How much more evidence is needed? Scientists have now push the icecore record back 800,000 years and the link between Co2 and warming continues as does the evidence that what is happening now is happening much faster than natural change. To those who usually complain about things posted about Wiki pages and then post links to blogs, sorry, this is only an official Oregon State University site.
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch...

Additional Details

3 months ago

jleblanc: The 800-2000 year lag is exaggerated if you Google it you will find most references are denier blog sites more accurate info is here
http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...
Ranger47: Have a life working in climate study group in my spare time I try to dispel some of the b/s spread here by the likes of dr jello and his many i.d%26#039;s
cubby: I am not familiar with the theory of Minnesota warming only global warming, Alaska is much farther north than Minnesota and is not have this problem
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

3 months ago

As usual dr jello all you have posted is hearsay with no link to information or reality.

3 months ago

Taglo: sorry to disapoint but the Maunder Minimum is the name given to a single event not a cycle there are 3 others which date back to ~1050AD called Spőrer, Wolf and Oort they are not well understood they vary considerable in length %26amp; extent and there is no evidence we are heading into a new one.

3 months ago

BB: you make an interesting point
%26quot;The evidence for this global warming comes from ice core data from the Arctic island of Severnaya Zemlya, published just last year.%26quot;
Funny thing is that the papers that were published from the summer I was a field assistant at the Australian Antarctic Divisions Ice drill rig in Antarctica, support and predate your Arctic data by 15 years, this rig is inland from Casey Station at law dome, it had been in place since the 60%26#039;s it has now been moved to Aurora basin to try and get deep ice cores.
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=...

3 months ago

VV: Chemistry is a difficult one little mistake and you have something completely different, you stated,
%26quot;Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas.
H2O2.
Hydrogen, Oxygen%26quot;
for the record H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide

3 months ago

Bob326 :try again I%26#039;ll give you some help
Look under the heading %26quot;World Warmer%26quot;
It says
%26quot;It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.%26quot;
I would have thought this was pretty easy to understand!
If you are recommending Gavin Schmidt of Real climate (odd for you) actually Eric Steig is better qualified in the field of ice cores this is what he thinks on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
If you are going to comment on this one, please try to actually read the whole thing this time?

3 months ago

BB, yes you are quite correct, my data is much less current and still manages to prove the your comment on Severnaya Zemlya is totally incorrect, cool huh!

3 months ago

While I get that many that post here are teenagers and are going to post bull no matter what is presented, As someone who works in this field I am not fooled by the BS of Dr J and his cohorts/other id%26#039;s. The scientists I work with have strong, continuous links with their colleagues around the world, exchanging both data and theories, the idea that GW has little scientific consensus is an utter myth. 30% 3 Votes

For CO2 there should be an immediate global moratorim on materials, technology and services that help nations build more coal-fired power plants:

%26quot;The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn%26#039;t gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.
China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years.%26quot;
http://www.rense.com/general61/jyoto.htm

Without those two steps the political discussions around the issue do resemble a smoke screen, destined only to misappropriate funds for no useful purpose, redistributing them to people who won%26#039;t get to enjoy them for long.

The problem can%26#039;t be addressed until we%26#039;re able to acknowledge it as fundamentally driven by population growth and %26quot;development%26quot;. 0% 0 Votes

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  That argument still goes both ways.They never really mention which was the driver or consequences. Needless to say the time lines would have to be absolutely perfect to prove such. I know it was just a short quip and left out quite a few details, such as proxy data or redundant sources.
  
  All in all, the distinction rest in the time frames...800,000yrs, with 80-90,000 years of varibilty oppose to roughly ~100years of modern studies. 0% 0 Votes

• Answer hidden due to its low rating

  That is your evidence? Because of the lag, there is no actual evidence that CO2 influenced the temperature at all (though it likely did in some way).
  
  antarcticice said:
  %26quot;jleblanc: The 800-2000 year lag is exaggerated if you Google it you will find most references are denier blog sites more accurate info is here%26quot;
  
  No where in that link did it argue with the 600-1200 year lag, because it is non controversial. Email Gavin Schmidt for confirmation if you like.
  
  Edit: There is no argument in that link about the the 800 year lag. Even in your own quote they add this:
  
  %26quot;after the initial 800 year lag, %26quot;
  
  You see that? No argument about the lag. NONE. Why? Because it is non controversial.
  
  And the reason I mention Gavin Schmidt is because he is a well known proponent of AGW, but he would still agree with the 600-1200 year lag. 10% 1 Vote