Return to Question

I used to talk with a family friend who often sent me links to Nobel Prize winners, claiming that climate change is a myth.

Last week, we had a disagreement over a link referencing a Nobel Prize recipient (I believe it was Dr. John Clauser). This link displayed a graph of CO₂ levels spanning the past 140 million years, indicating a linear decreasing trend. The article posited that we are depleting our CO₂ reserves, a vital gas for plants and, by extension, the biosphere.

I responded by saying:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ levels during the Phanerozoic era are influenced by the Wilson Cycle, and they correlate with the formation and fragmentation of Pangaea. We are not depleting CO₂ as the subduction process is initiating in the Atlantic. In the forthcoming million years, CO₂ stored by organisms will be released."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

I heard this argument at the University of Zaragoza. However, I am uncertain if both my teacher and I have a comprehensive understanding of this matter. One of my concerns is that CO₂ dissolves below the Calcite Compensation Depth. I'm unsure if all sediments dissolve or just the top layers. This uncertainty leaves me pondering whether my argument could be refuted on this basis. I couldn't find any clarifications on Science Direct either.

Could someone elucidate this matter for both my friend (who will read this) and me?

Are the Phanerozoic CO₂ levels indeed linked with the Wilson Cycle? If so, why?

Bonus Question:

If humans don't intervene, will we run out of CO₂? (To me, this seems like an absurd query, especially in the context of that Nobel Prize article, because we'll likely gain control over Earth's geochemistry and climate long before then.) To rephrase: if we exclude human influence, would shell organisms eventually consume all the CO₂ by the end of the Phanerozoic era, leading to a mass extinction and the emergence of a distinct form of life? Would this scenario transpire in this cycle or the next?

I used to talk with a family friend who often sent me links to Nobel Prize winners, claiming that climate change is a myth.

Last week, we had a disagreement over a link referencing a Nobel Prize recipient (I believe it was Dr. John Clauser). This link displayed a graph of CO₂ levels spanning the past 140 million years, indicating a linear decreasing trend. The article posited that we are depleting our CO₂ reserves, a vital gas for plants and, by extension, the biosphere.

I responded by saying:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ levels during the Phanerozoic era are influenced by the Wilson Cycle, and they correlate with the formation and fragmentation of Pangaea. We are not depleting CO₂ as the subduction process is initiating in the Atlantic. In the forthcoming million years, CO₂ stored by organisms will be released."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

I heard this argument at the University of Zaragoza. However, I am uncertain if both my teacher and I have a comprehensive understanding of this matter. One of my concerns is that CO₂ dissolves below the Calcite Compensation Depth. I'm unsure if all sediments dissolve or just the top layers. This uncertainty leaves me pondering whether my argument could be refuted on this basis. I couldn't find any clarifications on Science Direct either.

Could someone elucidate this matter for both my friend (who will read this) and me?

Are the Phanerozoic CO₂ levels indeed linked with the Wilson Cycle? If so, why?

Bonus Question:

If humans wouldn't exist, would we run out of CO₂? (To me, this seems like an absurd query, especially in the context of that Nobel Prize article, because we'll likely gain control over Earth's geochemistry and climate long before then.) To rephrase: if we exclude human influence, would shell organisms eventually consume all the CO₂ by the end of the Phanerozoic era, leading to a mass extinction and the emergence of a distinct form of life? Would this scenario transpire in this cycle or the next?

I use to talk with a friend of my family that uses to send me links to Nobel Prices saying Climate Change is fake and so.

Last week we discused beacause in the link to the NP (I think it was Dr. John Clauser again) it was shown a graph of CO₂ levels past 140my, showing a linear decreasing tendency. The article said we were running out of CO₂, an essential gas for plants and so for biosphere.

I told him:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ follows Wilson Cycle in the Phanerozoic and is correlated with Pangea creation and break. And we are not running out of CO₂ because subduction is starting in the Atlantic, and in the next my CO₂ stored by organisms will be liberated."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

My arg was heard in University of Zaragoza, but I am not sure if I (and my teacher) fully understand here. My concern is CO₂ dissolves bellow the Calcite Compensation Depth, but I don't know if all sediments are dissolved or only top ones, so I don't know if my arg can be demolished or not with this, and in Science Direct I don't find any clarification about it.

Can someone explain me this and answer to my friend (he will read it) and to me to: (?).

Are Phanerozoic CO₂ levels correlated with Wilson Cycle? Why so?

bonus

Would we run out of CO₂ with no intervention? (wich is a nosense question by the NP in the context of his article imho because we will be controlling Earth's geochemistry and climate much sooner than that). I mean, put out humans from the equation. Would shell organisms consume all the CO₂ at the end of the Phanerozoic (with a mass extinction and new different life appearence)? In this one, or in the next Cycle?

I used to talk with a family friend who often sent me links to Nobel Prize winners, claiming that climate change is a myth.

Last week, we had a disagreement over a link referencing a Nobel Prize recipient (I believe it was Dr. John Clauser). This link displayed a graph of CO₂ levels spanning the past 140 million years, indicating a linear decreasing trend. The article posited that we are depleting our CO₂ reserves, a vital gas for plants and, by extension, the biosphere.

I responded by saying:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ levels during the Phanerozoic era are influenced by the Wilson Cycle, and they correlate with the formation and fragmentation of Pangaea. We are not depleting CO₂ as the subduction process is initiating in the Atlantic. In the forthcoming million years, CO₂ stored by organisms will be released."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

I heard this argument at the University of Zaragoza. However, I am uncertain if both my teacher and I have a comprehensive understanding of this matter. One of my concerns is that CO₂ dissolves below the Calcite Compensation Depth. I'm unsure if all sediments dissolve or just the top layers. This uncertainty leaves me pondering whether my argument could be refuted on this basis. I couldn't find any clarifications on Science Direct either.

Could someone elucidate this matter for both my friend (who will read this) and me?

Are the Phanerozoic CO₂ levels indeed linked with the Wilson Cycle? If so, why?

Bonus Question:

If humans don't intervene, will we run out of CO₂? (To me, this seems like an absurd query, especially in the context of that Nobel Prize article, because we'll likely gain control over Earth's geochemistry and climate long before then.) To rephrase: if we exclude human influence, would shell organisms eventually consume all the CO₂ by the end of the Phanerozoic era, leading to a mass extinction and the emergence of a distinct form of life? Would this scenario transpire in this cycle or the next?

I use to talk with a friend of my family that uses to send me links to Nobel Prices saying Climate Change is fake and so.

Last week we discused beacause in the link to the NP (I think it was Dr. John Clauser again) it was shown a graph of CO₂ levels past 140my, showing a linear decreasing tendency. The article said we were running out of CO₂, an essential gas for plants and so for biosphere.

I told him:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ follows Wilson Cycle in the Phanerozoic and is correlated with Pangea creation and break. And we are not running out of CO₂ because subduction is starting in the Atlantic, and in the next my CO₂ stored by organisms will be liberated."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

My arg was heard in University of Zaragoza, but I am not sure if I (and my teacher) fully understand here. My concern is CO₂ dissolves bellow the Calcite Compensation Depth, but I don't know if all sediments are dissolved or only top ones, so I don't know if my arg can be demolished or not with this, and in Science Direct I don't find any clarification about it.

Can someone explain me this and answer to my friend (he will read it) and to me to: (?).

Are Phanerozoic CO₂ levels correlated with Wilson Cycle? Why so?

bonus

Would we run out of CO₂ with no intervention? (wich is a nosense question by the NP in the context of his article imho because we will be controlling Earth's geochemistry and climate much sooner than that). I mean, put out humans from the equation. Would shell organisms consume all the CO₂ at the end of the Phanerozoic (with a mass extinction and new different life appearence)?

I use to talk with a friend of my family that uses to send me links to Nobel Prices saying Climate Change is fake and so.

Last week we discused beacause in the link to the NP (I think it was Dr. John Clauser again) it was shown a graph of CO₂ levels past 140my, showing a linear decreasing tendency. The article said we were running out of CO₂, an essential gas for plants and so for biosphere.

I told him:

"Jorge, that graph is misleading. CO₂ follows Wilson Cycle in the Phanerozoic and is correlated with Pangea creation and break. And we are not running out of CO₂ because subduction is starting in the Atlantic, and in the next my CO₂ stored by organisms will be liberated."

_{Source: Wikimedia Commons.}

My arg was heard in University of Zaragoza, but I am not sure if I (and my teacher) fully understand here. My concern is CO₂ dissolves bellow the Calcite Compensation Depth, but I don't know if all sediments are dissolved or only top ones, so I don't know if my arg can be demolished or not with this, and in Science Direct I don't find any clarification about it.

Can someone explain me this and answer to my friend (he will read it) and to me to: (?).

Are Phanerozoic CO₂ levels correlated with Wilson Cycle? Why so?

bonus

Would we run out of CO₂ with no intervention? (wich is a nosense question by the NP in the context of his article imho because we will be controlling Earth's geochemistry and climate much sooner than that). I mean, put out humans from the equation. Would shell organisms consume all the CO₂ at the end of the Phanerozoic (with a mass extinction and new different life appearence)? In this one, or in the next Cycle?