Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by dfex | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

dfex·

You might be right - it's just odd that it's always showing "more" rather than similar amounts.

Also, according to Claude[1] a 50ppm difference is equivalent to around 25 years current atmospheric carbon increase.

* Pre-industrial (1700s): ~280 ppm

* 1958 (when systematic measurements began): ~315 ppm

* 2000: ~370 ppm

* 2015: ~400 ppm (milestone crossed)

* Current: ~420-425 ppm

[1] "What is the normal range for background CO2 concentrations in the air?"

View on HN

It’s crazy to think that many people alive today experienced a 30% increase in ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration within their lifetimes.

You’re missing some deeply important context there, which is that those measurements are for outdoor atmospheric CO2 only.

Average indoor air quality ranges from 400-1000 ppm CO2, with adverse mental effects starting to appear close to 2000 ppm.

In that context, you can see why a 50 ppm difference is marginal. This is why asking an LLM is not generally a great idea for understanding something - you need to follow it up with more research.

> adverse mental effects starting to appear close to 2000 ppm.

cognition is harmed starting at 1000ppm (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3548274/)

I'm having a hard time parsing the data in this paper - is it showing that task focus increases at 1000ppm compared to 600ppm CO2 exposure?

Not odd at all that it’s always showing more — sensor error is often biased. This is within the listed range though.

I have to know, what's the the rise of people like you chiming in with AI sourced tidbits? It's like the people with no knowledge on a subject that use google as a quick catch up tool so they can participate in a conversation, but somehow even worse. Are they the same people, but now lazier or just true believers in the non-sense engines?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com