>Co2 is not an odorless gass Do you agree?

>>8885945
It's odorless, but you can certainly sense it as air becoming stuffy and heavy.

>>8885945
CO2 is odorless, the carbonic acid it forms in your nose is not.

>>8886008
Well that's how detecting odors work in the first place. A molecule of the substance reacts on your tongue or in your smell receptors and what's what you detect

It's not like nitrogen which produces no odor you can detect

I have no idea why he spent so much time "debunking" the scent of carbon dioxide, Is he autistic? Whether or not co2 has an odor, which according to every data sheet I've seen says it doesn't, wasn't even the point of the video.

>>8886017
Carbon dioxide reacts to form a product that then proceeds to have a signal transduction.

Hydrogen gas is colorless, but if I react the gas with a lighter, is hydrogen gas now classified as colorful?

>>8886379
That could be argued as a mechanism of the sense to sense the CO2 and after all, odor, is by definition, based upon the sense of smell/taste.

>>8886017
No. Compounds with odours react directly with whatever enzymes in your receptors, thereby generating an electrochemical signal picked up by your brain.
See >>8886379

>>8886391
That's not how odour/taste is defined, no. Maybe by brainlets, but not in science.

co2 is not odorless

If you grew up with an atmosphere of 0% CO2, you would then notice the odor

>>8885945
it smells like air

>>8885945
This is not how Cobalt works.

>>8886355
yea, sadly that was not the only stupid thing he fixated on. The prager guy said ''If there were no carbon dioxide, the Earth would be a dead planet''. Thunder then makes counter argument that Mars and Venus has a lot carbon dioxide in atmosphere.
I can see where was Thunder going with this, but his argument was basically non-sequitur. (if even that)

IF there is no CO2 THEN Earth is a dead planet
Mars has CO2 AND is a dead planet.
Entailment: ?????
The original statement doesn't say IF AND ONLY IF there is no CO2 THEN earth is a dead planet

>>8886565
>no carbon no life
Well duh. What's your point? That he didn't even need to retort?

>>8886627
Well, that's what Prager said, of course it's obvious. But Thunders retort was basically useless and didn't achieve anything since it didn't attack the assumption Prager made.

>>8885945
So why does your breath smell so bad?
cheque m&

>>8886017
CO2 does not react with your receptors. Only a product of CO2 and water, carbonic acid, reacts with your receptors.