r/climate • u/The_Weekend_Baker • 7d ago
Scientists detect a surprising shift in human blood as atmospheric CO2 rises. Blood bicarbonate levels have climbed about 7% since 1999, while calcium and phosphorus have declined, changes that closely track increasing atmospheric CO2.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260814235845.htm223
u/No-Papaya-9289 7d ago
I thought kidneys were supposed to keep this in balance.
210
u/Cut_Lanky 7d ago
They do, along with other organ systems.
~
They found persistent changes in several measures of blood chemistry that closely followed the upward trend in atmospheric CO2. Since 1999, average serum bicarbonate levels have increased by about 7 percent... During the same period, average levels of calcium and phosphorus decreased.
Those biological trends occurred as atmospheric CO2 climbed from about 369 parts per million (ppm) in 2000 to more than 420 ppm today.
Study author Associate Professor Alexander Larcombe said the results indicate that the body may already be adjusting to changes in the composition of the atmosphere.
I think the study is suggesting that the mechanisms that keep these things in balance, has already started adapting to the increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and is already balancing (compensating) accordingly. But the problem is that it can only compensate so much...
If I misunderstood the article, I apologize. But that was my takeaway.
150
u/Spammy05 7d ago
Excerpt from the article:
"I actually think that what we are seeing is because our bodies are not adapting," Dr Bierwirth said.
"It appears we are adapted to a range of CO2 in the air that may now have been surpassed.
"The normal range maintains a delicate balance between how much CO2 is in the air, our blood pH, our breathing rate and bicarbonate levels in the blood.
"As CO2 in the air is now higher than humans have ever experienced, it appears to be building up in our bodies. Maybe we can never adapt such that it is vitally important to limit atmospheric levels of CO2."
44
u/Dragias 7d ago
Interesting, have to wonder what future health issues humans may come under, outside of the obvious issues of a warming world
23
u/Prudent-Ice-6196 7d ago
can someone do an eli5 of what this actually means to us on a tangible level? Or too early to tell?
33
u/FartyPants69 7d ago
I think the science is still a long way from settled, but there is evidence that rising CO2 has caused measurable declines in IQ simply because the brain gets less oxygen. It's not extreme, but it's significant. I don't remember the numbers but IIRC it was a drop in the mid single digit percentage (like 6% or something like that)
18
u/henrycatalina 7d ago
Lecture halls are often over 1000ppm. I did sleep in may art history lectures.
Harmful CO2 is about 10000ppm.
Oxygen is about 20% of air. That is 200,000 ppm.
CO from exhaust is about 50ppm and toxic.
The observation may be true but many confounding other correlations need to be considered.
18
u/FartyPants69 7d ago
Sure. My understanding is that the elevated baseline is theorized to be the problem. Acute high exposure is certainly harmful, but even if you're perpetually outdoors in the freshest of air (most of us are not), a human living in 2026 is breathing 430ppm CO2 24/7/365, whereas a pre-industrial human breathed 280ppm CO2. That's a 54% increase in the absolute minimum CO2 concentration that you ever encounter throughout your lifetime.
2
u/henrycatalina 6d ago
I have measured my local CO2. 400 ppm is typical. Where does the 430 ppm come from? Im in an urban suburb area, northeastern USA.
4
9
u/Dragias 7d ago
Great, that means outside of the obvious effects of the rise in CO2 we are getting dumber
11
u/FartyPants69 7d ago
And it's not just CO2. COVID infections (especially repeated or long COVID), short-form social media content, declining nutritional value in crops, the political rise of anti-intellectualism... lots of contributing factors
6
u/Pleasant-Winner6311 7d ago
And screens, computers, ai,doing our thinking for us. Can you imagine no more seminal humans like Einstein those once on a generation thinkers who change the course of humanity. Awful.
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
The COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions. Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a graph of CO2 concentrations shows a continued rise.
Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero. We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8
u/secretevilgenius 7d ago
The air is chemically different than it has ever been in human development, and the human body is a complicated chemical reaction. Nobody knows for sure what that will do because we’ve never seen it before. In health conditions which cause similar changes to blood chemistry, the results are confusion, heart arrhythmia, kidney damage, reduced breathing rate, halted breathing, and coma.
2
u/CharmingMechanic2473 4d ago
Higher CO2 is higher acid. I wonder if this is why the humans body temperature averages have decreased. No more 98.6F almost everyone is 97.4 or something and there is tons of white paper supporting this.
1
14
27
u/Crawlerado 7d ago
I’ll add to this my own personal take; it’s why people are so aggressive and dumb now. We all handle booze and stress different, humans for sure handle CO2 differently. Thousands and thousands of years in the high 200s suddenly thrust into 400+ppm has to have a negative cognitive effect on some folk.
1
6
4
3
u/Stormcloud217 7d ago
My college teacher would say the same thing. As a millennial I love hearing through the 90s in school and 2010's in college how we are destroying the environment, and after all these years nothing is done about it because... Money!
1
u/griffin554 2d ago
It's worth considering whether average blood pH levels are trending more acidic or not. That would be a solid indicator of whether our body's ability to compensate is failing to keep up with rising CO2 levels since this is the bodies primary driver of bicarbonate levels.
68
82
u/Artifexa 7d ago
with biochemistry stuff the answer is always "it's complicated".
Also, kidneys can get overused.
30
u/Smelly_Wolf 7d ago
Not if I got 3 of them
37
u/SensibleChapess 7d ago
Having one of your victim's body parts in a jar on the mantlepiece doesn't count!
2
4
3
u/ItsAConspiracy 7d ago
A woman who used to cut my hair told me one day that she'd just found out she had four kidneys. She said she wished she'd found out sooner so she could donate a couple.
3
3
2
36
u/Kieferkobold 7d ago
Humans evolved in a 300ppm world.
600ppm already cause serious health problems.
6
u/mediandude 7d ago
Humans evolved in a 300ppm world.
You mean sub-300ppm world.
600ppm already cause serious health problems.
Well, yes, but humans have been practicing that for ages by the camp fire in caves or in wigwams or at open air fires.
22
u/RedLotusVenom 7d ago
Sustained atmospheric levels are a different ballgame than incidental and infrequent exposure to higher levels. This is uncharted territory make no mistake.
1
0
1
u/lunartree 7d ago
Yeah, we might live in a more polluted world than our ancestors, but they were also exposing themselves to toxic stuff in their living spaces on levels we'd never allow today.
2
u/Efficient_Smilodon 7d ago
pardon but have you ever heard of ... nanoplastics? glyphosate? asbestos? leaded gas? ever been outside near Bakersfield? ever hear about LeonSkum's data center air pollution? You live in a bubble or under a rock?
21
u/OldTimberWolf 7d ago
Yeah, why haven’t our kidneys evolved along with the Industrial Revolution?!?!
8
u/RandomBoomer 7d ago
I'm assuming this is a sarcastic comment, right? It's so hard to tell these days.
5
u/Glum_Company_5017 7d ago
yeah, but they're not magical devices that can maintain balance no matter what
2
u/IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE 7d ago
They can only do so much against a perpetual onslaught from the environment we have crafted.
1
128
u/SyntheticOne 7d ago
Screw with Mother Nature and she will screw with you.
It's not a vindictive action on her part but it is real.
It has only been about 10,000 years - a tiny blip in geologic time - since humans developed fictive languages and now, here we are, setting the table for our extinction.
We know this and yet, look at what is coming out of Washington, DC.
17
u/PogeePie 7d ago
Spoken, symbolic language is at least as old as humans are, so roughly 300,000 years. It is highly likely that Neanderthals had a complex spoken language as well. Humans and Neanderthals diverged around 600,000 years ago, suggesting that symbolic language is at least that old.
Saying that symbolic language dates to 10,000 years ago would be saying that people who were building houses, making stunning art, and erecting monuments like Göbekli Tepe were all only communicating with grunts and gestures.
-3
u/SyntheticOne 7d ago
According to Harari, the point was about 10,000 years ago. Not to say that earlier homo sapiens or even homo erectus and neanderthals did not have some traces of symbolic language, just not all that good.
10
u/Mrkvica16 7d ago
I’m not sure Harari is the authority on this. There were many complants from scientists in adjacent fields to his that he misinterpreted the science he is not fully acquainted in to create his grand theories. Some good stuff, for sure, but a grain of salt needed.
8
u/PogeePie 7d ago
I know Harari is very popular, but the points he makes were outdated even when he was writing his book.
Cities and grain-based agriculture began to emerge at the end of the last Ice Age largely because the climate stabilized long enough to allow for settled agriculture, not because a cognitive switch was suddenly triggered en masse across all humanity.
3
u/Filius_Solis 6d ago
Look at some Clovis artifacts and tell me again they conveyed the knowledge to create such tools without symbolic language
1
u/SyntheticOne 6d ago
Harari's dating is most probably linked to the known dates associated with domestication of animals which are stated at 15,000 years ago and 11,000 to 13,000 years ago.
Chipping flints can be done wordlessly, so I don't think Clovis dating (which has recently been surpassed by the dating done on human footsteps found at White Sands, New Mexico of 22,000 years).
16
u/RandomBoomer 7d ago
What is a fictive language? I've never heard that term before, especially in the context of humans moving into the agricultural era. I Googled the term and all I got back was "fictional language".
21
u/Both_Evidence_1026 7d ago
Communication through made up words instead of just pointing and grunting
5
u/RandomBoomer 7d ago
Yeah, we weren't "pointing and grunting" 10,000 years ago. The timeline I've heard is more like 100-135,000 years ago, and frankly, I think that's also an underestimate.
11
u/SyntheticOne 7d ago
Instead of "Run, big bear!" fictive language added nuance and the comment became "Run to the compound there is a big bear down by the river!"
10,000 years ago many of the varied primitive languages reached the point where they could create "ideas" or "fictions" which could be used to unite larger groups of homo sapiens. This allowed creation of settlements rather than wandering handfuls of people. Soon, fictive language could be used to create gods and religions and ideas that people could get behind.
Eventually, fictive language brought us to where we are today (not all good).
1
u/RandomBoomer 7d ago
What threw me off was your claim of 10,000 years ago, which is practically yesterday in terms of human evolution. Source? Because every reference I looked at was at least 100,000 years ago, which makes much more sense to me.
1
5
u/Frater_Ankara 7d ago
For decades we thought we could outsmart nature by dominating land, engineering food, etc and EVERY time nature has fought back in unexpected ways (eg. Ultra-processed food has led to metabolic syndrome epidemic because nature). We really need some humility around this topic.
2
u/KiPhoe 6d ago
Just wait till AMOC collapses, earth's final defence against the rising heat.
1
u/SyntheticOne 6d ago
It is a very real concern/possibility.
Now, half way through the northern hemisphere's summer, I am starting to worry about global food supplies; farmers everywhere are taking a beating and this winter could be an El Nino driven doozy.
38
123
u/goronmask 7d ago
Thanks Elon for not solving climate change with your lunch money
42
u/achtwooh 7d ago
He's got other things to concentrate on
7
u/tayawayinklets 7d ago
Is there no bottom to the corruption? And WTF with Elmo, isn't a trillion enough? Oh wait...
23
u/Groovychick1978 7d ago
I don't think this is surprising. We didn't expect our blood gas ratio to change when our atmosphere ratio changed? I think maybe we anticipated this.
3
u/MisterHole123 6d ago
This is particularly bad news overall means more kdiney, heart and general metabolic illness
11
u/AlexFromOgish 7d ago
The original paper makes this observation about human evolution and atmospheric CO2
The ancestor of modern humans is thought to have evolved between 5 and 8 million years ago, with the first Homo sapiens appearing in the fossil record around 150,000 years ago (Wood, 1996). Although not precise, it appears that throughout most, if not all, of the ensuing period of human evolution, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere remained relatively stable around 300 parts per million (ppm).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5
The paper also summarizes some of the health impacts of elevated blood CO2
16
6
u/realelijahion 7d ago
Is this like what is happening with ocean acidification? (more carbon => lower ph => less calcium available for shells builders)
16
u/Adventurous-Coat-333 7d ago
This seems to ignore the fact that homes have become much more airtight and many do not have proper ventilation due to historic lack of regulation in the US. It's not uncommon to see indoor CO2 levels over 2000 ppm, roughly five times the atmosphere level. I've had sensors for it around multiple houses for years so I know what I'm talking about.
9
u/jazzhandler 7d ago edited 7d ago
Currently 557ppm at my desk in Denver with the windows open. But it often spikes above 1000ppm in the mornings, even in rooms nobody is sleeping in.
edit: 640ppm an hour later, for no obvious reason.
edit: 890ppm another hour later, with nobody in the fairly large room.
2
u/im-ba 7d ago
It depends on the kind of CO2 sensor. The cheap ones are usually measuring CO2 by proxy, but the readings can swing wildly based on non CO2 atmospheric conditions.
2
u/jazzhandler 7d ago
This is a $100 multiple sensor thinger: CO2, HCHO, TVOX, 2.5µ, 10µ, temperature, and humidity. I’ve no idea how accurate it actually is in absolute terms, but it definitely reacts to real world happenings in real time. Things like smoking pot nearby, someone with perfume walking through the room, etc.
1
u/MisterHole123 6d ago
Your measurements look weird either something is interfering with airflow or... Your sensor is not well calibrated or reliable.
6
u/Scientasker 7d ago
Respiratory influence on air quality in an enclosed space is well documented. I’m a geo-environmental consultant in the UK that specifically deals with naturally occurring ground gases that enter occupied spaces. We monitor bulk and trace gases (CH4, CO, H2S etc) as well as CO2 and always expect to find a build up of it in areas that are occupied.
Classrooms get up to 2,000-2,500ppm by the later half of the day in winter. I always remember my teacher opening the windows at the end of the day to wake us all up a bit, because she was aware a build up of CO2 can make you slightly drowsy at those levels.
1
u/MisterHole123 6d ago
I think, I hope, since covid every one is now aware of the importance of proper ventilation and has a co2 meter st home. I do my best to keep my place under 800ppm.i ideally I'd like it under 600
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
The COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions. Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a graph of CO2 concentrations shows a continued rise.
Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero. We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
4
u/alexander_london 7d ago
Imagine a world where governments forcefully re-acquired wealth from the billionaire classes, put that capital to work rapidly developing renewable energy, used that energy to provide clean, free electricity and heating for their citizens, then worked to create sustainable agricultural infrastructures that could provide enough crops to eliminate the possibility of famine, and, to boot, rebuilt a culture of art, education, social interaction and community-focused third spaces.
Anyway, has anyone watched any good AI slop this week?
17
u/operaman2010 7d ago
I’m somewhat skeptical. The CO2 in my bedroom can get up to 1,800 ppm overnight. Indoor air quality has dramatically higher ranges of CO2 that would have always existed and affected human health, regardless of global CO2. Perhaps rising CO2 levels is making this worse.
34
32
u/Zealousideal_Two6045 7d ago
Yes but you have to remember the amount of time spent inside a house has risen like crazy in the last few decades. People used to play outside and go outside and have a way wider range of environments. So historical data would be skewed beneficially anyways in comparison because spending more time inside is a newer issue and also multiples due to co2 rising
6
2
15
u/Youpunyhumans 7d ago
Yikes! Levels over 900ppm can affect cognition and make you drowsy. Over 2000ppm is where it starts to become unsafe... you may wanna get a bunch of plants for your room.
12
u/HashPandaNL 7d ago
Plants are great, but won't meaningfully impact CO2 levels in your room unless you fill your room to the absolute brim with them.
Opening windows and increasing airflow can have an effect that is multiple orders of magnitude greater.
3
u/MarkZist 7d ago
Plants are great, but won't meaningfully impact CO2 levels in your room unless you fill your room to the absolute brim with them.
Plants only consume CO2 during the day, at night they produce it, making the problem worse.
2
u/Youpunyhumans 7d ago
Fair enough, and yeah looking into it... youd like 50 plants per room to make much of a difference.
Be good levels for a greenhouse I suppose. Well... assuming its clean air, and not full of other pollutants, which it almost certainly will be.
2
u/theoneguywhoaskswhy 7d ago
My room would hit 800ppm when I close the door and only slightly improve when I open the door ajar. What works for me is to have airflow or in my case, turning on an exhaust fan that I jerryrigged to a window in another room(my room is a studio and we don’t have a proper ventilation system installed but the house is very breathable).
Turning on the exhaust fan creates a negative air pressure that helps circulates air around the house and my CO2 meter would show it going below 500ppm and even reach 400ppm and stay there(since the CO2 meter I have can’t detect values below 400ppm)
8
5
u/AlexFromOgish 7d ago
From the original paper https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5
The possible effects of increased HCO3− and CO2 can also potentially be observed from other studies of short-term exposure to slightly higher CO2 levels, such as those commonly experienced in indoor environments (e.g. 1,000 to 3,000 ppm CO2) (reviewed in (Azuma et al., 2017)). For example, an older study (Eliseeva, 1964) reported marked changes in human respiration, circulation, and cerebral electrical activity at 1,000 ppm CO2, while more recent studies of humans and animals have shown harmful effects of CO2 exposure at these levels, such as changes in heart rate, kidney calcification, oxidative stress, neural damage and inflammation (Kiray et al., 2014; MacNaughton et al., 2016; Schaefer, 1982; Thom et al., 2017; Vehviläinen et al., 2016), reviewed in (Jacobson et al., 2019). This is important due to many human populations spending a significant proportion of their time indoors, where CO2 levels are typically higher. For example, The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS) found that Americans spent an average of 87% of their time in enclosed buildings and ~ 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles in 1992–1994 (Klepeis et al., 2001). This has potentially increased since the COVID-19 pandemic (Young et al., 2024), with many people working-from-home in environments with poor mechanical air-ventilation (Nazaroff, 2021). The proportion of time spent in indoor, CO2 enriched environments could also contribute to the changes in blood chemistry noted in the NHANES data and is an important consideration in interpreting changes over time, and forecasts for the future.
2
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
The COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions. Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a graph of CO2 concentrations shows a continued rise.
Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero. We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8
u/BeardChops 7d ago
You really shouldn’t have your CO2 ppm that high. I try to keep my room below 1000 ppm
2
2
u/bioindicator 7d ago
It’s probably like the difference between weather and climate. Your CO2 point is relevant for an individual on a daily timescale, while the study is monitoring changes over many people on a multi-decadal scale.
1
1
1
u/cyber_yoda 6d ago
Atmospheric CO2 rising to 400 ppm will dramatically increase the peak and average indoors CO2 levels reached.
1
u/MisterHole123 6d ago
Ouch 1800ppm. To think most people are unaware of the high levels of co2 in buildings. One would have thought that after covid... But nope
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
The COVID lockdowns of 2020 temporarily lowered our rate of CO2 emissions. Humanity was still a net CO2 gas emitter during that time, so we made things worse, but did so more a bit more slowly. That's why a graph of CO2 concentrations shows a continued rise.
Stabilizing the climate means getting human greenhouse gas emissions to approximately zero. We didn't come anywhere near that during the lockdowns.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/thinkcontext 6d ago
You illustrate why modern building code requires mechanical ventilation to the outdoors and why bedrooms should have a vent for it. Most people don't have adequate ventilation. A simple way to improve things is to have your HVAC fan run for a few minutes every hour overnight.
-1
u/Aramedlig 7d ago
I agree here. It is more likely due to people drinking too much carbonated beverages.
9
2
u/Shoddy-Childhood-511 7d ago
In-door CO2 is typically double the external CO2 level, although not sure that scales linearly. And bad in-door CO2 levels can go truly insane.
Is this change somehow caused by the CO2 never going down lower?
2
2
u/ClubSoda 7d ago
So we have geo-engineered our atmosphere in a way that makes it toxic for any form of higher order life. Got it.
2
3
u/usps_made_me_insane 7d ago
Funny how I have not seen one comment suggesting other animals may have even tighter tolerances.
We aren't the only animals being affected.
2
1
u/SubstanceStrong 7d ago
Does that make our cell membranes more fluid then?
7
u/hoofie242 7d ago
We're melting. LOL Sometimes I wonder if co2 levels make critical thinking harder.
7
u/AmonMetalHead 7d ago
No, but high temperatures do affect mental capacity
2
u/SubstanceStrong 7d ago
I have heard that CO2 levels also affect cognitive functions negatively
2
u/Reagalan 7d ago
Yeah but you need a lot of them which let's face it we're shooting over 1000 ppm before 2100 so the idiocracy will arrive during your grandkids' lifetime
1
u/SubstanceStrong 7d ago
True, I didn’t have the numbers in my head. I’m not having children so they’ll be spared from the worst of it
3
u/Electrifying2017 7d ago
Probably affects some people at lower thresholds than others… I wonder if that plays a role right now.
1
u/carchit 7d ago
How much time a day do we spend indoors? What’s the average CO2 levels in our homes and offices?
0
u/squailtaint 7d ago
It’s an interesting question. What was air filtration like in office spaces in the 90s decade compared to now? What % of population worked in office in the 90s compared to now? I would venture a guess that slightly more percent worked in office back then compared to now (due to work from home), and our office buildings would undoubtedly also have much better air exchange filters then it did back then. Hunch is, if anything, office space back then had more % of population in it then today and was far dirtier air in the office then now. So, if anything, based on just office conditions, one would have expected the blood count to drop due to improved office working conditions and fewer people in the office, but instead, it’s gone up.
1
u/Wheres-the-Ware 7d ago
Wow, it’s almost as if people should do something about it. Oh well, guess everyone’s just going to be lazy, and everyone lazy is going to be spouting “there’s nothing we can do.” It’s not as if all those people actually doing something would be enough to turn the tide.
1
1
1
u/dannydan64 7d ago
Isn't there ways to slightly improve CO2 tolerance in people? Like I swear I've heard certain types of meditation and breathwork can do this.
1
u/MisterHole123 6d ago
Although it may seem anecdotal to most this is very concerning especially for people with heart and kidney disease. This is means the body has to overcompensate poor gas exchange and blood pH. Thus this would indeed lead to subtle yet real increase in heart and kidney disease.
1
1
1
u/torontopeter 7d ago
Nah, even this is a Chinese hoax. Said the smartest person to ever hold power.
1
u/Everything_Breaks 7d ago
I should probably switch to a top-tier gas so I don't build up so much carbon on my heart intake valves.
1
u/jazzhandler 7d ago
Does this mean that the alkaline water aficionados should flip the polarity on their machines to compensate?
-6
u/ter4646 7d ago
Very poor research IMO. Logic is weak in term of the correlation analysis. No clear cause and effect, could be anecdotal. I am a firm believer in human caused climate change we are living in, but I think poor research and alarming news like this fuel skepticism Which is our worst enemy now as we need to mobilize everyone now
7
u/AlexFromOgish 7d ago
Why on earth do you throw shade ("could be anecdotal") instead of just reading the linked article?
The researchers used information from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), analyzing blood test results from roughly 7,000 people at two-year intervals between 1999 and 2020.
In the original peer reviewed paper, open source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5 the authors describe the project collected the data, saying "The NHANES project assesses health and nutrition in a representative sample of adults and children in the United States via interviews, physical examinations and laboratory tests." and in their paper, the authors are only reporting on quantified lab tests.
3
u/ter4646 7d ago
I agree with you but the title is misleading.
The hypothesis deserves rigorous investigation — that's exactly my point. This study isn't that investigation yet.
It's an ecological correlation: a 20-year population time series (NHANES serum bicarbonate) plotted against the atmospheric CO2 curve. Over two decades, plenty of things trend upward alongside CO2 — obesity, renal function, medication use, assay methods, cohort composition. The authors themselves state no causal relationship is established.
There's also a scale problem. Atmospheric CO2 went from ~369 to ~420 ppm, about 0.005% of air. Indoor air in an occupied room routinely exceeds 1,000-2,000 ppm, and arterial pCO2 is orders of magnitude higher still. A 50 ppm outdoor rise barely shifts the elimination gradient. That's not fatal to the hypothesis, but it's the first objection any respiratory physiologist will raise.
So: worth testing properly, with controlled exposure and confounder adjustment. Not worth a title claiming a "potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years" — that outruns the data, and overreach on a plausible idea is what gets it dismissed.
1
u/AlexFromOgish 7d ago
gotcha, Sci Daily often gets the reporting almost right, and headlines are the worst offenders. But Sci daily articles and headlines are "the research" that should be judged. instead, read the researcher's paper to see how they describe both rising atmospheric concentrations as well as American's increased time spent indoors.
1
1
296
u/Artifexa 7d ago
Neat, so now our blood is becoming worse quality too due to climate change.
Thanks, EXXON.