Can someone provide an explanation why CO2 concentrations above 1000 ppm have such a negative influence given the fact that CO2 concentration in lungs (at rest) never falls below 10000 ppm?
Per Wikipedia, at rest 500 ml of inhaled air is diluted with ≥2500 ml [1] of residual air in lungs containing ≥40000 ppm (4%) of CO2 [2]. Other things being equal, increasing concentration of CO2 in ambient air 10x (500ppm -> 5000 ppm) would increase concentration of CO2 in the lungs after taking the breath by less than 2.5% [3].
I imagine it could easily be compensated by an equivalently minor increase of breathing rate or breathing depth.
Looks interesting. Is there a way to use it without compiling it myself? It seems to be somewhat maintained in github but the compiled binaries in github releases or sourceforge have not been updated since 2022.
Elizabeth Goiten (Brennan Center) testimony to a senate committee on May 22, 2024 (a nice summary of the general issue of executive use of emergencies)
I've started questioning this premise given that concentration of CO2 in the lungs (while resting) never falls below 10000ppm (I'm possibly underestimating this number).
Though I'm not excluding the possibility that indoor CO2 concentration strongly correlates with cognitive underperformance, which may be caused by other compounds emitted by human body.
> And whenever Congress delegates authority to the executive branch, it faces a basic principal-agent problem: how do you ensure that the authority will be used by the executive branch in ways that conform to congressional intent? […]
> Beginning in the 1930s, Congress increasingly dealt with the delegation problem via another strategy: the legislative veto. Congress would provide authority to the president or other executive-branch officials, but reserve the right to overturn any individual use of the authority, via passage of a concurrent resolution in the House and Senate. […]
> This essentially retained majoritarian congressional control over presidential uses of IEEPA. If Congress didn’t like an action the president took using his IEEPA authority — be it a sanction, asset freeze, or (gasp!) tariff — they would have the authority to overturn it, by majority vote, without the cooperation of the president.
> But wait, you say, didn’t the House and Senate already both vote to overturn some of the the IEEPA tariffs put in place by Trump by declaring an end to the NEA emergency that triggered the authority? Yes, they did. […] But those were largely symbolic political votes, because the Supreme Court destroyed the legislative veto 40 years ago. […]
> But even worse than that, the Court chose to sever the legislative vetoes from the laws in which they were placed. That is, the Court removed the legislative vetoes but left in place the delegations of authority! […]
> Of course, Congress could just rewrite the laws with tighter restrictions on the delegated authority, or withdraw it all together. […] If Congress wants to change that […] they would need either the consent of the president (good luck), or a supermajority vote in Congress to override his veto.
True runaway (i.e. oceans boiling / Venus) cannot happen on Earth unless you significantly increase incoming radiation stream (or alternatively halve the planet's albedo).
The runaway effect is scary b/c at certain temperature (~400K) atmosphere consisting predominantly of water vapor looses its ability to radiate out more heat up until 1600K.
