New Book – Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear

By Rod Martin, Jr

Afraid of the future? Don’t be. When we’re armed with the basic facts of climate, we can more easily spot the lies that the corrupt, corporate news media is trying to feed us. Some of those lies are huge.

This small book gives us everything the layman needs to know about climate science.

The warming alarmists attempt to frighten us with things like,
– Global warming will result in more violent storms.
– Global warming will give us more deserts and droughts.
– Global warming is dangerous.
– Carbon dioxide is driving our dangerous global warming.
– We urgently need to cool down the planet.
– Carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
– The future looks bleak unless we drastically reduce our “carbon footprint.”

This slender volume sets the record straight on all of the above issues.

There are concerns for the future, but none of these are it. And when we have real problems to face, it does no good to be fixing things that don’t need it.

Download for free here for a limited time. PDF, Ebook, Kindle formats

Advertisements

60 thoughts on “New Book – Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear

  1. Not afraid of the “climate” of the future at all. But definitely afraid of the decay of culture, ethics and morals that’s occurring.

  2. Totally agree with the title and look forward to a good read.

    My own take on this is simple and is based on the thermodynamics of water which provides the Earth with its thermostat.
    The logic being: Pressure, provided by gravity, determines the temperature at which water commences to evaporate. The Latent Heat involved in this is derived from incoming radiation at Constant Temperature which means that the coefficient involved in the Plank equation is zero. This Latent Heat is then physically transported up through the atmosphere for dissipation into space due to the buoyancy of gaseous water. Once dissipated gravity returns the water back to earth for recycling by means of the Rankine Cycle.
    Whilst the details are complex the result in climatic terms is well known and has resulted in a remarkable consistency in the Earth’s temperature over thousands of years.

    For my part, so long as the kettle in my kitchen at sea level boils at 100C I am confident that there will be no worries about an overheating of our Planet.

    The basic flaw in the consensus view lies in the attempt to determine global temperature purely by means of radiation analysis without consideration of the morphing nature of energy irrespective of temperature.

    • I like it!
      Not saying I completely understand it, but your explanation makes sense.
      Atmospheric pressure is more important than the consensus acknowledges.
      Don132

    • Outstanding! But there are a couple of things that I would change: One addition and one correction.

      I would add that the heat that keeps Earth at a livable temp. originates in the fusion reaction of the Sun. Then, since 71% of Earth’s surface is Water and since the albedo of the oceans is .04 or .05, the greatest percentage of TSI that reaches Earth’s surface is absorbed into the oceans, then evaporated out in the form of latent heat energy.

      Then there is the omission of the comma in the following sentence.
      Once (the latent heat is) dissipated (,) gravity returns the water back to earth for recycling by means of the Rankine Cycle.

      • Thanks for that Tom. Yes I rather confined my explanation to a simple “Incoming Radiation” statement which as you rightly point out is a bit sparse; so upwelling radiation from the oceans etc. should have been included. However I suspect that very little incoming radiation actually winds up heating the oceans as most of the energy is absorbed into Latent Heat and removed by wind and buoyancy; acting, as it were, as an insulating blanket. This is probably why sea temperatures rarely exceed 30C. – True for many years.?
        The reason being that between 20 to 40 deg.C the vapour pressureof water very rapidly increases.; thus accelerating the evaporation process.
        Incidentally the 71% water surface area is another consensus falsity when it comes to climate. You only have to look at the trees and count up the surface area of all the leaves and add in all the other flora where the water/atmosphere interface prevails to get an idea of the immensity of the area actually involved where climate is concerned.
        Yes the errant comma is noted😳
        All the best
        Alasdair

    • My own take on this is simple …

      Mine too. If CAGW science were solid, they wouldn’t need to exaggerate and disseminate patent falsehoods.

      I’m a skeptic because Dr. Michael Mann tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with his bogus hockey stick. I am willing to give Mann the benefit of the doubt but none of the alarmists pointed out his error. Instead, they all piled onto what was pretty obviously bad science. Later, the IPCC quietly dropped their references to the hockey stick without acknowledging their error.

      It became obvious to me that the whole CAGW thing had nothing at all to do with good science.

      • Exactly my thoughts. The “Science” community did not earn any respect when they failed to point out bad science and many lost it when they tried to defend it.
        Consequently they are not to be trusted on anything they claim.

      • commieBob

        As you know, I’m no scientist so my real ‘eureka’ moment was when I saw the Geological Timescale:

        http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

        I realised then that the planet is at its lowest temperature ever (roughly) without actually being in a full scale ice age; and that CO2 has never been as consistently low as it has been, indeed pre industrial revolution levels of 280 ppm were only 130 ppm away from the extinction of meaningful life on planet earth. I don’t believe there’s an engineer on the planet who would flirt with danger that close when the solution, burning naturally but accidentally sequestered CO2, is at hand.

        The next obvious question is, of course, if we release all that sequestered CO2 will we burn the planet up? So after much trawling the internet I established that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas (Tyndall) at 95% of all greenhouse gases and CO2 is 3%…….. Which then reveals the political aspect of the AGW cause the bizarre and momentary increase in global temperatures can only be blamed on increased atmospheric CO2 because it’s by and large, the single variable man has any control over. We can burn sequestered CO2 and release it, but there’s no other earthly component we can multiply (in any meaningful sense) so of course, CO2 is the culprit. In the absence of science, the alarmist, green leftards turned to gullible politicians to further their cause. And of course, with an eye to a buck to replace his family tobacco business, Al Gore pitched up with a unique business proposition to exploit climate change to his, and many others advantage, irrespective of the science.

        In my unscientific endeavours I have yet to find a credible, empirical study which demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm, you are probably bored to death of me asking the alarmists on here. There ought to be dozens, if not hundreds of studies over the last 40 years demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that CO2 causes the planet to warm, but there’s not one.

        The human race is subjected to political and predatory financial practices when, and because there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate the underlying premise of the entire concept, that increased atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to heat up.

        The net benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 is overwhelmingly beneficial. When anyone can present me with empirical evidence which demonstrates a negative effect of increased atmospheric CO2 of even 10% of that of the 14% greening NASA has empirically shown, then I might listen to them.

        And here’s a little challenge to all those undoubtedly highly qualified and intelligent alarmist scientists and engineers out there who might be reading this. Demonstrate to me, a layman, empirically that atmospheric CO2 has had a detrimental effect on planet earth which exceeds the benefit of global greening.

        I look forward to being convinced.

        Apologies commieBob for hijacking your post.

    • Alasdair:
      You seem to be a bit confused about the physics, or (more likely) you’re not expressing yourself very well. You talk about pressure, but it’s partial pressure that you’re describing. Pressure provided by gravity determines the total atmospheric pressure at any point, yes. And that’s more or less constant at a given elevation. But temperature determines the partial pressure of water vapour that will be in equilibrium with liquid (or solid) water, i.e. when the air is saturated with water vapour. There is no “temperature at which water commences to evaporate” – water will evaporate at any temperature when the PP of water vapour in the adjacent air is less than than the saturated value. Including sublimation from ice.

      Your analysis of the role of water in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere is exact, and is well known to those who hang out here, but please don’t talk about boiling. The only places on earth where water is boiling naturally are where lava is entering the sea, or a lake. The dreaded “oceans will boil” scenario is over the top, even for most warmists.

      The figure of 30°C as a maximum for seawater before evaporation leads to cu-nim clouds and thunderstorms, and cooling sets in, is not a fixed number, but it seems to be an “effective limit”. The only places where sea water is significantly hotter than 30°C seem to be the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, where there’s desert on both sides, the air is dry, and any water vapour from the sea gets carried away before it can reach levels where it condenses and forms clouds.

      • Thanks Smart Rock. I think we are on the same wavelength. Yes – not well expressed. Not easy encapsulating all in a mere paragraph. Try this for size:

        Absolute pressure is determined by gravity at any particular point in the atmosphere. The properties of water determine the vapour pressure (Vp) at the prevailing temperature. Evaporation occurs when this vapour pressure exceeds the partial pressure (Pp) of water at the interface with the atmosphere. The partial pressure being determined by the humidity. The process takes place at constant temperature rendering the coefficient in the Plank equation Q=K*(change in) T equal to zero.
        When Vp = Pp evaporation ceases only to continue should the Pp be reduced by buoyancy or wind removing gaseous water (vapor) from the interface. This controls the rate of evaporation assuming adequate energy input.
        The rising vapor contains high Latent Heat (circa 680 Watthrs/kg.) which gets dissipated during the rise and eventually into space. During the rise additional energy is received by radiation. The buoyancy element is separate and additional to the convection process.
        Note: At the detailed level, pressures and temperatures vary a bit due to other factors.

        Yes I do tend to conflate boiling with evaporation. Boiling being but one specific point in the evaporation process. Maybe I shouldn’t as it could confuse.

        Much appreciate your comment and interest. Desperately need being called to task on my errors.
        Regards
        Alasdair

    • Alasdair

      It seems WUWT was hacked and since then the site has been restricted. Posts are slow to appear and activity levels seem to have dropped, understandably. The voting and editing facility seem to have disappeared but its a minor inconvenience. Any solutions if it’s at my end are gratefully received.

      Keep posting mate!

      Don’t let the bastards grind us down

      • Thanks HotScot. The comment did eventually appear. So all well. Seems WUWT has gone a bit slow.
        Don’t like having to type in my name and email every time; but I suppose it reduces a lot of those ++s, 10s and trite remarks etc.

  3. I’m having difficulty with some of the claims in the book .
    For example, in the section “Wind blows because of temperature differences”, is the statement “Temperature is what controls pressure.”
    To my thinking, this is not true and is more likely the reverse. Consider the way air conditioners or heat pumps work or consider the “Gay-Lussac’s Law” (the Pressure Temperature Law) which in brief tells us that the greater the pressure, the greater the temperature.
    What am I missing here?

    • Dale: I don’t think you are missing anything here. It is just that the interplay between pressure, temperature and volume is a bit too complex to explain in the comments section.
      Depends much on what is driving the behaviour at the the time; particularly when velocity comes into play.
      As I haven’t yet read the book I can’t comment otherwise.

    • In Gay-Lussacs Law volume is constant, in the atmosphere volume is variable, the combined gas law might work better for you.

    • Dale

      This is a book for the layman. I’m a layman and accept that whilst the devil is in the detail, overall the concepts presented are largely accurate.

      In saying that, when someone, sceptic or alarmist can present me with a handful of credible, empirical studies which independently and reliably demonstrate that increased atmospheric CO2 (never mind man made atmospheric CO2) causes the planet to warm, I’ll consider their science.

      Until then frankly, I don’t give a monkeys uncle about the devil’s detail, that is the devils detail and the inconvenient truth.

    • Temperature in the atmosphere decreases with decreasing pressure– we all know that.
      The day/night pressure varies little, yet if temperature dominated pressure then at night we should see a significant pressure drop.

      So partly for this reason I think the idea that greenhouse warming might be “baked into” pressure is wrong.

      Implications of pressure are overlooked. Did I mention that the weight of the atmosphere per square meter is equivalent to something like twenty grand pianos? Have you ever tried to lift a grand piano? Even a corner of one? I have.

      Pressure is the unseen elephant in the room that we can’t feel because it’s equalized. But it’s there, and it allows for intense conduction (of heat!) with the surface– 20 grand pianos per square meter’s worth.

      Worth mulling over.

      Don132

    • Dale, thanks for bringing this up. You’re exactly right about Gay-Lussac, but what would change the pressure in the atmosphere? In a machine, compression is done artificially, and greater pressure generates higher temperatures. We see that when we pressurize a tire.

      In the atmosphere, with a constant temperature, you have nothing to give us differences in pressure. Thus, wind on the surface of Venus is virtually nonexistent. Million-year-old meteor craters remain in pristine condition from the sheer lack of surface wind.

      Warmth expands air, creating higher pressure. Cold condenses air, creating lower pressure. But the pressure change comes as a result of the change in temperature. And, of course, the sun gives us the warmth.

      If we had a constant temperature all across Earth, we’d have virtually zero wind, too. But that isn’t going to happen, even without the cold of our current Ice Age. We’ll always have some wind, but ending the Ice Age could eliminate most, if not all, hurricanes and tornadoes.

  4. Wonderful of you to make this free to us for a limited time, to get our superior peer review.

    I just read the whole thing. It is short and it is VERY lucid. We are really going to want to promote this book.

    As I had feared, it is missing two essential items. 1. A definition for the term “climate optimum.” When I visited Denver’s National Ice Core lab, the M.S. in Geology lecturer did not know the correct definition of this term. He claimed it meant a temperature extreme. We badly need that fixed, and you have the clear writing skills to do it.

    2. A description of proxies and what proxy was used for Mann’s infamous “hockey stick.” He cherry picked his data, but if his conclusion matched his method and data, that conclusion would be: Life is flourishing more than it has in millions of years. I believe that conclusion is correct, and that it tells us what to do about any cooling periods: make more concrete and burn more fossils so that life has more carbon to work with.

    • Lady Life Grows, thanks for the kind words. And I appreciate your suggestions.

      Your #1 was a surprise, but I can see how he was confused. The “Holocene Optimum” was the warmest period of our current interglacial. But the warmth is relative. Our interglacial is not the warmest one in our current Ice Age.

      Your #2 is certainly a gem. Proxies are the lifeblood of past climate study (paleoclimate). What Mann did was scientific fraud. The emails of Climate-Gate show his fraudulent intent.

      I’ll definitely make use of these in my writing and in my videos on YouTube.

      https://youtube.com/c/RodMartinJr/

  5. I wonder what you might consider to be your definition of a “climate optimum” ?
    Looking at it on the grand scale, I would say there is no such a thing as global climate, therefore it follows there can’t be a scientific definition of the global “climate optimum”.
    Hence, I would suggest that the “climate optimum” for ‘now’ is exactly what the climate is ‘now’, whatever the place is and whenever that ‘now’ happens to be, at least for the present interglacial.

  6. Joined Smashwords. Downloaded the book. It shows in my Library.

    But how do I read it on my PC please? Page down produces nothing. Double click gives a huge enlargement of the cover!!

    Any help appreciated.

    • LittleOil, there are a number of ways to view the book. From the book’s page (the “here” link in the article), you can click on the appropriate Download button (these are about a third of the way down the page, on the right, labeled “Download the full versions of this book.” Click on the format you’d like to have, or you can click to view online with their Online Reader.

      Or from your library, click the Download Now button (green), which will take you to a page with the same set of download buttons near the top of the screen.

      Hope this helps.

  7. I have only started to skim through but this statement in chapter 1 seems back to front “Hot air expands, causing high pressure. Cold air contracts, causing low pressure.”

    • I live on a peninsula 200 kms long and 50kms wide in South Australia. In summer we have a strong sea breeze in the afternoon when the temperature is at its maximum.
      The way I understand this is to think of the column of air over the land. This expands upward. It creates a pressure difference aloft. Air moves from the higher pressure aloft over the land to the lower pressure aloft over the sea. This creates a higher pressure at sea level over the sea than over the land. When the pressure difference at low altitude is great enough the sea breeze starts. The critical thing is that it is the movement of air aloft from land to sea that creates the pressure difference over the that creates the breeze.
      I have seen many explanations that seem to suggest that the convection of hot air draws air in and this creates the breeze. Not so. It is the movement of air aloft from over the land to over the sea that creates the pressure difference at low altitudes that does it.
      I assume that the same general principle, scaled up, applies at a global scale.

      • Trevor Ulwin:
        “The way I understand this is to think of the column of air over the land. This expands upward.”

        This fact leads to the question: What causes air (over the land) to expand upward? I suggest:
        “the convection of hot air”

        The explanation you quoted at the top of your post is the result of the explanation you quoted further down. They are not separate processes, but 2 parts of the same process.

        SR

        • Even if it were convection (which could be a discussion for another day), it is pressure difference aloft that leads to the flow of air from over the land to over the sea. This movement aloft always precedes the sea breeze and gives a higher pressure over the cooler sea.
          The point that is relevant to the first point made in the section of the book dealing with wind, is that it blows to where there is an increase in temperature. To claim as the book does, “Hot air expands, causing high pressure.”, is misleading in the case of the sea breeze effect. The pressure at sea level over land (where the temperature is higher) must be lower than over the cooler sea. I guess the point I am trying to make is that there are risks in simplifying a complex subject in order to make it available to the layperson.

    • From the Weather Dude

      http://www.wxdude.com/singalongcompanion/windandairpressure/index.html

      Rising and Sinking Air

      Since warm air is less dense and creates less air pressure, it will rise; cold air is denser and creates greater air pressure, and so it will sink. When warm air rises, cooler air will often move in to replace it, so wind often moves from areas where it’s colder to areas where it’s warmer. The greater the difference between the high and low pressure or the shorter the distance between the high and low pressure areas, the faster the wind will blow. Wind also blows faster if there’s nothing in its way, so winds are usually stronger over oceans or flat ground. Meteorologists can forecast the speed and direction of wind by measuring air pressure with a barometer.

  8. I found the most effective theme in this book to be the emphasis placed on geologic time scales, and the reality that we are in a brief window of warm temperatures and widespread rain fall in an Ice Age marked by a number of such interglacial episodes. The chapter that attempts to relate wind to temperature is not of the same quality as the rest of the book. While temperature drives the physical processes that result in wind, the wind responds to differences in pressure in an extremely complicated and chaotic fashion. Dr. Ball posted an essay today (9/29) on WUWT with a quote from the Scientific Section of Third IPCC Assessment Report that summarizes the difficulties of making long term climate predictions based on atmospheric dynamics. You can’t do much better than that. And the difficulty of predicting climate doesn’t begin to address the difficulties in predicting the effect of climatic processes on significant wind/weather events, like hurricanes. Estimating changes in strength or frequency of land fall of such events would seem to require detailed predictions of the evolution of many processes, such as the path of jet streams. None of which are possible, let alone the idea that they can be simply related to temperature. Bottom line is that the Piltdown Man rested on firmer ground than AGW and all its accompanying hysteria. It’s probably safe to say that anyone making such predictions has demonstrably failed to understand the problem.

    I was delighted to learn that the author has also published a variety of books, and I am looking forward to reading “Touch the Stars: Emergence” on my Kindle.

  9. I have only started to browse through but is this statement in chapter 1 back to front “Hot air expands, causing high pressure. Cold air contracts, causing low pressure.

  10. Thank you, Anthony Watts, for the pleasant surprise. I hadn’t known this article was posted until I read my weekly WUWT digest. And thanks to whoever found my book and sent it here. I sincerely hope it helps in the “battle” of ideas.

Comments are closed.