Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday February 17 2020, @08:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the Bring-on-the-bottled-air dept.

The world's carbon-dioxide problem doesn't just affect the atmosphere — the gas is starting to fill our homes, schools, and offices, too.

Indoor levels of the gas are projected to climb so high, in fact, that they could cut people's ability to do complex cognitive tasks in half by the end of the century.

That prediction comes from three scientists from the University of Colorado Boulder and the University of Pennsylvania, who presented their findings last week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The study is still under peer review but available online in the repository Earth ArXiv.

The findings show that, if global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise on their current trajectory, the concentration of CO2 in the air could more than double by 2100. Based on measurements of how humans function in spaces with that much CO2, the scientists warn, we could find ourselves scoring 50% lower on measures of complex thought by the end of the century.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:54AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:54AM (#959081)

    By that time, objective truth as found by the scientific method will be the norm. And the scientific method does not need geniuses in order to function, since it is simply a set of clear rules for how to process information and propose new questions that need to be answered.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @08:58AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @08:58AM (#959083) Journal

      Imagine religion freedom beats freedom of speech, such a small switch of priority few will notice.
      Then, teach the controversy squared.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday February 17 2020, @11:56AM (5 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Monday February 17 2020, @11:56AM (#959115)

      Given the current trend, objective truth will be whatever politics, religion, and big business decree it to be. We're already seeing this now, when a sharpie can override expert meteorologists and the government agency whose job it is to sort it out defends the quackery rather than denouncing it.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 17 2020, @11:37PM (4 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 17 2020, @11:37PM (#959350) Homepage Journal

        Indeed, and it ain't even slightly one-sided. There are whole great swaths of things you're not even allowed to consider studying because it wouldn't be PC.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:25AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:25AM (#959412)

          You're an idiot thinking the parent was parroting your particular brand of identity politics. I mean possibly they'd agree with you, but it was a much broader brush than "PC".

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:34AM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:34AM (#959416) Homepage Journal

            You're an idiot for thinking I assumed they agreed with me on anything at all.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:21PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:21PM (#959614)

              Fair enough, but you're an idiot for saying "there are whole great swaths of things you're not even allowed to consider studying because it wouldn't be PC."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:50AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:50AM (#959371)

      "Climate change" BS is just big industriy's attempt to misdirect your focus onto the harmless plant food CO2. Meanwhile they pollute your air, food, and water full of all sorts of actual dangerous chemicals. Pollution is real, climate BS is fake.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:55AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:55AM (#959082)

    Intelligence is overrated, just ask TMB what good is his IQ for when he goes fishing?
    BTW, please send my respects to Algernon.
    RIP, MDC.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:40PM (#959221)

      Only good for easily posting highway speed limit signs.

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:14AM

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:14AM (#959767) Homepage Journal

      Intelligence is invaluable while fishing so you van properly understand wave mechanics.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Monday February 17 2020, @09:08AM (22 children)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Monday February 17 2020, @09:08AM (#959086)

    Is this a massive failure of the HVAC? should we replace the furnace filters because there's no air throughput in the system? Is there a bird in the ventilation?

    Seriously, why do these articles rely an an absolute failure of common sense to achieve their "projected" claims?

    If indoor air quality starts to diminish significantly then the engineers and maintenance techs will _FIX_ the problem. Indoor air quality is currently _vastly_ better than when smoking was permitted in offices, and has only gotten better. If needed, and if isn't done currently, we'll swap indoor air with outdoor air more frequently and air-condition sufficiently to maintain temperature.

    Surely you're not telling me that _outdoor_ air has reached poisonous levels.. (with the exception of LA.)

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday February 17 2020, @09:29AM (10 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday February 17 2020, @09:29AM (#959091) Journal

      Don't forget that indoor CO2 (1000 ppm or so) is hugely magnified by the very policies to reduce outdoor CO2 (420 ppm or so). Modern green buildings have sealed windows that can't be opened for fresh air, to reduce HVAC energy consumption.

      • (Score: 2) by Rich on Monday February 17 2020, @11:17AM (9 children)

        by Rich (945) on Monday February 17 2020, @11:17AM (#959107) Journal

        Modern green buildings have sealed windows that can't be opened for fresh air

        Modern green buildings also have a forced ventilation system with heat exchanger. These come with all kinds of issues from own energy requirements to possible icing in winter (subterrean pre-warming is the key here), from filter change maintenance to plain MTBF - but fresh air is your least worry. Living climate is in fact much better than in buildings that only get occasionally ventilated through open windows.

        Also, one could open the windows, they're just sealed good enough to pass a blower-door-test when closed.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday February 17 2020, @12:15PM (2 children)

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday February 17 2020, @12:15PM (#959122) Journal

          How do you open a sealed window that has no mechanism?

          • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:51PM (#959134)

            A rock.

          • (Score: 1) by wArlOrd on Monday February 17 2020, @07:35PM

            by wArlOrd (2142) on Monday February 17 2020, @07:35PM (#959254)

            The last time I needed to do it my desk chair worked well.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:24PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:24PM (#959140) Journal

          Also, one could open the windows

          No way, not when outside is worse.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 17 2020, @01:38PM (4 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday February 17 2020, @01:38PM (#959144)

          one could open the windows

          Not the way they're built around here. In the last 30 years the percentage of "fixed glass" installation has skyrocketed, while older windows mechanisms have been neglected and often "painted shut."

          Homes 60+ years ago had excellent window opening/closing mechanisms - well balanced double sashes that opened and closed at a slight touch, casements (with admittedly maintenance hungry mechanisms) that would catch the breeze when it flowed perpendicular to the exterior wall. Even the awning windows had robust gears and hinges with intentional lubrication channels.

          The advent of ubiquitous HVAC has put a severe downward pressure on the quality/durability of mass produced window opening mechanisms. Simple: they don't make 'em like they used to - at least around here. I have seen some really impressive modern units in Scandinavia / Northern Europe - might actually be worth the cost of importing if they ever figure out a good way to integrate insect screening.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:54PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @08:54PM (#959279)

            The advent of ubiquitous HVAC has put a severe downward pressure on the quality/durability of mass produced window opening mechanisms. Simple: they don't make 'em like they used to - at least around here.

            Around here being America?

            Around here, every office has a window that opens, never mind for houses. Every single pane window in my apartment opens. Every single one. The only exception is a 15cm wide addition next to one of the balcony doors. And as you may have guessed, this is not America here. I'm in Germany. Also, I can walk to store and live 20 minute slow walk from my work and pay USD$1000/mo for my apartment (3 rooms).

            So yes, it may be understood that housing in America has gone the cheap route as people are generally allergic to outdoors, but America is not the world. Far from it. Vast majority of the world population breathes outdoor or close to outdoor air.

            As for window mechanisms, you get what you pay for. If you want a "picture window", that's what you get. And you pay less for no mechanism and sealed existence.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:33PM (#959298)

              but, but how do you get your cancer then?

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:16AM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:16AM (#959398)

              And I refer to not only Germany but all of Northern Europe and Scandinavia as having good opening window mechanisms with decent insulation properties I might add - but serious lack of insect screening most places.

              America is not the world

              Not per capita, no, but per net ton of CO2 emitted, we're an impressive #2 after China, and one could convincingly argue that the CO2 China emits on behalf of US consumers would swing the US to the #1 spot in the contest of CO2 emission shame.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by Rich on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:09PM

              by Rich (945) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @05:09PM (#959590) Journal

              Sigh, I could have assumed that people who have a weird concept of "football" might also have a weird concept of "window"... ;)

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:22PM (10 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:22PM (#959139) Journal

      Is this a massive failure of the HVAC? should we replace the furnace filters because there's no air throughput in the system? Is there a bird in the ventilation?

      About 4 weeks or so ago, with those massive bush fires, happened that the office building HVAC have been slowed down being overloaded by the smoke outside [3aw.com.au]. The CO2 inside shoot up to 980ppm.

      So, behave, or else will be sending that smoke in your direction.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 17 2020, @01:41PM (9 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday February 17 2020, @01:41PM (#959146)

        Scrubbers (rebreathers), face masks, SCUBA - Self Contained Urban Breathing Apparatus, building scale CO2 scrubbing and O2 concentrating, oxygen bars. Too early to invest, but they are all long term growth markets.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:47PM (8 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:47PM (#959150) Journal

          I prefer to telecommute from my glass house full of plants, thank you.
          Cheaper and less harmful for the environ.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 17 2020, @02:25PM (7 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday February 17 2020, @02:25PM (#959163)

            When the sun goes down those plants churn out CO2 in your house... however, I, too prefer the telecommute and have not yet put the brakes on my wife's houseplant hobbsession.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @04:26PM (3 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @04:26PM (#959198) Journal

              When the sun goes down those plants churn out CO2 in your house...

              Solar water heating and PV+storage+ keeps them producing.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 17 2020, @08:50PM (2 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday February 17 2020, @08:50PM (#959276)

                I really like the idea of solar panels powering LED grow lights in the house - I don't think the plants would appreciate having their day-night cycle erased, though.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @09:16PM (#959290) Journal

                  Happens all the time in clean-rooms in Japan, they grow E. Coli free lettuce [google.com]

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:09AM

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:09AM (#959395)

                    True enough, and Alaska grows some record sized vegetables due to the long summer sun hours... Still doesn't "feel" right, but it can work well with a lot of species.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by captain normal on Monday February 17 2020, @05:13PM (2 children)

              by captain normal (2205) on Monday February 17 2020, @05:13PM (#959211)

              Makes me wonder if the CO2 levels in your office/house may be too high.
              Me thinks you need a refresher course in Photosynthesis:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis [wikipedia.org]

              --
              When life isn't going right, go left.
              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @06:48PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @06:48PM (#959242)

                The clue your looking for is cellular respiration. During the day it is offset by photosynthesis, and st night there is a net export of CO2 from the plants. It is a tiny amount, but the original joke holds up regardless.

                Can you conservatives just go to school already? Science isn't like software, accuracy matters more than StackOverflow's goodnuff copy/paste.

                • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:44AM

                  by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday February 19 2020, @12:44AM (#959723)

                  That was a joke? Somehow I missed that. But the real joke is you thinking of me as a conservative. You don't seem to have paid any attention to my postings here for the last 6 years, have you? I truly believe in a social democracy much like my friends in Northern Europe (Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and now since fall of the Russian Empire, Estonia and Poland have. The only thing I disagree with in all the front running Democratic candidates is gun control. To me gun control is a tight groping at 200 meters.

                  --
                  When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:31AM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:31AM (#959092)

    I love when it comes down to the dumbing down of the population, it's headline news if you can tie it to climate change even in the most absurd of ways. I mean I expect by 2100 we'll have invented air filters and purifiers. Wait, we already have those? Well I'll be damned. Somebody should inform the authors! I'm sure they had no idea, and genuinely thought this was a real issue, and weren't just playing on a hot topic to pad out their publication and presentation list.

    Oh, in other news most of the developed world is literally getting more stupid [wikipedia.org] at a fairly rapid pace, and nobody has any clue why. The decline was observed to generally have started in the mid 90s and has been replicated in numerous countries. A point or two doesn't per decade doesn't sound like much until you consider that an IQ of 86 is entering into the borderline mentally retarded region. But, hey who cares about people becoming literally retarded if we can't tie it to climate change?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday February 17 2020, @09:49AM (42 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday February 17 2020, @09:49AM (#959095) Journal

      I mean I expect by 2100 we'll have invented air filters and purifiers. Wait, we already have those?

      Those don't remove CO2. You would need special scrubbers [wikipedia.org] like on submarines or the Space Station.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:53AM (23 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:53AM (#959097)

        Not sure how every commenter but you (and I) are not understanding this.

        CO^2 is not particulate. It can't be filtered out mechanically (er, not without much bigger problems).

        How are these people both 1) visiting a site for nerds and 2) spouting off on things that they so clearly don't understand? Have they no sense of - oh right online communities and signal to noise reducing bad actors. :(

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @11:51AM (5 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @11:51AM (#959113) Journal
          Must be the retardation from elevated indoor CO2 - after all, it's winter and everything is sealed up.
          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:56PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @12:56PM (#959137)

            It's summertime. I'm in the Southern Hemisphere you insensitive clod!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @02:00PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @02:00PM (#959154)

            It is unwise to throw stones in a glass house.

            • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:24AM

              by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @03:24AM (#959770) Homepage Journal

              Inhabitants of domiciles
                  of vitreous formation
              With lapidary fragments
                  are unwise to make iactation.

        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday February 17 2020, @12:37PM (16 children)

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Monday February 17 2020, @12:37PM (#959130) Journal

          Just fire up those carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) machines that we keep hearing about.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:26PM (9 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:26PM (#959141) Journal

            Just like the free market fairy, those don't exist.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @02:55PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @02:55PM (#959169)

              Yeah exactly. We should just do what they do on the ISS to get rid of all that CO2 - open a window and air the place out a bit.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:42PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:42PM (#959222)

                Drink our own urine?

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @09:21PM (2 children)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @09:21PM (#959291) Journal
                  Actually I don't know which is worse - that they're drinking their own urine or everybody's urine.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:41PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:41PM (#959527)

                    Interestingly enough, it's only the US astronauts that are required to recycle and drink their own urine. The total efficiency gain from the process is mostly negligible. The Russians, for instance, do not drink their own urine - but they do give theirs to the Americans to enjoy.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:20AM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:20AM (#959365) Journal
              Just because Australia has been burning their carbon sequestration machines doesn't mean they don't exist!
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:08AM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:08AM (#959429) Journal

                Australia has been burning their carbon sequestration machines

                Nope [insider.com], only cleaning them up of the old carbon.

                Besides, plants and machines [etymonline.com], there's a big difference between them.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:12PM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @04:12PM (#959560) Journal

                  Besides, plants and machines [etymonline.com], there's a big difference between them.

                  I didn't say anything about plants. We were talking about carbon sequestration machines, which just happen to overlap with the category of plants. After all, what is a "carbon sequestration machine"? It's not a typical machine that does mechanical work because carbon sequestration is not a mechanical problem that can be solved that way. So already you have left the semantic gates wide open for nontraditional machines like those growing in the Australia outback.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:46PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:46PM (#959654) Journal

                    A carbon sequestration machine is;
                    - genus proximus: a machine - that is a contraption ("device, contrivance," from Latin machina "machine, engine, military machine; device, trick; instrument" (source also of Spanish maquina, Italian macchina), from Greek makhana, Doric variant of Attic mēkhanē "device, tool, machine;")
                    - specific difference: that sequester carbon.

                    Since plants are not in the genus proxium...

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by aclarke on Monday February 17 2020, @02:27PM (5 children)

            by aclarke (2049) on Monday February 17 2020, @02:27PM (#959164) Homepage

            Office plants?

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:03PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:03PM (#959171)

              Are you referring to some of our employees?

              • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:08PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @05:08PM (#959209)

                Are you referring to some of our employees?

                Only the ones working for Putin

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:28AM (2 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:28AM (#959401) Journal

                  Their mission in life is definitely not carbon capture and sequestration, don't rely on them.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:30PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:30PM (#959616) Journal

                    Their mission in life

                    A machine doesn't have a mission. Its users do.

                    don't rely on them.

                    We already rely on forests alone to store [cnn.com] about 1.5 times as much carbon as was introduced by humans into the atmosphere (160 Gtons in 1 trillion trees -> 480 Gtons in 3 trillion trees with 300 Gtons of CO2 estimated in atmosphere from human sources). I think you're a bit late with your warning.

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:42PM

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:42PM (#959653) Journal

                      Please revisit

                      Are you referring to some of our employees?

                      Only the ones working for Putin

                      Because... [xkcd.com]

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @10:19AM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @10:19AM (#959099)

        And in most any closed air system with insufficient outdoor air flow. In other words these technologies needed to solve a hypothetical problem in 80 years not only exist but are already commercialized today. This entire "issue" is absurd.

        By contrast, people getting dumber is not.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:29PM (12 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:29PM (#959142) Journal

          In other words these technologies needed to solve a hypothetical problem in 80 years not only exist but are already commercialized today.

          [Citation Quote needed].
          No, seriously, investment and TCO numbers or GTFO.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @01:58PM (11 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @01:58PM (#959152)

            1) What was the cost of a computer comparable to today's efficiency 80 years ago?

            2) Even with today's tech and manufacturing ability it is "cheap." You could actually make a scrubber yourself with a bit of technical knowledge and ability. There are a whole ton of ways to scrub CO2, but one of the easiest is the Sabatier Reaction. CO2 plus hydrogen = methane + water, reacted at temperatures less than an decent oven is capable of reaching. The reason I put "cheap" in quotes is because the primary purchasers for these things today are government, military, and certain types of high tech industry and development. So what these could be made for at scale, and what they're sold for today are probably going to differ by orders of magnitude.

            This really is just increasing evidence that people are using climate change for easy publishing, because this presentation could not be less relevant.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @03:34PM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @03:34PM (#959181) Journal
              Too complicated. I'll just stick an open box of baking soda in each room, like the one in the back of the fridge. :-)
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @09:24PM (6 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @09:24PM (#959292) Journal

              1) What was the cost of a computer comparable to today's efficiency 80 years ago?

              What's the cost of controlled fusion today in comparison with 50 years ago?
              Future: a time that doesn't happen until it happens.

              (until you don't decarbonize your energy sector and add extra capacity to deal with a serious climb on the entropy ladder, any CO2 capture is going to emit more CO2 than it captured)

              CO2 plus hydrogen = methane + water, reacted at temperatures less than an decent oven is capable of reaching

              That hydrogen mate, that one spells energy trouble.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:30AM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:30AM (#959454)

                No, it doesn't.

                For home usage the amount you'd be scrubbing would be negligible. So you could easily generate the necessary amount of hydrogen just using electrolysis. Your air purifier would likely have a water intake similar to a washing machine. This is not complex or expensive.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:57AM (4 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:57AM (#959461) Journal

                  So you could easily generate the necessary amount of hydrogen just using electrolysis.

                  And that electricity is generated how?

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:50PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @02:50PM (#959529)

                    I don't understand what you're trying to allude to.

                    To answer your question, you'd use whatever conventional method your region happens to use: windmills, natural gas plants, nuclear plants, solar, hydroelectric, etc. Elecrolysis is inefficient of course (perhaps that is your point?) but the amount you're scrubbing on a consumer household/office setting would also be incredibly negligible, even at relatively high concentrations like e.g. 4000ppm. So the efficiency of the reactant is negligible in the overall cost of operation. Another option to make things even more simple is to just buy 3rd party hydrogen which could be produced efficiently using something like steam methane reforming. And that'd also be commercially preferred because companies love themselves some rent.

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:12AM (2 children)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @01:12AM (#959730) Journal

                      I don't understand what you're trying to allude to.

                      What I'm trying to say is that, unless you decarbonize the energy production, any "carbon sequestration" scheme is going to worsen the CO2 situation.

                      To answer your question, you'd use whatever conventional method your region happens to use: windmills, natural gas plants, nuclear plants, solar, hydroelectric, etc.

                      See? That's my point: do not use any carbon emitting energy source and it's fine. May be expensive like hell, but it's a solution.

                      Elecrolysis is inefficient of course (perhaps that is your point?)

                      Mate, you are deluded if you think you are going to find cheap solutions to go against the entropy laws. I think you will find that the total energy expenditure to get from "h2o + co2 => methanol" is somewhere in the (high end of) single digit percentage.
                      On the long run, what's the point of having scrubbed x amount of CO2 from a place, it the environment gets 10 more than that?

                      ...but the amount you're scrubbing on a consumer household/office setting would also be incredibly negligible,

                      Every person emits two tons of carbon dioxide a year through eating [sciencedaily.com].
                      In the building I'm working, there are easily about 2000 persons.
                      A quick back-of-the-napkin calculations reveal that for an 8hours/work day, the building should capture and transform (in methanol?) about 3.6 tonnes of CO2 (like in 2000 persons/365/(24/8) * 2 tonnes) to be "human generated carbon neutral".
                      Umm... you were saying "incredibly negligible"?

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @06:19AM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @06:19AM (#959803)

                        I think you have the wrong mental image your mind here. Here [nasa.gov] is a paper from NASA on their development of a Sabatier reactor used on the ISS. There's an image in Figure 3. The 12ml reactor described there was determined to be sufficient for 3.5-7 people. That excludes the heating of course, but the optimal temps are as low as 250C - comparable to the temp a regular oven can get to. And you're not heating an oven, but merely the reactor. The amount of energy you need to operate this is, again, mostly negligible. I think when people hear the word reactor they kind of jump to nuclear scale type visualizations. This one is a little bit more simple! ;-)

                        Beyond this, that paper describes a reactor intended for use in space. Obviously in space there is practically 0 leakage. On Earth the vast majority of the CO2 we exhale ends up leaking outside of our buildings. And the amount we exhale is what you're after - which is not what that paper you linked to was measuring. We exhale around 1kg per day. The exact amount leaked out is going to depend on the building, ventilation, ambient CO2 levels, etc.. but suffice to say that such a reactor that can support 3.5-7 people in space could support *far* more on Earth.

                        Finally you're conflating two different issues. Scrubbing can be used to clean our atmosphere itself (and in my opinion is the route we will go - which is why I find most of the climate hysteria, well - hysterical) but that is a radically different issue than indoor scrubbing to safe levels. Indoor scrubbing can be achieved using relatively simple technology at a low energy and price cost. Outdoor scrubbing by contrast is going to be large scale and things such as a Sabatier process would not even be desirable - since you'd now have megatons of another greenhouse gas.

                        This [cell.com] paper describes one extremely promising outdoor scrubbing technique which converts atmospheric CO2 to pickling lime (calcium hydroxide) at a cost as low as $94 per ton. That's current emissions completely nulled out at a cost of ~37 billion (tons) * $94 = $3.4 trillion, less than 4% of the world GDP. And once said infrastructure is in place, costs would radically decline. Anyhow, we won't be doing anything like that for decades and the price will plummet even further due to both technological and economic gains. We'll probably end up solving climate change, if it ultimately needs solving, for something like a 0.05% global GDP cost. Science, fuck yeah!

                        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:15AM

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 19 2020, @08:15AM (#959820) Journal

                          You'll be very wrong in your assessment if you look only at the last stage.

                          For example

                          This [cell.com] paper describes one extremely promising outdoor scrubbing technique which converts atmospheric CO2 to pickling lime (calcium hydroxide) at a cost as low as $94 per ton.

                          you'll have to show me a way to produce slacked lime (calcium hydroxide) that does *not* create CO2 first.
                          This given that the most common form of calcium mineral on Earth that allows resonable cheap calcium "extraction" is the carbonate.
                          Calcium phosphate (the matter of your bones) are rarer (easy to understand why - given a chance, will leach the phosphate group and will replace it with carbonate) and the rest of "calcium-X-silicates" are fucking hard to separate (energy-wise, that silicate is really a bitch when it comes to let the calcium go).

                          Obviously in space there is practically 0 leakage. On Earth the vast majority of the CO2 we exhale ends up leaking outside of our buildings.

                          Obviously, your implicit assumption is that the CO2 level outside is low enough to allow, as the first line of defense, replacing the air inside with the a lower CO2 concentration and start from there.

                          Here [nasa.gov] is a paper from NASA on their development of a Sabatier reactor used on the ISS. There's an image in Figure 3. The 12ml reactor described there was determined to be sufficient for 3.5-7 people. That excludes the heating of course, but the optimal temps are as low as 250C - comparable to the temp a regular oven can get to. And you're not heating an oven, but merely the reactor.

                          You are making some assumption somewhere that cannot be true. Check them again.

                          Were the "the amount of energy you need to operate this is, again, mostly negligible" be true, we would have heard the technology being deployed en-mass as not only carbon scrubbers but also as "renewable energy storage for times when wind doesn't blow and the Sun doesn't shine" - that's would be such a double-whammy that the "dyno-juice energy barons" (Koch brothers among them) would be happy to use.
                          Unfortunately those pesky laws of thermodynamics vetoes it.

                          If that was true, the ISS itself would not rely on CO2 scrubbing [nasa.gov] and dumping it overboard [nasa.gov]

                          --
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @09:26PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @09:26PM (#959293) Journal
              What was the cost of a house or a car 100 years ago compared to today? Or a comic book 50 years ago compared to today? Or a hamburger? Or a dozen donuts? A barrel of oil? Gasoline? A cup of coffee?
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:53AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @06:53AM (#959459)

                There are two big issues with your comment, but I want to hit on a general one first since it's a common thing people mistake. In 1908 the average cost of a Model T was about $850. Unfortunately I can only find inflation calculators from 1913 and beyond, which would put it at $22,000 in modern dollars - should be in that ballpark in any case. So, wow - it cost just about as much as a modern car one, such as yourself, might think. There's one big catch. And its the benefit of a growing economy. What was the average wage in 1908? It was a couple of dimes per hour, and around $300 per year. So a new car cost around 2.83 years of salary. Today the median personal income for fulltime work is is about $48,500 [bls.gov] per year, substantially more if you consider the average. So earnings adjusted, you're looking at a cost of $137,255 for a new car in 1908.

                Inflation does not account for economic gains. The reason even poor people can live like kings today, relative to times past, is in part due to reduced real costs but also in part due to increased overall wealth.

                Okay, but there's also a more specific issue here. Everything you're listing there had hit *mass market* commercialization. That was the secret to the Model T's "low" price. I listed computers for a specific reason. For most of their early life, they were not mass market - they were purchased primarily by military, governments, and some high tech industries. That's the exact same with carbon removal systems today. When you have limited markets like this, prices are stupidly high. See what's happening to the space industry today as we gradually segue from the military/government/high tech industries to the mass market.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:54AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 18 2020, @12:54AM (#959373) Journal

              1) What was the cost of a computer comparable to today's efficiency 80 years ago?

              No way you'll get an orders of magnitude improvement in efficiency like computers. Many of these processes already run near (much less than an order of magnitude off) their thermodynamic limit.

              2) Even with today's tech and manufacturing ability it is "cheap." You could actually make a scrubber yourself with a bit of technical knowledge and ability. There are a whole ton of ways to scrub CO2, but one of the easiest is the Sabatier Reaction. CO2 plus hydrogen = methane + water, reacted at temperatures less than an decent oven is capable of reaching. The reason I put "cheap" in quotes is because the primary purchasers for these things today are government, military, and certain types of high tech industry and development. So what these could be made for at scale, and what they're sold for today are probably going to differ by orders of magnitude.

              You need to get relatively pure CO2 (rather than small amounts of CO2 in a nasty nitrogen/oxygen mix). That means most of the actual scrubbing will be done by some other process.

      • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 17 2020, @10:48AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @10:48AM (#959102) Journal

        Yes, but - RUSSIANS!!

        The Russians are going to launch a whole fleet of satellites, for the purpose of laser beaming our buildings to create excessive CO₂ inside the buildings. More, they are working on rays and beams that will block the CO₂ from filtering out of our buildings. And, Russians, something something, blah blah, nuke the evil bastards!!

        What I really want to know is, will EVERYONE vote Democrat after the 2100 elections?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @01:44PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:44PM (#959148) Journal

        You would need special scrubbers like on submarines or the Space Station.

        Or plants/algae. It'll take a lot more than a plant in a pot, but it's not rocket science.

        Or thermodynamic/mechanical extractors. Since CO2 freezes at a relatively high temperature, you can extract a portion of it relatively easily by converting it to dry ice.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @09:58AM (#959098)

    Fact check: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548274/ [nih.gov]

    Everyone knows stale air makes one sleepy; but cooking the numbers and piling up weasel-words is the opposite of science.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Mer on Monday February 17 2020, @10:58AM

    by Mer (8009) on Monday February 17 2020, @10:58AM (#959103)

    Time for the CIA to invade Druidia and install a puppet government selling us all the oxygen in exchange for debt bonds.

    --
    Shut up!, he explained.
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday February 17 2020, @11:52AM (7 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Monday February 17 2020, @11:52AM (#959114) Homepage Journal

    I often find modern buildings are so well insulated they can quickly feel stuffy and make me feel a bit drowsy and less productive until I let some fresh air in. In a heavily polluted city I understand the use of air conditioning but if you're lucky enough to not be there just open the window.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 17 2020, @12:35PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @12:35PM (#959129) Journal
      And stick some plants in the office.
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 17 2020, @02:08PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday February 17 2020, @02:08PM (#959157)

        Careful with the plants when you switch off the lights - they expire CO2 also.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @03:40PM

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @03:40PM (#959183) Journal
          But they also absorb the toxic outgassing from printers, photocopiers, motherboards, power supplies, screens, acoustic tiles, floor and wall coverings, cubicle dividers, and your stinky co-workers.
          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Monday February 17 2020, @01:37PM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 17 2020, @01:37PM (#959143) Journal

      I often find modern buildings are so well insulated they can quickly feel stuffy and make me feel a bit drowsy and less productive until I let some fresh air in.

      Go out and take a ciggie break.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:08PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @03:08PM (#959173)

        Going out to smoke at the building's lepers' colony is the opposite of getting fresh air

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday February 17 2020, @03:42PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Monday February 17 2020, @03:42PM (#959184) Journal
          Ever since they passed a law banning smoking within 9 meters of any building opening, it's actually possible to go outside without getting gassed.
          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @04:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2020, @04:22PM (#959196)

            I'm not sure that's an advantage.

  • (Score: 2) by TrentDavey on Monday February 17 2020, @06:02PM (1 child)

    by TrentDavey (1526) on Monday February 17 2020, @06:02PM (#959229)

    What? No references to Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy/ [wikipedia.org] ?

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 18 2020, @01:35AM

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @01:35AM (#959385) Journal

    Some of us are old enough to remember 1 panel comics showing people at an oxygen vending machine. That was late '60s early '70s. Then we found it funny when they got "oxygen bars" in California. How much longer will we be laughing?

    I can't prove it scientifically, but I have noticed clearer thought and more energy when I am well away from the metro area. Perhaps even our outdoor air isn't what it should be.

  • (Score: 2) by engblom on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:50AM (2 children)

    by engblom (556) on Tuesday February 18 2020, @08:50AM (#959474)

    From reading the comments it looks like many believe plants would give enough of oxygen. Plants are not breathing in the same way a human is: they take in CO2 and then strip out the O2 part and then they use that C to GROW. Thus if you take a plant and dry out all of the water and weight it you could calculate the upper limit of how much CO2 it had been converting. The real value will be lower as a plant does not contain just carbon. You will quickly realize that the rate of converting CO2 is ridiculously small for house plants.

    This is why we need big forests where big growth can happen. The small and slowly growing house plants simply do not grow fast enough to do something useful for the indoor air.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @11:09AM (#959488)

      It's simple. You grow bamboo!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2020, @03:03PM (#959532)

      You also have to consider that 'high concentrations' of CO2 are also "ridiculously small." For instance take a relatively "high" concentration of CO2 of 4000ppm. That's less than 8 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of volume. And that CO2 tends to build up slowly over time.

      Forests are pretty much useless as a means of combating overall CO2. They simply sequester it, and then release it as they die. For instance the California wildfires ended up releasing [nbcnews.com] about as much CO2 as is required to generate all of the electricity in California for a year. But it wasn't just because the fire - such process also happens naturally as the trees die and decay. So trees do little more than kick the can, and also put a huge responsibility on maintaining the forests since a fire can release tremendous amounts of CO2 making the cure even worse than the disease.

(1)