How much more evidence is needed?

Question

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/2008/May08/greenhouse.html

Answer 1

Get a life. Or maybe better said, enjoy the one you have and don't worry about things you have no control over,

Answer 2

There is a 600-1200 year lag with CO2 and temperature. How else can CO2 get in the atmosphere?

Note: Absolutely all global warming believers/experts know this to be true. However they still believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

95% of the CO2 is naturally in the ocean. As the suns activity level increases, the temperature increases. As temperature increases, the ocean is unable to hold as much CO2 as it 'normally' does. So the water releases its CO2 into the atmosphere.

I have trouble believing CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Here is something I'd like to point out. Follow me on this.

Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas.

H2O2.

Hydrogen, Oxygen

O2

Oxygen

CO2

Carbon, Oxygen

20% of the atmosphere is oxygen and oxygen is NOT a greenhouse gas.

H2 is a greenhouse gas.

Carbon is not a greenhouse gas.

As I pointed out earlier, oxygen is not a greenhouse gas either. So... Get my point?

So basically neither C or O2 is a greenhouse gas.

Edit: Ok, I may not have my periodic table 100% correct but I tried to make a point that CO2 may not be a greenhouse gas.

Answer 3

MORE evidence??!!  Where is the 'evidence' that came before the "more"??

By 'evidence' you imply that scientific fact has been established.  None (facts) have been.

"Friday, March 30, 2007

The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 20th century, global temperatures increasing by about half a degree Celsius. The evidence for this global warming comes from ice core data from the Arctic island of Severnaya Zemlya, published just last year.

The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 19th century, too, global temperatures again increasing by about half a degree Celsius. The evidence for this global

warming comes from the same ice core data.

The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the 18th century, too, global temperatures increasing by about a half a degree Celsius. The evidence for the global warming that occurred during the 18th century comes from multiple sources, all well recognized.

The Earth slowly but surely warmed over the course of the latter part of the 17th century as well, global temperatures increasing at the rate of about a half a degree Celsius per century, according to one of those multiple sources, the only one that extends that far back.

Throughout these centuries, which followed the depths of the Little Ice Age, the rate of global warming has been fairly consistent. "There is clearly a linear increase of temperature from about 1800 based on last year's ice-core data," states geophysicist Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the University of Alaska. "Roughly the same linear change in temperatures extends back to the earliest recordings, going back to about 1660, even before the Industrial Revolution."

Dr. Akasofu, the founder of the International Arctic Research Center and a giant in Arctic research since his discovery in 1964 of the origin of storms in the aurora borealis, postulates

a startlingly straightforward explanation of the warming Earth has seen in the 20th century.

The long slow climb out of the Little Ice Age, he states, is typically thought to have ended in 1900. Chances are good that it didn't. "The Earth may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age," he says, pointing to the consistent rate of warming over the centuries.

Although Dr. Akasofu thinks a continuation of the Little Ice Age can explain the 20th-century warming, he believes other explanations may also be valid. Any explanation, however, would point to a natural process, and not manmade CO2. The evidence for this lies in the Arctic, which magnifies temperature fluctuations seen at lower latitudes, highlighting temperature changes that might otherwise seem unremarkable. Arctic data, for example, shows a very

large rise and then fall in temperature between 1910 and 1975, while the global average data shows this fluctuation as more a minor blip, peaking at 1940. A second temperature

fluctuation involves a rise after 1975.

Because the pre-1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change.

Contrary to the statement by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect."

Addendum:  So...Antarcticice....what you are saying is that your data is much less current??

Addendum:  Antarcticice..... actually, you've proven nothing.

Answer 4

Yes scientist have gone back in time by the ice core record, and have found that your information is not correct.  Temperatures lead co2 by some 800 years.  Co2 continues to increase when temperatures plummet.

There is no relationship between co2 and temperatures.

Answer 5

You left out the rest of the story, specifically the fact that the ice core records show that CO2 levels always increased AFTER temperatures increased, by an average of 800 years.

Answer 6

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:

"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"

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:

"after the initial 800 year lag, "

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.

Answer 7

Apparently most of you don't live in northern Minnesota! Some of the lakes are still froze over there. And we aare finally getting into the 60's for temps during the day. 30's and 40's at night!

"That's global warming?"

What about ElNina coming in off the Pacific?

That's why there are so many storms in the south!

Answer 8

"just ask me" why do you keep spamming the same cut and paste answer don't you have an original idea.

Answer 9

Has anyone told you that you're crazy today? If not, let me. You seem like the kind of person who needs to hear it every day.

Answer 10

The links between Co2 and warming come from both ice core samples from all round Antarctica and sediment samples across many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The link between temp rise and co2 rise is obvious

I do note that at the time I stared to write this all the answers here didn't offer one link to disprove the question. Just the usual spew of denier rubbish, a search on google for ice core info reveals a flood of personal and blog sites pushing denier line again with little actual fact to backup what is said, like here!

'bb' 'The evidence for this global warming comes from ice core data from the Arctic island of Severnaya Zemlya, published just last year.'

Is incorrect as the link shows the extended times scale for this record goes back to 2005 and it references the Vostok record (440,000y) which dates back to the late 90s.

Answer 11

We are also entering a Maunder Minimum

"The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters"

So the upcoming ice age will negate the global warming, if there is any.

Answer 12

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.