(Part 2) Best ecology books according to redditors
We found 571 Reddit comments discussing the best ecology books. We ranked the 158 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
This plan is often called "fee and dividend." Its advocates include:
So I would say it's legitimate. It's nice to see some Republicans warming up to it; it's a market-based solution that doesn't increase government revenue, so it seems a good fit if they can get over their rampant climate denialism.
Rex Tillerson, believe it or not, has publicly supported a carbon tax, for example in this speech. In general the oil companies have been warming up to the idea, preferring it to a hodgepodge of state-level systems.
The defeat of WA's carbon tax initiative took the pressure off, and with Trump and GOP dominance, it seems unlikely that this will happen within the next couple years at least. But maybe the "border carbon adjustment" would appeal to Trump; importers taxed and the money going to working people.
Edit: Here's James Hansen's comment on this Republican proposal. He likes it and is somewhat optimistic. Also describes how both Republicans and Democrats tend to modify it in damaging ways.
Not many, but here's a start:
http://www.amazon.ca/Prairie-Natural-History-Candace-Savage/dp/1553655885
This is a great book about the great plains of North America. It discusses the impacts of dams east of the Rockies (especially in the US) and how they impact everything downstream all the way to the Mississippi and the Gulf.
http://damnationfilm.com/
Here's a documentary that should still be on Netflix that discusses primarily dams in the PNW and northern New England, with reference in the former case especially to salmon populations.
For reference, this is the book:
The Myth of Human Supremacy https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1609806786/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_hxEUCbYW5NKS0
I found it linked in this video from the front page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihPfB30YT_c
He's not a hack. He's one of the most respected climate scientists in the field. He's well published, and has contributed tremendously to the field.
The "hack" claims come from many sides. He's become very outspoken, so much so that his public persona has taken off his research scientist shoes and put on climate activist shoes. He's the one that originally chose 350 ppm CO2 as the ideal level for a stable climate, which Bill McKibben took and ran with in his climate activism movement 350.org. His outspoken and activist persona makes many people angry.
It makes some climate scientists upset because he's now advocating a certain point of view, which is not objective. He's done enough research, has seen the data, and he concluded that we must change quickly for the sake of our grandchildren. He tells this to anyone who will listen, and tries to tell it to those who won't, and is willing to get arrested during protests to get this message across.
He makes climate skeptics upset because his claims are bold and scary and he claims to back them up with science. Nearly all of his claims do come from a scientific background, because it's the field he was trained and has worked in for 30-40 years. However, some of his claims (i.e. the 350 ppm CO2 one) are less scientific and more of a stretch. As a result, he's an easy target for climate skeptics/deniers who need a "crazy non-objective climate scientist" to point to and use as a straw man.
Try to understand that the hearing you saw was political theater. It's a gimmick orchestrated by the majority party to try to drum up headlines on partisan media, galvanize the hardcore issue-followers from their base, and make snarky comments. The purpose of a hearing like this is most emphatically not to dig into the heart of an issue and try to come to a better understand of it. It's also an opportunity for trying to re-frame political discourse; bear in mind that a the very moment of this hearing, the ADP was convening to finalize the penultimate text of the COP21 and Paris Agreement.
It's very worrisome to me that you came away from this hearing with the impression that there are two sides to the climate change issue. There are not. There is not competing, alternative explanation of modern climate change, and there is no serious, scholarly debate about broad swaths of the field. What you saw at the hearing were manufactured controversies - misdirections which prey on the lay person's unfamiliarity with the science. For instance, Senator Cruz insisted - multiple times - that the satellite temperature record is the "gold standard" for recording temperatures and documenting potential climate change, and that we can't trust the surface temperature record because the data isn't available. That's, without any question or minimization whatsoever, absolute horseshit. In reality, all of the data and code necessary to reproduce the surface temperature record is available freely for anyone to download, and old records are archived in their original format. On the other hand, the satellite record is not freely available - it's privately maintained by both RSS and UAH. UAH has also - for two decades now - refused to release the code used to produce their dataset. That's a major problem, given the complexity of trying to infer temperatures from what satellites measure. In fact, it requires simplified atmosphere/climate models validated against the surface temperature record. So you can begin to see the problem here, and the insidious goal of this hearing - to invert the idea of which dataset is more reliable.
If you want to learn more about climate science, then stick to your textbooks. Some very good ones for geosciences students would be "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing" by John Houghton and "What We Know About Climate Change" by Kerry Emanuel. I'd be happy to recommend further resources from there.
But if you're looking for a head-to-head debate about climate science you won't find one, because there isn't a serious contrarian side on the issue.
Most of the people I know get their questions on this subject answered by such scientific experts as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and the good folks at "fair and balanced" Fox News. However, there are a host of alternative sources of information for those of us who are not quite sure that the right is always right. May I suggest:
Anyone interested should also read the excellent 1996 book by anthropologist Richard Leakey (son of famous anthropologist Louis Leakey) entitled The Sixth Extinction.
We came very very close to losing the bison for good. There's a thorough story about that in Prairie: a Natural History by Candace Savage.
the book Where the Wild Things Were covers this topic pretty extensively. Beyond reducing the population, wild predators change deer behavior. They return to natural vigilance and no longer browse trees down to the bone or do they destroy all new growth in a forest. Furthermore, with thinned populations, you don't see the high incidence of tuberculosis of recent years. Wolves significantly improve the health of both deer and the forests they live in.
Legit answer: We'd run out of fresh water and food and trample all the vegetation...and quickly be buried in our own waste. Disease would be rampant. We'd all begin fighting each other pretty much right away. The economy would both boom and bust in Romania as the old economy collapses and a new economy emerges. We'd probably stabilize in a population of a few million and experience a few decades of dark ages as we recover and relearn everything. Assuming the magic walls holding us in disappeared we'd probably do it all over again just as bad.
Elsewhere. The ecosystem would bounce back in a very big way. Animal/fish/insect populations and forests would flourish and quickly go back wild. Actually, there's a good book about this topic called The World Without Us
The World Without Us by Weisman.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000U20486/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Human-Supremacy-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1609806786
"Even when a baby dolphin is caught in a tuna net, the mother will often not abandon the child, but move in close, and comfort and sing to her baby until both are drowned in the net. Fishing companies acknowledge that most of the dolphins they kill are children and their mothers, who will not leave them even unto death."
This is what's written in my copy of the book. I'll try and see if he cites this from somewhere credible. I wouldn't be surprised if what he says is completely true though, seeing as how dairy cows similarly mourn the loss of their calves.
One of my interests is in Aquatic Invertebrates and my professors that specialize in this area swear by Voshell's field guide which I find very easy to use and comprehensive.
Certainly there is, right in Marx!
Marx's Ecology, John Bellamy Foster (2000) - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-S-Ecology-Materialism-Nature/dp/1583670122
Land and Labour: Marxism, Ecology and Human History, Martin Empson (2014) - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Land-Labour-Marxism-Ecology-History/dp/1909026522
Both are highly recommended.
Richard Leakey wrote an insightful book about this back in 1996 titled “The Sixth Extinction” and it’s disturbing and sad to see it playing out.
If you are interested in this subject I think you should check out John Bellamy Foster's "Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature".
http://www.amazon.com/Marxs-Ecology-John-Bellamy-Foster/dp/1583670122
For years, Kneale and Kneale was the standard. It is synoptic, but it's starting to get dated. But it's still a text every decent historian of logic owns.
(In your question, you wrote "consolidated" -- if you mean 'short' by that, then Kneale & Kneale is not for you... it's epic.)
there's an excellent book called the world without us written by alan weisman that goes into great detail about how the physical remains of human civilization will theoretically decay.
There is a "cultural" aspects, but it is not much different from nature where learned behaviour and copying is not so uncommon.
An small and easy example is mate choice copying which can be shown with an simple experiments with guppy fish. Female copy other females choice in mates.
We like other animals learn by observing others, which why it is sometimes common to see a group of people sharing a type or a child having a similar taste as their parent. Also a reason for things like Hollywood and reality TV trends about beauty spreads.
This is just a small example and a good way to getting started could be with an introduction to behavioural ecology
I had an older edition And it might be possible to find an older edition some where with some good googling instead of getting an expensive new one.
If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Richard Leakey's The Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Future of Humankind.
I can't help with documentaries but you helped me...and I read the book Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World and I have also been waiting for/interested in this documentary for some time now...Aluna not sure of when it will actually come out though...
They were towed out of Callao about 50 miles to sea
and then after wrecking, towed in to Tahiti. Recountings of the adventure tend to minimize this, but it's definitely there in the story. I recommend reading between the lines. Sailors in general who have done great crossings don't seems to have much respect for the opportunistic justifications of all the help the expedition got. Read The Wayfinders to get an idea of how great Polynesian navigation was and just how clueless westerners remain about it and the cultural agenda that motivates this ignorance.
If I recall correctly, it is fed by water flow from mountains above, so it probably wouldn't dry out completely, but it would drain enough to cease to be navigable. I believe that this book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000U20486/
has a section that goes into detail on what would happen to the canal if humans disappeared, and a lot of other what if scenarios as well.
This is the standard book, although it is a bit outdated now.
https://www.amazon.com/Development-Logic-William-Kneale/dp/0198247737
You should read this book:
The World without us
Very interesting read and that's exactly what I thought about when I saw your picture.
Well, that's the million dollar question really. Some like Clive Finlayson argue that it was that humans stumbled upon a cultural package that led them to genetic victory or others say that modern humans could have simply been slightly more fertile than other hominins and replaced them over time without conflict.
However, the fact that modern humans seems to have displaced all other hominin species wherever they have found them remains. It's quite surprising that we only have 2-4% of other hominin species in our DNA; the fact that some ancient humans had like 20%+ Neanderthal DNA indicates that such DNA had been selected against.
And there are genetic differences we posses with Neanderthals,
a interesting preprint (currently undergoing peer review) has found that modern humans have undergone much selection on the face and the vocal tract. The trait that cause our faces to recede unlike Neanderthals seems to have consequences for the evolution for our ability to vocalize; so there also could have been substantial differences that way.
Not fiction... but if you find the era interesting:
Jean M Auel provided a fun introduction to the period but, as readers of the series know, she took creative liberty. More than occasionally the books wandered into fantasy. To enjoy a fascinating view based a bit more on scientific evidence, the three listed are (or were to me) quire enlightening.
It's also only $1.99 for the Kindle version this month. Definitely worth picking up, especially at that price.
Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature
I'll mention this book again: Wade Davis' The Wayfinders
and here Davis talks about Polynesian navigational genius. Its a fascinating subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Kuo/e/B001ILI9G2/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1603582142/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/The-Mushroom-Cultivator-Practical-Mushrooms/dp/0961079800/ref=pd_sim_b_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0V56Q93CSRKQYV2W1C0B http://www.amazon.com/Mycelium-Running-Mushrooms-Help-World/dp/1580085792/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=0V56Q93CSRKQYV2W1C0B http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0472030361/ref=oh_details_o04_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0472031260/ref=oh_details_o04_s01_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394519922/ref=oh_details_o04_s01_i02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580085792/ref=oh_details_o04_s01_i03?ie=UTF8&psc=1
We use both of these for our bioassessment, besides what's available in Standard Methods. The first text there is the one that is referred to in pretty much all of the relevant government manuals and directives.
https://www.amazon.com/INTRODUCTION-AQUATIC-INSECTS-NORTH-AMERICA/dp/075756321X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509585700&sr=1-1&keywords=aquatic+insects+of+north+america
https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Common-Freshwater-Invertebrates-America/dp/0939923874
This is actually a pretty obvious fact to people who are into this kind of of stuff and he probably didn't feel the need to cite it. The amount of energy needed to go into meat is incredible. I am far too lazy to come up with a source but I was an environmental minor and took a few courses on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. A lot of what I know came from this textbook "http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0521709164.jpg" among others. Also cement is a huge CO2 emitter, who would've thought.
Brandon Shollenberger's review is seriously flawed and riddled with numerous errors and easily debunked denialati myths.
The zombie twenty two 'one star reviewers', clearly show, not one has actually read the book in any shape or form period.
The World Without Us Very accessible, and it makes you think about how fragile everything is.
>Not in the slightest. I'm merely restating what a massive body of evidence supports. But I don't think you even know what you're talking about, here.
Yes I have read through dozens of papers since I first got interested in this topic. I have a inkling of what I'm talking about.
>What is this theory, exactly? Can you point me to any of the scientific literature on the subject? Can you be precise about what this theory entails?
Can you link to anything beyond Green House Gas Effect? Yeah I thought not.
>That estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was 5-6 C; almost double the modern 'best estimate'.
The current modern estimate is .8-1.5 degree Celsius per doubling of CO2 without positive feedback (depending on the study). You are using a forcing that includes positive feedback that is much greater than negative feedback. Including in immediate feedbacks you get 5-6 C per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This paper for instance shows that the feedbacks are quite inconsistent when building the combined CO2 forcing from historical data.
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012.pdf
The following book from Professor Houghton who is advocating for immediate action on global warming gives gives the direct forcing for CO2 to be 1.2 degree Celsius.
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0521709164
The IPCC has listed a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing per doubling of CO2. This value also gives roughly the same answer as Professor Houghton of roughly 1.1-1.2 degree Celsius per doubling of CO2. This is of course before any feedbacks are included.
>I could easily point to dozens of papers on the topic of climate feedbacks; can you point to any actual peer-reviewed science supporting your claims?
I haven't made a single claim. The facts are quite clear on this. I'm sure you could link to the IPCC report and feel like you have done yourself a service and that is the extent of your experience on this topic. You are throwing out numbers without any context for which they stand for.
Feedbacks vary largely based on the study you look at. And there is no defining scientific finding that shows positive feedback is much greater than negative feedback. So claiming there are mountains of scientific evidence is disingenuous to say the least. As it stands if positive feedback == negative feedback the warming caused by CO2 is not dangerous, but is worth keeping track of.
Just finished Rat Island and Where the Wild Things Were by William Stolzenburg. Very well written, and really great if you like being depressed--turns out humanity is destroying the planet for other living things.
Global Warming: The Complete Briefing
Yes, after UPenn
whitewashedinvestigated his scientific demeanor, he still has a career and recently published a pretty self righteous book.There are many who deny the CO2 based climate theory and that it's just because of the high level of political noise and a few documentaries that we all bought into the greenhouse gas theory of climate change.
I am definitely no expert in these things, however there is another side of the story that I think is plausible because as we all know, the "official story" is rarely ever the actual truth and is usually the complete opposite, used to create fear, guilt, confusion and ultimately control the population.
Here are a couple things linked below that I dug up that may be of interest.
Cheers!
https://principia-scientific.org/man-made-global-warming-fiction/
https://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6
Read this book. It's broader than just zoology, and also includes some of the evolutionary theory which underpins everything. It's also exceptionally well written.
If you're looking for a different kind of environmental book Jack Turner's The Abstract Wild completely changed my opinion of the National Park system. His views border on the extreme but he has some excellent points, especially when he aptly compares the National Parks to Disneyland.
I'm getting mixed results researching the edibility of deliquesced shaggies. I found one source that swears its edible, just gross to the general public. Apparently This book contains a recipe for inky pasta made with the goo from dissolved shaggies. And on the other hand, a few of my books make no claims about the edibility of the goo, only mentioning that they taste best when young and totally white.
​
If i can make inky pasta with these guys I wanna know because that would be so coooool
Thanks, but I can't seem to find this title on Audible?
Or do you mean this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Without-Us/dp/B000TK5BFK ?
Looks like the cover to one of my favorite books: https://www.amazon.com/Abstract-Wild-Jack-Turner/dp/0816516995
Aaah please. you know there's a saying that one should understand one's opponent's arguments as well as one's own. Well this should help you understand your own position better
On a related note Check out “The Myth of Human Supremacy” by Derrick Jensen.The Myth of Human Supremacy
One of the best and most comprehensive sources for a historical narrative is Kneale & Kneale, The Development of Logic.
Slowly becoming accepted by many biologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists, etc.
Holocene Extinction event.
Quaternary Extinction Event
News article from 11 years ago.
News article from 10 days ago.
A book on the subject.
An essay from 1995 by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin.
Being skeptical of catastrophic anthropological global warming != denying global warming, except for in the minds of activists who seek to demonize their opponents.
The problem is that the models assume that anything that cannot explain a warming trend is due to CO2 released by man. These models produce highly inaccurate backcasts when compared to observations ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/02/testing-testing-is-this-model-powered-up/ ) and therefore will produce highly inaccurate forecasts. The only models that fit the past have been literally fit the past and therefore have no predictive quality ( http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/1959-backcasting-with-computer-climate-models ). The problem is that there is no room for natural variation allowed in these models - all variance is chalked up to CO2 released by man.
Is there global warming? There must be otherwise we would still be in the Little Ice Age ( http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1 ). Is global warming unprecedented? No - we have been through the Medieval Warm Period ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/ ) and the Roman Warm Period ( http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php ). So it has been much colder and much warmer in recent history due to natural variation.
So here we are with climate changing as it has been in the past, completely in the bounds of natural variation.
And are we really pumping all the CO2 into the air, or is it like the antarctic show: CO2 increases when temperatures rise ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ )? Here is a group of scientists who show why the calculations for anthropogenic CO2 is incorrect: http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=A7B2F8DUJ88VZ&s=digital-text&qid=1290760790&sr=1-1