What do you think?
Rate this book
What We Know about Climate Change, updated edition
An updated edition of a guide to the basic science of climate change, and a call to action. The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere—most dramatically since the 1970s. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus.Ìý
In this updated edition of his authoritative book, 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.ÌýEmanuel 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 downplaying the dangers of global warming (and, in search of “balance,â€� quoting extremists who deny its existence).Ìý This edition has been updated to include the latest climate data, a discussion of the earth's carbon cycle, the warming hiatus of the first decade of this century, the 2017 hurricanes, advanced energy options, the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and more. It offers a new foreword by former U.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), who now works on climate action through his organization RepublicEN.
In this updated edition of his authoritative book, 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.ÌýEmanuel 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 downplaying the dangers of global warming (and, in search of “balance,â€� quoting extremists who deny its existence).Ìý This edition has been updated to include the latest climate data, a discussion of the earth's carbon cycle, the warming hiatus of the first decade of this century, the 2017 hurricanes, advanced energy options, the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and more. It offers a new foreword by former U.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC), who now works on climate action through his organization RepublicEN.
84 pages, Paperback
First published August 31, 2007
57 people are currently reading
1,297 people want to read
About the author
Kerry Emanuel
10Ìýbooks6ÌýfollowersKerry Emanuel is an American atmospheric scientist and professor of meteorology at MIT, known for his work on hurricane dynamics and climate change. He gained attention for proposing the concept of the "hypercane," a theoretical super-hurricane driven by extreme ocean warming. His research suggests global warming may increase storm intensity but reduce their frequency. Emanuel co-founded the MIT Lorenz Center to advance climate science. A vocal advocate for climate action, he has also supported the role of nuclear energy in reducing carbon emissions. In 2006, Time named him one of the world’s 100 most influential people. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and a Foreign Member of the Royal Society.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
February 18, 2020
Közismert tény, hogy rohadt sok könyv van. Ennek nem kalkulált következménye, hogy rohadt sok könyv van, amit â€� akármilyen tempót is diktál az ember â€� nem fogunk soha a büdös életben elolvasni. A baj az, hogy számos téma van, amirÅ‘l viszont marha fontos lenne legalább egy könyvet elolvasni, de egyszerűen nem jut rájuk idÅ‘. Szeretnék például többet tudni a kvantumfizikáról, de sajnos kénytelen voltam a kárára más irányba kibÅ‘vÃteni az olvasmánylistámat â€� Ãgy jártál, kvantumfizika. Viszont a klÃmaváltozás olyan esemény, amirÅ‘l mindképpen jó volna valamilyen releváns, megbÃzható információhoz jutni, ami túlmutat az internet által nyújtott kétes bizonyosságokon, tehát aranyat érne egy 96 oldalas kis könyvecske mondjuk az MIT professzorától, egy helyes picike kis izé, ami a farzsebben is elfér.
És lőn.
Kerry Emanuel kötetérÅ‘l olyan sok mindent nem akarok mondani, hisz pontosan az, amit a cÃme Ãgér. Tudományos igénnyel, de röviden és felfoghatóan össze van szedve benne, mi is az a klÃmaváltozás, mérései során milyen bizonytalanságokkal kell megküzdenünk*, illetve hogy milyen következményei lehetnek. No meg hogy mit lehet tenni ellene. Kábé annyi, amennyit mindenkinek illik tudni egy olyan dologról, ami â€� lehet â€� az unokái életét döntÅ‘en befolyásolni fogja. És hát tényleg gyorsan el lehet olvasni. Még megfelelÅ‘ figyelemmel, meg-megállva is elkészültem vele egyetlen (bár a szokásosnál sajnos eseménytelenebb) könyvesbolti délutánon. Igaz, egy könyvesbolti délutánt egyes feletteseim szerint biztos máshogy kellett volna felhasználni. De â€� mondom én erre â€� mi lehet hasznosabb idÅ‘töltés, mint egy klÃmaváltozással kapcsolatos könyv elolvasása?
* Azt, hogy a tudomány â€� a próféciákkal ellentétben â€� mindig kicsit bizonytalan saját állÃtásait illetÅ‘en, fontos tudni. Hisz pont ez az, amit a klÃmaszkeptikusok felhasználnak ellene: megfognak egy ilyen bizonytalanságot, egy eltérést két mérés között, vagy egy rivális teóriát hirdetÅ‘ tudóst, és úgy mutatják be mint határozott cáfolatot. Pedig csak â€� ismétlem â€� természetes bizonytalanságról van szó.
És lőn.
Kerry Emanuel kötetérÅ‘l olyan sok mindent nem akarok mondani, hisz pontosan az, amit a cÃme Ãgér. Tudományos igénnyel, de röviden és felfoghatóan össze van szedve benne, mi is az a klÃmaváltozás, mérései során milyen bizonytalanságokkal kell megküzdenünk*, illetve hogy milyen következményei lehetnek. No meg hogy mit lehet tenni ellene. Kábé annyi, amennyit mindenkinek illik tudni egy olyan dologról, ami â€� lehet â€� az unokái életét döntÅ‘en befolyásolni fogja. És hát tényleg gyorsan el lehet olvasni. Még megfelelÅ‘ figyelemmel, meg-megállva is elkészültem vele egyetlen (bár a szokásosnál sajnos eseménytelenebb) könyvesbolti délutánon. Igaz, egy könyvesbolti délutánt egyes feletteseim szerint biztos máshogy kellett volna felhasználni. De â€� mondom én erre â€� mi lehet hasznosabb idÅ‘töltés, mint egy klÃmaváltozással kapcsolatos könyv elolvasása?
* Azt, hogy a tudomány â€� a próféciákkal ellentétben â€� mindig kicsit bizonytalan saját állÃtásait illetÅ‘en, fontos tudni. Hisz pont ez az, amit a klÃmaszkeptikusok felhasználnak ellene: megfognak egy ilyen bizonytalanságot, egy eltérést két mérés között, vagy egy rivális teóriát hirdetÅ‘ tudóst, és úgy mutatják be mint határozott cáfolatot. Pedig csak â€� ismétlem â€� természetes bizonytalanságról van szó.
July 6, 2020
Remek gyorstalpaló ez a kis könyvecske, ha valaki a tudomány álláspontjára kÃváncsi a klÃmaváltozást illetÅ‘en. Direkt nem azt Ãrom, hogy a tényekre, hiszen a klÃma egy annyira komplex rendszer, hogy csuda (szinte átláthatatlan). Ahogy az is, hogy ilyen közérthetÅ‘en, tömbösÃtve összegyűjtötte a szerzÅ‘ a tudnivalókat. Külön tetszettek a társadalomfilozófiai fejtegetések. A kötet elsÅ‘ kiadása 2007-es. Jó, hogy Magyarországra is eljutott.
February 15, 2021
SzélsÅ‘ségektÅ‘l mentes, sokoldalú és közérthetÅ‘ tájékoztatás a klÃmaváltozásról. Olvasd el, ha megalapozott érvekre van szükséged szkeptikus barátaid meggyÅ‘zéséhez.
June 16, 2008
A decent though overly scientific and academic treatment of the current state of climate science for a popular audience. Emmanuel spends too much time trying to "look balanced" by, for instance, blaming environmentalists for global warming because they oppose nuclear power.
This is odd because the authors of the book's afterword write soonafter that"In deciding which technologies and behaviors to encourage, we will need to depart from our past practice of treating each remedy in isolation and instead think at a systems level...although some commentators have touted nuclear energy as a straightforward solution to global warming, no one has yet developed a credible plan for storing highly radioactive waste or dealing with the very real threats of natural disasters, technological failure, or the use of nuclear technology by terrorists or hostile states."I wonder if Emmanuel even read this afterword...
Anyway, this book's main problem is that in aiming for brevity and simplicity it is still too dense and jargony and it does not include the main thing one would want from a book of this type - the answer to the questions "ok, so what does all this mean?" and "What are the likely impacts and what can be done?"
In suggesting better alternatives, the best climate overviews I have yet read are all by either Bill McKibben or Simon Retallack.
This is odd because the authors of the book's afterword write soonafter that"In deciding which technologies and behaviors to encourage, we will need to depart from our past practice of treating each remedy in isolation and instead think at a systems level...although some commentators have touted nuclear energy as a straightforward solution to global warming, no one has yet developed a credible plan for storing highly radioactive waste or dealing with the very real threats of natural disasters, technological failure, or the use of nuclear technology by terrorists or hostile states."I wonder if Emmanuel even read this afterword...
Anyway, this book's main problem is that in aiming for brevity and simplicity it is still too dense and jargony and it does not include the main thing one would want from a book of this type - the answer to the questions "ok, so what does all this mean?" and "What are the likely impacts and what can be done?"
In suggesting better alternatives, the best climate overviews I have yet read are all by either Bill McKibben or Simon Retallack.
August 10, 2011
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.
January 8, 2019
Everyone knows someone who is a climate denier. This book is perfect. It removes the politics, says what we know and what we don’t know. And addresses the shortcomings of renewable energy at present, meaning that any climate change denier reading the book will not be able to say that it is pushing an agenda.
Short, clear and in simple language that helps the reader understand difficult scientific and economic concepts.
Only downside is measurements are in °F
Short, clear and in simple language that helps the reader understand difficult scientific and economic concepts.
Only downside is measurements are in °F
October 29, 2015
Really great resource for understanding cause and possible impacts of climate change. Best book I've read in the subject.
March 1, 2016
A concise and balanced summary.
January 28, 2023
This book - or maybe I should say pamphlet - is a concise explanation of the basic forces driving climate change, why to believe it’s caused by humans, why to be concerned about it, and what, at a high level, can be done. I appreciate its focus and its avoidance of political and moral invective. (That its foreword was written by the director of Republican environmentalist group is a hint that it's making an effort to sidestep political tribalism.)
The greenhouse effect, as I understand it based on the book, works like this:
- the sun emits a lot of shortwave radiation
- Earth's atmosphere doesn't absorb much shortwave radiation, so it reaches the surface
- the surface emits infrared radiation in response
- greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ("water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and several others") do "absorb much of the long-wavelength, infrared radiation that passes through them" and emit some radiation back toward the surface in response
Unlike water vapor, CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, so an increase in it means a lasting increase in the amount of radiation being sent back to the surface. Emanuel notes that way back in 1906 Svante Arrhenius "had calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 would raise the earth's surface temperature by about 4°C, a number well within contemporary estimates of 2-4.5°C per doubling of CO2". In the subsequent 115 years, CO2 levels and temperatures have risen, and in proportions consistent with that prediction.
Emanuel discusses various obstacles to precisely predicting future temperatures. He says "the largest source of uncertainty" is the difficulty of modeling cloud formation. There's also "chaotic natural variability ... often referred to as 'climate noise.'":
Even though computer simulations involve a great deal of uncertainty, Emanuel notes that simulations "using many different climate models" show that you "cannot accurately simulate the evolution of the climate over the last 30 years without accounting for the human input of sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases."
Like many people commenting on this issue, Emanuel highlights nuclear energy as an excellent and tragically underutilized mitigation option; in addition, he notes that we already have the technology for capturing carbon at the point of emission, though it "is currently estimated to increase the cost of energy produced by 20-90 percent." (This was published in 2018.)
In contrast, "most of those whose work focuses on geoengineering regard it as an option to be developed and then kept in our collective back pocket, to be used only if the effects of climate change become catastrophic."
()
The greenhouse effect, as I understand it based on the book, works like this:
- the sun emits a lot of shortwave radiation
- Earth's atmosphere doesn't absorb much shortwave radiation, so it reaches the surface
- the surface emits infrared radiation in response
- greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ("water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and several others") do "absorb much of the long-wavelength, infrared radiation that passes through them" and emit some radiation back toward the surface in response
Unlike water vapor, CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, so an increase in it means a lasting increase in the amount of radiation being sent back to the surface. Emanuel notes that way back in 1906 Svante Arrhenius "had calculated that doubling the concentration of CO2 would raise the earth's surface temperature by about 4°C, a number well within contemporary estimates of 2-4.5°C per doubling of CO2". In the subsequent 115 years, CO2 levels and temperatures have risen, and in proportions consistent with that prediction.
Emanuel discusses various obstacles to precisely predicting future temperatures. He says "the largest source of uncertainty" is the difficulty of modeling cloud formation. There's also "chaotic natural variability ... often referred to as 'climate noise.'":
Current estimates of this noise come largely from climate models run for a long time with constant forcing. These estimates suggest that the current global warming trend is clearly distinguishable from climate noise on time scales of around 30 years and longer. Just as a particular week in mid-spring may be colder than a particular week in late winter, there can be stretches as long as 30 years during which, owing to natural chaotic variability, the global mean temperature cools.
Even though computer simulations involve a great deal of uncertainty, Emanuel notes that simulations "using many different climate models" show that you "cannot accurately simulate the evolution of the climate over the last 30 years without accounting for the human input of sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases."
Options for dealing with climate change fall into three broad categories: curtailing the emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation), learning to live with the consequences (adaptation), and engineering our way around the problems that greenhouse gases produce (geoengineering).
Like many people commenting on this issue, Emanuel highlights nuclear energy as an excellent and tragically underutilized mitigation option; in addition, he notes that we already have the technology for capturing carbon at the point of emission, though it "is currently estimated to increase the cost of energy produced by 20-90 percent." (This was published in 2018.)
A key but complex issue is the relative costs and benefits of adaptation and mitigation, all of which must be estimated in an environment of considerable uncertainty. An optimal strategy will no doubt involve doing some of both.
In contrast, "most of those whose work focuses on geoengineering regard it as an option to be developed and then kept in our collective back pocket, to be used only if the effects of climate change become catastrophic."
()
January 16, 2023
Tiny, well written, booklet. It's just 30 pages long, misadvertized as 120.
Consolidates a lot of facts you may know about the problem into a coherent narrative.
Somehow I was entirely obtuse to the problem of 30% increase in acidity of the oceans! The pH scale is logarithmic, so it's easy to forget that even tiny changes in pH can imply large changes to ion concentrations.
Consolidates a lot of facts you may know about the problem into a coherent narrative.
Somehow I was entirely obtuse to the problem of 30% increase in acidity of the oceans! The pH scale is logarithmic, so it's easy to forget that even tiny changes in pH can imply large changes to ion concentrations.
September 30, 2024
Short and sweet book condensing the basics of climate science in about 50 paperback pages. Are we fucked? We probably are, but there is hope, and you will better understand the variables involved by reading this.
April 8, 2021
An easy to read book written by an actual climate scientist. EGADS!!
Good, basic information which gets beyond the basic talking points and underscores why we should all be moderately educated in this subject. Major new outlets & environmental organizations often tell us only what helps their sponsors. Not the unvarnished truth.
Good, basic information which gets beyond the basic talking points and underscores why we should all be moderately educated in this subject. Major new outlets & environmental organizations often tell us only what helps their sponsors. Not the unvarnished truth.
August 25, 2022
This is my first attempt to grasp the complexities of climate change and I think I now have a general understanding of the basic concepts although I am not convinced that continuing to generate and consume more and more energy is a given. Emanuel succeeded in whetting my appetite for a more indepth exploration of the topic. His breezy dismissal of the ramifications of Fukushima make me question his biases. I was there as a military spouse and my government has shown no interest in following my health in the decade since that disaster.
July 6, 2021
I was inspired to read this book after browsing through theÌýNew YorkÌýTimesÌýarticle "The Year You Finally Read a Book About Climate Change." I am very grateful that I read this very short book (took no longer than about an hour) because I feel that I have a fully general understanding of how climate change operates, how it is measured, and what the possible consequences are. The author of this book was a climate scientist with conservative political leanings, which permitted to me some insight on his shock that the contemporary Republican Party is so adamantly against policies to either mitigate or adapt to global warming: many of the most extensive environmental protections were conducted from the Grant to the H. W. Bush administrations.
Emanuel concludes that the increasing global temperature, melting ice-sheets, and rising sea-level and ocean acidity are a dire threat to human civilization, especially if the unpredictable variables of drought, hurricane, and flood impact drastically increase as well. If you want to show someone who does not believe the scientific consensus on climate change but is still remains slightly open-minded, this is the easy-to-explain book to show them.
Emanuel concludes that the increasing global temperature, melting ice-sheets, and rising sea-level and ocean acidity are a dire threat to human civilization, especially if the unpredictable variables of drought, hurricane, and flood impact drastically increase as well. If you want to show someone who does not believe the scientific consensus on climate change but is still remains slightly open-minded, this is the easy-to-explain book to show them.
January 1, 2012
This thin book gives many of the scientific issues surrounding climate change. The author sticks mainly to the science, the observations and the model results, that define the subject. It is a nice brief, factual, non-biased introduction to the field suitable for a general audience.
January 25, 2025
I'm not sure that a "book" this short deserves a full review. But here we go:
One of his main arguments is that "all projections are bad, if you extend them forever into the future." And while, obviously, he is not wrong, this is not really a useful claim in this book. He simultaneously says that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and is happening rapidly, and then he tries to take a "balanced" approach to present both sides.
I don't think that this book is intended for the general public; rather, I suspect that this book is intended to try and convince climate science deniers that the science is irrefutable. By trying to show both sides, he may just be trying to appeal to those on the other side of the issue. So while I was feeling frustrated that he was giving so many space to the 3% of scientists that he claims are climate deniers, maybe he is just trying to establish some rapport with that population so that he can swing them over. Or maybe I am just being entirely too charitable towards his intentions...
My gosh, it is frustrating that climate science has become a partisan issue. He vaguely talks about how this came to be. I literally laughed out loud when he is like "Lincoln was a Republican and liked the environment, why don't modern Republicans support this cause," without acknowledging that it just an entirely different party than it was then.
All in all, I mainly enjoyed it. That being said, it wasn't short enough to be a concise summary, and it was way too high-level to be actually useful. So, instead, in the end, it was just somewhere in the middle, and I don't think I gained a huge amount from it. Probably wouldn't recommend the book, but idk, you can read the whole thing in 40 minutes.
One interesting argument that he makes (which I don't necessarily agree with, but found interesting nonetheless) was that wind/solar are a distraction from actual changes (aka nuclear power), and may be bad for the long-term future of humanity. He claims that because we can feel good about these sources of renewable energy (which only make up 8% of US energy production at time of this book's publishing), we can focus on them, without being forced to focus our efforts on scaling and improving nuclear energy, which is what can actually solve our long-term energy needs.
One of his main arguments is that "all projections are bad, if you extend them forever into the future." And while, obviously, he is not wrong, this is not really a useful claim in this book. He simultaneously says that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and is happening rapidly, and then he tries to take a "balanced" approach to present both sides.
I don't think that this book is intended for the general public; rather, I suspect that this book is intended to try and convince climate science deniers that the science is irrefutable. By trying to show both sides, he may just be trying to appeal to those on the other side of the issue. So while I was feeling frustrated that he was giving so many space to the 3% of scientists that he claims are climate deniers, maybe he is just trying to establish some rapport with that population so that he can swing them over. Or maybe I am just being entirely too charitable towards his intentions...
My gosh, it is frustrating that climate science has become a partisan issue. He vaguely talks about how this came to be. I literally laughed out loud when he is like "Lincoln was a Republican and liked the environment, why don't modern Republicans support this cause," without acknowledging that it just an entirely different party than it was then.
All in all, I mainly enjoyed it. That being said, it wasn't short enough to be a concise summary, and it was way too high-level to be actually useful. So, instead, in the end, it was just somewhere in the middle, and I don't think I gained a huge amount from it. Probably wouldn't recommend the book, but idk, you can read the whole thing in 40 minutes.
One interesting argument that he makes (which I don't necessarily agree with, but found interesting nonetheless) was that wind/solar are a distraction from actual changes (aka nuclear power), and may be bad for the long-term future of humanity. He claims that because we can feel good about these sources of renewable energy (which only make up 8% of US energy production at time of this book's publishing), we can focus on them, without being forced to focus our efforts on scaling and improving nuclear energy, which is what can actually solve our long-term energy needs.
August 9, 2021
A thorough and relatively easy to follow science account of the phenomenon of client change. It's true that we imagine the climate as a mostly stable concept throughout our history on this planet. This books gives us a glimpse of how that's only partially true, with a far more complex story than one might think. It seems one of our most pressing issues is the acidification of the ocean, which would have a cascading disaster impact starting with our food chain. In addition, no one can argue that "climate change could have a significant impact around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degredation, and further weakening of fragile governmenrts." It will most certainly "contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." What would that do the the whole order of the world? One shutters to think of it but we must.
But science goes about its business in a way that's difficult for the lay person to understand, where we assume that facts pile on top of one another and we just get smarter information. In reality, "science advances mostly by a series of faltering steps...two forward and one backward, as ideas are tested, disproved, and refined." As Emanuel notes, this way of science is completely at odds with jorunalist which "often elevates the provisional to the sensational" without allowing for the process of back and forth that is in science's quest for truth.
Recommended short read for more knowledge!
But science goes about its business in a way that's difficult for the lay person to understand, where we assume that facts pile on top of one another and we just get smarter information. In reality, "science advances mostly by a series of faltering steps...two forward and one backward, as ideas are tested, disproved, and refined." As Emanuel notes, this way of science is completely at odds with jorunalist which "often elevates the provisional to the sensational" without allowing for the process of back and forth that is in science's quest for truth.
Recommended short read for more knowledge!
Read
June 3, 2021A good introductory text, ideally for someone who knows next to nothing about climate change, though being something of a climate head myself I was hoping for more information. My only complaints:
-Insufficiently alarming. One could easily come away from reading this thinking that the worst potential results of climate change are more extreme weather events and decreases in agricultural productivity. Admittedly, those are still pretty bad, but not as apocalyptic as the potential worst-case scenarios.
-Politically naive. Though only dedicating a few pages to the politics of climate change, Emanuel seems confused as to why conservatives reject climate action given that big oil is propped up by enormous government subsidies - and surely champions of the free market are opposed to that, right? In the words of Joe Biden, "Come on, man."
Still, bonus points for discussing solar geoengineering, which is strangely absent from the mainstream climate discourse.
-Insufficiently alarming. One could easily come away from reading this thinking that the worst potential results of climate change are more extreme weather events and decreases in agricultural productivity. Admittedly, those are still pretty bad, but not as apocalyptic as the potential worst-case scenarios.
-Politically naive. Though only dedicating a few pages to the politics of climate change, Emanuel seems confused as to why conservatives reject climate action given that big oil is propped up by enormous government subsidies - and surely champions of the free market are opposed to that, right? In the words of Joe Biden, "Come on, man."
Still, bonus points for discussing solar geoengineering, which is strangely absent from the mainstream climate discourse.
November 14, 2020
To the point, no beating around the bush!
Physics: understand water vapor, greenhouse gas, and aerosols contribution towards heating and cooling our Mother Earth; human industrial revolution has disturbed the climate trend of global average temperature in relatively lower time scale (4-5 decades)
Technology: climate models are chaotic with limited predictability (of few weeks); options to mitigate climate change: curtailing the emissions of greenhouse gases, adapting to the consequences, tackling greenhouse gasses at the source
Politics and Policies: climate change became polarized along the conservative-liberal axis, and even nuclear power is viewed with deep ambivalence by the liberals; global issues of climate, poverty, energy, national security, and national prosperity are bounded together
Physics: understand water vapor, greenhouse gas, and aerosols contribution towards heating and cooling our Mother Earth; human industrial revolution has disturbed the climate trend of global average temperature in relatively lower time scale (4-5 decades)
Technology: climate models are chaotic with limited predictability (of few weeks); options to mitigate climate change: curtailing the emissions of greenhouse gases, adapting to the consequences, tackling greenhouse gasses at the source
Politics and Policies: climate change became polarized along the conservative-liberal axis, and even nuclear power is viewed with deep ambivalence by the liberals; global issues of climate, poverty, energy, national security, and national prosperity are bounded together
April 20, 2021
I found it difficult reading, as science and math is not part of my daily reading or work. (I need to read and re-read and re-re-read the tiny chapter on "Greenhouse Physics.") However, it is short (!) and straightforward. I like that it does not sensationalize, that it relates "just the facts" in a way that does not prejudice, and is very clear about the consensus view of scientists. The most helpful section for me is chapter 6 and the list of "what is not in dispute"...followed by the list of "wat most--but not all--climate scientists agree with:...."
As a Christian, it is sobering to see the sacrifice we are being called to make today (not dissimilar to the cross of Christ), "the costs" of which "may be high and those paying them are not likely to be serious beneficiaries of their own actions." (p.52)
As a Christian, it is sobering to see the sacrifice we are being called to make today (not dissimilar to the cross of Christ), "the costs" of which "may be high and those paying them are not likely to be serious beneficiaries of their own actions." (p.52)
September 27, 2019
A succinct summary of the most basic facts of climate change that's worth the short read. Emanuel describes the causes of climate change and where it's expected to lead us, providing some historical context as he explains the science and defines where the uncertainties lie (hint: they're not in the cause) and what they mean (in a practical sense).
If you're among those who don't see the cohesion in climate change science, consider reading Emanuel's summary. It's short and sweet and won't make your brain hurt (still, be warned that it's somewhat dull and detached in the way that most scientists' writing is), and you'll be more more prepared to interpret the barrage of climate-related media after you read it.
If you're among those who don't see the cohesion in climate change science, consider reading Emanuel's summary. It's short and sweet and won't make your brain hurt (still, be warned that it's somewhat dull and detached in the way that most scientists' writing is), and you'll be more more prepared to interpret the barrage of climate-related media after you read it.
February 14, 2021
The books is fairly short -- about 60 pages, and can be read in about an hour.
It gives a fairly concise summary of what we know about climate change.
A few things were fairly familiar to me -- that CO2 is a big reason for climate change.
Some of the things were unfamiliar -- that many other chemicals like water vapor and aerosols have a huge effect on climate change, but we don't worry about them to the same degree because they act on very small time-scales. Aerosols would come back to the earth in a few weeks if new ones were not getting pumped.
The analogy of 97% doctors recommend this treatment means most patients would take the treatment is very apt. It is interesting what kinds of mental leaps one can take when their livelihood depends on it.
November 4, 2021
For a scientist, he is very unclear on the science. For example, he talks about positive feedback loops that can put the earth into accelerated cooling or heating but doesn’t explain why this hasn’t already happened, I.e why does the loop break, and also how did the loops reverse because we know the planet has been through both colder and warmer times than in the present period.
Moreover, his solution approach reveals he votes republican because he blames the US government coal subsidies for fossil fuel use while lamenting the distributed taxpayer burden of the associated health impacts. Equally, he presents solutions to climate change as an immense technological business opportunity for capitalist enterprise.
Moreover, his solution approach reveals he votes republican because he blames the US government coal subsidies for fossil fuel use while lamenting the distributed taxpayer burden of the associated health impacts. Equally, he presents solutions to climate change as an immense technological business opportunity for capitalist enterprise.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 1, 2018
This terse pocket-edition of a book seems the perfect gift idea for someone who still may not be aware of the problem and what is at stake. Emanuel encapsulates succinctly the science and the social problems. No frills, no anecdotes, no decoration, just the facts. It might be a good idea to give to politicians (because of its brevity) who may be willing to pivot.
My concern is that it now already dated (published in 2012). It has become much worse than what Emanuel writes about and thus, he might need to update it with the latest dire information.
We have even fewer choices available than what Emanuel proposes but this is the nature of the problem.
My concern is that it now already dated (published in 2012). It has become much worse than what Emanuel writes about and thus, he might need to update it with the latest dire information.
We have even fewer choices available than what Emanuel proposes but this is the nature of the problem.
June 22, 2019
It takes pains to disentangle the main different effects that drive climate, including anthropogenic and otherwise, the different time scales at which they operate, and at which scales it is hard to tell apart noise from signal ( < 30 years ), which are the different sources of uncertainty ( the mains ones, small clouds, simulation resolution, ice breaking dynamics), and which things are fairly well known. This book respects your time. I'd be very happy if more books were written like this about a wider variety of current affairs. I'd like to see some chapters fleshed out with more numbers and derivations, but I can hopefully find this elsewhere.
July 30, 2020
This was a nice concise read. Key takeaways were around the chaotic nature of the various variables that drive climate and how small variations compound significantly over short timeframes; good summary of the various devastating effects beyond just sea levels rising (oceans, droughts/floods, agricultural instability); solutions actually exist to mitigate (including nuclear); and role of the media in exacerbating this political divide. It was so short that it left me wanting more to feel really well-versed on our current understanding of climate change. It’s also a bit dense so I had a hard time absorbing the science and feeing I have any depth of understanding there.
August 28, 2021
The best material that I’ve read on climate change yet. In a issue that is highly polarized, Emmanuel does an excellent job of providing a concise, subjective, and balanced overview of the subject.
My main takeaway�
Earth’s climate is influenced strongly by several factors with one of them being GHGs. The scientific community is almost certainly positive that the recent warming of the climate is due to anthropological GHGs. This statement is strongly supported on the finding that we cannot model or explain the Earth’s recent warming without taking into account the increase in anthropological GHGs.
My main takeaway�
Earth’s climate is influenced strongly by several factors with one of them being GHGs. The scientific community is almost certainly positive that the recent warming of the climate is due to anthropological GHGs. This statement is strongly supported on the finding that we cannot model or explain the Earth’s recent warming without taking into account the increase in anthropological GHGs.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 8, 2020
My planet is getting *&^%ed up the @$$. So is yours. I've grabbed oodles of books on the topic off the shelves, and while my head spins from all the data, I was looking to bite off something that was terse, overloaded with science and details, just so I could probably grasp the complexity. This fit the bill, and boy is climate complex. We've screwed the pooch, big time. Now I'm on to non-terse books with a little more hope, and also ones with a lot less. There's a lot to know here, and I want to know it.
January 23, 2018
This is a brief but important book. The author is a distinguished climate scientist; the book is written for lay readers. I provides a summary explanation of the physics and chemistry of atmospheric and land climate behaviors and the complex interactions between them and with clouds and water vapor, and it touches on the politics of the subject. Read it.. it will take only a few hours and will enlighten you.
July 6, 2021
I'm researching for basic ideas to help my climate-change-denying father, and this is a short and pretty clear read that strives to be nonpartisan and forthright. It's super-short -- I read it in an hour, I think. There's one graph in there that is just completely killer, too. I'm not sure that my dad would be bowled over by the science, as he's kind of wacky on the extremes, but at least I know more of the basics of the science.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 80 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.