I agree on not terribly detailed. It’s more of an “I checked, and Climate Change is correct” than a critical analysis. [I’ll reread it more carefully in a few weeks, but that was my impression on a first reading, admittedly while drugged up after surgery.]
Perhaps I’m looking for the impossible, but I’m not comfortable with the idea that climate is so esoteric that no one outside the field can understand anything between CO2 traps UV at one extreme … and the other extreme consisting of the entire model with conclusion that therefore the planet will warm by x degrees this century unless we eliminate fossil fuels. That alone has not satisfied many who ask—and it shouldn’t. I have more respect for my students (math-based but a different field) who search for more detail than for those who accept doctrine.
I can explain fusion on many levels: from hydrogen-becomes-helium to deuterium-and-tritium become helium to this is the reaction cross section for D-D or D-T or D-He3 and ____ MeV are released in the form of ____ …. Similarly for the spectrum from lift/drag to the Navier–Stokes equations …, and similarly for dynamic stability of structures. I am disappointed that climate scientists cannot communicate their conclusions at any intermediate level. Where is their Richard Feynman or (preferably) Carl Sagan?
I agree on not terribly detailed. It’s more of an “I checked, and Climate Change is correct” than a critical analysis. [I’ll reread it more carefully in a few weeks, but that was my impression on a first reading, admittedly while drugged up after surgery.]
Perhaps I’m looking for the impossible, but I’m not comfortable with the idea that climate is so esoteric that no one outside the field can understand anything between CO2 traps UV at one extreme … and the other extreme consisting of the entire model with conclusion that therefore the planet will warm by x degrees this century unless we eliminate fossil fuels. That alone has not satisfied many who ask—and it shouldn’t. I have more respect for my students (math-based but a different field) who search for more detail than for those who accept doctrine.
I can explain fusion on many levels: from hydrogen-becomes-helium to deuterium-and-tritium become helium to this is the reaction cross section for D-D or D-T or D-He3 and ____ MeV are released in the form of ____ …. Similarly for the spectrum from lift/drag to the Navier–Stokes equations …, and similarly for dynamic stability of structures. I am disappointed that climate scientists cannot communicate their conclusions at any intermediate level. Where is their Richard Feynman or (preferably) Carl Sagan?