5 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong but that graph they show compares averaged numbers over hundreds of years or even thousands of years, with year over year numbers once w

Correct me if I'm wrong but that graph they show compares averaged numbers over hundreds of years or even thousands of years, with year over year numbers once we started measuring this regularly the last +100 years. This seems just straight out disingenuous to say the least unless I am missing something or is this kind of misrepresentation the new standard for research papers today?

petermcneeley 6y ago
Perhaps but that graph has little to do with their argument. Their argument is simple. If CO2 levels go up its going to make indoor CO2 levels worse. At some point this causes cognitive impairment.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  It actually has a lot given that they are saying IF CO2 levels goes up to a certain level at the end of the century. They are using that graph as one of the reasons for why it's likely to go up. This is their conclusion "We conclude that indoor CO2 levels may indeed reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Finally, we offer recommendations for a broad, interdisciplinary approach to improving such understanding and prediction." That's a big if especially since one of the reasons they believe it might increase to those levels is exactly this mix of averaged measurements and year over year. Keep in mind the IPCC models range for nothing to worry about to the world is going under. With regards to the CO2 levels having an impact on our cognitive abilities at the end of the century thats also a lot of speculation and a lot of assumptions. This is not science this is speculation. Interesting but so filled with assumptions and guesses and speculation about what might happen in 2100. And if that wasn't enough they just straight out claim the have the solution which is hindering fossil fuel. This is just activism put into research format from what I can see.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    You're confusing the effects of CO2 on climate (which you might argue are not too bad if you enjoy playing russian roulette), with the concentration of CO2, which we can measure extremely accurately and for whose increase the mechanism is very well understood: We burn carbon, it ends up in the atmosphere as CO2, increasing the concentration there for a long time. We also understand the impact of CO2 on cognition very well, because we can simply run experiments.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      I don't think I am. The causality of the article is. Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact on our cognitive abilities. That's not the worst part of that paper the worst part is that they then just throw in things like this: "The best way to prevent indoor CO2 levels from reaching levels harmful to cognition is through reduced fossil fuel emissions." What about better ventilation? Just like we do with a lot of other things today. But no instead they just go for the most extreme recommendation based on absolutely nothing. Keep in mind we are talking at the end of the century. I don't understand how anyone can read this and think this is quality research.
      - beefield 6y ago
        > Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact on our cognitive abilities. Are you really claiming there is some uncertainty whether the burning of fossil fuels will actually raise CO2 levels of the atmosphere? I have thought that the discussion is whether the rising CO2 causes global warming or not. And if we agree that burning the fossil fuels increases CO2 in atmosphere (forget the damn global warming, we are not talking about that) Do you claim that there is no reason to believe that the indoor CO2 will also rise? I hope you understand that kind of claim to be so weird that I would expect you to elaborate a bit more why you think that would not be the case. Finally, whether the increased CO2 actually has any effect on cognitive capabilities, that is of course the main topic in the discussion here. I have no further comments on that one.
Cerium 6y ago
The other comment is right, the graph has little to do with the argument that indoor levels are important (and one of our ways of combating climate change has been to make houses have less ventilation, increasing indoor levels). I would like to add that every point on the year over year numbers is higher than the highest averaged numbers. It would then follow that the average will also be higher.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  That's not my point. The point is that the article claim that rising CO2 levels are likely based on the graph which will lead to increased indoor co2 which might lead to impaired cognition at the end of the century. Thats one hell of a long set of assumptions not a single one of them demonstrated scientifically and even if it was true at the end of the century we will be able to deal with CO2 through ventilation just like we improved our indoor climate when we didn't burn open firesplaces inside and got ventilation systems and gas or electricity instead. Again if this mishmash is considered serious research it's doesn't bode well for our future. Edit: Instead of just downvoting me, why not show where I am wrong here. I am open to argument, there might have been things I have missed but on the face of it, this is an extremely biased and sloppy research paper and frankly nothing but pure speculation.

petermcneeley 6y ago

Perhaps but that graph has little to do with their argument. Their argument is simple. If CO2 levels go up its going to make indoor CO2 levels worse. At some point this causes cognitive impairment.

ThomPete 6y ago
It actually has a lot given that they are saying IF CO2 levels goes up to a certain level at the end of the century. They are using that graph as one of the reasons for why it's likely to go up. This is their conclusion "We conclude that indoor CO2 levels may indeed reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Finally, we offer recommendations for a broad, interdisciplinary approach to improving such understanding and prediction." That's a big if especially since one of the reasons they believe it might increase to those levels is exactly this mix of averaged measurements and year over year. Keep in mind the IPCC models range for nothing to worry about to the world is going under. With regards to the CO2 levels having an impact on our cognitive abilities at the end of the century thats also a lot of speculation and a lot of assumptions. This is not science this is speculation. Interesting but so filled with assumptions and guesses and speculation about what might happen in 2100. And if that wasn't enough they just straight out claim the have the solution which is hindering fossil fuel. This is just activism put into research format from what I can see.
- adrianN 6y ago
  You're confusing the effects of CO2 on climate (which you might argue are not too bad if you enjoy playing russian roulette), with the concentration of CO2, which we can measure extremely accurately and for whose increase the mechanism is very well understood: We burn carbon, it ends up in the atmosphere as CO2, increasing the concentration there for a long time. We also understand the impact of CO2 on cognition very well, because we can simply run experiments.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    I don't think I am. The causality of the article is. Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact on our cognitive abilities. That's not the worst part of that paper the worst part is that they then just throw in things like this: "The best way to prevent indoor CO2 levels from reaching levels harmful to cognition is through reduced fossil fuel emissions." What about better ventilation? Just like we do with a lot of other things today. But no instead they just go for the most extreme recommendation based on absolutely nothing. Keep in mind we are talking at the end of the century. I don't understand how anyone can read this and think this is quality research.
    - beefield 6y ago
      > Outdoor CO2 might be rising dramatically > dramatically rising outdoor CO2 leads to dramatically rising indoor CO2 > too high a concentration of indoor CO2 might have an impact on our cognitive abilities. Are you really claiming there is some uncertainty whether the burning of fossil fuels will actually raise CO2 levels of the atmosphere? I have thought that the discussion is whether the rising CO2 causes global warming or not. And if we agree that burning the fossil fuels increases CO2 in atmosphere (forget the damn global warming, we are not talking about that) Do you claim that there is no reason to believe that the indoor CO2 will also rise? I hope you understand that kind of claim to be so weird that I would expect you to elaborate a bit more why you think that would not be the case. Finally, whether the increased CO2 actually has any effect on cognitive capabilities, that is of course the main topic in the discussion here. I have no further comments on that one.

Cerium 6y ago

The other comment is right, the graph has little to do with the argument that indoor levels are important (and one of our ways of combating climate change has been to make houses have less ventilation, increasing indoor levels). I would like to add that every point on the year over year numbers is higher than the highest averaged numbers. It would then follow that the average will also be higher.

ThomPete 6y ago
That's not my point. The point is that the article claim that rising CO2 levels are likely based on the graph which will lead to increased indoor co2 which might lead to impaired cognition at the end of the century. Thats one hell of a long set of assumptions not a single one of them demonstrated scientifically and even if it was true at the end of the century we will be able to deal with CO2 through ventilation just like we improved our indoor climate when we didn't burn open firesplaces inside and got ventilation systems and gas or electricity instead. Again if this mishmash is considered serious research it's doesn't bode well for our future. Edit: Instead of just downvoting me, why not show where I am wrong here. I am open to argument, there might have been things I have missed but on the face of it, this is an extremely biased and sloppy research paper and frankly nothing but pure speculation.