Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion books on global warming and energy

My 7yo boy is concerned about global warming and thinks CO2 emissions must be cut. IMO cap-and-trade is not worth the cost, but that is certainly debatable. One needs to know a good bit of physics (especially atmospheric science) and statistics to assess the evidence for global warming, economics and political science to assess the feasibility of proposals such as cap-and-trade, and engineering to evaluate alternative sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power.

Any suggestions for books on these topics for someone who probably reads at the middle school level? Searching "global warming" on Amazon pulls up numerous books, many of which contradict each other, judging from the titles.

I have not had good luck with books written for kids on this topic.

My 8 year old has been reading Scientific American for about a year now. There is at least one article per month on these topics, many of which are available online:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/climate

Some intro texts in Environmental Science (college survey course level) have really excellent treatment of the science side of this.

The political/socioeconomic side is probably better acquired through current events reading, since that is much more fluid. (Commodity market fluctuations, political instability, etc. all have bearing on international agreements and implementation, etc.)

HTH!

The primary climate drivers are the Milankovitch cycle and Cosmic Rays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

This is a phenomenal book showing how real science is done. It teaches a lot about geology and orbital mechanics. One of the best books of its type I have ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Ages-Solving-John-Imbrie/dp/0674440757

Here is a good introduction with historical perspective on temperatures. Note the heavy contributions from Geology and Physicists, as opposed to "modellers."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

So he is beginning with a premise that CO2 is bad? That warm temperatures are bad?

The great Famine was when the Medieval Warm Period ended. That period was warmer than today's era. Societies around the world collapsed - Europe, Cahokia in North America, China, etc. This then set the stage for further disasters such as war and plagues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315-1317

Not much has changed ( and not more can be added ) since Arrhenius did the first calculations on the effects of CO2 on global temps. Increases in CO2 have diminishing returns past 200ppm and we are nearing the saturation point for further temperature increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Furthermore, much of the "modelling" and the "data" it was based on done to date has been shown to be fraudulent. It has to be thrown out and we have to start over.

As a good general current reference, this blog has consistently won best science blog and there is a wealth of information in the sidebars on climate. Posts come from all the sides in the debate and the commentary is quite good.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

It has a very good reference and resource list.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/

Thanks for the wealth of information, Austin.

Do be aware that the Watt site is one run by someone who isn't a scientist by training. Further, Anthony Watt is operating on the principle that AGW probably IS NOT real, and sees the data through that lense.

I'll be blunt; it smells a lot like propaganda and cherry-picking to me. <shrug> He's entitled to his opinions, of course.

One thing that I have found interesting about a variety of things over my lifetime is that those who are not scientists often don't have a good feel for just how the process works. It doesn't require consensus; in fact, that is quite rare.

On the other hand, just because one might be able to find a handful of persons with 'data' and an adze to grind regarding the validity of germ theory doesn't mean that there is a real "debate" about it scientifically, nor that there is some vast conspiracy surrounding it.

Natural selection versus 'other' comes to mind there immediately, too. Intelligent Design aficionados aside, there is a pretty clear agreement among most scientists that this theory is likely to be more or less correct mechanistically. KWIM? Now, 100% of the people I know that believe in ID as an "alternative" mechanism? Are starting from that conclusion point for reasons of ideology or pre-existing belief. In other words, they are searching for data to support 'the cause' rather than working the other way around.

The main problem that I see with global warming research (on both sides) is that the majority viewpoint has long since concluded that it is seeking data to support what it "suspects" is so, and those on the minority viewpoint side are seeking 'anomolies' or 'anecdote' to DIS-prove it, generally for economic, political and/or faith-based reasons.



(I can find several websites that offer to 'debunk' evolution in much the same general manner as the Watts site does global warming. They, too, are very popular and have won awards, and they, too, are run by "outsiders" to the scientific mainstream, often by those without training in the disciplines involved.)



As a chemist, I was not convinced by global temperatures per se, and certainly not convinced at all about overall trends and mechanism until about ten years ago. But calling all of the the extant data "fraudulent"?

Really? Because of a few internal e-mails that show disagreement about statistical treatment and significance? What laypersons don't know, apparently, is that scientists eat their young. Routinely. This happens in MOST fields; there is often quite petty nitpicking, sniping, decisions to chuck data sets that aren't "pretty," to publish POSITIVE results rather than negative ones, and to ignore experiments that don't fit-- not because you don't LIKE what they say, necessarily, so much as that you aren't sure WHAT it means, and you'd rather not have someone else tell you post-publication.

In spite of that, science as a process is still the best route to new technology and better understanding BECAUSE it isn't neat and tidy and because it is so self-critical due to that plurality of viewpoints.

That's not necessarily "fraud" in the scientific sense anymore than data used to support a geocentric worldview was "fraud." If one wants an example of true fraud, one need look no further than Andrew Wakefield. THAT is scientific fraud.

Being in the (unpopular) minority as a scientist doesn't mean that you can't say "the rest of them are all wrong, and here's why I think so." In fact, science really does encourage that sort of thing. But it doesn't entitle you to don the garb of a martyr and clutch at your heart while playing the ghost in Hamlet, either.


Incidentally, there IS no non-politicized view of global warming skepticism (or, probably 'mainstream support' either):


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story?track=rss

Only fair to give you these to go with Watt's links:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Anthony_Watts.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts


http://www.salon.com/news/global_wa...tww/2011/04/01/climate_skeptics_betrayal


Just in the interests of knowing something about HIS possible bias and conflicts of interest. (As any publishing scientist must disclose.)

Truthfully, I have no interest in whether or not people believe propaganda (of any political persuation). I'm just pointing out that this is what some of that is.

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Future-Presidents-Science-Headlines/dp/0393337111

The book "Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines" by UC Berkeley physics professor Richard A. Muller has about 100 pages on global warming. The book gets excellent reviews on Amazon and covers the physics of technologies subject to political dispute, such as nuclear power. It's about 400 pages and costs less than $10.

I hear you, Bostonian; my 5 year-old is totally worried about global warming, too.

You mentioned you were seeking books and you appear to be trying to help your kid better understand the (complicated) science. That's awesome. My son's younger and we're exploring global warming from a different angle. Not sure what is of interest to you or your son but here's what's been great for us:

1. Seeing things happening that are really positive, e.g. a house with alternative energy systems, an off-grid organic farm. We're going to visit a solar farm and a green industrial facility soon. My son worries about these big issues and seeing good things happening is uplifting (for me, too)!

2. Doing cool and useful things to address global warming ourselves: planting a veggie garden, biking or walking instead of driving--and having fun doing it!

3. Helping our kid understand that his is not alone in his concerns. We've enjoyed the photos from around the world at 350.org (they had a global work day where people around the world did projects and took photos of themselves to rally for limits to CO2 in the atmosphere--and there are pictures from remote areas in Africa, from the Marshall islands--from EVERYWHERE. It's stunning--some cool and fun and creative ideas are shown in these photos! If you want to check them out, they are at: http://www.350.org/sites/all/files/bigpicture.html The next global work day is Sept. 24th.

My son's concerns have encouraged us to be more responsible. Which, surprisingly, has been really FUN for our family--less time in the car, more time on the bike, time in the garden, learning about cool things happening nearby--not a bummer at all!

Anyhow, good luck finding awesome ways to explore with your son! I'd love to hear what other families are doing to address their kid's concerns about global warming. Good luck to all!