- Basic Climate Science
- More Advanced
- Alternate Hypotheses
- Causes and Solutions
- Climate Models
- CO2 Science
Basic Climate Science
potholer54 “Climate Change — the scientific debate”
Wake Up, Freak Out – then Get a Grip from Leo Murray.“The script, with extensive peer-reviewed references and additional information and links, is available at wakeupfreakout.org/”
Links
- The Manpollo Project: Wonderingmind42’s videos covering many aspects of climate change (also here)
- Climate change for kids Very good for basics and no one knows you looked here 😉
- The Real Climate Collection including “For complete beginners:”
- Global Warming Union of Concerned Scientists
- On Wikipedia
- Global Warming Basics The Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We ‘re Not Wrong PDF slide show
More Advanced
- Global Warming Student Guide
- Open Source Climate Science Education
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Climate Change The Royal Society
- The Real Climate Collection
- Global Climate Change at NASA
- Climate Change at EPA
- Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis The IPCC
- IPCC Synthesis Report IV
- The Science is Clear DeSmogBlog
- Ice: Poles, Glaciers, etc
- Sea Level
- History/Discovery of Global Warming
- Carbon Dioxide and Climate Scientific American July 1959
- 1958 Newsreel about global warming
- 1953 Popular Mechanics article about global warming
- Climate Data links
- Other sites for current weather and climate events
Links to many more links
- Many more links to the science H.E. Taylors collection
- Climate4you “information on meteorological and climatologically issues of general and specific interest”
- Open Source Climate Science Education
Alternate Hypotheses
potholer54 has released the next in his climate change series “Climate Change — the objections” to look at the most serious possible alternatives to anthropogenic climate change.
Causes and Solutions
At under four minutes this is high impact education that you can share in a lot of places. It is produced by meatthefacts.org and you should link to them if you are going to direct people.
Links
This page has the following sub pages.
Greenfyre's 
Rather than looking at greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as the problem, it is the production of infrared radiation by the Earth which is the problem to be solved. If one could release a compound en masse, either into the atmosphere, or deposited upon the surface of the Earth, which absorbs infrared radiation and re-emits it at visible wavelengths, then the radiation emitted by the Earth will pass unhindered through the greenhouse gases into space.
This requires a so-called ‘Anti-Stokes’ material: “When a phosphor or other luminescent material emits light, in general, it emits light according to Stokes’ Law, which provides that the wavelength of the fluorescent or emitted light is always greater than the wavelength of the exciting radiation…Anti-Stokes materials typically absorb infrared radiation in the range of about 700 to about 1300 nm, and emit in the visible spectrum.” A variety of Anti-Stokes phosphors, based on yttrium, exist for the conversion of infrared radiation into visible radiation.
Intriguingly, lanthanum hexaboride is already being used on a trial basis in office windows to absorb all but 5% of the incident infrared radiation…
—-
I thought you might be interested in this addition to your science stuff. I have been investigating the forest-carbon angles and I have discovered there is a whole spin industry working to perpetuate business-as-usual forestry when the science indicates another role for forests in mitigating climate change.
Here is a slide show clarifying many misconceptions about forests, logging, and carbon:
http://www.slideshare.net/dougoh/forest-carbon-climate-myths-presentation/
(For full effect click “full” in the lower right.)
Here is a more detailed foot-noted report on forests, carbon and climate change:
http://tinyurl.com/2n96m5
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Scientists have to be careful to keep the righteousness of the ” Green Movement” out of their approach to avoid contamination of their data and of the culture’s perception
of their impartiality.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Greenie, thank you for referring to the poor reporting of the Daily Mail. Compare the article to the actual Q&A:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Thanks Marco; which makes my point.
The popular culture is MISTAKENLY starting to shift toward the belief that the green ” movement ” MAY have corrupted
climate science.
WE know that it has not.
We are few. They are many. And they vote.
Yeah, ” Greenie “; science is not politics !
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/19/how-al-gore-wrecked-planet-earth/
Offlist
I have no doubt that the science is valid and we are causing climate change.
As to warming it is hard to say but all efforts should be towards mitigating our obscene footprint.
Meat your meat video is well intentioned but miguided.
To address some of the points raised.
The 14,000 litres of water suggests that cows leave the farm the size of a football field and the water is never to be returned. Fact: Cow urine is returned and fertilizes the plants. And manure is largely made up of bacteria. Cows, sheep, goats and other ruminants are soil symbiots. They play an amazing role in ecosystems.
If cows were raised on small mixed farms where they provided the manure/urine and their grazing services and we were to return to a world of small mixed farms, then we could sequester all the carbon released since the beginning of the industrial revolution (it has been estimated see Joel Salatin) in less than 10 years.
We, nor cows were designed to eat grain. Go ahead -we’ve eaten grain apparently for millenia and yet our digestive system has not and will not evolve to eat grain. Furthermore when we fry or heat these grains -aka ‘vegetable oil’ (damaged p.u.f.a.’s ) this leads to cancer and heart disease.
Grains means plowing. Plowing means loss of topsoil.use of commercial fertilizers (synthetic chemicals derived from huge energy expenditure) Fits agri-business and the 1% at the expense of everybody. Monoculture grain means ‘cides’ herbi-, pesti- etc.
Ruminants can graze land that can only support pasture, so there is no ‘opportunity cost’ rather net gain. As they can convert grass into edible meat.
Feed lots are obscene and the video doesn’t address how cruel this setup gain be. The cows are terminal as the grain destroys them.
The figure for lbs of grain to meat is off by 100% Poor people can’t buy food that’s why they are starving. Not because we can’t grow enough food. In the last 50 years the world has consistently without fail had more than enough food to feed everybody.
Small mixed farms using grazing to build soils and minimum tillage which allows soils to sequester carbon would turn farming from being a large part of the problem to the largest contributor to the solution.
Understand as well that urban city dwellers in government will never get this right.
For example how many people have pointed out that the 22 people potatoes off of one hectare versus the 1 cow. That suggests that you could plow up the hectare and plant potatoes without the cow, doesn’t talk about the synthetic fertilizer which is then required ( you don’t get food for nothing) and do this in perpetuity is the same folly that saw farms destroyed and drove the western settlement into the west in N.A. and contributed to the dust bowl.
Feed lots and manure slurries found at c.a.f.o.’s or piggeries etc is again how stupid and mendacious agri-screw the grand kids for greed has become.
They counter that without this stupidity we would starve -another lie.
Cows and sheep are part of the solution not the problem. Sure we need to assess how much meat we eat, and they can not be allowed to over graze. Or be raised in deserts. But perennial mixed pastures are the solution on so many fronts. The operative term is ‘mixed’ farming not mono-culture.
However this won’t happen as the market has been corrupted by govt’s spending money co-opting and corrupting the market. Subsidies which are necessary are intentionally misdirected to help friends with deep pockets
happy.