David Archer's "The Long Thaw"

"But to get a true sense of global warming's magnitude, this is the place to go."

that's what got the gonads going wasn't it Tim.

at least pull the curtains.
depp=true
notiz=[DNFTT]

"Tell us straight up little troll - what exactly is your problem with the fact that we're warming the planet? Why does it bother you so much to admit it?"

Because to admit to what you are proposing is to admit to the end of the world as we know it according to your high priests like Al Gore and Bob Brown. Tipping point, out of control climate scenarios with associated destruction etc.

So isn't it any wonder that I question such a proposal, vehemently!

If you have some idea that the world is heading for oblivion you'd better have damn good evidence don't you think?

You are right, I'm not a scientist, I'm a member of the public and I've looked at your "evidence" and so far it's shown to be spurious.

The most honest site I've found so far is Professor Ole Humlum's, http://www.climate4you.com/ - who describes his site as:

The objective of the present web site is to provide information on meteorological and climatologically issues of general and specific interest. The purpose is not to provide a forum for discussions. Many fine web sites take care of this.

They sure do, like this one.

Now look at his beautifully presented charts, appreciate their honesty and try to continue with your bullshit doomsday scenarios - the two don't match mate, you're wanking out on depression and negativity.

By the way, I have no doubt I'm older than you, significantly.
depp=true
notiz=[DNFTT]

Disemvowelling is okay, but I would personally find the result more aesthetically pleasing if comments could be deconsonanted instead.

I read it for review. It sucks. Archer is a horrible writer.

Hi Tim
Could you revowel janama? It's always entertaining (and always wrong).

Arikia,

Really? I haven't read it, but I thought his other book, Understanding the Forecast, was great.

> I read it for review. It sucks. Archer is a horrible writer.

Someone's trying really hard to look like a sock puppet.

Arikia is [not a sockpuppet](http://scienceblogs.com/seed/), but perhaps should elaborate on why she didn't like it?

I stand corrected then.

The book has a very clever front page in any case.

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is very well written and organized, so it is not true that "Archer is a horrible writer."

Good writers can, of course, write bad books -- but I think the burden is now on Arikia to explain why Archer's more recent work "sucks."

I read William Ruddiman's Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum on John Mashey's recommendation, and was delighted. It's a great book on multiple levels. At this point, I'm going with Mashey over Arikia.

Perhaps even better, perhaps Arika (or anyone else) could recommend alternate books as replacements.

In particular, I like having 2-3 books I can recommend for the person who asks "where should I start".

This came up a few nights ago, as James Hansen talked at our Town Center, giving a newer version of this talk, which was just fine for most of the audience, but a bit much for a few who wanted a book or two to study, and whose math&physics were very rusty.

Over in The Oil Drum, I'd posted advice, and Ron Broberg suggested a different set [good references, but some would be terrifying for my intended audience], and I gave the example of people at the Hansen talk. I.e., read the sequence of posts through mine at December 17 1:23PM.

Arikia:

I read it for review. It sucks. Archer is a horrible writer.

Just let us know when a "well-written" book comes along with the same technical level as "The Long Thaw". I won't be holding my breath.

They're like cockroaches...

According to Arikia:

I read it for review. It sucks. Archer is a horrible writer.

So, let me see if I read correctly:

1) Arikia reviews books.

2) As a reviewer, his/her considered opinion is that "it sucks"

3) In his/her considered opinion as as reviewer reading Archer 'for review', "Archer is a horrible writer"

Arikia, just what sort of reviewer are you? Can you supply your bona fides, and examples of your work?

You will have to pardon me, but I find it somewhat difficult to accept your capacity for literary criticism when other folk, whom I have high regard for, are at considerable odds to your assessment.

John Mashey writes:

In particular, I like having 2-3 books I can recommend for the person who asks "where should I start".

Try George S. Philander's "Is the Temperature Rising?" (1998), or Spencer W. Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" (2003). John T. Houghton's "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing" (2004) is also good.

If the person wants to study the science, Houghton's "The Physics of Atmospheres" (2002) or Grant W. Petty's "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" (2006) are good, but heavy on the math.

BPL @15
Thanks. I've referenced Houghton and Weart before, in "How to learn". I think both are excellent books, but I wouldn't put either of them in my beginner's kit:

a) "Global Warming - A Complete Briefing" is a level or two higher than "The Long Thaw" in the categorization scheme I'm currently using. Also, I slightly disagree with Chris Mooney in calling TLW "a scientist's book", although there are indeed a few places where the detail level gets higher than the public. But most isn't.

b) I think Weart's book/site is great, and there's a newer edition, which I've ordered, but hasn't arrived yet.

My beginner's kit focusses on understanding the current science, with a little bit of history, whereas Weart's is a great history. There is always pedagological tension between explaining what's known and explaining how we got here, and it really helps to know both.

The Long Thaw is an excellent book for anyone interested in paleoclimatology, or a long-term perspective on global warming. I've written a review for anyone who wants a longer spiel about the book.