Big clever complicated models are important and useful of course but I think this sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation is important too. They can give a clu

Big clever complicated models are important and useful of course but I think this sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation is important too. They can give a clue that a model isn’t massively wrong which is useful when developing a model and when replying to a complaint like “this model is so big and complicated that no one could have any confidence in its predictions.” It’s also something useful in directing further research. I guess the point of the article is to say “here’s an implication of climate change that you possibly hadn’t thought/heard about.” I know I’m inclined to think this is a serious issue and the effect of present indoor/city/outdoor CO2 levels on cognition is something I was concerned about anyway. CO2 levels outdoors are already 1/3 higher than 100 years ago and something like double the level of 10,000 years ago. And people spend more times indoors in better-sealed houses and denser offices.