|
Hansen develops a strong evidence-based theory. He brings up what is convenient, and he does so in a vague, soft way. Why would he qualify that. He mentions that satellite data indicate that "the expected imbalance between [outgoing and incoming radiation] is still very small as of this writing." As of this writing, indeed. Spencer does not dispute the evidence put forth by Hansen, instead attempting to mitigate it with vague statements that cloud cover, water droplet size, and other climatic factors are unknown. Of course not.
Is it a strong theory. Yes. In an attempt to evaluate the arguments surrounding global warming, I read Hansen's 2009 book, Storms of My Grandchildren, and then this 2008 book by Roy Spencer. The rest of the book is the standard drivel telling us global warming is only a theory, that scientists' motivations may be impure, and such. Again, he fails to mention that some mitigators may turn into drivers. Beyond that, some of his statements appear to me to be intentionally misleading. What "science" he does put forth is that, in some unknown way, meterological phenomena are going to magically keep temperature regulated to some value that happens to be ideal for human habitation.
It could also mean that global warming will be FAR MORE severe than the alarmists suggest, which he conveniently fails to point out. Is it the only possible theory. Probably because, as Hansen points out, the satellite instruments were found to be out of calibration to the extent that the imbalance could be three times larger.Hansen's theory is largely built upon geological evidence, not climate models. This could mean, as he points out, that global warming will be far less severe than the alarmists suggest. Spencer indicates that, as warming proceeds, some climatic drivers may turn into mitigators. Spencer duly spends the majority of Chapter 4, the only chapter out of 10 that addresses global warming theory head-on, attacking climate models. Interesting that the proponents magic accuse the true scientists as employing "pseudo-science."I give the book two stars, as opposed to one, because it convinced me that the Emperor of Man-Made Global Warming Is Minimal has no clothes.
So why is he such a lone wolf among scientists. Spenser is a seemingly lone voice crying out from the cold and he needs to be heard if the debate is to be reasoned, but don't expect to see him on Letterman or the CBS morning show. The main-scream press will not go near him. And he is not a "denier"; he simply says available evidence is inadequate to support the claim that recent temperature changes are anthropogenic or controllable in the future by human effort. And we can all hope that Dr. A more detailed discussion of how modeling is flawed could have help bring yet more proselytes to the side of reason. John Christy are responsible for the system of satellites that monitor global temperature; obviously he is an authority on global climate change and temperature fluctuations. Science magazine has a stated policy of advancing the cause of anthropogenic global climate change; they just will not accept papers to the contrary.The third chapter is perhaps the best in the book.
It explains "How Weather Works" and even though I am a scientist and the text is quite elementary I learned some things. Dr. No matter which side you cheer for in the climate debate you need to read this book. Spencer was a NASA climatologist.
He has written widely, spoken in many venues and has a very engaging website. He and Dr. Dr. Subsequent chapters explain in a similar straightforward fashion "How Global Warming (Allegedly) Works", the religious faith of environmentalism, the economics and politics of global warming, and just how the policies designed to attempt to ameliorate global warming actually hurt the poor by driving up prices and limiting resources.That said the book is not without some major flaws. The shrillest voices are on the side advocating social action and many of them are scientists. This chapter alone is worth the price of the book. He has testified before congress on the subject much to Al Gore's chagrin.
But the second chapter of the book does explain much of the problem. Likewise any discussion of past trends in climate change is practically nonexistent. The global warming debate is heated with emotion and confused by biased science. Spencer simply dismisses those folks who use mathematical models to predict future global warming. While I agree that much of this work is smoke and mirrors lighted by incredible hubris it does drive much of the discussion; we cannot just wave a hand and make the smoke go away. An understanding of the magnitude, direction and rapidity of previous non-anthropogenic climate change is essential to see that any current trends are not unusual, hence impossible to definitively distinguish as anthropogenic.
Climate scientists get funded by governments and they do not get their grants renewed if they claim that everything is really hunky-dory or that climate change is natural. Skeptics will find solace and true believers will find that the situation is a bit more complicated than they might imagine, particularly among the scientific community. His message does not fit their template.Dr. So I guess my main complaint about the book is that there is not more of it. Well for one thing he isn't really, the rest of us just get shouted down or ignored. Likewise such results do not get reported.
And I wish there had been more elaboration, more detail and a bit more complexity throughout the book. Spencer's two upcoming books will address some of those issues that remain confused.
"Climate Confusion" by Roy W. CO2 emissions should not be curbed by government policies, for the costs of such policies in higher fuel costs would exceed their benefits; $ billions could be spent with little effect.In 1988 James Hansen of NASA sounded the global warming alarm, which has for 20 years been amplified by Al Gore and the IPCC with too little opposition. Whereas the models used by the IPCC exhibit positive feedbacks, resulting in alarmist predictions, Spencer and other skeptics think that negative feedbacks predominate, resulting in a moderation, not an amplification, of global warming.It is widely agreed that globally averaged temperatures have risen by about one degree since pre-industrial days.
If the computer simulations have to be "adjusted" to give corrected results for today's climate, how much confidence should be placed in their predictions for the next 100 years.Dr. One important question is how the costs of warming (such as rising sea levels) are likely to compare with the benefits (such as longer growing seasons). SpencerThe focus of this book is on the uncertainties surrounding climate predictions.These are due in part to the extreme complexity of the earth's atmosphere, and in part to the potential for use and abuse of statistics when modeling and interpreting the data.
Beyond that, little can be said with certainty. Spencer identifies clouds as the least well understood factor in global warming predictions. Nobody knows how clouds respond to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Spencer would like market forces to determine what forms of energy are used. In 2005 the Kyoto Protocol went into effect, but it soon became apparent that the threaty obligations would mainly be met by those signatories that had no obligations.
Why can ex-Vice President Gore get his movie and books into establishments of education when they contain no facts.This is an easy to read (at times humorous) book that is written by a real Climatologist who coincidentally worked at NASA with Dr. James Hansen who is not a Climatologist.If you're interested in facts, not something to make a sci-fi movie from, you should pick this book up.Especially, parents and anyone in education who are concerned about the future of the children in their charge so they can be prepared to give real answers to the question of whether or not we should be alarmed by the current uproar over the need to regulate and tax CO2.With so many in Academics blindly following the lead of a what I call "Climate Whores" such as Al Gore and many who will benefit from Cap and Trade legislation you need to be informed aon real facts about weather and how the climate works.
This book rightly raises the issue of how biased and maybe unfounded is the publicity supporting global warming- however the author gives no evidence of where the supporting science contradicts the notion of global warming. The book is mainly aimed at discrediting the motives of global warming (GW) supporters- and he may be right or wrong; some evidence showing where the science contradicts global warming would have been more convincing- but no evidence is presented- for or against GW. So after reading the book I am no further towards any decision. Better to read Climate Extremes- discusses quite a lot of evidence.
|
