Talk:Carbon dioxide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carbon dioxide article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Carbon dioxide was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From ACID nomination:
The Fire Extinguisher Entry is outdated and wrong. CO2 IS toxic at concentrations higher than 5%. Design Concentrations for Room Flooding systems with CO2 are 40%+ so CO2 is not suitable for occupied spaces. CO2 Flooding Systems are not supported for use in occupiable spaces though many countries such as USA and other third world countries still misuse CO2 in Fire Suppression Systems because it is cheap. The NFPA supports the use of CO2 on electrical hazards though it is not supported globally because CO2 can cause over pressurization, thermal shock, electrical component damage and has human health/toxicity issues. The NFPA organisation is not the definitive word/authority on Fire Suppression it is just one of many organisations involved in making standards for Fire Protection. The NFPA is really relevent only to the USA. USA codes and standards are typically only relevent to the USA so should not be referenced as the main global Fire standard on a site like wiki which serves a global audience (unless wiki is only for Americans). Though CO2 was used many years ago to protect enclosed spaces on Ships, this is extremely outdated. CO2 has caused fatalities on ships in Navies and merchant fleets that it is now superceded in this application by using extinguishants that support human life at design concentrations such as HFC-227 or Novec-1230. Unlike other countries, America and other third world countries still allow the use of CO2 in some applications where humans can be present because CO2 is cheap and installations are not monitored/controlled. (~GRANT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.155.66 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) |
Suggested correction to "General guidelines on indoor CO2 concentration effects" table
The table in the "Below 1%" section lists a concentration of "700 ppm" with the note "ASHRAE recommendation", but the linked source says (my emphasis)—
Thus, maintaining a steady-state CO2 concentration in a space no greater than about 700 ppm above outdoor air levels will indicate that a substantial majority of visitors entering a space will be satisfied with respect to human bioeffluents (body odor).
So, the ASHRAE recommendation isn't "700 ppm", but rather "700 ppm above outdoor air levels". The table as-written is incorrect. 73.171.45.17 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
There is absolutely no valid physics showing carbon dioxide could warm the Earth
Climatology "Earth's Energy Budget" diagrams totally incorrectly imply that the global mean surface temperature can be determined by adding to the solar radiation that reached the surface (about 170 watts per square meter) about twice as much radiation from so-called greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor) and then deducting non-radiative cooling such as by convection and evaporation. Then the net amount is used in calculations using the Stefan Boltzmann Law to explain the temperature and any supposed increase when the concentration of carbon dioxide and/or methane increases. But that law cannot be used for radiation from two or more surfaces: no valid experiment confirms it could be thus used. These gases on average comprise well under 1% of the atmosphere, so it is blatantly obvious that they could not radiate anywhere near that amount. Hence the whole conjecture is totally wrong. What is correct is in the paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" so read it before this item is removed from this page, as it will be of course. 2001:8003:2683:D300:7460:FE89:995E:D48B (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source to cite that? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Under "Physical Properties"
What's the point of putting the last two numbers of temperature in parentheses? Who ever thought it was a good idea, clean up your mess. 2600:1012:B13C:79A:423:C1AA:877:B9B0 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- The notation means that the digits in parentheses are less certain. So for the minimum pressure at which liquid CO2 can exist, 0.51795(10) MPa means that the figures 0.51795 are reliable and the "10" is only an estimate of the next two digits.
- Perhaps someone who knows more statistics than me could add a Wikilink to an article with a better definition of the meaning of the digits in parentheses. Dirac66 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- The parenthetical numbers are the ±uncertainty of the preceding digits, not more digits that are themselves less-certain. This notation is discussed in Accuracy and precision#Quantification and applications (in the "Alternatively..." discussion about 2/3 through that section) and in Scientific notation#Estimated final digits. So 0.51795(10) means 0.51795±0.00010, which means the range 0.51785—0.51805. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2025
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To update paragraph 2, 1st sentence Change "421" to "428", Replace "0.042% (as of May 2022)" with "0.043% (as of July 2025)"
The source is https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121 (accessed Sept. 4, 2025). Sciguy999 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Done --pro-anti-air (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
