
The Physics of Climate Change
Reviews

Very interesting read.
Even though I am very familiar with notions that are listed in this book. It still gave me an insightful view on the methodologies and gathered datas that play a role on the GIEC predictions.
Also it was great that the author didn’t omit the marine geochemical aspect of the consequence of CO2 increased although it was on one short chapter.
I have to admit that picking up I was hoping to see more discussion about the General Circulation Model. A subject I’m less comfortable with.
I think I am not in the right place to say for which public this book will do great. Some like me familiar with the field, won’t find anything new and the less averted public might find the physics overwhelming. I guess you just need to try since the topic is very important and it still can be an insightful read.
The author kept his promise. He manage to stay as neutral as possible and focused solely on the science and it’s up to the reader to measure the urgency of the matter.
Highlights

we can, on the basis of the historical record, assess that a likely sea-level change on the order of meters in a few centuries is not implausible, and thus decide with more conidence whether planning or acting now in the face of such a possibility is worth the risk.

And most recently in the 2019 Greenland data, it was observed that much of the extreme melting that year was not directly due to higher temperatures, but rather to high-pressure weather systems in the region that may have been an indirect result of temperature increase. These blocked the formation of clouds, which allowed unfiltered sunlight to melt the snow.
Less snowfall, darkened surface, lower albedo which means absorbing more heat. The serpent biting its tail is the most accurate image in that case.

Returning to a theme from earlier in this book, the numbers demonstrate convincingly that human emissions are not insignificant on a global geological scale. In two hundred years humans will have been able to emit at the very least twice as much CO2 as existed in the Earth's atmosphere over much of the geological record*.
*Geological record of CO2 concentration that the Antarctic ice sheets gave us

The fact that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere long long after humanity stops or reduces its global emissions, combined with the fact that the potentially negative observable consequences of its current abundance will in some cases take centuries to fully manifest themselves, should affect our thinking about the consequences of continuing business as usual and the potential need for global action sooner rather than later.

Increasing the absorption in the atmosphere of outgoing radiation from the Earth's surface in- creases the surface temperature of the Earth. This is the original greenhouse effect, misnamed perhaps, but nevertheless the physics of which is well established both theoretically and experimentally.

The key to understanding our human impact here is to realize that we are able to access in a short time, through our technology, quantities of carbon that took literally hundreds of millions of years to build up on Earth before the rise of humans.

During this process, an average CO, molecule in the atmosphere would get recycled through the Earth about once every hundred million years or so.
“This process” => cf carbon cycle

We are relative latecomers to that history, and while we often imagine ourselves as the Masters of the Universe, we are nevertheless the slaves of chemistry.

(a) the present era ls unpr recorded history of co, in the atmosphere of the planet over almost the past million years; (b) geological variations in the CO, concentration have occurred, but at much smaller levels and over much longer timescales than the recently observed rise;

Also, an important overall baseline number for comparison is the highest concentration of CO2 previous to the present era, which was at 300 ppm, about 350,000 years ago.

To get a better idea of whether the observed co2 increase is correlated to human industrial activity, we can hope to explore longer-term variations to see if the current fossil fuel-generating era is anomalous or not.

Perspective is everything, however, and we must always remember a key warning in science: correlation does not imply causation. So, it is possible, without some underlying physical explanation and without more data, that the comparable rates of CO2 in the atmosphere and human-generated CO2 is just a coincidence.

Keeling himself pointed out a very plausible reason why one might expect that not all the CO2, being produced by humanity would be reflected directly by a concomitant rise in atmospheric co2 content. CO2 can dissolve in water, creating carbonic acid, so one would expect some CO2 to be taken up by the oceans.

The CO2 abundance has increased by about 100 ppm in sixty-two years. This is about 1.6 ppm per year. Recall that Keeling himself estimated the CO2 generation by fossil fuel consumption in 1960 to be about 1.4 ppm, about the same order of magnitude.

Climate change as a global issue may manifest itself in a thousand different ways in a thousand different places.

I will not advocate for specific policies; that is the purview of politicians, advocacy groups, and political movements. I will, however, be unabashed about the seriousness of the challenges we now face so the risks and possible consequences of inaction are manifest.

Climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang are all empirical facts, not speculation, and the relevant data validate fundamental theoretical expectations.

The science behind climate change is accessible and interesting, and it should be the basis of arguments and policy discussions.

I was surprised and dismayed as numerous publishers and editors I reached out to indicated to me that they change would be ones that appeal to emotions and communicate only to the true believers through a sense of doom and gloom. Since they are in some sense the gatekeepers for what information the public gets, this demonstrated to me how important it is to combat that perception with a book that could provide actual information the public can use to make informed decisions about how to respond to what they might read in the papers or hear from politicians. thought the only marketable books on climate

First off, it is worth recognizing that climate change science is not rocket science. Having once written a book albout rocket science, or at least imaginary rocket science, I decided I was in a good position to judge. And the urgency of the issue is surely greater than pondering the possibilities of space travel in the twenty-third century, as fascinating as those might be.
Already highlighting in the Foreword chapter lmao