0
Ice core samples, by definition, must be taken on polar ice caps, because that's the only place where ice stays frozen year-round, and the only place where it can accumulate year after year. But polar ice caps are surrounded by millions of square miles of near-freezing water. Water absorbs carbon dioxide. In fact, the solubility of carbon dioxide in water increases, geometrically, as water temperature decreases, reaching maximum solubility at the freezing point. Of course, this is also true of nitrogen and oxygen, the two primary components of air. However, carbon dioxide is much more soluble than either of those at all temperatures. At the freezing point, carbon dioxide is 30 times more soluble than oxygen and 70 times more soluble than nitrogen. Now, if you have all this very cold, nearly freezing water surrounding these ice caps, sucking up carbon dioxide out of the polar atmosphere, at nearly the highest possible rate, 30 times faster than oxygen, and 70 times faster than nitrogen, doesn't it stand to reason that the air that remains might just have a lot less carbon dioxide in it than the atmosphere across the rest of the planet? This is the air that is being trapped in air bubbles, to be preserved in ice core samples. And it is not representative of the atmosphere as a whole.
There is more to this answer.
CO2 will also diffuse through the ice at a set rate and the effect over time will be that the CO2 concentration will be a function of the vapor pressure of the CO2 in the trapped air, and the rate of diffusion of the CO2 through the ice. After a sufficiently long period under pressure it would be expected to stabilize at a level below that in the original bubbles. It is probable that agreement of the CO2 levels in ice cores is due to this diffusion function over time under particular pressures, rather than the original percentage of CO2 in the trapped air.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoFor the past 20 million years CO2 levels ranged between 200 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of our atmosphere.
For the past 800,000 years the average CO2 concentration gradually varied between 250 and 290 ppm.
4000 BCE 260 ppm
3000 BCE 260
1000 BCE 280
1 AD 280
1700 280
1900 290
1950 300
1960 316
1970 325
1980 338
1990 354
2000 370
2010 388
Projected:
2020 415
2030 444
2040 474
2050 504
2080 600
2100 650
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What would a graph of carbon dioxide absorption look like for a forested area?
A decreasing line
How does the rainforest effect global warming?
A:The Amazon Rain forest is a massive carbon sink. In normal years this rainforest absorbs almost 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. During the drought year of 2005 many trees died, releasing almost 3 billion tonnes of CO2. This 5 billion tonnes lost is more than the annual emissions of Europe and Japan combined. So the Amazon rainforest has a vital role to play in absorbing carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. See the link to the drought study below.
Which processes add and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
The calvin cycle removes carbon dioxide from the air and uses it to form carbohydrates in plants. The burning of fossil fuels releases trapped carbon dioxide from the fuel and releases it back into the atmosphere.
What air pollutants combine and contribute to global warming?
Global warming usually refers to a long term increase in global average temperatures, a process we see now. The main cause of global warming is an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, with an increase in methane levels making a small contribution.In the absence of anthropogenic activities, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere would be fairly static. Animals exhale carbon dioxide, but vegetation converts this back into edible products that are then consumed by those animals. Similarly, rotting vegetation gives off carbon dioxide, but the vegetation is soon replaced by new vegetation that requires the same amount of carbon. The natural cycle contributes no net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Even burning wood or paper has no net effect on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, although cutting down trees for wood or paper could do so if new trees are not allowed to grown and absorb as much carbon as the trees cut down. So, CO2 concentrations had remained around 260-280 parts per million (ppm) until the time of the Industrial revolution, when the level of CO2 began to rise in line with increasing use of fossil fuels.The increase from 260-280 ppm to the present 390 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the result of human activity. The main cause is by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Other factors are deforestation, mainly as land-clearing for farming, and the manufacture of cement.Although atmospheric concentrations of methane are very much lower than those of carbon dioxide, it is a much mor potent greenhouse gas. Methane mainly comes from the stomachs of sheep and cattle when they belch.A:There are many things. Greenhouse gases being the first. They act just like a green house trapping in warmer air. These are the result of industrialization and cattle. Cattle gives of an abundance of methane gas. All that is needed to shift the balance is a slight change of temperature, which results in the destruction of the ecology of the ocean, the destruction of ice, which is our refirgerator, and basically the whole system shifts.
How are humans contributing to climate Change?
The main human activity causing global warming is the burning of carbon-based "fossil" fuels, which are coal, oil, and natural gas (methane). By using carbon-based energy sources to produce our everyday energy needs, we increase the amount of global warming as the burning fossil fuels release a main "greenhouse gas", carbon dioxide (CO2), into the air. This extra CO2 is too much for the Earth's natural carbon cycle to deal with, and it remains in the atmosphere, warming the planet ever more as the levels build.Another human activity that contributes is the overall reduction of Earth's plant life. For example, when we cut down great forests resulting in fewer plants to absorb the CO2 and release oxygen, more warming occurs.In addition, it is believed that animal husbandry plays a role with increasing the levels of another greenhouse gas, methane, which is produced by the livestock. It remains to be seen just how hot the planet is going to become.Detailed Explanation:When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide, which is a "greenhouse gas", meaning that it tends to trap heat, because it is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation, so heat gets in during the day and has difficulty being radiated back out into space at night.Our animal husbandry also plays a big part. All the cattle that people raise emit a greenhouse gas, methane, which is a by-product of the cattle's digestive process. Some believe that this may play as large a role, or even a larger role, in global warming than the role of burning fossil fuels.There is still controversy about the "anthropogenics", the human role in creating global warming. Some people argue that global warming is a natural process that would be happening anyway, even if people did nothing.The link between carbon dioxide levels and global warming was established as long ago as the nineteenth century. In the absence of anthropogenic activities, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere would be fairly static thanks to the natural "carbon cycle". Animals exhale carbon dioxide, but vegetation converts this back into edible products that are then consumed by those animals. Similarly, rotting vegetation gives off carbon dioxide, but the vegetation is soon replaced by new vegetation that requires the same amount of carbon. This natural carbon cycle contributes no net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Even burning wood or paper has no net effect on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Although, cutting down trees for wood or paper could do so if new trees are not planted or allowed to grow and absorb as much carbon as the trees that were cut down were absorbing to keep the cycle in balance. With this natural carbon cycle, CO2 concentrations had remained around 260-280 parts per million (ppm) until the time of the Industrial Revolution. Then the level of CO2 began to rise in line with increasing use of fossil fuels.Scientists gradually began to realize that, by burning fossil fuels, we were interfering with the natural carbon cycle and raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations sufficiently to begin affecting the global climate. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have now risen by more than 35 per cent since pre-industrial times, to the present level of over 380 ppm. The consensus view of climate scientists is that this does result from human activities.There seem to be a myriad of answers to this question from all viewpoints on the issue of human involvement in global warming, making it a confusing topic to grasp for those who are not atmospheric scientists. However, the video link below, in the related links for this question, is a good starting point for understanding the scientific facts and conclusions.
What do you observe when carbon dioxide enters line water?
If you mean "what is observed when carbon dioxide enters lime water" then lime water, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3) absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) to form a white precipitate or "milky" solution that is semitransparent.
How do soda companies put carbon dioxide in beverages?
Carbon dioxide gas is actually bubbled thru cold water until it reaches a saturation level. The colder the water the more carbon dioxide it can hold. In reality just cold tap water temperatures are used but the gas is applied at pressure. If you raise the pressure on the water (usually done in a pressure vessel) and bubble carbon dioxide thru it you can reach higher saturation levels of CO2 which will be retained long enough for the carbonated sugar water to be put in the bottling line.
What would a graph of carbon dioxide absorption look like for this forested area?
A decreasing line
What would a graph of carbon dioxide absorption look like for a forested area?
A decreasing line
What is a A single line of feeding interactions that show energy transfer in an ecosystem?
Well its oxygen carbon dioxide cycle
Are plants reducing global warming?
Plants reduce carbon dioxide, because they absorb carbon and release oxygen. Yes, they help reduce global warming, because excess carbon dioxide emissions increase the green house effect and global warming. Plants in total consume a small percentage of the carbon dioxide, a known minor contributor to global warming. The bottom line is that plants are a small carbon sink.
What is the name of the process that removes carbon dioxide from the air?
That depends on how we are doing this. The most common method is simple absorption into water. Next in line is the respiratory process of plants.
When do you use line graphs in maths?
When form example showing the difference in each year of the increase of carbon dioxide. Does that answer your question or do i have to explain further??
What are the major elements of Mars atmosphere?
Over 95% is carbon dioxide. The rest is: 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, 0.2% oxygen, 0.07% carbon monoxide, 0.03% water vapor, 0.01% nitric oxide, and any of the remaining elements are under a few parts per million.
Carbon oxygen cycle?
Oxygen is removed from the air through respiration, then carbon dioxide is released into the air, the carbon is removed from the air through the process of photosynthesis. There are many diagrams available on line showing this process.
What contributes to atmospheric carbon dioxide?
In the absence of anthropogenic activities, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere would be fairly static. Animals exhale carbon dioxide, but vegetation converts this back into edible products that are then consumed by those animals. Similarly, rotting vegetation gives off carbon dioxide, but the vegetation is soon replaced by new vegetation that requires the same amount of carbon. The natural cycle contributes no net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Even burning wood or paper has no net effect on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, although cutting down trees for wood or paper could do so if new trees are not allowed to grown and absorb as much carbon as the trees cut down. So, CO2 concentrations had remained around 260-280 parts per million (ppm) until the time of the Industrial revolution, when the level of CO2 began to rise in line with increasing use of fossil fuels. The increase from 260-280 ppm to the present 390 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide is almost entirely due to human activities. The main cause is by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Another important cause is deforestation, mainly as land-clearing for farming. _______________________________________________________________ There is absolutely zero scientific evidence to make the claim that carbon dioxide has ever been "fairly static". The science behind the levels of carbon dioxide differ vastly from the political viewpoint stated. CO2 has varied by about 800 years behind temperature. This is a well known trend for the past 650K years according to all available data. The current upward trend started well over 10,000 years ago, shortly after the temperatures started to rise. Carbon dioxide has always followed temperature. With the current warming trend now at over 10 degrees C, it is a normal and expected occurrence that CO2 levels would eventually follow. Levels as low as 190 ppm have been observed in the past 10,000 years, as well as levels (reported by Noble winning science experts from the 1800's) of well over 400 ppm. (Beck 2008). The overall trend for CO2 has been upward almost non stop for the past 9,300 years. There have been fluctuations, but this is the undisputed trend. Man's production of less than 6% of all CO2 is possibly a partial contributor to the current levels of CO2. That is a very possible scenario. Nature's production of 94% is a known cause of increase. To blame man as the sole reason for increase though is misleading and absolutely false. We know that the levels of CO2 rose over 100 ppm prior to man starting to use any coal. The one undisputed fact of CO2 increase is the know relationship between temperature and the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. Temperature causes CO2 to rise. This is a known event. Human additions are a speculative (albeit possible) issue.
What are the two largest greenhouse gasses?
In every measurable way the two that have the most affect on the natural greenhouse effect are water vapor (up to 75%) and Carbon Dioxide (5 to 25%).Both are naturally occurring, yet man is producing ever larger portions of CO2. We are currently producing around 3% of all annually produced CO2.A:Referring to the accelerated greenhouse effect we are now experiencing:Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the greenhouse gas responsible for the accelerated greenhouse effect, added by humans burning fossil fuels. CO2 is having the largest effect on the recent increases in global temperature.The other powerful greenhouse gas is methane (CH5) which is produced by cattle, animal manure and is released from melting tundra and lake beds. It is 21 times more powerful than CO2.
