PianoWow

NewScientist, a popular, respected science magazine, has published a major 26-part article, debunking many, many claims against Global Warming. I took a quick look at the sections addressing arguments I was familiar with (and had influenced me), and was surprised to find numerous references, many graphs from various sources, and explanations I could understand.

In my previous post about Global Warming, I mentioned Michael Crichton and his views as opposed to studies like those referenced in the NewScientist article. From what I remember (probably very little) their main claims were along the lines of 1) the change in recorded temperature has been very little, and that 2) computer models can’t be trusted, as climate is too complex a system.

The article addresses the computer model question directly, and states that a few models have predicted the past quite well. What was not mentioned was which models, and how accurately. The other question was addressed indirectly many times, stating that CO2 emissions and their consequences suffer from severe time lag. We’re not likely to see effects on our themometers from CO2 emissions directly for another 50 years.

The NewScientist piece also addresses Volcanic eruptions, Sun Spots, the Little Ice Age, and many other topics, some of which I hadn’t seen before. It also addresses something I didn’t want to bring up in my previous post because I couldn’t find anything on the topic. In the past, it was predicted that parts of North America and Europe could end up in an Ice Age due to Global Warming. It had to do with the ocean currents in the Atlantic slowing down or even stopping. The article also addresses this in detail. Apparently, in 2005, it was shown to be faulty, which is probably why I can’t find anything on the topic lately.

Interesting stuff. I’m not easily influenced, but this is hard to see past. When you give someone like me numerous, recent sources, and access to plots based on collected evidence, more attention ends up being paid.