fungochumley

I don’t mind engaging, but we have been over your issues many many times before (as you well know) - you just don't like what I have to say (I can live with that).

Yes, scientists generally have big egos.

Roy Spencer (another scientist with a strong ego) does try to find a strong negative feedback mechanism to overturn AGW (I wish him well, we all do) ... BUT, he has not been able to establish it, let alone convince the scientific community.

Ergo, it is not “obvious”. You seem to think otherwise so perhaps you can enlighten us, with citations of course.

Q&A,

You say, "Roy Spencer...does try to find a strong negative feedback mechanism to overturn AGW ... BUT, he has not been able to establish it, let alone convince the scientific community."

I didn't say anything about overturning AGW. What I asked was, what caused the lowering of atmospheric CO2 from higher levels in the past (over 1000ppm)? You don't seem to be disputing that levels have been higher before. So, if you or any other scientist can tell me what it was, I would be grateful. But if you can't, it would seem clear to me that it's due to a failure to find it yet, because something did. That is what I'm saying is "obvious". And I applaud Spencer if that is what he is looking for - sounds like good exploratory science.

What is difficult to understand here? I don't know how to ask it more simply.

fungochumley, You raise a major problem we had in making the kennels zerocarbon. The dogs breathing is not the only problem - they fart too. (Any dog owner will be able to share with you the joy of smelling a dog's fart at a dinner party) Our first solution to that problem was to accept only dogs that had been stuffed by a taxidermist but we then looked at the chemicals involved and realised the environmental damage was considerable also the problem is that it is not readily reversable. So instead we did what should be anyone's first step - we conducted an energy audit. Energy audits are not just about reducing your co2 emissions they are also about making your use of energy more efficient. We reduced our energy usuage by 30% without sacrificing anything - all sorts of little things added up to a big saving. We then reduced that further by switiching to renewables. This left us about 50% of Co2 we could not get rid of for that amount we planted trees (we are on 10 acres). As more energy efficient technologies come on the market we will continue to apply them. But thanks for asking.

(Posted by fungochumley): "What I asked was, what caused the lowering of atmospheric CO2 from higher levels in the past (over 1000ppm)? You don't seem to be disputing that levels have been higher before."

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/

I have not read where climate scientists are saying that CO2 levels, once the CO2 levels go up, they never go down. But they do say the CO2 levels take a while to go down.

In the past 650,000 years CO2 levels have not been as high as they are today, let alone 1000ppm.

If you want to go back nearly half a billion years ago concentrations were nearly 4400ppm. But everything else was different back then too. The sun did not shine so brightly, for instance.

On a scale of about half a million years, the CO2 levels have shot up dramatically and studies have shown when there is a rise in CO2 levels there is a rise in temperatures. Makes sense, because CO2 has been shown to be a greenhouse gas. And there has been a dramatic rise in CO2 levels.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

Obama's Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill -

A Stealth Scheme to License Pollution and Fraud

On May 15, HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) was introduced in the House purportedly "To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy."

In fact, it's to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation.

It does nothing to address environmental issues, yet on June 26 the House narrowly passed (229 - 212) and sent it to the Senate to be debated and voted on.

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1524

http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/index.php?bShow=5&cat=4

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/antarctic-ice-shelves-show-sign-climate-change/

http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Haven-County-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Solar-Physicist-Predicts-Ice-Age-What-happened-to-global-warming
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07082009/news/regionalnews/snow_plows_remove_hail_after_summer_stor_178218.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1096/Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now

http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/economy/climate-bill-result-coalplants-higher-emissions/

see previous article links[goldmansax is going to trade carbon credits
here is how they insider trade right now]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/business/07goldman.html?_r=1&ref=business
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=1519

Ok fungo, I misunderstood your post.

Yes, [CO2] has been much higher in the geologic time series, extending back 100’s of millions of years (bpor’s link shows less than 1 million years - clearly indicating the Milankovitch cycles - but doesn’t show the [CO2] you are referring to).

It is important that we understand the ‘evolution’ of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship with climate and ‘radiative forcing’. Atmospheric [CO2] in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) is believed to have been about 2000 ppm (it has been even higher than that).

While there is some disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales, it is important to realise the planet was a vastly different place back then.

Nevertheless, you (someone) asked what caused the decline (I think).

From the late Palaeocene to the early Eocene (say 60 million years ago) atmospheric CO2 hovered around 2000 ppm then had an erratic decline to about 40 million years ago - most probably due to reduced CO2 outgassing from volcanoes, ocean ridges and metamorphic belts, plus of course sequestration in fertile soils, formation of silicates and uptake in the oceans. Since about 25 million years ago (Miocene), CO2 has remained below 500 ppm, although much less during periods of ‘rapid’ cooling at roughly 15 and 3 million years ago.

If you want to get an understanding of climate in the geologic past, I can recommend “Origin and Evolution of Earth – Research Questions for a Changing Planet” by the National Research Council (US) of the National Academies. I am not going to recommend Plimer’s book, for obvious reasons.

As far as Roy Spencer goes, he is searching for a ‘negative feedback’ that is counter-intuitive to main-stream science. My bet he won’t find it, but good on him for persevering.

Now, can we get back on topic (Appealing to Science in the AGW Debate is Delusional)?