Here. (I've chosen this link not because I think it's the most authoritative, but because it nicely summarises all sides of the debate in terms even I can understand.)
Proponents argue CO2 drives temperature and point to ice cores and other proxy measurements as evidence. Hence, current warming is due to increasing CO2. If ice cores etc. show temperature has driven CO2 levels (warming oceans release CO2, cooling oceans absorb it), however, the past cannot be used to predict the future. It's possible additional "unnatural" CO2 produced by humans is driving a little of the recent warming, but the rest of the CO2 is produced overwhelmingly by a natural warming trend. (Whether warming is actually "bad" and needs to be avoided/prevented is a separate issue.)
So, is the ice core data of sufficient "temporal resolution" (I had to look that up) to determimne if past warming has occurred before or after increases in atmospheric CO2?
Space/Science » in reply to Don't think so.
Wikipedia has a good webpage about the controversy
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Yeah, global warming is 'natural'
- 27% percent higher than last year?
- global warming is 'natural' on Mars?
- R.L., do you have any idea why the last ice age ended?
- re: Yeah, global warming is 'natural'
- I'd like to see the graphs
- Global cooling is too
- Ya but you have to look at the big picture.