On July , 3:32pm, Zeke Hausfather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also suggest including Tim Flannery's "The Weathermakers"
That book is interesting, and informative in particular about crisis
of species.
But I found, in the early part of the book, many inaccuracies with
respect to basic facts of atmospheric science.
(The page numbers I show is of the paperback edition published by
Grove Press, NY, USA.)
* Chapter 2, p. 21, caption of the figure: "Only a small part of the
troposphere is breathable air." I think this is serious
exaggeration. It is true that we have difficulty in breathing in the
upper half of the troposphere, but it does not mean that it is
impossible.
* p. 22-23, "telekinesis". This is not a word used by atmospheric
scientists and the use seems misleading. Perhaps the author mistook
"teleconnection" which is a term used by meteorologists. This is a
phenomenological (not mechanistic) concept, and many meteorologists
think that it is explainable by Newtonian mechanics, so it is no
mystic thing.
* p. 24, comparison between summer in New York and in deserts. It is
true that we feel warmer with more humid climate than drier climate at
the same temperature, and that it is because water vapor contains
energy (latent heat). But, it is inappropriate to explain it by the
greenhouse effect of water vapor (though, energy transfer from the air
to human body may PARTIALLY be via infra-red radiation).
* Chapter 4, p. 39. "Visible light ranges from 4000 nanometers to 7000
nanometers." The magnitude is off one decimal order-of-magnitude. It
should be written as 400 to 700 nanometers. (I think 800 is better
than 700).
* p. 44. "stratospheric cooling (due to ozone hole) and tropospheric
warming (due to increased grrenhouse gases). Maybe appropriate if
this is a book of environmental problems in general. But when the main
subject is global warming, I think it inapropriate to omit that
increased greenhouse gases also act to cool the stratosphere.
I hope the author is competent in biology. But my first item is more
of a matter of physiology than atmospheric science. So I do not trust
the author so much about adaptability of species.
I also feel that the tone of the book is alarmist (a bit out of bounds
of IPCC-like consensus of experts), though not "alarmism ad absurdum"
in Zeke's expression in another thread.
Ko-1 M. (Kooiti Masuda, a climatologist working in Japan)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
