more land/forest. When it's summer there, trees turn CO2 into wood much faster. Until mushroom season. (It's more complex of course, and not just the trees.)

asadm• 3 years ago

Why is it high in summer? AC?

foobarbecue7• 3 years ago

Don't forget that while it's summer in your hemisphere, it's winter in the other one. I believe this has to do with the fact that there's land in the northern hemisphere and hence more biomass. I'm not sure if it has more to do with photosynthesis or cellular respiration. My guess is that the strongly seasonal effect is more photosynthesis in the summer, with the differential effect being stronger for the N hemisphere. I'm guessing respiration is less seasonal, and anthropogenic input is not very seasonal. I took classes about this a decade ago and I remember asking this question at the time, but don't remember the exact answer.

jedberg• 3 years ago

Biomas growth in spring acts as a carbon sink, then as it dies in fall it releases the carbon back into the air.

chris_va3• 3 years ago

The sensor they plot is in Hawaii, here's 2006 from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/142/video-super-h...

(I assume it has to do with prevailing wind and weather in Hawaii more than AC)

foobarbecue7• 3 years ago

CO2 mixes globally relatively quickly. CO2 concentration is not very regional. You could take that measurement anywhere on earth and be within 20 ppm.

soggybread• 3 years ago

Even better it seems to spike in May almost every year. I didn't see if it mentioned where these measurements were taken but typically July/August are the hottest months so if it was AC, we should see the spike in those two months, no?

DeRock• 3 years ago

Seasonal variation in carbon uptake, because most of the worlds landmass is in the northern hemisphere. More details from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

The Keeling Curve also shows a cyclic variation of about 6 ppmv each year corresponding to the seasonal change in uptake of CO2 by the world's land vegetation. Most of this vegetation is in the Northern hemisphere where most of the land is located. From a maximum in May, the level decreases during the northern spring and summer as new plant growth takes CO2 out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. After reaching a minimum in September, the level rises again in the northern fall and winter as plants and leaves die off and decay, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.

drak0n1c2• 3 years ago

Heating homes during the winter is more carbon-intensive than cooling homes during the summer.

robertlagrant• 3 years ago

The "last 800000 years" view is interesting.

boringg4• 3 years ago

It is interesting - whats the validity of the historic data? Theres clearly some consistent patterns if that data is to be trusted.

jbaczuk4• 3 years ago

Ice cores: https://www.methanelevels.org/#sources

mdavidn• 3 years ago

The historical data is based on an analysis of air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

jbaczuk4• 3 years ago

Yeah, esp. temperature and the global sea levels

djfobbz2• 3 years ago

Seriously!! ;) The systematic monitoring of carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere began in the 1950s. The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, established in 1958, has been continuously monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. So anything before that, I'd take with a grain of salt and maybe extra some cayenne pepper.

gretch• 3 years ago

Methodology is described in the site - it's based on air composition frozen in antarctica.

foobarbecue7• 3 years ago

Too bad they don't have a "last 6 million years" view -- CO2 was 1000ppm in the Cretaceous.

Projectiboga• 3 years ago

And the global averaged temperature was 20 degrees warmer. Also this increase has been faster by 100 fold compared to previous increases. This is about to get very chaotic and civilization crushing.

izend2• 3 years ago

I posted the longer view in my other comment, take a look here:

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-rev...

hotnfresh5• 3 years ago

The Cretaceous is a lot farther back than 6 million years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_boundary

If you can remember the Jurassic Park tagline (original movie), "an adventure 65 million years in the making", then you've got a good ballpark figure for this.

runarberg5• 3 years ago

When looking over a vast time like this with a high levels of variations and varying local maximums and minimums, linear graphs become misleading. If you were going to include the Cretaceous you would have to plot it logorithmically, but at that point the graph becomes uninteresting because every peak except the current one would be just slim lines.

Edit: I saw my dead sibling pointed to a graph which is some weird logarithmic-linear hybrid, i.e. it show three distinct timeperiods in three different scales. This is indeed a rather odd way of representing data, and I don’t think it is helpful.

noselasd• 3 years ago

Don't think 6 million would be enough, the max temp and co2 levels of the Cretaceous was 66 million years ago, and the Cretaceous period was 145-60 million years ago.

That perioid may be a somewhat large peak in a co2 graph, making the current co2 increase look negligible. However ocean levels are also estimated to have been 50-100 meters higher than today at that period, along many other side effects.

truckerbill• 3 years ago

Especially the 1px spike at the end

renewiltord2• 3 years ago

This was something I was concerned about, but then an environmentalist friend told me that a few companies are responsible for the majority of emissions. This means that my behavioural patterns are not likely to matter. The number one way to change a few companies is to acquire money and power so one can apply force there. So I don't care that much about air flight and stuff like that which I would kind of try to manage earlier. Previously used to use public transit plus bicycle primarily and then use Terrapass to clear net.

I still use ebikes because more convenient in SF, but there's no way I could Terrapass each flight reasonably now. Too many of them.

This is actually pretty fortunate that the best way to deal with the problem is personal enrichment. One of the few things in life where all incentives align.

gs173• 3 years ago

This was something I was concerned about, but then an environmentalist friend told me that a few companies are responsible for the majority of emissions

It's sad that I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or not because I've had people sincerely say that. BP really won their gamble on feigning interest in carbon footprints.

rayiner• 3 years ago

Your friend is using a stupid environmentalist trick where they talk about “tracing back” CO2 emissions to the corporate entities that produced the hydrocarbon product: https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-comp...

Yeah you could apply pressure on those companies. But that would cause gas prices to skyrocket. And nothing else would provoke Americans into actually getting out guillotines than $15/gallon gas.

IshKebab2• 3 years ago

Eh you've just found a way to not feel guilty about your personal pollution.

I don't know what your friend says but I imagine it was along the lines of "it's not your fault! 80% of carbon emissions are due to these 5 oil producers!", conveniently ignoring the fact that it's ordinary people buying the oil...

Still, you can't fix this by hoping people and companies will care. We probably have to force them with laws. So voting is about all you can really do on a global scale.

kisamoto• 3 years ago

I wouldn't call this friend an "environmentalist".

Long story short:

    - These 'few companies' are part of the '100 companies produce 70% of emissions' statistic. This is true, but it's oil companies and governments on the list. Their emissions are driven by the demand by you - the consumer.
    - Behavioral changes do matter. It normalizes (and then, in the futures, put's pressure for) sustainable behavior throughout society which is needed;
    - Ebikes are great, more efficient (in terms of CO₂ emissions) than normal bikes. 
    - Please consider removing your flight emissions, then you'll truly appreciate the real cost of flying.

renewiltord2• 3 years ago

I actually argued that my Terrapass (I paid a fortune to be net zero) helped, but then the environmentalist friends told me that that's just "like indulgences and doesn't help the environment" so I stopped doing it. It's a lot of money per year, man, and everyone will just act like you're the problem if you buy any. No one who didn't buy any got the lecture.

Yeah, it helped that I mostly use bikes and ebikes. I think it's like a 10-15% increase in flight cost with Terrapass (I bought aggregate per year, but you can do per flight) for something like SFO<->LAX so that's manageable though unpleasant. But there's not that much reason to do that since it's apparently not real.

Besides, while you say this on HN, the top comments are often how China etc. are the problem. So if they're going to be the problem how does it matter if I fly some.

verisimi3• 3 years ago

The problem is, how trustworthy is any of the provided data, when we have seen that the historical records are edited (in the climategate nonsense)

https://web.archive.org/web/20160322230859/http://blogs.tele...

"Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP): ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."

boringg4• 3 years ago

Man that link you provided is quite an entertaining fiction read circa 2009.

Good thing I followed the author's lead: "If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. "

hotnfresh5• 3 years ago

For anyone else taken aback by the nostalgia-inducing mention of "climate gate" and wondering what's up: no, there don't appear to have been any new developments, it continues to be the case that scientific misconduct was not uncovered.

verisimi3• 3 years ago

Its very hard to find any of the emails to make up one's own mind. The wiki page is pure information management. That is one of the few places where you can see what the researchers said in their own words.

space_fountain2• 3 years ago

Every time I hear people talk about leaked emails proving a conspiracy I'm reminded of an incident on a Minecraft server I played on when I was 16. One faction (us) leaked some internal chats from another group, they made them look pretty bad, but we were selective about it. We choose the bad quotes and then implied more meaning on top of the words. We took things out of context, and then there was the fact that if anyone had leaked our slack (this was before discord took off), they'd have been able to paint a pretty nasty picture of us.

Also here's the wikipedia article about this incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c.... I think Scott Alexander was right when he pointed out that scientists are willing to say pretty unpopular things in anonymous polls, but the vast majority still report, even anonymously that they believe in human caused global warming

jpadkins4• 3 years ago

human caused global warming is a low bar. That part (humans create CO2, CO2 creates some warming) is not debated. The debate is catastrophic change due to CO2, which requires runaway positive feedback loops beyond what CO2 alone can do.

A better anonymous scientist poll would be: Will human sources cause catastrophic warming or results by 2100?

danielodievich• 3 years ago

My favorite presentation of this is beloved XKCD https://xkcd.com/1732/

yrral• 3 years ago

Has anyone looked into the theory that SO2 is an "anti-greenhouse" gas and that much of the greenhouse effects of CO2 have been negated by SO2. Essentially SO2 particles stay in the air for a long time and reflects a large spectrum of light so it fails to be absorbed by land or sea/converted to infrared (infrared is primarily what the CO2 reflects).

Recently (since 2010ish but moreso since 2020 in shipping) there has been a global effort to reduce SO2 emissions (eg by installing scrubbers) which has caused the CO2 increase over the last 150 years to actually "take effect" since the SO2 is no longer negating the effects.

I stumbled upon this theory recently and it sounds compelling but am curious if better informed people could shine a light about this.

https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1687535525169930241

https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1688145475289931776

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/07/sea-surface-temperatu...

RandallBrown2• 3 years ago

Neal Stephenson wrote a whole novel exploring this theory.

It's called Termination Shock.

digging2• 3 years ago

FWIW, I found this book to be an extremely disappointing introduction to Neal Stephenson and an extremely disappointing exploration of Sulfur-based geoengineering. The actual geoengineering is just a vehicle for a semi-political thriller IMO.

tommoor• 3 years ago

It's not a great book, but the fact that a single billionaire could decide to change the climate with a relatively small amount of SO2 was news to me until I read this!

BillFranklin2• 3 years ago

Yeah it's mentioned in Stephen Hawking's last book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_inject...

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that it is the most-researched solar geoengineering method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5 °C”

There’s a risk it’d affect the ozone layer. But Paul Crutzen, who won the Nobel Prize for his ozone research in 95, said the sulfur plan is “the only option available to rapidly reduce temp rises and counteract other climactic effects”.

We’d also need to add shockingly little SO2 to the stratosphere. We currently emit 200m tons per year (25% is humans, rest is volcanos and other natural sources). We’d need to add an extra 100k per year.

Edit: I think one of the Microsoft co-founders was looking into it, the problems of proving it would work were political - not engineering-related.

aoeusnth1• 3 years ago

100k or 100M?

200M + 100k = 200.1M, and I doubt the 200M figure had 4 significant figures.

bee_rider2• 3 years ago

It always strikes me as odd that the geoengineering experiment that got us into the predicament (dumping boatloads of CO2 into the atmosphere), the politics were so much easier.

NoMoreNicksLeft• 3 years ago

That's a tiny amount, relatively. But is that "just a little more" or is it "just a little more, but in a really inconvenient and difficult to reach altitude"?

What kind of infrastructure would be required to put it where it needs to go?

imglorp• 3 years ago

Maybe SO2 is what the Venusians tried.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.08393

unglaublich• 3 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#Impact_on_clima...

gdubs• 3 years ago

Yes, James Hansen. His page [1] has links to his newsletter posts, but here's a recent example that looks into the shipping emissions reductions and the role they may be playing:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/FlyingBlind.14Se...

1: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/

tppiotrowski• 3 years ago

First heard about this on Nova probably 15 years ago

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

brucethemoose25• 3 years ago

https://newatlas.com/environment/sai-polar-refreezing/

To achieve a 2 °C result, the plan would inject 6.7 teragrams (6.7 billion kg/14.8 billion lb) of sulfur dioxide per year into each pole, calling for an eye-watering total of 13.4 teragrams (29.5 billion lb) of material annually.
The study goes on to look at logistics, finding that existing aircraft can't carry enough payload to a sufficient height to get the job done... To hit the cooling target, this project would need 125 purpose-built SAIL-43Ks, flying a total of 1,458 missions per day during the four-month injection period at each pole. These planes would take off, climb for 30 minutes, vent their entire load of sulfur dioxide within two minutes, then come back down over the following 30 minutes, and spend the next hour loading up again and refueling for the next mission.
All sulfur oxides are nasty to breathe in, harming the lungs and causing asthma and bronchitis if inhaled regularly... It notes that the effects of teragrams of sulfur dioxide and the associated acid rain deposits are risky both to humans and to the wider ecosystem, requiring lots more research. And it expects some stratospheric heating as well.

So yeah, we could. It would be expensive (but not $trillions), and the environmental effects would be horrific.

And yet its still being proposed, because that's how desperate we are.

anigbrowl3• 3 years ago

13.4 teragrams (29.5 billion lb)

Why can't people use normal units. If you absolutely must use imperial units then at least use tons.

mmanfrin• 3 years ago

I feel if we get to the point where we have to do that, humanity will just give up.

JoshTko• 3 years ago

Probably make more sense to launch from ground. No reason to lift entire plane into the air. The launch stations can be placed in relatively remote locationst to minimize human or natural habitat impact. Possibly place launch locaitons close to So2 mining location to limit transport Co2.

BurningFrog4• 3 years ago

Delivering the SO2 directly to the stratosphere needs some new tech to be developed.

Assuming that's done, the environmental side effects should be negligible, as I understand it. The stratosphere is pretty isolated from the atmosphere we live in, and the SO2 breaks down there over 1-2 years.

boppo1• 3 years ago

Hey look, it’s the plot of The Matrix, except without the antagonist!

akira2501• 3 years ago

Has anyone looked into the theory that SO2 is an "anti-greenhouse" gas

Yes.. there is an entire section in the IPCC report dedicated to this. This is also the reason they believe there is a "missing volcanic eruption," as it would explain data anomalies in their back projections. Make of that what you will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1808_mystery_eruption

leesec• 3 years ago

https://x.com/powerbottomdad1/status/1702142367900549454?s=2...

It's been all around twitter. Casey Handmer writes about it in depth, worth checking out.

gumby2• 3 years ago

Yes, this has been studied quite a bit (but not "extensively"). I am (guardedly) a fan of managing the earth's albedo, but not on a global scale and especially not with a toxic compound like SO2. Some of the most important issues:

* It's not just SO2, but soot and other particulates that reflect sunlight, in particular IR.

* SO2 (and soot etc, for that matter) have other side effects; its not that they were eliminated for no reason. And the point of any ecological activity (not just climate intervention) is to make the environment more supportive to human life and ativity. Stratospheric SO2 advocates tend to dismiss these issues.

* solar radiation adjustment has other consequences (on agriculture, for example). In the case of SO2 the frequencies reflected by SO2 are not all ones we want to do without -- we need some UV to get through.

* Stratospheric SO2 injection (AKA "SAI") is hard to switch off, so if we are unhappy with the results (widespread reduction in agriculture, if that's what happens) we would be waiting years, possibly decades, to get things back on track.

Solar radiation can also be managed at a more local level in the troposphere through marine cloud brightening for example, and can be done with more benign chemicals than SO2 (e.g. water), and can be switched on and off quite rapidly (days). It will use more energy and activity, but also provide greater control (in some locations on the water you may not want increased shade because of microscopic marine life).

Note I am working on removal of ambient greenhouse gas (CH4) and so am quite sensitive to the safety and consequences of intervention.

vondur• 3 years ago

I wonder if there's a way to keep the SO2 localized to a geographic area? The best bang for the buck should be over the arctic to help with the ice loss and less reflectivity due to that.

bregma• 3 years ago

Sulphur dioxide. That's the thing that caused all the acid rain that was going to be the end of all life as we know it back in the 1980s when were still concerned about global cooling, right? The same thing that made it possible to practice the moon landings just downwind of Sudbury, Ontario because all vegetation was stripped by the fallout from the big stacks at the nickle smelters?

Yeah. Pump that shit into our atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong?

darkmarmot3• 3 years ago

It's a tiny fraction of what we already emit -- above the tropopause and, you know, weather? The primary concern is related to ozone damage.

spacephysics• 3 years ago

Contrarian opinion, but given the models have been poor at predicting the catastrophes that they typically claim, I’m hesitant to support atmospheric engineering to try and cool the planet.

Let’s not kid ourselves, global cooling is FAR worse than global warming. Ice ages are no joke.

The risk/reward bet here is that we put jussst enough SO2 to drop by X degrees. I’m just not confident enough in our computational capacity to account for all the variables that could produce unintended consequences.

Tangential, but we can’t even figure out proper programs/legislation to improve education or reduce inner city poverty.

deepsun2• 3 years ago

global cooling is FAR worse than global warming

As a person from a cold country I'm not so sure about that. It's much easier to dress up on a cold day than to cool down on a hot day. It's cheaper to warm up a house than to cool it down. There are way less diseases/viruses/insects in cold climates. Granted, the food is much harder to come by, though, unless it's maritime (cold waters are much more abundant with life than warm oceans).

And in case of global warning, if it ever gets too cold, we know what to do.

darkmarmot3• 3 years ago

As someone who went to school for this, no. Mammals evolved to survive colder conditions. Going hotter and with higher CO2 is not going to be awesome for our biology.

andruc2• 3 years ago

This wouldn't do anything to reduce ocean acidification from CO2 absorption though, would it?

deepsun2• 3 years ago

Corals are screwed either way from acidification (aka bleaching): either from ocean warming, or from sulfuric acid rains.

rsecora2• 3 years ago

For those wondering why there is zig zag in the plot after 1958. The data source changed at that date [1].

  * 1000 - 1958: Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores

  * 1958 - Today: in situ air measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii.

[1] https://www.co2levels.org/#sources

benrutter2• 3 years ago

I came to ask exactly this! Although, any clues for why the Hawaii measurements follow that pattern?

trescenzi2• 3 years ago

It's due to vegetation growth during the summer in the northern hemisphere

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/....

AnotherGoodName4• 3 years ago

Hawaii does month by month measurement and the seasons have vastly different CO2 levels due to plant activity. Going back further was just a rough yearly average.

The zig zags are a reasonably smooth yearly wave if you zoom into them.

roschdal• 3 years ago

Propaganda from the people who will benefit from a world without fossil fuel energy.

Zambyte• 3 years ago

Benefit as in live?

gpm• 3 years ago

Benefit as in free range organic humans!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABf0op0I-Ac

barbazoo4• 3 years ago

Propaganda from the people who will benefit from a world without fossil fuel energy.

As in "everyone"?

izend2• 3 years ago

The growth rate of C02 is a very big concern but I disagree with the narrative that the Earth is going to turn into Dune-like planet by 2100, see the C02 levels 15 million years ago:

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-rev...

DVassallo2• 3 years ago

How come this says it's 420ppm currently, but when I open a window all the CO2 monitors in my house show ~390ppm?

MrLeap• 3 years ago

The constituents of the atmosphere are not evenly mixed everywhere. I wager the air above my desk has a higher local PPM of Oreo cookies than yours.

quercusa2• 3 years ago

Yeah, I'd like to see the measurement locations.

barbazoo4• 3 years ago

https://www.co2levels.org/#sources

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm) derived from in situ air measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii.

qqqwerty• 3 years ago

Most (if not all) CO2 monitors need to be calibrated. The ones that I have looked into recommend putting it outside and calibrating it to 420ppm. I am not sure how much local variance in outdoor CO2 concentrations one can expect, but my guess is maybe 1-2ppm, definitely not 30ppm. But that is just a wild guess.

barbazoo4• 3 years ago

https://www.co2levels.org/#sources

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm) derived from in situ air measurements at Mauna Loa, Observatory, Hawaii.

quercusa2• 3 years ago

So not really global, is it?

jandrese3• 3 years ago

It's a yearly average. As the trees lose their leaves and they start to decompose the CO2 levels will spike. In the spring the CO2 levels will dip again, but when you average it out you can see the trendline pointing up.

alwayslikethis• 3 years ago

Your CO2 sensor is probably calibrated to 400 ppm. Most sensors auto calibrate to setting the lowest value over a period of time to some base value, usually 400 ppm.

magicalhippo• 3 years ago

AFAIK most cheap CO2 sensors are relative and are not meant for accurate absolute levels.

The automatic recalibration often just takes the smoothed minimum during the last 24 hours or so and calls that 400.

At least that's the ones I've seen.

kccqzy• 3 years ago

It could be that you are living in the forest or a wooded area. The official measurement happens on Mauna Loa, purposefully chosen to be without vegetation or soil or nearby human activity.

See https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

The observatory is surrounded by many miles of bare lava, without any vegetation or soil. This provides an opportunity to measure “background” air, also called “baseline”” air, which we define as having a CO2 mole fraction representative of an upwind fetch of hundreds of km. Nearby emission or removal of CO2 typically produces sharp fluctuations, in space and time, in mole fraction. These fluctuations get smoothed out with time and distance through turbulent mixing and wind shear. A distinguishing characteristic of background air is that CO2 changes only very gradually because the air has been mixed for days, without any significant additions or removals of CO2. Another common word for emissions is “sources”, and for removals, “sinks”.

duckmysick• 3 years ago

Wouldn't a regular mountain - that's not a volcano - be better? I assume when there's an eruption the values are adjusted accordingly:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits...

Volcanoes emit carbon dioxide in two ways: during eruptions and through underground magma. Carbon dioxide from underground magma is released through vents, porous rocks and soils, and water that feeds volcanic lakes and hot springs. Estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes have to take both erupted and non-erupted sources into account.

But there's still logistics problems when you have to evacuate the facility or the power supply is disrupted. Or is it somehow not an issue?

DVassallo2• 3 years ago

I am indeed living on the edge of a rain forest in the Pacific Northwest.

kitsune_• 3 years ago

It's absolutely mind blowing that we as humans were able to increase a constituent part of the atmosphere from from 0.028% to 0.04%. Written like that it looks small but, each part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon, or 7.82 gigatonnes of CO2.

foobarbecue7• 3 years ago

Yes. We are extremely powerful and need to learn to harness our power before it's too late.

xyzelement• 3 years ago

Funny! I read your comment in exactly the reverse way: "2.13 / 7.82 gigatonnes" sounds high. 0.28% to 0.04% sounds absolutely tiny. Maybe THAT's the right way to think about it?

russdill• 3 years ago

You should see what we've done with land mammals.

onlyrealcuzzo7• 3 years ago

I don't understand how people think Carbon Capture is a solution.

Every Gigaton of carbon is roughly equivalent to covering the entirety of Texas in ~1 millimeter of carbon.

Globally, we emit about ~13x that per year.

That's about equivalent to covering the state of Massachusetts in a foot of carbon.

Per year.

The entire planet is either the ocean, in use, desert, or already covered in forests.

~33% of the earth is desert. We'd need a decent chunk of that to get ~0% fossil fuel energy. But let's pretend we don't. We'd still need to cover all of that in several feet of carbon to capture all of our emissions.

It is not going to happen.

kjkjadksj• 3 years ago

People think its a solution because its one tool in a toolkit. You are right capture alone won’t solve everything, but I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting as much, and are saying instead its an important complement to other strategies.

caminante2• 3 years ago

You dismiss CCS (solution) by emphasizing the size of the carbon emitted (problem).

That's not a complete argument.

Do you have a critique of the IPCC's stance that CCS is part of the solution and necessary to decarbonize hard to abate sectors like steel/cement? [0]

[0] https://www.catf.us/2022/04/what-does-latest-ipcc-report-say...

reactordev2• 3 years ago

We’ll just bury it like we do with our heads.

civilitty2• 3 years ago

I don't understand how people think Carbon Capture is a solution.

While the current crop of carbon capture technologies are rather inefficient and useless, once we've got more of a mastery of bioengineering, it's by far the best answer to the long term greenhouse gas problem (not without its risks though).

The tens of meters deep peatlands that cover Canada, Russia, and the rainforests of the tropics hold enough biomass to more than triple the planetary CO2 ppm if they were burned. Those peatlands only started forming 18,000 years ago when the glaciers started receding so we have hard evidence that nature is capable of sequestering mind boggling amounts of carbon very quickly. That suggests that if we engineered a system we could do it even faster. It might take us a century to develop the biotech to that point, but long term the solution is on the horizon.

If we had the political will now we could get a decent head start by industrializing seaweed, algae, and other fast growing organisms for CO2 capture.

philipkglass3• 3 years ago

I think that you slipped some decimal places somewhere. The most common allotrope of carbon, graphite, has a density of 2.26 metric tons per cubic meter. Texas has an area of 695,663 square kilometers. Covering Texas with a 1 meter (~3 foot) layer of graphite would consume

659663 * 1000 * 1000 * 2.6 = 1,715,123,800,000 tons (1.7 trillion tons)

of carbon. One billion tons of carbon would make a Texas-covering graphite layer about 0.58 millimeters thick.

tzs2• 3 years ago

Every Gigaton of carbon is roughly equivalent to covering the entirety of Texas in ~3 feet of carbon

That seems high. I get a lot smaller number, but maybe I've messed up some unit conversions. I'm using:

  1 ton = 10^3 kg
  1 g CO2 = 12/44 g of C (C == carbon, not Celsius)
  Density of C is 2.2 g/cm^3
  1 Texas = 6.95x10^5 km^2

Assuming those are right and I didn't botch any conversions between metric prefixes I get this:

  10^9 tons CO2 x 10^3 kg/ton x 10^3 g/kg = 10^15 g CO2
  10^15 g CO2 x 12/44 g C/g CO2 = 2.7x10^14 g C
  2.7x10^14 g C x 1 cm^3 C/2.2 g C = 1.2x10^14 cm^3 C

  6.9x10^5 km^2/Texas x 10^10 cm^2/km^2 = 6.9x10^15 cm^2/Texas
  
  1.2x10^14 cm^3 C / (6.9x10^15 cm^2/Texas) = 1.7x10^-2 Texas cm C

Check:

  1.7x10^-2 Texas cm C x 1 km / 10^5 cm = 1.7x10^-7 Texas km C
  1.7x10^-7 Texas km C x 6.9x10^5 km^2/Texas = 1.2x10^-1 km^3 C
  1.17x10^-1 km^3 C x 10^15 cm^3/km^3 x 2.2 gm C/cm^3 C = 2.57x10^14 gm C
  2.57 gm C x 44 gm CO2/12 gm c x 1 ton/10^6 gm = 9.4 x 10^8 ton CO2 = 0.9 gigaton CO2

PS: the above is for 1 gigaton of CO2 since that is what emissions figures usually use. But if you were just talking about after capture and extraction of carbon, multiply the above by 44/12, giving 6.2x10^-2 Texas cm C.

PPS: If we took all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, the amount of carbon would be enough to cover to Texas to about 53 cm.

drak0n1c2• 3 years ago

Wait until you learn about how the evolution of cyanobacteria led to oxygenation of the atmosphere and the mass extinction of most life on Earth.

LastTrain3• 3 years ago

Wow. How long did that take?

andrewla2• 3 years ago

The story in many ways is even more subtle than that -- the carbon cycle (both natural and augmented by human activity) generates ~200Gt of carbon annually, and absorbs ~200Gt of carbon. Human activity yields about 6-10Gt annually. So CO2 emissions are increased by about 3% from the natural baseline, but some of this is absorbed by natural increases in carbon sinks. We don't completely understand how the budget works out.

https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/19/4431/2022/ is a great summary of some of the more recent work in the area. It's astonishing how poorly we understand this system in the macro.

beardog• 3 years ago

"The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

-1912 newspaper (New Zealand) https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814....

ebisoka• 3 years ago

The Climate Change story told by ice cores...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1mjG_F8ppw

another great site about CO2

https://co2coalition.org/

nicolaslem• 3 years ago

The CO2 Coalition was established for the purpose of educating the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.

That's satire, right?

flkenosad• 3 years ago

Humanity produces CO2. Big deal.

pornel• 3 years ago

Unfortunately not: https://youtu.be/_pNRuafoyZ4?t=434

gnarbarian• 3 years ago

Isn't the effect that increased CO2 levels logarithmic rather than linear or exponential? As in the more CO2 that gets dumped into our system the more slowly temperatures will rise.

https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelera...

lasermike026• 3 years ago

We need a graph for oil, coal, and natural gas consumption. The goal is to get those number to 0%. We must use nuclear, electrify, and end private ownership of cars and trucks. I am absolutely ready to make the changes required to meet these goal. I'm halfway there already.

mgbmtl• 3 years ago

If you want a depressing graph, check Canada's oil production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Canada#/... (the US has a similar curb, although I'm not an expert, just a slightly depressed Canadian, especially since the government will soon shift further right, expect production to increase in 2 years)

rstarast• 3 years ago

What's the view on the immediate impact on elevated CO2 levels on humans? I know high indoor CO2-levels correlate with poor mental performance, but as far as I know that might just be because it also correlates with reduced O2 levels. But it seems reasonable that a 25% increase of CO2 in ambient air would do something to our health.

T-A• 3 years ago

Here are a couple of controlled studies:

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104789

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037

Cognitive impairment seems to get really noticeable at ~1000 ppm.

AnotherGoodName4• 3 years ago

No problems outdoors but my worry there is that being inside can easily more than double CO2. Even with a window cracked slightly. So we're ok if we have really good ventilation. A fan makes us safe. At <300PPM we would have had far less to worry about here.

As CO2 reaches over 500PPM (this is not that far away) that doubling of CO2 levels from being indoors puts us in the cognitive impairment range. Not good.

huevosabio• 3 years ago

Interesting that you can see the big wars affect Co2: Napoleonic wars, WW1 and Ww2.

sintaxi2• 3 years ago

Propaganda presented as data.

* data source on x-axis changes at 1958

* y-axis does not begin at 0

Fundamentally dishonest for the purpose of manipulation.

bobsmooth• 3 years ago

Those damn scientists trying to trick me into believing in climate change!

sintaxi2• 3 years ago

Actually yes. The chart is put together by "The 2 Degrees Institute" which has a stated objective of influencing "behavioural and lifestyle changes". That isn't science.

radiusvector• 3 years ago

Meanwhile Marc Andreesen thinks technology is going to solve everything forever and for everyone

silisili• 3 years ago

This kind of chart makes me wonder what the weather of places like Florida and New Orleans were back in the exploration age or before. Was it appreciably cooler? I always thought they'd be about perfect if they were just about 5 degrees(F) cooler in the summer.

julienreszka• 3 years ago

Scales too short

fwungy5• 3 years ago

I'm going to summarize Physicist, Caltech President, and Obama DOE appointee Steven Koonin on climate change:

1) Climate is an extremely complicated phenomenon 2) It is extremely difficult to model beyond a limited time frame. 3) The models we have, running on the most powerful, purpose built, computers rely on massive aggregations because there are otherwise too many interactions to handle. These aggregations are too large to be reasonably interpreted. 4) There is a large industry of well paid scientists, researchers, and policymakers who have built careers on Climate Change. Alarming news keeps them in a job, so they have an incentive to bias towards worst case outcomes. " It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair 5. Efficient and clean technology is worthy of pursuing regardless of its climate impacts. We can do more for the planet creating market based solutions in those directions than trying to manage CO2 directly.

Finally, I must acknowledge the Yale paper and climate scientists who have criticized his work. Rather than fire from the bushes, they should debate Koonin directly. He isn't a Fox News kook, if anything his credentials are superior to theirs.

Remember, one of the oldest ruse of charlatans is promising they can change the weather.

https://youtu.be/l90FpjPGLBE?si=6KfwkEH8HVb3GtXV

a_square_peg• 3 years ago

If you're going to note his credentials as a physist & Caltech president, you should also note that he was also employed by BP as the oil and gas company’s Chief Scientist from 2004 and 2009.

Remember, one of the oldest ruse of climate-change deniers is to equate weather and climate.

fwungy5• 3 years ago

So how is that different from veing a full time job in climate change as a scientist or policy maker?

Do you believe that Koonin wants a climate catastrophe?

If a person could be so monumentally blindsided to ignore a threat that will not only harm themselves, but everyone they know and care about, then could not others be too, e.g. Climate scientists?

Another question;

Accepting Climate Change as presented by the IPCC, how do we resolve the problem of the major oil producing states like Russia and Saudi Arabia refusing to give up the oil wealth which allows them to exist as they do, and the developing world states from consuming it? Green conversions are not feasible for large segments of the world population in anu useful time frame.

The net zero policies being advocated by the G7 nations are very expensive and handwave away big problems with "batteries will get cheaper, and the tech will improve" but they fail hard if thar doesn't turn out.

If we are really concerned about CO2 driven climate change the best solution is next gen nuclear power and mitigation strategies. Make electricity so cheap that no one will want fossil fuels if they can avoid it. Yes, they just started talking about nuclear power, but it's late. James Hansen was talking about it 20 years ago, it's not a surprise.

SketchySeaBeast4• 3 years ago

Rather than fire from the bushes, they should debate Koonin directly.

Man do I wish debate would disappear from the public sphere. Winning a debate means you were better at debating, not that your science was more sound.

fwungy5• 3 years ago

Ideas that undergo adversarial attack are strengthened or weeded out. A good, quality, debate can serve that purpose.

jpadkins4• 3 years ago

what's the better alternative?

cromulent3• 3 years ago

I'll quote Scientific American on his book:

A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong [0]

Talking about models doesn't change the graph in the article, nor the heat records.

[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manage...

ianburrell• 3 years ago

You forgot to mention that he worked for BP. And he wasn’t president of Caltech. He is also theoretical physicist who does urban engineering neither of which make him qualified on climate science.

Market based solutions won’t be enough. We are very lucky that clean electricity is cheap. But there some emissions that will never switch because of economics. Airlines are a good example, where fossil fuel will be always cheaper than green alternatives. We will have to force them by raising fossil prices with carbon tax or by banning them. Some would call the former market based but that isn’t what they mean.

it8• 3 years ago

Okay, he wasn't the president, but he was the 7th provost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

skeaker2• 3 years ago

fire from the bushes

Great spin here, almost didn't catch that. Academic papers from teams of scientists cannot be dismissed for simply not debating face to face.

discussDev• 3 years ago

I wish there was always an option to user zero based graphs.

pdntspa• 3 years ago

Not to undermine the urgency of the CO2 situation but this graph is extremely misleading.

Podgajski• 3 years ago

“From way up here I can see our doom.”

reactordev2• 3 years ago

I can’t stress enough the importance of house plants. Man this is depressing. I know the left-hand scale should be factored but this isn’t stock, it shouldn’t but “up and to the right”.

diimdeep2• 3 years ago

How soon we will see personal, indoor CO2 removal devices ?

jpadkins4• 3 years ago

house plants?

diimdeep2• 3 years ago

I meant high tech gadgets, but sure

How to grow fresh air | Kamal Meattle https://youtu.be/gmn7tjSNyAA?t=11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study#List_of_p...

On a second thought, indoor DIY growbox is probably can be considered as such device.

it8• 3 years ago

This sharp rise of global CO2 level, combined with the small rise in global temperature of 1 degree F over the past 100 years [1], is evidence against the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+has+the+global+temp...

it8• 3 years ago

This got downvoted but whoever did it failed to provide a counter argument.

mr_mitm4• 3 years ago

CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas for hundreds of years. Without it, earth would be freezing. Also, you didn't say how much the temperature should have risen instead of the 1 degree which you believe to be wrong.

You didn't make a point, so there is no argument to be made here.

nateglims3• 3 years ago

That search seems to be pulling a nearly 30yo datapoint from the Clinton White House.

it8• 3 years ago

Fine, how about this? "Since 1880, average global temperatures have increased by about 1 degrees Celsius (1.7° degrees Fahrenheit)"

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/climatechange/science#:~:text=Sinc...:

noxer5• 3 years ago

Add the fact that more or less sophisticated measurement of temperatures started some 150 years ago and approximately 200-400 years ago we reached the coldest temp in the last 10k years.

mempko2• 3 years ago

Here is a simple experiment you can do at home (designed for children, it's that easy). Just do it and come back to me with what you find. If you are smart enough to be on HN, you are smart enough to do this experiment in your kitchen. No need to read research papers, or 'trust conspiring climate scientists'. Just go prove it to yourself.

https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/the-greenhouse-effect-exp...

noxer5• 3 years ago

This is completely pointless. No one questions the greenhouse effect (it is used to grow food all over the world). The question is whether or not additional CO2 that was put in the atmosphere by human activity over the last ~100 years is the primary cause of the ~1°C average surface temp increase in that time period.

An experiment for children isn't going o add anything of value here. Labor or in this case kitchen experiment do not model the real wold. And Correlation does not imply causation.

And finally when you establish a correlation, it does not have to be linear i.e. more of X does not mean it must case more of Y. Complex systems that are in some kind of balance often produce their own counter effect to change. This is the primary reason why such a stable balance could even form over long periods of time. The self correction properties of the whole system is very much a requirement for the balance to exists in a complex system like the climate.

it8• 3 years ago

That's really interesting. Thanks for providing something substantial.

SillyUsername• 3 years ago

More CO2 also correlates with population which is beginning to level off (if world war doesn't cause it to drop).

Compare the OP's chart to the climate-population one here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/population-climate-change-1....

Population decrease won't stop global warming but global warming will lower population quicker, which will likely then be reciprocal.

Sadly it'll likely be the poorest that bear the brunt of it (high price food, expensive land to live on, poor living conditions due to heat), but hopefully we'll innovate more extreme weather resistant crops, ways to remove CO2, plant more trees etc.

andreygrehov3• 3 years ago

It's always good to approach historical CO2 measurements with a degree of skepticism, especially when they cover such an extensive timeline. How confident are we in the proxies used for pre-industrial CO2 levels? I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing a decline in the future followed by a flurry of research into the causes of that.

TheBlight• 3 years ago

I think it makes sense to be at least somewhat skeptical of the proxy data and treat them somewhat adversarially for the purpose of science. They seem to carry a significant amount of interpretive weight right now so they should be probed with equally substantial weight, IMO.

AnotherGoodName4• 3 years ago

A question. Without going into detail on all the different ways to measure CO2 historically and how scientists align them against each other and also to modern direct measurements what difference does it make here anyway?

We have the very accurate direct measurement for a while and the most alarming part of this in this recent direct measurement era. I feel that such questions like yours miss the rather obvious point here. How do you feel about CO2 going up ~50% since we started direct measurements?

andreygrehov3• 3 years ago

There's a significant possibility that our assumptions about past CO2 levels might be off the mark. Considering this, it's conceivable that today's CO2 levels could actually be lower than they were at certain points in the past. What if CO2 levels fluctuate over millennia in a sinusoidal pattern, akin to seasons, and we are currently experiencing an upward trend? With that in mind, the accuracy of the existing measurements doesn't matter.

mensetmanusman• 3 years ago

Should the Y axis start at 200?

lgkk• 3 years ago

Apologize in advance if this is a silly question but…

Is it fair to assume the earth is a closed loop self healing system?

That is even if we dump a lot of bad stuff into the atmosphere, the planet will eventually “equalize” to “normal” levels.

I would rather we did not of course. I’m just curious about the planetary atmospheric system.

nathanfig• 3 years ago

Not really. The ocean serves as a natural carbon sink to a degree- but this is acidifying the ocean. And some feedback loops accelerate rather than decelerate warming- such as ice loss decreasing albedo.

Life on Earth can adapt to a new normal, certainly, and on a geological timescale normal has shifted many times. Humans will adapt too, but will likely endure catastrophic losses on the way.

chris_va3• 3 years ago

Very simplified (ocean-centric) homeostat:

The surface of the ocean is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, so increasing atmospheric ppm increase the ppm of CO2 in the mix layer (think of it as a gas sponge). The ocean buffers that co2 (carbonate/bicarbonate system), so the amount of carbon there is a lot higher than just 420ppm, and in doing so it becomes slightly more acidic.

As the ocean turns over (every ~5000 years), it brings that acidity down to depth where it can react with various forms of alkalinity that are at down there (mafic rock at the bottom of the ocean, sediment, etc), partially neutralizing it. It takes about 20 cycles (very slow) to do this, so ~100k years to return to a pre-industrial level. The pre-industrial ppm is defined mostly by biology.

A more complicated treatment of the carbon cycle: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf

ggpsv• 3 years ago

The assumption you're making here is that the Earth "heals", as if a wound has been inflicted. Likewise, that there is a "normal" level. In other words, that there is a prevailing state to which the system returns to, or must return to. I invite you to question that assumption first and foremost.

You must think of the Earth more as a process than a fixed thing. Thinking about this system in terms of feedback loops may be more helpful here.

Drastically increasing C02 levels affects several feedback loops in the system, essentially transitioning it to a state that is different to the current one.

As noted elsewhere in the comments, the Earth has gone through different eras in which the atmosphere had "high" and "low" levels of C02.

mempko2• 3 years ago

There is absolutely no reason to assume it's a 'self-healing' system.

Chabsff• 3 years ago

It is fair to assume that it'll eventually stabilize at some, probably meta-stable, equilibrium.

lettergram• 3 years ago

Imo should go back 100m years and chart should start at 0.

For reference on ppm of other materials that are acceptable in the workplace: https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels/table-z-1

CO2 is arguably just shows the transfer of one carbon organism to another

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01274-4

Would be cool to overlay the co2 levels with other things (such as tree growth, etc)

v1l• 3 years ago

How do they know CO2 levels 500 years back? And what happened in 1600 for them to drop?

draaglom• 3 years ago

how: ice cores (I don't know the answer re: 1600s)

delecti• 3 years ago

I'm no expert, but it seems one prominent theory on why CO2 dropped around 1600 is that it's a result of Europeans killing so many indigenous Americans. The reduction in agriculture led to forests regrowing, giving a temporary boost to CO2 sequestration. The CO2 dip is referred to as the "Orbis Spike".

This seems to be one of the better results on the subject: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/mar/epoch-defining-study-pin...

ibejoeb• 3 years ago

It's a good time to plant some trees

emvein• 3 years ago

Why it decreased in 1600?

andrewla2• 3 years ago

Mauna Loa is not the only source of historic CO2 levels, though it has the oldest data. You can see all the other ones that NOAA keeps track of through their data interface [1]. Most of the data sources report very similar numbers, especially in the trendlines.

[1] https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/data/index.php?category=Greenhouse%2...

ZEAES• 3 years ago

I cant believe how many people continue to fall for this nonsense.

First of all the manipulation of the graph to make it look like there is massive changes going on in the atmosphere.

You have to see it in true perspective.

For instance represent all the components 100 % on a wall as 100 inches ( A little over 8 feet high)

21 percent of oxygen in our atmosphere would take up 21 inches

Carbon Dioxide at 421 PARTS PER MILLION is actually 0.04 percent To represent this we need a little less than one millimeter (about 1/25) of an inch

That 280 ppm to 421 ppm jump that looks so frightening on their graphs is actually about 1/7 of a millimeter of a scale of the atmosphere over 8 feet tall

water vapor in the atmosphere has a much greater heating and cooling effect.

They have convinced millions of people that carbon dioxide is some kind of dangerous pollutant that we must control by giving them control over our activities and travel.

In fact carbon dioxide is an essential component for plants (a plant food) In fact many green houses go to a lot of trouble to keep pumping up carbon dioxide levels up to 1500 ppm because it results in lush growth and is absorbed by the plants resulting in higher yields.

mr-ron2• 3 years ago

Pretty incredible that so little CO2 can affect so much change of heat on the planet. And also pretty incredible how much more CO2 there is now than before.

What are you arguing about exactly? You are saying that CO2 isnt contributing to global warming?

badrabbit• 3 years ago

This chart doesn't look right. The it went from 280 in the 1700s to not even 500 now (not even a double) yet the chart looks like there was an astronomical spike. With dishonest exaggeration like this, who needs climate change deniers.

andruc2• 3 years ago

I used to following a twitter account that would post the average CO2 level each day, and I distinctly remember the few weeks where I started to see a few 400s amongst the high 300s, and then, finally, never saw 300s again.

bjourne• 3 years ago

Anyone can explain why the curve is sawtooth-shaped? I get that it has to do with seasonal variations, but shouldn't the curve be sinusoidal in that case?

curiousObject• 3 years ago

If you stretch out the timescale horizontally it is close to sinusoidal.

There does seem to be a slight sawtooth effect. A smoother rise followed by a more rapid fall.

But if you think about what vegetation is doing, that fits. Plants slowly gather resources and build structures for reproduction. This extra mass and activity absorbs CO2.

When the plants have successfully reproduced (spread fruit and seeds) the most efficient strategy is to quickly discard the reproductive support structure and processes that are no longer required. So the CO2 intake falls rapidly.

Autumn leaves falling are one of many symptoms of this, though decaying vegetation also releases CO2

tim3334• 3 years ago

That shows levels over the last 1000 years looking exponentially on the rise but if you look over the last 600 million years the impression is very different and much of the time higher.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_07.j...

I'm not a warming denier but framing everything to make things look bad has adverse effects too.

sixbrx• 3 years ago

The vast majority of that time had neither modern humans nor anything like our civilization, so wouldn't really be relevant though. Hell at 600 million years ago there were just the first "complex" (not individually microscopic) life forms emerging.

Also the ups and downs in temperatures happened over a far longer period of time than what we're experiencing now, giving life more time to adapt.

SergeAx• 3 years ago

That should be named "co2levels.fyi"

bioinformatics• 3 years ago

Funny website. You have to be a complete moron, or a regular user here, to take it serious.

MongoTheMad• 3 years ago

Interesting graph.

I believe too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing, but it is hard to find good, global suggested remediations to this issue.

- I use public transportation with my family of 6. (We do not own a car). - My kids walk to school ~1 mile away. - I stopped buying oak, because I read somewhere oak removes a good amount of CO2 over other types of trees. - We live in an area where it is easy to find evironmentally-concerned food producers and buy from them.

What else is there left for us to do?

Kankuro• 3 years ago

Convincing more people that your approach is necessary and that technology will not evolve quickly enough to we (western people) continue to live like we used to? (until now, I brilliantly failed around me)

sershe• 3 years ago

I wonder how they chose a time period both for the initial display and for the total. What's special about last 800k years?

Full context: https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2... from https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

Global CO2 Levels

Related Stories