Home/Blog
I sometimes get asked for a concise and accessible summary of my skeptical views on global warming. After a year or more of thinking and writing, my new Kindle book Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People is meant to fill that need.
As a bonus, I guarantee it will be easier to understand than Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Astrophysics for People in a Hurry.
At nearly 32,000 words with 40 high-res illustrations it’s more comprehensive than my previous Kindle books, but still readable in about 2-3 hours. The book is not meant to cover all of the skeptical views out there, but rather everything that I believe is most important to the global warming and energy policy debate. (If people convince me I’ve missed a couple of subjects that need to be addressed, it is easy and fast to update Kindle books.)
Maybe the best way to summarize what is in the book is to list the chapter titles:
Preface
1. Overview of the Reasons for Skepticism
2. The Five Big Questions
3. Skepticism versus Alarmism
4. The Unholy Alliance: Politics and Science
5. How Could 97% of Scientists Be Wrong?
6. What is the Greenhouse Effect?
7. What Causes Temperature Change?
8. The Good News about Increasing CO2
9. The U.N. IPCC Consensus: Government-Funded Biased Science
10. Climate Models Exaggerate Recent Warming
11. Warming since the 1800s Suggests Climate Models are Too Sensitive
12. How the Reliance on IPCC Climate Models Affects You
13. Why is Warming Not Progressing as Predicted?
14. Refuting Common Climate Delusions
Conclusions
That last chapter is where I refute the frequent media claims about worsening heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, weather-related disaster losses, sea level rise, sea ice melt, ice sheet collapse, and ocean acidification.
I consider this my most complete treatment of the subject in one place, with my latest position on a variety of subjects. I have references to some of the latest findings and events of interest — as recent as September 3, 2018. I’ve included hyperlinks where appropriate so that readers can easily investigate my claims for themselves.
I hope you find it entertaining and informative. And, again, I am open to suggestions for material I might have missed… keeping in mind I am not aiming for the most exhaustive treatment of global warming skepticism, but the most effective one.
*******************************************************************************
ALSO: I have updated and expanded my Kindle book Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t be Blamed on Global Warming, with new information and inclusion of Hurricane Florence. This 2nd Edition should go live tonight.
That last chapter is where I refute the frequent media claims about worsening heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, weather-related disaster losses, sea level rise, sea ice melt, ice sheet collapse, and ocean acidification.
Methane and the polar bears are on my hit list. Not having read the book yet, maybe the bears are under sea ice.
But it looks like methane is not covered.
The ridiculous Global Warming Potential statistics currently list methane at 86 times more powerful than CO2 including the feed backs. When the new IPPC Assessment Report comes out that number will increase because the standard used is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 which increases constantly. Sort of like measuring Jello with a rubber yard stick.
Anyway, what isn’t said and you can’t find is how much methane will actually run up global temperature. Some determination of what that actually is might be a useful tidbit of information to include in the book.
CO2 and CH4 forcing:
https://tinyurl.com/y8u5kmyl
I have no idea what you are trying to say with that link.
The link does not seem to work on a mobile.
It referred to the diagram in the History section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#History
You asked about the methane contribution.
For 2016, the table says 0.5 W/m^2 for CH4 and 2 W/m^2 for CO2.
Methane is more manageable because it only lasts about a decade. CO2 lasts for millenia.
svante….”CO2 and CH4 forcing:”
But that’s fiction, I thought Roy’s article was about non-fiction.
steve…”The ridiculous Global Warming Potential statistics currently list methane at 86 times more powerful than CO2 including the feed backs”.
86 x zero = 0.
There are not feedbacks. Positive feedback theory applied to climate models is just plain wrong.
What are you feeding back? It’s not heat since heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. That’s especially true when the surface allegedly warmed GHGs in the atmosphere.
Think about it. GHGs, on average, account for 1% of the atmosphere and their temperatures are equal to or less than the surface. Only 5% or so of surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs yet that 5% is supposed to be able to back-radiate with a positive feedback to raise the temperature of the surface to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar radiation.
Anyone with a university education who believes that needs to return for a refresher course in real physics after having their minds polluted by alarmist pseudo-science.
But you’re still only a ‘skeptic’. Being skeptical implies having doubts about a plausible and/or feasible proposition, i.e. CAGW. This is why we’re likely to lose this in the minds of the public.
Hi Roy.
I’ve got my copy.
Thank you.
Cheers from another Kindle ebook author.
Bob
Bob….
Hey, Bob, keep up the good work. Enjoy reading your insights on climate science.
“Hey, Bob, keep up the good work. Enjoy reading your insights on climate science”.
Applies to Roy as well.
Dr. Spencer, Love the book. Here are a few ideas for your next version.
1) In the GHG Effect Chapter, shine your IR Monitor of a block of Ice. It will register a wavelength shorter than 15 microns. It should be about 10.5.
2) Shine 15 micron LWIR on a block of ice and note that it won’t melt. If 15 microns could melt ice, ice would melt itseft
3) Address controlling for Water Vapor and The Urban Heat Island Effect. Tropopause Ext S Hemi is a great data set to show CO2 doesn’t impact warming
4) Focus on the scientific method. The ice core data you use for the Holocene has a mean and variation. Does the last 150 years of climate data fall 2 std outside the norm?
I’m only about halfway through the book. But one thing basic that seems missing so far is an explanation of the atmosphere being warmed from below i.e. a lot of visible solar energy gets trough unscathed to the surface.
I’ts a different atmosphere for visible and IR.
The link to Amazon says it’s not available.
Is it too early for my conspiracy paranoia to fire up?
You ask for comments about what might be added to your latest book. For me the evidence that it was considerably warmer at times in the past several thousand years, obviously without ending the world, seems more meaningful than climate model failures and current temperature trends or “extreme event” frequency. Melting glaciers in the Alps, Alaska, and elsewhere are uncovering evidence of times warmer than today. The revealed tree lines are higher, such as the recent find in Glacier National Park of the remains of mature trees 250 meters higher up the mountain than such trees grow today.
Also, from what I’ve read, plants and pollens preserved in various European soils and lake bed sediments show that warm climate plants grew much further north than today. Also, there are warming trends revealed in ice cores that were said to be as much as 18 degrees C and that occcured much faster than today’s warming, such as it is. That later is only evidence for warming near the poles but it isn’t likely to have occured in isolation
Is there a non kindle version of the book?
Dr Spencer, here are a few articles that try to focus on the smoking gun, biggest bang for the buck, easy to understand issues. You may want to add some to your next version.
Quantum Physics 101; Why CO2 Cant be Melting the Glaciers and Sea Ice
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/quantum-physics-101-why-co2-cant-be-melting-the-glaciers-and-sea-ice/
Why CO2 is Irrelevant to the Earths Lower Atmosphere; You Cant Absorb More than 100%
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/09/08/why-co2-is-irrelevant-to-the-earths-lower-atmosphere-you-cant-absorb-more-than-100/
Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/
Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/
Michael Manns Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-manns-hockey-stick-rules-out-co2-as-cause-of-global-warming/
TabTest
A B C
123 9999 88888
A B C
123 9999 88888
A B C
123 9999 88888
A B C
123 9999 88888
Roy, very much enjoyed the book and admire enormously the work that you and John Christie do in this field – a real inspiration! A couple of things that you might consider adding.
I think from various WUWT articles, including at least one from Willis Eschenbach (Jan 24, 2017), that the chances of CO2 doubling or more in the future are very remote. There are many projections showing that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will peak at something between 450 ppm and 600 ppm. Willis does the calculation based on the total fossil fuel extraction over this century and agrees with this. In fact, I have a memory (this may not be accurate) that, in an earlier paper, he calculated what would happen if we burnt all the hydrocarbons in the world this century, using AR5 numbers and came up with a similar range. If you agree with this analysis, it is a very powerful argument.
My other suggestion would be to look at longer range timescales. It may be that CO2 is a 21st century problem. That is, lots of fossil fuels burnt this century, not much next as a) we are running out of it and b) new technologies start to take over. Assuming this is right and that the CO2 concentration starts to fall (I am rather confused about how long it stays in the atmosphere, having read different accounts), then ECS does not have any real meaning and it is only TCR we should be worried about between now and 2100. Again, the sensitivity numbers are then much smaller.
I am sure you are perfectly well aware of both these points and would be interested in your views.
Roy usually only responds to the first few messages, so try again when there is a new post.
Total proven fossil fuel reserves may yield 2795 GT C (not CO2) without improvements in extraction technology. Deforestation and cement production is on top of that.
Estimate its impact by entering that number here:
https://tinyurl.com/yb65bxkq
Set CH4 to zero and point along the blue line. Set up to one million years at the bottom.
Do you have plans to publish hard copies of your book?