Anthropogenic activities are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. There is mounting experimental evidence that lifetime exposur
Ironic that the climate change deniers where usually the ones that claimed (falsely) that wearing masks caused this
They do mention that CO2 levels are typically higher indoors and that Americans spend 87% of their time indoors, but it would have been interesting to see a prediction for how much sooner this would become a problem inside.
Modern houses are actually quite a problem for this. A well insulated house also tend to be quite well sealed. I’ve seen my bedroom pass 5000ppm. I suspect a lot of people are working in 1000ppm environments or higher for long periods.
For those interested, IKEA recently released a air quality sensor that does CO2 for a very low price. ALPSTUGA
What do you even do about CO2 in that scenario. I can monitor it and collect data, but addressing it feels like a losing battle, especially in winter.
My plan is to replace the bathroom extractor with a heat exchanger. It takes outside air, warms it using the exhaust air, then dumps it into the bedrooms.
The living areas are easier. Opening a window for 10 minutes isn’t an issue when you’re awake and moving about.
You can also get vent replacement versions. They flip flop between venting out, and pulling in, storing heat in a heatsink as appropriate.
One reason the window directly over my head in bed stays open all Winter.
I don’t want it too cold when sleeping, and heating a room with an open window is wasteful and expensive.
I’m personally planning on installing an air to air heat exchanger. Even a cheap one can get 75% recovery. Add in some air sensors to make it smart and it’s fairly fire and forget.
I love the cold and the bedroom is off circuit.
The apartment I used to live in was so good for this ventilation thing, even with all the windows closed. The air conditioner was installed permanently in the wall and had a gap around it that let enough wind through to rattle my vertical blinds across the room. Never had to worry about high co2 during those trapped-inside Midwest winters! :p
Joking aside, I covered that thing with plastic and layers of blankets. Current house isn’t much better in that regard, the air leaks are just from everywhere, because it’s ancient. Costs a fortune to heat, so I keep it cold all winter. But at least I don’t have too much to worry about with co2 buildup.
I feel you. I lived in a converted stable once. The place leaked air like a sieve.
I also discovered the oil fired boiler had 20m+ of unlagged pipes between it and our radiators, running through an unused stable. It took 2 full tanks/winter to just keep it above freezing. It should have been 1/2 a tank to keep it nice and warm.
This great news! Not just not have we an increasingly unstable climate causing unprecedented heatwaves, droughts, floods, snow, now we have steady increases atmospheric CO2 will cause direct health impacts and if it goes on then we will need to mutate to cope with it. That they can measure the increase in atmospheric CO2, by proxy, in the blood is pretty frightening.
Oh god, we dont need Orphan 55 to become a canonical event.
You can see the change here:
more general info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere_of_Earth
To make it even more scary, it is accelerating. It has increased 75 ppm in 30 years and it was 40 ppm in the first 30 years.
Show me a truncated graph and my inner statistician goes:
eugh
I see this sentiment quite often, is it field-specific? Cause in physics and chemistry, starting at 0 is really not required…
In this case, the zero value is really not relevant (since no-one would ever have it anyway). It would just hide the signifcant drift over time. A good scaling here would be based on some clinically relevant interval I guess.
I agree that showing the zero level may be useful here, but… I cannot find a scientific source that shows it differently, so it’s not intentionally misleading at least. The bigger issue IMO is that it doesn’t show enough historic context (ice core data). The original article has it, or nature.org or co2science.org (though it doesn’t show the latest measurements).
This graph is from wikipedia. Feel free to fix it.
Isn’t this the opposite of truncated? They drill down each year’s cycle and show like 80 years of cycles.
The y axis doesn’t start at 0, making it look like the change has been a lot more drastic than it actually was (even though it’s still very bad). I think that’s what they’re referring to
Shit…well at 45 I’ll be dead 15-20 years before it hits the fan. I guess that’s a personal win.
Not for your kids.
Use condoms
Y’all are having kids?
Tonnes of CO2e, averages:
1.60 a roundtrip transatlantic flight 2.40 one year of car use 58.60 one year, for every child you haveMy GF’s daughter is trying to get pregnant. It’s very difficult for me not to scream “No!” I wish a grim future weren’t true, but, it most certainly is going to continue to get worse. In short order, it will be exponentially noticeable.
“Venus by Tuesday…”
It’s impossible to test, so we substituted Carbon Dioxide for other elements at random and made some meaningless calculations. ‘Science’
Aw, did someone get their fe-fees hurt?
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong.
The paper is pretty clear about the chemistry and why they measured what.
The tagline is bullshit. When I see bullshit, I shouldn’t even open the article.
You put science in air quotes and didn’t bother to look at the ‘science’
This couldn’t be more on brand
They called the abstract a ‘tagline’
It’s not ‘at random.’
