315 of 380 people found the following review helpful
Clouds, Feedbacks, Exposing Overstated Sensitivity, and Perhaps the PDO,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists (Hardcover)
A truly excellent book. Spencer calls attention to three things we all SHOULD HAVE figured out for ourselves. And it is a book about the science, not at all about the leaked emails (which other books have handled very well).
First, Spencer makes a powerful case for the heretofore largely understated role of clouds. Second, his presentation of material on the feedbacks was outstanding. I had never seen the distinction between amplification of forcings, and true positive feedbacks (in the run-away sense), made. Thirdly, his notion that choosing the wrong (weaker) forcing element for a given warming can result in a large overestimation of sensitivity is clearly right. Every physicist or engineer KNOWS these things, but we may not THINK about them. Luckily we have Spencer to remind us that we do know them.
As for the PDO as a major driver, the evidence Spencer shows is very interesting and well-presented, and is clearly much much better that a CO2 explanation. (To just say it is a better explanation that CO2 would do it an injustice.) The book makes the point that there are indeed many strong sources of internal variability. The so-called "consensus" in concentrating on a flawed, politically popular view (man-made CO2), is certainly effectively impeding progress toward a more rational understanding of the scientific puzzle.
A second excellent book by Dr. Spencer - for the layman (or scientist!) who still thinks.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 45 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 18, 2010 11:29:23 AM PDT
Climate Confusion was excellent. This review was helpful.
Posted on Apr 23, 2010 10:20:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2010 12:24:03 PM PDT
Blunder? Does Spencer mean himself?
"The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, Christy and Spencer, conceded yesterday that they made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming too small to be a concern".
What a relief.
source: NYT "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data" by Andrew Revkin, Aug 12, 2005
One of my favorite parts of Spencer's latest garbage: "I don't care where our energy comes from". Now there's a real "thinking man" scientist for you. We just lost coal miners slaving in one of the deadliest jobs in America, men were left dead from a recent oil rig explosion, the environment and watersheds in Appalachia have been laid to waste from mountain top coal removal, we import so much Middle East oil that it's now a security threat, and the thinking man, Spencer, could care less.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2010 2:37:50 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 23, 2010 9:55:08 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2010 2:54:01 PM PDT
Posted on Apr 23, 2010 3:24:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2010 3:25:58 PM PDT
Now, while Hutchins goes back to the book, fails to apologize for making stupid claims about where I got my quote from, and attempts to clean up after himself, I would highly recommend that Amazonians google critiques of Roy Spencer's work and research some of the issues with his methods. I think it's only rational and reasonable that a debate takes place rather than the usual smear campaign and ad hominem BS that transpires here on Amazon. Good luck with your homework!
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2010 3:38:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 23, 2010 9:55:48 PM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2010 3:52:24 PM PDT
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2010 8:55:02 PM PDT
Why do you care where your energy comes from? Do you mean to say, you care about any deleterious effects from obtaining our energy in a particular way? That's not the same thing.
I'm very concerned about the effects of windmills on rare large birds. And, I am concerned about the poisonous chemicals like SiCl4 required in the manufacture of solar arrays, which have severely polluted significant regions in China, and of heavy metals used in the manufacture of batteries, not to mention mercury in CFLs. Are you the typical monomaniacal "environmentalist" whose concern begins and ends with oil, and cannot grasp that there are costs as well as benefits to any method of energy extraction?
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2010 8:59:28 PM PDT
If we can do without oil now, as you clearly believe, why cannot we do without it later, after we have extracted all of the benefit of a readily available resource? Your concern here is incoherent.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2010 9:01:32 PM PDT
"I would highly recommend that Amazonians google critiques of Roy Spencer's work and research some of the issues with his methods. I think it's only rational and reasonable that a debate takes place rather than the usual smear campaign and ad hominem BS ..."
I would guess the word "irony" is not in your dictionary.