Customer Reviews

What We Know About Climate Change (Boston Review Books)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Dr. Emanuel does a superb job of separating the wheat from the chaff in this little gem. It's virtually impossible for the average layman to separate conspiracy theory nonsense from fear-mongering reading most books and popular press articles on global warming. But Emanuel presents a sound authoritative analysis of what we really do and don't know.
Unlike many other books on global warming, which bury the reader with a plethora of out-of-context quotes, tables of data, and cherry-picked charts, Emanuel presents just enough solid data for the reader to understand the whole issue.
He covers the philosophic underpinnings of different views, the history of global warming, the science, and finally the politics. When put together in this fashion, readers will educate themselves properly.
Before reading this book, I spent months and months reading peer reviewed scientific journal articles, web-site after web-site, and many popular press articles. Had I read Dr. Emanuel's book sooner I could have obtained the same final position with much less work and time invested.

Be forewarned this is a very small book: 82 pages of text, one B&W figure and no references. On a typical page I counted 120 words. I spotted no typos. I found only one sentence where I thought the physical explanation was muddled. The text could provide an excellent narration to a video documentary. A typical citizen needing to get wise about the physics of global warming might be better served by something more than a book without graphics.

Nevertheless, the book is a very quick read and professionals in this field may still enjoy scouring the pages of this book to find out where Professor Emanuel stands on certain issues. I got my money's worth on page 67 where we can read: "Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well-documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank."

15 of the 82 pages are not Prof. Emanuel's words, but is an "Afterword" provided by other authors. These words carry less authority. For example, the Afterword attributes the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro to global warming, but some recent scientific research implicates land use changes around Kilimanjaro.

The Afterword also lays out a plan to save us from global warming, with a claim that "addressing global warming could be relatively painless". Here is the plan: "the United States and other industrial economies reduce their emissions by three percent per year between now and mid-century" which will ultimately "reduce global emissions by 75 percent or more". Some of the means to do this provide a chuckle: "driving less aggressively". No account is made for global population growth and global ambitions for prosperity.

Emanuel has written an outstanding survey of the difficulty and methodology of doing climate change science. One comes away convinced that something needs to be done, although Emanuel doesn't prescribe solutions. The afterward, by Judith A. Layzer and William R. Moomaw, is a pallid letdown after the concise and perceptive work of Emanuel. The backgrounds of Layzer and Moomaw are omitted, unforgivable in the context of the discussion. (Layzer is is Associate Professor of Environmental Policy in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT and Moomaw is Professor of International Environmental Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at Tufts). They are guilty of the academic bias that Emanuel talks of and contribute nothing to the issue. What a shame to sully an otherwise useful book with such irrelevance! Five stars for Emanuel's work. One star, at best, for the afterward. I worked as an experimental physicist before retirement and have been appalled by the lack of scientific acumen exhibited by politicians, the public, and some of the scientific community. I'll give this book to friends with a disclaimer about the afterward.

The author, Kerry Emanual, is knowledgeable, fair, and his view balanced. However, it is so brief that the primary contents of this book would make a good article in a popular magazine which can be read in 1/2 hr. I would have liked to see more quantitative, in-depth information. The book is then padded with brief afterward advocacy articles which gives the usual simplistic platitudes and exaggerations typical of those given by amateur ``environmentalists" in the popular media. In my opinion they diminish the sense of level headed discussion in Emanual's article.

This very short book explains the science of climate in simple and concise terms so that nearly anyone can understand it. In doing so, the author explains the tremendous uncertainties involved and that certainty is in fact impossible due to chaos theory. This may be embraced by deniers who scoff at GW. But it may also go the other way...GW may in fact turn out to be far more dangerous than currently thought. The author alludes to the possibility of a "tipping point" where the climate could abruptly change at the end of ch5.

Unfortunately, Emanuel discusses very little of the controversy. The book needs another chapter to address this, including the "infamous" hockey stick (which is the only figure in the entire book). More specifically, the author should refute some of the silly arguements against GW, and also acknowledge where there is genuine controversy. (Check out skepticalscience.com for a free pdf which does the first part.) The afterword, which calls for CO2 cuts, also doesn't fit with the rest of the book. Finally, the book is way too expensive given its length. In fact, as a public service, I think it should be a free pdf. But even so, it's well worth reading.

Bottom line (my soapbox): the best science we have today says that climate change will likely be a big problem. Granted, this science relies heavily on computer simulation so it may turn out to be wrong. (There are simply too many variables in the immense feedback mechanisms responsible for our global climate. And there are important mechanisms such as cloud formation which are poorly understood.) However, given how apocalyptic the worst-case scenarios are- you would think the obvious thing to do would be to "hope for the best but plan for the worst". So the response of both the right and left to this issue is truly bewildering.

The left demands immediate action to cut CO2 emissions without acknowledging the likely severe economic impact- and the possibility that it could be all for nought- either because climate change will be largely benign (TBD)- or because it's been greatly underestimated and in fact, it's too late to avoid catastrophe because the damage has already been done. (CO2 emissions can stay in the upper atmosphere for centuries.) The right chooses to deny even the possibility of a problem- and to accuse climate scientists of liberal bias and alarmism . Both sides choose to scream at each other- and in effect, the right has won because the net effect is inaction.

In my opinion both sides are wrong and we need a 3rd option: "geo-engineering" which is potentially the best solution because it can remove CO2 already in the atmosphere.

The left frowns upon geo-engineering because they fear it'll distract from their main focus which is cutting CO2 emissions. (This is because they blame a lot of the evils on the world on greedy oil companies and they think geo-engineering is "unnatural".) As for the right, they should ask themselves what they'll do if they're wrong about climate change- "oops" isn't going to cut it.

Given the high stakes, we better have a backup plan. There are numerous potential geo-engineering solutions- some of which are rather low-tech and cost-effective (e.g. modest agricultural changes can have a major impact on CO2 levels per a recent Discover magazine article). It's actually possible that solving climate change may turn out to be a simple problem after all. Now wouldn't that be the best outcome?

As books go, this one is very short. That, however, is one of it's strengths. By leaving out the details of climate change, which one can find in many other books and reports, and focusing instead on a synthesis of our current knowledge of climate science, Dr. Emanuel has written an extremely useful summary.

I have read many books on global warming, climate change, or, to use the term that I prefer, Climaticide. This volume is one of the most useful for the non-scientist because it presents all the major concepts in a concise, clearly written, yet comprehensive account.

In the first five chapters Dr. Emanuel informs us about two competing views of nature and climate, the physics of greenhouse gases, how we know that climate change is occurring, what the role of humans in causing current climate change is, and what the probable consequences are. Each o these chapters are small gems of exposition and explanation.

Chapter six, which is about the relationship between science and the media, is less useful, probably because it is more political and the author is trying so hard to be evenhanded. The results of this attempt at a balanced description is actually to distort somewhat the history he is recounting.

In attempting to explain why the public still thinks that there is a scientific controversy over the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change, Emanuel points out that "...a dwindling number of deniers [are] constantly tapped for interviews by journalists who pretend to look for balance. Unfortunately, he then does the same thing himself writing that "On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings to galvanize an apathetic public...". This is an awkward statement by a normally deft stylist, and one is left wondering which, if any, scientists made this "argument".

Chapter seven on "The Politics of Global Climate Change" contains some equally odd attempts at balance. For example, there is a very irrelevant reference to Senator Ted Kennedy's NIMBY opposition to offshore windmills. The afterward by Judith A Layzer and Willia R. Moomaw presents a much more accurate depiction of the current political complexities involved in stopping Climaticide.

The weaknesses that I mention do not affect the book's overall value. The first five chapters alone make it worth owning and, as I think you will find, it can be profitably reread many times.

If you don't have a lot of time, but want to understand what are the main ideas about climate change, this book is for you. It has only 85 pages total, and the pages are small (like a 4x6" index card) making it a very quick read.

Most of the book, up to page 64, is about the science. Emanuel explains in a very clear and logical way what physics goes into the climate models. Those models are very important tools for deducing whether or not humans are responsible for warming. Also, the models are used to predict the future temperature. Emanuel explains several sources of uncertainty, like whether water vapor is a negative or positive feedback (one of the main controversies), the issue of clouds, and the problem of predicting the behaviour of a chaotic system.

There is one figure on page 45 and it is essential: it shows how well the models do at predicting data, which gives the reader an idea of how confidently we can say man-made warming is occuring and how much "faith" to put in the models for predicting the warming trend in the future.

I liked the summary near the end (page 60-63) listing what is known, breaking it into two lists: findings that are not in dispute and findings which most climate scientists agree with but that are disputed by some.

Pages 65-85 discusses the politics and some ideas for averting man-made climate change.

If you have more time, you may try to read the longer book by Dessler and Parson, which I also reviewed.

The book is small, but has all the information most people will ever need in terms of understanding the rationale behind climate change science. Well recommended.

Excellent, not too wordy, overview of peer-reviewed data.

"The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--most dramatically since the 1970s. In February 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human-produced carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are chiefly to blame, to a certainty of more than 90 percent. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus. In What We Know About Climate Change, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel outlines the basic science of global warming and how the current consensus has emerged. Although it is impossible to predict exactly when the most dramatic effects of global warming will be felt, he argues, we can be confident that we face real dangers. Emanuel, whose work was widely cited in media coverage of Hurricane Katrina, warns that global warming will contribute to an increase in the intensity and power of hurricanes and flooding and more rapidly advancing deserts. But just as our actions have created the looming crisis, so too might they avert it. Emanuel calls for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gases and criticizes the media for playing down the dangers of global warming (and, in search of "balance," quoting extremists who deny its existence). An afterword by environmental policy experts Judith Layzer and William Moomaw discusses how the United States could lead the way in the policy changes required to deal with global warming."

Kerry Emanuel is one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, a professor of atmospheric science in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT. In this *excellent* little book he describes the basics of our scientific knowledge in the area of climate change, without succumbing to the temptation of presenting a heated polemic that so often accompanies this topic. Rather, he straightforwardly describes the science -- noting its complexity and not under- or over-stating its uncertainties. What's left is a truly informative look at the current state of our understanding and the firm belief that continued study will refine our knowledge.