Do you mean when earth was formed? Well, since the earth was part of an astteriod and broke off, it only contained carbon dioxide. But later little organism were able to regulate the amount of carbon dixide and oxgen in air slowly.
2007-10-01 13:04:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Using phrases like "pumping co2 into the atmosphere" is misleading.
The atmosphere is 16 km thick, the earth has a surface area of 500 million square kilometres. This means the volume of the atmosphere is 8 billion cubic kilometers. CO2 comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere.
How much co2 is your suv pumping into the atmosphere?
Virtually nothing. An internal combustion engine's exhaust is only 10% C02. Furthermore, an engine usually operates at closed or nearly closed throttle. (we don't drive through traffic at wide open throttle). The engine's intake per revolution is only 10% of 5 liters (5000 cc or O.OOO OOO OOO OO5 km3)
All the cars in the world will only increase CO2 levels by 1% per year assuming there is NO co2 absorption by plants.
2007-10-01 17:52:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Deckard2020 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would like to point out that much of the estimate for the amount of CO2 has to do with evaluating the carbonate rocks and how much CO2 it would take to form them. Since geologist used to favor a molten formation of earth, this seemed the only reasonable explanation. A better explanation in my opinion is that methane (coverted to CO2 by oxidation) seeped continuously from cracks and volcanoes (converted to CO2 by heat) and then formed carbonate rocks continuosly for billions of years. This makes more sense in a cold accretion theory of earth formation. Under this theory, it is not necessary to have CO2 as concentrated as once theorized. Most geologists are old school and would certainly not agree with me. For this reason, I am skeptical that it was ever 1000(s) times more concentrated than now. I do think that CO2 levels are largely the result of warming not the cause. The amount humans added is difficult to ascertain with any degree of accuracy since it is part of the carbon cycle. Concentrations are far from static meaning they change as temperatures fluctuate. In response to Patrick's made interesting point. I think the atmosphere was more dense and thicker according to their theories.
2007-10-01 15:19:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by JimZ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Earth is 4.567 billion years old, from the point of it's creation to 3.7 billion years ago it was a lifeless rock with an atmopshere consisting of 98% carbon dioxide and a super greenhouse effect.
Then the first ever lifeforms appeared - cyanobacteria, they used sunlight and carbon dioixde to make food but they also produced what was then a toxic byproduct, namely oxygen.
For the next 1.2 billion years a battle ensued between the photosynthesising bacteria and the oxygen consuming volcanoes. The bacteria won and for the first time the level of oxygen production exceeded the levels being removed, free oxygen began to accumulate in the atmopshere, carbon dioxide levels fell and the climate began to moderate.
The process continued allowing life to evolve to it's present day state and radically altering atmospheric composition. We've got a lot to thank those tiny bacteria for.
2007-10-01 14:03:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
6⤊
1⤋
I hope you don't imagine this is some sort of anti-GW evidence. In the past, the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere was determined by natural factors, and in the distant past it was much greater than today. Today, however, a substantial fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by humans burning the accumulated fossil fuel deposits laid down over millions of years. The fact that CO2 concentrations are also, in part, determined by natural processes in no way invalidates the idea of anthropogenic GW.
2007-10-01 16:24:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by cosmo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
When the Earth was formed, the original atmosphere had a lot more CO2 than it does today. That's a good thing, because when the Earth was formed, the Sun was 25% to 30% cooler than it is today. Without that extra CO2, most of Earth would have been a lot like Antarctica.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/198/4321/1035
Over the short term, as we continue to pump more CO2 into the air, Earth will continue to get warmer. Over the very long term, as the Sun evolves, the Sun will continue to get warmer. If we don't get a handle on climate control, and soon, we're looking at mass extinction as a very real possibility. It may have already started.
So take a look at whatever you ate for breakfast today. I sure hope it will still be around for your grandchildren. Otherwise, they're gonna get very hungry.
2007-10-01 15:41:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Keith P 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
The Early Earth's atmosphere was almost all carbon dioxide. It was only later that life evolved to convert most of that to oxygen.
2007-10-01 15:46:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Oxygen is a constituent of DNA and extraordinarily much all different biologically significant compounds. So oxygen is significant for all varieties of existence. each and every person desires oxygen to respire, yet as in maximum of situations too lots isn't good. respiratory 50-one hundred% oxygen at typical stress over a protracted era reasons lung harm. In surroundings, fairly centred supplies of oxygen sell speedy combustion and subsequently are hearth and explosion destructive aspects interior the presence of fuels. If our environment considered organic oxygen, then there's no existence interior the earth.
2016-12-28 10:13:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The formation of the Earth was responsible.
That hasn't been the case for at least 500 million years. Actual peer reviewed scientific data, not just my statement.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide_png
When CO2 was even 10X what it is now, the Earth was very different. Things like coastlines and plant life. That kind of change would be ruinous to our present society.
Here are details about what even a 2-3X change would cause. It's not pretty, and it would not be fun to deal with.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
2007-10-01 13:41:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Bob 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
It was part of the original accretion disk.
It couldn't be the fault of conservative Republicans. All the Conservatives were Democrats until George McGovern. Now it looks like we'll all be switching back. No way they'll pin that CO2 on us though. :-)
2007-10-02 04:24:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋