Product Description

Representing the first major global assessment of climate change science in six years, Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basic issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms that our scientific understanding of the climate system and its sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is now richer and deeper than ever before. The chapters forming the bulk of this report describe scientists assessment of the state-of-knowledge in their respective fields. The report will be highly relevant as Governments and industry consider their options for moving forward together to address the challenge of climate change. (Includes CD-ROM)

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #59300 in Books
• Published on: 2007-02-11
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 1008 pages

Review
"Every member of Congress should read this report."
The New York Times

Customer Reviews

The definitive statement of the global warming theory
This is the most recent official statement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the science relating to global warming. It is a very long and a very technical book. It is, beyond all question, the most definitive statement of the scientific case in favor of the theory that the global climate is warming to a dangerous extent, that this warming is caused primarily by human activity -- primarily the release of carbon dioxide into the air -- and that various disasters will occur if these trends are not reversed. Anyone who wishes to form a serious opinion on this subject has to read this book; it is the basis for, and foundation of, nearly all of the other discussions on this question.

Considered as a book, it is well done. There are many attractive charts, graphs and photos. The science is thorough and well written. While no one would consider this an easy read or an entertaining book, it is no more technical than any other deeply serious book on a very technical subject. Whatever your point of view on the subject, you will learn a good deal reading this book.

That said, I was not persuaded either way; I do not know if the theory is right or wrong. Here are the facts and the argument, in a nutshell:

First, the Earth has gotten slightly warmer since 1750. This is well-established. The increase is not large, but it is real.

Second, humanity has released a great deal of carbon dioxide into the air in the last century or so. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it has a scientifically proven tendency to heat up the atmosphere in a way similar to that of the glass in a greenhouse. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have also been released in large quanities.

Third, the amount of energy put out by the Sun has also increased since 1750. The increase is not huge, and it is not constant. There have been many decades in recent time in which solar energy has not increased. However, in the time since 1750 -- which is the time frame with which the theory is concerned -- solar output has increased.

This is all well established and uncontroversial. Here is where the IPCC makes a big judgment call. They conclude that the increase of carbon dioxide in the air has a huge effect on climate, and the increase in solar energy has had a trivial effect on climate.

How do they know this is true? How can you differentiate between the warming caused by carbon dioxide, and the warming caused by the sun, when both are occurring at the same time?

As best as I could figure, the IPCC thinks that, since solar energy has not consistently increased since, say 1970, it cannot be the driver of the increase in temperatures which we have seen since 1970. That argument does not wash, however, for several reasons. First, there are lag times in the climate system. Heat is stored in the ocean, and re-circulated around the world. No sensible person expects to see an immediate link between the variables in so complex a system. Second, we have NOT seen a consistent increase in temperature since 1970. The temperature has not risen, at all, since about 1999. IPCC apologists tell us, of course, that one decade does not mean anything, one way or the other. I agree with them. But that undercuts their argument that the Sun cannot be the driver of climate change, because solar output has not risen consistently. No, the Sun has not gotten consistently warmer. Neither has the Earth.

Our sister planet, Venus, has a hellishly hot climate, due to runaway global warming. Its atmosphere is more than 90% carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has increased from about 250 parts per million to about 400 parts per million. In other ways, CO2 is a trace gas. Its amount has increased, but it is still a trace gas. Maybe a trace gas can deeply influence climate. But, again, how do we know?

About the year 1000, Norse settlers in Greenland were growing crops in a rich land. They built a sizable colony, with a large enough surplus from farming that they were able to build a large cathedral. Then, the climate changed, it grew colder, ice covered their crop lands and the colony died out, to the last person around the year 1400. Since then, Greenland has an ice-covered wasteland, that cannot support a farm economy.

This gives us a good idea of how much the climate varies, naturally. So far, Greenland is not yet as warm as it was in the time of Eric the Red. In other words, we are still within the range of what past experience tells us is natural variability. That being so, I do not think the IPCC has proven its case. If it gets so warm that Greenland is warmer than it was in 1000, then I think the IPCC will have the better end of this argument.

And on this point, this book is very unpersuasive. Prior to the modern rise of the global warming theory, it was pretty well accepted that there had been a Medieval Warming Period, at time from roughly 950 to roughly 1300, when the climate was warmer. This was followed by the Little Ice, from 1350 to 1850, when the climate was cooler. There is abundant historical evidence of the reality of these natural climate changes.

The IPCC, however, denies that the Medieval Warming period occurred. They acknowledge the earlier view, but then they just wave their hands in the air, and say that, gosh golly, nobody really knows; the science is not proven. This is nonsense. All you need to prove the existence of the Medieval Warming Period is to read the old Norse accounts of the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and Vineland. When the IPCC finds it necessary to claim that historical facts did not occur, their credibility becomes very low. In case it is not obvious, the IPCC has an agenda. They are here to prove the theory of human caused global warming. That does not mean that they are wrong. It does mean, however, that they are not objective.

One could argue that the Medieval Warming Period was a regional, not a global, thing. You could contend that, yes, it was warmer in Greenland, but it was not warmer in the rest of the world. That, at least, is a coherent argument not based upon denial of well-established facts. As I recall, Spencer pretty completely demolished that argument in Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1, 500 Years, in which he cited abundant evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was all over the world. In any event, the IPCC does not claim that the Medieval Warming Period was regional. It claims, instead, that we do not know, one way or the other, whether it happened. That is not a credible argument; it is disproven by well-known facts.

save a tree, get it directly from IPCC
If you're interested in this in depth review of the current knowledge on global warming you can directly download the report from the IPCC at

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

An Authoritative Source
If you are looking for a thorough, detailed review of the the current scientific concensus on climate change, this is it. Though long (at nearly 1,000 pages) and at times technical, it is definitely accessible for those without a science background. The Technical Summary (about 80 pages) is especially valuable and is fully cross-referenced with the more detailed chapters in the book. Every person with an opinion on climate change - whether pro or con - should read this book. It provides a sound foundation for intelligent debate.