Book review - final impression - The CIG to Global Warming

Here's part two of my review of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Global Warming by Michael Tennesen.

This probably won't be as thorough as I'd normally like, but I've picked up a nasty cold and my head space is pretty foggy because of it. :-P I apologize now if I go off on a confused ramble...

First off, I've had it verified that one of the things that bugged me about the book - that it seemed to "talk down" to the reader - is in fact a format of the Idiot's Guide series. So I made the effort basically ignore that, which made it easier to read.

After my initial response to the forwards in my first impressions review, I was pleasantly surprised at the rest of the book. It was a lot more evenhanded than I had started to expect it to be.

The age of the book (copyright 2004) was both a positive and negative. On the negative side, some of the information is longer up to date - specifically anything from the 2001 IPCC report, which is the only one referred to, and the claim that of the 10 hottest years on record, most occurred in the 1990's, which was corrected well after this book was published. On the positive side, the only mention of Al Gore was in his role as vice-president, and there's no hysterical mentions of Hurricane Katrine. Other hurricanes are mentioned, but since they all happened at least a few years before the book was published, they're not in the forefront.

The book does a decent job of explaining the mechanisms behind various climactic events and the history of Earth's climate, as well as we know it. The event that gets the most space is El Nino. Unfortunately, the author has a habit of throwing in rhetorical questions after describing some major climactic event (hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever...), along the lines of "how much worse will it be in a warmer world?"

There were a number of contradictions, as well. For example, the author would go on about how incredibly complex climate is, that we are just beginning to understand it, and that there are many things we still don't know. He'd then go back to talking about CO2, as if 1) it where the only thing that drives climate and 2) as if climate was actually simple, and that we understood it completely.

Another area where of contradiction is with computer models. After going on about how difficult it is for a computer to model climate, not only because we don't know what all to put in, but no computer is powerful enough to include what we *do* know, etc., he then goes on to put complete faith in what the computer models predict.

When it comes to the CO2 numbers, he only talks about how CO2 levels have never been lower than 200ppm or higher than 280ppm until the industrial revolution (which he conveniently backs up to when it started 150 years ago in England, rather than when it had spread to significant portions of the world and was actually large enough to be considered). He then talks about current (to 2003) levels and the doubling expected (560ppm). It turns out that when he says CO2 levels have never been lower/higher than 200/280ppm, he actually means the last 10,000 years. I found that interesting, since he talks about the Younger Dryas (which ended about 11,500 years ago), during which temperatures suddenly dropped, then ended with temperatures increasing and estimated 8C in about 10 years, but never mentions what the CO2 levels are believed to have been during that period. (The best I've been able to find, by the way, is that it was <200ppm). class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">handbasket. Sure, he does use words like "could" and "might," but then switches to "will" rather quickly. There isn't much room for doubt in how these predictions are described, that these are things we're supposed to expect to happen. He spent a great deal of time describing the disastrous effects following the 1997/98 El Nino (I remember 1998, and I don't remember it being that bad!), then goes on to suggest a future where our climate is like that all the time.

What really got me, though, were the odd statements he'd throw in. For example, at one point he write that, sure, the medieval warming period was good for some areas, but it allowed Vikings to rape and pillage the coastlines of Europe. ???

Eventually, the book started to talk about the cure - what we can do to stop global warming. There's the usual stuff that we individuals can do - make our homes more energy efficient, use alternate forms of transportation, recycle, and so on. Then he talks about alternate energy sources, such as solar, wind, water, even fuel cells and nuclear power get mentioned.

In the end, I found the book to be both informative and frustrating. The lack of references to back up statements are my usual pet peeve, of course. The contradictions and lack of solid information rather than blanket statements are a problem.

The main reason I would NOT recommend this book, however, is that it is (dare I say it!) obsolete. While the basic information about things like how different weather systems work still apply, and I would recommend it as a backgrounder, there are too many key points that have been refuted for this book to be a decision maker.

What's really in the report

This article talks about the difference between what's being reported about the latest IPCC summary report - and what it actually says.

IPCC: separating fact from fright.

...

What the IPCC reports actually talk about are the more prosaic problems of water supply, agricultural production, disease, extreme weather events and flooding: all of these are already-existing problems, and all of them are potentially resolvable through relatively simple societal and technological developments.

Yet rather than discussing the need for more development, and a concerted global strategy to tackle social problems as they exist right now – not just in 100 years time – all of the attention and energy of political leaders is being focused on how we can stop producing so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

.

Food for thought, as well as plants...

CARBON IS THE WORLD'S BEST FRIEND
By David Bellamy and Jack Barrett


...

Carbon dioxide is not the dreaded greenhouse gas that the global warmers crack it up to be. It is in fact the most important airborne fertiliser in the world and without it there would be no green plants at all. In fact, a doubling of the levels of this gas in the atmosphere would bring about a marked rise in plant production -- good news for everyone, especially those malnourished millions who can't afford chemical fertilisers. Perhaps the time is ripe to really start worrying (again) about the fact that for the last 200 million years the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been falling. Indeed it dropped to dangerously low levels during recent ice ages. The Plant Kingdom responded to this potentially catastrophic (no carbon no food) situation by producing the so-called C4 plants that can survive low CO2 by using sunlight more efficiently.

Please talk to your plants -- and as you do, rest assured that they in effect will thank you, by recycling your waste carbon dioxide to make more plant material and return oxygen to the earth's atmosphere.

Another first impressions book review

Obligatory disclaimer...


I'm trying to alternate my reading between pro- and con-AGW views. I like to look at both sides of issues and come to my own conclusions. After having to rush through my comparatively short and incomplete review of the last book before returning it to the library, I wanted to make sure I don't fall behind again.

This time, I'm working on The Complete Idiot's Guide to Global Warming, from Michael Tennesen. (Passages quoted from the book will be in red italics.) This is a first impressions review only - I haven't finished the book. I'll be basing this review only on the forward, introduction, and back-of-the-book references. Although I'm about half way through the book itself, I won't touch that content until I post my final review.

The copyright for this book is 2004 (it took me a while to find that), so I would guess that the information in it is up to date to late 2003, perhaps early 2004. As such, I know that some of the information in there may not be accurate anymore, as our knowledge and technical abilities have increased. I expect that this will be only a small issue, though.

To begin, I have to say that this is my first exposure to any of the Idiot's Guide books. I'm thinking that the basic premise (that the readers are idiots??) is why, right from the start, I felt like I was being talked down to. The book actually starts on the inside cover with a letter to the reader, where it explains what the book is going to be about. Just in case the title, bullet points and quotes on the cover weren't quite enough, I guess. [scratches head] Why the book has two sets of contents ("Contents at a Glance" followed by "Contents"), I'm not sure. Part of the Idiot's Guide format?

The forward is written by two people. Stephen H. Schneider and Michael D. Mastrandrea. At first, I had some encouragement that there would be a level of scientific balance as, in the first paragraph, they write:

"...it is those who make knee-jerk, black-or-white statements about climate change is either "good for you" or the "end of the world" who are the real idiots, not basing their assertions on the full spectrum of scientific knowledge and understanding."

Unfortunately, that's about as balanced as it gets, as the writers later go on to to bemoan that, while it's appropriate for journalists to report "both sides" in other areas...

"In science, it's different. ... when reports present arguments for and against the existence of global warming, they are often giving equal voice to a mainstream, well-established consensus and the opposing views of a few extremists. To the uninformed, each position seems equally credible - after all, each claimant has a Ph.D. But you, the reader of this guide, will quickly see that these falsely dichotomous debates do not pit equally credible sides against each other. That is, although some "experts" and many politicians - especially in the United states, those affiliated with the fossil fuel industry or big car companies - assert that human-induced emissions have little impact on the climate, the vast bulk of those truly knowledgeable about climate change and its potential impacts are convinced there is overwhelming evidence for global warming and legitimate reason for concern. With this book you will have the facts to understand these concerns, and to better decide for yourselves who the real "idiots" are."

Wow. In a single paragraph, the writers say that...

• when it comes to science, the media shouldn't show "both sides" of an issue.
• that "both sides" refers to the existence of global warming, not the facts surrounding global climate in general (the "skeptics," by the way, aren't arguing whether or not there has been global warming. It's one of the few points both sides agree on. Not according to these two, it seems.)
• that when they do, the pro-AGW people are all part of the "mainstream, well-established consensus," but everyone else is just an extremist.
• that these debates are "falsely dichotomous."
• claims that only one side is credible - it's pretty obvious which side they mean.
• by putting "experts" for the other side in quotations, they imply that these "experts" are anything but. I find it funny that they include politicians on that side of things, what with Al Gore being the consummate politician, and very much in the AGW camp.
• blatantly insinuates that people who disagree with AGW are in the pay of some evil emp... er... industry, while equally implying that AGE proponents aren't in the pay of any special interest groups at all, which is absolute hooey...
  
• while only those "truly knowledgeable" are on the AGW side of things, implying that anyone who disagrees can't possibly be "truly knowledgeable."
• and finally, those who disagree with AGW are the true "idiots."

Wow. All that in just a few sentences. That was truly impressive!

So who are these two? Bios for both of them are conveniently included under the forward. Both have a substantial list of achievements (strangely, actual credentials are not mentioned - are they Ph.D's, too? It doesn't say.). Among them, Schneider is described as "active in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," and consultant to presidents. Mastrandrea, among other things, is a researcher, including "intergrated assessment modeling of the climate and economy as a tool for international and domestic climate policy analiysis, forecasting the impacts of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle... as a policymaking tool and analyzing the effects of global climate change on the world ecosystems."

Which looks to me like both their jobs rely on AGW being a big problem and, as such, might be just a touch biased. :-P Well, I wouldn't expect otherwise under the circumstances. We all have our biases, whether we admit to them or not.

Next is the Introduction, with includes "what you'll learn in the book","Extras","Acknowledgments","Special thanks to the technical reviewer", and "Trademarks."

Right from the start, the author is pretty clear on the book's basic premise - that global warming is a problem, CO2 is causing it, and it's our fault. The author does at least state that there is controversy over some things. He then mentions the IPCC predictions that CO2 increases will cause the earth's temperature to increase between 2.5F to 10.4F (1.4C to 5.8C) within this century.

At this point, I became curious about sources and dates, because I know that the IPCC has since lowered that prediction and, in their last report (not the summary of all reports that just got released), they admitted that temperatures haven't actually increased since 1998. That's when I skipped to the back.

Now, I have to admit I came to this book with certain expectations. One of those was that, unlike the last pro-AGW book (first impressions, final impression) I read, this one would be able to dedicate space to references and bibliographies. So I was surprised when I flipped to the back of the book and didn't find any at all!

This is what I did find.

Appendix A is a list of "Concerned Organizations."
Appendix B is "Further Reading," which includes "Books on Climate and Climate Change," (while some appear to be generic, others seems to be pro-AGW, which is to be expected) "Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)," (only 2001 is mentioned, 3 titles), "Field Guides," (3 titles, seem to be generic), and finally, "Books on the Environment," (while a couple of titles seem generic, most seem to be of the disaster variety).
Appendix C is the glossary.
Then there's the Index.

No references. No bibliography. So on what basis is the reader to believe in the accuracy and research behind this book?

It turns out the answer to that is back in the Introduction.

After listing what the reader will learn in the 6 parts of the books (again - is this an Idiot's Guide format? Because I've never countered this sort of thing before), and a description of the Extras - text boxes scattered throughout the book under 4 headings, Climatoids, Warm Words, Hot Debates and "Caution" Global Warnings (the word caution is in a drawing of a sign).

In the Acknowledgments, the author mentions and thanks "all the people that helped me assemble the facts for this book," followed by a list of names and titles, then mention of many others too numerous to list.

Finally, there's the Special Thanks to the Technical Reviewer. It turns out that one person - "an expert who double-checked the accuracy of what you'll learn here..." is our guarantee, a David Reusch. No mention of who he is or why he is so eminintly qualified to replace any references, research papers, etc. A quick search shows me that he's with the EMS Earth and Environmental Sciences Institute with Penn. State University. His role as technical writer for this book is included on the list of accomplishments in his online CV. He does seem to be quite accomplished, and more than competent to be the tech writer for this book. I just would really prefer to see references and footnotes to actual research, etc.

So my first impression of this book is one of cautious skepticism. The lack of references in a book of this scope really bothers me (can you tell? *L*). While there seems to be a token effort towards balance, it's clear without even reading the book itself that there's only one conclusion the author intends for the reader to reach, even while claiming some sort of middle ground, and its purpose to be helping the reader reach their own conclusions based on facts. It's a contradiction, and one I find off-putting.



.

What can I say...

... to a story like this?

Green hero slammed as climate heretic

The conclusion (second page)

David Bellamy has come full circle in his four-decade-long career as an environmental activist. In the 1960s, before the era of environmental activism, his was a lonely voice decrying environmental damage by an official establishment insensitive to any view but its own, and dedicated to the conventional wisdom of the times.

He then became an exemplar of the establishment, and helped make the environment a feature of the establishment as well. Now his is a lonely voice once more, again on the outs with an insensitive officialdom. The one constant throughout the decades: Prof. Bellamy's relentlessness in his fight for what he believes to be right.



What an amazing story. And AGW proponents wonder why people are increasingly having a hard time taking them seriously!

In the news

Obligatory disclaimer...

A selection of interesting articles.


NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Linzen Says Chill Out

Polar bears in danger? Is this some kind of joke?

The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change. (pdf)

Despite predictions, sky is not falling

Know The Past And You Understand The Future. (pdf)


.

Just playing around

Hmm... this is a lot smaller on here that I meant it to be. Click on the image for the full size.

I was just playing around on my Paint Shop Pro. I made a picture tube using scanned images of famous diamonds, then came up with this. I think it turned out ok.


update: this is weird. The graphic disappeared some time after I posted it, even though it was working fine before. I've got it back again and hopefully it'll stay this time.


.