5 ms·

I really have to wonder where this outweighs the effects of the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere (article says it increases fuel usage by 2%, but that's likely

I really have to wonder where this outweighs the effects of the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere (article says it increases fuel usage by 2%, but that's likely to be an ideal case) in the long term. CO2's problems aren't merely global warming. More CO2 also affects our brains and makes us tired, contributes to ocean acidification, and countless other things. This alone might not be enough to completely destroy the world, but as with anything, one industry finds a way to greenwash and then you have a snowballing effect of every company rushing to implement those same ideas and causing more harm than good. Producing more CO2 to prevent a tiny bit of sunlight/heat retention could be one of those things.

jpcfl 3y ago
Are there studies showing a causal link between global atmospheric CO2 and feelings of tiredness?
- justworkout 3y ago
  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthybuildings/2021/09/09/impacts-of-indoor-air-quality-on-cognitive-function/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthybuildings/2021/09/09/imp... CO2 affects cognition all around.
  - morsch 3y ago
    We also found effects of CO2 (a proxy for ventilation) on cognitive function. For every 500ppm increase, we saw response times 1.4-1.8% slower, and 2.1-2.4% lower throughput. Which is why you open a window: Atmospheric CO2 is at around 410ppm. And rising, yes, by around 2-3ppm/a. So I suppose it's making us around 0.02% slower per year, going by those figures. We need to curtail emissions, but not because atmospheric CO2 is affecting cognition.
    - verve_rat 3y ago
      So, assuming a straight line backwards, we have gotten 1% slower since 1970? Doesn't sound great. Edit: to prove my slowness I typo'd a zero into the number. It's 1%, not 10%.
      - morsch 3y ago
        It's not a straight line, no. In 1970 it was around 320ppm, so not quite 100ppm less than today as opposed to 100-150ppm. So 0.3% slower, again if you take those performance numbers at face value which you probably should both, because they are the result of experiments that take place at levels of 1000ppm and beyond and it's unclear if they even apply to lower levels. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-conc...
        Retric 3y ago
        Today’s 422ppm (https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2) assumes you’re outside in a remote area with a light breeze to constantly get fresh air. Even just a city has higher levels and normal office space is sitting at 800ppm or so. A meeting room can break 1500ppm depending on occupants and ventilation, which is one of the reasons meetings suck and packed meetings suck more. Thus a meeting where the PPM was ~1200ppm in 1970 with the same number of people in the same room in 2023 should be ~1300ppm.
        morsch 3y ago
        Yeah, we're talking atmospheric CO2, hence: outside. I'm aware that indoor CO2 is higher, I've quoted the study.
        Retric 3y ago
        I was pointing out that outdoor CO2 ppm vary significantly, and we are at ~420ppm not 410ppm which was quoted earlier. Also, outdoor ppm increases indoor ppm which is within the range being studied so talking about cognitive decline from ongoing carbon emissions is supported.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Counterpoint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ina.12939 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ina.12939 > Impairment of cognitive performance is not expected from exposure to 20 000 ppm CO2, neither as direct effect on central nervous system function nor as a distraction related to perception of health effects. The study you’re linking is discussing the combined effects of CO2 and PM2.5; likely it’s the particulate matter that’s the issue rather than the CO2.
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    CO2 is generally used as a proxy for IAQ as in the link you posted. I strongly suspect it's another factor than just CO2, for example reduced O2 levels, or VOCs and particulates. I'm sceptical that usual levels of CO2 have a noticeable impact on metabolism.
Buttons840 3y ago
> in the long term In the long term added CO2 outweighs. In the long term added water vapor has no effect, yet any carbon fuel extracted from the ground has a forever effect. The carbon in that fuel is never going back into the ground. The forest burns and releases carbon, a few years later the forest regrows and reabsorbs the carbon. A drop of oil is brought out of the ground, a million years later that drop of oil goes back into the ground.

jpcfl 3y ago

Are there studies showing a causal link between global atmospheric CO2 and feelings of tiredness?

justworkout 3y ago
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthybuildings/2021/09/09/impacts-of-indoor-air-quality-on-cognitive-function/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthybuildings/2021/09/09/imp... CO2 affects cognition all around.
- morsch 3y ago
  We also found effects of CO2 (a proxy for ventilation) on cognitive function. For every 500ppm increase, we saw response times 1.4-1.8% slower, and 2.1-2.4% lower throughput. Which is why you open a window: Atmospheric CO2 is at around 410ppm. And rising, yes, by around 2-3ppm/a. So I suppose it's making us around 0.02% slower per year, going by those figures. We need to curtail emissions, but not because atmospheric CO2 is affecting cognition.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    So, assuming a straight line backwards, we have gotten 1% slower since 1970? Doesn't sound great. Edit: to prove my slowness I typo'd a zero into the number. It's 1%, not 10%.
    - morsch 3y ago
      It's not a straight line, no. In 1970 it was around 320ppm, so not quite 100ppm less than today as opposed to 100-150ppm. So 0.3% slower, again if you take those performance numbers at face value which you probably should both, because they are the result of experiments that take place at levels of 1000ppm and beyond and it's unclear if they even apply to lower levels. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-conc...
      - Retric 3y ago
        Today’s 422ppm (https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2) assumes you’re outside in a remote area with a light breeze to constantly get fresh air. Even just a city has higher levels and normal office space is sitting at 800ppm or so. A meeting room can break 1500ppm depending on occupants and ventilation, which is one of the reasons meetings suck and packed meetings suck more. Thus a meeting where the PPM was ~1200ppm in 1970 with the same number of people in the same room in 2023 should be ~1300ppm.
        morsch 3y ago
        Yeah, we're talking atmospheric CO2, hence: outside. I'm aware that indoor CO2 is higher, I've quoted the study.
        Retric 3y ago
        I was pointing out that outdoor CO2 ppm vary significantly, and we are at ~420ppm not 410ppm which was quoted earlier. Also, outdoor ppm increases indoor ppm which is within the range being studied so talking about cognitive decline from ongoing carbon emissions is supported.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Counterpoint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ina.12939 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ina.12939 > Impairment of cognitive performance is not expected from exposure to 20 000 ppm CO2, neither as direct effect on central nervous system function nor as a distraction related to perception of health effects. The study you’re linking is discussing the combined effects of CO2 and PM2.5; likely it’s the particulate matter that’s the issue rather than the CO2.
- hgomersall 3y ago
  CO2 is generally used as a proxy for IAQ as in the link you posted. I strongly suspect it's another factor than just CO2, for example reduced O2 levels, or VOCs and particulates. I'm sceptical that usual levels of CO2 have a noticeable impact on metabolism.

Buttons840 3y ago

> in the long term In the long term added CO2 outweighs. In the long term added water vapor has no effect, yet any carbon fuel extracted from the ground has a forever effect. The carbon in that fuel is never going back into the ground. The forest burns and releases carbon, a few years later the forest regrows and reabsorbs the carbon. A drop of oil is brought out of the ground, a million years later that drop of oil goes back into the ground.