What do you think?
Rate this book


281 pages, Hardcover
Published April 22, 2025
Charney walked up to my table. And while several people lined up to speak with the famous meteorologist, he spent the next several minutes with me, explaining some of the new work he had done on tropical atmospheres. I was so surprised, I could hardly concentrate on his words. All I could think was that the work I had done at the IITM—where my colleagues were already predicting I would take over as director general one day—paled in comparison to the brilliant science happening in other parts of the world. It wasn’t just Charney; it was every talk I had heard that day. Suddenly, the limits of my own trajectory in India seemed perfectly visible. Charney asked me to follow him to his hotel room so that he could give me a preprint of his latest paper. The people waiting to speak to him followed us too, and when we got to Charney’s suite, we found it covered in papers and books. Later I would learn that Charney was in the midst of planning the Global Weather Experiment; that’s why he was buried in paperwork and in especially high demand among his fellow scientists that day. All those people trailing us down the corridors of the hotel were the luminaries of the weather world. By the time we said goodbye, I felt something new taking root inside me—that confidence, that certainty I had been lacking. I had stumbled into the conference by accident, but I left with a new sense of purpose.
...Things were worse in Mirdha, where even my family was short of food, something that had rarely happened during my childhood. As I looked around our struggling village, my thoughts were far away, in the MIT classrooms I had left behind. Surely a phenomenon this extreme and widespread had been heralded somehow. Nature could not be so cruel, I thought, as not to offer us a way to anticipate its life-sustaining variations.
the US Weather Bureau, where [Syukuro "Suki" Manabe] had begun work in 1958. In 1966, Suki used a model to run a deceptively simple calculation designed to investigate the relationship between greenhouse gases and the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. He found that in his model , increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from three parts per ten thousand to six parts per ten thousand increased the surface temperature of the Earth by a staggering 4 degrees Fahrenheit (Suki was the first researcher to model anthropogenic global warming, and it earned the Japanese scientist a Nobel Prize in Physics many decades later).
...
the experiment landed in the climate community like a grenade. For centuries, the common wisdom was that water that evaporated from the ocean was the source of rainfall over land. But what we had shown was that, since land-surface conditions and evaporation from land accounted for a stunning 65 percent of annual average rainfall, land was an essential component of the global hydrological cycle. As it turned out, the land didn’t passively receive the weather; it actively created it. It was an almost heretical idea.
...a new chapter in dynamical seasonal prediction had been written. It was also a momentous occasion in my own career. Soon after the successful prediction of the 1997/ 1998 El Niño, Ants Leetmaa, head of the climate prediction group at NOAA, started a lecture in Miami with this joke: “I have heard a rumor that Shukla would retire only after the dynamical seasonal prediction problem is solved. Perhaps it is time for Shukla to think about retiring?”
...
were well aware from past observations that intense El Niños produced severe monsoon droughts over India, like the 1972 drought I had experienced while visiting my village during graduate school. When the Indian authorities asked me confidentially for my opinion about the 1997 monsoon season for India, I confidently supported the conventional wisdom—confirmed by the models—that the 1997 monsoon season would be a drought year for India. Well, nature has its own way of keeping scientists in their place—I was wrong; we all were, and 1997 was a normal monsoon rainfall season for India. Some suggested Lorenz’s butterflies were at work again, fiddling with our hard-won model. Some research indicated that the influence of El Niño was neutralized by the Indian Ocean temperatures, which were not correctly predicted in 1997.
...
We do not see thunderstorms all the time even though moist air is always present because, in addition to the heating of the ground, we need vertical profiles of temperature and moisture in the atmosphere so that the moist air has the buoyancy to keep going up and up; these are not always present. The physical and dynamical processes that cause the lifting of the surface air to produce storms in the tropical regions are different than the processes that produce storms in the extratropical regions. That is why our ability to predict weather differs between tropical and extratropical regions.
For reasons that are unclear but probably easy to guess, Eunice Newton Foote, an American scientist and women’s rights advocate, did not give this presentation, despite having thought up the experiment, performed it, and written the paper. Perhaps that’s why Foote’s name and this experiment—conducted in her Saratoga Springs home and motivated by her own curiosity and desire to be useful to science—has largely been lost to history. Despite the fact that her pioneering work took place several years before that of the man who has long been credited with discovering the greenhouse effect (Irish physicist John Tyndall), several decades before Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius made his observations on carbon dioxide, and almost a century before Guy Callendar connected the increase of atmospheric CO2 with global warming, most people—including me—hadn’t heard her name. Shamefully, this is not an uncommon phenomenon in science. (Not to mention society at large. In my own house, my parents gave a much higher priority to my brother and me than to our two younger sisters, who were married off as young teenagers.) Who knows how many other women—scientists, amateur scientists, students, lab assistants, or the overlooked wives of famous scholars—contributed to the field of climate science without recognition.
...
My conversion from ambivalence to acceptance of global warming happened quickly. In an air-conditioned auditorium, surrounded by almost five hundred scientists representing nearly three-quarters of the countries on earth, I sat in a dumbfounded silence as expert after expert after expert after expert took the podium and delivered the sobering news from their corners
...
in 2006, as my IPCC duties were ongoing, COLA colleagues Tim DelSole, Mike Fennessy, Jim Kinter, Dan Paolino, and I designed a study that would satisfy my desire to rank those twenty-three models and find out if there was a relationship between how good each model was and how much global warming it predicted. In essence, we would examine the performance of each model in simulating the past one hundred years for which we have observations and see how accurately it recreated the past conditions. Then we would see how much future warming that model predicted. We had absolutely no basis to know what the result of this study would be. When we analyzed the data, we saw that the quote-unquote best models consistently predicted greater degrees of warming, to the tune of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius, a catastrophic rise in temperature. It was a very simple calculation with a very frightening result, and one we thought the world would like to know about. As it turns out, we were wrong on that last point. When we sent our paper— which warned that “projected global warming due to increasing CO2 is likely to be closer to the highest projected estimates among the current generation of climate models”— to Science, one of the reviewers argued against including it in the journal, saying it would cause panic. This reviewer, a scientist of great reputation, called me a few days after its rejection to tell me it wasn’t just society he was worried about but my own well-being. Climate deniers would make my life miserable for authoring such a paper, he warned. The paper was readily published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 2006. Since our IPCC team had the responsibility to assess all published papers, I was sure we would highlight this rather significant result in our report. Instead, a fellow lead author, a scientist from the US Department of Energy, objected. He argued that we might be accused of privileging IPCC members. Suddenly, it felt like I had switched places with the scientists I had once thought too alarmist. I felt like I couldn’t get anyone to listen to me. (Looking back, the conclusions of the papers have stood the test of time.)
We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool—recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse—is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.
I believe that to manage and mitigate climate change we need three things, and the good news is that we already have the first two well in hand. First, we need to understand the science. Check. Second, we need the technology that allows us to stop pumping the air full of carbon dioxide. Check. Third, we need the will to listen to the science and embrace the technology. It is only on this last point that we are stuck, thanks to the corporate greed that has parasitized our political system. Just forty years ago, society found itself in a very similar situation. Chlorofluorocarbons, a harmful greenhouse gas used in foams, aerosols, and air conditioners, had torn a hole in the ozone layer, the planet’s natural protection against the sun’s damaging radiation. Fixing it required listening to the scientists issuing dire warnings, developing new technologies, and calling for action. In 1987, just two years after the hole was detected, forty-six countries entered into the Montreal Protocol, committing to phasing out harmful chlorofluorocarbons. In 2008, it was the first and only UN environmental agreement to be ratified by every country in the world. Today, virtually all ozone-depleting substances have been phased out of production...