10 ms·

Carbon dioxide toxicity and climate change: a serious unapprehended risk

115 points by graeme 8y ago

ndonnellan 8y ago
Please mark the title with [pdf] tag, as it auto downloads.
- leephillips 8y ago
  I just got an HTML version with a link to download the PDF, no auto download.
- graeme 8y ago
  Sorry about that. I think they may have switched the link to an html.
empath75 8y ago
‘You and your children and grandchildren are going to suffocate’ sounds like a much better way for people to get across the dangers of burning fossil fuel than the vague threat of climate change. It’s personal and horrifying to contemplate.
- graeme 8y ago
  That's what I was thinking. The warming and climate destabilization effects will be worse (ugh), but this is perhaps easier to describe. "You know that feeling of a stuffy meeting room? That's what outside will be in 2100 if we don't reduce. Inside will be worse."
taf2 8y ago
Maybe a side business figure out how to e sure building air systems are pumping the correct balance of air for maximum lung efficiency... like pumping O2 into the room but with filters to remove and correctly balance the air. For that matter it seems like some longer term studies to determine what balance if air actually leads to longer life
- pjc50 8y ago
  Very sci-fi; suddenly we need a life support system inside our offices because we've ruined the air. Maybe borrow some of these from the ISS: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050210002.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/200502...
jdnier 8y ago
I'm blocked from the PDF link. This may be the same article, although it's dated 2016: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Carbon-dioxide-toxicity-and-climate-change%3A-a-risk-Bierwirth/a53f3a6f7a0db8cfd006c51f19c76a68f3386f7e https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Carbon-dioxide-toxicit...
- graeme 8y ago
  The link goes to html now. Same author, but it's a 2017 working paper.
perilunar 8y ago
Well that was worrying. Now I'm sitting here in my air-conditioned office building wondering what the CO₂ level is and wishing I could open a window. Got to buy a CO₂ meter: https://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=CO2+meter https://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=CO2+meter
- graeme 8y ago
  I think good AC is actually ok, since it's based on venting indoor air out. Definitely depends on the building though. But my CO2 meter reads lower with AC on. (With windows closed. Windows open is power still)
  - janekm 8y ago
    If your AC is the type that vents out indoor air then this makes sense (though smaller AC units tend to just circulate the indoor air after cooling/dehydrating). Depending on the sensor technology in your CO2 meter, it could be sensitive to temperature, so that may be worth trying to exclude as a factor.
Fej 8y ago
Abstract: > "As atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide continue to escalate and drive climate change, the issue of CO2 toxicity is not recognised as a global risk. The toxicity of CO2 for breathing has been well defined for high concentrations but it remains effectively unknown what level will compromise human health when individuals are perpetually exposed for their lifetime. There is evidence from the few studies of long-term low-level exposure that permanent exposure, to CO2 levels predicted by the end of the century, will have significant effects on humans. Other studies of slightly higher CO2 levels may offer clues to effects that may occur when humans experience lifelong exposure. Unhealthy blood CO2 concentrations have been measured from people in common office environments where reduced thinking ability and health symptoms have been observed at levels of CO2 above 600 ppm for relatively short-term exposures. Although humans and animals are able to deal with elevated levels of CO2 in the short-term due to various compensation mechanisms in the body, the persistent effects of these mechanisms may have severe consequences in a perpetual environment of elevated CO2. These include threats to life such as kidney failure, bone atrophy and loss of brain function. Existing research also indicates that as ambient CO2 increases in the near-future, there will be an associated increase in cancers, neurological disorders and other conditions. Research is urgently required to clearly identify the severity and proximity of this risk, associated with the primary human function of breathing, being a potential major aspect of climate change." --- Every day, I grow more and more convinced that we are just utterly screwed. Global warming (I am starting to favor the Stallmanism "global heating") has us fucked left, right, and sideways. And the leaders of the world do little about it. It's already too late to reverse course, hasn't been possible for a while. Even then, mitigation isn't coming, not fast enough. There is not enough political will, and a magic carbon-reducing invention is... unlikely (if unpredictable). From whence cometh hope? (Because I'm almost out of it.)
- maxbond 8y ago
  I work close to this space (I'm an algae cultivation technician), and this is the peace I have come to with it. Hope it helps. > ...a magic carbon-reducing invention is... unlikely (if unpredictable). The technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere isn't magic; you feed algae and you let them grow. There's work being done on piping flue gas from power plants through algae to scrub the carbon as it leaves. Even without scrubbing the flue gas, the only real problem with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is when you dig it up from the ground first, and the technology for turning organic waste into natural gas is very mature. It is certainly too late to stop climate change, but it's not too late for us to survive climate change. We know how to make energy and chemicals from fresh biomass instead of ancient biomass transformed into petroleum (such as with pyrolysis), we can even sequester carbon while we do it (as biochar), but we don't necessarily know how to integrate all of the required technologies and some of them aren't ready for prime time (hydrothermal liquefaction and cellulosic ethanol come to mind). But research into things like algae cultivation and thermal processing of biomass has been going on since the 80s and the 40s, respectively, and they're actually fairly mature. The two biggest problems are managing massive amounts of complexity and the lack of political will around actually funding & fielding these solutions. If there were sufficient political will, the first problem would simply be a matter of time and money. Hope springs eternal because humans are not. We will begin in earnest to rework our global economy and to fix our environment when enough of the old guard have died that their viewpoint is no longer relevant. There's an adage which goes, "progress is made one funeral at a time." If they don't die quickly enough, our climate will collapse which should provide them with sufficient encouragement. It's not something to celebrate but it is something to reckon with. In short, our bed is made and we're going to lie in it. But tomorrow is a new day.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Increase in co2 equals increase in plant growth. A sealed greenhouse pumped with higher concentration of co2 than normal saw plants grow faster. Point of view is that co2 may not be absorbed quickly enough or that there may be a limit to the amount that plants can take in: https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-pl...
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  I agree with your statement and would like to add to your comment: I don't understand when people point to bio mass that could absorb the carbon. This is based on my understanding of carbon history on this planet, which is far from detailed or complete. We already had the earth covered in biomass before human populations increased explosively. Back then, a looooooong time ago, what as far as I know brought the carbon levels (CO2) down was when dying bio mass was getting buried instead of being recycled. That means most carbon is underneath the earth. We just spend the last few centuries busily getting it back out from there though. So as I understand it (someone correct me please if it is wrong), how can we possibly hope that a biomass cycle could keep enough carbon trapped? The past shows that it has to be buried deep inside the earth! That would mean biomass cannot be the solution, even at full capacity it could not bind enough. I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    You can get a certain amount out of growing additional live biomass where there isn't any now. There was a supposition that one of the causes of the Little Ice Age was reforestation of the Americas after plagues wiped out 90% of the inhabitants. I don't know what the current state of that conjecture is, but I recall the amount of carbon taken up in the process was significant. If you found a way to eg forest the Sahara, it would be significant on a global scale. Not a one-and-done fix, but significant. Then you would either have to find new land to plant or cut down the trees and not burn them/mulch them to sequester more carbon, but a living forest holds a good bit on its own.
aaron695 8y ago
> Pre-industrial outdoor level from about 1820 to at least 25 million years ago - no effect A good example on how we know this article is rubbish. How can we know there has been no effect? I can't be bothered* tracking down their alleged proof, but I fail to see how they could prove there was no effect on lowering the levels we've had to deal with 25 million years without also doing a same experiment on increasing levels and seeing if there is an effect in the better/worse direction. Seems like they are just playing the religious, mother nature knows best game. In fact since 1820 our life expectancy has hugely increased. We have increased life quality by increasing CO2 levels, even if it's correlation and I see no reason why that won't continue. *If the reference is this, which is seems to be, it documents nothing of the sort - doi:10.1038/ngeo1186
evincarofautumn 8y ago
I’ve wondered for a while—very non-scientifically, just idly—if atmospheric CO₂ could account for increased rates of neurological/psychological conditions such as ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADD (attention deficit disorder)—to a degree not explained by more obvious factors like increased visibility into the existence of these conditions and ability to diagnose them. Is there any good research into such a correlation, or is it just absurd?
- chemicalcrux 8y ago
  At first blush I find it very hard to believe. Your body might have to work a tiny bit harder to maintain homeostasis (since more CO2 in the atmosphere = more ventilation needed to expel it from your blood), but we're dealing with such low levels - and such small changes - that it sounds very improbable to me.
chupasaurus 8y ago
Raise of CO2 level is because of incoming glacial period, not a global warming [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period#/media/File:Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period#/media/File:Co2...
- erdewit 8y ago
  The current level is at 400 ppm, while that graph only goes to 300.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    I'm not sure how they argue that ice core CO2 is representative for the earth, but on the face of it I wouldn't compare Mauna Loa measurements (from near the equator and at thousands of feet above sea level on the largest active volcano on the planet) with those directly above the Antarctic surface.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Raphmedia 8y ago
> Unhealthy blood CO2 concentrations have been measured from people in common office environments where reduced thinking ability and health symptoms have been observed at levels of CO2 above 600 ppm for relatively short-term exposures. Oh, that's scary. How often does that happen in small offices converted into open offices?! I've often noticed people acting strangely, missing small bugs or acting confused. I have a CO2 detector at home but those are only for extreme levels. How would someone check for unhealthy but not deadly concentrations?
- gwern 8y ago
  I wouldn't worry about it. OP is massively cherrypicking studies. That particular citation is an unreplicated experiment which contradicts literally scores or hundreds of other experiments going back half a century or more, including dozens sponsored by the US Navy investigating cognitive performance at CO2 concentrations all the way up to 20,000 PPM and higher, finding jack squat (which is why submarines are allowed to have such high CO2 levels, which saves on scrubbers & range). Here's one book reviewing CO2 studies: https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 For comparison, your bedroom will routinely get to 1-3000 PPM while you sleep for 8-10 hours daily even if you leave the door open; have you noticed any ill effects or that you are borderline retarded while in your bedroom? Probably not... And see my discussion in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pPZ27eZdBXtGuLqZC/what-is-up-with-carbon-dioxide-and-cognition-an-offer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pPZ27eZdBXtGuLqZC/what-is-up... Since you have to go to 10,000 PPM or even 60,000 PPM to start finding serious effects of CO2, it's very hard to believe that the Satish effect is real or of the staggering magnitude claimed, or that global warming will, by increasing average CO2 PPMs by at most a few hundred over a century, will have much of an effect. (Not to mention that it would be easy to offset with office plants+better ventilation even if you buy the story.)
rich-w-big-ego 8y ago
There are many solutions to the problems that Earth's atmosphere faces. One of the solutions is Accelerated Silicate Weathering[1]. Everyone likes to talk about how screwed we are, but that is yesterday's discussion. Today's discussion is this: How hard are you going to work today and for the rest of the year and for the rest of the decade on advancing the many solutions we have available to this problem? Are you going to be a hero, or are you going to fear-monger? The future of the planet depends on the readers of this comment (and the writer of it, for that matter) more than any of us can know. That's right. It is your personal responsibility to advance the efforts to reduce pollution and C02 levels. Do not abandon us. [1] https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/AnnRev.28.1.611.pdf https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_print...

115 points by graeme 8y ago

ndonnellan 8y ago

Please mark the title with [pdf] tag, as it auto downloads.

leephillips 8y ago
I just got an HTML version with a link to download the PDF, no auto download.
graeme 8y ago
Sorry about that. I think they may have switched the link to an html.

empath75 8y ago

‘You and your children and grandchildren are going to suffocate’ sounds like a much better way for people to get across the dangers of burning fossil fuel than the vague threat of climate change. It’s personal and horrifying to contemplate.

graeme 8y ago
That's what I was thinking. The warming and climate destabilization effects will be worse (ugh), but this is perhaps easier to describe. "You know that feeling of a stuffy meeting room? That's what outside will be in 2100 if we don't reduce. Inside will be worse."

taf2 8y ago

Maybe a side business figure out how to e sure building air systems are pumping the correct balance of air for maximum lung efficiency... like pumping O2 into the room but with filters to remove and correctly balance the air. For that matter it seems like some longer term studies to determine what balance if air actually leads to longer life

pjc50 8y ago
Very sci-fi; suddenly we need a life support system inside our offices because we've ruined the air. Maybe borrow some of these from the ISS: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050210002.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/200502...

jdnier 8y ago

I'm blocked from the PDF link. This may be the same article, although it's dated 2016: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Carbon-dioxide-toxicity-and-climate-change%3A-a-risk-Bierwirth/a53f3a6f7a0db8cfd006c51f19c76a68f3386f7e https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Carbon-dioxide-toxicit...

graeme 8y ago
The link goes to html now. Same author, but it's a 2017 working paper.

perilunar 8y ago

Well that was worrying. Now I'm sitting here in my air-conditioned office building wondering what the CO₂ level is and wishing I could open a window. Got to buy a CO₂ meter: https://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=CO2+meter https://www.amazon.com/s?field-keywords=CO2+meter

graeme 8y ago
I think good AC is actually ok, since it's based on venting indoor air out. Definitely depends on the building though. But my CO2 meter reads lower with AC on. (With windows closed. Windows open is power still)
- janekm 8y ago
  If your AC is the type that vents out indoor air then this makes sense (though smaller AC units tend to just circulate the indoor air after cooling/dehydrating). Depending on the sensor technology in your CO2 meter, it could be sensitive to temperature, so that may be worth trying to exclude as a factor.

Fej 8y ago

Abstract: > "As atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide continue to escalate and drive climate change, the issue of CO2 toxicity is not recognised as a global risk. The toxicity of CO2 for breathing has been well defined for high concentrations but it remains effectively unknown what level will compromise human health when individuals are perpetually exposed for their lifetime. There is evidence from the few studies of long-term low-level exposure that permanent exposure, to CO2 levels predicted by the end of the century, will have significant effects on humans. Other studies of slightly higher CO2 levels may offer clues to effects that may occur when humans experience lifelong exposure. Unhealthy blood CO2 concentrations have been measured from people in common office environments where reduced thinking ability and health symptoms have been observed at levels of CO2 above 600 ppm for relatively short-term exposures. Although humans and animals are able to deal with elevated levels of CO2 in the short-term due to various compensation mechanisms in the body, the persistent effects of these mechanisms may have severe consequences in a perpetual environment of elevated CO2. These include threats to life such as kidney failure, bone atrophy and loss of brain function. Existing research also indicates that as ambient CO2 increases in the near-future, there will be an associated increase in cancers, neurological disorders and other conditions. Research is urgently required to clearly identify the severity and proximity of this risk, associated with the primary human function of breathing, being a potential major aspect of climate change." --- Every day, I grow more and more convinced that we are just utterly screwed. Global warming (I am starting to favor the Stallmanism "global heating") has us fucked left, right, and sideways. And the leaders of the world do little about it. It's already too late to reverse course, hasn't been possible for a while. Even then, mitigation isn't coming, not fast enough. There is not enough political will, and a magic carbon-reducing invention is... unlikely (if unpredictable). From whence cometh hope? (Because I'm almost out of it.)

maxbond 8y ago
I work close to this space (I'm an algae cultivation technician), and this is the peace I have come to with it. Hope it helps. > ...a magic carbon-reducing invention is... unlikely (if unpredictable). The technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere isn't magic; you feed algae and you let them grow. There's work being done on piping flue gas from power plants through algae to scrub the carbon as it leaves. Even without scrubbing the flue gas, the only real problem with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is when you dig it up from the ground first, and the technology for turning organic waste into natural gas is very mature. It is certainly too late to stop climate change, but it's not too late for us to survive climate change. We know how to make energy and chemicals from fresh biomass instead of ancient biomass transformed into petroleum (such as with pyrolysis), we can even sequester carbon while we do it (as biochar), but we don't necessarily know how to integrate all of the required technologies and some of them aren't ready for prime time (hydrothermal liquefaction and cellulosic ethanol come to mind). But research into things like algae cultivation and thermal processing of biomass has been going on since the 80s and the 40s, respectively, and they're actually fairly mature. The two biggest problems are managing massive amounts of complexity and the lack of political will around actually funding & fielding these solutions. If there were sufficient political will, the first problem would simply be a matter of time and money. Hope springs eternal because humans are not. We will begin in earnest to rework our global economy and to fix our environment when enough of the old guard have died that their viewpoint is no longer relevant. There's an adage which goes, "progress is made one funeral at a time." If they don't die quickly enough, our climate will collapse which should provide them with sufficient encouragement. It's not something to celebrate but it is something to reckon with. In short, our bed is made and we're going to lie in it. But tomorrow is a new day.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Increase in co2 equals increase in plant growth. A sealed greenhouse pumped with higher concentration of co2 than normal saw plants grow faster. Point of view is that co2 may not be absorbed quickly enough or that there may be a limit to the amount that plants can take in: https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-pl...

ItsMe000001 8y ago
I agree with your statement and would like to add to your comment: I don't understand when people point to bio mass that could absorb the carbon. This is based on my understanding of carbon history on this planet, which is far from detailed or complete. We already had the earth covered in biomass before human populations increased explosively. Back then, a looooooong time ago, what as far as I know brought the carbon levels (CO2) down was when dying bio mass was getting buried instead of being recycled. That means most carbon is underneath the earth. We just spend the last few centuries busily getting it back out from there though. So as I understand it (someone correct me please if it is wrong), how can we possibly hope that a biomass cycle could keep enough carbon trapped? The past shows that it has to be buried deep inside the earth! That would mean biomass cannot be the solution, even at full capacity it could not bind enough. I'm happy to be corrected if my understanding is wrong.
- saalweachter 8y ago
  You can get a certain amount out of growing additional live biomass where there isn't any now. There was a supposition that one of the causes of the Little Ice Age was reforestation of the Americas after plagues wiped out 90% of the inhabitants. I don't know what the current state of that conjecture is, but I recall the amount of carbon taken up in the process was significant. If you found a way to eg forest the Sahara, it would be significant on a global scale. Not a one-and-done fix, but significant. Then you would either have to find new land to plant or cut down the trees and not burn them/mulch them to sequester more carbon, but a living forest holds a good bit on its own.

aaron695 8y ago

> Pre-industrial outdoor level from about 1820 to at least 25 million years ago - no effect A good example on how we know this article is rubbish. How can we know there has been no effect? I can't be bothered* tracking down their alleged proof, but I fail to see how they could prove there was no effect on lowering the levels we've had to deal with 25 million years without also doing a same experiment on increasing levels and seeing if there is an effect in the better/worse direction. Seems like they are just playing the religious, mother nature knows best game. In fact since 1820 our life expectancy has hugely increased. We have increased life quality by increasing CO2 levels, even if it's correlation and I see no reason why that won't continue. *If the reference is this, which is seems to be, it documents nothing of the sort - doi:10.1038/ngeo1186

evincarofautumn 8y ago

I’ve wondered for a while—very non-scientifically, just idly—if atmospheric CO₂ could account for increased rates of neurological/psychological conditions such as ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and ADD (attention deficit disorder)—to a degree not explained by more obvious factors like increased visibility into the existence of these conditions and ability to diagnose them. Is there any good research into such a correlation, or is it just absurd?

chemicalcrux 8y ago
At first blush I find it very hard to believe. Your body might have to work a tiny bit harder to maintain homeostasis (since more CO2 in the atmosphere = more ventilation needed to expel it from your blood), but we're dealing with such low levels - and such small changes - that it sounds very improbable to me.

chupasaurus 8y ago

Raise of CO2 level is because of incoming glacial period, not a global warming [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period#/media/File:Co2_glacial_cycles_800k.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period#/media/File:Co2...

erdewit 8y ago
The current level is at 400 ppm, while that graph only goes to 300.
- nonbel 8y ago
  I'm not sure how they argue that ice core CO2 is representative for the earth, but on the face of it I wouldn't compare Mauna Loa measurements (from near the equator and at thousands of feet above sea level on the largest active volcano on the planet) with those directly above the Antarctic surface.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Raphmedia 8y ago

> Unhealthy blood CO2 concentrations have been measured from people in common office environments where reduced thinking ability and health symptoms have been observed at levels of CO2 above 600 ppm for relatively short-term exposures. Oh, that's scary. How often does that happen in small offices converted into open offices?! I've often noticed people acting strangely, missing small bugs or acting confused. I have a CO2 detector at home but those are only for extreme levels. How would someone check for unhealthy but not deadly concentrations?

gwern 8y ago
I wouldn't worry about it. OP is massively cherrypicking studies. That particular citation is an unreplicated experiment which contradicts literally scores or hundreds of other experiments going back half a century or more, including dozens sponsored by the US Navy investigating cognitive performance at CO2 concentrations all the way up to 20,000 PPM and higher, finding jack squat (which is why submarines are allowed to have such high CO2 levels, which saves on scrubbers & range). Here's one book reviewing CO2 studies: https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 For comparison, your bedroom will routinely get to 1-3000 PPM while you sleep for 8-10 hours daily even if you leave the door open; have you noticed any ill effects or that you are borderline retarded while in your bedroom? Probably not... And see my discussion in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pPZ27eZdBXtGuLqZC/what-is-up-with-carbon-dioxide-and-cognition-an-offer https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/pPZ27eZdBXtGuLqZC/what-is-up... Since you have to go to 10,000 PPM or even 60,000 PPM to start finding serious effects of CO2, it's very hard to believe that the Satish effect is real or of the staggering magnitude claimed, or that global warming will, by increasing average CO2 PPMs by at most a few hundred over a century, will have much of an effect. (Not to mention that it would be easy to offset with office plants+better ventilation even if you buy the story.)

rich-w-big-ego 8y ago

There are many solutions to the problems that Earth's atmosphere faces. One of the solutions is Accelerated Silicate Weathering[1]. Everyone likes to talk about how screwed we are, but that is yesterday's discussion. Today's discussion is this: How hard are you going to work today and for the rest of the year and for the rest of the decade on advancing the many solutions we have available to this problem? Are you going to be a hero, or are you going to fear-monger? The future of the planet depends on the readers of this comment (and the writer of it, for that matter) more than any of us can know. That's right. It is your personal responsibility to advance the efforts to reduce pollution and C02 levels. Do not abandon us. [1] https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/AnnRev.28.1.611.pdf https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_print...