ulenspegelMar 2
Debbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦

Oh goodie.

TL;DR: excess CO₂ in the atmosphere is altering human blood chemistry. It will exceed healthy limits within 50 years if we continue pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere at current rates.

Not to mention what it will do to people who are already unhealthy, and to animal life in general.

And no, beyond a certain level it’s not good for plants, either. That's another myth.

But yeah, let's keep burning gas and oil, and eating meat.

EDIT: see my addendum downthread.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5

Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years - Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

Anthropogenic activities are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. There is mounting experimental evidence that lifetime exposur

SpringerLink
Mar 2 at 12:21amIvory for Mac
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
I used to think that even if our willful ignorance caused human civilization to collapse, at least humans as a species would survive. Now it's not clear.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
I'm just going to use the link to that paper to respond when anyone explains why they need to buy a car that runs on gasoline, or refuses to reduce how much meat they eat.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
Honestly, this should be the number one story in every media outlet. I wonder if it will even be covered at all.
Show threadQoleMar 2
@dgoldsmith
I really wish studies like this would be used in lawsuits against the fossil fuel companies.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
Again for people who have my boosts muted, a reply points out that newer data (for years after the range 2000-2020 included in the paper) does not follow the trend, and the paper’s results may not be statistically significant. I'm sure there will be discussion in the scientific literature. If the paper's conclusions turn out to be mistaken, we can all breathe a sigh of relief about this. It doesn’t change the fact that we're still playing games with complex systems all life depends on.
Show threadAllie!Mar 2

@dgoldsmith the worst part is someone is going to see this and think they should create a startup that eventually makes portable oxygen fashionable and/or begins development on oxygenated air flow systems for the ultra wealthy in their homes and businesses.

I fear the root cause is never going to be fixed in our lifetime and it’s already reached runaway, but there was a lot of good data in that paper.

Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
@dotsie If this happens portable oxygen is not going to save anyone. It won't stop the usual types from trying, of course.
Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
@dotsie The problem is not lack of oxygen, it's the presence of too much CO₂.
Show threadpinkmoonMar 2

@dgoldsmith @dotsie

In the 70s and 80s, environmental protection was already a big topic in school, especially with regard to the consequences for the future. Unfortunately, little has changed in this regard to date.

Show threadHaraldMar 2

@dgoldsmith

Locking at the state of the world, my suspicion is, that the higher CO2 levels have already had non-negligible negative effects on human brain capacities.

How can we collectively b so stupid?

Show threadHendrik WeimerMar 2

@dgoldsmith

This paper looks highly suspicious. CDC published the NHANES 2021-2023 dataset in 2024, about one year before the paper was submitted: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?Cycle=2021-2023

Average bicarbonate reported in the 2021-2023 data is 24.4 mmol/l, which is much lower than both the 2017-2018 and 2019-2020 values included in the paper. It is likely that inclusion of the 2021-2023 data would sink the entire paper.

This looks a lot like statistical cherry-picking.

NHANES Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related Documentation

Show threadDebbie Goldsmith 🏳️‍⚧️♾️🇺🇦Mar 2
@hweimer I certainly hope you are correct!