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 top 20.

Next page


Crystallography chemistry books
Earthquake & volcanoes books
Geography books
Geology books
Mineralogy books
Seismology books
Geochemistry books
Cartography books
Atmospheric science books
Climatology books

Top Reddit comments about Earth Sciences:

u/natched · 148 pointsr/politics

>Sounds like they should have phrased the amendment better.

Except that the amendment specifies that "climate change is real and not a hoax", which directly contradicts the previous position of Inhofe who wrote an entire book claiming it was a hoax:

It also directly contradicts Ted Cruz's previous position:

>The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened.

Rand Paul finally came around from his previous position that research was "not conclusive" and accepted the conclusion that scientists have been talking about for decades

There was no problem with how the amendment was written and many Republicans either changed from their previous position or are lying in their support.

u/jacobolus · 65 pointsr/math

> maths and physics

Here's some math it's too bad the whole world didn't understand better 150 years ago.

u/avogadros_number · 55 pointsr/worldnews

>We should be judging climate skeptics by the accuracy of their science, not their motives or employers

You can judge them by all of those. When it comes to accuracy this is what you find:



When it comes to funding this is what you find:



When you test "their predictions" and motives you get a book and...



u/Avinson1275 · 29 pointsr/gis
u/Black_Gay_Man · 25 pointsr/news

Your proclivity for discussing black pathologies and large scale civil unrest without proper context makes me call your intellectual honesty into question.

  1. You summarily dismissed the Kerner Commission's findings as blacks rioting over "injustice" without actually quoting anything from the report to support your stance, and it's also a willfully reductive dismissal of their conclusions.

  2. You ludicrously blamed segregated cities on fear of black criminality while ignoring housing discrimination and white racism as primary factors.

  3. You incorrectly proscribed having children out of wedlock as a cause rather than a symptom of a problem.

  4. You cherry picked the black on black murder rate while ignoring the fact that almost all murders are intra-racial for whites and blacks and that the uproar against the police has a totally different implication and resonance in black communities.

  5. You failed to put the rioting of the Civil Rights Era in a larger context of failed avenues for political redress after years of non-violent protesting and petitioning the government for full citizenship.

  6. You made facile, racist comments about the ethics and culture of the blacks people at large in Ferguson because of a few images of those with tatoos and jewelry.

    Here is a link of a thread I began on the root causes of the unrest in Ferguson and throughout US history. I'm genuinely curious to hear your responses. Given the tone and misrepresentations prevalent in your post, it seems like you're more interested in circle jerking in an echo chamber. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.
u/busterfixxitt · 17 pointsr/atheism

I don't think you could do better than A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

It's brilliantly readable. It is nothing less than the story of Bill Bryson suddenly realizing while on a plane crossing the ocean, that he didn't know a damn thing about the only planet he was ever going to live on.

So, he spent the next 3 years of his life harassing scientists and experts to find out how we know what we know. It's epic. I have no doubt that it will strain and crack your dad's ideas. It may not convert him right away, but it'll slowly destroy the foundations of his ignorance.

There's an audio book (actually 2 3 versions, the ones read by the author and the other by the British guy are utter garbage when compared to the one by William Roberts. Roberts doesn't narrate the book, he performs it. An absolute treat to listen to!)

u/fiftycircles · 16 pointsr/gis

The first programming-related thing a company would look for in a candidate for a purely GIS job is Python, no doubt. Especially if you're brand new to programming, start with Python. If you're proficient in ArcGIS already, I recommend this book. You can also start with the easy online tutorials like Korlyth mentioned, but remember that you won't truly learn Python unless you apply it. Come up with a project and practice using your new skills. Then, if an employer asks for a portfolio, you have some good examples to share! A good example would be to analyze a large Excel file, import that data into ArcGIS, make some shapefiles from the data, and then maybe run some spatial analysis on those shapefiles-- ALL within your Python script (you don't even have to open ArcMap!). The big advantage is using Python for automation of repetitive tasks. It's tedious to do some analysis for all the individual counties in a state by hand, but you could practice doing this analysis in a script.

After that, I recommend learning some geospatial R. More and more organizations are starting to use R, and it can be helpful to learn some languages/packages that are not strictly used by ArcGIS. I recommend this book.

SQL might be good to learn since GIS tends to be all about databases. It might be tough to learn if you don't already have a huge database/server to work with, but try to learn what you can. I feel like Python, R, and SQL cover a lot of the non-web aspects of GIS programming.

If you want to take it to the next level, then you could learn some web-based programming. It can be tricky to learn this because there are several languages that work together (ex. HTML puts the content on the web page, CSS edits the content to make it look nice, and JavaScript manipulates the behavior of the content). You could start by building a basic web page (non-GIS) so you can learn these languages individually. Once you have a better idea about syntax and how they work together, you could move to GIS stuff. You could start by using a pre-existing web map service such as CartoDB and using HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. to put the web map on your own website and edit it.

u/afacg3 · 15 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>Were these claims ever substantiated, and if so, did the Trudeau government reverse or change these policies?

Yes there is an entire book on it

u/jtbc · 12 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

There is extensive discussion of this "muzzling by stealth" in The War on Science, which covers this whole subject area in sometimes nauseating detail.

The author's thesis is that all of this is by design and all intended to eliminate dissent to the government's resource extraction priorities.

u/Sihplak · 11 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

For one, race isn't genetic, it's socially constructed. Hereditary traits are not race. The reason that this is the case is that race is seen and treated drastically differently in various countries (e.g. compare Brazil to the U.S. and its immensely different), and racism and race relations divided along lines of white and black developed with the discovery of the Americas by Europeans. Race as a concept is 100% arbitrary with no scientific backing and no possible genetic or biological backing. Saying otherwise is to give false statements from a position of having no understanding of human biology and anatomy. Reference

For two, correlation is not causation. The more likely cause for IQ correlating with race is the material conditions that various racial groups have been subjected to. For instance, in the U.S., black people were the most heavily effected by systemic race-based slavery, and were the only group to ever experience ghettoization in America, which lasted for decades, with effects still seen today. Black people were continuously subjected to worse living conditions, establishing poverty related issues such as lead poisoning from outdated housing infrastructure, poor education from bad school systems, etc. Reference

For three, White Supremacism can take more forms than just Nazism, gas chambers, and slave plantations. Sports being comprised of mostly black players was not the case in the early-mid 20th century. This is why, for instance, Jackie Robinson was extremely controversial. Most sports were played by almost exclusively white people. Furthermore, sports having such a disproportionate prominence of black players is still evidence of racism and white supremacist cultural norms as it now has foundations in associating blackness with physical prowess -- i.e. associating hyper-masculinity with blackness -- and for many players was and is viewed as their way of getting out of poverty. Because of the poverty conditions many black communities experience, many children of marginalized racial minorities often end up associating with a "star script", regardless of the realistic likelihood of achieving the career they want (e.g. rapper, NBA player, etc.). Reference

u/saifrc · 10 pointsr/doughboys

The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, by David Wallace-Wells

u/qdobe · 10 pointsr/politics

Sen. Inhofe went to speak after Sen. Peters, and the first thing he said was "Mr. President, I think Mrs. DeVos will make an excellent Secretary" in an incredibly condescending tone, as if there are no qualms with her. He used the classic "character assassination" term, which is something Republicans have been using a lot lately because they are having a hard time defending the very substantial criticisms of some of these nominees. He is now talking about how it's bad that these votes are taking a long time. They cannot defend the criticisms of these candidates, they only point to what the past and say "I want you to do the thing you did with Obama's people"

I looked him up, this is a book he wrote.

Edit: And now he's just talking about religion. Get people like this guy out of office. Out of touch and out of his mind.

Edit 2: Bonus audio of him insisting kids are being brainwashed in schools, and that when they get out you have to un-brainwash them.

u/Midnight_in_Seattle · 8 pointsr/TrueReddit

The sooner we get away from burning fossil fuels and using vast quantities of them to make plastics, the better. We can and must do better. As individuals, we need to install solar panels when and where we can, choose electric or hybrid-electric cars and bikes, and help humanity master the production and carbon cycles. When we do we'll see the (blessed) shrinkage and decline of the monster fossil fuel energy companies that have grown up in the 20th Century and cannot die soon enough in the 21st.

The very future of humanity depends on it.

u/netsettler · 8 pointsr/politics

Yeah, same general theme struck me today when I saw Bill McKibben had tweeted about on Twitter: House backs stiffer penalties for those who damage pipelines. He summarized:

> Texas aims to make pipeline protest a third-degree felony, same as attempted murder.

It's so maddening to see them getting away with such huge offenses and then successfully going after protesters. I tweeted back:

> Hmmm. And what kind of penalty do they advocate for acts that damage or impede the operation of the entire earth ecosystem, our global critical infrastructure of air, water and life, putting the lives of billions at risk?

By the way, since you're speculating on what happens if the UN report is right, I recommend David Wallace-Wells' book The Uninhabitable Earth. There are actually multiple scenarios in the UN report, but the book sorts through that variation.

u/ItsAConspiracy · 8 pointsr/climatechange

The heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases is basic physics, known for over a century. So to believe that the Earth is warming but it's not our fault, you have to believe that:

  1. After 10,000 years of exceptional climate stability, the planet just coincidentally warmed up a lot right after we increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 43%, and

  2. There's some unknown negative feedback which is countering the known warming effect of the greenhouse gases we emitted, and

  3. There's another unknown natural process which is actually doing the warming.

    To dig into the case in more detail, the best source I've found is Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. He focuses on physics and geological history, rather than complicated computer models, and works through multiple lines of evidence.

    On another tack, a book which is often recommended but I haven't read yet is Merchants of Doubt, which documents how the fossil fuel companies are using the same tactics the tobacco companies used, to get the public to doubt well-established science.
u/sandytombolo · 7 pointsr/geology

In addition to those mentioned I would add:

Colliding Continents by Mike Searle is a fantastic read! Both from a geology and mountaineering perspective.

Annals Of The Former World by John McPhee is also good, currently making my through it, very accessible and covers a lot of ground in North America.

Also, more for its humour value than anything: Exploration Days: An A-Z of Ways of Dying in Mineral Exploration by S.J. Waddell is a good, light read written by a former exploration geologist working in SE Asia in the 60's and 70's, can be had on iBooks for about $5.

u/HungLikeSaddam69 · 7 pointsr/AskMen

Barton Zwiebach's First Course in String Theory provides a good overview of quite a complex topic. Unfortunately, even though it is meant as an introductory textbook, it is likely to be entirely incomprehensible to the average reader.


To make it through this book, knowledge of quite a few preliminary topics is needed:

  1. Previous knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is incredibly important. MIT OpenCourseware has some useful video lectures for the beginner, as well as textbook recommendations.

  2. It is necessary to be fully comfortable with the principles of Special Relativity, as well as at least familiar with the mathematics of General Relativity. Unfortunately, since I learned relativity entirely from the homemade class notes of a professor at my university, I have no textbook recommendations.

  3. Even though string theory is a theory of quantum gravity, some techniques and principles from classical physics are useful. In particular, ideas from the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics come up fairly often. John Taylor's book is useful here. Knowledge of Electricity and Magnetism is also useful; for that, I recommend Griffiths.

  4. It doesn't come up quite as often in this particular book, but Group Theory and Lie Algebras are ubiquitous in string theory. I liked Gilmore's book on this subject.
u/somewhathungry333 · 7 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

>Were these claims ever substantiated, and if so, did the Trudeau government reverse or change these policies?

Yes there is an entire book on it

u/Proteus_Core · 7 pointsr/ConservativeKiwi

Quite an interesting read, his ebook is available on Amazon too (I'm making my way through it now). Dr Nakamura has excellent credentials and is highly qualified to speak on the subject. There are so many flawed assumptions that climate models make, it's nice to have someone speaking up about it to combat the hysteria. From the interactions I've had I can't believe the number of people who rabidly shriek about imminent apocalypse and death, I wonder how well they understand the science themselves? It's become a mainstream doomsday cult.

u/davidwallacewells · 6 pointsr/IAmA

Thanks, everybody! It's been a great few hows, but that's all for now.

Hope I may have opened a few eyes about the scale and urgency of this crisis, and that you will check out my book ( and find me on Twitter (@dwallacewells).

Thanks again, Reddit!

u/matt2001 · 6 pointsr/Documentaries

>the problem is misinformation and lack of education to the extent where we can't even agree it's a thing.

That was by design.

They borrowed the same tactic as the tobacco industry used - create doubt and uncertainty. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

In 1977 Exxon concluded that its main product would 'heat the planet disastrously.' Exxon's response: set up fund for extreme climate-denial campaigns.

>as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.

Exxon is lobbying for a carbon tax. There is, obviously, a catch.
The oil giant wants immunity from lawsuits that would make it pay for the damages of climate change.

u/counters · 5 pointsr/climateskeptics


Anyone who throws there hands up and says "lolwut, itz too complicated i dunno!" is not a skeptic. Do you honestly think that climate scientists don't study natural phenomena like the ones on this list and try to understand their causes and implications? This post is especially pathetic, but it's literally just a list of natural phenomena; if you think think this stuff is what makes the climate complex, then you literally don't know anything about atmospheric science.

You might want to start with the following textbooks, which any climate scientist will have devoured by the time they have a Masters -

  • Global Physical Climatology

  • An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology

  • Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics

  • Atmospheric Science: an Introductory Survey

  • Fundamentals of Large Scale Circulation

  • Dynamics and Ice Sheets of Glaciers

  • Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation

    There are, of course, higher level textbooks on my shelf as well. The majority of the stuff on this list is basic stuff that an undergraduate would be exposed to. It doesn't even scratch the surface of what our science is actually about.

    For example, geostrophy is this list. Do you know what geostrophic motion is? It's motion where the only forces acting on a parcel are the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient force. How do you get to geostrophic motion? Well, on the first day of your Junior year as a meteorology student, you start taking Atmospheric Dynamics. Your professor throws Navier-Stokes on the board and says "This is what we need to solve to figure out how the atmosphere works." Then he mentions that there is a million dollar prize for working with that equation and says "okay, let's see if we can simplify things." After that, you spend a few lectures deriving atmospheric motion following Holton, Lindzen, or Serreze - talking about the Rossby radius, coordinate transformations, Eulerian vs. Lagrangian and material derivatives, and path integrals through moving reference frames.

    Ultimately you re-derive equations of motion from scratch starting with F=ma, and arrive at a 3D set of equations where motion is determined by terms relating to the pressure gradient, accelerations, friction, gravity, and the Coriolis force. Then, you scale analyze the terms of the equations to see what the dominating terms are, given certain assumptions.

    Assume you're above the PBL; then, friction is negligible. You'll immediately see that acceleration/velocity-related terms are an order of magnitude smaller than the other terms. Assume hydrostatic balance and there is no acceleration in the vertical, truncating your motion to two dimensions. You're left with a balance of forces in both your basis vectors - pressure gradient and coriolis. Balance these two and you can solve for a balanced flow called geostrophic flow. Geostrophic flow is super-simple and only really works as an approximation for upper-level flows with small curvature (i.e. you need features larger than the Rossby radius of deformation or else the assumptions about 2D velocity are invalid). But it's a great learning tool for meteorology students to get their hands dirty with the math, and derive from first principles why flow is counter-clockwise around Low Pressures in the northern hemisphere.

    Relax some assumptions and you can also get gradient flow or cyclostrophic flow.

    You can't do any meteorology with these flows, though - you need at least to relax geostrophy and derive quasi-geostrophy with the aid of the circulation and divergence theorems to actually get vertical motion which is diagnosable from thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.

    Anything else from the domain of the atmospheric science that the skeptics here want explained? Now's your chance.
u/ShanksLeftArm · 5 pointsr/Physics

For Calculus:

Calculus Early Transcendentals by James Stewart

^ Link to Amazon

Khan Academy Calculus Youtube Playlist

For Physics:

Introductory Physics by Giancoli

^ Link to Amazon

Crash Course Physics Youtube Playlist

Here are additional reading materials when you're a bit farther along:

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas

Modern Physics by Randy Harris

Classical Mechanics by John Taylor

Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths

Introduction to Particle Physics by Griffiths

The Feynman Lectures

With most of these you will be able to find PDFs of the book and the solutions. Otherwise if you prefer hardcopies you can get them on Amazon. I used to be adigital guy but have switched to physical copies because they are easier to reference in my opinion. Let me know if this helps and if you need more.

u/ThroughTheForests · 5 pointsr/math

Khan Academy and Professor Leonard on YouTube will cover up to Calculus 3. From there you can use this Mathematical Methods book to cover the rest of what you would need for an undergraduate physics major. Then you can start learning the physics.

For a brief overview of the scope of math and physics, look at these two videos.

I want to emphasize that learning the math and the physics up to and especially including the theory of relativity is very difficult and time consuming. General Relativity itself is quite beyond undergraduate level physics.

I suggest if you are curious about topics like relativity that you check out Paul Sutter's Ask a Spaceman! podcast. He breaks down what the math says and explains complex subjects in a way that is easy to understand.

I also recommend watching Richard A. Muller's physics for presidents course, which is another great resource for learning about physics without the math getting in the way of understanding the concepts.

u/DeWittBrosMeatCo · 5 pointsr/CollapseSupport

I think David Wallace-Wells’ the Uninhabitable Earth does a great job of giving a frank and sober perspective on where we are and how unlikely it is we will escape collapse. Because he works for New York Magazine, it’s a relatively mainstream book (at least compared to John Michael Greer or Derrick Jenson).

u/sc2012 · 5 pointsr/todayilearned

You'd be surprised that today, it's rare to be black in an all-white neighborhood. Even education today is more segregated than it was in 1968 (the height of the civil rights movement).

"White flight" has resulted in all-minority neighborhoods in America. This results in less funding for local schools, lower property values, and fewer businesses wanting to establish themselves in low-income, racially segregated areas. This means that even grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables don't want to be in a low-income, high-minority neighborhood, limiting their access to healthful foods. Instead, they rely on the local corner store that doesn't even primarily sell food.

There isn't just an unequal standard of living, but also unequal access to opportunity. Your network (from family to your college alumni) can be so important when you're trying to find a job, but if you couldn't afford to go to college and your family has always been working class, you're already set up to have unequal opportunities compared to the kid whose parents are lawyers or doctors. Even if you look in the news today, you'll see instances of discrimination by banks, hiring managers, and federal regulations.

If you're really serious about learning more about why it's more difficult to be Black in America today, I urge you to pick up a book. Here are some of my suggestions:

American Apartheid by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol

u/grendel-khan · 5 pointsr/TheMotte

> I needed to check, but the mainstream Republican position on climate change is "head in sand", a refusal to look at evidence, or discuss the matter.

It varies, but straight-up denialism is well within the Overton Window. James Inhofe, author of "The Greatest Hoax", is the first example that comes to mind, but he's not alone. (The President, insofar as he has stable opinions, agrees there.)

> I don't understand what you are saying. Sorry.

I really am sorry that I'm having such a hard time articulating this. I'm not sure how I'm going so wrong.

The mainstream left and the mainstream right are visibly different on climate; the mainstream right contains straight-up flat-earth style denialism. The mainstream left and the mainstream right are generally equivalent on "HBD", in that no one on either side will say anything like "black people are stupid and poor because of their genes". Therefore, there's an asymmetry between the left and right on climate that's not replicated on "HBD" issues.

u/narfarnst · 4 pointsr/matheducation


  • Multivariable Calculus

  • Differential Equations

  • Linear Algebra

    You have to know those three pretty well to start. You pick up some more math along the way as needed, but that's the bulk of it.


  • Classical Mechanics (basic, Newtonian)

  • Electrostatics

  • Electrodynamics

  • Basic Quantum maybe. It's not necessiry for Lagrangians/Hamitonians but it's very cool stuff and you get to see Lagrangians/Hamiltonians in more action (oops, I made a pun...).

  • Special Relativity

    More Math

  • "Old school" differential geometry and Reimannian geometry. They both show up a lot, but Reimannian is more common in more advanced stuff. And notation starts to become more important

  • Tensors (which comes with Reimannian geometry, but they're worth mentioning by themselves cuz they're important)

  • Calculus of Variations

  • Misc: Taylor Series, Taylor Series, Taylor Series. Basic Fourier Analysis and complex numbers.
    More physics

  • Analytic Mechanics ("advanced" class mech/Lagrangian & Hamiltonian dynamics)

  • General Relativity

    Some books

  • Class Mech: Kleppner/Kolenkow for Newtonian stuff, Marian&Thornten for more basics and a pretty good intro to calculus of variations and Lagrangians/Hamiltonians. Both these have chapters on Special Relativity too.

  • Griffiths E&M for E&M (first half of book is statics, second half is dynamics)

  • Quantum: J.S. Townsend's A Modern Approach to QM

  • General Relativity: I used Hartle's Gravity. It's good, but I had two or three major beefs with it. I've also heard Sean Carrol's book is good.

  • This series. Fair warning though, those are very advanced and are more of a reference for professors than an actual book to learn by.

  • This Math Methods in physics book is very nice.

    I come from a physics background so I'm familiar with a lot of this stuff. I'll let people better in the know suggest the relevant math books.

    It's a long road but well worth it in my opinion. Good luck.
u/BoobRockets · 4 pointsr/quantum
u/nerga · 4 pointsr/Physics

Get a decent book in Mathematical Methods, it will teach you basically everything you need for physics up to a good point. Boas is good.

u/djimbob · 4 pointsr/askscience

What are you trying to be? Have one book just slightly deeper than Greene's book, or actually learn theoretical physics to say become a theoretical physicist or at least understand it?

If the former, it will be difficult as there's a lot of things that might be tacitly assumed that you know about more basic physics. However, a very good intro to Quantum Mechanics is Shankar. I'd also look into Foster and Nightingale's relativity book for a brief introduction to special (read Appendix A first) and general relativity. Maybe after both try A. Zee intro to QFT if you want to learn more about QFT. If you want to learn about phenomenological particle physics, say look at Perkins. Also it may help to have a book on mathematical physics, such as Boas or Arfken. (Arfken is the more advanced book, but has less examples). Also it may help to get a basic modern physics book that has very little math, though I can't think of any good ones.

If the latter than you will have to learn a lot. Here's advice from Nobel Laureate theoretical physicist Gerardus t'Hooft.

u/17Hongo · 4 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

>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. Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure. - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change. - 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?

u/GlobalClimateChange · 4 pointsr/worldnews

>review the accuracy of the predictions made over time concerning climate change that were peer-reviewed as well...

There's a book on just that:

And of course study after repeated study that continue to confirm predictions from global warming such as a recent finding concerning a shift in clouds, etc.

Climate science is based on evidence across multiple fields, confirmed by multiple fields, cross checked by multiple fields - that's not religion that's scientific consensus. Rejecting the evidence with no substantial, or credible evidence to support your rejection is what faith is all about - that's the religion.

u/19djafoij02 · 4 pointsr/geopolitics

SS: This is a video I've seen references to on reddit that discusses the geopolitical impacts of climate change. Refugee crises, food conflicts, etc. could increase significantly. It's over 1hr in length so I didn't watch all of it. Gwynne Dyer also wrote a book expounding on his interpretation of climate change. It tends to be pessimistic but it's an interesting worst-case scenario look at what climate change could do.

u/typewriters305 · 4 pointsr/oklahoma

He's got a new book that outlines the specific biblical reasons why Global Warming is a hoax from the liberal media.


u/AlyssaMoore · 4 pointsr/climateskeptics

Senator James Inhofe has never said "the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax".

He did write a book, however, called "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future":

u/InactiveUser · 4 pointsr/australia

We taxpayers just paid James Inhofe a right wing Oklahoma shithead for these books on piffle and our politicians are going to read it.

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. by Senator James Inhofe (Author)

a study on double think no doubt

>James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (/ˈɪnhɒf/; born November 17, 1934) is the senior United States senator from Oklahoma

>In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe's largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[22][23] In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).[24]

Ya know I hear a lot about circle jerks on reddit, here is one in real life that involves politicians all around us. Do you want an ill informed nutcase barking coal mad religious fundi nutter running the nation or someone with beans between their shoulders?

And let it be known the Jeebus gave white America the tools to go forth and bring home the beans, we can dig this land for its coal and burn it endlessly until the rapture. Praise the lord baby jeebus for all this money

u/metamet · 4 pointsr/politics

This book describes exactly who these people are, down to their names, motives, and history with doing the exact same thing with tobacco/cancer years ago: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Yes, that's right. The same people who led a campaign to convince people that cigarettes didn't cause cancer are doing the same with climate change, because money talks.

u/wteng · 3 pointsr/AskAcademia

How comfortable are you with math and at which "level" do you want to understand the concepts of weather? I.e., do you want to learn the physics behind it, or just know what fronts, cyclones etc. that they talk about on TV are?

For the former the book Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey is a comprehensive introduction, but I wouldn't recommend it to laymen who are just interested in weather.

u/Khris777 · 3 pointsr/meteorology

This is the best book if you understand some basic undergraduate calculus.

u/blocku_atmos · 3 pointsr/Winterwx

Well then

That should get it done. If you want way more "headaches because I don't understand" math then this

Those 2 are pretty standard for the field

u/DrWallyHayes · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

I'm a geologist by training. The best book I've ever read on geology (or possibly any other topic) is Annals of the Former World by John McPhee. (It's actually a compilation of five books, but they should really be read in order to get their full benefit). McPhee isn't a geologist, he's an essayist. Annals is a series of extended essays documenting his traversing of North America in the company of geologists; the author, as a geological layman, describes his experiences learning about the structure and history of the continent. There are also some related side stories about the people and towns he passes through, and how the local geology has affected the history of various places.

u/YThatsSalty · 3 pointsr/geology

John McPhee's geology books are quite entertaining. Annals of a Former World is four-books-in-one, tracing the geology of the US across the 40th parallel, more or less. You learn some geology, some geography, some personal history, and US history.

u/GORDO_WARDO · 3 pointsr/geology

Honestly if your not already well versed as a geologist (I’m not) you might find some sections to be a bit of a slog (I did) but my recommendation is that if you feel yourself struggling through a passage, just skip along until you find more readable prose. There’s a hell of a lot of book to get through, so even if you miss out on something the first time, you’ll still learn and enjoy a ton of it, and maybe you catch that piece you missed on a second reading a few years down the line

u/flug32 · 3 pointsr/books

Annals of the Former World by John McPhee. McPhee is one of the best nonfiction writers out there, which helps a lot.

The core of the book is a series of encounters with prominent scientists who were deeply involved in making the discoveries he outlined. So it is powerful from the human interest angle but that is inextricable tied in with a deep exploration of the science involved. It's from a layman's point of view, but that is probably a great advantage if you are layman yourself, and it's far from superficial but a real attempt to deeply understand and explain the geology.

Incidentally, the book won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 1999.

Take a look at this video as well - about one of the sections of Annals of a Former World.

u/NascentBehavior · 3 pointsr/LifeProTips

I have yet to read them all, but this one was the first and remains my current favourite:

A Short History of Nearly Everything

I also have a soft spot for "Notes on a Small Island" - for a solo traveler it makes for a wonderful companion.

u/slcrook · 3 pointsr/mildlyinteresting

Interested in the hard sciences but got very little mental oomph to understand it?

I am much like you. As such, could I be so forward as to suggest you get yourself a copy of Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything?"

Mr. Bryson's writing is immensely readable, understandable and delightfully anecdotal.

u/PortofNeptune · 3 pointsr/AskEngineers

Linear algebra, calculus, multivariable calculus, differential equations, probability and statistics, complex numbers, Fourier transforms.

This book covers every topic and you can buy the solutions manual as well.

u/SchmittyRexus · 3 pointsr/Physics

Boas Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences has a lot of useful math, although it is mostly focused on DEs and complex analysis.

u/PhysicsFornicator · 3 pointsr/askscience

As a poster mentioned above, Stewart's Multivariable Calculus, and [Boas' Mathematical Physics]( Methods in the Physical Sciences are excellent sources for the required math background.

u/ZPilot · 3 pointsr/learnmath

While the AoPS are phenomenal books and should be used instead of the terrible books used in middle and high schools today, I think you may want to look elsewhere if your primary interest for mathematics is to cover engineering mathematics. The topics covered in these textbooks are mostly at a middle to high school level of mathematics.

To give you an idea of how they are written (at least from their algebra book), they are written in a tone of casualness to guide readers, typically younger students, into the concepts, many times having cute examples to go along with them (Captain Hook trying to find buried treasure comes to mind). After each concept is presented, further concepts are explored through problems. You are told to do each of the problems on your own and to check with the provided solutions that come right after each problem set. The idea behind this is to present the reader with different methods to tackle problems as well as to point out common errors and mistakes that a student might make. After every few sections, there is an exercise set with no solutions for you to do. To fully benefit from these problem sets, the authors recommend that you consult the solutions manual (if you order from their website it will come with the textbook) after giving the problems a good attempt or after you finished finding a solution. At the very end of the chapter there will be a large set of problems to do, including what they call "challenge" problems. These challenge problems, unlike the section problems, come from math competitions or are designed to probe more difficult concepts that are usually ignored in the standard curriculum.

For the money they are amazing but, again, you might want to look elsewhere for the level of math you are looking for. There exist mathematical method textbooks specifically aimed at engineers that cover essential topics, usually by the title of "mathematical methods for engineers". One that I know of is Boa's textbook. Google around for what you like. If anything you should be looking to learn calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra as a start.

u/Mastian91 · 3 pointsr/math

Similarly, McQuarrie Physical Chemistry may be helpful.

At my school, pchem was divided into a first semester which covered the quantum chemistry of individual atoms/molecules, and a second semester which used some of these quantum ideas (but mostly statistics and thermo) to talk about the statistical mechanics of collections of particles. I believe that McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry covers both, but note that the "mathematical review" sections are just brief interludes. For a more thorough treatment of math methods for physical scientists, consider the Mary Boas book. This book mostly focuses on physics applications, but from my experience in pchem, I would argue that it's just a very "applied" or "specific" version of quantum (or thermal, E&M, etc.) physics.

Also, for quantum chem, it is of utmost importance to be familiar with matrices, vectors, and ideally some of the more fancy portions of a first course in linear algebra, like bases and diagonalization. Although the relative importance of calculus/DE vs. linear algebra might depend on whether your course follows a "Schrodinger" vs. "Heisenberg" (not the Walter White one) approach, respectively.

u/CurvatureTensor · 3 pointsr/Physics

Math, math and more math. If you don't feel comfortable with differential equations, or if you're like I was after freshman year you don't know what a differential equation really is, then that's where you should start. Quantum Mechanics basically starts with an awesome differential equation and then goes from there.

Learning the math of this level of Physics on your own would be challenging to say the least, but if you want to dive in I'd suggest Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Boas. Pairing that with Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths might be fun.

Nuclear theory goes into statistical mechanics, classical mechanics is multivariable calc/linear algebra, quantum field theory combines those two with differential equations and sprinkles in a bunch of "whoa that's weird" just to keep you on your toes. But it's really important that you know the math (or more likely you fake your way through the math enough to gain some insight to the Physics).

u/EroticLion · 3 pointsr/Physics

There's Zweibach's text that was intended for senior undergrads at MIT:

But, most professors I've talked to suggest learning QFT and learning it really well first before tackling string theory. Some popular QFT books are Peskin and Schroeder, and Srednicki.

u/Nilsolm · 3 pointsr/Physics

Also, there is A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach, a textbook about string theory specifically written for undergrads. It's definitely not an easy read, but it's not impossible to understand it.

u/Eigenspace · 3 pointsr/Physics

You have a lot of work ahead of you for sure, but this is not an impossible task. First off, I wouldn't worry too much about the Nambu-Goto action right now. Instead, you're going to need to develop quite a bit of background knowledge and mathematical tools.

Sites like Brilliant, and Youtube lectures are valuable resources, but if you're going to be successful in this endeavour, I'd recommend that you put some serious effort into learning from textbooks. The ability to learn from a textbook does not come naturally to most people, but it is a skill that can be developed and will be necessary for you to make much progress in this direction. In fact, I'd say that perhaps the most valuable thing I gained in my undergraduate degree was the ability to sit down and actually learn from a textbook in a systematic way.

The book on String Theory by Zweibach is probably going to be the best resource for you as it's a quite approachable low level string theory book designed for advanced undergraduate students. In order to read and understand it, you'll need to first gain at minimum a popular level, hand-wavy understanding of general relativity and quantum field theory and a mathematical understanding of special relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism.

One book I can't recommend enough to non-professionals wanting to get a semi-serious mathematical understanding of modern physics is The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. In my opinion, the book is a masterpiece. He starts off with "what is a number", and by the end of the first half of the book has given a serious account of fibre bundles using only the ideas introduced in the book. His explanations are lucid, engaging and very deep. The second half then uses the mathematics introduced in the first half to describe much of modern physics. He has a section where he talks about String Theory, but he isn't much of a fan of it so doesn't spend a lot of time on the topic. However, the mathematics he introduces in the first half are invaluable for understanding quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory and string theory. Roger is a bit of a maverick and has some 'cooky' ideas and opinions that would make many professional physicists blush with embarrassment, but throughout the book he is very careful to clearly say when he is making a controversial statement.

I think if you pick of the Road to Reality, and manage to seriously read the first 15 chapters while also reading (or watching) introductory books / lecture series on quantum mechanics and special relativity and electromagnetism you'll be in a great place to try and get into the basics of string theory.

u/xepa105 · 3 pointsr/soccer

Speaking of which. This here is another very good book on the long-term impacts of Climate Change. Very well written and frighteningly thorough on the range of issues we'll be facing over the next century.

u/TallMattBari · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

In the op there was no direct comparison that the law and restrictions in place in SW Michigan were the same as Apartheid South Africa. Just that the levels of racial segregation are.

That these levels exist without the overt structures present in South Africa, in my opinion are cause for greater alarm. Even though I do think that zoning laws that preserve class distinctions are a "law preventing either race from mingling" when socio-economic class and race are so intertwined as they are in this particular region. Also, a great book about preferences of racial mixture in neighborhoods is American Apartheid

u/Boron17 · 3 pointsr/chicago

I mentioned this somewhere else in this thread, but I really enjoyed American Apartheid, which goes into detail about this. We read it for my urban studies class... Heres the Amazon link:

u/NeonSeal · 3 pointsr/changemyview

Man I just want to say that this is an incredibly white-washed view of modern racism. Throughout the course of American history, Black people have suffered from institutional racism that has barred their access to the voting process, property, land access, economic opportunity, social security access, veteran's rights, personal freedom, you name it. This continues into the modern day. These modern issues will not be fixed by colorblindness; instead, they can only be fixed through race conscious affirmative action.

Here are some great books if you want to get more informed on historical and modern racism, proper reactions to it, and why "colorblindness" is not an acceptable form of dealing with it:

u/marx051 · 3 pointsr/WTF

No I definitely read my sources, I just could not afford to buy you a copy of the book "Race, Class, and Gender in the United States" by Paula Rothenburg. I've had that book assigned to me in 3 my classes, and my former academic advisor wrote a chapter in the newest edition of the book about internalized racism.

I read the New York Times whenever I get the chance since it is free to read on my blackberry.

I also am a higher education practitioner so I read the Chronicle of Higher Education everyday, which is where the article "Affirmative Action in Admissions: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice" comes from. The chronicle requires that you have a subscription to view articles from them so that's why I included some seemingly obscure link. I was shocked to read the title of that article because the authors are very pro-affirmative action and it seems like they are anti-affirmative action, but I am fairly certain that this is not the case. Massey is a prominent sociologist and co-wrote Apartheid America (which was actually given to me by someone who went to school with Massey).I am fairly certain that the article "Affirmative Action in Admissions: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice" is saying that affirmative action programs have the opportunity to work but they tend to stigmatize the people who are admitted. In other words they are theoretically beneficial but the way they are set up do not always encourage a positive response. Often times college campuses are ill-prepared to handle disadvantaged students, but thus is not really a reason to discontinue affirmative action, it's more of a reason to change the way you do things at higher education institutions to better serve underrepresented populations. If you pay attention to the article it also says that this is not very hard since athletes and legacies don't face stigmas. I am guessing you didn't read the last two paragraphs of the article:

>Our statistical analyses of the academic effects of affirmative action have produced results that challenge as much as reassure supporters of affirmative action in higher education. But the results of our research do not mean that affirmative action is necessarily detrimental to the academic interests of minority students and should be abandoned. Rather, the results imply that as currently administered by selective institutions, the application of race-sensitive admissions criteria appears to create a stigmatizing setting and should be reconsidered. Indeed, if the way affirmative action is administered and framed can be changed so as to mitigate the stigma now being created, its negative academic effects might disappear. ...In the end, our finding that affirmative-action programs can undermine grade performance by stigmatizing students and increasing the pressure they feel to perform tells us less about the inherent weakness of affirmative action than about the poor fashion in which programs are carried out. Affirmative action taken to ensure the inclusion of athletes and legacies has operated for decades without creating debilitating performance burdens on either football players or the children of alumni. There is no good reason that affirmative-action programs for minority students cannot be run in the same way.

Further more I would argue that based on the studies, even if affirmative action fails in practice, it is not hurting anyone. I am in no way moving away from my stance, just saying that even if affirmative action doesn't always work, it doesn't hurt white folks or anyone else.

Studies have shown that students of color who attend PWIs (predominantly white institutions) face internal problems because they tend to think that they are only admitted to college because of their race/ethnicity (partially because they see very few people who look like them). This even happens in schools in California where race-based admissions are illegal. They tend to call this the stereotype threat (google it if you want) which is not the most solid of theories but it works for my point. My point is that you would not discontinue admitting students of color because of a psychological fear that makes them "fail in practice."

u/Virgilijus · 3 pointsr/funny

I'm not strictly talking about slavery. I'm talking about how they are treated and viewed now. Just look at the ghettos we have in America. In Massey and Denton's book American Apartheid they find a lot of interesting statistics. The largest amount of isolation any non-black minority has ever had (meaning, what percent of this population would have to move to make the overall population relatively uniform) was 56% for the Milwaukee Italian community in 1910. But by 1970, the lowest isolation percentage for blacks anywhere in the US was 56% San Francisco (pp 49). The highest in 1970 was 89% in Chicago. They also go into detail of how they were initially brought to those urban areas; to break union strikes in downtown factories. Combine that with WWI breaking out and extreme xenophobia with many European ethnicities, even more came. This lead to overcrowding, poor wages and conditions, white flight, and a continually worsening circle.

That was (and is) a horrible situation that isn't getting much attention: most criticism is put towards the people trying to adapt to the poor conditions and not how the conditions got there. This, in turn, breeds horrible stereotypes and more negative images and treatment in a feedback loop. While other minorities have experience mistreatment and oppression, I don't think any have been this persistent and horrible (though debating levels of oppression is inviting a pity party, which I would like to avoid).

u/Captain_DuClark · 3 pointsr/pics

There is nothing natural or inevitable about American ghettoes, they were created because of racist federal, state, and local policy. Because of redlining, the explicitly racist policy of the Federal Housing Authority to deny backing of home loans for Black people while granting them for whites, as well as because of racially restrictive housing covenants, Black people did not have access to the main wealth building tool of the middle class, home ownership in neighborhoods where homes had actual value. This forced black people into racially segregated neighborhoods that became ghettoes.

I'd recommend reading this article:

And this one as well:

If you want to go in-depth check out these books:

American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass

Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago 1940-1960

u/QuestionableQuestion · 3 pointsr/Rlanguage

I just bought R in Action on Amazon. Seems to come well-regarded!

Edit: Also ordered R for Spatial Analysis and Mapping.

u/tobiasosor · 3 pointsr/Calgary

Somebody Ottawa anyway. Chris Turner's book War on Science is a good read. he was part of the Death of Evidence march in 2012.

u/cpt_crunch55 · 3 pointsr/geology

If your working with thin sections i'd suggest Gribble and Halls book, Not sure what level of detail your looking for but MacKenzie's rocks and minerals in thin section good to get the basics of optical mineralogy from.

u/acloudrift · 3 pointsr/climateskeptics

Nearly same title, book by John Casey.

English version of Fritz Vahrenholt's book.

u/tweeters123 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

DNC executive wrote something nice to BLM? I'm not super impressed. We could go back and forth on various party surrogates all day. For example: Former SC GOP Exec Director Todd Kincannon tweets: "It hasn't been this dark in the superdome since all those poors occupied it after Hurricane Katrina"

The primary difference I think, between the left and the right in America currently is that it's really easy to find elected Republicans Senators saying things like climate change is the worlds greatest hoax. But it's really hard to find elected Democratic senators saying the other crazy stuff (vaccines cause autism etc.).

The Democratic party has crazy people, sure, but they're marginalized and mostly aren't elected congressmen or senators. The Republican party, on the other hand, elects their crazy people.

u/Covert_Cuttlefish · 2 pointsr/Dinosaurs

The Ends of the World By Peter Brannen is amazing, can't recommend it highly enough.

I'm glad to see your positive review of Brusatte's "Rise and fall of the Dinosaurs", it's on my shelf of books to read.

u/thirsty_ratchet · 2 pointsr/meteorology

I'm currently enrolled in a masters program in meteorology in Norway. I'm not sure what curriculum is in the courses you're mentioning, but the meteorology relevant courses in my bachelor basically consist of the geophysical fluid dynamics found in this compendium, and atmospheric physics found in this book. The compendium is written by my professor, so there is definitely better ones out there, but it gives you an overlook of what is relevant. The book however is used in four different courses at my university, and is basically our bachelor bible of meteorology. Good luck!

u/m0untain · 2 pointsr/geology

I can't believe nobody mentioned John McPhee. I enjoyed all of his geology books; the four were republished as one volume in Annals of the Former World.

u/parkerposy · 2 pointsr/science

they are literally discussing 'an' example

u/CommonIon · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

Most physics undergrads take a class called "Mathematics for Physics" or something similar which uses a book like this. It will help you cut to the chase and is a good reference for the math you haven't studied in detail.

As for where you are right now, you should be okay with ODE, multivariable/vector calc, and linear algebra. Those you probably want to devote considerable time learning.

u/chem_deth · 2 pointsr/chemistry

If you understand and are able to work with this material before learning QM, you'll be in excellent position.

For a more in depth and thorough coverage, grab a math for physicists textbook, like Mary Boas'.

u/Cletus_awreetus · 2 pointsr/astrophys

Square one...

You should have a solid base in math:

Introduction to Calculus and Analysis, Vol. 1 by Courant and John. Gotta have some basic knowledge of calculus.

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas. This is pretty high-level applied math, but it's the kind of stuff you deal with in serious physics/astrophysics.

You should have a solid base in physics:

They Feynman Lectures on Physics. Might be worth checking out. I think they're available free online.

You should have a solid base in astronomy/astrophysics:

The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy by Frank Shu. A bit outdated but a good textbook.

An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie.

Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction by James Binney. I haven't read this and there are no reviews, I think it was very recently published, but it looks promising.

It also might be worth checking out something like Coursera. They have free classes on math, physics, astrophysics, etc.

u/functor7 · 2 pointsr/Physics

I agree here, they may be a little more "mathy" than what you're looking for but they cover important topics to physics and engineering. Byron and Fuller is pretty good and has already been mentioned, it's less mathy and more focused on how physicists treat the subjects.

Just stay the hell away from Boas, I have a degrees in math and physics, and that book is completely useless and confusing for physicists and extra disrespectful to mathematics

u/saints400 · 2 pointsr/Physics

Im currently in a mechanics physics course and this is the main text book we use

I'd say it's pretty good and an easy read as well

We have also been using a math text book to complement some of the material

Hope this helps

u/HolidayWaltz · 2 pointsr/learnmath

Read this:

The Cambridge Companion to Mathematics is good also.

Here is a path.

Calculus 1,2,3.

Introduction to Proofs.

Real Analysis.

Complex Analysis.

Ordinary Differential Equations.

Partial Differential Equations.

Calculus of Variations.

Linear Algebra.

Fourier Series, Fourier Transforms, Special Functions. Hilbert Space.

Probability and Statistics.

Abstract Algebra/Group Theory.

u/mofo69extreme · 2 pointsr/AskPhysics

Most of the topics you mentioned were what I would call algebra or single-variable calculus. I would start learning some linear algebra and multivariable/vector calculus first - the latter should be available in any good calculus text anyways. Besides these, you should at least know some basic probability and maybe a little about complex numbers. With this amount of math you could probably get through most of a "basic" physics degree, but you'll probably want to learn much more math if that's what you're into.

Many people on Reddit have glowing reviews for Boas' mathematical physics text (haven't read it myself though). Looking at the table of contents, I think it's a good overview of topics useful for an undergrad curriculum.

u/gtani · 2 pointsr/compsci
u/meshuggggga · 2 pointsr/math

So, you are gonna be an engineer/scientist, rather than a pure math major which, probably, means techniques will take precedence over ideas and rigor. To that end, you might like:

Engineering Mathematics

Advanced Engineering Mathematics

Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences

Basically, you need to put yourself through technical boot-camp that involves Calculus, Applied Linear Algebra, some Stats, Diff. Equations.

u/docmedic · 2 pointsr/mathbooks

Boa's Mathematical Methods for the Physical Sciences will provide you a good foundation in linear algebra and multivariate calculus, completely sufficient math background for a physics student (and a great reference forever). This is the standard math text for physics students at many universities, and it is what people expect physics majors to know when conducting summer research (at least to having the competency to look up and apply without asking). Any high school/intro college calculus text will provide sufficient calculus background to read Boas (Larson; Edwards & Penney; etc.).

u/The_MPC · 2 pointsr/Physics

That's perfect then, don't let me stop you :). When you're ready for the real stuff, the standard books on quantum mechanics are (in roughly increasing order of sophistication)

  • Griffiths (the standard first course, and maybe the best one)
  • Cohen-Tannoudji (another good one, similar to Griffiths and a bit more thorough)
  • Shankar (sometimes used as a first course, sometimes used as graduate text; unless you are really good at linear algebra, you'd get more out of starting with the first two books instead of Shankar)

    By the time you get to Shankar, you'll also need some classical mechanics. The best text, especially for self-learning, is [Taylor's Classical Mechanics.] (

    Those books will technically have all the math you need to solve the end-of-chapter problems, but a proper source will make your life easier and your understanding better. It's enough to use any one of

  • Paul's Free Online Notes (the stuff after calculus, but without some of the specialized ways physicists use the material)
  • Boas (the standard, focuses on problem-solving recipes)
  • Nearing (very similar to Boas, but free and online!)
  • Little Hassani (Boas done right, with all the recipes plus real explanations of the math behind them; after my math methods class taught from Boas, I immediately sold Boas and bought this with no regrets)

    When you have a good handle on that, and you really want to learn the language used by researchers like Dr. Greene, check out

  • Sakurai (the standard graduate QM book; any of the other three QM texts will prepare you for this one, and this one will prepare you for your PhD qualifying exams)
  • Big Hassani(this isn't just the tools used in theoretical physics, it's the content of mathematical physics. This is one of two math-for-physics books that I keep at my desk when I do my research, and the other is Little Hassani)
  • Peskin and Schroeder (the standard book on quantum field theory, the relativistic quantum theory of particles and fields; either Sakurai or Shankar will prepare you for this)

    Aside from the above, the most relevant free online sources at this level are

  • Khan Academy
  • Leonard Susskind's Modern Physics lectures
  • MIT's Open CourseWare
u/daelin · 2 pointsr/Physics

For introductory physics, I'd recommend Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers. You may want something in addition to this for deeper math, but Giancoli is fantastic for getting the core ideas and integrating them across different phenomena. After Giancoli, you will understand almost everything a lot better.

After Giancoli, things get a lot rougher. Your next objective is Classical Mechanics. You cannot learn Quantum Mechanics without studying Classical Mechanics in depth. You can try, as I did, but you are in for a world of pain that you won't fully grasp until you take Classical Mechanics seriously. You will especially want to pay attention to periodic and harmonic systems. Giancoli's main disadvantage is a weak treatment of periodic systems. Any Classical Mechanics book will make up for this.

At this point you will also need a companion book to take you through Classical Mechanics and everything that follows (Statistical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Quantum Mechanics). That book is Mary L. Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. Frankly, upper level undergraduate physics textbooks assume you have this knowledge. It's a fantastic book and it would have saved me a world of pain if I'd known about it right from the beginning.

Anyhow, after Giancoli you should look at Boas, then you may choose "Classical Mechanics" by Thornton & Marion. This book assumes you have Boas. Then you can plunge into Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, which assumes you have Boas. However, you'll have an easier time of the material if you read Griffiths' E&M book first, which assumes you have Boas. You'll also be well-served with a Statistical Mechanics textbook. Blundell & Blundell (Introduction to Thermal Physics) is a wonderful book conceptually, except that it lacks solutions. The mathematical and conceptual ideas in each of these subjects were fundamental to the development of Quantum Mechanics, and familiarity with the subjects is assumed by QM textbook authors.

u/KnowsAboutMath · 2 pointsr/math

> then maybe something titled along the lines of “Math Methods for Physics”.

Boas is good.

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

Check out some books about string theory, it does make a case for solving the disconnect (as you without any doubt know).

Now the thing is, string theory solves things in a really intuitive and elegant way, which - being physicist myself - truly makes me want to believe it all checks out!

Depending on where you currently are in your education (and how much you like a tough challenge :)) you may want to have a look at this(undergrad) or this (graduate, pretty dense) book - they are both pretty great!

u/Oxonium · 2 pointsr/Physics

I believe what you are looking for is a textbook.

u/NihilBlue · 2 pointsr/collapse

That and it's becoming profitable to feed off climate hysteria/extinction panic. Like how plenty of movies and media criticize capitalism and point out the obvious issues, all while holding ties and profits for said problematic entities.

People are waking up and even that awakening is being cannibalized for profit. Isn't capitalism clever and cruel.

Edit: Case in point

u/anti-scienceWatchDog · 2 pointsr/inthemorning

> We are told to take the testimony by faith for both. They are the experts in the field after all.

No you're not. You can demand evidence. You can look for it yourself. You can ask a scientist for evidence.

> You're right. Oh my gosh. The pope shouldn't be taken at his word. You should DEMAND evidence before accepting a word he says. Oh, wait. How is that different here?

No one is demanding that you accept anything on faith. If you really want, you can take the time to find and understand the evidence.

> Nope, consensus mean nothing and is literally a fallacy if you rely on it. Appeal to authority. That is why I mentioned the pope.

You still don't understand the difference between an expert testimony on consensus and an appeal to authority fallacy. The difference is the expert has to and can show what he knows by demonstrating it and pointing to peer reviewed science that demonstrates what is known. That is not a fallacy.

> I have, have you?

I have and I can explain it. You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the basics.

> Malthusians have been doing the same thing. Granted, I think they are honest for the most part just like chicken little. Just falling trap to confirmation bias and selection bias.

The properties and effects of Co2 as a greenhouse gas were discovered and predicted 150 years ago. . Simple physics and OLR budget models predicted and confirmed what we observe today. Scientists have looked at and accounted for all the data. There is no cherry picking going on except by deniers.

> First, complexity like climate requires cherry picking. The data literally has to be scrubbed, correct and all that. Second, cherry picking like sounding the alarm on hot days but really quiet or having a polar vortex when it is cold. Hot causes cold too after all.

No peer reviewed science literature cherry picks hot or cold days. All data is adjusted, is necessary, and scientifically justified to correct for inconsistencies introduced by instrument changes, moves, time of measurement changes, urbanization around instruments, etc. There is no conspiracy here. Further, the methodology and results for the adjustments are published in peer reviewed literature. If something is wrong, it will get caught and corrected. If someone thinks the methodology and results are wrong, they can publish an article to explain why. They only cherry picking here is deniers pointing to cold days and throwing snowballs in congress.

> Like appeal to authority?

I already explained this to you but you have failed to understand the context it is valid to cite experts and when it is not valid by citing people who boost their authority by citing credentials, titles, positions held, etc.

> Like those evil oil companies hiding the truth?

This has been demonstrated and isn't a conspiracy. Further it has no features of a conspiracy.

> Sure. But by how much. I warmed a pool by peeing in it. Did the temperature change enough to be significant or measurable?

You can read about it here and here
> So you can't think of another explanation? If I told you the inferred radiation on something decreased, you can only think that the object must be insulated?

This is confirmed by measuring the long wave radiation absorbing properties of all gases contained in our atmosphere with a spectrometer. If something else is insulating the atmosphere, please indicate what it is using reason and evidence and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

> I will take your word on that and the people financially depended on it too.
> Wait, what am I saying. I need to see this simple measure demonstrated over time. I need proof.
>No, you have the proof of evidence. You are making the claim. Mine is a claim of agnosticism. I don't claim to know EITHER way, nor do I think anyone else does either. But like I said, heat output decreasing doesn't mean heating up. If there is less exhaust from my car, it doesn't mean the exhaust is blocked, maybe the car isn't on.

You can look it up here and follow the references if necessary. If the sun stays reletivilty constant and the decrease in outgoing radiation has occurred and we know GHGs absorb long wave radiation, and GHGs have increased, that is the proof. That's the published research. If you believe that is wrong or there is another explanation, please demonstrate it with reason and evidence.

> There is. I made it. Just because a group of experts says something is true, they have seen the evidence, doesn't make it true.

The evidence says it's true and it is there for you to look at it but you don't.

> Like polar vortexes? God, AGW caused that extreme cold.

It is apparent you don't understand what is being claimed and haven't read the research on it.

> No, you want me to change my mind without said evidence. Live by faith I will not do.

No one has or is asking you to believe with out evidence. The evidence has been pointed out to you in various levels of expertise with reference where the data and research is published. You're just being intentionally obtuse.

> I have and I know that I don't know and can't know for the time being.

Can't know because you refuse to accept evidence or look up the data and referred journal citations in the links already provided you.

> Only because I haven't bought your explanation. Have you, or is this only a one way street? I am the infidel that must repent? That doesn't sound like good faith at all. All you have said is these experts have said it is true and the numbers they provided prove it. That isn't very good evidence.

I used to be a denier because I didn't understand the science and was mislead by denier arguments. I actually looked at the peer reviewed research and made an effort to understand it and changed my mind. It is apparent after examining the denier arguments that they misinform, cherry pick data, engage in logical fallacies, and engage in conspiracies. I haven't seen you demonstrate a good faith effort to make even a basic understanding of the science and even dismiss everything I show you and demand proof when it is there for you to lookup and see how the science is done to demonstrate what is known about climate.

> No, only scientific consensus as science. It isn't, so I am actually defending it. You are the only denigrating it with appeal to authority as a tenant. rational thought and science is about personal discovery. Something I get told either can't be done, or I can't do it because I didn't come to the same airtight conclusions. THAT seems anti-science to me.

You don't understand what consensus means in a scientific context. You don't understand an appeal to authority. A consensus is about the reason and evidence as published in the peer reviewed literature. It's all there for you to consume. You don't appear to be about rational thought and personal discovery. I've only seen an anti-intellectual attitude and an unwillingness to engage in the scientific literature and repeated dismissals. You demand proof, but then you won't look at it or make any attempt to understand even the basics.

u/dslamb · 2 pointsr/gis
u/RustyShakleford81 · 2 pointsr/geology

These two are basically picture books with heaps of photos of altered rocks. Honestly though, recognising alteration is 90% experience, because your rocks will never look exactly like the photos. Everyone struggles a bit straight out of uni. Its harder now, but ideally move around a bit early in your career so you can see different rocks (and learn different ways of doing things).

Guilbert & Park is good on alteration in terms of the minerals and chemical reactions involved, but its text with a few B&W diagrams.

u/The1stCitizenOfTheIn · 2 pointsr/canada

You asked about Harper, I gave you the answers and your reply only relates to 8 of the 23 things I mentioned, you have anything to say about the 15 other things?

> This is literally something I have only heard on reddit. I believed it back then, but now I am a lot smarter to just trust random redditors and get my opinions from them

There was a book about it as well

u/FourChannel · 2 pointsr/news

> What else might happen that would be huge enough to bring us all together?

Climate change. A common problem. But we would have to view it as a shared task (and not the fault of this or that).

> And if for example global warming causes widespread drought, famine, and mass migration, leading to border skirmishes, terrorism and extremist leaders taking power, what would stop this situation from getting so out of hand that (for example) Pakistan doesn't nuke India for cutting off its access to a major river or the like?

That's actually a scenario in a book called Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer.

> Talk me out of the idea that if things continue the way they are going, someone won't go so far as to use nukes. You mentioned hundreds of millions of people dying. Why wouldn't someone feel so provoked at some point that bombs get launched? Things are already getting bad faster than most projections had predicted they would.

Well, I'm not sure I can make the claim that they won't. We can hope that the leaders still use MAD as a deterrent. But to be honest, while I think I have an idea of how some of the future will play out, I do not have a pulse on this aspect of it.

But there are groups out there who are pushing for a truly advanced economic system that averts these problems, or can at least operate under such strain.

The problem that we face is our economic system, and our political system, are dogshit terrible at being efficient.

We can provide for everybody, even under climate strain, but it requires working together.

Dropping the notion of countries would be a start. Thinking of the entire planet as one society would go quite a ways to prevent tribal mentality.

The Zeitgeist Movement is currently in the education stage of their plan. That is, to inform as many people as possible, as wide a group as they can reach, that the fact that people are starving and hungry today is because of our shitty economic system.

And the problem is, the vast majority of people have only ever known this system, and are completely convinced that this is the best we can do.

And when they think this is the best we can do, they are convincing themselves it's necessary to wipe out parts to leave enough for the rest of us.

We will lose some parts of the world, we will have to evacuate. But we can feed 100 times more people with the same amount of water using vertical farming, than regular open air farming.

Our system is primed to waste as much as possible and be as inefficient and ineffective as possible because you get rewarded for the more solutions you can sell.

If we could change our farming methods to be 100 times more efficient, for the same cost in water...

What about computing technology ? What about building housing for all humans ? What about building transportation ? What about medical facilities all over the world ? And for free ?

What else are we short on because it's expensive, that we could have plenty of if we changed the way we think ?


Here's a short series called Culture In Decline, EP 6

Basically it depicts two futures. One if we stay on what we have. And one if we alter course now.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people actively working to alter course by bringing to everyone's attention that we can do so much better than this.

So to answer your question...

  • I can't tell you for sure how to avoid it, except to say, make it known that there's a fork in the road coming up. There is another option than desolate waste from our inefficient and wasteful system.
u/wrongbanana · 2 pointsr/worldnews

The book "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dwyer is a book I can't recommend enough for anyone wanting to get up to speed on what climate change really means for us and the wealth of knowledge that has accumulated over the years. He spent a year interviewing top scientists, policy makers, military and intelligence community members from around the world and asked them what they are aware of and what they are planning for. It is a very comprehensive book and Dwyer is a world renown investigative geopolitical reporter. The book is a bit dated (April 2011) but its still very relevant in synthesis and analysis and its interesting to read about thresholds he predicts we wont cross until 2020 or later that we have already crossed. He also concludes that the IPCC reports, which policy makers use as a guide, is unreliable for displaying and highlighting the realities of the situation for various reasons.

Doc Snow wrote a really great summary and review of the book with pictures that is quite comprehensive. I cannot recommend looking at this enough to all people and especially my fellow redditors who have the resources to not be in the dark. Knowledge is power.

Edit: Fixed link. Grammar and spelling.

u/DrTreeMan · 2 pointsr/Futurology

I'll refer you to the book "Climate Wars" by Gwynn Dyer. While he reviews the science of climate change at the beginning, most of the book is based on scenarios developed by the US military and interviews of high-ranking officers. Gwynn Dyer is a military historian, not an environmental writer.

I don't own the book, but as I recall he sourced most of the material in it.

u/Sanpaku · 2 pointsr/politics

Check out the Gwynne Dyer book Climate Wars, his documentary for Canadian radio or the new film The Age of Consequences.

If we address issues people care about, they might listen.

u/jontsy · 2 pointsr/geology

I too have trouble with this, but I'm making slow progress purely through practice. I find this book quite helpful: Rocks and Minerals in Thin Section. Other good resources I've found online is Alex Herriot's collection and this collection of thin section from the Bushveld Complex

u/TheLastBlockbuster · 2 pointsr/politics

He actually has a book about climate change called, "The Greatest Hoax"

u/Cyberhwk · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

There's a lot of exciting stuff going on down here on Earth too. So exciting stuff happening on Mars gets a little drown out.

As for politics, politicians have been scoring political points attacking Evolution and claiming Climate science is a hoax. Academic institutions, especially the prestigious ones, have also been attacked as "elitist."

u/NRA4eva · 2 pointsr/ShitPoliticsSays

He wrote a book called the "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"

Here's a quote from him. He bases his climate belief on the fucking book of Genesis.

>Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Do some goddamn research before you claim that he "isn't a climate change denier"

u/RentalCanoe · 2 pointsr/politics

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future: Written by Senator James Inhofe

Explain to me again that "conservatives don't hate climate science."

u/screaminjj · 2 pointsr/environment

There's a recent book about the scientists who are paid to argue against the agreed upon science.


" Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it."



u/altkarlsbad · 2 pointsr/RenewableEnergy

There's a whole industry dedicated to offering 'reasonable observations'.....

This makes me very suspicious of remarks similar to yours. Nothing personal.

u/CommaCatastrophe · 2 pointsr/AskThe_Donald

> Could you please provide sources for these statements?

Can you tell me specifically what you would like sourced? I'll try to provide some avenues for further reading in this post a bit.

> For anyone else reading, radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming and outgoing energy through the Earth's atmosphere. I have never seen a climate change model from a credible organization that did not have this as at least a central component.

Current climate models relegate the influence of the sun on the climate at a 0.1% TSI variability over the solar cycle as it relates to upper atmospheric heating. This of course is valid. Where the problem arises is when it comes to particle forcing mechanisms. These are not considered in any mainstream climate model and, as such with all unaccounted natural variables, their effects don't go away but get attributed to humanity instead.

> It's worth noting that CMIP is comprised of climate scientists... CMIP's official stance is that man-made climate change is real... So I'm not sure who we are criticizing here...

Again, CMIP6 released two data sets. One with particle forcing and one without particle forcing. I have yet to see a single model that used the data set that includes particle forcing that shows humans are the driving factor. Climate science is not the monolith they would have you believe. The idea that all climate scientists are idiots and liars is of course absurd. There is absolutely dissent that is working towards what I think is the right direction, but with funding and peer review in this field being the way that it currently is, one must be careful with the way they say things in order to keep their jobs.

Do a google scholarly article search on solar forcing of various aspects of the climate that you can think of, practically none of them are accounted for in models. These are the same models that we see all these predictions being based off. There are huge amounts of papers coming out that aren't getting the publicity that anthropogenic climate change gets. A kid even recently won the national science championship showing the correlation between coronal hole activity and cyclones (Faris Wald is his name if you wanted to look it up, it is super interesting stuff). Mainstream science didn't make this connection, an 8th grader did.

Just recently Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (MIT, NASA JPL&Goddard, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science, Duke, Hawaii, Georgia Institute of Tech, International Pacific Research Center) wrote a book called "Confessions of a climate scientist - the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis." I highly recommend the read, the gist of it is summed up by him saying "Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world." I name him primarily as a recent high profile example of a dissenter, of which there are many who are not as vocal.

I appreciate the non insulting tone by the way.

u/froggyfox · 1 pointr/worldnews


Some of the following is based on older data and describes the effects of some fairly extreme climate change models. These worst case events may certainly still occur, but know that, by 2100, around a 4 degree C temperature increase is the most likely result of climate change (if we continue to emit CO2 at our current rate). These two posts look at the current situation and the most likely future scenarios. Also, the article I link to that says it'll take nearly 400 years to overhaul our planet's energy system is incorrect (I'm currently looking for better data).


The Situation

YOU SHOULD BE VERY AFRAID. This link deserves to be read in it's entirety because it contains factual information that is legitimately terrifying. However, I have pulled out many of the goodies below (i.e., all sections before What's Happening Now in the U.S. are essentially a summary/partial copy of the Daily Intelligencer article The Uninhabitable Earth, Annotated Edition by David Wallace-Wells, which is what that link points to). This will affect you, if you haven't already been affected. Fear is the correct response to a global catastrophic risk (which climate change most certainly is), but if you intend to survive until the tail end of this century, or if you want family members or friends to live past 2100, you must pair that fear with hope, drive, and action. This massively tangled cluster-fuck of a problem will require you personally to act. Vote for politicians that promise to go above and beyond the guidelines set forth by the Paris Agreement, because the Paris Agreement isn't enough. Don't have kids (adopt if you want kids), drive less, don't fly in airplanes, eat less meat, and don't buy anything you don't need. Reduce, reuse, and recycle; but focus on reducing waste. Those are all great things to do, and you should do them all, but significant change in carbon emissions won't occur until strong enough government policies or big enough technology breakthroughs are made.

Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

The most credible prediction of the effects of climate change comes from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issues regular reports synthesizing the latest science. The IPCC’s median business-as-usual projection for warming by 2100 is about four degrees, which would expose half the world’s population to unprecedented heat stress, according to Steven C. Sherwood and Matthew Huber’s landmark study on the subject.

“It looks to me that at that those numbers — four to six degrees — you’d start to see the tropics evacuating, because people wouldn’t be able to live there. It might be less than four degrees. But around four degrees or five degrees, would be the point where people would be finding it unbearable.” It wouldn’t just be heat stress driving people away, he said. “A combination of heat stress and other things. I think you’d start to see crop failures, damage to the biosphere. Keep in mind, in the tropics, two or three degrees takes the environment outside the range of natural variability.”

As Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University told David Wallace-Wells,

"...under rapid emissions, by the end of the century, 40 percent of the ability of people to work outside would be lost.”

How likely is this median, “business-as-usual” outcome? It’s difficult to say, but Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton, estimates our chances of staying below the Paris accord’s goal of two-degrees warming at 10 percent. In my interview with Wallace Smith Broecker, of Columbia, he said, “...the mean was about 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming, but it showed there was something like 15 percent probability that it’d be more than four degrees, just on these model runs.” And in their book Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet, Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman estimate a 15 percent chance that we overshoot six degrees.

In the winter of 2016, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded (just a little bit) by climate change less than ten years after being built. Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful.

Because we are dealing with a planet-wide system, the reaction time is very slow. We are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past. The IPCC projects four degrees of warming by the beginning of the next century, but that's just the median projection. The upper end of the probability curve runs as high as eight degrees. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (the most recent finalized report) doesn't fully account for permafrost melt. By many counts, the IPCC report also doesn't fully account for the albedo effect (less ice means less reflected and more absorbed sunlight, hence more warming); more cloud cover (which traps heat); or the dieback of forests and other flora (which extract carbon from the atmosphere). The last time the planet was even four degrees warmer, Peter Brannen points out in The Ends of the World, his new history of the planet’s major extinction events, the oceans were hundreds of feet higher.

u/maileggs2 · 1 pointr/Christianity

I read this book.

And learned there was multiple epochs of life.

How do you explain this by biblical reckoning, unless you are a liberal Christian that just sees the OT as metaphorical, how can you believe in some ancient rites of "blood sacrifice" anymore as being mandated for humanity? [Jesus is an advancement, a proxy for the past human sacrifices] It is odd with that much scientific knowledge and understanding which past generations had no access too, you still believe this creator needs "blood" to even the system out and "forgive sins". I am not an atheist, in fact I believe there could very well be a higher intelligence, or "creator" of some sort but Christianity is too limited in it's description of it, and sticks to barbaric human found beliefs and practices like human sacrifice. I am technically agnostic, but I find it stranger that Christians believe I will go to hell, for rejecting the god of their definition. The 6 Epochs book told me that the human understanding of this universe is very limited and well Christianity even more so.

With regards to humanity not finding any alien life [YET] some believe disclosure is coming and that they HAVE already but it's been suppressed. Others of course explore the Fermi Paradox. It is possible the life is farther away then we could imagine.

u/mherr77m · 1 pointr/askscience

The standard textbook that I think most of us have used in atmospheric dynamics classes is Holton but has a bit of steep learning curve, depending on your background. Another book, that I think is a bit better at easing you into the material is Wiley, and then theres Wallace & Hobbs which is more of an undergraduate book.

u/Difluence · 1 pointr/TropicalWeather

You'll be hard-pressed to find a better introductory textbook than Wallace & Hobbs. It's a comprehensive and informative introductory tome that still manages to have lots of judiciously chosen pretty pictures.

u/Diligent_Nose · 1 pointr/IAmA

What part of geology are you interested in? Annals of the Former World is the go to book when this comes up on /r/geology

Ninja edit: I haven't read it, but it's on my list of things to read.

u/accousticabberation · 1 pointr/BreakingParents

Thanks! I just wish I could say there were more good things on the list.

And thanks for the Patton recommendation, I'll check that out.

I do recommend anything by John McPhee in the strongest possible terms. It's all non-fiction, and always interesting and often very funny, and about a tremendous range of topics.

Like fishing? Read The Founding Fish, which is all about the American Shad, and I mentioned before.

Like boats? Looking For a Ship is about the merchant marine.

Planes, trains, and automobiles (and more boats)? Uncommon Carriers deals with all of them, and why almost all lobster eaten in the US comes from Kentucky.

Care for tales about why New Orleans is doomed, pissing on lava , and debris flows in LA? The Control of Nature covers those.

Fruit? How about Oranges?

Geology? The Annals of the Former World is a compilation of several shorter books more or less following I-80 across the US.

Sports? Tennis (and basketball to a lesser extent). He's also written about lacrosse in various magazines.

...And a ton of other stuff, ranging from bears to farmers markets to nuclear energy to lifting body airplanes to Switzerland.

u/AndroidApple · 1 pointr/booksuggestions

This isn't really what you're after but may do the job - (Pulitzer Prize).

u/ryanxedge · 1 pointr/malefashionadvice

Genre: Science/Geology

Author: John McPhee

Title: Annals of the Former World (Amazon link)

A few quotes from the book to provide some food for thought:

> If you free yourself from the conventional reaction to a quantity like a million years, you free yourself a bit from the boundaries of human time. And then in a way you do not live at all, but in another way you live forever.


> If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone.

u/DocUnissis · 1 pointr/space

Read: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, it shows how right you are. It's also fucking hilarious.

u/kiko1980 · 1 pointr/xxketo

I feel cold on the outside but good on the inside. Had another amazing plate of the Gordon Ramsey scrambled eggs for breaky and I'm currently enjoying a cup of tea.

This weekend my SO is working nights, so I imagine I'll do some catching up on some Netflix I've been neglecting, maybe pop over to see a friend who didn't see over the holidays, and I'm definitely going to be up to my elbows in books. I've got 2 books (Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything and Haruki Murakimi's Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage) on the go. I want to finish them both this weekend so I can start another (Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential). PLUS I'm starting a course on Tuesday so I'm trying to get a head start on that reading.

Since the weather is COLD COLD COLD it should make for nice, toasty, relaxing weekend :)

u/and69 · 1 pointr/changemyview

I recommend you to read this book
I can't tell you the exact arguments, because I read it some years ago.
It doesn't dismiss the theory completely, but does put some questions, which doesn't makes the evolutionist theory wrong but incomplete.

For example:

  • it seems that there is no continuous evolution, but in jumps.
  • some traits might not be dictated by necessity only

    Also, I found a movie some time ago about the cell structure, where the problem was that some parts of the cell, like the sperm's flagella are very complex, that
  1. it was an chicken-egg problem
  2. the mechanism required several parts to work, and it was the minimum-workable mechanism. This means that if you take any part from it, it wouldn't work. The problem is that all these parts should have evolved all suddenly, it's not like you will have some rotor part, and the cell would say, now, hmmm, seems that I need some engine, and now, yeah, a propeller would be a good idea.
    I don't have a link, I've found it on a peer-to-peer network
u/The_Dead_See · 1 pointr/Astronomy

You can't beat Nightwatch imo.

I would also recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, it's not entirely astronomy - it goes into geology, biology and anthropology too for example - but it really gives a great overview of the basics of physics and our place and scale in the grand scheme of things. Plus it's fun.

u/Coffee__Addict · 1 pointr/Physics

For the QM


For the math.

Edit: I'm rereading both of these over the summer as a refresher. They make a great combo.

u/TheMightyChodeMonger · 1 pointr/askscience

Just want to mention that pop sci (which everything you mentioned is) and an actual rigorous study of physics are two very very different things. The romantic image of physics you get from those kind of programs is very different then what is actually involved in learning physics.

I would suggest getting more familiar with the mathematics (calculus, statistics, linear algebra) before diving into the actual physics.

Having the math first will make it much easier to see the actual physics behind the equations instead of sitting there trying to figure out the math and physics at the same time.

To that end I would suggest having Boas mathematical methods next to you at all times during your early studies. Its at about a sophomore (college) level but is easily accessible to most anyone with a basic mathematics background.


Other than that watch Kahn academy or the MIT online courses.

u/ErmagerdSpace · 1 pointr/Astronomy

First you need Algebra and Trig. From this stage you mainly need to be able to manipulate equations (e.g. take x^2 + y^3 + z^2 = k^2 / n^2 and solve for x, it's one of the easier parts of algebra) and to understand exponents/logarithms. From trig you need to know how to break a vector into components, how to find angles, how sines/cosines/etc are defined, and all those nasty trig identities (e.g 1 - sin^2 = cos^2). You don't need to memorize them (usually, some professors are insane) but it helps to be kinda-sorta familiar with them.

If you've mastered all that, you want to study calculus. If you can take derivatives and solve integrals you're probably good enough to start, but the more you understand the better. It's a lot easier to solve physics problems when you're not struggling with the math you need to solve them.

If you get a book like this and work through it you'll get a lot of what you need, but it's not really necessary to go that far-- that is stuff you won't need until your fourth or fifth semester. Some of it is grad school math.

tl;dr: Trig, Algebra, and basic Calculus for sure. That's what you need for year 1. You can go further if you want, but there is no need to kill yourself to learn advanced math before taking intro physics.

u/ange1obear · 1 pointr/learnmath

I will give you the same answer I give every one of my students, and that one of my mentors gave me: don't think that there is a logical progression to approaching mathematics. The reason that people think there is such a thing as a logical order to mathematics is due to the school system, which teaches things in a particular order before university, and then structures university classes using prerequisites, making you think that, for example, you need trigonometry before you do calculus. This simply isn't true. I could say more about this, but it won't answer your question.

Here is my suggestion. Go to the mathematics section of a library, yank any book off the shelf, and go to town. Most books aimed at advanced undergrad/grad students (which is the level you're looking for) will say in the introduction something to the effect of "there are no real prerequisites for this book other than mathematical maturity," and this is nearly always true. You probably won't have mathematical maturity starting out, which can be frustrating, but you'll develop it over time. You will encounter things that you don't understand in these books, and the correct response to this is to go find another book on that topic. You can't learn mathematics just by compiling a list of theorems and techniques.

So all you really need is a starting point. Looking at what you're interested in, I'd recommend this book, which is extremely practical. You'll find more computational things in there than mathematical things, but it has a pretty broad spectrum of techniques whose theoretical underpinnings you can pursue. This course of action is the only one I can recommend, because it's the one I took. The only math class I took in college was calculus, and now I do research in mathematics in grad school. The frustrating thing about this approach is that there's no quantitative way to measure your progress. On the other hand, you get a real feeling for why and how people came up with various aspects of mathematics, which is a feeling you can't get from a curriculum.

u/eff_horses · 1 pointr/changemyview

> 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.

u/retardedmoron · 1 pointr/climateskeptics
u/paurea · 1 pointr/math

You should take a look at Geometric Algebra (not to be confused with Algebraic Geometry). Take a look at this video and this book for a general introduction and this one for physics. Angular momentum and angular velocity (if memory serves well) are both bivectors. Rotors, which are just bivectors and can be used to rotate using a sandwich geometric product, in a manner similar to quaternions.

u/weforgottenuno · 1 pointr/Physics
u/carvin_martin · 1 pointr/Physics

The Zitterbewegung interpretation of Quantum Mechanics takes a cue from here and works out the math. The result is that spin (and in general, momentum) is shown to be a property of a Quantum Field, not a feature of particles.

The best sources for this are: (David Hestene's personal website. The last few papers on this page are most relevant)

Geometric Algebra for Physicists by Doran and Lasenby The section on Quantum Mechanics is great for explaining the Math, but it doesn't do spin a great service

Almost no one pays attention to this work because it's not something new and amazing. It's contributed nothing to experimental knowledge aside from some explanations of corrections in energies and lifetimes. The calculations are also mostly done in a weird unification of vectors & division algebra that few people are familiar with.

IMO though, even though the work is hard to get through, it's worth it to understand spin.

u/roshoka · 1 pointr/Physics

Late, but here are undergrad books on the subject: geometric algebra, geometric calculus.

A grad-type book that has both and their applications to physics would be this one

I'm currently learning the geometric algebra undergrad book. It's a good read so far, and the author keeps up with book errors.

u/chiwawa_42 · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

Well, IPCC' is for the "best case" set of scenarii. They don't account for the Clathrate gun hypothesis and mostly discard Thermohaline shutdown.

If both were to happen at full blast, then the worst possible outcome sits around +70m sea level rise and +12°C average within a few centuries. In a lifetime, maybe the first 20 meters could happen, and +4 or +5°C is wayy more likely than +1,5°C. Some even start talking about +8°C in a century and nearly twice that (read +14°C) in two.

You may want to read The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming if you're really into depressing projections.

u/muzwim · 1 pointr/Futurology

I fear for the optimists like yourself who believe that the problem will solve itself so easily through 'markets and investors'. Just picked up these two books and I don't agree with you at all that the world is headed the way you think.

u/michaelrch · 1 pointr/environment

I guess I would recommend a few things

  • vote for whichever candidate is electable and plans big action on climate change
  • travel less, and if you can, stop flying. Find other places to go on vacation etc and/or other ways to get there.
  • offset your emissions, whatever they are. It doesn't solve any underlying problems but it helps a bit
  • when travelling locally, try to use a bike or public transport or walk
  • if you have to drive, consider getting an EV (failing that a plugin hybrid) not forgetting that many are available pretty cheap second hand
  • consider donating to charities and action groups like,, or
  • consider switching to a power utility that does not use fossil fuels. Consider fitting solar PV to your house for electricity.
  • consider direct action with groups like or or
  • show up to any climate related demos or events in your area
  • go vegetarian and as vegan as you can (mindful of the kids nutrition). Maybe buy supplements in bulk to be certain your nutrition is good.
  • talk to your friends and family about the things they can do and why they have to. Be an example to others around you and demonstrate that action on climate change means change, not pain and suffering
  • inform yourself as much as possible about the science, politics and psychology around climate change - including books like Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change and The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.
  • talk to your kids but be careful not to scare them. Climate change is having a profound affect on the mental health of young people so you need to communicate with your kids carefully. They need to be informed and motivated, not frightened and despairing.

    Hope that helps for starters. As a parent, and with all the other parents out there who increasingly feel as you do, IMO (after feeding them, clothing them and teaching them to be good people) stopping climate catastrophe is our biggest duty to our kids and it will take decades of work. But what other choice is there. It falls to us. Now.
u/silence7 · 1 pointr/climate

The place to look for a reasonably credible look at worst-case outcomes is this book

u/mindbleach · 1 pointr/AskReddit

The video is part of a "Let's Play" for 50 Cent: Blood On The Sand. (Let's Play emerged as a form of follow-along entertainment from games forums. Reasonably skilled players with a humorous or well-informed approach would start threads titled e.g. 'Let's play Metroid' and then do so, often with audience participation for character names, in-game choices, etc. As an introduction I'd recommend Let's Play Trespasser, possibly the best video LP to date.) Chip Cheezum played the game in sections and then recorded color commentary (no pun intended) with General Ironicus. In this clip Ironicus is reading a long excerpt from American Apartheid to quell off-topic linguistic discussions within the thread. His conclusion after finishing is worth hearing.

In a similarly boring helicopter rail-shooter section of the game, he reads Massey & Denton's impressions of gender politics as presented in rap and hip-hop, neatly dissecting some major aspects of the game's plot. Chip's only immediate reply is "while you were reading that, I killed, like, a thousand guys."

u/thegreenman_sofla · 1 pointr/conspiracy

Climatology versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics

u/absolutebeginners · 1 pointr/environment

To watch, i'd recommend and inconvenient truth and Gore's update and the sequel for good basic info, most of the facts can be corroborated. Keep in mind the projections of what will happen are based on estimates and judgement and not always accurate. Just because scientists can get projections wrong doesn't mean the underlying facts are wrong, just that certain assumptions were incorrect. NASA's website also provides a good guide with references. To supplement:

McMann is one author you should check out. I've heard this is good but haven't read it. My field of study focuses more on policies to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, and how to finance those policies, rather than the hard science. I think if you search around in /r/science and /r/environment you'll find some good resources.

u/geodude247 · 1 pointr/gis

Have you tried the packages spdep, spatstat, gstat? In the class I took on this subject, we used these packages along with maptools and GISTools to avoid Arc entirely. This book was our reference:

If I'm not mistaken, the package spdep was developed by the authors of these books:

Were you instructed to use geoRglm?

u/bill-merrly · 1 pointr/geology

I as well am currently using this book for an ore deposits class. it is well written and easy to fallow. Another book I have for more technical indepth descriptions of specific deposits is The Geology of Ore Deposits by Gilbert and Park, this book has just about everything.

u/GeoGeoGeoGeo · 1 pointr/geology

Before I took any classes on resource geology, I purchased an older book that was pretty handy here, but is far out-dated now (the PDF provided by Paaatrick_Baaaby_Boy is probably far more applicable).
For Cu porphyry systems (recommended to read up on these two papers by industry and a fellow who ran his own min-ex company) one of the go-to papers can be found here by Sinclair and another by Sillitoe can be found here.

u/NV_Geo · 1 pointr/geologycareers

> Really, I just want to work in pretty country and find gold

Yeah that would be awesome. At least in the US you'd get to do a lot of work in NE Nevada and Alaska.

I know you've been working environmental for quite some time, how are you with mineral ID (sulfides and ig/met minerals specifically)? Did you take an economic geo classes? If you want to drop $100 on a text book the Geology of Ore Deposits is the quintessential economic geology text.

u/majorijjy · 1 pointr/worldnews
  1. Maybe if you could make a coherent argument against Harper being anti-science I will engage with you.

  2. A grad student crying for funding so he can continue working 50+ hrs/week for shit pay is exactly the same thing as a corporation lobbying for subsidies. /s

  3. Here are some articles on Harper and his anti-science stance:

    This is a great blog post chronicling virtually every cut, muzzling, cancellation etc from the Harper government:

    "The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada" by Chris Turner is also a great book on the subject:

u/jlaux · 1 pointr/politics

Been reading Gwynne Dyer's Climate Wars lately, and it explains in more detail what Neil was talking about -- major refugee crisis, serious food shortages, even numerous major conflicts / war, as people fight for arable land. It's kind of frightening when you think about all the ripple effects this could have.

u/greengordon · 1 pointr/canada

Gwynne Dyer has also written some excellent stuff on climate change.

u/julietalphagolf · 1 pointr/geologycareers

This book did wonders for me during my degree, give it a look, worth getting a second hand copy on the cheap.

u/spriklesparkles · 1 pointr/politics

you have never actually looked at any of these records then

read this book when it comes out , its written by the man who literally started the green movement in germany and basically is a baron of wind turbine production in the country.

here is him speaking at a global warming conference

u/gnurdette · 1 pointr/Anglicanism


Well, in the US, our chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is a published global warming conspiracy theorist, so... perhaps we inherited a taste for perverse appointments from the mother country.

u/teamramrod456 · 1 pointr/atheism

This is his book on Amazon, and some of the reviews are ridiculous. I find it hilarious that bible thumpers call anyone who disagrees, or someone who believes in climate change ignorant and arrogant, which is quite the contrary. When it comes to climate change, they claim to have "facts" that disprove it, but blindly hold onto their childish beliefs when real facts are thrown at them. There is solid evidence proving man-made climate change, and to ignore facts, and stomp your feet saying there is evidence that disproves climate change is only delaying the inevitable reality of global instability. Their level of hypocrisy is extremely infuriating.

u/ScoobiusMaximus · 1 pointr/worldnews

Same way James Inhofe becomes head of the senate environmental committee in the US despite literally writing the book on climate change denial..
Corruption and stupid voters.

u/sleepyj910 · 1 pointr/NoStupidQuestions

3% of them disagree it's our fault, not that the climate is changing. That is simply what is being observed.

Conservative groups that represent carbon fuel industries probably prop up that 3% and give them more voice than they would otherwise have.

If someone could prove it wasn't carbon, they'd be a hero, because we'd all be saved. Everyone wants it to not be real cause it sucks so bad. So any evidence that denies it is more likely to be trumpeted.

Skepticism is fine, but rest assured people listen to deniers all the time, and then they look at the evidence and sigh.

This book Merchants of Doubt talks about how industries try to make good science seem unreliable:

u/Trent1492 · 1 pointr/AskHistorians

A fantastic resource on the links between industry and the touting of doubt about well established scientific findings is Merchants of Doubt by the science historian Naomi
Oreskes. You may also want to check out her lecture on the subject: The American Denial of Global Warming

It is the last half of the lecture that you will be most interested in; where she talks about the how various other polluting industries took lessons from the tobacco industry on how to insert unwarranted uncertainty and doubt about solid environmental science.

Some of the same characters and think tanks who now engage in critiques of the climate science now where right there in the 80's and 90's denying links to human industry and the Ozone Hole, acid rain and chemical pollution such as DDT:

(Fred Singer)[]

Fred Seitz (dead)

Here is what Oreskes has to say on the "Freds":

>From 1979 to 1985, Fred Seitz directed a program for R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company that distributed $45 million dollars to scientists around the country for biomedical research that could generate evidence and cultivate experts to be used in court to defend the "product". In the mid-1990s, Fred Singer coauthored a major report attacking the U.S Environmental Protection Agency over the health risks of secondhand smoke.

Merchants of Doubt page 11-12.

*"Him" being Ben Santer a climate scientist.

u/taldarus · 1 pointr/climateskeptics

free kindle edition

Dr Nakamura Mototaka - is the author. This link is included to demonstrate his qualifications.

Here is something that summarizes some of his scalding criticisms of climate models.

>The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.

>Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

> It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.

u/AcostaJA · 1 pointr/science

The issue is what's you mean as accurate non contaminated curated data, then how many degrees have it of reliable precision, and then given that precision how reliable is a mathematical model to deliver forecast on global scale assuming that by itself greenhouse gases can't hear the planet they need some questionable also domino effect on strong highly random, true mathematical models draw possible predictions based on the possible paths and actually the true chance for co2 to Cascade domino influence on water vapor in a 50yr period is like to win 3 times the lottery this period for a strong chance, and mostly likely to dilute to the space the extra trace heat.

I don't come here to show you what you previously didn't asked for, but generously I ask you to read Mototaka Nakamura work (also search about him)

Free Kindle ebook

u/KRosen333 · 0 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

>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. Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.

> - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

> - 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. :)

u/poopconfetti · 0 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters
u/nimanator · 0 pointsr/Bitcoin
  1. 97% of researchers that warmist John Cook "surveyed" agree that the globe has probably warmed for the past 100-150 years, and agree that SOME of that warming was caused by human activities. If it's not manipulative to infer from this that 97% agree with the thesis of catastrophic man made global warming, then I don't know what is.

  2. I get my information from books written by various scientists, most recently The Neglected Sun by Fritz Vahrenholt (, although I've read the German version. Also Bjorn Lomborg ( and Warren Meyer (

    This just by the by: if you read what Fritz writes about the Spanish Inquisition style techniques and glaringly obvious evasions, and UNBELIEVABLE scumbaggery performed at the IPCC, you'll think twice about ever again listing them as the "most recognized, respected, scientific panel on climate change" with a straight face!
u/trumpGOAT · -1 pointsr/SandersForPresident

Scientists in the 90s were saying that florida would be underwater by now.

The same beaches i visited in the 90s have not changed a single inch.

These scientists need money to keep their programs going. The UN and the federal government provide them with money if they provide scientific outcomes. Its not hard to get satallite readings of temperature to be different from the actual temperature on the surface.

the reality is climate change is completely out of the hands of the human beings on this planet. Its all up to that rapidly changing ball of fusion floating in space.

u/BuildTheWalle · -1 pointsr/politics


Oh my sources don't fall inline with your deluded understanding of the world because you are told by someone that they are not real?

double sigh

9 Things You Need To Know About The Climate Change Hoax

There are real people that explain it and its by a US Senator!!

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future

>Americans are over-regulated and over-taxed. When regulation escalates, the result is an increase in regulators. In other words, bigger government is required to enforce the greater degree of regulation. Bigger government means bigger budgets and higher taxes. More simply doesn't mean better. A perfect example is the entire global warming, climate-change issue, which is an effort to dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business, and to raise our cost of living and taxes. In The Greatest Hoax, Senator James Inhofe will reveal the reasons behind those perpetuating the Hoax of global warming, who is benefitting from the general acceptance of the Hoax and why the premise statements are blatantly and categorically false.

u/ggrieves · -3 pointsr/math

Here's how I was taught, but I was taught in physics not math.
Fourier transforms are more intuitive, so think about how you take a derivative of a FT. You carry the derivative operator into the integral and you just get a factor of 2(pi)ix under the integrand. Logically, if you want a second derivative, just take the FT of the functions transform times x^2 etc. If you want a 1.3^th derivative (yes fractional derivatives exist) then FT the function times x^1.3 etc. This means taking a n^th derivative in real space is the same as multiplying by x^n in transform space. Sounds alot like what logarithms did for multiplication back in the day doesn't it? So now you can turn a differential equation into a polynomial equation if you just take the Fourier transform of it. However, if the diff eq is more complex than just n^th order with constant coefficients, maybe the FT isn't the best transform available for simplifying it? Then use a transform that's tailored for the particular function you have.

If I remember correctly this book has a nice description. I consider this book to be the "readable" version of this one