Best atmospheric science books according to redditors
We found 23 Reddit comments discussing the best atmospheric science books. We ranked the 21 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
15. Natural Hazards: Earth's Processes As Hazards, Disasters, and Catastrophes
1 mention
Prentice Hall
I read a book called An Ocean of Air. Then, I went outside and gazed into the sky for a long time. I started doing the crab walk and making my hands into pinchers. I dun care what the neighbors say. I saw the beauty of science that day.
Currently reading The Water Will Come. Timely but tough to read.
Talks a lot about Florida and mentions Mexico Beach specifically.
There's a really good book that was written about this: The Gathering Wind: Hurricane Sandy, the Sailing Ship Bounty, and a Courageous Rescue at Sea Hardcover, by Gregory A. Freeman.
Don't buy it on Amazon. $135 seems excessive for a book.
There's no hard definition for those terms, but I generally see "deadly" for what seem to be strong tornadoes vs. "damaging" for weaker ones (though really almost every tornado has the potential to be deadly in the right situation).
As for weather books for kids, I recently bought for a couple of my nephews that were really interested in weather a book called Tornadoes! in a series of weather books published by Scholastic, and they love it. It was actually a book I read when I was in second grade that I used to read repeatedly. Interestingly, it's surprisingly scientifically accurate (at least for the time period and for a book for kids). Admittedly, though, it's not as well-written as I remember, but it has cool illustrations and whatnot. You might have luck checking out other books in that series as well.
Also, the reading level might be a bit more advanced, but I also loved reading a book called the Handy Weather Answer Book when I was a kid (though it was an older version of the book). It's really just a book of weather facts, and it also has a lot of great pictures, etc. Again, it might be a bit higher of a reading level, but as a kid that loved weather, I used to practice reading it with my parents almost every night before going to bed.
Hope this helps!
Aim for something more interactive, like manual observations and books and guides explaining what can be observed in the sky, and less screen-looking and just reading arbitrary numbers from an automatic weather station.
The Weather Guide Calendar series is a favorite amongst a lot of meteorologists. It's informative and great eye candy. And it's a good Christmas gift every year - hint hint, wink wink.
Maybe look into volunteering for CoCoRaHS. She could actively partake in real weather measurements that are used in databases for studies and operations.
She could become an official storm spotter and send reports to your local Weather Service office.
An instruments kit would give her a hands-on way to actively partake in learning the science, rather than an electronic weather station from which she would just read numbers off a screen.
A Galileo thermometer, a glass water barometer, and/or a storm glass would be educational eye candy.
The American Meteorological Society has some great enthusiast books:
An Observer's Guide to Clouds and Weather
The AMS Weather Book: The Ultimate Guide to America's Weather
The best recommendation I've seen someone else have is to try to visit your (hopefully) local National Weather Service office.
Similarly, if you're near Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) gives awesome tours. If you're on the East Coast, the National Hurricane Center, the Weather Prediction Center, and the Climate Prediction Center, I believe all give tours. If you're in the Midwest, the National Severe Storms Lab or the Storm Prediction Center are in Oklahoma and offer tours. If you live near a university and they have a meteorology program, professors are always eager to help young people get into weather, and they may be able to offer some local programs or activities in which to get involved.
In this book the author posits that by 2050 based on current environmental trends, 40% to 60% of the US's landmass will be dessert due to drought and the depletion of aquifers.
Interesting article. I started on this book: The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316260207/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_WlrCDb1BDCKKQ
Check out Meteorology Today, it's the textbook I used for my first semester of college.
> "I've heard this argument before, and it does not hold water."
Nice. A bold but completely empty assertion.
> "It's merely an attempt to shackle the psuedoscience of evolution to many more well-known and proven sciences."
Ohhhh.. and from there you spring to another, completely unsupported, empty assertion.
> "If you're going to make the audacious claim that all sciences must be abandoned if evolution is not embraced,..."
It's not remotely audacious. The fact you can pretend it is only indicated both the depth of your own lack of knowledge about the sciences in general and the equal lack of such knowledge by most in Christian culture.
> "... I'd like to see your proof."
Nice try. You have made a series of empty assertions in order to hand wave away an entire section of science, (evolutionary theory). The evidence for evolution is as strong, as robust, and as complete as it is for any of the other theories I have listed and is often dependent upon them.
The simplest such example is based upon the fact that those who reject evolution are nearly universally Young Earth Creationist, (I am not saying all, but the vast majority). Evolution demands more time than Young Earth dogma allows for. In order to weasel around Geological dating of fossil records, most Young Earth proponents will put forth hypothesis, (they call them 'theories'... it's actually kindof cute in a 'child playing at scientist' sort of way), that tend to do all of the following: fail to account for most of the factual evidence on hand in the geological sciences, demand that we completely throw out all methods of dating used in modern geological sciences, chuck out everything we know in general about geology.
Well, there goes one of the sciences on my list - thrown out for nothing but ideological reasons.
Lets look closer though. Lets look at all of those objections that young earth proponents have about things like carbon dating and potassium dating methods, (etc...). Others, in many other places, have done a much more complete job of disassembling the standard arguments against these dating methods than I have space for here but the short version is that those dating methods are the result of fundamental aspects of everything we know about physics. If those dating methods are wrong, (which, though possible, would require the presentation of something other than assertion and unfounded hypothesis to establish), then pretty much all of physics is wrong. Admittedly, that would be really cool. I doubt you have any idea how exciting that would actually be to most of the physicist I know. However, as cool as it would be, it is not only terribly unlikely there is absolutely no reason to suspect it, (unless, once again, we count the empty assertions of people with ideological positions and no evidence to suggest that they may be remotely correct).
But wait... there goes a second, entire field, of science. Thrown out the window because people don't like the time scales associated with evolutionary theory.
Really, this just goes on and on. It's also not hard to educate yourself about the scientific reality of this topic either. All you have to do is get out of the echo chamber of people committed to rejecting evolution and an old earth and look around at what the 'other side' is actually saying.
Here, I'll even make it easy for you.
Here's a great book, by a Christian, explaining the in's and outs of why Evolution has to be true based upon what we know.
Here is a brilliant book talking about the fossil record, how we know what we know about it, and what that actually tells us.
Here is a fantastic book about geology as taught and explained through the disasters that we, as humans, experience from it's actions on occasion.
Finally, I give you a link to the Science Based Medicine website through their search tool. You will find there several, researching, practicing, medical doctors; all of whom are highly respected in their fields. This is their blog about medicine, science, and all things that impinge upon those fields. I have taken the liberty of entering 'evolution' into their search bar for you. The resulting page of articles is what comes up. If nothing else, it should provide a good place for you to springboard from in the search for whatever you want to know past that in the several books I have pointed you at.
Lastly, I want to make one final point. if you read the books I have pointed you at, if you start reading the articles on the site I pointed you at, if you from there start reading the articles and books and studies available all through the world of science publication and science blogging you will find something pretty quickly. Each of those books has different information in them. Any real study of evolution exposes you to not one, or two, but many lines of evidence, (from almost all of the sciences), showing that it is true. Every single book I have ever read trying to argue against evolution, on the other hand, always ended up attempting to make the same unsupportable arguments, (irreducible complexity, gaps in the fossil records, efforts to deny various dating methods), that have been addressed by proponents of evolution a million times if once. If you can't understand all that, if you can't even take the time to educate yourself about some of it before dismissing the position counter to yours out of hand, then you are showing yourself as having no interest in truth. Instead you are saying that you are only interested in trying to make the world believe that you are right.
I thought it was cheap of him to describe the student dismissively as "a New Jersey student, known for his activism in promoting 1st Amendment rights." Coming from a historian of US government, one would think he'd respect promoting 1st Amendment rights as something more than "activism." He should applaud the student's efforts, even if he disagrees with them.
Anyway, he was right about the prayer issue; at least insofar as the current edition of the text is concerned. But weirdly, it looked to me like the edition that the kid has in the picture on the original article is the newest one.
On the global warming issue, I think Wilson is still in the wrong.
> If they doubt the claim that this is controversial, they should consult professors Richard Linzen at MIT, William Gray at the University of Colorado and John Christy at the University of Alabama, among others.
Well, for one thing, it's Lindzen not Linzen.
He's pretty reactionary.
On Gray, see Storm World, a pretty balanced book with a chapter or two that covers him. He's an empathetic and interesting person, but it's hard to avoid the impression that he's something of a dinosaur these days.
Don't know much about Christie, but the fact that he was in The Great Global Warming Swindle doesn't say a whole lot for his professionalism either.
> I referred you to the study that uses statistics to determine the probability of a trend other than zero.
No, you have not. Starting with your first comment to which I responded here, you have not linked to any studies. There is a deleted comment above this one; presumably this is yours and it's what you're referring to?
> If it has a probability of greater than or equal to 5% of such a trend, then the statistical significance is less than the standard used by climatologists to make their claim of robustness
No where is such a p-level defined as a "standard used by climatologists to make their claim of robustness"; perhaps you ought to review the statistics bible of the field? In fact, robustness isn't a synonym with statistical significance; robustness refers to qualitative agreements between results derived using different tools or techniques. For instance, the "hockey stick" result is robust because different groups using different data and different methods produce qualitatively the same result. An ECS of about 3 deg C if robust because many different models with different parameterizations agree with observations on different timescales and theory of varying complexity.
> In evaluating the present shorter term trend of the pause...it is slightly downward where the earlier portions of the pause were upwards.
If the "pause" is nothing more than a period of warming temperatures followed by cooling temperatures then it's not much of a pause, is it? In fact, you've totally shot yourself in the foot here, since the entire argument explaining the irrelevance of the so-called "pause" is that climate is noisy on short timescales.
> For now the pause is extending, primarily due to increased attention to temperature manipulation by certain institutions.
Aaannnddd now we get conspiracy theories. Good for you, though, being honest about your convictions that global warming is a giant hoax. At least you don't lie about your true denial like many other denizens of /r/climateskeptics.
> i.e. making shit up.
Yes. You are making shit up.
Abstract, in terms of "weird physical threats":
Resilience engineering:
IR/DR:
As someone from South Louisiana, I'm mildly familiar. With all the commentary here I figured you guys would enjoy some additional reading material:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/29/the-hurricane-katrina-x-codes-art-politics-controversy-and-now-reform/
https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2012/08/17/understanding-the-katrina-x/
https://www.amazon.com/1-Dead-Attic-Chris-Rose/dp/0977771504
> OK, when you show me PROOF they ARE condensation based "con-trails"
>
http://i.imgur.com/H7FBIDR.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9u9PIJX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ShyXbvK.jpg
If you are looking for additional references I would suggest:
The Book of Clouds: John A. Day
http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Clouds-John-Day/dp/1402728131
Clouds and Weather: R.K Pilsbury
http://www.amazon.com/Clouds-weather-R-K-Pilsbury/dp/0713421029
A Field Guide to the Atmosphere (Peterson Field Guides)
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Atmosphere-Peterson-Guides/dp/0395976316
There are many other resources describing how planes create condensation trails, but this should be a good start.
> there's plenty of evidence of their chemical composition out there.
>
Are you talking about the balanced chemical equation for the formation of water vapour through the burning of hydrocarbons? If not, please provide the evidence you are talking about:
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-balanced-equation-for-the-compte-combustion-of-kerosene
> including from the us govt themselves, BUT you'd shoot that down too as some type of bullshit\
>
Please provide a link where the US Govt states that they are dumping chemicals that would appear as contrails.
> otherwise, go troll someone else :D
Not sure that this was necessary ...
$5 Paypal/Venmo EACH.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0321587332/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used
He linked to the newer version.
If you want your mind raped
On the other hand the introductory course at my college uses this textbook which I though was very good. Explained weather concepts very nicely and has some good examples.
[CLIMATE CHANGE] America Adapts - The Climate Change Podcast | Rolling Stone’s Jeff Goodell: The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World
SFW
[America Adapts] (http://www.americaadapts.org)
In episode 60 of America Adapts, Doug Parsons talks with Jeff Goodell of Rolling Stone magazine about his new book, The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World.
Topics discussed in this episode:
• Jeff discusses the reception of his new climate change book, The Water Will Come.
• Jeff and Doug discuss the reaction from the development community in south Florida to Jeff’s book.
• Jeff explains the history of Rolling Stone Magazine’s reporting of climate change issues.
• Jeff explains the extreme measures that Venice, Italy is taking to adapt to rising seas.
• Doug and Jeff talk about the challenges of addressing climate change in the Trump era.
• And meet the new America Adapts intern, Alex Stocksdale!
Listen here.
Now on Spotify!
Donate here!
Subscribe/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts.
Donate to America Adapts, we are now a tax deductible charitable organization!
Facebook and Twitter:
@jeffgoodell
@usaadapts
@RollingStone
https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/timeline
www.americaadapts.org
Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/america-adapts-climate-change/id1133023095?mt=2
Listen here.
On Google Play here.
Please share on Facebook!
Links in episode:
https://www.amazon.com/Water-Will-Come-Remaking-Civilized/dp/031626024X
https://www.rollingstone.com/contributor/jeff-goodell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Goodell
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/hurricane-harvey-houston-flood-is-climate-change-warning-w500596
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/jeff-goodell-hurricane-irma-rising-seas-climate-change-w502160
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-climate-apartheid-how-global-warming-affects-the-rich-and-poor-w509956
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/read-climate-report-president-trump-doesnt-want-you-to-see-w511084
Listen to Doug talk science communication on the Speak Up for Blue podcast!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-speak-up-for-blue-podcast/id1010962669?mt=2
https://open.spotify.com/show/3mE8fDuPv6OiTZ64EfIob9?si=Ioj_YAO_R7edHGJBPPETPg
America Adapts also has its own app for your listening pleasure! Just visit the App store on Apple or Google Play on Android and search “America Adapts.”
Join the climate change adaptation movement by supporting America Adapts! Please consider supporting this podcast by donating through America Adapts fiscal sponsor, the Social Good Fund. All donations are now tax deductible!
For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Itunes.
Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions
Write a review on Itunes!
America Adapts on Facebook!
Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group.
Check us out, we’re also on YouTube!
Producer Dan Ackerstein
Subscribe to America Adapts on Itunes
Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com
Twitter // Facebook // Itunes
[https://www.amazon.com/Atmosphere-Introduction-Meteorology-10th/dp/0131874624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537037841&sr=8-1&keywords=meterology+introduction&dpID=511TM4J32FL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch](The Atmosphere: An Introduction to Meterology)
How about this?
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Climate-Variability-Decade-Century/dp/0309054494
Caveat: I haven't read it, but it looked relevant from a google search I did for you. (Also... it says "current" but published 1996 so some could be outdated by more recent studies)
That it was man-made? Yes, a hoax because CFCs are inexpensive and their patents were expiring, among other reasons.
This has been denounced since the same 1980s
https://www.amazon.com/Holes-Ozone-Scare-Scientific-Evidence/dp/0962813400