What is interesting is that this study is based on computer predictions of the future with very little historical data of the past to test their model. We've never had CO2 releases proceeding warming before, historically CO2 increases have always followed warming (by 800-1500 years). Lets reemphasize this - warming has always caused CO2 increases, not the other way around. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) crowd generally accepts the historic evidence of this, but they claim that man is artificially releasing CO2 this time around and that based on lab studies and computer models CO2 can also cause warming. There is no historic evidence to support this theory. Volcanic eruptions cause massive CO2 releases but proxy records indicate that such eruptions have always caused cooling, not warming. To be fair volcano eruptions also block out a lot of sun light (though new studies show that this solar dimming effect may not linger as long as the CO2 so why didn't the earth quickly warm as the skies cleared?).

In addition to no historic data to support their claims that atmospheric CO2 leads to warming there are literally hundreds of climate computer models each with thousands of poorly understood variables, each producing different results. There are even publicly open projects for testing models given slight changes to each variable. One of the largest is at ClimatePrediction.net:

"By running the model thousands of times (a 'large ensemble') we hope to find out how the model responds to slight tweaks to these approximations - slight enough to not make the approximations any less realistic. This will allow us to improve our understanding of how sensitive our models are to small changes and also to things like changes in carbon dioxide and the sulphur cycle. This will allow us to explore how climate may change in the next century under a wide range of different scenarios." - About ClimatePrediction.net

It turns out that these very "slight tweaks" can make a huge difference. Results from the same climate model can change dramatically over time with just the smallest change to one or more of the variables. Often the same model shows dramatic cooling if variables are 'tweaked' just slightly. These tweaks, or adjustments, are well within the boundaries of natural variability that are shown in historic proxy records (e.g. ice cores, tree ring studies, etc.) to have occurred before, and will happen again.

Basically what you have are computers being used to prove the "Butterfly Effect". The Butterfly Effect theory basically refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately, over a long period of time, can cause a dramatic change to the environment. When man's input of CO2 in to the atmosphere accounts for only 1/4 of 1% of greenhouse gases (99.75% is natural) you begin to understand the Butterfly Effect analogy. Many scientists have already concluded that this minuscule CO2 input is causing climate warming so they spend a lot of time, effort and money adjusting their models to prove it. If you fed the effect of a butterfly flapping its wings in to a computer model and then adjusted all the other climate conditions around it to produce the perfect conditions you can also prove that a butterfly flapping its wings can, over time, cause climate change. You can also add a frog belch at just the right time and the right place to the model and completely wipe out the effect of the butterfly. 

Average user rating