(Part 3) Best earth sciences books according to redditors
We found 1,057 Reddit comments discussing the best earth sciences books. We ranked the 519 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 41-60. You can also go back to the previous section.
I believe there is a way to look at the volcanic ash and basically know everything there is to know about any particular eruption. Each volcano has a unique "fingerprint" in its ash deposits, and each eruption leaves its own signature in that ash.
It's likely that the researchers took samples from the ash deposit of 1707, which is buried in sediment (probably), and figured out how much pressure it must have taken to make that kind of ash, and how high it was sent up in the atmosphere, and how long it stayed in the air, etc etc.
Read "Eruptions that Shook the World" if you want to have your mind blown harder than Mt St. Helens.
By the way, I'm no geologist or volcanologist. I just read the book and kind of have an understanding of it.
I have a pretty wide probability distribution over the year for the first creation of superhuman AI, with a mode around 2060 (conditioning on no other existential catastrophes hitting us first). Many AI people predict superhuman AI sooner than this, though — including Rich Sutton, who quite literally wrote the book on reinforcement learning.
Once AI can drive cars better than humans can, then humanity will decide that driving cars was something that never required much "intelligence" in the first place, just like they did with chess. So I don't think driverless cars will cause people to believe that superhuman AI is coming soon — and it shouldn't, anyway.
When the military has fully autonomous battlefield robots, or a machine passes an in person Turing test, then people will start taking AI seriously.
Amusing note: Some military big-shots say things like "We'll never build fully-autonomous combat AIs; we'll never take humans out of the loop" (see Wired for War). Meanwhile, the U.S. military spends millions to get roboticist Ronald Arkin and his team to research and write the book Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. (One of the few serious works in the field of "machine ethics", BTW.)
Who wants centralized government? (https://www.brightest.io/green-new-deal)
Who wants the removal of democracy? (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X)
Who wants to eliminate dissenting opinions? (https://www.change.org/p/reddit-com-we-want-reddit-to-quarantinte-r-climateskeptics?recruiter=899626085&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition)
Yes, the radical left are fascists. It's a sad state of affairs when the, "progressives," want to eliminate free thought. Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons I'm here in this sub. The left pushed me here. Most of my views are quite progressive. I'm all about equality, I'm agnostic, I support the idea of limited government services, I am anti-world policing military. But catastrophic climate change is a farce. The data makes this very clear. That this is the entire platform of the Democrats at this point, is a tragedy. The green new deal is going to kill any hope that the Democrats have of taking back the white house.
Here's the latest book to cover all of mycology. Published in 2016! I'm trying to share when I feel appropriate. I wish mods would put it on the wiki. Messaged some of them about it.
There actually is some push in academic circles that authoritarian regimes are much better at identifying and making important sweeping changes in policy, and might be our only hope to effectively curb climate change. [example]
"Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously" by Richard Lindzen.
Edit: Oh and This and This for LOLZ.
Is this study acting like it came up with the idea? Because environmental theorists and economists have been suggesting it for years. It is discussed quite thoroughly in Kim Broome's Climate Matters.
> Exactly, this one! This one is me!
That made me grin. :)
> certain events could lead to the extinction of the human species.
If that's your area of greatest concern, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on global catastrophic risk, particularly the section on classifications. The book by the same name by Dr. Nick Bostrom appears to be the definitive scholarly work in the subject, although it is an extremely broad overview of a large number of such risks, and general strategies for prioritizing them.
However, you might be able to narrow your search already. Bostrom suggests categorizing risks by severity, scope, and probability. For example, anthropogenic threats (human caused) appear to generally have larger probabilities per year, because natural catastrophes like supervolcanoes or the meteor that killed the dinosaurs tend to occur on timescales of millions of years. Unfortunately, it's generally difficult to say whether things like nuclear war have a 1% chance of wiping us out each century, or a 0.1%, but it's probably not 0.01% or 0.001%.
Of course, the elephant in the room is possible future technology. Last century, for the first time, we invented a technology that could wipe us out. It took 20 years to learn about nuclear winter, and then another 20 years to get nukes mostly under control, and end the arms race. Technology has overwhelmingly been a force for good throughout history, but what happens the next time we learn something truly dangerous? For instance, biotechnology is taking off at the moment. How might we maximize it's potential to fight disease, while minimizing the chance that it will be used for more powerful biological weapons? Or is predicting the developments of future technology such an intractable problem that our time would be better spent elsewhere?
I don't have answers to these, but I'd be happy to point you at the appropriate groups or cause areas, depending on your interests and tolerance for uncertainty. Some people donate their lives and carers to studying or trying to directly influence this stuff, but most of us contribute ideas, research, essays, and spare change.
Buy this book and memorize it. It's basically the Cliff notes for a geology degree. Start with the sections for the classes you have already taken. Start going to class, read the sections in your books prior to the prof talking about it. Accept the fact you're an adult and the choices you make now will impact your life going forward?
http://www.amazon.com/Geology-Field-Robert-R-Compton/dp/0471829021/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451151978&sr=8-1&keywords=comptons+geology
If you don't mind reading a textbook, I like Evolution by Futuyma. Don't let the price scare you, you can get the previous edition for super cheap. One thing that's nice about it is it has an entire chapter at the end of the book with concise scientific answers to many "criticisms" of evolution and offers criticisms of its own for alternative "theories." The same chapter also goes on to talk about why teaching evolution is important in a broad way.
I am an undergrad minoring in atmospheric science (hoping to go to grad school for meteorology), and my favorite textbook, hands down, is: http://www.amazon.com/SEVERE-HAZARDOUS-WEATHER-INTRODUCTION-METEOROLOGY/dp/075755041X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304034575&sr=1-2
It's extremely easy to understand and I actually enjoyed reading it.
A better known introductory textbook is: http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Today-C-Donald-Ahrens/dp/0495555738/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304035166&sr=1-2
The explanations and pictures are thorough and helpful, but I didn't like it as much. It does come with a cloud chart though!
And for a more technical look into atmospheric science I have this beaut: http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Scientists-Engineers-Roland-Stull/dp/0534372147/ref=pd_sim_b_4
The math is pretty straight forward for the most part, and has a lot of examples and practice problems. Plus it familiarizes you with thermodynamic charts, which are a lot of fun (and yes, I am being completely serious).
Hope that helped!
Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know® https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_zZOADb29KTXEB
pp. 123-127
I really like Horseshoe Crabs and Velvet Worms or any book by Richard Fortey, really if paleontology and the biological history of the earth is interesting to you.
Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded is also great, especially if you like volcanoes. And sort of similarly is Eruptions that Shook the World.
I also second The Seashell on the Mountaintop that /u/ap0s suggested. It's very good!
"Watermelons" by James Delingpole is one of my favorite books about climate skepticism:
http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409
Here are some other books that I recommend.
The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740
Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert:
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358
Gift certificates to MEC/REI!
Or a cool climbing book? These two are really fun/interesting.
Geology for rock climbers:
http://www.amazon.ca/Flakes-Jugs-Splitters-Climbers-Geology/dp/0762748370
Climbing dictionary:
http://www.amazon.ca/Climbing-Dictionary-Mountaineering-Neologisms-Illustrated/dp/1594855021/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322521445&sr=8-1
Fire up those walking sticks! Do flights of stairs and hills if possible. Start jogging. Rock climbers did very well in field camp.
Field camp is amazing. I recommend looking into UMich (I hear they've been cutting their program though), IU-Bloomington, University of Oklahoma, UH, UT, and UW-Seattle. IMO, take the longer field course if there are options within these programs.
Contour mapping, compass usage, and field techniques are important. I'd practice those now & buy the Compton book now since I've seen it sold for as much as $350 in the past. There's a cheaper, slightly less encompassing version of this book as well.
Actually the padparadscha (Sinhalese: lotus flower) is just another variety of fancy sapphire. Red corundum are rubies, everything else in the corundum species is a sapphire.
Also there's no definite demarcation of exactly how red a corundum needs to be before it's called a ruby.
Source: Gemstones of the World: Newly Revised Fifth Edition
Just as a matter of technical clarification, it's helpful to distinguish between the harms associated with pollution and the harms associated with climate change contributions. While both of them are certainly harms (and many actions, like the burning of coal, will produce both pollution and greenhouse gases), there are subtle differences in the way the two both cause harm and induce moral culpability.
In particular, the harms associated with pollution are significantly easier to track and quantify than are the harms associated with greenhouse gasses (GHG). Pollution, while not as obviously harm-causing as (say) running someone down with your car, is significantly more local and direct in its harms than is the emission of GHG. When someone dumps a bunch of chemicals into a river, or opens a new coal burning power plant that pumps a bunch of soot aerosols into the local atmosphere, it's much easier to see both the causal link between the relevant action and the deleterious effects as well as the concrete harms associated with the activity. Pouring a bunch of fertilizer into a body of water might, for instance, trigger a harmful algae bloom that kills off normal aquatic life in the area, or it might lead to the kind of situation that we're seeing in the Flint, Michigan area right now, where the water becomes too dangerous to drink. It's pretty easy to see how the harms came about, to figure out what exactly they are, and how to go about remedying that.
Climate change harms aren't usually like that. While most GHGs aren't exactly pollutants per se--they don't usually have directly negative consequences on health--they're still certainly harmful. Those harms are extremely non-local and diffuse, though: a quantity of emitted CO2 doesn't lead directly to health problems or deaths in your city, but it contributes to a systemic problem that's literally global, and which is likely to lead to harm (or death), just indirectly. The diffuse and statistical nature of these harms make them very, very challenging to evaluate, and also keeps them from being psychologically salient in the way that most other harms are. It's a lot harder to get people worked up about an infinitesimal contribution to a change to the amount of thermal forcing to the whole globe than it is to get them worked up about turning their water supply brown. Modeling and quantifying the harms directly associated with the emission of a specific quantity of GHG is challenging, and an ongoing project.
With respect to your actual question, I don't necessarily think you're a hypocrite. A certain degree (no pun intended) of GHG emission--and so climate-related damage--is pretty much unavoidable if you're living anything like a normal life in the modern world, and it seems strange to hold people morally blameworthy for activities that they can't plausibly avoid. The extent to which doing something like posting on reddit or turning on a light is immoral is probably loosely comparable to the extent to which buying a cup of coffee every day instead of donating that money to starving people in developing nations is immoral; that is, it actually is probably wrong, but unless we're Peter Singer, we don't usually demand moral sainthood in either ourselves or other normal persons.
At a practical level, I think it's reasonable to attempt to both minimize the harm caused by your actions and to attempt to offset that harm by making positive contributions. The former requirement means (among other things) being aware of things like your carbon footprint, doing your best to not consume extra energy for absolutely no reason at all (e.g. try not to leave all the lights in your house on all the time), making small positive changes where you are able (e.g. set your air conditioning at 76 instead of 72 in the summer), and so on. At the individual level, these things don't make much of a difference, but then the concrete harms associated with most individual actions aren't all that large either; with both the harms and the positive changes, though, small contributions add up in the aggregate.
With respect to offsetting your negative contributions, what exactly you can (or should) do really depends on who you are and what your resources look like. Part of my approach to attempting to make up for my carbon footprint consists in working professionally in climate science and the philosophy of climate science--attempting to make a small (but meaningful) contribution to actually solving the problem. This kind of thing isn't feasible for most people, but there are lots of other things you might do. If you live in the United States, remaining politically engaged and pressuring your elected officials at all levels of government to take meaningful action on climate change is, in my opinion, one of the most important things the average individual can do. Helping to elect people at the local, state, and national levels who take climate change seriously and are willing to undertake meaningful political reform to help solve the problem is hugely important, so make that a central priority in your civic behavior. Likewise, you can (and should) pressure already elected officials to take more meaningful action on the issue: demand support for renewable energy, stronger and more numerous environmental regulations and policies, a reduction in subsidies for fossil fuel industries, and so on. The major plurality of GHG emissions comes from centralized energy production, so moving away from fossil fuel power plants to solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or any other renewable is among the most important political goals. Support candidates who favor these things, and pressure politicians to take action in that area. It's also possible to vote with your wallet; try to support businesses that practice genuine environmental responsibility, invest (if you invest) in corporations focused on sustainability, refrain from buying products that are produced in places with poor environmental policies, &c. I think these sorts of systemic pressures are, all things considered, probably more meaningful for the average individual than are things like driving a hybrid instead of a regular car.
As far as the philosophical literature goes, environmental ethics is a booming subfield now, and it's only getting bigger. This isn't exactly what I do--I work on the philosophy of science side of things rather than the ethical side of things--but here are a few things that you might want to take a look at for more on this.
Hope that helps. Feel free to follow up with anything else; this is my primary area of work. Among philosophers, the people who are doing the best work in environmental ethics right now are (in my opinion) John Broome, Dale Jamieson, and Stephen Gardiner. Anything you can find by any of them is probably worth reading.
Glad to help. There's also this https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Climate-William-F-Ruddiman/dp/1429255250
Which is where your image is from
Something along the lines of Bill Ruddimans Climate Past and Future
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Earths-Climate-NA-N/dp/1429255250/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
Its an introductory testbook covering the basics.
David Archers courses are also for basic introductory level
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/classes.html
MITs open courseware has lots to chose from
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/
McGuffies Climate Modelling Primer is another introductory work for those with a basic knowledge of physics.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Modelling-Primer-Kendal-McGuffie/dp/111994337X
​
Start by getting a grasp on the radiative transfer model (which is discussed in Archer and Ruddiman works). And also basic atmospheric and ocean dymanics.
Be able to explain the 3 cell model of the atmosphere, describe the development of depressions, tropical storms and other basic weather phenomena. Be able to describe the basics of ocean circulation, the ENSO and its links to Walker Circulation, what the mixing layer, Eckman Transport and bottom water formation are.
Then be able to describe paleoclimate, what caused the recent glaciations, what the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximus was and so forth.
McGuffie should be a good over view of modelling.
Most of the books should be available in a uni library the courses are free to peruse though I have not checked if they are still open atm.
If you want something a little more academic, try John Houghton's Global Warming: The Complete Briefing: 5th edition. It's an introductory textbook on Climate Change - it doesn't go into fine detail on how data sets are collected and managed, and any textbook like this will always be a little out-of-date. But it is a broad and comprehensive overview of the science of climate change, and the many consequences that flow from it.
This textbook is a standard I believe? Though I seriously doubt there’ll be any serious string theory textbooks at the undergraduate level. It’s a topic beyond the standard model, which is already seriously complex. I’m a PhD student but not in particle physics, so I doubt I could even get a good foundation in QFT by myself to begin with. There are plenty of YouTube videos going over the basic qualitative features, so I’d start with that, but I don’t think you should get too caught up on all the gory details.
1
2
Pesquise mais, amigo. Não é a idéia isolada de apenas um brasileiro.
You should check out Jugs, Flakes and Splitters.
For Stat Mech Daniel F. Styer's book and an assortment of lecture notes that I found doing a Google search.
For CFT here is one that I am finding helpful as a quick out line to help guide me: http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~suresh/sgtalk/talk_html/introcft.pdf. Also this book: http://www.amazon.com/String-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical-Physics/dp/0521672279/ref=pd_sim_b_5
Take a peek at this topology book. I enjoyed it. It starts with point set and moves onto groups and homology. You can read a lot of it right there on amazon!
For me, a "good read" in mathematics should be 1) clear, 2) interestingly written, and 3) unique. I dislike recommending books that have, essentially, the same topics in pretty much the same order as 4-5 other books.
I guess I also just disagree with a lot of people about the
"best" way to learn topology. In my opinion, knowing all the point-set stuff isn't really that important when you're just starting out. Having said that, if you want to read one good book on topology, I'd recommend taking a look at Kinsey's excellent text Topology of Surfaces.
If you're interested in a sequence of books...keep reading.
If you are confident with calculus (I'm assuming through multivariable or vector calculus) and linear algebra, then I'd suggest picking up a copy of Edwards' Advanced Calculus: A Differential Forms Approach. Read that at about the same time as Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds. Next up is Milnor Topology from a Differentiable Viewpoint, Kinsey's book, and then Fulton's Algebraic Topology. At this point, you might have to supplement with some point-set topology nonsense, but there are decent Dover books that you can reference for that. You also might be needing some more algebra, maybe pick up a copy of Axler's already-mentioned-and-excellent Linear Algebra Done Right and, maybe, one of those big, dumb algebra books like Dummit and Foote.
Finally, the books I really want to recommend. Spivak's A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry, Guillemin and Pollack Differential Topology (which is a fucking steal at 30 bucks...the last printing cost at least $80) and Bott & Tu Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology. I like to think of Bott & Tu as "calculus for grown-ups". You will have to supplement these books with others of the cookie-cutter variety in order to really understand them. Oh, and it's going to take years to read and fully understand them, as well :) My advisor once claimed that she learned something new every time she re-read Bott & Tu...and I'm starting to agree with her. It's a deep book. But when you're done reading these three books, you'll have a real education in topology.
If you really want to get an idea of the "big picture", grab a used copy of Meteorology Today. It's a college level introductory text for meteorology majors. You should be able to understand it without too much trouble. There's info on all the major atmospheric processes, with a lot of diagrams and pictures for visualization.
Da exista. Din pacate in engleza sunt mult mai multe resurse decat in romana dar asta nu ne mira.
In engleza ai:
In limba romana am gasit foarte putine resurse dar exista macar.
Ar mai fi multe, multe altele de recomandat dar astea cred ca acopera foarte bine subiectul intr-un mod accesibil pentru oricine e interesat. Presupun ca mai sunt si alte resurse bune in limba romana dar atat am putut gasii dupa o cautare simpla. Pentru orice alte intrebari iti stau la dispozitie.
Edit: uitasem sa adaug linkul pentru canalul lui potholer54
Svar við punktum 1 og 2 geturðu fundið í þessum ágætu fyrirlestrum. https://www.audible.com/pd/Science-Technology/Earths-Changing-Climate-Audiobook/B00D8J4GAU
Hvað punkt þrjú varðar er það vissulega heppilegt að plöntumassi aukist vegna auknunar CO2, sérstaklegt í ljósi þess að skógar-og landeyðing ásamt ósjálfbærri jarðvegsnýtingu og annara þátta innan LULUCF, er einn stærsti þáttur aukningar CO2 í andrúmslofti. Plöntur vaxa meira þegar þeim er gefin meiri koltvísýringur, í rauninni alveg óháð því hvort þær séu C3, C4 eða CAM. Þessvegna er gúrkum, tómötum o.s.frv. gefin auka CO2 í gróðurhúsum. Hinsvegar þýðir það ekki að við séum að njóta þess á Íslandi, þvertámóti virðist gróðurþekja vera að minnka [amk á árunum 2002-2013], en sömu aðstæður eru enn við.
Áhrif aukins CO2 í andrúmslofti eru ekki grá, kannski væru þau það ef þetta væri allt að gerast mun hægar og á mun lengra tímabili, en það er ekki raunin. Það að það séu kostir þýðir ekki að þeir vegi nálægt ókostunum. Það er farið yfir þetta í miklum smáatriðum í Loftlagsskýrslunni í upphafsinnleggi (sem fjallar um þær breytingar sem við megum eiga von á) en líka í fyrirlestrunum hér að ofan. Þó módel séu mjög oft vitlaus, enda erfitt að spá í framtíðina og vísindin bakvið þau geta verið óheyrilega flókin, þá benda langflest módel í sömu átt, sjá skýrslu úr upphafsinnleggi. Bara súrnun sjávar ætti að vera nóg til að ganga til drastískra aðgerða.
Breyting. Þessi bók fer yfir hvernig loftlagsmódel virka auk þess að fara yfir helstu atriði loftlagsvísinda. Get ekki sagt að ég hafi lesið hana í þaula, enda var hún bara svona aukalesefni í einum áfanga sem ég var í. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521602432/metafilter-20/ref=nosim/
>en það er heldur mikil hystería í gangi hjá almenningi vegna þess að athyglissjúkir vísindamenn eru að elska athyglina af einhverjum dómdagsspám.
Við erum ekki að tala um nokkra „athyglissjúka“ vísindamenn heldur vísindasamfélagið. Og við erum nú þegar byrjuð að sjá afleiðingar loftlagsbreytinga, sjá skýrslu í upphafsinnleggi.
Breyting. Þessi bók fer líka í málin mjög vel https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793
A must have https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Mineral-Science-Cornelis-Klein/dp/0471721573
Rising From the Plains is a great geology book that isn't necessarily intended for geologists. This book talks about the geologic history of the Rocky Mountains as well as the cultural history of the pioneers and homesteaders who lived off this land.
I read this book my first semester of geology undergrad, and this is what cemented it for me that geology is truly what I wanted to do. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
If I can find my old copy, I will mail it to you if you want.
We used Klein and Dutrow for our mineralogy class and I thought it was a pretty good book (but a bit lacking on optics). I kept it for a reference book as it details many of the more common minerals in identification, structure, occurrences, etc.
Thanks for the recommendation! I just bought this book:
Gemstones of the World: Newly Revised Fifth Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1454909536/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_pPGIybE1G50X2
Given that I didn't know an Amethyst was a quartz, I figured it's a good place to start. The book you recommended seems like a logical next step once I've upped my technical knowledge of gemstones themselves!
Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, is awesome. The full text is available online, from the American Institute of Physics.
A brief explanation of climate change in the form of a Reddit comment.
After some digging, I came across a number of books. I'll come back and leave some notes after I've read them.
Here is the mobile version of your link
Well, I'm a geologist, so I recommend a basic structure book, a decent sedimentology/stratigraphy book, a field guide to rocks and minerals, and this bad boy.
Mycophilia, Radical Mycology. You may also find Lab Girl and The Botany of Desire interesting.
And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides
http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial
http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3
http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675
http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/
http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html
http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated
http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1
http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Flakes-Jugs-Splitters-Climbers-Geology/dp/0762748370
A mineralogy textbook would be a good start, this is the one we used when I took the class (https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Mineral-Science-Cornelis-Klein/dp/0471721573). Or maybe this (https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mineralogy-William-Nesse/dp/0199827389), although I haven't read it myself.
I don't think you have to go that route. You can offset your footprint fairly cheaply by making minor adjustments to your lifestyle and donating to an organization like Cool Earth or TerraPass. That's what I do.
John Broome's Climate Matters is a nice resource for thinking about these issues.
One book I found particularly interesting was: Eruptions that shook the world by Oppenheimer https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eruptions-Shook-World-Clive-Oppenheimer/dp/0521641128
I am sure you can get it cheaper elsewhere, but it gives a good background to eruptions.
>If I wanted to spend the rest of my life making the world a better place for humans and other animals, I should devote my time to environmental causes such as minimizing climate change, deforestation, clean oceans, etc. before directly taking on other important issues such as poverty, disease, terrorism, human trafficking, etc.
Lot to unpack here. Your causes are already vaguely defined. It would be helpful to know exactly what you mean by it. "Stopping or reducing the negative effects of climate change", could be such a vision. Deforestation then, for example, would be one possible intervention to reach that goal.
The important distinction then is between what are you intrinsic values that you want to preserve and what instrumental changes are needed to achieve those. Now that we cleared that up:
>And if we value the lives of intelligent animals such as whales, then we should also be thinking of their possible extinction as a priority above other, non-environmental issues, just like we would if our species was faced with being wiped out.
I agree that we ought to value the lives of intelligent (I prefer sentient instead) animals, but that isn't really under the umbrella of environment. They are beings affected by the environment.
So, there is the issue of interventions that have multiple causes. Like reducing the (factory) farming of animals doesn't only help sentient animals, but also the environment and humans in a big way due to there being more food scources. So that would be one thing to consider to reach multiple positive outcomes at once.
>then figuring out a way to rally the world should be the top priority.
I believe you make an assumption that convincing others to care about the environment is the best thing you can do for the environment, which isn't necessarily true. You could also just create products that help us get there (clean meat, electric cars, better isolation), which is a path with less resistance.
Now part of your question is also what you can do about it. So I'll have to ask you:
Can you become a great engineer who potentially could make more efficient solar panels?
Can you be a great scientist who researches possible geoengineering approaches? Could you become an effective lobbyist for nuclear energy? Will you be better at movement building than Greta Thunberg and her current allies? Can you become an entrepeneur and create better products? Or a lawmaker/consultant who can oversee policies?
Otherwise, your skills might be better used elsewhere.
>Assuming that it's possible to get all of humanity to change its ways in time to hold off the devastating, apocalyptic effects of climate change for another 10,000 years or longer,
From this paragraph I assume you would like humanity to go on for a little while, which is also a great thing to value! Unfortunately, there aren't many people working at that problem, but fortunately some are! I recommend checking out the Future of Humanity Institue, they are doing great research on this topic.
One of the researchers, Toby Ord, will release a book sometime soon with that title. His best estimate last year was that humanity has 5/6 chance of surviving this century; with climate change having about 0% chance of wiping humanity out completely (this century). So there might be other areas that are more urgent right now that need attention to preserve our future as a species. (The 3 most likely extinction events according to the research body is either the release of a bad (misaligned AI, biologic epidemy (either lab accident, terrorism or natureal occurence) and somewhat lower than the previous two, a nuclear winter). There are of course others yet unknown threats.
Here is a great book from 25 authors presenting 25 potential threats(one of them climate change): https://www.amazon.com/Global-Catastrophic-Risks-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199606501
So maybe you can do more to help humanity in one of those areas depending on your skills.
As a side note: victims of terrorism and interpersonal violence are mganitudes lower than those of preventable diseases and hunger, it is good to keep the scale in mind when evaluating which problem is the biggest.
I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?
It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.
One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.
Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
Here are some options for further reading.
Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.
Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.
That's the primary reason I bought it. I'm interested in evolution, but don't know enough details about why we know it. I have a copy of Futuyma (which seems very expensive from Amazon US compared to the UK), but it's hardly relaxing evening reading.
> how we know that the earth is warming and how we came about knowing this
For that, your best bet might actually be this site: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
It's also available in print form, but the web version is more detailed.
Its not an isolated idea:
The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X
Please stop using the internet, thanks!
Here's another cool book that I've only flipped through so far.
I found L.C. Kinsey's Topology of Surfaces to be quite a nice textbook (the only reason I never finished it is because the library version was full of highlighting and annoying, incorrect notes). The explanations were clear and the book was laid out such that the rigorous definition was given followed by an explanation of what it means. It's much smaller than, but could be a good supplement to, Munkres. Topology without tears (as recommended by functor7) is also a good resource (especially since it's a [legally] free resource) but I didn't find it particularly good nor particularly bad.
String Theory, Vol. 1 (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics) by Joseph Polchinski assumes this result. Link - https://www.amazon.com/String-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical-Physics/dp/0521672279
Page 22 equation- 1.3.32. Also, why mathematics can't predict the functioning of the real world?
Cheers, Adeeb
The notion that you honestly believe that a teenage girl bankrolled all her own travel and a boat is ridiculous and disingenuous.
Instead of interpreting that comment how it was clearly meant, that she's doing this of her own volition, you would rather insinuate an insidious plot to secretly fund this girl via clearly expensive boats to...promote climate awareness...?
The thought that this girl is right just terrifies you, and you are grasping at straws to try and dissuade yourself from the obvious truth of the situation.
I suggest reading a book on climate science. The information is readily available. Here's a good one on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_LLzJDbQ7TVSDR
I'm afraid you will have to take that up with John Houghton who describes the process in his book Global Warming.
https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793
​
You say:
> Because temperatures cool as you go higher in the troposphere
Basic thermodynamics, the net flow of enthalpy is from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. The driver for all heat transfer is the delta T. The troposphere has to be cooler than the surface or all net heat transfer would be in the other direction. But I did not say the troposphere is warmer than the surface. The troposphere warms due to the greenhouse effect. This reduces the delta T which slows down the heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm. The troposphere becomes less cool before the surface warms. I'm surprised anyone participating in this kind of discussion does not get this. I truly recommend the Houghton book.
​
You say:
> ... warming predicted in the troposphere is a consequence of predicted warming of the surface (by almost any cause e.g. GHGs, solar),
Of course we are only speaking of the enhanced greenhouse effect here.
​
Think about it, if what you are saying is true and CO2 gases heat just the surface air, this means the absorption spectrum is saturated at the surface and any CO2 subsequently added to the atmosphere will have no incremental effect.
​
An IR photon emitted from the surface proceeds up the column of air. The net probability of it interacting with a greenhouse molecule is a function of the emission flux and the number of molecules along the emission pathway (not dissimilar from nuclear physics): the longer the pathway, the greater the probability of an interaction. The absorption of IR photons can occur throughout the column of air which is about 18 km high.
​
Now ask yourself what happens to a CO2 molecule that is heated (becomes energized) by an IR photon. Some of the energy is re-radiated away as a IR photon but some of the energy remains in the molecule as latent heat (2nd Law). This heats the molecule which conducts some of the heat to the cooler molecules surrounding it. This warmer pocket of air will convect upwards.
​
So, not only should the troposphere warm due to the radiative heat transfer from greenhouse effect it should also be warmed from below by other gases bringing heat upwards through convective heat transfer resulting from radiative heat transfer. The cumulative effect of this is a
warmerless cool troposphere which slows down all other heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm.​
​
I’m currently reading this one and it’s really good. Can be read in short bursts but is still thoroughly sourced.
Climate Change: What Everyone... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101?ref=yo_pop_ma_swf
You could buy one of the starter college books and work your way through it.
Probably buy a used, cheaper version (Meteorology Today)
Try this: https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford/dp/0957313527
And 97% of the scientists once believed that the sun revolved around the earth too. Even the academy of sciences at the time.
https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740
Read this. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise as well.