Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence, as well as a blog looking at the history of climate science. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
What is happening now?
New: Any cooling disproves global warming
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Polar bear numbers are increasing
The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
Does CO2 cause warming?
Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
Why should I worry?
It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
We can't do anything about climate change
Is the sun to blame?
Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
What happened in the past?
The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
What is going to happen?
Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
Can we trust the science?
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't trust computer models of climate
Many leading scientists question climate change
New: The leaked emails prove it's a conspiracy
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
No more Ice Ages?
Tue Jul 31 03:03:00 BST 2007 by Lubos Straka
Is todays global warming so huge that it will overcome many million years of cycling between glacials/interglacials? Do scientists believe that the next ice age is not coming anymore?
No More Ice Ages?
Mon Sep 17 14:54:56 BST 2007 by Michael Le Page
Yes, although the next ice age was probably 15,000 years off. See:
(long URL - click here)
and:
(long URL - click here)
No More Ice Ages?
Thu May 08 16:15:10 BST 2008 by John, Channel Isles
Michael Le Page,
Both your articles and reference sources have more 'myths' than you try very lamely to dispel. Your link to CO2's residence time in the atmosphere is anouther such myth. It states:
"The IPCC describes carbon dioxide as having a lifetime in the atmosphere of between 5 and 200 years before it is ultimately absorbed by the oceans. In fact, as much as one-tenth of the CO2 we are emitting now will linger in the air for at least 100,000 years.."
Obviously your researcher does not understand CO2. Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M; data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the IPCC Climate Change Report 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report (Page 25).
And it's nowhere near your reference articles quote "100,000 years". Please check if the researchers smoking something!!
No More Ice Ages?
Tue Aug 05 14:37:30 BST 2008 by Davidone
Again, John, you're spouting science-free drivel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Atmospheric_lifetime
P.S. Just in case you're one of those people who hand wave off anything from Wikipedia - the wiki is not the source of the information, the references provided are.
No More Ice Ages?
Mon Sep 01 14:25:40 BST 2008 by Adelbert Goede
Last ice age caused temperature to drop by 2 to 3 deg. Global warming predicts double that figure by end of century. So answer is: yes. Temperature cycling due to earth orbit variations will continue but cooling is too small to offset global heating.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Climate Change
Wed Aug 08 03:43:47 BST 2007 by Michael Thomas
Interesting article. I have been provided a couple of the research studies backing the IPCC study and it is curious how the scientist have covered their behinds: 1.. They state that the models they used were specified by the IPCC and were not of their own. The IPCC for these studies (through its Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison) specified exactly what models the scientists would use in their analysis of atmospheric convection and circulation. 2. The scientists were told to keep radiative forcings (the radiation coming into and leaving our system) and other key factors constant throughout much of their anlalysis which is bogus in that atmospheric and oceanic dynamics will change with changing environs. Some astrophysicists have reported that the biggest cause of global warming has been due to increased solar radiation and the planet is warming as a result - the requirement in these studies of constant radiative forcings means that this possible cause of global warming is disregarded by definition. 3. Of the 22 climate models utilized by the IPCC in analyzing man-made global warming, THEY ALL CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. Given how little we know about atmospheric and ocean science, particularly in light of our infancy in modeling global systems and the lack of proven model specifications, the odds that all 22 would come to the same conclusions is truly astronomical. 4. The operative analysis horizon was 100 years for most models and for some, they were taken to 300 years. Hey, the computer models these guys use can't even forecast the local weather for next week with any reasonable degree of accuracy! 5. The scientists express a caveat regarding the models they were instructed to use by the IPCC, they state that "the robustness of this behavior across all models cannot be confirmed due to lack of data". 6. The classic study on rising sea levels by the University of Maine, Dept of Geophysics, neglected to take into account changing land mass levels, plate tectonics, in their seminal study. I approached them about this major oversight and they swallowed hard. A major oversight that brings into question the validity of their other findings. 7. Your researcher's sources were weak, many of the points he made were refuted quite some time ago - sounded like his only source was the Al Gore movie. He also mentions the large number of scientists who support the man-made global warming theories. It is my understanding from the IPCC researchers that only 55 scientists actually signed the IPCC study - the remaining 1,945 didn't even get to see it before it was published and a large percentage have voiced their disagreement with its findings. This excludes the 19,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Peititon saying this matter is bogus.
Climate Change
Wed Dec 19 22:11:43 GMT 2007 by Jeff
I always wondered why they couldn't forcast the weather with all the gadgetry they have nowdays. I asked a guy who works at a weather station he said it would take too much gathering and so many more overlapping stations that the computers could not handle all the data needed to predict. I was just wondering why they couldn't put all the data together and come up with a weather outlook for years (if they had gathered enough from the past to make a full circle pattern of weather). Anyway my hopes of the human race becoming what I thought they could become were dashed again. Thanks for the space.
Climate Change
Thu May 08 16:25:04 BST 2008 by John, Channel Isles
I entirely agree both with the lack of credability for computer modelling and the lack of ability amoung meteorologists to pedict future weather. The highly politicised UK Met Office even with new Cray supercomputers couldn't predict a hurricane hitting our shores 12 hours before the event. The UK Met Office begged/demanded for the Crays even though they admitted it wouldn't improve long tem forecasting! Despite the £millions it hasn't improved their 12 hour forecasts either!! And Willie Sun of Harvard MIT estimates it would take 10 billion years of supercomputer time to provide an accurate forecast to 2050. Frankly these computer model predictions should be confined to a college campus and not ever be let loose as science by the IPCC who's credability is already seriously in question on so many basic science issues.
Climate Change
Tue Aug 26 23:40:48 BST 2008 by David Alexander
With some thought, you can see the difference between predicting daily weather and climate patterns. For example, a car riding down the highway will create turbulence in the air moving around it as the car moves, including fluctuations of air motion in all directions and whirls (tornado-like) of air that come and go. That is like weather, and the exact air movement (direction and speed) at a specific point and time are impossible to predict. However, if you are driving at 60 miles per hour, it is quite scientific to predict that the overall average air speed passing the car will be 60 miles per hour. If one steps on the gas and accelerates to 70 mph, the air passing the car will still be turbulent, but with an average relative speed of 70 mph. That is the difference between weather and climate.
Climate Change
Fri Sep 05 13:26:39 BST 2008 by Girma
Thanks Michael.
We have to protect ourself from being forced to go back to mysticism. They want to stop something (climate) that is by its nature changing not to change. How irrational can one get?
Climate Change
Fri Nov 13 06:00:40 GMT 2009 by Vince Whirlwind
Michael, science isn't advanced by people signing petitions, it is advanced by people conducting primary research and sharing it with their peers.
Those who conduct primary research are in no doubt of the reality of CO2-induced warming, the current high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the human source for the excess CO2.
Other people who do not contribute to scientific research snipe from the sidelines due to issues of ego, mental problems, or Exxon funding.
If you want to advance science, do some research and submit it for peer review instead of regurgitating anti-science talking points.
Climate Change
Thu Dec 24 11:30:09 GMT 2009 by David Bailey
Science is not normally advanced by the signing of petitions, but when the 'experts' in a field operate by claiming the spurious agreement of almost all 'scientists', it may well be the right response.
There is a dawning realisation that the consensus is not so much a consensus about the scientific facts as about the fact (reinforced by the emails) that it has been hard to obtain or keep a post in climate science without towing the line!
Climate Change
Tue Nov 17 23:37:24 GMT 2009 by Stef
"3. Of the 22 climate models [...] the odds that all 22 would come to the same conclusions is truly astronomical."
Uh, what? Methinks you know nothing about the models, nothing about the data that fed into those models, nothing about the margin of error of those models, and clearly you know nothing about statistics.
You sound like one of those sophists that says "Either you're right or you're wrong, thus it's a 50-50 chance of either. Therefore, you only have a 25% chance of being right twice in a row." Using your own logic, since you made 7 points, you have 99.22% chance of being wrong.
btw, google turned up nothing on you pertaining to climate change... I strongly doubt any university "gulped hard" at your inciteful questioning. More like they "sighed hard", thinking "oh, this crackpot again..."
Climate Change
Thu Dec 24 11:42:05 GMT 2009 by David Bailey
I would agree with the original observation - given the amount of noise and uncertainty it does seem unreasonable that all 22 studies came to the same conclusion!
It is noticeable that supporters of the consensus view are so ready to resort to ad hominem attacks. You are losing the argument because you rely on such tactics and to appeals to authority rather than discuss the issues.
Climate Change
Thu Jan 13 12:14:58 GMT 2011 by Recycle Phones
http://www.money4urmobile.com/
Recycling of Phones has become an extremely popular trend among those individuals who are aware of environmental damage as well as wanting to save money and the earth. There are many online mobile recycling companies that can pay reasonable amount for your mobile whether it is damaged or not. You will receive cash for your mobile or you can even exchange your old mobile with new latest model.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
