site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 28, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What's the correct amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Let's say that you could set the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by simply twisting a dial. What do you set the dial at? Here are some options:

  • 172 ppm : 800,000 million years ago. Glaciers cover Washington DC and Paris.
  • 280 ppm : 1750 AD on the verge of the Industrial Revolution
  • 350 ppm : Late 1980s
  • 425 ppm : Modern estimate
  • 1600 ppm : Eocene period, 50 million years ago. Tropical conditions prevail over the entire Earth.

You might be tempted to set the level at the pre-industrial level. But the climate back then was rather non-ideal. The Earth was in the depths of the Little Ice Age. The Thames river often froze. And, with this level of carbon, the return of another true ice age would be almost certain.

If I had control now, I'd probably set it at 400. But I think the ideal level for human habitation of the Earth is somewhat higher. The problem of course, is that there's no way to get from here to there without massive ecological disruption.

Doesn't it just depend on where you want to live? If you want to live in northern Canada then sure, bring on the global warning! But that would also make places like the middle east, India, and Southeast Asia unbearable to live in. And those places all have a lot more people in them than Northern Canada.

What were the levels in the Carboniferous? Because I would set them to this value.

175–600 ppm according to Wikipedia.

Any reason for that being the ideal level?

I want massive flying insects. I guess the oxygen levels would have to be higher for that as well.

Maybe he wants to have abundance for all?

The problem of course, is that there's no way to get from here to there without massive ecological disruption.

Is that true? I'm not sure. It would probably depend on how much higher "somewhat higher" is and how quickly one wants to turn the dial. Rates are probably the single most important thing in many of these conversations, and they're often the things that are most poorly investigated/understood.