Rising CO2 causes more than a climate crisis—it may directly harm our ability to think
Monday, April 20, 2020
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.
We all know the feeling: Sit too long in a stuffy, crowded lecture hall or conference room and many of us begin to feel drowsy or dull. In general, CO2 concentrations are higher indoors than outdoors, the authors wrote. And outdoor CO2 in urban areas is higher than in pristine locations. The CO2 concentrations in buildings are a result of both the gas that is otherwise in equilibrium with the outdoors, and also the CO2 generated by building occupants as they exhale.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Has anyone shared this study with the NASA or greenhouse workers? The ISS environment has 7 to 17 times the CO2 partial pressure as atmospheric (reported in mm Hg). Greenhouse CO2 concentrations may reach 1500 ppm CO2, a mere 3.5 times atmospheric. I’d say the astronauts are in serious trouble. #bringastronautshome
I think somebody forgot to tell the researcher that the RCP8.5 scenario should no longer be used as a busines-as-usual case!
Post on Wattsupwiththat.com from 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJbzDExu_JIa31VzFn8_pBA
Ask yourself that at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) if you increase CO2 ppm what has to go? O2 maybe? Could that cause cognitive problems?
Must have been what killed off the dinosaurs…..a significant reduction in basic decision-making ability and complex strategic thinking
Noted in passing is the fact that “oxygen concentrators” used to supply oxygen medically to patients are really “nitrogen removers”. They increase the oxygen in the exhaust gasses by removing the nitrogen in the input gasses. As a result, the concentration of CO2, etc. increases by a factor of over 4 in the stream used to give to the patient. The output stream is thus about 90% O2, 5% Ar, 2% CO2, and so forth. The patients do quite well on it.
The authors of that article would do well to stop huffing the gasses from club soda.
That’s an interesting thought.
I did a quick search on pressure swing absorption oxygen concentrators and didn’t find any technology that is used to remove CO2, H2O or radon for that matter. It could be that because CO2 and H2O are absorbed to a greater degree than N2 that the timing of the swings yields about the same concentration in the feed and output.
That increase in CO2 will tend to strengthen the breathing reflex slightly, which might be considered an extra bonus effect.
However increasing CO2 by a factor 4 only yields 0.16 % (=1600 ppm), not 2 %
There’s been a lot of work in classroom CO2 levels. example
IMHO, concentrating on CO2 is barking up the wrong tree. Heat and humidity have a much bigger effect. link The other thing is the various substances emitted by human beings.
The stuffy brain-deadening atmosphere in a poorly ventilated classroom or aircraft cabin has a lot less to do with CO2 than with other factors.
Farts ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fart_Proudly
Sounds like some people need to add some houseplants to the mix. Best looking house plants I have seen are always in offices or classrooms. They love the higher CO2 and provide lots of nice O2 as a thank you, as well as providing free air filtration. Bet most offices of climate wackos lack this simple fix, hence their cognitive distress.
With exhaling at 40,000 ppm, what does wearing a mask do to what you inhale? I’ll wear the mask against Covid 19 anyway.
Sitting in a stuffy lecture hall, one often falls asleep. This is not because of the increase in CO2, but because the Oxygen is being used up!
CO2 is actually a stimulant!
If you start with the wrong assumptions, you will end up with the wrong conclusions!
These authors appear to have followed the Oozlum bird to it’s final destination….
… Up the hill somewhere, now resident on one of the Flatirons.
It’s more fundamental than that…..
Outside CO2 levels rising from 280ppm to a bit under 500ppm (maybe) is going to cause indoor CO2 levels to go from 500ppm to over 1500ppm????
I’m calling BS on that claim.
The only way indoor CO2 levels will rise that much is if we reduce the amount of air exchange from inside to outside drastically. And if that’s the case, the problem lies with the lack of air exchange, not the outside ambient CO2 levels.
All other things being equal, if outside CO2 goes up by 10ppm, then indoor CO2 goes up by the same amount. There is no multiplier in this equation.
Not a single author is a medical doctor trained in clinical studies. That is the first alert I saw.
What has peer review become today? Nothing more than a spell checking exercise? If I were to peer review this study I would have required the 2007 National Academy of Sciences study “Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants: Volume 1 (2007)” be referenced and the differences between it and this study be explained in detail.
The study states “Early experimental studies testing for the influence of relatively high concentrations of CO2 (5–8%) that might be present in confined and enclosed spaces like submarines found significant impacts on ability to respond to a stimulus (Harter 1967), reasoning (Sayers et al. 1987) and threat processing (Garner et al. 2011).”
The study does not mention at all the 2007 National Academy of Sciences study “Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants: Volume 1 (2007)” (see pages 6,7, and 8 for study particpants). The 2007 study states on Page 54: “A number of studies suggest that CO2 exposures in the range of 15,000-40,000 ppm do not impair neurobehavioral performance.” The 2007 study goes on to state on Page 54: “Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlike submariners”
The study states : “More moderately elevated concentrations (2.5%), such as those that may be present in passenger automobiles and aircraft, have been shown to impair visual perception (Yang et al. 1997) and ability to maneuver an aircraft (Allen et al. 2018)”
Yet the 2007 study states: “Based on the work of Storm and Giannetta (1974) and Glatte et al. (1967), a NOAEL of 30,000 ppm for general CNS effects could be proposed. However, the subcommittee considers the subtler, if less relevant, visual effects reported by Sun et al. (1996) and Yang et al. (1997) at 25,000 ppm to be a minimal LOAEL.”
(NOAEL – No Observed Adverse Effect Level, LOAFL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level )
[NOAEL — Highest dose at which there was not an observed toxic or adverse effect.
LOAEL — Lowest dose at which there was an observed toxic or adverse effect.]
Somebody is misquoting the study by Yang and I sincerely doubt that it is the National Academy of Sciences who sponsored the 2007 study. The peer review process today would seem to be totally useless, at least when it comes to study of CO2!
Tim,
It’s fitting that you mention medical doctors right at the top of your (virtuoso) comment.
The Respiratory Medicine syllabus covers various equations doctors use routinely on the ward when solving problems like: what flow rate of supplemental oxygen does this patient need?
Many such equations include a term—a constant—that stands for the carbon-dioxide concentration of room air—like the air you inhale on a hospital ward.
Would anyone (other than Tim) like to take a stab at the value medical students are taught to ‘plug in’ for this term: the concentration of CO2 in room air?
Good guess. But no, it’s lower. Hmm. Keep going.
Lower.
Still too high.
Bingo. Zero. For all medical intents and purposes, there is no carbon dioxide in the air you inhale inside a hospital.
But unless the upcoming negotiations in [insert tropical vacation spot] produce a solemn global vow of carbon austerity, scientists warn that that figure may be on track to double, or even TRIPLE, in our children’s lifetimes.
I read an article like this and, being an engineer, and assuming it’s a real problem (or a problem building owners want a solution), I think, “Let’s use ingenuity to solve the ventilation problem.” But I doubt the left cares about engineering solutions. Rather, it’s a reason to tighten the iron fist of regulation… for SCIENCE! For the CHILDREN! For our FUTURE! For -insert emotional thing here-!
As for so much other in Germany, there are regulations for CO2 too, so we have values for CO2, the MAK, max. concentration at workplaces (Maximale Arbeitsplatz Konzenztration) of 5000 ml/m³ (ppm) or 9100 mg m³ over 8 hours.
If there’s one thing the climate community can’t abide it’s misinformation.
They even have “Krusher Krews” whose sole function is to nip scientifically-illiterate urban myths in the bud.
And this one’s a doozy. How such crapscience survived the ruthless gauntlet of peer review is anyone’s guess, but editors’ heads are going to roll, that’s for sure.
Expect this crank meme to be added to Skeptical Science’s index mythorum debuncandorum any day now. I bet it won’t survive the weekend. They’re probably polishing the corrective article as we speak, double-checking that the fact-bomb they’re about to drop has 100% killpower first.
This message has been pumped at least since December, however. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/carbon-dioxide-pollution-making-people-dumber-heres-what-we-know/603826/
All you’ve proven is that my comment was wrong about everything.
But that’s a strawman argument, because I have never claimed my comment was right.
Last time I checked, I wasn’t even a climate scientist. No serious person would get their views from a comment I wrote on some blog but couldn’t be bothered submitting for peer review.
So in fact your demolition of my claims is disingenuous, since it doesn’t stop the ice from melting, which it’s still doing despite your reply, which if it had been of any interest to scientists would have been in the peer reviewed literature, not on some blog.
Clearly, the climate science community doesn’t find your explosion of my argument, however fatal, noteworthy. So I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t read it, preferring to get the discrediting of my views from the SCIENTISTS, not from the kind of person who comments at a site well-known for harboring diverse and inconsistent views.
Harrumph.
Let’s see if some rationality prevails. This article should not stand and is an embarrassment to CIRES and the Universities of Colorado and Pennsylvania.
Thus far it would seem alarmists are the main ones whose thinking has been compromised.
From the article:
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 room they were sitting in while working on that paper seems to have had some special components included, maybe Nitrous oxide (N2O), better known as laughing gas. (Nitrous oxide (N2O), also called dinitrogen monoxide, laughing gas, or nitrous, one of several oxides of nitrogen, a colourless gas with pleasant, sweetish odour and taste, which when inhaled produces insensibility to pain preceded by mild hysteria, sometimes laughter.)
https://www.britannica.com/science/nitrous-oxide
So, is this for real? All I have to do to stop being so dumb is go outside? I dunno. As nearly as I can tell, I’m just as stupid outside as in, and it doesn’t rain in here. And I’ve got a TV set. And they make you wear pants when you go outside, and they always get so upset when I forget.
What I heard was, if you don’t have a build-up of carbon dioxide in your blood, you won’t have any stimulus to breathe. And I also heard that plants do something or other with carbon dioxide that is the exact opposite of what animals do, and this is a good thing. I don’t understand any of this, of course, because I’ve been breathing in too much carbon dioxide. And anyway, I don’t care.
That’s another strong reason to end the lockdown.
LOL!
Eureka, Ian, you’ve solved a long standing puzzle for me. And to think, the missing piece was there all the time.
I don’t ever have to get wet again.
Thanks! You’re the best!
The discovery;
Mental functional impairment,
like rage, dumbness, stupidity, anger, madness, quick irrational thinking, moronic attitude etc.,
has a much clear and tight correlation with the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase than temp variation has. (according do current latest global data)
Some discovery there… where the hypothesis and the hype explanation offered quite silly and/but still proving the validity of the discovery, with it dumbness and silliness… 🙂
Got to face it, CO2 up mental schist up, mind fracking debilitating. 🙂
undeniable. 🙂
cheers
This is too easy…
Rising atmospheric CO2 has definitely affected the ability of some to think.
From the ‘Study’ (at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GH000237):
‘Early experimental studies testing for the influence of relatively high concentrations of CO2
(5–8%) that might be present in confined and enclosed spaces like submarines found significant impacts on ability to respond to a stimulus (Harter 1967), reasoning (Sayers et al. 1987) and threat processing (Garner et al. 2011). More moderately elevated concentrations (2.5%), such as those that may be present in passenger automobiles and aircraft, have been shown to impair visual perception (Yang et al. 1997) and ability to maneuver an aircraft (Allen et al. 2018).’ [emphases mine]
My thoughts: Wow, just Wow.
The title of the paper is ‘Fossil fuel combustion is driving indoor CO2
toward levels harmful to human cognition’
After reading their paper, which has more ventilation orfices in it than the modeled interior environments to which they allude, my impression is… that they have been spending too much time at low oxygen altitudes.
And, they never watched the movie ‘Apollo 13’. The CO2 partial pressure target max for the capsule was 8, which is equivalent to 10,526 ppm of CO2. If they are getting levels anywhere near that at CU Boulder, somebody needs to talk to the HVAC department.
They no clue at all about what they are writing, my impression.
We all know that a properly prepared PowerPoint presentation can stun an Ox.
CO2 cognitive sensitivity is very real but, fortunately, largely confined to folks who have already lost their marbles. Common symptoms are believing the world ends in 9 years, 3 months, 8 days and 13.2 hours, buying Tesla’s, eating excessive amounts of organic kale, wearing hemp-based clothes till the rash is so bad you need a burn unit and sending fawning greeting cards with sweaty half clad selfies to Mickey the Mann.
By the way the air we breath out has about 38,000 PPM CO2. The efficiency of gas exchange in the lungs depends on the concentration gradient. Changing ambient CO2 concentration from 400 to say 900 ppm changes the gradient between air we exhale and air we inhale by about 1%. If the mental abilities of the CAGW crown can be impaired by that tiny change, are unable to raise their respiratory rate a trivial amount to compensate And can’t find the door to outside then there is no hope for them.