News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by ben_w on Friday January 17, 2020 @07:50AM (#22074141)
Just as humans require a differently level of manure and water to plants, we are also at our best with a different level of CO2.

The optimal CO2 level isn’t even constant between plants, but at the upper end “good for plants” is the same as “makes humans 25% worse in memory speed/accuracy tests”.

Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by Gsnds on Friday January 17, 2020 @08:24AM (#22074377)
I would like to see the information that backs this up, and see if it can be replicated in many controlled scenarios and not just some think thank that cherry picks data to push a narrative. If a human was left alone in a chamber pumped full of elevated levels of CO2 i could see how humans would be less cognitive, but you have to remember there would also be higher levels of oxygen, which promotes brain growth and function
Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by ben_w on Friday January 17, 2020 @08:37AM (#22074482)
Why do you think there would be extra oxygen? Atmospheric CO2 is made from atmospheric O2.
Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by labawi on Monday January 20, 2020 @06:03PM (#22102799)
I'd agree being in a room pumped with CO₂ would significantly deteriorate cognitive functions, but I have a feeling the studies are overblown WRT climate change.

Humans have high adaptability to increased CO₂ loads (see e.g. freedivers), but adaptation takes time. The studies usually deal with temporary CO₂ increases / O₂ decreases, often in way higher concentrations like 1-10%, whereas a couple percent atmospheric CO₂ would already burn us to a crisp (figuratively).

Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by ben_w on Tuesday January 21, 2020 @12:20PM (#22108970)
The studies are CO2 in the 500/1000/1500 and 600/1500/2500 ppm ranges, or 0.05-0.25 percent:

https://escholarship.org/content/qt6gm6t5zc/qt6gm6t5zc.pdf?t...

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037

Re:Microsoft’s quest to go ‘carbon negative’ inspires $1B fund by labawi on Thursday January 23, 2020 @06:22PM (#22133449)
Thanks, seems I've missed a decimal. My questionable sources[1][2] mention concentrations up to 14000 ppm = 1.4% and seem to disagree whether going higher cognitive decline plateaus or it becomes harmful.

Seems there is merit for concern, though I stand by my claims of cognitive effects probably being more temporary than permanent.

[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DtQzYXBTwaWXbhCoS/stale-air-...

[2] https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/co2-on-the-brain-and-the...