5 ms·

> The gases being released aren't toxic until a hundred times higher than current levels. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Current atmos

> The gases being released aren't toxic until a hundred times higher than current levels. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Current atmospheric CO2 level is 400ppm which already has a measurable impact on performance on tasks (compared to 250ppm couple decades ago). Increasing it to just 1000ppm further degrades performance. And 2500ppm makes it difficult to concentrate on anything complex. Even slight increase in concentration could lead to drastic changes over time when you consider everybody gets a little dumber. https://skepticalscience.com/how-sapiens-in-the-world-of-high-co2-concentration.html https://skepticalscience.com/how-sapiens-in-the-world-of-hig... * EDIT: kragen, I am being throttled so here is my response to your below comment: When there is plenty arguments and scientific consensus to the contrary, and the person presents numbers obviously derived from thin air, I think it is fair to state the person does not know what they are talking about. Toxicology is a complex topic. But it is safe to say CO2 becomes toxic way before it becomes lethal. Which is to say you see adverse effects even before the concentration reaches lethal level. It may maybe take hundreds of times before it becomes immediately lethal but it is already toxic at about current concentration or 2-5 times current concentration, depending on who you ask, and not "hundreds of times" higher.

kragen 5y ago
It's true that high CO₂ levels cause cognitive impairment, but submarines routinely operate for months in the 2000–5000 ppm range, sometimes as high as 13000 ppm, over 30 times higher than the current atmospheric level but still too low to kill people by about a factor of 8. Subtle cognitive impairments at these levels have been found by some researchers, while others have been unable to replicate them even at 30000 ppm: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/ https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 That's why the NOAEL is set at 25000 ppm, at which point CO₂ starts to cause visual disturbances, which I think fall short of "toxicity"; it's more like a recreational drug effect. If the Earth's atmosphere reached 100 times the current level, 40000 ppm CO₂ (4%!), you still wouldn't have a CO₂ toxicity problem in humans. However, you probably wouldn't have a biosphere much longer either, and at that point toxicity to humans would be a moot point. Also, by the way, the quality of the discussion would probably be significantly improved without you saying, "You obviously have no idea what you are talking about." Sometimes people might disagree with you because they know things you don't, for example because their information doesn't come from science popularizers, rather than because they don't know things you do. If you don't keep that in mind, you are likely to embarrass yourself frequently. Believe me, I have a lot of experience doing that. Less sneering, please.
- JamisonM 5y ago
  > "the quality of the discussion would probably be significantly improved without you saying, "You obviously have no idea what you are talking about."" Amen.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
As a casual observer trying to follow the conversation and learn more, I would prefer to hear just the facts with the data to support it, rather than the personal attacks regardless of whether you think they’re fair or not.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  As a casual observer I would prefer if people checked the "facts" they post on HN. It is now socially more acceptable to post obvious falsehoods than to point it out. Think about it.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Start checking the facts instead of first posting obvious falsehoods and then attacking other people for pointing out the falsehoods, then.
- zionic 5y ago
  As a casual observer of casual observers, it bothers me when I see people more concerned with how someone said something then what they said. This flaw in human comprehension is responsible for a lot of what’s wrong with our society.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    I’m not tone policing if that’s what you’re suggesting. If that is indeed what you’re suggesting, then the failure in comprehension is your own. My criticism is not about how something was said. My criticism is specifically about what was said, in that I found it irrelevant. I’d like to learn more about the topic, but I can’t learn anything about the topic from personal judgements made about an interlocutor. It’s just noise and detracts from the argument being made.
q1w2 5y ago
1000ppm is quite normal indoors. My office is 800ppm right now. It will take probably 100 years to get to 1000ppm.

kragen 5y ago

It's true that high CO₂ levels cause cognitive impairment, but submarines routinely operate for months in the 2000–5000 ppm range, sometimes as high as 13000 ppm, over 30 times higher than the current atmospheric level but still too low to kill people by about a factor of 8. Subtle cognitive impairments at these levels have been found by some researchers, while others have been unable to replicate them even at 30000 ppm: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/ https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 That's why the NOAEL is set at 25000 ppm, at which point CO₂ starts to cause visual disturbances, which I think fall short of "toxicity"; it's more like a recreational drug effect. If the Earth's atmosphere reached 100 times the current level, 40000 ppm CO₂ (4%!), you still wouldn't have a CO₂ toxicity problem in humans. However, you probably wouldn't have a biosphere much longer either, and at that point toxicity to humans would be a moot point. Also, by the way, the quality of the discussion would probably be significantly improved without you saying, "You obviously have no idea what you are talking about." Sometimes people might disagree with you because they know things you don't, for example because their information doesn't come from science popularizers, rather than because they don't know things you do. If you don't keep that in mind, you are likely to embarrass yourself frequently. Believe me, I have a lot of experience doing that. Less sneering, please.

JamisonM 5y ago
> "the quality of the discussion would probably be significantly improved without you saying, "You obviously have no idea what you are talking about."" Amen.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

As a casual observer trying to follow the conversation and learn more, I would prefer to hear just the facts with the data to support it, rather than the personal attacks regardless of whether you think they’re fair or not.

lmilcin 5y ago
As a casual observer I would prefer if people checked the "facts" they post on HN. It is now socially more acceptable to post obvious falsehoods than to point it out. Think about it.
- kragen 5y ago
  Start checking the facts instead of first posting obvious falsehoods and then attacking other people for pointing out the falsehoods, then.
zionic 5y ago
As a casual observer of casual observers, it bothers me when I see people more concerned with how someone said something then what they said. This flaw in human comprehension is responsible for a lot of what’s wrong with our society.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  I’m not tone policing if that’s what you’re suggesting. If that is indeed what you’re suggesting, then the failure in comprehension is your own. My criticism is not about how something was said. My criticism is specifically about what was said, in that I found it irrelevant. I’d like to learn more about the topic, but I can’t learn anything about the topic from personal judgements made about an interlocutor. It’s just noise and detracts from the argument being made.

q1w2 5y ago

1000ppm is quite normal indoors. My office is 800ppm right now. It will take probably 100 years to get to 1000ppm.