4 ms·

You are missing the point. You are assuming all their assumptions are correct and apparently as the only person in the world you know how much human made emissi

You are missing the point. You are assuming all their assumptions are correct and apparently as the only person in the world you know how much human made emissions contribute to the total CO2 levels. As I wrote in another post. Write the Nobel Price committee if you know and you will be famous. Edit: "This is a complex problem, and our study is at the beginning. It's not just a matter of predicting global (outdoor) CO2 levels," he said. "It's going from the global background emissions, to concentrations in the urban environment, to the indoor concentrations, and finally the resulting human impact. We need even broader, interdisciplinary teams of researchers to explore this: investigating each step in our own silos will not be enough." https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-l... If this is what you call certainty we have different standards of what is required to call something scientifically proven.

oriolid 6y ago
For the problem at hand it does not really matter if the carbon dioxide in air is from combustion, or put there by wizards who want to destroy America. In my personal opinion it's a huge logical leap to assume that fossil fuel use just doesn't add to carbon dioxide in air, and regardless of other sources, this is one source we can control. Anyway, what matters is the result C = G/Q + C_out (see how it applies to all concentrations, not just carbon dioxide). Before it there is a differential equation and I know those are scary, but the steady state solution should be easy to understand. Solve for Q (ventilation) and you'll see why adding ventilation helps less and less with increased C_out.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  Nothing scary about it you are confusing two things. In 2100 we will be able to suck out CO2 even if that was a problem which isn't even established yet. The math is the math, it's the premise that's wrong.
  - oriolid 6y ago
    > In 2100 we will be able to suck out CO2 Citation needed. > even if that was a problem which isn't even established yet. Could you explain what isn't even established yet? So far it looks like your belief system prevents you from understanding any physics or chemistry where the results do not fit your values. You might want to look into that or maybe present a new system that explains other observations but where carbon dioxide behaves in a way that is your liking.

oriolid 6y ago

For the problem at hand it does not really matter if the carbon dioxide in air is from combustion, or put there by wizards who want to destroy America. In my personal opinion it's a huge logical leap to assume that fossil fuel use just doesn't add to carbon dioxide in air, and regardless of other sources, this is one source we can control. Anyway, what matters is the result C = G/Q + C_out (see how it applies to all concentrations, not just carbon dioxide). Before it there is a differential equation and I know those are scary, but the steady state solution should be easy to understand. Solve for Q (ventilation) and you'll see why adding ventilation helps less and less with increased C_out.

ThomPete 6y ago
Nothing scary about it you are confusing two things. In 2100 we will be able to suck out CO2 even if that was a problem which isn't even established yet. The math is the math, it's the premise that's wrong.
- oriolid 6y ago
  > In 2100 we will be able to suck out CO2 Citation needed. > even if that was a problem which isn't even established yet. Could you explain what isn't even established yet? So far it looks like your belief system prevents you from understanding any physics or chemistry where the results do not fit your values. You might want to look into that or maybe present a new system that explains other observations but where carbon dioxide behaves in a way that is your liking.