a “dagger through the heart of climate-change religion”

Akita Suggagaki said:

Got a specific link?

Trump's Climate and Clean Energy Rollback Tracker

18745

www.actonclimate.com

Click to expand...

Just put it in, thanks.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Why would people say that at 1,000 ppm CO2 of indoor air, people experience declining cognition, (knowing that people already regularly experience indoor CO2 at 600+ppm, while outdoor air is roughly 430ppm). But then suggest that this isn't an important issue that people are responsible for?

1,000ppm, this problematic threshold for brain function is a number we don't want to touch. We are already at 600ppm. So if you have a difference of 400ppm, and the world is increasing by 2.5-3.5ppm every year (and accelerating), wouldn't the rational decision be to cut back on CO2 emissions?

Especially if you know that CO2 mitigating technology takes decades to research, develop, pilot test, permit, scale-up and manufacture etc.

Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments ​

Human experimental studies have suggested that short-term CO2 exposure beginning at 1000 ppm affects cognitive performances including decision making and problem resolution. Changes in autonomic systems due to low-level exposure to CO2 may involve these effects.

Lots of work remains to calibrate how much difference it makes at different levels. But it's a concern. You can't run away from this one.

The Barbarian said:

Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments ​

Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments - PubMed

Allen JG, MacNaughton P, Satish U, Santanam S, Vallarino J, Spengler JD. 2016. Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers: a controlled exposure study of green and conventional office environments. Environ...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Human experimental studies have suggested that short-term CO2 exposure beginning at 1000 ppm affects cognitive performances including decision making and problem resolution. Changes in autonomic systems due to low-level exposure to CO2 may involve these effects.

Effects of low-level inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide in indoor environments: A short review on human health and psychomotor performance - PubMed

Scientific literature and documents pertaining to the effects of inhalation exposure to carbon dioxide (CO₂) on human health and psychomotor performance were reviewed. Linear physiological changes in circulatory, cardiovascular, and autonomic systems on exposure to CO₂ at...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lots of work remains to calibrate how much difference it makes at different levels. But it's a concern. You can't run away from this one.

Click to expand...

Yes it's strange. And indoor air CO2 trends higher than outdoor. So it's not even as though outdoor CO2 would need to reach 1,000ppm.

So if you're seeking to avoid an exceedance of say, 800ppm ambient air, and you're already at 430ppm. Then you're already within a single person's life-time of delayed cognitive function.

And the trump administration doesn't highlight this issue in the climate report. Rather it simply says:

" These levels are far larger than any plausible ambient outdoor value through the end of the 22nd century."

But are they really? If we are increasing at a rate of 2.5ppm, that's under 150 years. Excluding any acceleration, excluding years that rise well above 2.5, excluding all the time it takes to hypothesize, research, develop, permit, pilot, manufacture, scale up, etc. and then further excluding whatever time it takes for the rest of the world to implement their own solutions as well.

Who would ever say, "these levels are far larger than any plausible ambient outdoor value through the end of the 22nd century" as though that somehow resolved the issue?

It's like saying, "hey don't worry, we will all be dead, our kids can deal with it, so it's not an issue."

I'm interested in seeing how people respond to this issue. It just sounds so morally poor.

And people will say things like "well CO2 was a lot higher in the past, and trees did just fine".

Well excuse me, trees didn't have giant cities full of billions of people to take care of. It's like saying, hey, trees survived that hurricane, so it's ok if our cities experience a hurricane too.