I found this interesting-looking book on Amazon today:

It’s about why you can’t predict natural systems. There’s some info from the publisher below, and a link to a review in the NY Times:

PUBLISHER: Noted coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey and environmental scientist Linda Pilkey-Jarvis show that the quantitative mathematical models policy makers and government administrators use to form environmental policies are seriously flawed. Based on unrealistic and sometimes false assumptions, these models often yield answers that support unwise policies.

Writing for the general, nonmathematician reader and using examples from throughout the environmental sciences, Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis show how unquestioned faith in mathematical models can blind us to the hard data and sound judgment of experienced scientific fieldwork. They begin with a riveting account of the extinction of the North Atlantic cod on the Grand Banks of Canada. Next they engage in a general discussion of the limitations of many models across a broad array of crucial environmental subjects.

The book offers fascinating case studies depicting how the seductiveness of quantitative models has led to unmanageable nuclear waste disposal practices, poisoned mining sites, unjustifiable faith in predicted sea level rise rates, bad predictions of future shoreline erosion rates, overoptimistic cost estimates of artificial beaches, and a host of other thorny problems. The authors demonstrate how many modelers have been reckless, employing fudge factors to assure “correct” answers and caring little if their models actually worked.

A timely and urgent book written in an engaging style, Useless Arithmetic evaluates the assumptions behind models, the nature of the field data, and the dialogue between modelers and their “customers.”

This is probably old news, but this fascinating video from the BBC Horizons program (featured on a peak oil blog) is a must see.

In essence: Particulates from the burning of fossil fuels have been reflecting a reasonable percentage of incoming sunlight back into space, thereby partially protecting us from global warming.

The program contends that, as air pollution is decreased by more stringent emission legislation, global warming will accelerate (if we do not also reduce carbon dioxide release).

Although peak oil is not mentioned, the basic hypothesis still applies: A fairly rapid reduction in oil-fuelled transport (especially air travel, as jet contrails seem particularly important dimming agents) could accelerate the great warming (although perhaps increased coal use may partially offset it).

Watch the video here: http://simplereduce.blogspot.com/2006/12/global-dimming.html.