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

Movie Clip - Titan A.E.

Titan A.E. - Earth is Dead and So is Physics Titan A.E: A Death Star on Steroids Picture a literal giant cannon that shoots pure energy into an object for massive cataclysmic damage. Picture it splitting the Earth into hundreds of tiny pieces destroying everything you know and love and picture it wiping out the moon with its large chunks of debris. Wasn’t that fun? That’s basically the opening scene to the movie Titan A.E. ; an animated sci-fi film about a dude name kayle who has to go on this mission through the galaxy to find a spaceship his dad built that can literally create a planet. This lack of care for physics is shown in the first opening scene of the movie that I just talked about. Take a look:    Basically, big alien ship comes to earth, big alien ship powers up its laser, laser destroys Earth, earth destroys moon, and we are left to ponder how the heck everything that just happened actually happened. Well there are some things that we can analyze about this s

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
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 ph