…because the Earth has experienced massive CO2 pulses and recovered before.
From the something you don’t see every day department comes this graph:
Atmospheric CO2 Concentration by Geologic Time Period
Source: GeoCO2.png Photo by dhm1353 | Photobucket
H/t to Tom Nelson
Here’s the next graph showing the sources:
Source: http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/CO2_Decline.png.html
Data sources here: (thanks to Bill Illis)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/pagani2005co2.xls
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.xls
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/royer2006co2.xls
(Don’t use the Boron or Paleosols method ones, they are unreliable)
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleocean/by_contributor/pearson2000
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/ipcc2007/ipcc2007fig61top.xls
(Don’t use the Boron or Paleosols method ones, they are unreliable)
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/pearson2009/pearson2009.xls
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/tripati2009/tripati2009.xls
http://www.snowballearth.org/Bao08.pdf
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/hoenisch2009/hoenisch2009.xls
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/extref/ngeo1186-s1.xls
(Don’t use the Boron or Paleosols method ones, they are unreliable)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/extref/nature11200-s2.xls
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/extref/nature11200-s2.xls
Can you provide a link to the original publication?
Whoa! That is really something I don’t see every day!
So, were the oceans boiling during the Cambrian?
How about simmering?
Was the planet at least ice free?
I mean, there must be something there for the CAGW by CO2 folks to cling to.
Not dissimilar to Scotese’s chart:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
“Greenhouse Gas” theory disproved right there …
Title: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Author: Ward, Joy K.; Harris, John M.; Cerling, Thure E.; Wiedenhoeft, Alex; Lott, Michael J.; Dearing, Maria-Denise; Coltrain, Joan B.; Ehleringer, James R.
Date: 2005
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 102, no. 3 (Jan. 18, 2005): p. 690-694.
I see that the last source on the graph (red arrow) is Exxon (close enough). Therefore this whole post can be ignored. 🙂
The abundance of “stored solar energy” (aka stored biomass aka “coal”), indicates that about 4 to 10 times higher levels of CO2 than at present resulted in very productive net primary production and biomass formation – NOT desertification. See Youkon coal and Devonian coal.
Developing world farmers need all the help they can get from higher CO2 and higherer precipitation to better feed their families.
Why are “climate scientists” inverting the evidence with systemically biased unvalidated models?
C3 plant CO2 starvation…..people do not seem to realize our planet was evolving…and C4 plants evolved from a lack of CO2 and high temps
Raise hell about something going extinct…and not realize what was happening
…talk about changing and not being able to adapt
Your graphs show nothing about temperature, so where does the assertion come that CO2 won’t affect temperature? A more meaningful (not to mention honest) illustration would be to show palaeo temperatures plotted with CO2 concentrations.
Source:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
Kit Carruthers says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:00 pm
The Scotese citation from above plots the CO2 curve against reconstructed temperature.
Bill_W – are you daft? Can you not use Google? It looks like the red dotted line is the line of best fit for the Berner Geocarb III (Orange line). Robert A. Berner from Yale University produced and published this data in 2001. I am not sure what Expon. (Not Exxon) means. Exponential?
Bill W. You need to get your eyeglasses checked. That last source reads Expon. The red dashed line is the exponential plot of the CO2 trend.
Would like to see the study using more conventionally accepted geologic timescale terms such as Cenozoic, Holocene, etc. Anthropocene and Tertiary are not recognized as formal geologic time units.
AW I think the AGW is finished
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
This means that probably NH minimum ice is about over. The increase is probably going to be spectacular this year!
I have presented similar information to CAGWers before. Their response was, “but the world was much different then, and you can not compare the present period with past periods when it comes to CO2.”
I have also seen a chart done graphing very old CO2 levels with temperature. There is some correlation, but not much. See the link below:
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time.jpg
Given that CO2 is the building block for all eucaryoyic life on earth, what does the exponential curve suggest for life in the distant future. Burning all the coal will just put it off for a little while?
OK thank you. Looks like in the past when CO2 concentrations were higher than current, it was also warmer, when they were lower, it was cooler. Generally speaking, of course, and temperatures seem to plateau at 22C avg. It would have been good if Anthony Watts had been open about this in his post, rather than simply showing CO2 concentrations and somehow leaving it up to the reader’s imagination/intuition/prejudice to deduce what he’s trying to show!
JimS says (August 8, 2013 at 4:07 pm): ‘I have presented similar information to CAGWers before. Their response was, “but the world was much different then, and you can not compare the present period with past periods when it comes to CO2.”’
And each of these periods of high CO2 was much different from the others. That tells us that elevated CO2 didn’t melt the planet under a variety of prehistoric conditions. It’s then up to your opponents to specify exactly what unique condition(s) today will for the first time in the earth’s existence lead to climate catastrophe and why. I’m betting they can’t come up with anything.
There is also material from Pagani, et al, 2005:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/600
They however felt the need to suggest that Antarctic glaciation resulted from lowered CO2, rather than a decline in temperature & cooling of the seas causing the fall in gas concentration in the air.
There were also biologic & geologic events which contributed to the post-PETM drop in the mid-Cenozoic, such as the Azolla Event, the rise of the Himalayas as India collided with Asia & the separation of Antarctica from South America & Australia by deep ocean channels.
Gary Hladik says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Usual Warmunista excuses are a weaker sun & less rapid rise. The latter is either nonsense or a lie, depending upon the state of knowledge of the excuse-maker. The sun has gotten stronger by about one percent per 110 million years. Thus during the Ordovician Glaciation, it was only around 4% less powerful than now, yet CO2 was eight to 20 times higher, so the excuse-making math does not compute.
Pedantic old Fart says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Reply; the problem as I see it is there is way too much calcium buffering mass in the earth planetary body, and it is slowly absorbing all of the CO2, we need to find a way to geoengineer a release of CO2 from the rock, shell, and coral sequestration that is starving the green plants in the long run.
*****
I see that the last source on the graph (red arrow) is Exxon (close enough). Therefore this whole post can be ignored. 🙂
*****
I think the post end with a (sark) face, folks.
REPLY: I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not, either way, your point is meritless. The data sources are posted and there’s no Exxon involved. – Anthony
Eric says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm
Bill_W – are you daft? Can you not use Google? It looks like the red dotted line is the line of best fit for the Berner Geocarb III (Orange line). Robert A. Berner from Yale University produced and published this data in 2001. I am not sure what Expon. (Not Exxon) means. Exponential?
greymouser70 says:
August 8, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Bill W. You need to get your eyeglasses checked. That last source reads Expon. The red dashed line is the exponential plot of the CO2 trend.
Guys,
I think Bill was being funny.
Richard
Uh-oh, the CO₂ level is dropping fast. Won’t be much longer until the plants shut down, then all life expires except a few small critters not using oxygen-based respiration.
Our path as stewards of the planet is clear. We’ll burn the fossil fuels for now to keep the atmospheric CO₂ high enough that life may grow and prosper, until energy from nuclear sources (including fusion) is so cheap we can afford to break down carbonates like limestone for the desperately needed trace gas of life.
And insane people want to capture it from power plant exhaust, so they can creatively dispose of it deep underground where they hope it will be gone forever. Don’t they understand this clearly-presented evidence? Why do they want to exterminate virtually all life on Earth? ARE THEY MAD?