Can't find a free version, but I have access at my work place.
The paper says that the stomata index is considered less reliable at
high atmospheric CO2 levels.
The paper appears to argue that the findings in the paper tend to
bring all the proxies into better agreement. (This is based on a
really quick skim of the paper by non-expert me.)
On Jan 13, 4:28 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > I would appreciate comments regarding how
> > trustworthy this result is.
>
> You wouldn't have a link to a free version of the paper?
>
> I do notice that in the abstract they only mention one proxy line of
> evidence. They do not mention stomata:
>
> http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/121/9-10/1441.abstract
> "Evidence for past CO2 spikes comes from expanded and refined stomatal
> index data of fossil Ginkgo and related leaves. ...
>
> The magnitude of the coming anthropogenic greenhouse pales in
> comparison with past greenhouse spikes at times of global mass
> extinctions."
>
> My opinion is that the proxy evidence for CO2 concentrations is too
> poor to distinguish 1000 and 7000 ppm reliably hundreds of millions of
> years ago, and that we also need a better picture of other forcings in
> the far past to conclude much.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
