Saturday February 23, 2008, 5:33 pm
Because they know that CO2 can not cause "global warming".

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+CO2+Not+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article9313.htm
Report: CO2 Not Responsible for Past Warming

New Research links retreating ice sheets to climate change -- not the other way around.
Major new study disputes primary link to greenhouse gas warming

Its the strongest evidence for the Greenhouse Gas theory of global warming -- that warm periods in the earth's past were typically accompanied by rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide. But that evidence is under serious attack, from new research funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation.

The research team, led by Paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, demonstrated CO2 levels after the last Ice Age started to rise some 1,300 years after the warming began. According to Stott, earlier researchers had cause and effect reversed -- CO2 increases were the result of warming, and not the original cause. Stott's paper is not the first to show CO2 rises followed warming trends, but it is one of the most detailed and thorough rebuttals of the linkage.

The work comes hot on the heels of other research downgrading CO2's importance in climate change. Earlier this year, the Belgian Royal Meteorological Institute issued a study saying CO2 effects had been "grossly overstated." Dr. Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs concluded that CO2-based warming had been overstated by some 400%, and a pair of Chinese researchers used mathematical modeling to demonstrate the majority of current warming was natural in origin.

Stott's findings are important for two reasons. First, they directly challenge the correlation between CO2 and warming. As Stott himself points out, CO2 is still likely a contributor to climate change, but its role needs to be reevaluated.

The results also weaken the belief that present-day atmospheric CO2 increases must be anthromorphic -- human-induced. Stott's model showed how the warming generated changed ocean conditions, which then generated massive releases of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere. As natural CO2 sources still constitutes more than 97% of all emissions, this may not come as much of a surprise.

But if CO2 didn't cause the warming, what did? Stott's model links the forcing to periodic changes in the Earth's orbit which increase solar radiation over Antarctica. This eventually causes ice sheet retreat, which lowers ocean albedo, reflectivity. Additional warming is generated, a feedback effect which over 1,000 or more years, transports heat via deep-sea currents to the Northern Hemisphere. The model also explains why surface measurements of solar insolation fail to correlate with warming ... the heat transport process is very slow, and thus surface warming lags centuries behind changes in solar output.

Stott is a professor at the University of Southern California, and a reviewer for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sunday February 24, 2008, 2:58 pm
I thopught you said that all climate models are unreliable and bogus - but now that there is one that supports your denialist dogma, they are a reliable source of information - truely harlarious LOL

Sunday February 24, 2008, 4:17 pm
Chris, that is a pretty lame objection.

Actually, Stott's study was an analysis of ocean sediments and is only the most recent of several studies showing the same thing.

Too bad for the scamsters... ultimately the truth comes out

Sunday February 24, 2008, 4:32 pm
No lame is saying models are bad when they don't fit your dogma, but they are great when they support your view. And if you read your article - he uses models :) Lame is when one denies the facts that are righ in front of them - and yes, ultimately the truth comes out against the denialists...

Sunday February 24, 2008, 10:32 pm
BTW folks, Judy C works for Exxon-Mobil.

Sunday February 24, 2008, 10:33 pm
Whether she knows it or not

Sunday February 24, 2008, 10:55 pm
Global warming in the past had a variety of causes, including shifts in Earth's orbit, volcanic activity, and increases in solar output, thus increases of CO2 did sometimes follow such causes BECAUSE they were natural. The hypocrisy of Judy Cross is that she insists on ruling out man-made causes of global warming today even though we know that none of the NATURAL causes of past warming are operating now! If CO2 does always follow global warming, why didn't the Earth get extremely warm long ago, instead of getting warmer now?

Monday February 25, 2008, 12:41 am
Dale, you are the most accomplished bald faced prevaricator I ever came across.
"None of the NATURAL causes of past warming are operating now"?
Where is your authority for such a preposterous statement? When did the Sun stop shining?

Volcanic activity is cooling because the ash blocks sunlight, btw.

"If CO2 does always follow global warming, why didn't the Earth get extremely warm long ago, instead of getting warmer now?"

What on Earth does that even mean? The Earth was warmer than now many times before this...including the 1920-1940 period. In fact 1934 was the hottest year in the last 100 and 1998 was only the second warmest.

Rises in CO2 levels follows warming. The rise in CO2 is an effect, not a cause. That's all folks.

Monday February 25, 2008, 7:54 am
I DON"T CARE if co2 levels cause or not-contribute to ect.global warming-The removal of TREES in the vast amounts that are being done is a DEATH SENTENCE FOR THIS PLANET! Rising co2 levels change the airmixture ratio that all beings that breathe take in -Less Trees bring CRAZY Weather and LONG DROUGHTS-for the historical data on this -research The dust bowl in America and the reason many of the ancient southamerican culture such as the Maya ect. dissapeared.- The rise in co2 levels would not be as high if we had more trees and the effects would not be as severe.our weather would not be as crazy and globally the results not as catastropic if they would STOP removing the trees.Removing vast amounts of forest on this planet has accelerated the effects of global warming to a disaster phase and high co2 levels do not help this condition at all.Keeping our trees would reduce the effect of global warming and reduce the effect of weather changes and reduce droughts and that is whats important here.everybody is focasing on co2 as a cause when we need to focas on restoring balance to our planet and the most important step is to stop removing old growth forests.the second step would be to replant forests and the 3rd step would be to reduce low level ozone from greenhouse emmisions-this would go along way to reducing the effects of global warming and reduce co2 ect.no matter what the cause -manmade or natural and I believe it is both -of global warming.

Monday February 25, 2008, 8:28 am
Personal attacks, unsupported claims, and dismissing simple questions get you nowhere, Judy. I didn't say the Sun stopped shining! And volcanic activity DOES cause cooling if ash and smoke is thrown high into the atmosphere, not in every case.

I think you for noticing me, though. The more damage I can do to your credibility, the better. Maybe then you will one day give up and realize you can't take over the world with cherry-picked and fabricated nonsense that serves a short-sighted and ultimately futile agenda.

Monday February 25, 2008, 7:27 pm
Judy sez: "The Earth was warmer than now many times before this...including the 1920-1940 period. In fact 1934 was the hottest year in the last 100 and 1998 was only the second warmest."
The statistics I'm aware of state otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Judy sez: "Rises in CO2 levels follows warming. The rise in CO2 is an effect, not a cause. That's all folks."

If Judy reached that conclusion regarding the present warming of Earth from the report she copied and pasted in her first comment, that is a logical fallacy called a non-sequintur. The only thing that data says is that CO2 levels followed temperature changes in NATURAL warming periods. Quite simply, our greenhouse gas spewing civilization didn't exist back then. How can you criticise IPCC data for being inaccurate when you do not figure our civilization as a factor now? That's definitely inaccurate!