“…S1 for error bars on individual CO 2 estimates and the 95 % CI, and see Richey et al (2020) (http://doi.org/10.25338/B8S90Q) for the full dataset. (b) Multiproxy CO 2 record and individual estimates (this study and agerecalibrated values by Montañez et al, 2016; n = 165), documented glacial deposits (Soreghan et al, 2019), occurrence of peats (coal), and best estimate of timing (and uncertainties) of magmatic episodes: 1a = Tarim 1, China (∼ 300 Ma); 1b = Tarim 2 (292-287, peak ∼ 290 Ma); 1c = Tarim 3 (284-272, peak ∼ 280 Ma; Chen and Xu, 2019); 2 = Skagerrak-centered, NW Europe (297.5 ± 3.8 Ma; Torsvik et al, 2008); 3a = Panjal Traps, NW India (289 ± 3 Ma; Shellnutt, 2018); 3b = Qiangtang Traps, Tibet (283 ± 2 Ma; Zhai et al, 2013); 4 = Choiyoi, W Argentina (beginning 286.5 ± 2.3 Ma, continuing for up to 39 Myr; Sato et al, 2015). Trend lines are as in (a); dashed intervals across the Carboniferous-Permian boundary (298.9 Ma) indicate overlap of the two LOESS trend lines.…”