Reddit reviews An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, Volume 48, Third Edition (International Geophysics)
We found 2 Reddit comments about An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, Volume 48, Third Edition (International Geophysics). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
Correct. More fluid dynamics than thermodynamics. This will be your life your junior year unless something has changed, but I'm pretty sure this book has remained a constant throughout the years. Holton's Dynamic Meteorology. This used to be the book for AOS 310 and 311...the junior dynamics courses. 330 and 340 focus on Atmospheric physics. Topics can be found here, but that's where your thermodynamics come in. You'll spend more time on fluid dynamics than you do on thermodynamics. There are two physics based courses, but they cover a wider range of topics. The dynamics classes are narrower in scope, but a lot harder in my opinion.
> What does that even mean? Do you have a paper (as in one in a peer reviewed journal) to cite?
Why would I cite a journal article when talking about basic atmospheric science and geophysical fluid dynamics? This is undergraduate level stuff.
> Once again - peer reviewed citation needed.
Geo-engineering is a huge research field and a personal research interest. I've sat through countless seminars and talks at AGU, AMS, and hopefully EGU this summer on it. But if you want citations, here's a few:
Geoengineering: Impacts of Stratospheric Sulfur Injection Schemes on Aerosol Size Distribution Investigated with a Microphysical Model coupled with a General Circulation and Chemistry Model (AGU Fall presentation)
The Role of Ions in New Particle Formation in the Upper Troposphere and Lower Stratosphere Using WACCM/CARMA (older AGU article)
Group Report: Connections between Aerosol Properties and Forcing of Climate
Geoengineering the climate - Science, governance and uncertainty
Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for geoengineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft.
Most of the work I've seen on this topic has yet to hit the pages of major journals because most modeling groups are focusing on AR5 simulations. Within a year, there'll be about a dozen high-profile dozen on this topic.
> People like Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller have raised sulphate aerosols as a solution. Paul Crutzen too.
People like Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller aren't atmospheric scientists. Would you also trust their prescription if you came down with pneumonia? The people who actually study geo-engineering are painting the picture that it's not tenable - either economically or practically.
> The Royal Society in the UK has published a report on geoengineering. You don't get much more consensus science than this.
Did you not read this report? It specifically states that methods like injection of sulfate aerosols (SRM in the synopsis) should be avoided in favor of other plans unless absolutely necessary because they only affect temperatures. Furthermore, the whole report strongly suggests we spend a great deal more money and time studying the deployment of geoengineering before we commit to any plan. And guess what? Like I've already said, subsequent to the publication of this report, people did start investigating geo-engineering, and what we're learning isn't encouraging (as I've already detailed).
> We've got a test case for sulphates too
Dude, I did a thesis on Pinatubo and volcanic eruptions in general, using them as a validation test for carbon-coupled GCM's which feature interactive ocean and land biogeochemistry. The eruption's climatic effects are well-studied (guess by who? James Hansen). And using Pinatubo as the benchmark for a sulphate aerosol geoengineering scheme falls flat because, as I've already stated, it's not as simple as just ejecting aerosols into the atmosphere. This is a dynamic chemical system we're talking about, and there are effects which drastically diminish the effectiveness of this scheme.
> I think you're not looking at this from an honest engineering perspective.
I'm a scientist. I tackle this problem from every perpective possible, and the more you dig into it, the less appealing geo-engineering becomes.
> You're trying to guide people to your preferred solution of CO2 cuts by talking up the scale of the problem and talking down other solutions.
Cutting CO2 emissions is the only problem which addresses the root cause. Sulphate aerosols would do nothing for ocean acidification, for instance. Why slap expensive band-aids which potentially have huge consequences on something when you can just as easily attack the root problem?
> Government might introduce a carbon tax but that will be to raise revenue.
There are not have never been any serious plans for a carbon tax as policy in the United States. You're beating a dead horse.
> The chances of CO2 emissions being drastically cut is zero unless people build a lot more reactors. I'd say the chances of that are low.
Why do you assume that I don't support nuclear energy? Until a month ago, we were on the verge of a nuclear renaissance in the United States, thanks to the success of policy like Bush's Nuclear Power 2010.
> If you're right about the seriousness of the problem - and I doubt it - it'll be geoengineering or bust.
Wow. You trust the science behind geoengineering, but not the science behind global warming - nevermind that they're identical, basic radiative physics? Do you see why I have trouble taking you seriously?
> Never fear though - just because you or I can't invent a affordable geoengineering scheme chatting on the internet doesn't mean that it can't be done. Most geoengineering schemes I suspect could easily be done by the G8 countries. They have the scientists and the cash.
Dude, you're still missing the point entirely. So let me spell it out one more time -
I promise you, you don't know half as much about this topic as you think you do.