I'm clearly still pleased with that, many years later. Random aside: in my Intro to Met class in college, I wrote a paper on acid rain and called it “Red Rains.” Title courtesy of my roommate and Peter Gabriel. This book needed editing for it's excessive choppiness and desultory nature, AND should have been looked over very thoroughly by an atmospheric scientist. It’s frankly embarrassing and problematic. And don’t spread such rampant disinformation. (This book was written in 2017, by the way.) Do better research. The fact that she said that the climate change debate would continue to rage on for years to come and we had much more research to do on whether or not it’s actually man made.just.🤬🤬🤬. The author also brings up things that are frankly just plain conspiracy theories. While these topics are great topics of discussion, they’re brought up in a misleading and confusing way which can lead the reader to think they’re potentially causing climate change when in reality: they’re not. Plus seriously, “Benefits of Global Warming”? And the sun’s effects on the climate?!😳🙄 You’ve got to be kidding me. Her language was vague and misleading about the scientific consensus surrounding climate change. She did what many outside of scientific circles do, and tried to show “both sides” to a “climate change controversy,” which is highly problematic for a book like this (also, I wrote part of my MS thesis on this subject so I have some thoughts). I.I will not rant and rave for paragraphs on this subject, but I could. 🤯🤯😱😱 Noooooooo!!!!!! Sure, that's a reasonable explanation for LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE on millennial timescales!!! I wanted to slap this author. The author misleadingly implied that it’s possibly because of Milankovitch cycles and plate tectonics that we’re experiencing our current climate change. It went REALLY sour in the end when it did a SHIT JOB with climate change. Weather, in case you weren’t aware, is a global phenomenon. The book is also very focused on the US, which is dumb. There was some interesting history of weather events and general meteorology that the author provided, and she did an.ok.job of explaining some things (although so much of it could have been explained much better and more accurately). But I love details.) But this resulted in a lot of the choppiness.

(Perhaps that’s just the scientist in me. It also could have gone into a lot more detail. I did listen to the audiobook, but it had a lot of unnecessary headers that broke the flow of the book. I’m clearly not the only one who felt that way. Lastly, it was recommended by the library for the “Nature” Square for Library Bingo 2020. Plus, people loooooove to complain about the weather and I will admit that I think that if everyone took a basic course in meteorology, the world would be a slightly better place. I love also science outreach and communication.

With a background in atmospheric sciences, I wanted to see what this book had to say. I'd like to give this book negative stars based on its horrible assessment of climate change.

Polar vortex chicago doppler radar