Talk:Carbon dioxide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleCarbon 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.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
December 10, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 11, 2007.
Current status: Delisted good article

Conversion of v/v to m/m[edit]

I have corrected the conversion of ppm by volume to ppm by mass. The original note claims that this conversion could be performed by multiplying by the ratio of the molecular masses of CO2 and Air. The correct equation multiplies by the ratio of the densities of CO2 and Air. The difference between the density of moist air and the density of dry air is a non-trivial factor, and so volume can not be disregarded. A quick dimensional analysis will confirm that this is the correct method:


Or to be more explicit: mCO2/mAir = (vCO2/vAir) (vAir/mAir) (mCO2/vCO2)

Taking this approach usually gets you a ppm-m that is about 1.9 times greater than the ppm-v.


The subsection on Earth's atmosphere now suffers from sandwiching, which is an accessibility issue (and also ugly). I deleted one image to partially fix the issue, and like to start discussion now that @Plantsurfer seems to have a differing opinion on importance. Given the non-negioability of accessibility, I see only a few solutions

  • Remove low-quality image I deleted before: the same information is given in c of the big picture
  • Remove the NASA simulation (=prettiest picture). Even without absorbtion, CO2 is well-mixed in earth's atmosphere, so the false-colour NASA simulation may misinform more than inform.
  • Remove the big picture: it's also not great in resolution, and may be overly detailed.

The Keeling curve is canonical, so should stay. Let me know which solution you prefer. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the NASA image is least relevant to our existing article prose. It's also substantially about CO2 absorbance by the oceans, which is the next section of the article, and MOS guideline is that it's better to have an image "too late" than "too soon" vs the article paragraph to which it relates. Further, I don't think this image should be used at all without substantial explanation of what it means. Even reading the image description page, I can't figure out what the color-scale is and whether it is absolute vs relative to today's absorbing capability. That probably makes it all too detailed for this top-level CO2 article. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SANDWICH makes no mention of accessibility as a basis. Our MOS pages are an interwoven jungle, with some parts affected by others (and changes discussed in one place are not always propagated). Could you point us to a discussion in the ACCESS world where SANDWICH is discussed? Feel free to redirect me to those MOS's talkpages if you like. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that accessibility is not mentioned there. It is mentioned here: MOS:ACCIM. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated values of the triple point, critical point, and vapour pressure; minor grammatical changes; slightly messed-up references (again)[edit]

Hello everyone!

I've updated the values of the triple point, critical point, and vapour pressure of carbon dioxide based on this [1] (you can find an accessible version on Semantic Scholar, which is the one I used). I removed the melting point row in the table because I wanted to replace it with the (more accurate? I'm not sure) triple point but then found the parameter wasn't available for Chembox. I've also done a few grammatical fixes at some points to (in my opinion) make the text a bit easier to read.

However, being the newbie that I still am, I've messed up the references for the source linked above AGAIN. Can someone please help fix up the references?


MeasureWell (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section: In Earth's atmosphere[edit]

I am planning to do some work on the article carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere and was just looking around to see what links to there. This article links to there and actually has a section called "In Earth's atmosphere". In order to reduce repetition and overlap I'd like to suggest that we synchronise the two articles. Perhaps what would work best is to use an excerpt from carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, and to move/merge the existing text from here to there. Otherwise we'd have to update content in two place which would be tedious. EMsmile (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do any of the people watching this page think of my proposal from 26 Nov 21? If no objections, I can try to tackle this soon-ish. EMsmile (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea in my opinion and I encourage you to go ahead. Not sure what you mean by using an "excerpt" from carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere instead of the present section. Maybe you are thinking of adapting that article's lead for use in this section? In any case, I appreciate the massive effort and skill you have previously put into organizing and improving articles related to climate and the environment. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:excerpt allow you to transclude the same paragraphs in multiple articles. In this case, I'd be okay with it after the lead section is sufficiently improved with citations from this article.
Currently, the information of this article seems to be of higher quality. The 'in earths atmosphere' lead is not fully cited, and contains outdated information (the 30-40% again).
A complete replacement would reduce the text from 6 to 2 paragraphs. That may be too little in comparison with overview sources? I think the first 5 are valuable. You'll probably want to write at least one more paragraph to better summarise the 'in Earth's atmosphere' article, but making sure there isn't too much overlap with other sections in the current article. A challenge for sure :). Femke (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the fundamental factors in the emergence of life. Forms carbon and water in reaction with methane.[edit]

One of the fundamental factors in the emergence of life. Forms carbon and water in reaction with methane. Jacek Wasielewski 2A00:F41:707E:9613:0:25:F40:8F01 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 is not acidic.[edit]

This page is protected so I can’t edit it but it contains a basic error. CO2 is not acidic or an acid in itself so to state so is incorrect. It can form an acid when dissolved in water as the H2O and CO2 combine to form Carbonic Acid. (H2 CO3) 2A00:23C8:821D:3801:64C8:80D8:7107:9DBF (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in intro paragraph. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]