As the 21st century progresses, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will cause urban and indoor levels of the gas to increase, and that may significantly reduce our basic decision-making ability and complex strategic thinking, according to a new CU Boulder-led study. By the end of the century, people could be exposed to indoor CO2 levels up to 1400 parts per million—more than three times today's outdoor levels and well beyond what humans have ever experienced.
“It’s amazing how high CO2 levels get in enclosed spaces,” said Kris Karnauskas, CIRES Fellow, associate professor at CU Boulder and lead author of the new study published today in the AGU journal GeoHealth. “It affects everybody—from little kids packed into classrooms to scientists, business people and decision makers to regular folks in their houses and apartments.”
Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder’s school of engineering and coauthor adds that “building ventilation typically modulates CO2 levels in buildings, but there are situations when there are too many people and not enough fresh air to dilute the CO2.” CO2 can also build up in poorly ventilated spaces over longer periods of time, such as overnight while sleeping in bedrooms, she said.
Put simply, when we breathe air with high CO2 levels, the CO2 levels in our blood rise, reducing the amount of oxygen that reaches our brains. Studies show that this can increase sleepiness and anxiety, and impair cognitive function.
This is the peer reviewed research article:
"Fossil fuel combustion is driving indoor CO2 toward levels harmful to human cognition" Kristopher B. Karnauskas, Shelly L. Miller and Anna C. Schapiro in GeoHealth (AGU); April 20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000237
ABSTRACT
quote
Human activities are elevating atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to levels unprecedented in human history. The majority of anticipated impacts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are mediated by climate warming. Recent experimental studies in the fields of indoor air quality and cognitive psychology and neuroscience, however, have revealed significant direct effects of indoor CO2 levels on cognitive function. Here we shed light on this connection, and estimate the impact of continued fossil fuel emissions on human cognition. We conclude that indoor CO2 levels may indeed reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Finally, we offer recommendations for a broad, interdisciplinary approach to improving such understanding and prediction.
Originally posted by cliffw: From your links: "That may ... could be ..."
Part of the uncertainty that is reflected in those words ("may"; "could") is the uncertainty that is associated with the Thunberg Multiplier Effect or TME.
In order to calculate the atmospheric concentration (ppm) of CO2 in Year 2100, the formula is to start with the concentration that was just measured within the last 24 hours at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory (the "gold standard") and multiply that number (currently, 416 ppm) by the numerical value of the TME.
But--and it's a very big "but"--the exact numerical value of the TME is dependent on the relative success or failure of Greta Thunberg in terms of reducing the global rate of fossil fuel burning and other human activities that increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as time continues to pass, by years, decades and ultimately, to the end of the current century. And that relative success or failure of Greta Thunberg is, in and of itself, a scientific unknown. The TME will only converge on an exact numerical value as time progresses to the end of the current century, but the exact number is not (and cannot) be known at the current moment.
In other words, the researchers were aiming at a moving target.
This is not from the peer reviewed research article itself, but from the writeup that was published by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado in Boulder, which (I believe) is where the research was conducted.
quote
Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, reaching a 414 ppm peak at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii in 2019. In the ongoing scenario in which people on Earth do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts outdoor CO2 levels could climb to 930 ppm by 2100. And urban areas typically have around 100 ppm CO2 higher than this background.
Karnauskas and his colleagues developed a comprehensive approach that considers predicted future outdoor CO2 concentrations and the impact of localized urban emissions, a model of the relationship between indoor and outdoor CO2 levels and the impact on human cognition. They found that if the outdoor CO2 concentrations do rise to 930 ppm, that would nudge the indoor concentrations to a harmful level of 1400 ppm.
“At this level, some studies have demonstrated compelling evidence for significant cognitive impairment,” said Anna Schapiro, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a coauthor on the study. “Though the literature contains some conflicting findings and much more research is needed, it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found.
The cognitive impacts of rising CO2 levels represent what scientists call a "direct" effect of the gas’ concentration, much like ocean acidification. In both cases, elevated CO2 itself—not the subsequent warming it also causes—is what triggers harm.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-27-2020).]
“It’s amazing how high CO2 levels get in enclosed spaces,” said Kris Karnauskas, CIRES Fellow, associate professor at CU Boulder and lead author of the new study published today..."
It's always so cute when you try to play "scientist" Ronald......YOU'RE NOT ONE.
That's the email address for Kristopher B. Karnauskas at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is the first of the three names that are credited as authors of the research report.
I think it would be very refreshing for Professor Karnauskas to receive some feedback on his research from the perspective of a Neurological Autopsy Waiting To Happen that is currently a wheelchair-sized sack of brain-damaged hospital waste with some years of exposure to the atmospheric and climate conditions along the Gulf Coast of Florida, close to the municipality of Port Richey.
I think you have found a small part of your mental problems Ronald.
GET HELP
Wait. You seeeeem smart. Maybe you could take some time from your continual mental expansion of obsessing over men on the internet to explain the correlation between a state, and a (in your words) a "mental patient"? And while you're at it "big brain", maybe you can break it down for us and explain why this occupies even a fraction of your incredibly expansive intellect? No, really.
Of coarse here I am, every-single-time you open your pathetic stupid little mouth to attack people (I don't even particularly care about), I am forced (I hate bully's, sue me) to respond. Because I'm just as stupid as you are. The difference is, I don't need you. You need enemies.
To alleviate the pain of being you, you have a need to tear others down. It makes you feel relevant. Dude, you're an addict to your own pathetic excuse for that thing YOU consider an ego.
Think I'm wrong? Answer-me-this: Why is degradation your passion? And better-yet, wasted on those YOU consider "The Dregs"?
Wait, let me guess....you're trying to help. Yeah, me too, with you...
Here: Act like a human to others, and I will to you. Or don't. It's not a problem for me...I'm fine with a slimy rat-bastard posting personal information about others here simply because you disagree with their opinion...on a car forum.
Show us that brain, douchebag...
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-27-2020).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Part of the uncertainty that is reflected in those words ("may"; "could") is the uncertainty that is associated with the Thunberg Multiplier Effect or TME.
The Thunberg Multiplier Effect, ???
What is the numerical value of the TME today. What was it before she said "how dare you" ? Will the TME die the same death as the CCXME ? The Chicago Climate Exchange Multiplier Effect.
Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory, the "gold standard" ? What makes that so ? I remember ClimateGate and all the rigged data collection stations (as well as the exposed UN e-mails).
Originally posted by olejoedad: You guys are missing an opportunity......I think there might be one thread on this page that you haven't contaminated yet.
It's a shame that the "virus" has never been eradicated, even though there's an effective "vaccine" that's just sitting on the shelf, waiting to be used, in the Netherlands.
What is the numerical value of the TME today. What was it before she said "how dare you" ? Will the TME die the same death as the CCXME ? The Chicago Climate Exchange Multiplier Effect.
Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory, the "gold standard" ? What makes that so ? I remember ClimateGate and all the rigged data collection stations (as well as the exposed UN e-mails).
When I referred to Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory as the "gold standard" in terms of monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere (ppm) it was a small and mostly literary embellishment. I think it's right in line with all the other stations all around the world where the air is sampled and analyzed. I think it may be the first of the ground-based CO2 observatories to have been established (long time ago, now) and that's why it's the one that gets the most "press."
Remember George Schultz? This George Schultz:
quote
George P. Shultz served as secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan and as secretary of the treasury under President Richard M. Nixon.
He and Ted Halstead's names are prefixed to an op-ed column that was published very early this year (January 16) in the Washington Post. Ted Halstead is (was, of January 16, 2020; at any rate) chairman and chief executive of the Climate Leadership Council.
Originally posted by olejoedad: I hope this study wasn't publicly funded......
The authors are directly connected with the U.S. national, state level (Colorado) and university research "ecosystem", so indirectly, if not directly, this was a publicly funded project. These are the relevant institutions:
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado Boulder
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder
Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, Colorado School of Public Health
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
The entire journal article is 21 pages, with something like 40 or 50 individual citations to other scientific literature. I provided the Abstract in my "Original Post." The full text includes an Appendix (or two Appendices) with two "pictures" and it's freely available online. Wanna see it? https://agupubs.onlinelibra...10.1029/2019GH000237
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-28-2020).]
Originally posted by randye: It's always so cute when you try to play "scientist" Ronald......YOU'RE NOT ONE.
This is not addressed to "randye" because as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't officially exist. Not as part of "my" Pennock's forum.
But--it's always a "big but" isn't it?--for anyone else who might be following this thread, this is a previous (and very recent) moment when the Total Frickin' Squat For Brains said (in very close to the exact same words)
quote
It's always so cute when you try to play "scientist" Ronald......YOU'RE NOT ONE.
He set himself up by quoting the previous message--not from "rinselberg" or "Ronald." From maryjane. A few small virus-related comments from forum member maryjane. That's what he was responding to. https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F.../124602-12.html#p467
It was not just a "reading typo" or "read'o." Not a "misreading." It was (and is) significant--and telling.
This marks more than 6 straight years of his more or less daily, autism-level repetitious and essentially "foul mouthed" insolence towards me, in particular. As well as a few other forum members I could name, but this one's about me.
He conducts himself like a grade school level moron that has no place whatsoever in any kind of open discussion forum. He is antithetical to the very idea of a "discussion" forum. From 6 years before, to 6 minutes before, he has constructed a single conversation--this conversation--that spans more than 100 enumerable forum topics or threads (a conservative estimate) and comprises more than 1000 mostly repetitive (even copy-and-paste repetitive) messages of flatulence from his sadly failing mind.
I might not be saying this if I thought that he could produce a credible document from the Veterans Administration or some other medical provider to explain that he has incurred a neurological deficit or cognitive or emotional deficiency that renders him literally incapable of any civilized online discourse in the presence of anyone who doesn't see "things"--every thing and all things--in just the way that he likes it, and that the medical authority is asking that special consideration be allowed for him to participate as a fully privileged member of this free-ranging Off Topic section or "ass end" of an automobile enthusiasts forum.
I don't believe that's the case. I have another explanation for him--a "scientific" explanation in the sense that it is theoretically falsifiable[, given the proper experimental conditions. But I will leave it be.
The only message that I have for him is "drop dead." As tone deaf as that could be in these Covid-19 "centric" times. But--the "big but" again--it's an idiom that goes all the way back to the earliest known human language. Of that, I have no doubt. (Do "you"..?)
I have evidence enough that my messages of this kind are being read and appreciated in certain "quarters." Evidence enough, to make it seem worth the effort.
HAGO.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-28-2020).]
randye is a member of your Forum, just as Donald Trump is your President.
But Donald Trump is your President, and randye is a member.
Deal with the reality.
Do you even realize how stupid that sounds? Here, a thought-experiment for that derailed train-of-thought: Switch-up the names with famous douchbags in History. How's that "logic" working out for ya', now?...
Dude, come-on, you're "logic" is clinging on by a thread...sorry.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-29-2020).]
Asking the California mental patient to "deal with the reality"
Ah, and now let me get back to the current problem at hand, that absolutely worthless-piece-of-shlt, slimy rat-bastard randye. Hi, scuzzball!!
Let me ask you something: How many people here do you do a personal search on? And better yet, how sick is that? Geesh, I hope it ain't sexual, although....you DO have a proclivity toward posting pictures of dudes...
You should probably stop trying to force your own internally-devastating latent-homo-erotic self-disappointment on those YOU deem unworthy of even the most basic of human respect. You are a horrible human being. Sorry.
Believe me, I wish it wasn't so.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-29-2020).]
rinselberg, I can see you badly want to believe in Global Warming causing the end of life on Earth. It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. You have been fooled.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Remember George Schultz?
The George Schultz of the Theranos scandal ? He is a paid shill, mostly for name recognition, which to some, lends legitimacy.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Ted Halstead is (was, of January 16, 2020; at any rate) chairman and chief executive of the Climate Leadership Council.
Does this Leadership Council have an agenda. Why yes, yes they do. From their mission statement :
Solution ? To what ? Other than the younger generation which has been brainwashed by the liberally dominated education system, conservatives do not acknowledge climate alarm. In fact, I don't think conservatives are worried about recruiting the younger generation nor, as your link alludes to ...
quote
Without an ambitious national climate plan, Republicans risk hemorrhaging younger voters who care disproportionately about climate change.
Oooh big word. They are disproportionate for a reason. It is not just climate change which has poisoned the mind of youths by the liberal education system.
Now, lets looked at the propaganda which hoodwinked you. The first thing I question was the lead, a picture. What do you see ? Is that CO2 escaping into the air from the coal-fired power plant in Glenrock, Wyo ? Why no, it is not.
What do you see coming from the coal-fired vent stacks ? Nothing ! Kudos to them. "A" for effort. Hoodwinked rinselberg. The angle of the dangle (camera) and the time of day, appears to make the steam power plants by-products black. Yet, nothing is coming from the smoke stacks.
Next, your link's opening paragraph, which has a link of which tries to purport the articles premise.
, let me quote from your link.
quote
... putting together a legislative package as an answer to Democrats.
Does that sound like an a agreement that Global Warming Planet Devastation is real ?
Your link then states ...
quote
The newfound Republican climate position can be summarized as follows:
rinselberg, that is not even an opinion. It is a statement which works on people such as you. The GOP is not looking for a climate solution. They are looking for a solution to climate lies. Yes. Lies !
Why do you continually ?choose? to be fooled by the same people who got caught trying to fool the world ? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Meh, I have never finished this. Might as well post my efforts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-winning-republican-climate-solution-carbon-pricing/2020/01/16/d6921dc0-387b-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.htmlClick to show
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2020/01/16/stories/1062097837Click to show
https://clcouncil.org/why-climate-progress-is-deadlocked/Click to show
https://www.mesotheliomaresource.co/asbestos/asbestos-exposure/asbestos-in-power-plants/asbestos-dave-johnson-power-plant/Click to show
Originally posted by cliffw: rinselberg, I can see you badly want to believe in Global Warming causing the end of life on Earth.
I have many online reports that I have latched onto and maintained in open browser windows and in tabs within the windows. It's a bountiful backlog of material that I would like to read... someday.
There's one about the way that scientists of a certain ilk have used carbon isotope analysis to buttress their assertion that "It's the Economy Fossil Fuels" when it comes to atmospheric carbon dioxide. That's how it starts. Then there are some other topics.
It's like a brochure of eight (8) pages that would present in a horizontal-friendly or landscape format. "Wider is better."
It was ages ago (in Pennock's time) but I think I remember cliffw expressing some interest in how carbon isotopes have been construed as reason to say that there's a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--represented as a number in Parts Per Million--and that number has been and still remains on an upwards elevator ride, and it's because of fossil fuels being used to supply so much of the world's energy needs.
There's a fine point about this that I think is not brought forward enough in this WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, so I will enlarge on it.
The 14C isotope of C (carbon) is produced when any one of the very abundant and naturally occurring 14N (nitrogen) atoms in the atmosphere "takes one in the nucleus" from a cosmic ray that barges into the atmosphere from outer space. Then, when 14C atoms experience radioactive decay--it happens even to the "best" of isotopes--they convert back into 14N (nitrogen) atoms and become indistinguishable from the naturally occurring 14N (nitrogen) atoms that are so abundant because 80 percent (off the top of my head) of the air that we breathe is 14N2 (nitrogen) molecules.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-24-2020).]
Coal-fired power plant in North Dakota with plans to capture and sequester more than 90% of its carbon emissions
quote
The Milton R. Young Station, close to the town of Center in North Dakota, is as unremarkable as coal-fired power plants come. But if its owner Minnkota Power Cooperative has its way, the plant could soon be famous the world over.
The Grand Forks-based electric cooperative has launched Project Tundra, an initiative to build the largest power plant-based carbon capture facility in the world, with construction commencing as early as 2022. If Minnkota Power raises the US $1 billion the project requires, it plans to retrofit the station with technology the cooperative claims will capture more than 90 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the plant’s larger generator, a 455-megawatt unit. The effect will be the equivalent of taking 600,000 gasoline-fueled cars off the road.
<SNIP>
Carbon capture—the process of sequestering CO2 at its emission source before it’s released into the atmosphere—has attracted growing attention as a solution to global warming. For the world to meet the 2-degree Celsius goal set forth in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, it needs to combat carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for roughly three-quarters of emissions. Estimates suggest that carbon capture can help cut close to 10 percent of such emissions by 2050.
rinselberg, I can see you badly want to believe in Global Warming causing the end of life on Earth. It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled. You have been fooled.
rinselberg, that is not even an opinion. It is a statement which works on people such as you. The GOP is not looking for a climate solution. They are looking for a solution to climate lies. Yes. Lies !
Why do you continually ?choose? to be fooled by the same people who got caught trying to fool the world ? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Meh, I have never finished this. Might as well post my efforts.
"Carbon Dividends."
I was just scrolling through some of the news and news-style reporting that shows up on my iPhone and I saw one that reminded me of this forum topic, and forum member "cliffw" in particular--not in any negative or antagonistic way. It's just that when I remembered this forum topic, "cliffw" was the first Pennock's screen name that came to mind in connection with this topic.
I glommed onto a report about CO2 and "Global Dumbing" as the seed for this topic. Not surprisingly, this has morphed into a wider-ranging discussion about CO2 and "Climate Change", not all that different from a topic that was created quite some years before this one and ran to "umpteen thousand" Reply messages. "The Scientific Evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming," if memory serves me.
Here's what I saw on my iPhone, courtesy of the Apple-created "News" icon:
Just a short column of text, it is, so I will only reproduce the first paragraph:
quote
Today, we launched Utahns for Carbon Dividends because America needs a climate policy that bridges partisan divides, strengthens our economy and protects our environment. We’ve reached a tipping point on climate change in this country. A majority of Americans, not to mention a majority of Utahns, now favor some action to address it. And voters of all stripes want a solution that both parties can support.
I was thinking of the branding potential of "Carbon Dividends." Sounds better than a Carbon Tax, eh? It's described as one of those revenue-neutral taxation plans. There's a word for that, but I can't think of it. It's like "pig" something.
Here's another paragraph:
quote
Finally, this plan stands apart from other climate proposals because it would pay for itself and shrink the size of government. All the revenue from the fee would be returned to the American people. A family of four would receive approximately $2,000 a year to offset higher energy costs.
It echoes a previous article that I posted in this thread, from the Washington Post, that had the imprimatur of former Secretary of State and Theranos white collar crime culprit (~ "cliffw") George (P) Shultz.
As I reviewed this thread, I found a link from "cliffw" that invokes "Carbon Dividends", on the left side of that page, like a book or pamphlet cover. https://clcouncil.org/why-c...gress-is-deadlocked/
So, "Carbon Dividends" is like a brand name that's already been around the block, even though it seemed very new and fresh when I saw it earlier today on my iPhone.
THE END.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2020).]
May be the wrong thread to ask this, but.. How many ounces of 87 octane gasoline do I need to mix with 5 gallons of whale oil in order to get a pile of old car tires burning real good?
May be the wrong thread to ask this, but.. How many ounces of 87 octane gasoline do I need to mix with 5 gallons of whale oil in order to get a pile of old car tires burning real good?
To answer that question, you will need to define "real good". It's really the only way to understand your desired results and reach a scientific response. In theory, of course.
Edited: Just curious but where did you get the whale oil, I could use some for my shop lamps.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-11-2020).]
I think there must have been and may be ongoing projects to study the idea of producing a kind of carbon-neutral biofuel from small but plentiful marine organisms like plankton or krill. Organisms that the Baleen (as opposed to Toothed) whales feed upon. "Whale oil without the whales."
Of course, it could be that Baleen whales are so efficient at converting their food into oil, that it would be more feasible to set up whale farms, kind of like salmon farms. Maybe they could find a way to get the oil out of the whales without killing or seriously harming them. Whale-sized liposuction. Keep a whale penned up for its oil for a couple or three years, and then set it free.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2020).]
If in the first (and only) page of a thread, more than half the posts are people attacking each other, I think it's a good thing to close the thread. If the original topic is important enough, feel free to repost. But be forewarned that I will close it again if it heads in the same direction as this thread.
Topic Closed
???
