Environment » Global Warming » What was the last textbook on climate science, atmospheric science or meteorology that you looked at?

What was the last textbook on climate science, atmospheric science or meteorology that you looked at?

There are some interesting answers. Raisin Caine has looked an NAS treatise on the attribution of extreme weather events. An anonymous person that blocks me came up with a journal (I don't think they understood that it wasn't a textbok). Sagebrush thinks textbooks are communist plots. MIKE L read a weather book in high school. Mike read a denial propaganda book, and Kano says they're too expensive.

I think it is great that you admit that you only read Communist trash. This was a textbook promoted by Bezerkly! Were you part of those violent demonstrations?

I don't read books that go against science. If the authors were truly scientific, they would gladly freely give their information. These authors write for profits. And they will sing any song as long as the money is there. Too bad you put so much stock in those kind of books. Just look at what modern day academia has done to the youths. They are so educated that they don't even know which bathroom to use.

In fact, after reading that book, you don't even know when water boils. And you even smugly admitted it. Some scientist you are! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

I rarely read textbooks on statistics. By time the information makes it to textbook, it is generally outdated. I read articles on statistics and statistical methods frequently.

You seem to be admitting that your field of "science" moves at a glacial pace, only making this admission in an arrogant condescending manner.

If you are asking how many journal articles on climate science, I have read, then probably 20 over the last year.

The last article I read was a 187 page book on the attribution of Extreme weather event in the Context of Climate change written by a committee sponsored by the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine.

Funny thing about this 187 page book. As you would say, I am woefully ignorant about climate science. I haven't taken any courses on the subjects. I certainly do not have even a Bachelor's degree on the subject. WOOOO BOY am I just a noob who doesn't know crap, right???

Now here comes the entertaining thing. What that book says is what I have been saying about extreme weather. There is simply not enough evidence to make claims of causation in any form of extreme weather with the possible exception of heat waves with a concurrent reduction in cold waves.

Now perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you uber-intelligent, well educated and just so much better than us "evil deniers" in every way type of people seem to come to different conclusions.

Was it written in one of the textbook you are talking about? If so, would you mind referencing that textbook?

Fact is James, that I am spreading INFORMATION AND DATA. Information and data that you cannot deny is true. I correct exaggerations and tales of an apocalyptic future from alarmists. Exaggerations and tales that you know to be false, yet feel no need to correct. Now if you want me to defer to YOUR knowledge on a subject, I require that you do three things:

1.) Be as willing to correct the mistakes of alarmists as you are of skeptics.
2.) keep your implications in check. Saying it could destroy the space-time continuum, you should probably include that the probability is exceeding low, yes??? Sure its possible and it is possible unicorns come from outer space to take over Earth. Its exceedingly low.
2.) Keep to your wheelhouse when expecting this. Sorry James, but you are NOT an expert of economics, you are not an expert on nuclear physics, and when it comes to general statistical modeling you are less of an expert than me (though admittedly more of an expert of time series).

If you want the courtesy you expect of your expertise, then you need to keep to your expertise while expecting this. Most of your claims about what AGW may cause in the future are truly no more informed than mine. Indeed, constantly ignoring the positives and only focusing on the negatives may not make you less informed, but it certainly provides other with an extremely biased viewpoint.

The question is not whether you have more expertise in this field, James. The question is whether you are so biased that you are acting like an activist instead of a scientist. Ignoring inconvenient facts because they don't help your political cause allows even "noobs" like myself to be able to add information to the conversation. Information, BTW, that you probably should have added in the first place.

Edit for James:

So your case is that I do not understand how the greenhouse effect works???

That your case???? If I demonstrate that I do, you'll agree that you are a LIAR and never talk crap again???

Willing to make that deal??? Or do you already know that you are lying and full of crap???

The only one I ever looked at was one by Murry Salby. I did not read it all. However, you did not approve of that one - and I have to admit, Salby is mainly approved of by Salby. Many people take issue with him.

However, I have studied thermodynamics for a couple of years as part of my engineering course so things like pressure, volume, temperature, entropy, enthalpy, work, isentropic, isobaric, isothermal and adiabatic are not new to me.

As for understanding the greenhouse effect, I still think you have some gaps.

(Request: Could we continue our previous "conversation" using Yahoo mail?)

Another point is that meteorology and climate tend to be quite simplistic when it comes to feedback. They seem quite happy to assign a number to it and sometimes, they even know the sign. An engineer will usually have a plot of feedback amplitude and phase against frequency and if the transfer function is known analytically then a three dimensional plot of the transfer function against a complex variable can be used for investigating stability.

Quite why they seem to ignore the possibility of cloud feedbacks, for instance, being positive at one frequency but negative at another I do not know. To me it just suggests that the underlying theory of cloud feedbacks is not well understood.

I have "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Grant Petty, "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer, and a text on thermal physics from an old undergraduate class. Although I recently downsized and had to give away most of my bookshelf, I kept these as I still like to refer to them every once in a while.

I read Chicken Little (the sky is falling) to my 4 year old.

NEVER. Is'nt that great. http://www.globalcommand.net

We did some study on this 30 years ago. Knowing then the earth was moving out from behind a large dust cloud in space & would get warmer. Next one is due in about 10,000 years. Our cheapest answer then to combat this was to paint rooftops light colors. Reflected light cools. Then they tied airpolution into it. For no good reason but to make it a easy sell to the population. Australian Russian studies disagree with what the American public is fed & how to cure it.


Does "The Sixth Extinction" count? It's more about overpopulation though. It does carry the point, that if our population was drastically reduced, the climate would begin to straighten up even if everyone still drove cars and stayed up all night with the lights on.

I have read dozens of books recently and not all are fiction but none are text books. I have zero interest in reading any text books. I read a couple on anthropology not too long ago, one on Neanderthals and one on Kenniwick man but I don't think those count. A person with two narrow a focus, has very limited knowledge.

From Bohren
<<<“First off, let me say I consider the concept of a global mean temperature [upon which global warming statistics are based] to be somewhat dubious, and I say so in my recent book (with Eugene Clothiaux) Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation. A single number cannot adequately capture climate change. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists.”

The issue of global warming is extremely complicated, and it transcends science. Views on global warming are as much determined by political and religious biases as by science. No one comes to the table about this issue without biases. So I'll state some of mine.

I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic. Perhaps global warming is an example of the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, but this time the doomsayers are, alas, right. Maybe, but I can't help noting that some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. >>>

Yet you presumably interpret his text book differently.