A good climate change book

I have been reading Andy Reisenger’s book Climate Change 101. It’s obviously aimed at students and researchers – after all it’s subtitled “An educational resource.”

However for anyone with a scientific interest in the subject it’s certainly very readable.

I think the interested layman would find the book useful. It is an authoritative and reliable source for information. The book is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Reports but does include some findings published since then. However, the IPCC reports are just so intimidating in their size and depth. Even the summaries are not very accessible to the layperson.

Andy Reisenger’s book has the advantage that it basically puts all this science into 300 pages. It’s structured to follow the IPCC reports so it also serves as an introduction to anyone who wants to follow up specific aspects or wants more specific detail.

I will post my review of this book later this month. From what I have read so far I recommend it to anyone seriously interested in the subject. Particularly if they want a good reference to the science.

Meanwhile it has been reviewed by Bryan Walker at Hot Topic (see Climate Change 101: an educational resource).Β  And if you want to immerse yourself fully in the details have a look at the IPCC reports.


Similar articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


13 responses to “A good climate change book

  1. Bryan certainly has one…. πŸ˜‰


  2. Whoops – I did mean to check my spelling!


  3. Thanks for the heads up: this book looks like an excellent resource and tackles some of the controversial aspects of linking climate change to specific human behaviours. I really like the idea of showing the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening first and then looking at the science that indicates human behaviours that both stimulate and mitigate the pace of this change.

    Thanks Ken.


  4. Pingback: Lynch mob mentality « Open Parachute

  5. With the climate gate scandal and the revelation today that the supposed glacier melting in the Himalayas is based on an untested phone conversation with an obscure scientist, I very much doubt that this book is worth the paper it is written upon. Still if you are a ” true believer ” go ahead.


  6. Paul – have a look before you judge. I am sure if you are honest you will be surprised at how objective, transparent and balanced the book is. It actually does reflect the normal scientific objectivity and the IPCC document style.

    In other words – its not about “belief” – its about evidence.

    For example – take you news report about Himalaya, go to the IPCC documents, and check out what is actually said. (Let me know what you bfind). I can not rapidly find a reference to the Himalayas in Reisingers’ book (Lack of index is one of my criticisms). He does discuss glaciers and land ice melting but stresses very little is sure. While some later work is raising some question that the IPCC underestimated the problem Reisinger does go with the last IPCC report because the science had been so thoroughly reviewed.


  7. It actually does reflect the normal scientific objectivity and the IPCC document style.

    Scientists lied to us about the moon landings.
    They lied to us about how the Earth is billions of years old.
    Now they are lying to us about the climate.
    We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more.
    It’s time for ordinary people to take the science back from the scientists!!!
    Al Gore is fat.


  8. Paul – I am familiar with the Himalaya story. From what I have seen in the IPCC report there are several peer-reviewed papers referred to in their comments on Himilayan glaciers. So I don’t know where the phone call link comes from. needs more investigation.

    After all – there are lies being told at the moment – for example on the Mann “Hockey Stick” graph.

    The sensible person will check the information rather than going with their own prejudices.

    As for your other links – what have they to do with this book?

    Your aren’t a Gish Galloper are you?


  9. Paul – perhaps you should check out your links. I followed the wattsup one which referred to (IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493) in the IPCC documents. I couldn’t find the quote in the IPCC chapter. Nor could I find the Table 10 it referred to.

    So consequently I have to see that as at lest a cock up – if not a complete manufacture (as was the case with the hockey stick). After all wattsup is hardly reliable.

    But what about you checking and letting me know. I go on evidence not prejudice.


  10. I go on evidence not prejudice.

    Evidence is just another word for dogma.
    You “true believers” worshipping at the Church of Al Bore are all the same.
    There’s plenty of ice in my freezer so what happened to all this global warming crap?
    Tell us the trooooth!
    Al Gore is fat.

    The Video Climate Deniers Tried to Ban – Climate Denial Crock of the Week


  11. Paul – here is the actual chapter and subsection with theIPCC comment in question.

    It’s good to know the IPCC is now reexamining this because it looks like it just shouldn’t have got through.


  12. was an article I liked. Thanks for sharing.


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s