区别氧气/二氧化碳比美元恐龙和目前的时期——地球科学堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台江南体育网页版 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 07 - 07 - t01:35:17z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/5462 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/5462 4 区别氧气/二氧化碳比美元时期的恐龙和礼物 Yordan //www.hoelymoley.com/users/3415 2015 - 08 - 30 - t13:36:52z 2016 - 09 - 20 - t20:56:19z < p >的基础我的问题:< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/3001/was-volcanic-activity-more-prevalent-when-the-dinosaurs-roamed " >是火山活动更普遍,当恐龙漫游吗?< / > < / p > < p >真的恐龙的期间,氧气需求(通过地球上所有生物)和二氧化碳释放的火山美元高于相同类型的氧气需求今天和二氧化碳污染由美国和美元当前活跃的火山?< / p > < p >我想知道如果有一些简单的参数对汽车和工厂负责全球变暖(留下而甲烷产量和森林砍伐)——这就是我相信(现在)。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/5462/difference-between-the-oxygen-co-2-ratio-during-the-period-of-the-dinosaurs-an/5467 # 5467 7 回答由userLTK区别期间氧气/二氧化碳比美元的恐龙和礼物 userLTK //www.hoelymoley.com/users/2717 2015 - 08 - 31 - t05:52:12z 2016 - 09 - 17 - t00:58:38z < blockquote > < p >真的恐龙的期间,氧气需求(通过地球上所有生物)有限公司<子> 2发布的< /订阅>火山高于相同类型的氧气需求今天和CO 2 <子> < /订阅>污染由美国和当前活跃的火山?< / p > < /引用> < p >我不太确定“氧气需求”是什么意思。在我看来,地球上的大气变化是生活的副产品“要求”。还有其他较小的因素,如火山活动。< / p >

I think the best way to address this question is to start before the dinos, around 360 million years ago and the start of the Carboniferous Period when oxygen increased to higher levels than it had ever been and CO2 levels fell significantly, perhaps as low as 300 PPM, though estimates vary.

These lower levels of CO2 played a key role in the Karoo Ice Age

Something rather drastic happened around 251-252 million years ago but CO2 levels had started to rise before then, and the simple termite may have played a key role in the end of the Karoo ice age and rise in atmospheric CO2 .

When the Dino's came about (230 million years ago), CO2 levels were too high to have glaciers. Whether that was due to the massive mantle plume, or the termite or increased volcanic or some combination of all 3 is hard to say, but CO2 PPM has risen quite significantly by the time the Dinos came.

enter image description here

Source

I recommend reading this part as it's more relevant to your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Measuring_ancient-Earth_carbon_dioxide_concentration

I want to know if there's some simple argument against cars and factories being responsible for global warming (while methane production and deforestation are left behind) - that's what I believe in (for now).

There's really no good argument at all. it's worth pointing out that while some people don't like the man made climate change theory and a handful of scientists continue to question it, it has stood up reasonably well to the tests, and no alternate theory has even come close.

When the Koch brothers funded a study to prove the "urban heat island" effect, their study suggested the CO2 effect was even bigger than the IPCC's studies said it was.

There are a number of factors that can effect climate. The Earth's orbital changes, ocean current changes, sunspots, volcanism, deforestation, snow cover and albedo, cow farts, land location, mountain ranges and their effect on rain and atmospheric circulation, but none of those effects are playing a significant role in recent decades. CO2 is the only driver that makes any sense at all and it's quite clear that the cause of the rise in CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels.

Baidu
map