Reddit reviews Introduction to Modern Climate Change

>Any other field can show raw data and explain how that data is extrapolated, even with regards to a complex system.

And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different. Look into any aspect of scientific research, and you're going to find disagreement within the field, and plenty of good reasons to back up each point - most of the time.

>If the issue is so complex, how can so many people be so thoroughly certain of it?

Within any scientific field there is a massive range of topics being explored. Since nobody has the time to read all the material and decide for themselves, they tend to trust that the researchers know what they're doing. Published material is subjected to peer review to ensure that it isn't nonsense, and scientists who disagree with an assertion criticise it, and explain why.

Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.

http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.


http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

The takeaway message I'm trying to get across is that modern day climate research has an incredibly broad scope, and trying to get a full, top-level handle on all of it is near impossible due to the massive amounts of material out there. Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

>Simply asking where the figure that 97% of scientists agree comes from should really get a direct answer, yet it really doesn't.

Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

So even if the 97% figure is disputed, it's also got plenty of good information behind it too. The reason it gets used so much is because there is enough credit put by it to consider it "good enough", and that the consensus itself: "Humans are contributing to climate change" is correct.

Which leads us to the final conclusion: if the vast majority of the scientific community believe that climate change is A) happening and B) affected on a major level by anthropogenic activity, then do we wait for the rest to get on board (bearing in mind that there are also biologists who believe in intelligent design), or do we accept that this is probably going to happen, and start drawing up ways of mitigating it?

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

What level of sophistication? I can recommend Dessler's [Introduction to Modern Climate Change] (https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159) to start.

> The global temperature is increasing wildly

Define wildly. Since 1975 it's increased by an average of about .15 to .2 ^o C per decade and it's increased about 0.8^o C overall since 1880, with about 2/3 of that coming since 1975. It's probably increasing by a bit more than that now because global emissions keep increasing.

> in a few years many heavily populated areas will exceed "wet bulb" temperature, meaning they will become so hot that it would be impossible for human life to exist there

That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of wet-bulb temperature, although I'll admit to being very unfamiliar with the term; do you know in what context McPherson used it?

It would help to know exactly what McPherson's temperature projections are. To me, the notion that the usual projections could render places currently supporting hundreds of millions of people uninhabitable within the next few years, or even decades, is tough to believe without hard numbers to back it up.

If you're curious for other sources, my impressions are based roughly on Six Degrees, by Mark Lynas and Introduction to Modern Climate Change, by Andrew Dessler. I think climate change is definitely capable of causing our extinction eventually, but it would require a lot of inaction on our part, and it would still take several centuries at least.

>And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different.

It actually is different though. Why is it so hard to be given objective proof? There is talk that adopting a carbon tax will help curb global warming - why will that curb global warming?

>Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

You shouldn't have to have a degree to have a concept explained to you. Surely you wouldn't expect a professor to simply assert it is a factual phenomenon as a form of teaching their students?

>Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

Well, the first line in the NASA report is this: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing
climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper" - which is the same as what politifact reported on. It's a huge stretch to go from "97% of all scientists agree" to "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" - in particular when there are current accusations of bias in the climate science world.

That said, it is invariably going to seem like I'm moving a goalpost here, so I'm going to leave the matter to rest. I do appreciate your responses - we had a conversation on the topic, and it would be unfair to ask more of you.

>Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.

>http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

I'll check some of them out if I can find a digital copy floating around somewhere - though admittedly, when I asked for proof on it, I didn't mean the 97% figure, rather I meant the soundness of the evidence behind the man-made aspect of man-made climate change. Thanks. :)