Anyone else read "The Weather Makers"?

I'm about halfway through it and I think it's an excellent book so far. Lots of new info in there that I didn't know, and I think he did a good job looking at counterarguments. The only critique I've seen so far is about Sun Temps, but he does actually talk about solar flares in there, so not really sure.

 

Here is a very interesting article:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Any thoughts?

 

This is an interesting article, and in the book the author does actually state that the "predictions" given in that section of the book are wildly speculative and often are forced to extremes in the models. So I would agree that humans are very bad at predicting the future. This has been demonstrated time and time again. I think the focus on what will happen is not a good one. The book should have left out most of the speculation, and would have been better for it. In this section in a number of cases, the author of the book seemed to contradict himself, especially with regards to rainfall patterns. Does this mean we should keep burning away as we have and there's no reason to do anything?

The first part of the book does make a solid case for CO2 as an important greenhouse gas and tracks the climate patterns through the ages as linked to CO2 levels. An interesting area that helped to clear up some of the anomalies and problems with early (1950s) predictions and studies was the cooling effect of particulates and SOx. The whole thing is very complicated, which makes it no wonder that the average American is confused and unsure. The author of the book was himself a skeptic until diving into the subject. There are numerous studies presented in the book that show that something is happening, and that we are not innocent bystanders. And then there's the little issue of the arctic ice melting...

The fact that in this article Lindzen takes one study linking antropogenic CO2 to warming to question and says that then none of them are true strikes me as odd. It seems a little like he is sulking because one of his papers was rejected in Science (which is extremely difficult to get in to even if you're not a climate change naysayer). But then he does agree with the most important thing of all:

"Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true."

Humans are performing an experiement on a grand scale, and only the wealthiest nations are enjoying the party. The fact remains that CO2 is a powerful heat-trapping gas and we're pushing the carbon cycle way out of balance, and squandering precious resources. Improved efficiency and reduced reliance on fossil fuel in the form of gas or electricity just makes sense on so many other levels, as well - economic, security, equity, toxic and common pollution.

I recommend the book for the first sections, to find out about the latest research and results. I think you'll be convinced we're not innocent bystanders and that we can do something about it. As for predictions, well, they're just that.