@SPQR: It is entirely reasonable to have expected the higher levels of Neoproterozoic CO2 to have had a greater impact.

I don't see any new facts, discussion or reasoning. Instead of refuting the points I raised, you ignore all proceeding debate and just repeat your beliefs.

@SPQR: evidence is now coming in that there was NO whole Earth encompassing ice sheet,

I know this is a futile request given your behaviour above, but try to get your head around what we are discussing here. This isn't about what actually happened. It is exploring the boundaries on what could have happened. Your question was "if there was a snowball earth happened, could it take 25 millions to melt?". The answer is most scientists evidently believe something like that is plausible. The article makes it plain why it could take 25 million years (something you conveniently ignore):

"The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere."

All I was explain some of the physics behind what is already there in black and white on Wikipedia.

Now you say, "but perhaps it wasn't frozen over". Yes, that is another possibility. But in that case it probably didn't take 25 million years to melt. Notice the article doesn't say how long it took to melt. You can understand why by looking at the geological temperature record. There is something odd about it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

In recent times the climate has oscillated on roughly a 100,000 year time scale. But go back 100,000,000 years and those oscillations are gone. Did they really go, or is this an artefact that it is bloody hard to know what the temperature was so long ago? If they didn't go you may be right - the planet didn't freeze over, but neither did it take 25 million years to melt.

@ RStuart,

When we started out you were ridiculing Monckton for claiming that there was only weak or ambiguous historic links between CO2 and temperature. In particular, the Neoproterozoic era which had high levels of CO2 yet not exceptionally high temperatures.

You showed us a vid “ because it had the clearest answer to” such bunkum [Tuesday, 19 July 2011] The vid talked about there being a snowball Earth and just like a heater in a snow bound cabin it took time for the CO2 to heat things up (hence the lag).

And, you ran with that :
i) “To put it more precisely the CO2 released by volcanism gradually raised the temperature” [ Tuesday, 19 July 2011 ]
ii) “ OK, so with the physics in place it's time develop our climate model for snowball earth” [Friday, 22 July 2011 ]
iii) “The planet [was] a shiny white colour.” [Friday, 22 July 2011]

Until some whopping great holes began to appear in your favored scenario:

1) “ the complete deep-freeze suggested by 'Snowball Earth' theories never took place “
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm

2) “ If the ocean was not isolated from the atmosphere, then how did the glaciations of the Cryogenian give way to the warm oceans… the answer may lie in the link between the Precambrian climate and the carbon cycle, which was very different from that of the current day.”.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/earthscienceandengineering/aboutese/hottopic/pasttopics/snowball%20earth

This bit bears repeating: “the Precambrian climate and the carbon cycle… was very different from that of the current day”
Who does this little finding tend to favor Monckton , or his maligners ?

By the [24 July 2011] you had retreated to: “If they didn't go you may be right - the planet didn't freeze over”

Why would there be any need to add any “new facts and reasoning”!

If you continue at this rate with climb downs (though step-ups might be more appropriate) we might expect to see you on the skeptic side of the house real soon –I’ll save you seat.
(PS:but leave your pot shots at home!)
Cheers!

@SPQR: Until some whopping great holes began to appear in your favored scenario

You don't get it do you. The person who brought up snowball earth is you, not me. I don't care whether the planet froze over. Climate science doesn't depend on whether the planet froze over or not. In fact as you point out, climate models can't actually reproduce the freezing.

The only thing point being made is _if_ the planet did freeze over, it taking 25 million years to unfreeze is entirely plausible, and does not contradict current climate science.

Sadly, It doesn't appear that I've missed too much in the last 5 days.
I think what needs to be kept in mind through all this, -and also why I think scientists might need to employ counter spin doctors- is that no credible climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the ONLY trigger for global warming. Solar cycles, sunspot activity, mass extinctions, deep ocean currents, volcanic activity and possibly even galactic and extra solar events can all affect climate.
About the only thing that is known, beyond argument, is that for the very first time in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet, one species has deliberately introduced itself as another climate change trigger, by turning previously underground hydrocarbons into 21 BILLION tonnes of atmospheric gases every year.
Steadily, relentlessly, and increasingly, to the point where all those valuable assets are gone. If not forever,
at least for millions of years.
With absolutely no thought -up to now- about what affect this might have on our one and only habitat.
Incredibly, at the same time as this species is deliberately making our atmosphere more comfortable for plant life, it is destroying the forests which can most benefit from this change.
And the species in question actually describes itself as intelligent.

Now, in response to some of the 'hyperbole'.
SPQR claims:
“And then, you can get on your other hobby horse –open borders –and lobby to have them all let in!”
If S. could provide sources, I will happily print a retraction. Far from advocating open borders, I can only recall advocating spending less money on OFFensive weapons of war, and redirecting those funds into DEfensive weaponry, to increase border security. Apart from that, I can recall only suggesting that the world might be a better place if we all believed everyone has a right to be treated with compassion, and a concomitant duty to offer compassion.
Hardly controversial, or original, and certainly not even advocating open borders, much less making them a 'hobby horse'.
As a debating tactic, no doubt the spurious 'Lord' Moncton would be proud.
Graham, I offered one link quoting Hadfield as being a “former New Scientist reporter”.
I am not Andrew Price, and I had never even heard of Hadfield until I went to the link supplied by rstuart. As to Hadfield being my 'hero', I suggested -after agreeing that yes he was supercilious- as a science writer he had at least as much credibility as the owner and editor of OLO (by inference).
Unless of course you think you yourself are also one of my heroes?
…
This highlights a point made in one of Hadfield's vid's; the importance of tracing sources back to the original; something Monckton often fails to do, and even when he does, often deliberately misquotes.
Having said all this, I must thank Graham for his accusation as it impelled me to watch more of Hadfield's (Potholer 54) rather good presentations. On the other hand, I also found the arguments presented by Freeman Dyson rather compelling.
http://youtu.be/JTSxubKfTBU
This is what it means to be a genuine 'sceptic', rather than an Alarmist or a Denialist.

People will always seek to breed and AS the carrying capacity of the Earth is finite at some point in the next 100 years there will be massive civilisation collapse. And that's discounting an imminent OIL distribution collapse that would leave this Nation in TATTERS.

How sexientists can waste their time on AGW in light of this is testament to the failure of science in this ECONOMIC based Global system that seeks to reward science for perpetuality rather than truth?

I'll never believe bodies like the CSIRO on any significant science issue again.

The political corruption reeks!