 |
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. |
|
|
|
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Carbon dioxide: |
|
|
Here are some tasks you can do:
- Cleanup:
- More and better references (more print references needed)
- Use a consistent style of referencing (inline seems the best)
- Tidy up external links
- Expand:
- On other planets (e.g. Venus)
- More on plants (Mainly their carbon fixation e.g. CAM, C4 plants)
- More on past levels of CO2 and how they changed (e.g. earth's early atmosphere, the role of cyanobacteria)
- Write a full lead section when finished (~3 paragraphs)
- Verify:
Verify disputed claims and statistics
|
From ACID nomination:
- Vital topic for any encyclopaedia, but is in poor shape. Pending a split, and has several lists of things that need doing, if anyone is interested? — Jack · talk · 06:08, Wednesday, 25 April 2007
- Especially with all of the discussion of it in Global Warming contexts recently. ~ BigrTex 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Way too long "see also" list, should and could be incorporated into prose. Punkmorten 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Fire Extinguisher Entry is outdated and wrong.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)
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. |
[edit] 'Solar fuel' section
This section was added in this edit by Nepomuk 3 (talk · contribs) with the comment, "Moved section from article Carbon dioxide removal to this section". The section is badly written and badly formatted, using an unexplained soup of TLAs. It is sourced to the website of a German company with the same name, that appears to be looking for venture capital.[1] I think this is spam that should be deleted rather than improved. Is this in fact a recognised use of CO2, or do other editors agree it should go for now until the technology picks up? --Nigelj (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Ref errors, beyond my knowledge to fix
Folks, We need some one with editing and knowledge of advance references to fix reference #68 and #69. I looked at them and I fear I will just mess them up more. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- They are simply absent (nothing to fix), thus asked the editor who added them. Thanks for the note. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] In the Earth's atmosphere
This section stated that CO2 levels had increased by 35% "since the beginning of the industrial age". But the reference is on the Keeling Curve which measured temperatures only from 1955 and states that the levels have risen 36% since 1958. I've modified the blurb appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The source states:
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
- But the 36% part is talking about the percentage increase since the industrial revolution, not between 1958 an 2004. Using figures from today we can calculate that it's actually a 40% increase now: ((392-280)/280)*100 = 40% . Can we update this based on WP:CALC or not? SmartSE (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- Okay. Re-reading your article, I see your point on the "pre-industrial age" part. But I don't think updating the calculations is "simple math" since the information comes from two different sources. I'm personally bothered that the NOAA article combines (with out saying so) data from the Keeling data with data from some unnamed source. This is fine by the rules of Wikipedia, but adding to this a calculation based on a THIRD unassociated measurement moves this article from Wikipedia to being a research article on metadata. Manawyddan (talk)
[edit] IR absorption and re-emission
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared, before slowly re-emitting before slowly re-emitting at the same wavelength as what was absorbed."
This is unreferenced and is vague. What does "before slowly re-emitting" mean? That the absorbed energy is re-emitted over some period, presumably. Does "slowly" mean over a period of microseconds? Or over a period of weeks?
Sorry I don't have the expertise to make any improvements myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.215.75.133 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Concerns about references in Toxicity section
In the toxicity section, there is reliance on:
- InspectAPedia - I'm not familiar with this source. I looked in RSN and don't see any discussion. While I see that entries have some references included, I don't know that this qualifies as a Reliable Source. Has this been discussed? If not it should be, as the article makes health and safety related claims which deserve special attention to ensure they are accurate.
- "Marine Notice: Carbon Dioxide: Health Hazard". Australian Maritime Safety Authority. I'm not familiar with this, not have I located it online. I did find [this] containing a reference to a 2003 document "Carbon dioxide - health hazards" with the note under Action "no longer required" so, we ought to follow up to see whether the reference needs updating.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Chemical Sampling Information: Carbon Dioxide. This link is used to support the statement "NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health" but I don't see anything at the link to support this.
I have no doubt that elevated levels of CO2 are a health risk, but if we are to report this, we owe it to readers to do so accurately, and with references that support the claims.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
To-do list for Carbon dioxide:
