4 ms·

It's not a bad overview, but the level of discussion is fairly watered-down, scientifically speaking. A more general way of looking at it would be helpful - i.

It's not a bad overview, but the level of discussion is fairly watered-down, scientifically speaking. A more general way of looking at it would be helpful - i.e., explain how to apply the underlying concepts to any planetary body in the solar system to estimate its surface temperature. Why is Venus so hot? Why is Mars so cold? What's a radiative-convective model? How does an atmosphere affect a planet's surface temperature? What if the Earth's oceans were as shallow as those on Mars apparently were? Could Venus ever be terraformed into an Earth-like planet? Additionally, a discussion of the economics and industry of the global fossil fuel production system (and of the staggering cost of completely replacing the existing infrastructure with non-fossil energy sources) should be included in the globe diagram in an up-front manner.

mistrial9 4y ago
> a discussion of the economics and industry of the global fossil fuel production system wait, you want science or not ?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Well, industrial and engineering science definitely qualifies as science, for example the history of learning how to convert crude oil into hundreds of different chemical products is a story of scientific development. The economic theory stuff doesn't hold up so well, however. For example, it doesn't seem to matter much what socio-economic ideology a given country adheres to when it comes to extracting fossil fuels from the ground - socialist or capitalist, authoritarian dictatorship or liberal democracy, if they discover oil and gas they start drilling and pumping, without fail, and if they've got an excess, they try to sell it on the global market.
enviclash 4y ago
I agree the human dimension of global change is ignored in these encyclopedic data collections. Indeed scientific criticism exists for these collections: just putting together data, without new enlightening algorithms or scientific advances, does little or nothing for scientific progress. (Edit: here the source of the mentioned criticism: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00986-y?utm https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00986-y?utm )

mistrial9 4y ago

> a discussion of the economics and industry of the global fossil fuel production system wait, you want science or not ?

photochemsyn 4y ago
Well, industrial and engineering science definitely qualifies as science, for example the history of learning how to convert crude oil into hundreds of different chemical products is a story of scientific development. The economic theory stuff doesn't hold up so well, however. For example, it doesn't seem to matter much what socio-economic ideology a given country adheres to when it comes to extracting fossil fuels from the ground - socialist or capitalist, authoritarian dictatorship or liberal democracy, if they discover oil and gas they start drilling and pumping, without fail, and if they've got an excess, they try to sell it on the global market.

enviclash 4y ago

I agree the human dimension of global change is ignored in these encyclopedic data collections. Indeed scientific criticism exists for these collections: just putting together data, without new enlightening algorithms or scientific advances, does little or nothing for scientific progress. (Edit: here the source of the mentioned criticism: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00986-y?utm https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-00986-y?utm )