Can anyone recommend a good book (preferably on Kindle) that explains climate change and our actual scientific knowledge? The issue seems to be so politicized that all sources seem incredibly biased. Sure, there might changes happening, but from history, isn't that what the climate does? It seems that one side portrays it as no big deal, and the other says we'll all die in a few decades.
I'm not looking for something telling me how to behave or react, just something that covers how/what we know for certain. Or is the science and understanding required too far out of reach for laymen?
The problem is that nobody really "knows" what is going on. Climate science is still very much a work in progress. This is the sad truth of the matter.
Trying to figure out whether or not humans are a direct cause of climate change is like trying to figure out if exposure to a certain household product gives you cancer. People get cancer all the time from various sources, and while certain folk can point directly to said chemical being a carcinogen, even if that agreement exists it starts to open up a whole new debate about whether or not there is enough of a link to matter.
From what I can tell, ignoring the single idiots on either side, we've got:
1. A general consensus that the world is warming;
2. A slightly less strong consensus that humans are contributing to this warming;
3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming;
4. A strong consensus that we should reduce our overall carbon emissions (for obvious reasons), regardless;
5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;
6. A large contingent of non-science laymen that feel that because 5 may be a valid opinion, the entire study of climate science is bunk;
That's basically the best I've found. There are zealots in every camp above. There are also those that feel that each individual point being right means we should either ignore everything else, be it science or consequence.
Given how complex the earth's climate is, and how little we know about things like the sun, earth's climate history, and the long term effects of particular chemical compositions in our atmosphere, I feel we won't progress much past our current stage in enough time to make much a difference overall. IMHO, if we believe that climate change is real, we should be focusing all efforts on dealing with it as best we can.
(There are doubtlessly a couple people queueing up to say the IPCC's part of some grand socialist conspiracy or had some minor error that's since been corrected in the errata section.)
NASA's Climate Change Site has compelling, long term environmental measurements, and scientific analysis. The Key Indicators page is especially eye-opening.
The author is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The book walks through the science with detailed explanations why the science is sound. It is an eye opening read and framed as what the world will be like for our children.
It may reflect my own biases, but, seeing things from Europe, I have the impression that the issue is only politicized in the US.
Human-made global warming is taken as fact here.
The only ones denying it are (with a few exceptions) oil producers, guzzlers, and those who protect their interests, none of which are active in local media.
"Sure, there might changes happening, but from history, isn't that what the climate does?"
The fact that the climate has historically changed does not lead to the conclusion that humans can't affect a change in the climate. Nor does it lead to the conclusion that everything will be OK if humans are affecting change.
The evidence concerning climate change is interesting from an intellectual point of view, but a huge distraction in a practical sense. There are numerous reasons for closing a coal fired power station that are more immediately provable than global warming. The polarized debate is no alternative to a mature and nuanced understanding of the environment. You will never get that from one book.
"Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility"[1] is an excellent discussion on the politics of these questions.
I would also love to know this. I stopped paying attention to the debate because everything I was reading (admittedly not much, and mostly mainstream stuff) seemed highly politicized one way or the other.
If you're looking for more of a narrative, "Thin Ice" by Mark Bowen is an excellent read. While it's not comprehensive, it does a good job of laying out the science. It's a third biography, a third climbing novel, and a third popular science writing, but it's very well done.
Perhaps not exactly what you are looking for, but Prof David Mackay (also of Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms) has a cogent quantitative analysis of energy generation, given climate concerns.
I think it's a good read. You can tell he has awareness of the relevant numbers - and doesn't like bull.
A friend lectures in the history of climate change -- I'll try and get her reading list and report back here.
It's not particularly oriented on recent human caused warming but does include it.
I saw Chasing Ice at the cinema a couple of weeks ago. I went with friends who study adaptation to climate change in the Arctic communities, and all of them, and I too, came out of the movie in a state of minor shock. It's truly incredible how much these intense visuals make this strike home, even for those who are already environmentally aware and focused. It's the kind of movie that solidifies the thoughts I've been having recently: my life absolutely must be about working to mitigate and slow global climate change. Any other career path or choice would be so morally wrong I would have great difficultly living with that decision.
my life absolutely must be about working to mitigate and slow global climate change.
Be careful, there are two equally unsupportable view points on climate, one is that the climate isn't changing, and the other is that humans can direct climate change.
We know from records, both recent and geological, that the climate will change, we also know there are things well beyond our foreseeable control that can change climate significantly (volcanic activity, asteroid impact, changes in solar activity, earth-solar orbital variations)
Thanks for reminding me. It's been on my to-do list.
This video is simply staggering in it's immensity. For the life of me, it is these events that make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives. The fact that the calving scale has so dramatically increased in the past 10-20 years is terrifying and how anyone can pass it off without concern is beyond me.
> my life absolutely must be about working to mitigate and slow global climate change. Any other career path or choice would be so morally wrong I would have great difficultly living with that decision.
If you don't value future people, then developing-world health interventions can do more good with your time/money. And if you do, then other x-risks overwhelm climate change.
When assuming that humans are causing the lion's share of it, among the best things to do is to encourage people to have no more than 2 kids, and for them to share the message.
This sounds like every Berkeley idealist that eve climbed a tree and grew a beard. While I applaud your interest in working to do some good in the world, I'd suggest digging a little deeper than watching a movie. If you have the skills required there are plenty more beneficial projects you might want to get involved in.
This is incredible footage, but the amounts of ice in this video (while massive to us) are tiny drops in the bucket of the global ice balance.
I'm uncomfortable when outlet glacier calving events like this--which are very common, geologically speaking--are used as proof of climate change, or to advocate for action on climate change. They are spectacular looking, but I think it's intellectually dishonest. Outlet glaciers advance and retreat constantly, based largely on local climate variations.
The best proof that humans are affecting the climate is the huge bulk of rigorous scientific data that has been collected and analyzed for decades. It's rarely cool-looking, but it's right.
I've had the pleasure of spending some time in (literally) and around a much smaller glacier. My wife and I spent about a week ice climbing on the Lower Coleman Glacier in Washington.
We also had the pleasure of hearing and witnessing a huge icefall off one of the faces of Mt. Baker. Imagine the loudest thunder you've ever heard, rolling continually for about 5 minutes.
I can only imagine what a fall of this magnitude sounded like in person. One might believe that the earth was splitting in half.
I wonder if events in Greenland are similar to those playing out in the Antarctic where movement of under ice water sources is causing fractures or movement in the ice sheets.
I remember reading stories recently about Lake Vostok and the drilling going on there. One item of note was the the location of the under ice water was not a constant and that its shifting could or is affecting the ice sheets above it.
Given that Greenland has a bit more volcanic activity than the Antarctic what role does that play?
[+] [-] MichaelGG|13 years ago|reply
I'm not looking for something telling me how to behave or react, just something that covers how/what we know for certain. Or is the science and understanding required too far out of reach for laymen?
[+] [-] run4yourlives|13 years ago|reply
Trying to figure out whether or not humans are a direct cause of climate change is like trying to figure out if exposure to a certain household product gives you cancer. People get cancer all the time from various sources, and while certain folk can point directly to said chemical being a carcinogen, even if that agreement exists it starts to open up a whole new debate about whether or not there is enough of a link to matter.
From what I can tell, ignoring the single idiots on either side, we've got:
1. A general consensus that the world is warming;
2. A slightly less strong consensus that humans are contributing to this warming;
3. A majority (but not a consensus, IMO) extending that to humans being the most direct and primary cause of warming;
4. A strong consensus that we should reduce our overall carbon emissions (for obvious reasons), regardless;
5. A small but significant scientific group arguing that we are not the primary cause of warming, even though we may be a contributing factor;
6. A large contingent of non-science laymen that feel that because 5 may be a valid opinion, the entire study of climate science is bunk;
That's basically the best I've found. There are zealots in every camp above. There are also those that feel that each individual point being right means we should either ignore everything else, be it science or consequence.
Given how complex the earth's climate is, and how little we know about things like the sun, earth's climate history, and the long term effects of particular chemical compositions in our atmosphere, I feel we won't progress much past our current stage in enough time to make much a difference overall. IMHO, if we believe that climate change is real, we should be focusing all efforts on dealing with it as best we can.
[+] [-] moultano|13 years ago|reply
For the details of the science, they suggest just reading the IPCC reports.
Here's a faq from the IPCC that is basic but thorough. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-f...
[+] [-] scarmig|13 years ago|reply
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents...
(There are doubtlessly a couple people queueing up to say the IPCC's part of some grand socialist conspiracy or had some minor error that's since been corrected in the errata section.)
[+] [-] donpdonp|13 years ago|reply
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
[+] [-] josho|13 years ago|reply
The author is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The book walks through the science with detailed explanations why the science is sound. It is an eye opening read and framed as what the world will be like for our children.
Do give it a read.
[+] [-] pygy_|13 years ago|reply
Human-made global warming is taken as fact here.
The only ones denying it are (with a few exceptions) oil producers, guzzlers, and those who protect their interests, none of which are active in local media.
[+] [-] jshen|13 years ago|reply
The fact that the climate has historically changed does not lead to the conclusion that humans can't affect a change in the climate. Nor does it lead to the conclusion that everything will be OK if humans are affecting change.
[+] [-] 7952|13 years ago|reply
"Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility"[1] is an excellent discussion on the politics of these questions.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Break-Through-Environmentalism-Politic...
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jofer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kototama|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahi|13 years ago|reply
Written by a prof at UMich School of Information, it discusses how we know what we know about climate change.
http://www.amazon.com/Vast-Machine-Computer-Politics-Infrast...
[+] [-] scaphandre|13 years ago|reply
I think it's a good read. You can tell he has awareness of the relevant numbers - and doesn't like bull.
Free pdf available. http://www.withouthotair.com/
[+] [-] emmelaich|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptoz|13 years ago|reply
Everyone should see this movie.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
Be careful, there are two equally unsupportable view points on climate, one is that the climate isn't changing, and the other is that humans can direct climate change.
We know from records, both recent and geological, that the climate will change, we also know there are things well beyond our foreseeable control that can change climate significantly (volcanic activity, asteroid impact, changes in solar activity, earth-solar orbital variations)
Invest in surviving change.
[+] [-] purephase|13 years ago|reply
This video is simply staggering in it's immensity. For the life of me, it is these events that make me seriously question whether the climate change deniers have ulterior motives. The fact that the calving scale has so dramatically increased in the past 10-20 years is terrifying and how anyone can pass it off without concern is beyond me.
[+] [-] jessriedel|13 years ago|reply
If you don't value future people, then developing-world health interventions can do more good with your time/money. And if you do, then other x-risks overwhelm climate change.
[+] [-] gd1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genwin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnriot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|13 years ago|reply
I'm uncomfortable when outlet glacier calving events like this--which are very common, geologically speaking--are used as proof of climate change, or to advocate for action on climate change. They are spectacular looking, but I think it's intellectually dishonest. Outlet glaciers advance and retreat constantly, based largely on local climate variations.
The best proof that humans are affecting the climate is the huge bulk of rigorous scientific data that has been collected and analyzed for decades. It's rarely cool-looking, but it's right.
[+] [-] ericcholis|13 years ago|reply
We also had the pleasure of hearing and witnessing a huge icefall off one of the faces of Mt. Baker. Imagine the loudest thunder you've ever heard, rolling continually for about 5 minutes.
I can only imagine what a fall of this magnitude sounded like in person. One might believe that the earth was splitting in half.
[+] [-] wiredfool|13 years ago|reply
The second time, through good headphones. There's a low rumble and roar that is missed on the smaller speakers. (I should hook up the sub. )
I can't imagine what it must have been like in person.
[+] [-] arethuza|13 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tvcnx
The scene where there is a significant calving event on the glacier is pretty awesome....
[+] [-] sethbannon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hilyin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albemuth|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njharman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raphdg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benburton|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reustle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|13 years ago|reply
I remember reading stories recently about Lake Vostok and the drilling going on there. One item of note was the the location of the under ice water was not a constant and that its shifting could or is affecting the ice sheets above it.
Given that Greenland has a bit more volcanic activity than the Antarctic what role does that play?
[+] [-] arethuza|13 years ago|reply
Do you have any links for that? There is a fair amount of volcanic activity around Antartica and I've never heard of anything on Greenland.
[+] [-] junto|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] SparrowOS|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]