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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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...
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...