Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
David Middleton


I’m not disputing “what we know about more recent times.” The point is that every method of estimating pre-industrial CO2 levels, apart from Antarctic ice cores, indicates that the levels were higher and much more variable. Plant stomata and Greenland ice cores both indicate that >300 ppm was not uncommon, possibly the norm. These numbers are generally rejected because they aren’t supported by the Antarctic ice cores. However, most of the Antarctic ice cores lack the resolution to be used this way.

Where would the carbon have come from? Primarily the oceans. 


If the Antarctic ice cores substantially underestimate the variation in pre-industrial CO2 levels and those same ice cores are used to estimate the temperature-driven CO2 flux, then CO2’s sensitivity to temperature is also substantially underestimated and the natural CO2 flux is larger than is currently assumed.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)