But I think you are comparing peas and grapefruits here, without the whole article.
Based on the the abstract, the study looks at the size of the veins in fossilized leafs and tries to determine the atmospheric content of CO2 based upon those observations. Not new, as these sorts of observations from Jurassic fossils suggest higher concentrations of CO2 during that geologic period.
Caveat 1: This is not the same as sampling the actual gasses preserved in ice cores. From those little bubbles the actual gas can be sampled: concentrations, isotopes, etc. This is a second order feature: more CO2 is found to create larger veins in leaves.
Caveat 2: This is from one location, over a short (geologically) period of time. This is one study. Do this same study in many places, well, dozens of places, average them, and maybe draw global conclusions. If I sample the ozone of the BLue Ridge Mountains from one mountain over a few years, can I really talk about ozone concentrations in the Rocky Mountains over the same time period?
This is interesting research, to be sure, but it is not enough to support the idea that we are not seeing a rapid increase in global CO2, and that this increase is no big deal.
Current Events » in reply to Okay.
Next time I'm down at the Earth Science Library, I'll look this up
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Continuing CO2 drumbeat.
- Here is how:
- The CO2 is increasing.