A new climate change science book

Heres one for free.By scientists without a political objective.

Climate Change Reconsidered: The Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

 

OWCH! There goes $90 in about a week . . . when I saw this in the table of contents:

Bob Wilson

 

The hardcover sells for about $90 on Amazon
Alternatively, the e-book does not have DRM so I'll guess it can be resold

If a PC'r would like to buy the pdf and resell it to me at half price after a nice read, PM me. I'll expect a clean pdf -- no coffee stains please

Btw, this is the cover of a related book by one of the authors


Half.com: Climate Change Denial : Heads in the Sand by John Cook and Haydn Washington (2011, Paperback)(9781849713368): John Cook: Books


John Cook is the maintainer and owner of the website skepticalscience. I presume he wrote this blurb about himself:

 

I find the headings at the head of the book rather fascinating

Whether the text will be scientific or anti-science depends on how they handle these topics. Given the lack of discipline in the media, my guess is they will handle all of this poorly. If anyone gets a copy let us know.

These topics can only be held as cautionary tales if it is a science book. If it is not 24.4.2 it will talk about the dangers of of what phil jones did, and how politics should not enter science. How it is wrong to keep legitimate views out of journals and to fudge data. It could take the same bent on 24.5 with wuwt and the Virginia attorney general, about fudging data and witch hunts on the other side. That hide the decline was included in conspiracy theories though, makes me think they will give jones a pass, and go red meat politics against the science.

 

Ok,

I've ordered the paper book. After reading, I'll let folks know it is available.

Bob Wilson

 

I really wish one could express some skepticism with the cAGW orthodoxy without being labeled a "denier". That just shuts off scientific discussion.

IMHO as a meteorologist (recently retired from NOAA; still doing consulting work as a CCM), even though some warming may be occurring, "extreme weather" events can't necessarily be attributed to AGW, and I have no faith that climate models can project with any accuracy whatsoever climate conditions decades in the future. I have too much experience with NMP model projections going off the rails on the synoptic scale in a matter of days. So whether these climate changes will result in catastrophe is speculative, even if it can't be ruled out.

 

wxman, would you agree that hurricanes tend to gain intensity when ocean temps are high?

If the ocean temp is increasing, might one expect more time during the year with warm ocean temps?

 

Is the peak huricane season the summer? Huricanes need temperature differentials, while ghg GW theory says the temperature differential between the poles and the equator will decrease. This may move huricanes, but nothing in theory says hotter more.

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale

It takes a significant amount of energy to move a huricane up a catagory. The increased energy predicted by climate change is not enough to move a cat 2 to a cat 3, unless that cat 2 is already almost a cat 3.

We will have higher insurance losses due to huricanes. This is because the number of people building expensive property in zones likely to have huricanes is increasing, as is that property. This property is often close to sea level, which is rising due to global warming, creating situations where storm surges can more easily destroy property. Dealths wont necessarily go up unless evacuation plans don't handle the increased populations moving into harms way.

 

Yes, although other atmospheric conditions are also required, for example weak upper flow, which would be expected in a polar amplification scenario projected by IPCC.

This is also the reason I anticipate organized severe weather to generally decrease in coverage and intensity.

 

You expect warming to decrease severe weather, and not just major hurricane frequency? Can you explain further?

 

ORGANIZED severe wx, e.g., tornadoes, derechos, etc., are primarily driven by shear, i.e., speed and direction of winds above the surface as compared to surface winds. I've seen tornadoes develop in relatively cool ambient conditions (I personally warned on a supercell in the middle of December which turned out to verify an EF2 tornado - surface temps were in the middle 50s). We almost never get tornadoes in the middle of summer, for the very reason you cited for hurricane frequency in the middle of summer.

For hurricanes, WEAK shear is generally required for a strong tropical system to form. It's my understanding that the relatively strong shear over the Atlantic basin has been the primary reason why tropical systems haven't been able to develop much. I'm not really an expert on tropical meteorology, so I can't give much more detail than that.

 

I need to point out a subtlety. While the "Category" is an extremely easy thing to report, the actual extent and distribution of the "defining" winds is what really matters. Let me give two real world examples:

Hurricane Charlie (2004) was a Category 4 that went over some very populated areas like Orlando, but was an extremely tight and compact Hurricane. It was initially tracked to come over Tampa, but turned right early. Virtually no wind was experienced very far from the eye. Certainly nothing much was damaged very far from the eye (but close to the eye was a very different story). It was more like a big, fast moving tornado than a widespread hurricane.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Jeanne (2004) was literally the width of the entire state. When the eye was just about at the western edge of Florida, the highest winds were reported at Daytona Beach. That was surprising. Fortunately, it was lower category hurricane than claimed, but really widespread and slow.

 

I don't mind credible skepticism and you've shown there are credible sources available. Sad to say, too many 'allies' of climate skeptics, the deniers, practice "the ends justifies the means." Amoral behavior by climate deniers weakens the position of climate skeptics, "with friends like these, who needs enemies?"

My reason for getting this book is to gain a freshman's understanding of climate science. Mechanically engineering trained, I still remember steam tables and thermodynamics. The climate looks to be just another heat engine BUT I often don't have technical details about how climatologists look at the earth.

I'm not looking to change careers but an accurate description of the terminology and methods. The table of contents in this book includes thermodynamics, something I can build on. I don't need the parts about dealing with deniers as I've owned a Prius since 2005 and had plenty of practice with hybrid skeptics.

Bob Wilson

 

John Cooks website put up bullshit data adding 4+ degrees to Alleys ice core data.
F'ing liars and now you want to buy his book?
I wonder if his altered ice core graph is included ?
You people are stupid as hell to believe a known liar.
But obviously some of you are not too particular when regarding the truth.

Skeptical Science website is full of LIES | PriusChat

Maybe Dana Cuccinelli will respond to the accusation sometime soon.
Maybe Alley can explain how his data was wrong by 4 + degrees. John Cook obviously thinks Richard C Alley is incompetent.

 

Well I was on the fence about this book:

This is one of the best endorsements for the book and am thinking about buying copies for friends after I get mine.

Bob Wilson