This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Carbon 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.
Vital topic for any encyclopaedia, but is in poor shape. Pending a split, and has several lists of things that need doing, if anyone is interested? — Jack · talk · 06:08, Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Especially with all of the discussion of it in Global Warming contexts recently. ~ BigrTex 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Way too long "see also" list, should and could be incorporated into prose. Punkmorten 13:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Fire Extinguisher Entry is outdated and wrong.
CO2 IS toxic at concentrations higher than 5%. Design Concentrations for Room Flooding systems with CO2 are 40%+ so CO2 is not suitable for occupied spaces.
CO2 Flooding Systems are not supported for use in occupiable spaces though many countries such as USA and other third world countries still misuse CO2 in Fire Suppression Systems because it is cheap.
The NFPA supports the use of CO2 on electrical hazards though it is not supported globally because CO2 can cause over pressurization, thermal shock, electrical component damage and has human health/toxicity issues.
The NFPA organisation is not the definitive word/authority on Fire Suppression it is just one of many organisations involved in making standards for Fire Protection. The NFPA is really relevent only to the USA. USA codes and standards are typically only relevent to the USA so should not be referenced as the main global Fire standard on a site like wiki which serves a global audience (unless wiki is only for Americans).
Though CO2 was used many years ago to protect enclosed spaces on Ships, this is extremely outdated. CO2 has caused fatalities on ships in Navies and merchant fleets that it is now superceded in this application by using extinguishants that support human life at design concentrations such as HFC-227 or Novec-1230.
Unlike other countries, America and other third world countries still allow the use of CO2 in some applications where humans can be present because CO2 is cheap and installations are not monitored/controlled. (~GRANT)
There seems to be a scarcity regarding how it works (there are some mention on how it does not) and no statistics in production and utilization and percentage of contribution to annual atmospherics increase/decrease or why on how it can't be turned into a cycle linked to sequestration. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That was my point there is lot of information missing (even a link to another article that covers it would work)...
No information on industrial CO2 production besides some mentions, no numbers on what is produced what is used by industry and again what impact it has on atmospheric levels and how or why not it isn't done in conjunction with sequestration efforts (in place of producing it from stable repositories of CO2).
Will check the link you prodded but I don't think that it will cover this subjects (the article topic is more restricted there) (It doesn't, as expected) --220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
There isn't all that much besides burning fuel and producing cement which is mentioned in the article. After that you're into things like extracting it from natural gas and or using it in dry ice but that doesn't contribute anything very relevant to climate change. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I was not referring to CO2 as an industrial by-product but on intentional creation for industrial processes, like beverage gasification and other uses. How much is produced and the reasons why it can't be re-purposed from those sources you mentioned or even re-captured from the atmosphere (in place of other more stable repositories). That was what I was after, and percentages comparison about human sources that included intentional production of CO2. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the way you have done it is good. The link to the working copy is provided first so most readers can just follow that link, but the link to the original EPA site is at the end for anyone who wants to see what that link now looks like. Dirac66 (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
"Human activities have caused CO2 to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. "
We know the increase but we have no definitive knowledge about the causes. During the Cambrian period the earth faced a CO2 level 0f 4000 ppm without any human walking on this planet. Maybe the increase is totally natural.