Trixie
18-07-2011, 05:24 PM
I admit I dont know a lot about the Ordovician - Im a Triassic to Cretaceous nerd but I know how difficult it is to model climate in the Jurassic and how often new sampling proves us wrong!
My main problem with using Co2 in the late Ordovician to disprove Co2s importance in climate is sampling. The further back in time you go the further apart in age your sample points end up being. An example from my work in the Jurassic we talk (okay brag a bit) about really high resolution biostrat dates we are getting in some areas - down to hundreds of thousands of years, yet an Eocene worker would just laugh at us. Added to this the further back we go the more 'alien' things are. Things were quite primitive - pre vascular plants at this time.
To put it plainly Co2 Levels and glaciation appear to be coincident but the error bar here is huge in the order of millions of years. An interesting paper I found refers to some newish infill data supporting this, unfortunately only the abstract is online
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract
The following site has a good summary of the debate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm)
I am not saying I am right and the sceptics are wrong here - i dont think either camp has enough evidence to prove it without a doubt.
My main problem with using Co2 in the late Ordovician to disprove Co2s importance in climate is sampling. The further back in time you go the further apart in age your sample points end up being. An example from my work in the Jurassic we talk (okay brag a bit) about really high resolution biostrat dates we are getting in some areas - down to hundreds of thousands of years, yet an Eocene worker would just laugh at us. Added to this the further back we go the more 'alien' things are. Things were quite primitive - pre vascular plants at this time.
To put it plainly Co2 Levels and glaciation appear to be coincident but the error bar here is huge in the order of millions of years. An interesting paper I found refers to some newish infill data supporting this, unfortunately only the abstract is online
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract
The following site has a good summary of the debate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm)
I am not saying I am right and the sceptics are wrong here - i dont think either camp has enough evidence to prove it without a doubt.