co2

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-08-07

Final complete day: 2026-08-07. Attention was 1.0% — this entity appeared in 7 of 723 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (14 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-08-05 18:11 UTCComment

   "Resting" is a bit of a moving target with some nuggets of truth and some nuggets of nonsense. Coffee needs to "rest" or degas in order to vent the CO2 generated in the bean during roasting. Otherwise, this will effectively 'get in the way' of your extraction and give a very uneven and disappointing brew. This process typically takes 3-5 days to reach an optimal state - you don't need or want all the gas gone, just enough that it's not screwing up your brewing. Coffee should not need to "rest" in the sense of aging wine or preserves. Coffee is degraded by O2, it is exposed to O2 the moment it leaves the roasting drum, and the effect accelerates over time as O2 is liberated within the bean by the oxidation reactions. While there are plenty of roasters who advocate this sort of "resting" for their beans, the only beans I've ever seen improve due to it were significantly underroasted to begin with and as such benefitted from oxidation reactions breaking down excessive and unpleasant acids that should have been addressed during roasting. This is mostly a combination of marketing ("our products are so refined and special they need special treatment") and sales optimization ("our coffee roasted a month ago isn't stale, it needed special resting and has improved").

2. 2026-08-05 17:08 UTCComment

   i roast for a living so i have opinion on this. its real, not hype. straight off the roaster the bean is full of co2. your bloom goes crazy, water cant get in evenly and the cup tastes flat and a little sharp at same time. for filter i say wait 4 to 7 days. espresso longer, 10 to 14, darker roast needs more. dont take my word. buy one bag, brew day 2 and brew day 6, same grind same everything. you will taste it yourself, nobody needs to explain it to you

3. 2026-08-03 14:58 UTCComment

   The decaffeination process traps more CO2. Degassing of decaf beans is more important than regular. "Freshest Decaf possible" is totally misleading.

4. 2026-08-03 08:16 UTCComment

   There are different decaf methods (CO2, Ethyl Acetate or ‘sugarcane’ and Swiss/Mountain water) All of them have a different effect on the final cup. I personally find the Sugarcane process retains the most character from the original coffee but you should try them all. The other thing to know is that for many roasters, decaf is somewhat of an afterthought. That is changing, and there is an exciting emerging movement of specialty decaf, but many roasters have a decaf on rotation because the market demands it, but it’s not as high quality or well considered. This means that historically a lot of lower grade or old coffee has even used to make decaf.

5. 2026-08-02 18:21 UTCComment

   Now this is really hilarious. You completely change your entire argument when I prove you wrong, and yet you have the audacity to act like my refutations are the flawed arguments. So you've moved on from claiming that crema is an emulsion of oil and CO2, to saying that it's "foam" of cO2 within oil. Changing your story entirely after it's been disproven just proves that you're making things up as you go along. Also, did you just say the CO2 "undissolves"? Now, why would it do that? You should do a little experiment. Fill a small pot halfway with water. Heat it, then mix in two or three tablespoons of sugar, stirring it until it dissolves. Now, remove the pot from the heat and watch the sugar jump out of the solution. Oh wait, the sugar isn't "undissolving". Maybe you need more. May as well jump ahead by adding as much sugar as you can get to dissolve into the water, i.e. a saturated solution. And you know what, let's try to get some more in there. Heat the water to a good 175 degrees and add in even more sugar. You now have a super saturated solution. You could make rock candy with it, if you wanted to. But before you do, take the pot off the burner to see what happens. Awww...nothing. No sugar jumping out of the solution. See, there are two problems with your hypothesis. First, once a solute dissolves into a solvent, it's going to remain dissolved unless causes a change to occur. Now, a change in temperature certainly qualifies. But, unlike a solid substance like sugar, dissolved CO2 increases at LOWER temperatures. So as the brewing water begins to cool, as it flows into the cup, CO2 will actually become more stable in water solution, not less. Now personally, I would proffer that any cooling of the water at this point is negligible, so that the CO2's affinity for being dissolved in the water is not significantly greater due to water temperature after a mere split second. But that still leaves us with a missing impetus for the CO2 to "undissolve" a split second after it being dissolved into the water. But there's another major flaw to your premise. Specifically, the empirical observations that happen if we simply let the espresso stand. If your hypothesis about crema were true, then we would see a heavy layer of oil left behind when crema dissipates. But that's not what happens. Now, you keep making a big deal about the fact that some brewed coffees will exhibit a thin oily slick floating on the top. This is literally less than the width of a hair. It is literally a TRACE amount of oil, and it is entirely incidental to the coffee. If you were eating a pizza right now, dust in the air would be falling onto it as we speak. That does not mean dust is a pizza topping. You are substituting the incidental fact with the controlling fact, and you are making ridiculous arguments that defy science in order to justify it.