What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earth’s climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.
In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.
As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating exposé and much-needed call for debate.
In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.
As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating exposé and much-needed call for debate.
176 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
51 people are currently reading
180 people want to read
About the author
Roy W. Spencer
14 books13 followersRoy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 18, 2017
Provocative and Challenging
My dad recommended this as part of the monthly book club he, my brother, and I do. His goal was to challenge our liberal leaning view of climate change while asserting something akin to "a bunch of this stuff about man-made climate change is government and individual driven misinformation"
Reading an argument against man made climate change - especially in the current political environment - is a good intellectual challenge. This book wasn't definitive or ultimately convincing, but it did offer up a cogent alternative hypothesis.
My dad recommended this as part of the monthly book club he, my brother, and I do. His goal was to challenge our liberal leaning view of climate change while asserting something akin to "a bunch of this stuff about man-made climate change is government and individual driven misinformation"
Reading an argument against man made climate change - especially in the current political environment - is a good intellectual challenge. This book wasn't definitive or ultimately convincing, but it did offer up a cogent alternative hypothesis.
May 31, 2012
A rise in temperature precedes a rise in CO2. So why do Al Gore, IPCC et al. say CO2 causes warming? Why have they not investigated possible natural causes for warming, but rather just assumed warming is anthropogenic? The author is a climatologist and monitor of a NASA satellite who disagrees with the climate doomsayers and explains why in fairly simple terms.
January 9, 2022
Ok, so here’s the short story: Roy Spencer, a right-wing intelligent design nut-job tries to convince us that his homebaked theories can somehow sweep the work of an overwhelming majority of thousands upon thousands of practicing climate scientists, geologists etc. off the table.
I give the book two stars because he actually explains certain basic issues in climate science quite well. Stupid he is not, and that’s the scary thing.
2018 is on course to become the fourth warmest year on record. 2016, 2015 and 2017 make up the rest of the top 4. Next year, all denialists’ favorite year, 1998, will almost certainly drop out of the top 10. Which will then be made up of eight of the years in the decade 2010-2019 + 2005 and 2009.
You’ve got to ask yourself how long they will continue making fools of themselves...
EDIT: I decided to revoke one of the stars. Being a deceitful jerk should not be rewarded… :-)
I give the book two stars because he actually explains certain basic issues in climate science quite well. Stupid he is not, and that’s the scary thing.
2018 is on course to become the fourth warmest year on record. 2016, 2015 and 2017 make up the rest of the top 4. Next year, all denialists’ favorite year, 1998, will almost certainly drop out of the top 10. Which will then be made up of eight of the years in the decade 2010-2019 + 2005 and 2009.
You’ve got to ask yourself how long they will continue making fools of themselves...
EDIT: I decided to revoke one of the stars. Being a deceitful jerk should not be rewarded… :-)
June 5, 2012
While it's a very interesting and readable book, the author specifically criticizes Climate Scientists for trusting their incomplete numerical models, then counters their findings with an even less comprehensive analysis.
Boldly stating that "established wisdom" is flawed, and that an alternative explanation is vastly superior, will certainly attract readers. Unfortunately, however, if you are claiming to be more knowledgeable on a subject than the recognised experts, you have to be able to back that up quite soundly. This book fails to do that in a convincing manner, and seems to be primarily aimed at people already sceptical of Climate Change, exploiting the simple human desire to hear reinforcing opinions voiced.
Boldly stating that "established wisdom" is flawed, and that an alternative explanation is vastly superior, will certainly attract readers. Unfortunately, however, if you are claiming to be more knowledgeable on a subject than the recognised experts, you have to be able to back that up quite soundly. This book fails to do that in a convincing manner, and seems to be primarily aimed at people already sceptical of Climate Change, exploiting the simple human desire to hear reinforcing opinions voiced.
July 20, 2010
Could it be that cloud cover over the oceans most notably the pacific ocean that is causing the... climate change? And not man made carbon dioxide? That is the major question that the author asks. A very thought provoking book.
"I think we have much more to fear from natural climate change than from anthropogenic (man made) change, and that is just as worthy of study."
"Why did temperatures rise so rapidly before 1940 even though so little carbon dioxide had been emitted by then? And why did a cooling trend set in after 1940, just as humanity's carbon dioxide emissions were coming on so strong?"
"I think we have much more to fear from natural climate change than from anthropogenic (man made) change, and that is just as worthy of study."
"Why did temperatures rise so rapidly before 1940 even though so little carbon dioxide had been emitted by then? And why did a cooling trend set in after 1940, just as humanity's carbon dioxide emissions were coming on so strong?"
December 17, 2012
The book presents some good theories for natural causes of global warming that intuitively make sense. Dr. Spencer believes that many scientists have mistaken cause and effect in climate, particularly with regard to clouds. He also demonstrates how the IPCC's mandate is more to research anthropogenic warming vice natural warming.
Dr. Spencer provides links to his own published papers. His desire is not so much to solve the debate as to properly frame it in the realm of science (by be willing to examine alternate theories) vice a political or "religious" debate, where dogma is king.
Dr. Spencer provides links to his own published papers. His desire is not so much to solve the debate as to properly frame it in the realm of science (by be willing to examine alternate theories) vice a political or "religious" debate, where dogma is king.
May 7, 2010
I got the book on 5/1/10 and just read it continuously. The subtitle says it all "How Mother Nature fooled the World's top climate scientits." He does an outstanding job of making a complex subject understandable. He is one of the most level headed of the scientists who has also written the best selling "Climate Confusion."
March 22, 2011
Fascinating insights on the role of clouds and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in climate change. Can be a bit repetitive but adds to the ongoing discussion.
December 9, 2012
A lot of the content of this book went over my head, but the main points are discernable for anyone.
July 25, 2019
In lieu of much actual review here, I want to also send up the work of Tony Heller on YouTube -- I've become convinced that the part of climate science that is pushed into popular public attention is actually a political movement, clothed in the artifice of legitimate science. Heller's presentations are unique in providing consistent and continual historical perspective for the climate headlines of the day. The basic message is, the story the media tells you hardly squares with reality, today, or in the past, but /their/ message (the climate activists seeking political control) is always the same: Doomed! It's all our fault! Repent (and give us control) or face apocalypse!
This short book is easy to read, and valuable in providing laypeople with a solid introduction to a number of technical terms of art and processes utilized in climate research; which will be of help in providing some basis which which to make judgements about the work of others, or media stories to which you may become aware. In the nine years since the book's publication, people like Heller show us that while the alarmists keep screaming, the fundamental issues this book raises have still yet to be addressed, while the climate reality on the ground finds itself continuing to sit squarely within the goldilocks bands of historical record. It shows no long term trends, just cyclical variation on a variety of timescales. Media reports of extreme weather find themselves, put back into historical context, no more numerous nor more or less extreme than such reports were in the past, dating back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and widespread adoption of fossil fuel use. Perhaps most surprising is actually how moderate contemporary extreme weather reports in the media are. The past was decidedly more extreme in cold, in heat, and in deadliness to human populations.
Because budgets are at stake, and political circles want to consolidate their power, government funding of climate science tends to reward a pro-government power bias, and disfavor anything contrary to a case for maximum public alarm. Spencer's model provides the kernel of an alternative explanation for present observed facts, which suggest that basic cause-effect relationships may have been inverted in the officially sanctioned IPCC story. Meanwhile, other important factors get disregarded, and there is reason to suggest the stated narrative of climate warming being a human-caused process is completely wrong. If he is right, human activities true influence on CO2 as well as climate warming may well be tiny, and overwhelmed by other natural processes we still have too little understanding about, because the funding is supporting a pseudoscience that promotes opaque computer models and overly statistical processes. Spencer's own simple model demonstrates clearly how easy it is for even an earnest climate scientist to misinterpret the data from high-tech ultra-precise measurement platforms, because of the assumptions that were built into the complex models used.
This short book is easy to read, and valuable in providing laypeople with a solid introduction to a number of technical terms of art and processes utilized in climate research; which will be of help in providing some basis which which to make judgements about the work of others, or media stories to which you may become aware. In the nine years since the book's publication, people like Heller show us that while the alarmists keep screaming, the fundamental issues this book raises have still yet to be addressed, while the climate reality on the ground finds itself continuing to sit squarely within the goldilocks bands of historical record. It shows no long term trends, just cyclical variation on a variety of timescales. Media reports of extreme weather find themselves, put back into historical context, no more numerous nor more or less extreme than such reports were in the past, dating back to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and widespread adoption of fossil fuel use. Perhaps most surprising is actually how moderate contemporary extreme weather reports in the media are. The past was decidedly more extreme in cold, in heat, and in deadliness to human populations.
Because budgets are at stake, and political circles want to consolidate their power, government funding of climate science tends to reward a pro-government power bias, and disfavor anything contrary to a case for maximum public alarm. Spencer's model provides the kernel of an alternative explanation for present observed facts, which suggest that basic cause-effect relationships may have been inverted in the officially sanctioned IPCC story. Meanwhile, other important factors get disregarded, and there is reason to suggest the stated narrative of climate warming being a human-caused process is completely wrong. If he is right, human activities true influence on CO2 as well as climate warming may well be tiny, and overwhelmed by other natural processes we still have too little understanding about, because the funding is supporting a pseudoscience that promotes opaque computer models and overly statistical processes. Spencer's own simple model demonstrates clearly how easy it is for even an earnest climate scientist to misinterpret the data from high-tech ultra-precise measurement platforms, because of the assumptions that were built into the complex models used.
June 22, 2020
Have you ever wondered, with all the hype and hyperbole about global warming and the approaching catastrophe, the IPCC climate models continually miss the mark and seem to have exaggerated the results compared to what we actually observe around us? The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer may have some answers for you as the author explores the possible natural causes that can and do affect global warming as well as cooling. The author presents a logical case backed by scientific experiments that have been written up, accepted, and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Only political pressure has prevented his views and those of the growing numbers of other scientists who have come to similar conclusions. He explains in simple terms how the earth's global temperature is affected by the activity of the sun, volcanoes, cloud cover, and many other variables. He also put warming due to the Greenhouse effect into easy to understand terms as well as pointing out the issues related to the use of complex climate models constructed by members of the IPCC, according to the author more of a political organization than a scientific one. He explains why he thinks the resulting predictions of these models are mostly wrong when compared to actual climatic conditions and temperatures observed. At the core of the mistakes that have been made by IPCC are their interpretation of cause and effect in terms of does less cloud cover cause warming or does warming cause less cloud cover. Some of the examples may be a bit hard to follow but the message is easily understood and his presentations of real life examples, simple climate models, and logic should open some eyes as more and more people are becoming disenchanted with the IPCC's erroneous climate predictions. Roy W. Spencer has answers for anyone wondering what is the truth and provides convincing arguments that should open your eyes even if you don't have a Master's Degree in Engineering and over 40 years experience in Automotive Engineering including electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cells; just sayin'...
October 5, 2017
This is a very interesting rebuttal to the mainstream views on global warming. It demonstrates that there are different ways to interpret climate data and provides counter arguments to the normal doomsday hype we hear every day. We need more books is to keep people from being bullied into making irresponsible economic decisions. Otherwise we’ll continue to be like people who believed the sun travels around the earth. That lasted thousands of years.
February 28, 2019
Must read!
January 9, 2012
I enjoyed reading this book because it acquainted me more with the major issues of the debate. Occasionally, he does start to sound a little "Glenn Beckish" to borrow another reviewer's observation.
To summarize the basic idea:
1) The scientific establishment has assumed global warming under pressure from government grants, and suppressed anyone who disagrees.
2) The historical evidence does not support a hockey stick—actually there has been a series of changes in both directions, even within the 20th century.
3) Many of the changes may actually be due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the reflective affect clouds have as a result.
4) The critical question is really feedbacks—whether higher temperatures cause the globe to lose heat more quickly or more slowly.
Here are several other specific notes:
The real question is whether feedbacks occur and in which direction. Everyone agrees that some warming is happening, and that right now it is incredibly small. They also agree that the present warming due to CO2 is insignificantly minuscule. The only way it will become significant is through multipliers - feedbacks that compound the effect many times over. Global warming advocates believe in strong positive feedbacks - the earth will lose its ability to deflect heat the hotter that it becomes. Spencer believes in strong negative feedbacks - the hotter the earth becomes the faster and easier it loses heat. The entire debate hinges on this difference (pg. 63).
Scientists have long recognized that clouds decrease in years that temperatures are high. They assumed that the high temperatures decreased cloud production, magnifying the effect (positive feedbacks). But his analysis suggests that clouds are the cause, not the result. In other words, the lack of clouds (because of natural cycles) makes for a hotter year. As temperatures go further up, however, it will bring more clouds and more reflection. Therefore the net feedback is negative, meaning a doubling of CO2 would only raise the temperature by 1 degree or less (100-103).
The Pacific decadal oscillation changes every 30 years, affecting weather patterns including cloud formation. It changed in the late 70's, interestingly aligning with the "great climate shift" of that time. If it changes clouds, that may be all the explanation we need for recent warming (111).
There is a complex natural cycle of carbon absorption into the ocean and back into the atmosphere. The scale of this system trumps anthropogenic warming by far (129).
Global warming alarmism might actually be a form of nature worship (133) and a religion rather than science.
In the past there was the medieval warm period and the little ice age. There was also a warm period until 1940, a cooling until 1970 and subsequent warming. There has not been any additional warming since 2001.
To summarize the basic idea:
1) The scientific establishment has assumed global warming under pressure from government grants, and suppressed anyone who disagrees.
2) The historical evidence does not support a hockey stick—actually there has been a series of changes in both directions, even within the 20th century.
3) Many of the changes may actually be due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the reflective affect clouds have as a result.
4) The critical question is really feedbacks—whether higher temperatures cause the globe to lose heat more quickly or more slowly.
Here are several other specific notes:
The real question is whether feedbacks occur and in which direction. Everyone agrees that some warming is happening, and that right now it is incredibly small. They also agree that the present warming due to CO2 is insignificantly minuscule. The only way it will become significant is through multipliers - feedbacks that compound the effect many times over. Global warming advocates believe in strong positive feedbacks - the earth will lose its ability to deflect heat the hotter that it becomes. Spencer believes in strong negative feedbacks - the hotter the earth becomes the faster and easier it loses heat. The entire debate hinges on this difference (pg. 63).
Scientists have long recognized that clouds decrease in years that temperatures are high. They assumed that the high temperatures decreased cloud production, magnifying the effect (positive feedbacks). But his analysis suggests that clouds are the cause, not the result. In other words, the lack of clouds (because of natural cycles) makes for a hotter year. As temperatures go further up, however, it will bring more clouds and more reflection. Therefore the net feedback is negative, meaning a doubling of CO2 would only raise the temperature by 1 degree or less (100-103).
The Pacific decadal oscillation changes every 30 years, affecting weather patterns including cloud formation. It changed in the late 70's, interestingly aligning with the "great climate shift" of that time. If it changes clouds, that may be all the explanation we need for recent warming (111).
There is a complex natural cycle of carbon absorption into the ocean and back into the atmosphere. The scale of this system trumps anthropogenic warming by far (129).
Global warming alarmism might actually be a form of nature worship (133) and a religion rather than science.
In the past there was the medieval warm period and the little ice age. There was also a warm period until 1940, a cooling until 1970 and subsequent warming. There has not been any additional warming since 2001.
August 10, 2016
Implementing CO2 regulations will drive up the cost of virtually everything. Dr. Spencer has evidence that the impact of CO2 on climate change may be small compared to natural processes. If this is the case, the climate change policies would be a catastrophic missallocation of resources with unforeseen consequences.
The IPCC largely ignored the possibility of natural, internally generated causes with time periods longer than ten years. They also largely ignored the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the North Pacific Ocean lasts about 30 years per phase. It has a positive (warm) phase and a negative (cool) phase. It began a positive phase in 1979. IPCC ignored PDO. The period of time that the IPCC attributes to man-made global warming coincides with the latest PDO positive phase.
A mix-up between cause and effect in observations of cloud behavior from satellites has led to the false illusion that our climate system is dominated by positive feedback. This, in turn, has led to the development of highly sensitive climate models that predict large amounts of global warming.
The author used a simple model to show the PDO could account for up to 75% of the warming trend between 1900 and 2000. An analysis of nine years of satellite data (annual averaging of millions of observations) was in agreement with the simple model.
The IPCC largely ignored the possibility of natural, internally generated causes with time periods longer than ten years. They also largely ignored the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the North Pacific Ocean lasts about 30 years per phase. It has a positive (warm) phase and a negative (cool) phase. It began a positive phase in 1979. IPCC ignored PDO. The period of time that the IPCC attributes to man-made global warming coincides with the latest PDO positive phase.
A mix-up between cause and effect in observations of cloud behavior from satellites has led to the false illusion that our climate system is dominated by positive feedback. This, in turn, has led to the development of highly sensitive climate models that predict large amounts of global warming.
The author used a simple model to show the PDO could account for up to 75% of the warming trend between 1900 and 2000. An analysis of nine years of satellite data (annual averaging of millions of observations) was in agreement with the simple model.
August 9, 2015
The Green "Save the Planet" movement is a noble one for sure. So many are trying so hard to the right thing that they have taken their devotion of this great cause to what many would describe as "a religious level" and like someone great once said "The greatest harm done is sometimes done by those with the best intentions" or something like that.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (a former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA) explains how he believes as many others do that Climate like pretty much everything else in nature has natural cycles and natural causes for change and sometimes chaotic behavior. He like many others also believes that carbon dioxide is more a scare nutrient which is necessary for life on Earth rather than the pollutant it has been labeled. It may be that more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the planet rather than the bringer of dome.
If you are one of those who have joined the call to save Mother Earth than it is your duty to read a few books and find the truth or if you just want to know why so many live in fear of plant food and something that is part of nature then this is a good place to start.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (a former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA) explains how he believes as many others do that Climate like pretty much everything else in nature has natural cycles and natural causes for change and sometimes chaotic behavior. He like many others also believes that carbon dioxide is more a scare nutrient which is necessary for life on Earth rather than the pollutant it has been labeled. It may be that more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for the planet rather than the bringer of dome.
If you are one of those who have joined the call to save Mother Earth than it is your duty to read a few books and find the truth or if you just want to know why so many live in fear of plant food and something that is part of nature then this is a good place to start.
July 3, 2011
Spencer does a good job of presenting a case for at least one alternate explanation for Global Warming -- The natural variation of cloud cover. However, his math and analysis is rather simplistic and potentially makes the same kinds of errors as he accuses Climate Modelers of making. Let's face it, the climate is an extremely complex and interrelated system. Climate Science is in it's infancy and we are just starting to be able even to observe some of the signals, not to mention to understand how they really work and their implications for the future. The bottom line is that Spencer make's a good case, that cloud cover is an important field of study, but whether any of his ideas and theories are correct, remains to be seen.
Further, Spencer seems to have a clear agenda in writing this book. His attitude and stance will clearly give pause to any objective reader about Spencer's own neutrality and open-mindedness on the issue.
Further, Spencer seems to have a clear agenda in writing this book. His attitude and stance will clearly give pause to any objective reader about Spencer's own neutrality and open-mindedness on the issue.
October 23, 2015
What started out as an okay/plausible premise quickly morphed. The over simplified arguments became hyperbolic and childish. In fact I firmly believed at some point I would read the words "Well, they didn't let me play so now I'm telling."
Further he seem rather defensive about the fossil fuel industry, which ultimately is a moot point as we edge nearer to peak oil and gas.
So really, I'm more disappointed that a potential good opposing point got clouded in bad arguments and self delusion.
Further he seem rather defensive about the fossil fuel industry, which ultimately is a moot point as we edge nearer to peak oil and gas.
So really, I'm more disappointed that a potential good opposing point got clouded in bad arguments and self delusion.
November 22, 2010
The sad thing about this book is I agree with the author about the possible causes of global warming. I agreed even before I read this book, and he does a good job explaining his theories. The problem I have is he's angry and pushes some other agenda. I'm reading along and all of the sudden I hear Glen Beck's voice in my head, and the author's credibility drop several noches.
August 9, 2020
Good subject matter but scores low on readability. Easy to get lost in all the graphs throughout the book since Dr. Spencer takes a while to finally 'cut to the chase' near the end. Also I think he was too generous calling it a 'blunder'; had this been published before Climategate that term might have been more fitting.
June 8, 2010
The author is a little petulant, and his calculations are not as easy to follow as he seems to think. But it was worth the read and worth some thought.
Want to read
January 15, 2011Hmm, not sure what to think about this one, but I say it's impossible to critique the chef until you tasted the food. New perspective. Pushing the mind.
April 4, 2017
Makes me think.
This book gives you a reason to question the Orthodox views of climate change. I am sure that Dr. Mann would consider this heresy who would have the nerve to question the church of IPCC.
This book gives you a reason to question the Orthodox views of climate change. I am sure that Dr. Mann would consider this heresy who would have the nerve to question the church of IPCC.
March 5, 2018
Spencer’s major issue here is that he believes the IPCC has taken a political stance and has refused to investigate natural sources for global warming trends, marginalizing research findings suggesting alternative explanations along the way.
Spencer’s first assertion is that the earth’s climate system is dominated by negative feedback rather than positive feedback, meaning the earth is relatively insensitive to heightened greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
He believes further investigation in forcing and feedback is key to understanding whether the phenomenon of global warming is anthropogenic or naturally occurring.
His second assertion is that there is a possibility that the variation in Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases causes radiative forcing of the earth as well as changes in average global cloud coverage. Less cloud coverage, he argues, could be a primary factor in global warming trends over the past 100 years.
Spencer uses recent satellite data as support.
Spencer’s first assertion is that the earth’s climate system is dominated by negative feedback rather than positive feedback, meaning the earth is relatively insensitive to heightened greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
He believes further investigation in forcing and feedback is key to understanding whether the phenomenon of global warming is anthropogenic or naturally occurring.
His second assertion is that there is a possibility that the variation in Pacific Decadal Oscillation phases causes radiative forcing of the earth as well as changes in average global cloud coverage. Less cloud coverage, he argues, could be a primary factor in global warming trends over the past 100 years.
Spencer uses recent satellite data as support.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews