/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10240630
>>10240868
Here you go, as you can see atmospheric carbon has been lower than the current levels since the development of hominids of any kind. Humans and every species we depend on have evolved to live at much lower temperatures then Earth has been for most of it's history

>>10185521
How about you create something that can be repeated experimentally? Why should anyone believe CO2 is the main driver and not other greenhouse gases? No show me your data I wanna see it.

>>10087612
Where is the direct correspondence between temperature and CO2 in the ancient past? I see only a weak correlation.

>>6989320
I came across a more detailed version of the graph you posted. It appears (in slightly lower quality) in an article about historical carbon dioxide levels. Some excerpts:

It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth's surface.

[...]

The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly "balanced" by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world from the beginning, with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.

Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to "the environment". There is no evidence that it causes harm.

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/

>>6670651
I am going to make a few guesses, but I am no expert.
Maybe because carbon dioxide was at a high level as you can see in my pic (but there was still oxygen too), and climate was warmer. This allowed for lots of plant growth, which meant lots of food for herbivores to grow huge, and then lots of food for carnivores too. And same for the ocean (but I don't know the names of the living things that photosynthesise in the ocean, maybe algae? phytoplankton?).

I am just guessing that life was much more lush, more abundant back then. I know the Jurassic had lots of forests and rainforests. Not sure about the Triassic or Cretaceous.
Also, sometimes I wonder what the air pressure was back then. If it was higher, then more CO2 and O2 per volume, so higher rate of chemical reactions. But that probably has little to do with it.