Strange

Yep. Sounds totally irrelevant. Or what most people would refer to as "the atmosphere". Unless you are interested in the amount of CO2 at the edge of space, at the bottom of wells or in ceiling spaces, you can just take John's first answer as the definitive one. If I can summarise: There is a small variation in different places because of where CO2 is generated (or absorbed by forests); there is no significant variation with altitude (unless you go to space or down a well).

The earliest written record is the Epic of Gilgamesh, which dates from about 2,000 BC (although the stories may be much older): "The gods were angry at mankind so they sent a flood to destroy him. The god Ea, warned Utnapishtim and instructed him to build an enormous boat to save himself, his family, and "the seed of all living things." He does so, and the gods brought rain which caused the water to rise for many days. When the rains subsided, the boat landed on a mountain, and Utnapishtim set loose first a dove, then a swallow, and finally a raven, which found land. The god Ishtar, created the rainbow and placed it in the sky, as a reminder to the gods and a pledge to mankind that there would be no more floods"

If your experiment is getting false positive or false negatives, then it could be that your analysis of the results is wrong, perhaps not taking into account some confounding factor or incorrectly caclulating measurement errors. Or it could be that your experimental setup is not eliminating some other influence. As I say, this is not my area. Are there other sources of these errors? Why wouldn't experiment design not be a factor? Isn't that part of the design of the experiment?

I was quoting you. Despite imatfaal's kind words, I am not an expert in this area. However, you said that type 1 errors are "more of an experimental design issue". I was simply pointing out that that is equally true (or not) of type 2 errors. Not a big deal.

Ah, sorry. I missed that. Even when I went back to look for it.... While interesting, it is, of course, like most of your posts in the thread, utterly irrelevant to the question asked (under any reasonable assumptions about what the OP wanted to know).

Any evidence for any of that?

That "they are more of an experimental design issue". Until you make the effort to do some proper controlled and blind experiments, as suggested by various people here, you are just wasting your (and our) time.

Huh! Wha? What three souls died? Which hole? When? What did I miss? I thought we were talking about the composition of the atmosphere?

That is equally true of type 2 errors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

Can you show your calculations? (It may be over my head, but interesting anyway.)

In what way? I suppose if you take a lot of exercise, both will increase. On the other hand, we have direct control over our breathing but not our heart rate. Speech would be more difficult if we couldn't control our breathing. It would be quite interesting, I suppose: we would have to time our utterances to match exhalation. It would probably lead to an absence of long words and some interesting sentence structures. As it is, neither have any direct effect on speech production, that I am aware of.

I apologise. I hit the down arrow by accident. I actually think you deserve it for the "joke" but your question about blind testing is very important and shouldn't be denigrated.

Then stop pretending you have.

These are not "tics" (that suggests some form of involuntary speech, as in Tourette's syndrome). They are verbal fillers and play an important role in language. All speech is, necessarily, related to respiration. I am not aware of any connection to heart rate (and can't imagine why there should be one). There have been some studies looking at the use of different fillers across age groups, gender, educational level, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_%28linguistics%29

I don't think anyone has proposed such a connection. Do you have any evidence for it (beyond random speculation based on made up "facts"; e.g. "their genetic loss is probably made up through the size of their sibling family group"). The nearest thing I am aware of is the studies of language families and genetics to try and work out if, for example, agriculture and Indo-European languages arrived in Europe at the same time, and whether it was by cultural diffusion or invasion. The results are, as far as I know, inconclusive. So if the question can't be answered for something where we have quite a lot of hard data, I don't see how it can realistically be applied to what is just a marketing buzzword.

No. Some of it is about science. Ideally, this being a science forum, it would all be about science. But people can't help brininging their irrational beliefs into any discussion. And do you have any references to science regarding that question? You probably shouldn't project your beliefs and limitations on to others.

As space-time is not material, the "so" seems incorrect. Maybe "and" would be better?

Have you learnt some science and realised they were nonsense?

Which is irrelevant. They will be able to decipher it if you do it once or frequently. Are you talking about the Law of Large Numbers? If not, what are you talking about? Can you please explain.

What does that have to do with anything? Someone who occasionally forgets to switch off the light is not going to be considered insane either. (But someone who regularly posts incomprehensible nonsense and refuses to explain or discuss it, might have their sanity doubted.)

The exterior is the first picture on the page I linked (wacky, isn't it!) I assume the glass walls of the atrium are the office walls (I have never been there).

It is an atrium of the UC Innovation Center in Santiago. I think it is taken from the bottom, looking up. It is the second image on this page: http://www.wired.com/2016/01/get-to-know-alejandro-aravena-this-years-pritzker-prize-winner/

Doesn't. Not without further explanation, which you seem unwilling / unable to provide. Are you just talking about the law of large numbers? Or something else? Ultimately, it is how all words entered the language.

Are the two "-" wires the ones with your square waves on? Doesn't that need a couple of diodes to stop current flowing back down the other "-" wire when it is at 0V? You seem to think that the advantge is that you can put your square waves through a transformer. Have you calculated the effect (of having a broadband signal) on the efficiency of the transformer? Have you looked at the amount of noise (RF interference) that this would generate? Have you worked out what sort of circuitry would be needed to regenerate a square wave from the output of the transformer? (Which will, very obviously, not be a square wave any more)