For about the first five or six hundred years. Then the carbon cycle, once initiated, drives the climate – as it always does – for the next ten thousand years.
How can anyone still not know this?
No, Milutin Milanković knew it, too. And now everyone knows it except, apparently, you. In particular, the carbon cycles are well understood. And so is the disruption we are wreaking on that cycle.
Richard Alley (Paleoclimate expert) reported that you are wrong, the latest data shows that that lag is not what you think.
We wondered about that before, but it is clear that you remain an ignorant on the explanation, even though it was made years ago.
Richard Alley did so also and in his talks he pointed at other research that confirms what he reported, there is now very little lag to explain.
As **wolfpup **would say, keep 'em coming! It is good to show evidence to all about who is really pushing ignorance.
BTW, y’all might be freezing up north, but it’s still unseasonably warm in Florida. Never before have I had to run the AC in February.
Goddamn right, it’s global warming.
And over here in Arizona NPR reported that seven of the city’s 10 hottest years have come since 2000. Experts say the Valley’s ‘heat island’ effect and climate change may be to blame… But more ominously, no rain on the whole month of January. The whole west is experiencing a very severe drought and there are already some areas in California where water will be cut off if no rain comes soon.
You know the drill, doncha?
Too cold = Natural variations or AGW
Too hot = AGW
When faced with “unusual” weather, go to the climate data. Is Florida warming up for February?
Nah, that is just more ignorance; all the records, cold or hot, are compared to see what the trend is.
Conducting uncontrolled experiments on the only known habitable planet is such fun. 
psik
Yep! “Let’s take the carbon that’s been out of the carbon cycle for a few hundred million years, sequestered deep in the earth since the Cretaceous or before, and dump it into the atmosphere at the rate of more than 30 billion tons of CO2 a year and see what happens. What could possibly go wrong”?
Because it’s wrong.
I’m sorry, have you even read the peer-reviewed literature in the last decade or so?
Complete nonsense, and easily shown to be false in the extreme. It’s exactly that sort of pseudo scientific rhetoric that makes all climate proclamations suspect, because seriously, if anyone is that deluded about climate, how can you believe them about anything?
Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are “Absurd”
Don’t get the wrong idea, I don’t question physics or science, I question **your **claims.
Who was conducting an experiment? I mean, the phrase is nice for a rally full of ignorant schoolchildren, but no experiment in any shape of form.
In what way was it an experiment except in the most tortured of analogies?
30 billion tons sounds like a BIG NUMBER, but since the Earth naturally produces 750 billion tons, i.e. 25 times as much, it doesn’t sound that big. You could rephrase it in a less alarmist way by saying that humans have increased CO2 production by 4%. Heck, 4% may be enough to cause a lot of damage and disrupt all sorts of cycles, but you 30 BILLION TONS would’ve played better somewhere else.
BTW, the other option to the “experiment”, i.e. not burning stuff, is living in conditions you don’t consider even remotely accpetable for your enemies.
I have literally no idea why you would link this article. None. Come on, tell me - what relevance to anything does it have?
None of this current bullshit has anything to do with the topic.
You know why every goddam topic about anything climate related turns into an argument about IF global warming is actually happening?
Do you know why?
(and that, like most everything else, is actually off topic)
Because ignorant people, who think they understand the issue more than the experts, come in and shit on the rug?
Please do. Please show me the scientific evidence that my description of CO2 driving the transition from glacials to interglacial periods is wrong. I look forward to it. I’ll be here. It’s one of the most fundamental basics in paleoclimatology. Denying it implies CO2 isn’t a GHG. You can post your flat-earth theories at the same time as you post your theories about that.
Joanne Supernova, Kid Ljungqvist, and now Freeman Dyson. You’ve hit the trifecta, but keep 'em coming! 
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2007/08/15/201772/freeman-dyson-climate-crackpot/
No worries, I don’t have the wrong idea. So far on this board, every single thing I’ve seen you post on matters of climate science has been flat-out wrong, and has been shown to be so. Sometimes humorously so. I suppose having you questioning my claims should be considered a compliment.
Tell us again about how water vapor is a climate “forcing”.
You might want to consider the fact that the carbon cycle is a balance, and until industrialization has been absorbing as much as it’s been emitting, which is why CO2 levels were extremely stable for a thousand years before industrialization, and shot up like a skyrocket in modern times. Your bogus numbers rather overlook the fact that in this delicate balance of the carbon cycle, the atmospheric CO2 content has shot up by 37% over the pre-industrial level, putting it definitively at the highest level by far in at least 1.2 million years and more likely the highest level in the last 15 million. It’s at 400 ppm and has demonstrably never exceeded 300 ppm in all the ice age cycles since the MPT 1.2 million years ago.
Yes, but you just posted essentially a video blog from a random physicist with no credentials in climatology, no climate research, no published papers in the field, and who is prone to spouting incredibly dumb shit like " Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils". At least with Ljungqvist you have the excuse that he’s actually publishing in the peer-reviewed journals (it’s just that his work is crap and everyone’s known it for quite a while); I literally can conceive of no reason why you’d cite Dyson other than naive, “he’s a scientist, he must know what he’s talking about” fervor. Christ, is the barrel that empty? That sweet bribe money really is sinking in to all the scientists, isn’t it?