#CO2Levels

[loggerindo]

Karbondioksida Dalam Ruangan Berlebih? MX1102 CO2 Data Logger Solusinya . Dalam era modern, di mana sebagian besar waktu kita dihabiskan di dalam ruangan, pemahaman akan kualitas udara dalam lingkungan tempat tinggal atau tempat kerja menjadi semakin penting.

Salah satu parameter yang harus dipertimbangkan adalah kadar karbondioksida (CO2). Penumpukan CO2 berlebih di dalam ruangan dapat memiliki dampak negatif pada kesehatan dan kenyamanan, serta produktivitas dan kesejahteraan.

MX1102 CO2 Data Logger adalah perangkat canggih yang dirancang khusus untuk memantau kadar CO2 di dalam ruangan. MX1102 CO2 Data Logger adalah solusi canggih yang memungkinkan pemantauan kadar CO2 secara akurat dan real-time, serta memberikan notifikasi peringatan untuk mengambil tindakan yang tepat. . Baca selengkapnya di : https://loggerindo.co.id/2024/03/karbondioksida-dalam-ruangan-berlebih-mx1102-co2-data-logger-solusinya/ . . Ingin tau lebih lanjut? atau ingin bertanya? Silahkan hubungi kami melalui :

Whatsapp : 0812 1248 2471 (Mr. Alfin) / 0878 7867 0721 (Mr. Arya)

Email : alfin@taharica.com / arya.alatuji@taharica.com

Website : loggerindo.co.id / loggerindo.com

#CO2Monitoring #IndoorAirQuality #HealthAndSafety #SmartBuilding #EnvironmentalMonitoring #AirPollution #Sustainability #HealthyLiving #WorkspaceWellness

[jhavelikes]

The locus coeruleus (LC) has established functions in both attention and respiration.Good attentional performance requires optimal levels of tonic LC activity, and mustbe matched to task consistently. LC neurons are chemosensitive, causing respiratoryphrenic nerve firing to increase frequency with higher CO2levels, and as CO2levelvaries with the phase of respiration, tonic LC activity should exhibit fluctuations atrespiratory frequency. Top-down modulation of tonic LC activity from brain areasinvolved in attentional regulation, intended to optimize LC firing to suit task require-ments, may have respiratory consequences as well, as increases in LC activityinfluence phrenic nerve firing. We hypothesize that, due to the physiological andfunctional overlaps of attentional and respiratory functions of the LC, this small neu-romodulatory nucleus is ideally situated to act as a mechanism of synchronizationbetween respiratory and attentional systems, giving rise to a low-amplitude oscillationthat enables attentional flexibility, but may also contribute to unintended destabiliza-tion of attention. Meditative and pranayama practices result in attentional, emotional,and physiological enhancements that may be partially due to the LC’s pivotal role asthe nexus in this coupled system. We present original findings of synchronizationbetween respiration and LC activity (via fMRI and pupil dilation) and provide evi-dence of a relationship between respiratory phase modulation and attentionalperformance. We also present a mathematical dynamical systems model ofrespiratory-LC-attentional coupling, review candidate neurophysiological mecha-nisms of changes in coupling dynamics, and discuss implications for attentionaltheory, meditation, and pranayama, and possible therapeutic applications.

Coupling of respiration and attention via the locus coeruleus: Effects of meditation and pranayama

[ajit777]

16/05/19

Carbon Dioxide

LATEST MEASUREMENT: April 2019 : 411 ppm

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO2levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with average seasonal cycle removed. The second graph shows CO2levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.

The time series below shows global distribution and variation of the concentration of mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide in parts per million (ppm). The overall color of the map shifts toward the red with advancing time due to the annual increase of CO2.

Missions that observe CO2

Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2)

Image 1:

DIRECT MEASUREMENTS: 2005-PRESENT

Data source: Monthly measurements (average seasonal cycle removed). Credit: NOAA

Image 2:

PROXY (INDIRECT) MEASUREMENTS

Data source: Reconstruction from ice cores.

Credit: NOAA

Image 3:

TIME SERIES: 2002-2016

Data source: Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS).

Credit: NASA

Detailed view on site.

Credit: climate.nasa.gov

#climatechange #climatechangeisreal #climatechangeeffects #climatechanges #climatechangegoaway #ClimateChangeart #climatechangenow #climatechangematters #climatechangemarch #climatechangelaw #climatechangeaction #climatechangeawareness

[datamanagementjt1017]

Data Management and Visualization - week 3

I collapsed the responses for co2emissions, lifeexpectancy, and suicideper100TH to create three new variables: Co2Level, LifeExp, and SuicideRate. For Co2Level, I got a bi-polar result, the most commonly endorsed responses were 1 (21.83%) and 6 (20.81%), meaning that most countries have either Co2Emissions less than 10M or greater than 10B. For LifeExp, the most commonly endorsed response was 1 (33.80%), meaning that almost a third of the countries have a life expectancy of less than 65 years. For SuicideRate, the most commonly endorsed response was 1 (33.33%), meaning that the suicide rate in about one-third of the countries is 5 or less per 100k Mortality due to suicide.  

[dvdmerwe]

Helena Bottemiller Evich

The great nutrient collapse - increased CO2 levels are affecting plant nutrition and increasing carb levels

What Loladze found is that scientists simply didn’t know. It was already well documented that CO2levels were rising in the atmosphere, but he was astonished at how little research had been done on how it affected the quality of the plants we eat. For the next 17 years, as he pursued his math career, Loladze scoured the scientific literature for any studies and data he could find. The results, as he collected them, all seemed to point in the same direction: The junk-food effect he had learned about in that Arizona lab also appeared to be occurring in fields and forests around the world. “Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising,” Loladze said. “We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”

He published those findings just a few years ago, adding to the concerns of a small but increasingly worried group of researchers who are raising unsettling questions about the future of our food supply. Could carbon dioxide have an effect on human health we haven’t accounted for yet? The answer appears to be yes—and along the way, it has steered Loladze and other scientists, directly into some of the thorniest questions in their profession, including just how hard it is to do research in a field that doesn’t quite exist yet.

Earlier this summer, a group of researchers published the first studies attempting to estimate what these shifts could mean for the global population. Plants are a crucial source of protein for people in the developing world, and by 2050, they estimate, 150 million people could be put at risk of protein deficiency, particularly in countries like India and Bangladesh. Researchers found a loss of zinc, which is particularly essential for maternal and infant health, could put 138 million people at risk. They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia.

The ratio of carbohydrates to minerals was going up. The plants, like the algae, were becoming junk food. What that means for humans ― whose main food intake is plants ― is only just starting to be investigated. Researchers who dive into it will have to surmount obstacles like its low profile and slow pace, and a political environment where the word “climate” is enough to derail a funding conversation. It will also require entirely new bridges to be built in the world of science ― a problem that Loladze himself wryly acknowledges in his own research. When his paper was finally published in 2014, Loladze listed his grant rejections in the acknowledgements.

See http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

https://plus.google.com/+DanievanderMerwe/posts/9QowfRAwU5m

[liberty1776]

Christian view of Climate Change

As Christians, we should be concerned about our effect on our environment. God appointed man to be the steward of this world (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it. However, we should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God (Romans 1:25) and man created in His image. With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, whom those facts come from, how they are interpreted, and what the spiritual implications are.   A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy. This entire world has been continually decaying since the Fall.   Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even among the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe. Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions. Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels. Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%. Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming. Ice Age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse! Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable. Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2was produced. In the 1970s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support. The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof. This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion. The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.   While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.   In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.             While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.   In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.                                                                                             A Christian must remember that God is in control and that this world is not our home. God will one day erase this current universe (2 Peter 3:7-12) and replace it with the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21–22). How much effort should be made “saving” a planet that God is eventually going to obliterate and replace with a planet so amazing and wonderful that the current earth pales in comparison?                                                                        

[global-warming-umn]

Livestock : Cause and Affected

As humans, we need to eat, most of us consume animal products as a part of our diet, so therefore we need livestock. All of the changes in the climate are actually a problem for livestock production. It affects crop quality, water availability, diseases, reproduction, and production, that is only to name a few things that these changes affect. Not only is livestock production affected, it also helps cause some of the climate issues. The livestock industry contributes 14.5% of global GHG emissions (Climate Risk). This causes pollution in air and water. The manure from the animals release methane and other gases into the environment, this negatively affects climate change. Other gases are released through processing and transport of the animal products. An increase in livestock production will most likely arise in less natural resources, which means the environment will be further damages if there isn’t an appropriate management of the natural resources. Not only does livestock production affect the environment, but the climate change also affects livestock production. Feed production is affected by lack of quantity and quality. There is an increase in CO2levels, depending on where they are and what type of livestock it is for decides how it will be affected. A lack of water is also an issue, agriculture uses 70% of fresh-water resources (Climate Risk). Around the world, the competition for water is increasing due to scarcity and depletion. Water is technically more important for a human instead of livestock, so now people in the livestock industry have to fight for the water that they need. The temperature around the world is rising, this causes heat stress on animals. Heat stress causes animals to not produce, to become more apt to diseases, lack of reproduction and less food and water consumption. This is obviously a problem. Overtime, many animals will adapt to the heat, but currently that is a problem for the livestock industry. Through all these problems, animal production will decrease. People consume animal products as part of their balanced diet. A lack of production will result in less of the product to be available to humans. Meaning in the end, livestock aren’t the only ones suffering, once again humans are seeing the consequences from climate change and global warming.

[bobnorthway]

Unexpected decrease in yield and antioxidants in vegetable at very high CO2levels | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-015-0522-6

[eshitajuneja]

SAS: Basic Linear Regression model

My research question is “Association between co2 emissions and Life expectancy”. The data is taken from Gapminder data set. My explanatory variable is co2 emissions which is a quantitative variable but I have divided it into two categories, making co2 emissions a categorical variable

 (1) Countires having Low co2 emissions represented by co2level= 0 and          (2) Countries having High co2 emissions represented by co2level= 1. 

The cut off for the division of two categories is taken as 75% of the Max value of co2 emission reported. Here, Life expectancy is quantitative response variable.

Code:

Output:

(a) co2 level frequency table

(b) Linear Regression

The results of the linear regression model indicated that co2level (Beta=6.9, p<.0001) was significantly and positively associated with Life expectancy. So, line equation for this Linear regression model would be y= 6.9x + 67.98 where y is Predicted Life expectancy and x is co2 level.                                                       If co2level is 0, then y=67.98 and if co2level is 1, then y=74.88, that is, Predicted life expectancy.

(c) Linear Regression plot

[eshitajuneja]

SAS: Testing a Potential Moderator

My research question is “Does Urbanisation moderates the association between co2 emissions and Life expectancy?” The data is taken from Gapminder codebook and analysed using ANOVA procedure with addition to Ad hoc test.

Code:

Output:

(a) Urbanisation =1

Since, p-value is less than 0.05, therefore association is statistically significant.

Category 5 of co2 level does not exist for Urbanisation=1. Life expectancy is same for all the categories except category 2 which has significantly low life expectancy. Although, we can see relatively that Life expectancy is decreasing with increasing co2 emissions but not significantly. But overall Life expectancy is less than 70 for all the categories.

(b) Urbanisation =2

Since, p-value is less than 0.05, therefore association is statistically significant.

Here, life expectancy is significantly increasing with increasing co2 levels, possibly because counties with high co2 emissions are having relatively high urbanisation. Also, this is just one causation factor. This association can also be due to several more causation factors like income per person, etc. But we can see that Life expectancy is more than 67 for most of co2level categories.