Here’s Looking at You, CO2 Updated

Raymond of RiC-Communications  studio commented on a recent post and made an offer to share here some graphics on CO2 for improving public awareness.  This post presents the eleven charts he has produced so far. I find them straightforward and useful, and appreciate his excellent work on this. Project title is link to RiC-Communications.

Updates January 21 and February 22, 2020 with three added slides

This project is: The world of CO2

Infographics can be helpful, in making things simple to understand. CO2 is a complex topic with a lot of information and statistics. These simple step by step charts should help to give you an idea of CO2’s importance. Without CO2, plants wouldn’t be able to live on this planet. Just remember, that if CO2 falls below 150 ppm, all plant life would cease to exist.

– N° 1 Earth‘s atmospheric composition
– N° 2 Natural sources of CO2 emissions
– N° 3 Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
– N° 4 CO2 – Carbon dioxide molecule
– N° 5 The global carbon cycle
– N° 6 Carbon and plant respiration
– N° 7 Plant categories and abundance (C3, C4 & CAM Plants)
– N° 8 Photosynthesis, the C3 vs C4 gap
– N° 9 Plant respiration and CO2
– N° 10 The logarithmic temperature rise of higher CO2 levels.
N° 11 Earths atmospheric composition in relationship to CO2
– N° 12 Human respiration and CO2 concentrations.
– N° 13 600 million years of temperature change and atmospheric CO2

13_infographic_co2

And in Addition

Note that the illustration #10 assumes (as is the “consensus”) that doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a 1C rise in GMT (Global Mean Temperature).  Even if true, the warming would be gentle and not cataclysmic.  Greta and XR are foolishly thinking the world goes over a cliff if CO2 hits 430ppm.  I start to wonder if Greta really can see CO2 as she claims.

It is also important to know that natural CO2 sources and sinks are estimated with large error ranges.  For example this table from earlier IPCC reports:

Since the Statue of Liberty features in the sea level graphic, here are observations from there

nyc-past-projected

Below are some other images I find meaningful, though they lack Raymond’s high production values.

 

co2-levels2018

41 comments

  1. Raymond · January 9

    Hey super! Thanks a million! Thanks for the added feedback and extra graphs! A few of which are perfect for me to visualize… Science is so much fun!

    Just after you published I created a new visual for sea level rise over the past 20000 Years, Nr. 11

    Last and final note, there was a time when we the artists worked hand in hand with the sciences, which was called „The Arts and Sciences“. Today we have drifted apart, a sad byproduct of technical innovations. Our cooperation can be of great help in making complicated and often boring themes more exciting and interesting. This helps to make things easier to understand and raise awareness on a wide range of themes.

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · January 9

      Yes arts and sciences belong together, More recently it’s has been arts and marketing, since that provides patronage these days. So your efforts are very welcome. If you don’t know Eleanor Lutz, check out her science illustrations at https://tabletopwhale.com.

      Like

      • Raymond · January 9

        Wow, Eleanor does some really cool stuff! Amazing.
        I updated the mistake on diagram Nr. 4, the double bonds are not integrated.

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 9

        I guess it would look like this:

        Like

      • Raymond · January 9

        Hi Ron
        I think you already switched out the diagram for the update. I think the new diagram is like alamy stock photo. The position of the other electrons isn’t exactly the same, but I’ve seen a number of variations on the positions of those that are not connected to the carbon atom. Let me know if you want it adjusted or not. It’s not a problem. R.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ron Clutz · January 9

        It seems that the chemists show carbon and oxygen sharing 8 elections so the diagram should show that.

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 9

        Maybe this is easier to work with

        Like

    • Ron Clutz · January 9

      Thanks Raymond, #4 looks great and your explanation is clear

      Like

      • Raymond · January 10

        Yes, I’m gald, I learned something positive about atoms!!!! I’ll keep you posted as I create some new and exciting diagrams! Cheers R

        Like

  2. nzrobin · January 9

    Hi Ron, check the electron diagram in slide 4. Should be double bonds between the C and the Os.

    Like

    • Raymond · January 9

      Hi Robin
      Thanks for the tip, I’ll fix that later on and update it. I’ll let Ron know when I’ve switched it out.

      Like

    • Raymond · January 9

      Hi Robin
      I’ve updated the electron diagram. I can’t attache the diagram to this reply, but I think i got it right!
      Super tip, you never can learn enough. Cheers Ray
      Link to new upload on my website.
      https://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/simple-science.html

      Hi Ron
      If the update of diagram Nr. 4 is correct now, maybe it would be a good idea to switch it out.
      Sorry for the trouble. Ray

      Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 9

        thanks Robin and Raymond, sincerely Ron

        Like

      • Raymond · January 10

        Hi Ron
        I just added another diagram Nr. 12. It’s a size relation to concentrations in the atmosphere. It’s based on one of the charts you added at the top. I used hot air balloons to show the size relationship in concentrations.
        I’m not sure if it’s a little to cheeky … especially the headline at the top. What do you think?
        PLEASE DON’T POST IT YET… I’d like to review it a little more.

        Cheers and have a nice weekend. Ray

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 10

        Raymond, it’s a good start. What’s missing are the two microscopes in descending order: 1)GHGs showing CO2 in proportion to H2O, and 2)Anthro CO2 in proportion to natural. You might consider putting the smaller red balloons inside the larger blue ones to show proportions; otherwise the microscope exaggerates the comparable sizes.

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 10

        A further thought: The point of this slide should be proportions between IR active (infrared) and IR non-active gases. In this sense, N2, O2 and Ar can all be lumped together as non-IR active, and H2O is distinguished as the only condensing IR-active gas.

        Like

      • Raymond · January 10

        Hi Ron
        OK, I’ll have a look at it. I took it down for now since it’s not to my satisfaction. The chart you included with this article was the origins of the design, however I’m getting the impression that it might be better to keep it a little more simple so that the idea comes across much better. No big deal. I’ve toss out lots of stuff in the past and that’s what makes for a better results. Have a nice weekend… Cheers R

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 10

        Thanks again Raymond. Here’s some background:
        https://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE%20120/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20alpha.htm

        Like

  3. Hifast · January 9

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

    Like

  4. Blair Macdonald · January 12

    Nice work. Did you know the third (non-IR) spectra of CO2 (1338cm-1) and the single spectra of N2 (2338cm-1) and O2 (1556cm-1) and many of the spectra of the other gases and all of the water vapour spectra are detected by Raman spectrometers? By the Boltzmann constant, Raman instruments measure the temperature of all the gases and it is used as a substitute for current IR instruments – measuring and modelling the real IR atmosphere. See my work at http://vixra.org/abs/1811.0498 I aim to reduce it and publish, I need support. This will end the climate debate.

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · January 12

      Thanks for the comment Blair. I do know of your work and it was an eye opener for me. I don’t know what you have in mind but I believe you are on to something. Here is what I posted November 2018:
      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/11/09/atmospheric-observations-contradict-global-warming-theory/

      Like

    • Ron Clutz · January 12

      Blair, I would also be interested in what you think about Peter Ward’s POV on atmospheric radiative properties.
      See post: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/light-bulbs-disprove-global-warming/

      Like

    • Raymond · January 12

      Thanks, it’s nice to hear positive feedback to my diagrams, since most people outside the science community really don’t understand how important it is to do your homework before deciding on the negative aspects of anything at all. The reason why I decided to make my diagrams is as a result of an interview with William Happer who mentioned the logarithmic effect on CO2 and it’s limits on temperature as concentration rise. This was the first time I had a little more hard evidence that CO2 isn’t the only influencer on climate. (Besides that I have a bias against hypes in general of any kind)

      Like

    • Raymond · January 12

      Hi Blair (again) what’s your background and how did you decide to do this work? Sorry but my background is a real mix, I did, Illustration and Design at Dawson Collage then went to University of Montreal and did on year of “Environmental Studies” followed by one year of “Art History”. After that I decided to work and moved to Zurich Switzerland, where I have been ever since.
      The year I did on Environmental Studies was simply fantastic. I didn’t have it easy, since I was sort of the outsider in the process. However I was a real eye-opener. One of the first atmospheric concepts I learned was atmospheric inversion. One of the professors at that time made it very clear to be careful about jumping to conclusions about climate and any claims made. There is simply too much we still don’t know and looking for easy answers isn’t good science. I have never forgotten his statement. This guy would walk into the class, look at his notes, check where we had left off from the last class, look up once, walk to the chalkboard and never look back for the remaining 1 to 2 hours of class. This is some 30 years ago.

      Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 12

        Thanks Raymond for giving your particulars. I am living north of Montreal after retiring from consulting. Know that ETH Zurich is the world leader in researching global dimming and brightening. See details at
        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/07/12/more-2019-evidence-of-natures-sunscreen/

        Like

      • Raymond · January 12

        Birds of a feather stick together. Wow you’re also from Montreal. Well that just goes to show that we Montrealers do have an interest in the sciences. I don’t miss the winters back home, the climate is much milder here. I’ll keep you posed on my diagrams as the progress … I’m reviewing the balloons that wasn’t a good diagram at all!!!! Cheers R.
        And that article for the ETH, super!!!! Finally someone who’s taking it seriously.

        Like

  5. Raymond · January 15

    – N° 12 Earth’s atmospheric composition in relationship to CO2

    https://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/simple-science.html

    I designed this new chart based on the 3rd chart you added to the list below my designs. I wanted to do this chart a while back since it give a scale representation of CO2 in relationship to the atmosphere.

    It is important to note that man-made CO2 emissions as a percentage vary depending on the sources and the year in which the sources were published. This makes it difficult to give an exact percentage, as some sources give it at 4% and others at 3%. I have averaged it at 3.5% at the moment. I have also used an Excel chart to get an exact scale so that the proportions are as accurate as possible.

    Cheers R.

    Like

    • Ron Clutz · January 15

      Raymond, thanks for your dedication to this work. Two points: Showing Argon is a distraction; it is not IR active. The progression is box#1= all gases (spelling), box#2= all IR active gases, box#3= CO2.

      Like

      • Raymond · January 15

        Hi Ron, thanks for the feedback.

        OMG, I was so focused on getting the scale right that I had missed the whole point of the chart. No excuses. Ok, I’ve updated and I hope it stands up to critical approval. Otherwise I’ll have failed the exam, not good at all!

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 15

        Raymond, I renew my objection to including Argon in box#2; it confuses rather than enlightening. Ar belongs in the all gases box along with O2 and N2; It is not true that 3.5% of the atmosphere is IR active (including Ar is misleading) H2O ranges from O% to 4% of the air, so 2% is a fair approximation, though any local humidity will vary. Also one title speaks of 100% of gasse (German language creeping in?)

        Like

      • Raymond · January 15

        Hi Ron, did you refresh the Cashe? Sometimes it loads the old visual.
        I reduced the avarge to 2% and Argon is nolonger in Box Nr. 2
        (browsers are notoriously lazy at refresching data.
        Ray

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 15

        raymond, when I follow this link
        https://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/simple-science.html
        I get this

        Like

      • Raymond · January 16

        Hi Ron
        I cut the diagram back, it was too complicated and to be honest I missed the point of keeping simple and easy to understand.

        It now looks a lot more like the original graph but incorporated into my design layout. Thanks for your feedback it’s appreciated greatly. Ray

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 16

        Thanks Raymond. Still don’t see this latest version on your project page.

        Like

      • Raymond · January 16

        It’s previews with “Under Review” stamped on it.
        Try this link. I’ll most likely use this in the future before going live.
        http://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/under-review.html

        Like

      • Ron Clutz · January 16

        OK Raymond. I will wait until you post your final slide .
        A suggestion as to context. You have produced a much needed set of images for public information regarding CO2. Now when you start addressing things like sea level and temperature, you are moving into another field of issues which deserve their own heading; i.e. they don’t simply belong to the “World of CO2”.
        Climate activists refer to these things as “multiple lines of evidence for climate change.” A typical list would be:

        Global temperature rise
        Warming oceans
        Shrinking ice sheets
        Glacial retreat
        Decreased snow cover
        Sea level rise
        Declining Arctic sea ice
        Extreme events
        Ocean acidification

        However, all of these are equivocal, involving signal and noise issues. And in any case, the fact of any changes does not in itself prove human causation. Also notice that they are all side effects of the first one, global warming.

        This is the “World of Climate Change” where the public struggles with confusion over what changes are Nature doing what it has always done, and what is caused by humans. IOW these are effects investigated by scientists to raise alarm about climage change. The issue in this arena is “Is anything happening out of the ordinary? ” Alarmists of course spend billions of research dollars to claim all kinds of fearful things to come, from Acne to Zika virus.

        I think of this whole topic as a three-legged stool:

        The first leg is science of causation, the second is impacts and the third is policies.

        Like

      • Raymond · January 16

        SUPER, I thought that it was drifting off of CO2 and more in the climate issues.
        The idea of “World of Climate Change” is the perfect jump to the next set of charts. Spot on!!!!!

        Ok, I’m going to adjust this a little on my website and create a new category for the next set.
        Keep you posted… Cheers R

        Like

  6. Raymond · January 21

    Hi Ron

    I have a question about the last Chart that you added at the bottom of the post.
    GISS Annual Global Mean Temperatures and CO2

    I’ve tried to track down the original chart form “Goddard Institute for Space Studies” but can’t find it online. All the possible links lead to your website. 😉

    Most of the graphs that are now online show a zoomed in version of this graph. This kind of make everything look like a massive temperature rise. Your graph is much better since it give a more realistic perspective verses the CO2 increase.

    I would like to put a reference for the original source if possible before adding this chart.

    I found this link to a similar graph by Suits Space:
    https://suyts.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/back-by-popular-demand-new-and-improved-plus-bonus-graph-of-how-global-warming-looks-on-a-thermometer/

    Sorry for the bother … Cheers R

    Like

  7. Raymond · January 21

    Hi Ron and sorry …
    I just tracked the original data down form GISS and it’s up to date till 2019.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
    I’ll use the GISS as one of the reference source for the temperatures. That clears that up.
    Cheers R.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Blair Macdonald Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s