Skip to main content

An Unbiased Source on Climate Change

Also known as a "Needle in a Haystack"

The Copenhagen Diagnosis was originally a book created by 26 individual leading climate change experts around the world. It was mainly created to serve as an in-depth analysis of all the recent scientific data surrounding global warming in the early 2000's. This data was then condensed down and prepared as a report for a climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in December of 2009. The book can be purchased online and the report itself can also be downloaded for free. The executive summary is a quick and easy to read 1 page summary of each of the topics that the book presents. This can be found by clicking here.

The summary on it's own is a good source of information but the actual report is even better. The summary has a few key points that it makes that is good information to cite for almost any research paper. For starters, it announces that the original models for rising sea levels were off almost by a factor of two and that, by 2100, sea levels were more likely to rise 2-3 meters. Along with this, they state that even after global warming slows (whether by manmade power or not it seems) we should still expect to see a rise in sea level over the coming centuries. They also go on, in the final to paragraph to summarize what exactly must be done in order to stabilize the climate. They cite that we will have to reduce our per capita emissions down to under 1 metric ton of CO2 by 2050. Which is 80-95% below the usage of developed nations as of 2000.

The main reason that this can be viewed as a good source is that it was created by so many different people with so many different sources. All of which are listed clearly with background descriptions on each experiment and scientist. On the author's page of the website, they list the occupation of each author at the time. As an example, the following are direct quotes from the website containing each author's bio;
Bindschadler, Robert
"Robert Bindschadler is Chief Scientist of the Laboratory 
for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Processes at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 
USA, a Senior Fellow of NASA Goddard, an AGU Fellow and 
past President of the International Glaciological Society."

Mann, Michael
"Michael E. Mann is a Professor in the Department 
of Meteorology at Penn State University, USA, 
Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, 
and a Lead Author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report."


Comments

  1. Very interesting source! I like that you went and found a more "primary" source, rather than something more distilled. This report nicely summarized the scientific evidence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mission Impossible III: No Physics Required

So, in my eyes, "Mission Impossible III" seemed like a hot mess. Some of the scenes where extremely cringe worthy, there were plot holes the size of the grand canyon, and Tom Cruise seemed to be the only half decent actor in my opinion.

However, the main gripe I have with this movie is much nerdier than that. Some of the physics in this movie are appalling. Some are normal Hollywood cliches, some are downright crazy stunts, and some are just downright illogical at best. I'm very interested in being able to determine whether or not these scenes really were accurate. Even though we know that, because they are action movie scenes, some of them are inherently incorrect. None the less, listing out the information that's given to use would definitely shed some light on whether or not some of these scenes are even physically possible in the real world.

Shanghai Fulcrum
The first scene I want to touch on, screams for physicists to a…

The Twin Paradox Problem In Contact

It really seems like the producers of the movie contact were out of touch with their physics in some parts of the movie (sorry for the pun). Nearing the end of the movie the writers made an error in their physics and it really begs to be rewritten. So, here is my attempt at it.

Nearing the end of the movie, Jodie Foster's character comes back from her trip into the space void after falling through the contraption. In essence, what appears to be 18 hours in Jodie's reference frame, is actually only 1 or 2 seconds in the earth's frame of reference. This is sort of right, however, it's backward as to what relatively and the twin paradox actually states should happen. It should have been 1 or 2 seconds in Jodies from of reference and 18 hours for the people on earth if she was traveling at the speed of light for any given portion of time. Even warping space-time with a warp hole would cause the same effects such as the movie suggests happens. So, in essence, Jodie would ha…
Armageddon: The End of Physics (and life) as we Know it

Armageddon is one of those movies that everyone knows about I think? There's no doubt that it's at least a half decent movie and one worthy of watching if you've got a spare 2 hours. However, the whole "let's blow up an asteroid with a nuke and have the two halves of the asteroid miss us entirely" thing, is utterly false and impossible to do. In actual practice, one nuke would barely separate each of the asteroid pieces a football field apart from one another by the time it reaches the movies "0 barrier".

However, it does pose an interesting question. In the event that earth does come into the crosshairs of an "extinction level" asteroid, what on earth (no pun intended) do we do?

The Plan
So, although throwing nukes at the thing last minute would give a great last-minute fireworks show, it won't work. If we are going to actually hit this thing with nukes, we need to be able to do it w…