<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous" rel="nofollow noreferrer">carboniferous period</a> was 350-270 million years ago.  The content of CO<sub>2</sub> at that time was close to 3000 ppm, but this fell to 200-300 ppm by the end of this period.  The average temperature of earth during this period was 20-25 <span class="math-container">$^{\circ}$</span>C this fell to an average of 12 <span class="math-container">$^{\circ}$</span>C by the end of the carboniferous period.  So, the answer to your question is this, the carboniferous period ended because of climate change, the drop in CO<sub>2</sub> was the main reason for this.</p>

<p>A lot of CO<sub>2</sub> was also used in the creation of calcium carbonate (limestone)
there was also heavy volcanic activity during this period this do lower the 
temperature at least in the short time during the eruption and a few years 
there after.</p>

<p>The last part of your question is basically can the CO<sub>2</sub> level get too low.</p>

<p>The level of CO<sub>2</sub> are regulated by plants if it falls,
several things will happen,plants will grow slower the temperature on the earth will go down making plants grow even slower.</p>

<p>But this is highly unlikely to happen as long as the supply of CO<sub>2</sub> is continued.</p>

<p>edit:link <a href="http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-13T19:05:56.850Z
Source for 3000 ppm please, becasue I have never seen an estimate above 1000 ppm at the highest.
John
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-13T20:20:59.590Z
http://www.global-klima.org/Kap%201/s1_3c2.html it is a danish website.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-13T21:04:02.153Z
Not a great source since it doesn't tell you were it gets the number, but it is consistent with newer works. I was thinking average for the carboniferous not maximum. totally my fault.
John
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-14T17:34:32.483Z
@trondhansen If you add one or two peer-reviewed references to the 3000 ppm and the temperature range 20-25 C I will be happy to give a +1.
daniel.heydebreck
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-14T21:35:06.143Z
I think this answer could be fleshed out a bit as it's basically just 2 data-points, beginning and end, but it's still essentially correct.
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-15T07:05:15.513Z
i did use the numbers on  wikipedia,if anybody want feel free to add more information to my answer,feel free to alter it too.johns answer is way better then mine.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-18T23:43:18.407Z
Recent study: ["The result was a global temperature of about 1.4 degrees Celsius. For contrast, last century's average global temperature was 15.8 degrees Celsius. A global temperature of 1.4 degrees Celsius was cold enough to put glaciers on mountain ranges in the tropics of Pangea."](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/forming-the-earths-coal-almost-turned-the-planet-into-a-snowball/)
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-20T07:49:09.263Z
i have a hard time finding the drop in temparature the article mention confirmed in other litterature,the writer is not an expert on paleo climate so it has wery little sientific value.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-04-13T15:25:59.903Z
2020-02-21T19:36:53.887Z
2020-02-21T19:36:53.887Z
trond hansen
<p>At the instant any atom of carbon is taken out of the atmosphere by a plant or animal and incorporated into its structure then that atom is "off the list" as it were with respect to having an effect in the atmosphere. Once in the animal/plant it may be there for eons until it becomes oil, coal,or whatever.
So it is not the ultra slow conversion of organic matter to hydrocarbons that is relevant but the amount taken up by living matter on a daily basis which is sequestered into its structure.</p>

<p>Looking at the historical record we would therefore need to think about the amount of animal and plant activity on the planet and, to some extent, its type. This is quite difficult as we only have proxy records. however as we know that CO2 is effectively plant food it seems reasonable to assume that if the proxy record shows high levels of atmospheric CO2 we might expect that fairly quickly, a few year/decade timescale, that plant life on earth would respond quickly and become very lush indeed. </p>

<p>This is of course only one factor with respect to CO2. Past volcanic activity is likely to also be relevant. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-18T10:06:52.547Z
It sounds to me like you're describing primary production and missing the outgoing decomposition/respiration terms.  The net flux is a relatively small difference between the large input/output terms, and the atmosphere responds to that rather than the gross terrestrial uptake.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-19T19:48:01.167Z
An observation of any natural forest, woodland, scrub or indeed any bit of "left to nature" land with plants on it shows that the decaying bits do not all decompose but that the level of the soil builds up. This is why archeologists have to dig down to find old buildings, the surface has risen due to tons of soil i.e. decayed plants. Soil typically is 10% carbon by weight. Therefore a big increase in "lushness" will "trap" significantly more carbon in the very slow (sometimes static) decomposition cycle. Some never decomposes of course- e.g. coal.
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-19T19:50:13.040Z
@Deditos. You other comment about me ignoring respiration is wrong as I specifically said carbon atoms "incorporated into its structure". i.e. not carbon atoms used in regular in/out processes like respiration. It is the carbon atoms "trapped" in the plant that are of interest here.
user7733
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-24T16:31:13.780Z
Bit slow replying, sorry.  Okay, so I can see you're saying that the vegetation+soil pools form a buffer between the atmosphere and the fossilized pool, and that buffer could potentially expand quickly.  But that would need a similarly quick forcing of some sort - what are you saying that forcing is?  Atmos CO2 was already high, and globally the veg+soil pool was more or less in balance with it.  It was the slight tipping of that balance by changing veg strategies that allowed the slow accumulation of carbon in the buffer.
Deditos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-17T09:44:10.867Z
2017-04-17T09:44:10.867Z
user7733
<p><strong>Possibly</strong></p>

<p>One thing you have to understand is that natural carbon sequestration via the formation of fossil fuel is VERY slow, it can take millions of years to build up the coal we burn in a day. In addition, one of the more dominant effects on the climate is solar radiance and continental position which changes over such long stretches of time, making matching such slow changes to carbon with climate change more difficult. Continent position also affects carbon sequestration and CO<sub>2</sub> concentration directly making it even more confusing. Things like seaways and deserts can have huge effects on CO<sub>2</sub>. </p>

<p>The real problem is matching coal formation to changes in CO<sub>2</sub> concentration. 
Most coal comes from the carboniferous and the Permian time periods (along with the evolution of land plants that make it), the carboniferous saw severe cooling and severe drops in CO<sub>2</sub>. How much of this is CO<sub>2</sub> lost to coal versus how much is just the formation of forests and other terrestrial ecosystems combined with changes in contingent positions is still up for debate.</p>

<p>The Permian however saw severe warming near its end and a rapid rise in CO<sub>2</sub> at the same time, but most of it was relatively stable and unchanging both in CO<sub>2</sub> and temp. It also included one of the largest volcanic events in earth's history, and again changing tectonic position. <strong>So although the link between CO<sub>2</sub> and temperature is really well established we can't even say for sure such slow coal formation actually reduces atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations.</strong> </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ssNGg.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ssNGg.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a></p>

<p>Compare CO2 above to temp (red line) below. Note that just three variables together predict temprature amazing well.<br>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/YDcHK.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/YDcHK.jpg" alt="![enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T03:05:14.087Z
Nitpick: "it can take millions of years to build up the coal we burn in a day." If the coal was deposited over the 60MY carboniferous and we had 250Y supply, it is only 600Y per day. (Granted, it was deposited more slowly in other eras.)
Keith McClary
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-04-13T19:39:08.510Z
2020-02-21T19:38:43.510Z
2020-02-21T19:38:43.510Z
John
<p>As far as I understand, the dominant theory of modern climate change says that recent warming is mainly caused by the massive burning of hydrocarbons that used to be stored in solid form mostly underground as petroleum, coal, etc.</p>

<p>This suggests that the reverse process should contribute to a cooling of the climate (or to a slowed down warming if other processes are at play at the same time). </p>

<p>In particular, a cooling should have occurred throughout the period when the stocks of underground hydrocarbons were formed by the "pilling" of organic remains.</p>

<p><strong>My questions:</strong></p>

<ol>
<li>Is this roughly what climate theory would predict or am I omitting some things?</li>
<li>Was such an effect observed during the formation of the underground stocks of hydrocarbons?</li>
<li>Can this reasoning be extended to say that a world where no solid hydrocarbons are burnt and the concentration of atmospheric hydrocarbons keeps falling (as it is captured by organism and transformed into solid hydrocarbons) would experience a continuous (if slow) cooling? Or are there some non-linearities by which the stock of solid hydrocarbons would "max out" or the effect of removing carbon from the atmosphere fade away?</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-13T18:17:48.933Z
Bro, you have to understand an increase in any other stable form of carbon not in the atmospheric reservoir result in a reduction of greenhouse gas (The total amount of carbon on Earth is relatively constant as far as I know since exchange with space is minimal). It does not have to be hydrocarbon underground, it can be trees (lignin) aboveground and humus at undisturbed soil surface or even a wooden building etc.
y chung
<climate-change><climate><paleoclimatology><carbon-cycle>
Did climate cool down when underground hydrocarbons stocks formed?
Martin Van der Linden
# Did climate cool down when underground hydrocarbons stocks formed?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-13)

As far as I understand, the dominant theory of modern climate change says that recent warming is mainly caused by the massive burning of hydrocarbons that used to be stored in solid form mostly underground as petroleum, coal, etc.

This suggests that the reverse process should contribute to a cooling of the climate (or to a slowed down warming if other processes are at play at the same time).

In particular, a cooling should have occurred throughout the period when the stocks of underground hydrocarbons were formed by the "pilling" of organic remains.

**My questions:**

1. Is this roughly what climate theory would predict or am I omitting some things?
2. Was such an effect observed during the formation of the underground stocks of hydrocarbons?
3. Can this reasoning be extended to say that a world where no solid hydrocarbons are burnt and the concentration of atmospheric hydrocarbons keeps falling (as it is captured by organism and transformed into solid hydrocarbons) would experience a continuous (if slow) cooling? Or are there some non-linearities by which the stock of solid hydrocarbons would "max out" or the effect of removing carbon from the atmosphere fade away?

**Tags:** climate-change, climate, paleoclimatology, carbon-cycle

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Bro, you have to understand an increase in any other stable form of carbon not in the atmospheric reservoir result in a reduction of greenhouse gas (The total amount of carbon on Earth is relatively constant as far as I know since exchange with space is minimal). It does not have to be hydrocarbon underground, it can be trees (lignin) aboveground and humus at undisturbed soil surface or even a wooden building etc.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-13. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

**Possibly**

One thing you have to understand is that natural carbon sequestration via the formation of fossil fuel is VERY slow, it can take millions of years to build up the coal we burn in a day. In addition, one of the more dominant effects on the climate is solar radiance and continental position which changes over such long stretches of time, making matching such slow changes to carbon with climate change more difficult. Continent position also affects carbon sequestration and CO2 concentration directly making it even more confusing. Things like seaways and deserts can have huge effects on CO2.

The real problem is matching coal formation to changes in CO2 concentration.
Most coal comes from the carboniferous and the Permian time periods (along with the evolution of land plants that make it), the carboniferous saw severe cooling and severe drops in CO2. How much of this is CO2 lost to coal versus how much is just the formation of forests and other terrestrial ecosystems combined with changes in contingent positions is still up for debate.

The Permian however saw severe warming near its end and a rapid rise in CO2 at the same time, but most of it was relatively stable and unchanging both in CO2 and temp. It also included one of the largest volcanic events in earth's history, and again changing tectonic position. **So although the link between CO2 and temperature is really well established we can't even say for sure such slow coal formation actually reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations.**

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ssNGg.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ssNGg.png)

[source](http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf)

Compare CO2 above to temp (red line) below. Note that just three variables together predict temprature amazing well.  
[![![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/YDcHK.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/YDcHK.jpg)

[source](http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf)

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: Nitpick: "it can take millions of years to build up the coal we burn in a day." If the coal was deposited over the 60MY carboniferous and we had 250Y supply, it is only 600Y per day. (Granted, it was deposited more slowly in other eras.)  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-04-13. Score: 3

The [carboniferous period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous) was 350-270 million years ago. The content of CO2 at that time was close to 3000 ppm, but this fell to 200-300 ppm by the end of this period. The average temperature of earth during this period was 20-25 $^{\circ}$C this fell to an average of 12 $^{\circ}$C by the end of the carboniferous period. So, the answer to your question is this, the carboniferous period ended because of climate change, the drop in CO2 was the main reason for this.

A lot of CO2 was also used in the creation of calcium carbonate (limestone)
there was also heavy volcanic activity during this period this do lower the
temperature at least in the short time during the eruption and a few years
there after.

The last part of your question is basically can the CO2 level get too low.

The level of CO2 are regulated by plants if it falls,
several things will happen,plants will grow slower the temperature on the earth will go down making plants grow even slower.

But this is highly unlikely to happen as long as the supply of CO2 is continued.

edit:link <http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html>

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Source for 3000 ppm please, becasue I have never seen an estimate above 1000 ppm at the highest.  
> **username_2**: http://www.global-klima.org/Kap%201/s1_3c2.html it is a danish website.  
> **username_3**: Not a great source since it doesn't tell you were it gets the number, but it is consistent with newer works. I was thinking average for the carboniferous not maximum. totally my fault.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 If you add one or two peer-reviewed references to the 3000 ppm and the temperature range 20-25 C I will be happy to give a +1.  
> **username_5**: I think this answer could be fleshed out a bit as it's basically just 2 data-points, beginning and end, but it's still essentially correct.  
> **username_2**: i did use the numbers on  wikipedia,if anybody want feel free to add more information to my answer,feel free to alter it too.johns answer is way better then mine.  
> **username_6**: Recent study: ["The result was a global temperature of about 1.4 degrees Celsius. For contrast, last century's average global temperature was 15.8 degrees Celsius. A global temperature of 1.4 degrees Celsius was cold enough to put glaciers on mountain ranges in the tropics of Pangea."](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/forming-the-earths-coal-almost-turned-the-planet-into-a-snowball/)  
> **username_2**: i have a hard time finding the drop in temparature the article mention confirmed in other litterature,the writer is not an expert on paleo climate so it has wery little sientific value.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2017-04-17. Score: -1

At the instant any atom of carbon is taken out of the atmosphere by a plant or animal and incorporated into its structure then that atom is "off the list" as it were with respect to having an effect in the atmosphere. Once in the animal/plant it may be there for eons until it becomes oil, coal,or whatever.
So it is not the ultra slow conversion of organic matter to hydrocarbons that is relevant but the amount taken up by living matter on a daily basis which is sequestered into its structure.

Looking at the historical record we would therefore need to think about the amount of animal and plant activity on the planet and, to some extent, its type. This is quite difficult as we only have proxy records. however as we know that CO2 is effectively plant food it seems reasonable to assume that if the proxy record shows high levels of atmospheric CO2 we might expect that fairly quickly, a few year/decade timescale, that plant life on earth would respond quickly and become very lush indeed.

This is of course only one factor with respect to CO2. Past volcanic activity is likely to also be relevant.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: It sounds to me like you're describing primary production and missing the outgoing decomposition/respiration terms.  The net flux is a relatively small difference between the large input/output terms, and the atmosphere responds to that rather than the gross terrestrial uptake.  
> **username_7**: An observation of any natural forest, woodland, scrub or indeed any bit of "left to nature" land with plants on it shows that the decaying bits do not all decompose but that the level of the soil builds up. This is why archeologists have to dig down to find old buildings, the surface has risen due to tons of soil i.e. decayed plants. Soil typically is 10% carbon by weight. Therefore a big increase in "lushness" will "trap" significantly more carbon in the very slow (sometimes static) decomposition cycle. Some never decomposes of course- e.g. coal.  
> **username_7**: @username_8. You other comment about me ignoring respiration is wrong as I specifically said carbon atoms "incorporated into its structure". i.e. not carbon atoms used in regular in/out processes like respiration. It is the carbon atoms "trapped" in the plant that are of interest here.  
> **username_8**: Bit slow replying, sorry.  Okay, so I can see you're saying that the vegetation+soil pools form a buffer between the atmosphere and the fossilized pool, and that buffer could potentially expand quickly.  But that would need a similarly quick forcing of some sort - what are you saying that forcing is?  Atmos CO2 was already high, and globally the veg+soil pool was more or less in balance with it.  It was the slight tipping of that balance by changing veg strategies that allowed the slow accumulation of carbon in the buffer.  

---

