Reddit mentions: The best earth sciences books

You have a lot of work ahead of you for sure, but this is not an impossible task. First off, I wouldn't worry too much about the Nambu-Goto action right now. Instead, you're going to need to develop quite a bit of background knowledge and mathematical tools.

Sites like Brilliant, and Youtube lectures are valuable resources, but if you're going to be successful in this endeavour, I'd recommend that you put some serious effort into learning from textbooks. The ability to learn from a textbook does not come naturally to most people, but it is a skill that can be developed and will be necessary for you to make much progress in this direction. In fact, I'd say that perhaps the most valuable thing I gained in my undergraduate degree was the ability to sit down and actually learn from a textbook in a systematic way.

The book on String Theory by Zweibach is probably going to be the best resource for you as it's a quite approachable low level string theory book designed for advanced undergraduate students. In order to read and understand it, you'll need to first gain at minimum a popular level, hand-wavy understanding of general relativity and quantum field theory and a mathematical understanding of special relativity, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism.

One book I can't recommend enough to non-professionals wanting to get a semi-serious mathematical understanding of modern physics is The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. In my opinion, the book is a masterpiece. He starts off with "what is a number", and by the end of the first half of the book has given a serious account of fibre bundles using only the ideas introduced in the book. His explanations are lucid, engaging and very deep. The second half then uses the mathematics introduced in the first half to describe much of modern physics. He has a section where he talks about String Theory, but he isn't much of a fan of it so doesn't spend a lot of time on the topic. However, the mathematics he introduces in the first half are invaluable for understanding quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum field theory and string theory. Roger is a bit of a maverick and has some 'cooky' ideas and opinions that would make many professional physicists blush with embarrassment, but throughout the book he is very careful to clearly say when he is making a controversial statement.

I think if you pick of the Road to Reality, and manage to seriously read the first 15 chapters while also reading (or watching) introductory books / lecture series on quantum mechanics and special relativity and electromagnetism you'll be in a great place to try and get into the basics of string theory.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. How much of the warming since 1850 is caused by CO2 is uncertain because other forcings influence the temperature simultaneously.

In climate modeling "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity")
expresses the potency of CO2 as a climate gas. ECS expresses how much temperature increases from doubling CO2 at equilibrium. Changes in "forcings" take centuries to fully propagate in climate due to thermal inertia, and ECS is "at equilibrium".*

The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that the (ECS) is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5"
The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2.

The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century.
CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks set to hit 560 ppm (a double from 1850-levels) sometime late this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming.

The IPCC have themselves observed that lower ECS better fit observations and that their climate models are running hot.
ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models.
AR5 WG1 technical report states that "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (page 84) ("no best estimate for ECS is given because of a lack of agreement").
"For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). A comparison of temperature and CMIP5 model predictions can be found here.

ECS estimates vary based on what temperature sets are considered, choice of start- and end-dates in the analysis, carbon-cycle modeling and what warming is attributed to other sources.
Temperature datasets differ significantly. Using the sattellite dataset UAH (starting in 1979) and removing vulcanic events and El-Ninos results in ECS-estimates in the 1.5-2 range [paper1], [paper2].
Man-made emissions are part of a larger carbon cycle, and simulations of the "coupled earth-system response" to man-made CO2-emissions indicate TCR below 1
The accelerated recent warming in datasets like GISTEMP is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges, indicating that warming in them may be spurious. "homogenization" in GISTEMP is accused of spurious warming, and an audit of HADCRUT4 has found serious data-quality issues.

Changes in solar forcing occurs on longer timescales than our satellite- or instrumental records, and is potentially the cause of exaggerated ECS estimates. The solar activity is known to oscillate with 11-year cycles, but also longer ones (see and sources therein) including a grand 350-400 year cycle and a major ~1000 year cycle. Solar forcing(TSI) had two major minima (1645–1706 Maunder solar minimum and 1810–1838 Dalton solar minimum) prior to the beginning of the instrumental temperature record around ~1850. The period 1700-1850 is referred to as the end of the Little Ice Age(LIA), a time when historical sources document average winter temperatures dropping 2 degrees (in Europe). After a dip around 1900 TSI has been increasing throughout the 20th century.
There is ample evidence that 1850, start of the instrumental record and baseline pre-industrial temperature, was an unusually cold period. Temperatures will have recovered gradually after 1850 due to climate inertia and gradual TSI increase, a temperature recovery that could be mistaken for CO2-related warming.

Climate models cited by IPCC assume that solar forcing varies little, potentially causing the warming after the LIA to be wrongly attributed to CO2 increases. TSI estimates before about 1980 are constructed from proxies and are uncertain, while satellite measurements exist since then. Some TSI estimates are "high variability" while other are "low variability". A low-variability solar forcing dataset is mandated in "CMIP5" climate models.
Some authors have studied ocean temperatures found that historical changes in ocean temperature are 5-7 times
greater than TSI-estimates suggest (but no accepted explanation as to why).
Changes in low-variability TSI-estimates are also too low to explain the temperature declines at the end of the LIA. These observations hint that TSI may be changing far more on the timescale of centuries than is currently thought. The "high-variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient and a causal link has been suggested. If Hoyt&Schatten is a better estimate of TSI, it would directly explain much of the solar "amplification" seen.

Solar forcing variability of just 5 W/m2 or 0.3% would be enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (284 degC), a gain of 0.209 degC per W/m2. Existing "high-variability" TSI-estimates vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries.

CMIP5 model properties indicate that solar forcing is under-estimated. As solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ),
CMIP5 models have run warm, as the IPCC itself states.
If climate models underestimate TSI-increases, one would expect that they would need larger-than-life ECS-estimates be able to describe the warming of the past century, and this is exactly what has happend: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report). This discrepancy should be seen as a sign of structural model errors rather than evidence of a high ECS.

Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS even lower than 1.5.
ECS estimates based on "high variability" Hoyt&Schatten TSI-estimate gave an ECS of 0.44. Authors hand-picked rural temperatures, but would still have obtained low ECS estimates with other data sets. It was encouraging that their model autonomously chose a gain of 0.210 degC per W/m2 (close to expected value).

Exaggerated ECS in CMIP5 is evidenced by IPCC observations that (a) temperature predictions overshoot since 1998, and (b) lower ECS better fit observations. Under-attributed (1)solar variability, (2)transient warming after LIA, and (3)carbon-cycle response could separately or jointly explain the discrepancy. Persistent flaws in climate research is plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests and on weaknesses of models used.
ECS 1.5,the low end of the IPCC likely range, indicates only 0.5 degree of eventual extra warming from CO2-concentration doubling by late century, and would have enormous policy implications.

(Peer-reviewed literature where possible, presumably vetted by independent reviewers. Known that some of the cited authors are shunned by established climate scientists.)

*= "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) expresses the temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually, before transients settling. TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 0.5-0.8 degC. TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5. ECS 1.5 is roughly equivalent to TCR~1.

Math

• Multivariable Calculus
  
  
• Differential Equations
  
  
• Linear Algebra
  
  You have to know those three pretty well to start. You pick up some more math along the way as needed, but that's the bulk of it.
  
  Physics
  
  
• Classical Mechanics (basic, Newtonian)
  
  
• Electrostatics
  
  
• Electrodynamics
  
  
• Basic Quantum maybe. It's not necessiry for Lagrangians/Hamitonians but it's very cool stuff and you get to see Lagrangians/Hamiltonians in more action (oops, I made a pun...).
  
  
• Special Relativity
  
  More Math
  
  
• "Old school" differential geometry and Reimannian geometry. They both show up a lot, but Reimannian is more common in more advanced stuff. And notation starts to become more important
  
  
• Tensors (which comes with Reimannian geometry, but they're worth mentioning by themselves cuz they're important)
  
  
• Calculus of Variations
  
  
• Misc: Taylor Series, Taylor Series, Taylor Series. Basic Fourier Analysis and complex numbers.
  More physics
  
  
• Analytic Mechanics ("advanced" class mech/Lagrangian & Hamiltonian dynamics)
  
  
• General Relativity
  
  Some books
  
  
• Class Mech: Kleppner/Kolenkow for Newtonian stuff, Marian&Thornten for more basics and a pretty good intro to calculus of variations and Lagrangians/Hamiltonians. Both these have chapters on Special Relativity too.
  
  
• Griffiths E&M for E&M (first half of book is statics, second half is dynamics)
  
  
• Quantum: J.S. Townsend's A Modern Approach to QM
  
  
• General Relativity: I used Hartle's Gravity. It's good, but I had two or three major beefs with it. I've also heard Sean Carrol's book is good.
  
  
• This series. Fair warning though, those are very advanced and are more of a reference for professors than an actual book to learn by.
  
  
• This Math Methods in physics book is very nice.
  
  I come from a physics background so I'm familiar with a lot of this stuff. I'll let people better in the know suggest the relevant math books.
  
  It's a long road but well worth it in my opinion. Good luck.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

TESTING COPY PASTE OF TEXT:::: PLEASE IGNORE.

Read the linked papers:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the debate is how potent of a climate gas CO2 is when added to our atmosphere. CO2 has increased from around 280 ppm in 1850 to around 410 in 2019 (due to human emissions), and in that time the temperature on earth has increased approximately 1 degC. Atmospheric CO2 looks to hit 560 ppm (double 1850-levels) late this century.

The potency of CO2 is expressed as "ECS"(Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity") in climate modeling. ECS expresses temperature increase at equilibrium from doubling CO2.
Due to climate's thermal inertia roughly half of a temperature change due to forcing is realized within 10 years, while 14-40% has still not arrived after a century. The IPCC in AR5 (2014) stated that ECS is "likely between 1.5 and 4.5" The climate models "CMIP5" cited by IPCC in AR5 have an average ECS of 3.2 *.

Lower ECS ~1.5 better fit satellite era observations. ECS can be estimated directly from data without climate models. AR5 WG1 stated "best fit to the observed surface and ocean warming for ECS values in the lower part of the likely range" (p.84). There is least uncertainty in temperature data after the start of satellite record ~1979, and for this timeframe ECS is estimated in 1.5-2 range [1], [2]
(In general, ECS-estimates vary based on temperature dataset**, choice of start- and end-dates, carbon-cycle*** modeling and warming attribution to other sources (overview)).
The significance of ECS=1.5 would be huge, implying almost no further warming this century. ECS of 1.5 will imply another 1.5-1=0.5 degC of eventual warming, while ECS=3.2 implies 3.2-1=2.2 degC eventual warming. ECS=1.5 thus implies four times less warming from CO2 increases this century than current IPCC models!

Removing multi-decadal oscillations from data yields ECS 0.5-1.5. Natural oscillations with multi-year periods such as El Niño(11y), AMO(~60y) and PDO(~50-60y) dominate data on the timescale since 1850. Climate models do not accurately [ch1.2] model these oscillations. Removing oscillations mathematically to isolate underlying warming results in much lower climate sensitivity than in AR5: ECS ~1.5,TCR ~1.2 on 150 years of instrumental data, and ECS=0.6 on ~1000 years of proxy-data. These papers remove oscillations without the need to attribute causes to them, but as some of the oscillations removed will be solar-induced, the work is related to the sections below.

Human CO2-emissions coincide with the end of the "Little Ice Age"(LIA) and with solar forcing transitioning from abnormally low to abnormally high. LIA had globally colder climate, coinciding with "Maunder" (1645-1715) and "Dalton"(1790-1830) solar minima. LIA average temperatures were 0.5-0.7 degC lower than Medieval Warm Period(MWP). 1850 at the end of LIA was unusually cold, is thus a poor baseline. Climate inertia should apply for solar as well as CO2-driven warming, implying a long post-LIA transient warming. Second half of the 20th century is the period of highest solar activity in the last 8000 years. A link between solar forcing changes and LIA/MWP has been found, so solar variation partially explaining modern warming up to the early 00ies is also plausible.

There is disagreement on if solar variability is "high variability" or "low variability"
Modeling solar activity is challenging because no direct measurements of solar variability exist prior to satellite record from ~1980, and because the record is "grafted" together from a data from many short-lived satellites, (review of challenges given in ch1).
CMIP5 uses a "low-variability" estimate of solar variation "PMOD" based on work by Kopp&Lean,
that has been strongly critized(ch9) for being an unverified theoretical model which implements alterations not recognized by the original experimental teams to drifts that are postulated but not verified. The alternative to "PMOD" are "high-variability" TSI-estimates such as that of Hoyt&Schatten that agree with "ACRIM" satellite data. Evidence that high-variability TSI-estimates are more accurate are:

• "low-variability" TSI-changes appear amplified 5-7 times in oceans,
  
• "high-variability" TSI is correlated with the equator-pole temperature gradient, and
  
• "low-variability" TSI-changes are too small to explain MWP/LIA temperature changes (AppendixB).
  
  Solar forcing variability is key to climate modeling, because just a 0.3% (5 W/m2) increase is enough to explain the 1 degC warming since 1850. TSI ~1360 W/m2 raises the earth's temperature from around -268 degC to 15 degC (283 degC), a gain of ~0.2 degC per W/m2.
  "High-variability" TSI vary by 3-4 W/m2 over the past centuries, and could thus explain 50-80% of observed modern warming.
  
  CMIP5 models are running hot as solar activity falls, indicating that variability in their solar forcing estimate is too low. Because solar forcing and CO2-concentrations co-incident rise 1850-2000, underestimating climate solar sensitivity would wrongfully raise CO2-sensitivity (ECS),explaining why:
  
  
• as solar activity fell from around 2000 (as seen here ), CMIP5 models have run warm. "For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than observations" (Box 1.1, Figure 1a)(A comparison of temperature and "hot" CMIP5 model predictions can be found here)),
  
• larger-than-life ECS were needed to fit data pre-2000: "AOGCMs [...]with ECS values in the upper part of the 1.5 to 4.5°C range show very good agreement with observed climatology"(WG1 AR5 report), and why
  
• CMIP5 underestimates solar-induced LIA/MWP in hindcasts.
  
  Compensating for "high-variability" TSI-changes results in ECS<1.5. "Hoyt&Schatten" TSI-estimate results in ECS of 0.44. Paleo-analysis of climate, CO2 and sun variability similarly found ECS=0.5.
  
  Persistent flaws in climate research are plausible, outside investigators have commented on the the tendency to downplay flaws in climate research and to withhold data requests.
  
  * "TCR" (Transient Climate Response) is temperature change immediately after doubling CO2 gradually (before transients settle). TCR and ECS both express the potency of CO2, TCR is often lower than ECS by 30-40% (or 0.5-0.8 degC). TCR likely range is given as 1-2.5 degC in AR5.
  
  ** Estimates of ECS from data prior to 1979 require use of GIS/HADCRUT instrument records, adjusted by proprietary algorithms using climate models and homogenized which can create spurious warming. Audits of these datasets have uncovered data-quality issues, but datasets are generally hard to independently verify. The sea/surface global temperature record is only globally complete for the satellite era. A reason for skepticism is that recent warming is not corroborated by an accelerated sea level rise at tidal gauges. Prior to~1880 proxies are used, but suffer from «the divergence problem» of not describing recent warming.
  
  ***Carbon cycle simulations indicate TCR below 1

That's perfect then, don't let me stop you :). When you're ready for the real stuff, the standard books on quantum mechanics are (in roughly increasing order of sophistication)

• Griffiths (the standard first course, and maybe the best one)
  
• Cohen-Tannoudji (another good one, similar to Griffiths and a bit more thorough)
  
• Shankar (sometimes used as a first course, sometimes used as graduate text; unless you are really good at linear algebra, you'd get more out of starting with the first two books instead of Shankar)
  
  By the time you get to Shankar, you'll also need some classical mechanics. The best text, especially for self-learning, is [Taylor's Classical Mechanics.] (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372650839&sr=1-1&keywords=classical+mechanics)
  
  
  Those books will technically have all the math you need to solve the end-of-chapter problems, but a proper source will make your life easier and your understanding better. It's enough to use any one of
  
  
• Paul's Free Online Notes (the stuff after calculus, but without some of the specialized ways physicists use the material)
  
• Boas (the standard, focuses on problem-solving recipes)
  
• Nearing (very similar to Boas, but free and online!)
  
• Little Hassani (Boas done right, with all the recipes plus real explanations of the math behind them; after my math methods class taught from Boas, I immediately sold Boas and bought this with no regrets)
  
  When you have a good handle on that, and you really want to learn the language used by researchers like Dr. Greene, check out
  
  
• Sakurai (the standard graduate QM book; any of the other three QM texts will prepare you for this one, and this one will prepare you for your PhD qualifying exams)
  
• Big Hassani(this isn't just the tools used in theoretical physics, it's the content of mathematical physics. This is one of two math-for-physics books that I keep at my desk when I do my research, and the other is Little Hassani)
  
• Peskin and Schroeder (the standard book on quantum field theory, the relativistic quantum theory of particles and fields; either Sakurai or Shankar will prepare you for this)
  
  Aside from the above, the most relevant free online sources at this level are
  
  
• Khan Academy
  
• Leonard Susskind's Modern Physics lectures
  
• MIT's Open CourseWare

Check out the Princeton Field Guide. It's really nice and around $20. If you're looking for the spiritual side of things, I don't have the know-how to provide a recommendation but if you're interested in the mineral themselves you may like it. It has lots of beautiful images and the descriptions are really good. They'll tell you the environments where they form, what their crystal systems look like, how they tend to break (you'll want to know that for drilling your holes and such - I imagine you'd drill perpendicular to cleavage for less fracture).

As far as fancy rock names, you'll just put that together with experience. You can pick up an old edition Earth by Tarbuck for $10 online and that'll tell you all of your basics and from there you can easily branch out.

It can be confusing and frustrating at first, but just keep at it and it'll all come together with some experience. I can recommend things for days, but those books really helped me get a grip on the variety.

If you have any other questions, I'm super happy to help!

Princeton: http://www.amazon.com/Minerals-World-Princeton-Field-Guides/dp/069109537X

Earth: http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Introduction-Physical-Geology-8th/dp/0131148656/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1407769493&sr=1-9&keywords=earth+tarbuck

I feel cold on the outside but good on the inside. Had another amazing plate of the Gordon Ramsey scrambled eggs for breaky and I'm currently enjoying a cup of tea.

This weekend my SO is working nights, so I imagine I'll do some catching up on some Netflix I've been neglecting, maybe pop over to see a friend who didn't see over the holidays, and I'm definitely going to be up to my elbows in books. I've got 2 books (Bill Bryson's Short History of Nearly Everything and Haruki Murakimi's Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage) on the go. I want to finish them both this weekend so I can start another (Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential). PLUS I'm starting a course on Tuesday so I'm trying to get a head start on that reading.

Since the weather is COLD COLD COLD it should make for nice, toasty, relaxing weekend :)

So John McPhee books are generally pretty great and won't be too... much? For somebody just getting into it. The problem with most geology books is that they're going to get a little technical, and it can be easy to feel out of your depth (especially considering even basic terms aren't really taught in science classes in grade school). Anyway, Assembling California is a good one. Annals of the former world is another one by him that's really great, but it's a little thick.

There have to be some decent youtube videos, but even sites like Lynda don't have anything geology-wise.

If you want to get into it a little more casually, follow (legit) science groups/publications on social media. AGU is pretty active and posts on a wide variety of geologic topics (they have some good blogs, too); the NSF and NOAA also post cool stuff, but it's not specifically geology-related.

Honestly, your best bet is to try a class though. Geology is a pretty varied field, and even if intro-level courses are generally kind of... dumbed down (in a lot of schools they're called "rocks for jocks")? They'll still get you more than you might out of random googling.

So it sounds like you are looking for some thing at the pretty basic level?

For David Attenborough books, try something coffee-table-y like the Smithsonian Earth guide. It's about much more than geo, but it's got everything you listed above and lots of pretty pictures and interesting things.

For something more academic, but still introductory, try Understanding Earth. Easy to read yet descriptive. If you don't want to pay $120, try going back a couple of editions.

One more step up might be Planet Earth: Cosmology, Geology, and the Evolution of Life and Environment which has a few less pretty pictures and a few more maths (optional). Even though this book is supposedly "below" my educational level I still love it. I also wish I'd read it back when I was first starting down the scientific path - it really covers the basics of just about everything you'd every need to know.

Annals of the Former World by John McPhee. McPhee is one of the best nonfiction writers out there, which helps a lot.

The core of the book is a series of encounters with prominent scientists who were deeply involved in making the discoveries he outlined. So it is powerful from the human interest angle but that is inextricable tied in with a deep exploration of the science involved. It's from a layman's point of view, but that is probably a great advantage if you are layman yourself, and it's far from superficial but a real attempt to deeply understand and explain the geology.

Incidentally, the book won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction in 1999.

Take a look at this video as well - about one of the sections of Annals of a Former World.

>And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different.

It actually is different though. Why is it so hard to be given objective proof? There is talk that adopting a carbon tax will help curb global warming - why will that curb global warming?

>Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

You shouldn't have to have a degree to have a concept explained to you. Surely you wouldn't expect a professor to simply assert it is a factual phenomenon as a form of teaching their students?

>Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

Well, the first line in the NASA report is this: "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing
climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper" - which is the same as what politifact reported on. It's a huge stretch to go from "97% of all scientists agree" to "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" - in particular when there are current accusations of bias in the climate science world.

That said, it is invariably going to seem like I'm moving a goalpost here, so I'm going to leave the matter to rest. I do appreciate your responses - we had a conversation on the topic, and it would be unfair to ask more of you.

>Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.

>http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

I'll check some of them out if I can find a digital copy floating around somewhere - though admittedly, when I asked for proof on it, I didn't mean the 97% figure, rather I meant the soundness of the evidence behind the man-made aspect of man-made climate change. Thanks. :)

Sorry to bother you, but what field is that? Ancient Greek mathematics, or their physics?

To OP:

A little late I know, but I'd also have to recommend Galileo's Two New Sciences. Galileo requires a knowledge of parts of Aristotle's Physics, which I'd suggest anyway if you're interested in this. A quick note on that translation, Sachs is a very difficult but very rewarding translator, in my opinion. He focuses very closely on the Greek at the expense of using rather confusing language at times. If that's not what you're looking for, the standard translation (including standard vocabulary) is contained in this collection of Aristotle's works. Archimedes, as others have suggested, is great. Heath, the editor of that volume, is a fantastic scholar and his 3 volume edition of the Elements for anyone looking for an in depth knowledge of Greek geometry. Heath's two volume history of Greek mathematics is a must have as well for that subject. Newton is another very rewarding author (though the Principia is very challenging). You'd probably be looking for the Densmore edition of the Principia, which makes the Principia extremely more accessible.

The most obvious answer is all of the civilizations that spanned the period when Noah's flood was supposed to have happened:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Things_that_happened_during_the_Great_Flood

We have ice cores from places like Greenland:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core

Ice sheets are like enormous layer cakes. You get layers for the seasons. The layers trap what-eve is blown in on the wind. The wind carries dirt and pollen from across the world.

We have uninterrupted records of what was happening on the planet that reach back over 150,000 years:

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2010/07/31/oldest-greenland-ice-core-recovered/

We have very similar data from lake sediments:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/lake

And we have the same kind of data from sea floor sediments.

And we have rivers sediments. The rivers bring sediments into their deltas and that stuff stacks up thousands of feet deep for big rivers like the Mississippi.

We have very clear data that tells us that there was no global flood and no rearranging of the Earth's crust beyond the very slow plate tectonics that moves things at about the same rate that your fingernails are growing.

> I was under the impression that the many of the younger scientists have shifted away from uniformitarianism, and that the major difference between young-earth supporters and the long-age supporters is the timescale of events preceding the most recent series of global catastrophes.

Nah, that's just creationists trying to move the goal post.

Geology happens over periods of time that are mind boggling huge. Yes, there will be small events that happen suddenly. A volcanic eruptions here, a ruptured glacial dam there.

Aside from extremely rare events, things that happen on a >100 million year interval like the Chicxulub impactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_impactor ) there simply aren't 'global catastrophes'.

There are things that happen over millions of years that can have big effects but it's moving the goal post to call those 'global catastrophes'. Firstly because they happen in a small region and their effect spreads out very slowly. And secondly, they're a long series of events that can literally span millions of years. There are very few example of this kind of thing. The Siberian Traps are probably the best know example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

'Global Catastrophes' are the work of fiction.

Here's a link to what's probably the most enjoyable book I've ever read about how the field of geology evolved from the older fashioned views to the current view:

https://www.amazon.com/Assembling-California-John-McPhee/dp/0374523932

John McPhee has written an number of excellent books about Geology and a bunch of other fields. But I'd start there if I wanted to know more about the question you just asked.

Square one...

You should have a solid base in math:

Introduction to Calculus and Analysis, Vol. 1 by Courant and John. Gotta have some basic knowledge of calculus.

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas. This is pretty high-level applied math, but it's the kind of stuff you deal with in serious physics/astrophysics.

You should have a solid base in physics:

They Feynman Lectures on Physics. Might be worth checking out. I think they're available free online.

You should have a solid base in astronomy/astrophysics:

The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy by Frank Shu. A bit outdated but a good textbook.

An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie.

Astrophysics: A Very Short Introduction by James Binney. I haven't read this and there are no reviews, I think it was very recently published, but it looks promising.

It also might be worth checking out something like Coursera. They have free classes on math, physics, astrophysics, etc.

Whilst I don't know where you could learn online, I highly recommend looking up publicly available field courses in basic geology. You would learn alot and be able to go out hiking!

If you're interested in sedimentary geology, Gary Nichol's book is excellently written, organised, and I would say is very accessible by the layman.

I'd also recommend the different Geology Field Guide Books as they are small, easily looked through and designed to be taken into the field. They have one for sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic and structural I think, very good books that would definitely get you through at least the first 2 years of an undergrad bachelors in Geology.

EDIT: on further investigation I think I meant the Field Description book series. Either look pretty good for a basic grounding.

EDIT 2: I also forgot to mention they're relatively cheap compared to most academic texts!

Sigh.

Anyone who throws there hands up and says "lolwut, itz too complicated i dunno!" is not a skeptic. Do you honestly think that climate scientists don't study natural phenomena like the ones on this list and try to understand their causes and implications? This post is especially pathetic, but it's literally just a list of natural phenomena; if you think think this stuff is what makes the climate complex, then you literally don't know anything about atmospheric science.

You might want to start with the following textbooks, which any climate scientist will have devoured by the time they have a Masters -

• Global Physical Climatology
  
  
• An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology
  
  
• Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics
  
  
• Atmospheric Science: an Introductory Survey
  
  
• Fundamentals of Large Scale Circulation
  
  
• Dynamics and Ice Sheets of Glaciers
  
  
• Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation
  
  There are, of course, higher level textbooks on my shelf as well. The majority of the stuff on this list is basic stuff that an undergraduate would be exposed to. It doesn't even scratch the surface of what our science is actually about.
  
  EDIT TO ADD -
  For example, geostrophy is this list. Do you know what geostrophic motion is? It's motion where the only forces acting on a parcel are the Coriolis force and the pressure gradient force. How do you get to geostrophic motion? Well, on the first day of your Junior year as a meteorology student, you start taking Atmospheric Dynamics. Your professor throws Navier-Stokes on the board and says "This is what we need to solve to figure out how the atmosphere works." Then he mentions that there is a million dollar prize for working with that equation and says "okay, let's see if we can simplify things." After that, you spend a few lectures deriving atmospheric motion following Holton, Lindzen, or Serreze - talking about the Rossby radius, coordinate transformations, Eulerian vs. Lagrangian and material derivatives, and path integrals through moving reference frames.
  
  Ultimately you re-derive equations of motion from scratch starting with F=ma, and arrive at a 3D set of equations where motion is determined by terms relating to the pressure gradient, accelerations, friction, gravity, and the Coriolis force. Then, you scale analyze the terms of the equations to see what the dominating terms are, given certain assumptions.
  
  Assume you're above the PBL; then, friction is negligible. You'll immediately see that acceleration/velocity-related terms are an order of magnitude smaller than the other terms. Assume hydrostatic balance and there is no acceleration in the vertical, truncating your motion to two dimensions. You're left with a balance of forces in both your basis vectors - pressure gradient and coriolis. Balance these two and you can solve for a balanced flow called geostrophic flow. Geostrophic flow is super-simple and only really works as an approximation for upper-level flows with small curvature (i.e. you need features larger than the Rossby radius of deformation or else the assumptions about 2D velocity are invalid). But it's a great learning tool for meteorology students to get their hands dirty with the math, and derive from first principles why flow is counter-clockwise around Low Pressures in the northern hemisphere.
  
  Relax some assumptions and you can also get gradient flow or cyclostrophic flow.
  
  You can't do any meteorology with these flows, though - you need at least to relax geostrophy and derive quasi-geostrophy with the aid of the circulation and divergence theorems to actually get vertical motion which is diagnosable from thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.
  
  Anything else from the domain of the atmospheric science that the skeptics here want explained? Now's your chance.

Thanks! I just wish I could say there were more good things on the list.

And thanks for the Patton recommendation, I'll check that out.

I do recommend anything by John McPhee in the strongest possible terms. It's all non-fiction, and always interesting and often very funny, and about a tremendous range of topics.

Like fishing? Read The Founding Fish, which is all about the American Shad, and I mentioned before.

Like boats? Looking For a Ship is about the merchant marine.

Planes, trains, and automobiles (and more boats)? Uncommon Carriers deals with all of them, and why almost all lobster eaten in the US comes from Kentucky.

Care for tales about why New Orleans is doomed, pissing on lava , and debris flows in LA? The Control of Nature covers those.

Fruit? How about Oranges?

Geology? The Annals of the Former World is a compilation of several shorter books more or less following I-80 across the US.

Sports? Tennis (and basketball to a lesser extent). He's also written about lacrosse in various magazines.

...And a ton of other stuff, ranging from bears to farmers markets to nuclear energy to lifting body airplanes to Switzerland.

Outcomes of the Life of a Geologist is an excellent narrative introduction to geology that I think would pique your interest.

For a more rigorous or sciency introduction, you could look at intro geology textbooks. this was the one my course used (now in 10th edition).

But perhaps a better way to approach this, depending on where you're going to school, might be to just try to learn some things about the local geology. This will help you to get more out of your courses, if they have field components. The local rocks can be a gateway to all kinds of interesting topics, since they are marked by all the crazy shit that's happened to them over thousands to millions of years. For example, lots of rocks in New Hampshire have striations from the last glacial maximum. Let me know if you would like help finding sources/guiding an inquiry in this vein.

PS don't let this subreddit scare you in terms of careers. But DO take the excellent advice here in mind moving forward. You will have many opportunities to distinguish yourself to professors/employers through courses, internships, supervised research...take advantage of these!

Best of luck

Wow, I'm surprised you followed up on this! yeah.. 100% chance of rain, high of 55. Just off by 20 degrees! hehe

​

Yeah as a pretty avid/nutso outdoors weekend warrior year around for 7-8 years, the amount of time I spent (wasted, perhaps?) looking at the NOAA forecast, reading meteorological discussions, and trying to divine what weather would come by the weekend... my ultimate take away is that outside of that specific high pressure summer ridge that develops over the Pacific that gives us our glorious summers, the forecast is especially tough to rely on beyond a few days off, sometimes even less then 24hr out is not reliable. There's a few exceptions to this, the biggest I can think of is when we get the rare occurrence of snow in the winter there's usually a high pressure system in play, that can sometimes give a longer range of predictable weather (usually sunny, clear, and windy af from the east!). But that can last for a few days to a few weeks even sometimes.

​

It's that air-mass colliding with the typical weather coming off the pacific that gives us the snow. The difficulty in predicting is that the ocean always wins that battle, eventually, but sometimes the situation is down to the last minute knowing if the colder inland air will hang on for X amount of time as the moist pacific air hits it.

​

If you want to geek out on the weather I recommend this book by a meteorological professor up at UW in seattle. It's slightly washington centric but touches on the gorge and Oregon enough to make it plenty relevant.

https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Pacific-Northwest-Cliff-Mass/dp/0295988479

​

let's just enjoy the rain tomorrow.. the weekend looks pretty decent!

​

​

I saw elsewhere in the thread that you live in Alma, so I chose Topeka as the nearest large comparison city: Cost of Living Comparison Between Topeka, KS and Seattle, WA.

Rent is indeed going to be a major factor for you. I don't know how things work in Alma, but here the rent usually only covers the structure itself (the "four walls" as it were); it doesn't include utilities: power, heating, water, garbage, internet, phone, etc. A lot of other cost-of-living factors are pretty similar. My girlfriend has lived in Seattle for several years on about $30k/yr (pre-tax) but she makes compromises to do so: lives with a roommate in low-rent housing, doesn't have a car (but uses Car2Go occasionally), walks miles to/from bus stops every day, cooks 90% of her meals at home, does most of her non-food shopping at thrift and second-hand stores, etc. It's definitely do-able.

/u/synthesizedjasmine's response was really quite good and I'd like to piggyback on that comment (and elaborate upon it) a bit, including some non-cost-of-living things:

• Sell one of the cars before moving here. You can get membership to a service like Car2Go or ZipCar for occasional car use.
  
• Violent crime rates are extremely low here, but property crime is very high; even if your rental agreement doesn't require it, renter's insurance would be a good idea. (Seattle crime map)
  
• The wealth inequality thing is pretty stark; there is a community of homeless people living in what is known as The Jungle, which on any given day could be driven past by more than one person whose net worth is more than all of those people will ever make in their lifetimes, combined.
  
• The traffic can be absolutely horrible, there's really no two ways about it. While you're sitting in that traffic, you'll be surrounded by entitled self-righteous dipshits driving $100,000 (or more) cars who haven't used a turn signal in years. Drive defensively if you're going to drive at all.
  
• Some notes about the weather. This is really important and can come as a shock to people.
  
• It doesn't rain here nearly as much (quantity) as people think it does: Comparing Topeka with Seattle again, we average less rainfall in Seattle than in Topeka.
  
• If you follow those links to the rainfall data, you'll notice that when it rains here is almost the exact opposite of when it rains in Topeka; high rainfall in the winter and low rainfall in the summer.
  
• It doesn't rain hard here and we seldom get storms (you can literally go years without hearing thunder) but it can drizzle for weeks on end, especially during the winter.
  
• Although the rain may not always fall, the sky can often look like it; cloudy days are more common in Seattle than in Kansas, about 22% more frequent.
  
• Predicting the weather here is hard. Really hard. Two mountain ranges and an unusual weather convergence zone can cause wild variations in weather in locations only a mile apart. Cliff Mass, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington has a blog where he will often go into much greater detail about the weather forecast than you see on the news; he's also written a book about the weather here.
  
• Snow has become less frequent over the years. If it does snow, everything will shut down, even if it's only a couple inches of snow. Seattle is woefully unprepared for dealing with snow; there are a lot of hills, we don't use salt, and nobody knows how to drive in the snow. If it snows at all and you have the option of staying home, do so, you'll be safer there. Here are some videos if you would like more convincing.
  
• The Seattle Freeze has nothing to do with weather and can be a real thing. Forming new friendships here, especially for people who move from out of state, can be really hard. It doesn't happen to everyone, but it can and does happen to some.
  
  Edit to add:
  
  
• Seattle is a highly educated city. The person who makes your coffee is likely to have at least a bachelor's degree of some sort or be working towards it. The Seattle metro area is the sixth most well-educated in the country.

>"My life is really good because I pray to God".

See, "The power of barking."

>"everything our priest preaches is true because he is reading a source of knowledge from God"

Why are Hindus reading the Bible, the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon? THOSE are the real source of knowledge from God. If they don't believe that, ask them to prove that those texts aren't from God.

>I've begun to think that they are somehow right because many people believe in this stuff.

Consider that literally billions of other people on the planet believe just as strongly as these two do that religions other than Hindu are correct.

>What can I do to stop myself from thinking that they're right?

Critical thinking and skepticism. Until someone has proved their claim, there is no reason to believe it. Here are some common errors in thinking.

Also, learn how we know what we know. Check the library for the book or audio book.

Finally, understand that if you don't understand why the scientific method is trustworthy, and you don't know how to separate good science from bad science, then you actually are believing in science on faith.

I hesitate to share this short series with you since it's mainly in response to Christianity, but it lays out solid logical arguments as to why the author doesn't believe in any gods. (3 videos: 7mins, 14mins & 19mins) He goes through them really fast - I've had to watch them several times in order to be sure I understand his arguments.

The most important part of the series is at the end, when he points out that, "My loyalty isn't to naturalism or materialism, as some folks suggest, my loyalty is to systems that demonstrate their claims.

Good luck!

If you've never done Petrology before aquiring a good lab guide will be very useful, the one my university recommended us to get was:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rocks-Minerals-Thin-Section-Colour/dp/1874545170/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1451826653&sr=1-1
This helped in my first semester of Petrology a great deal. To accompany this I also, as Of-Quartz said, took pictures using my phone of the thin section down the microscope. I then created a study guide to accompany these pcitures, Example for Olivine:
http://imgur.com/7KBPGE4
The exam itself was based more around the theory side of petrology, End member diagrams such as Kynaite, Silimanite and Andalusite, along with general questions about Bowen's recation series and other figures that help explain why the thin section you're looking at, looks like that.

As for Sedimentology and strat you'll be looking at photos of outcrops and sedimentary successions alot. Sedimentary logs, Bouma sequences and identifying features such as Load casts, flame structures and dessictaion cracks to name a few.

Just make sure you understand the fundamentals and everything else should come to you easily.

3rd Year geology student (UK), Taken Sed/Petro classes every semester.

Check out some books about string theory, it does make a case for solving the disconnect (as you without any doubt know).

Now the thing is, string theory solves things in a really intuitive and elegant way, which - being physicist myself - truly makes me want to believe it all checks out!

Depending on where you currently are in your education (and how much you like a tough challenge :)) you may want to have a look at this(undergrad) or this (graduate, pretty dense) book - they are both pretty great!

For introductory physics, I'd recommend Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers. You may want something in addition to this for deeper math, but Giancoli is fantastic for getting the core ideas and integrating them across different phenomena. After Giancoli, you will understand almost everything a lot better.

After Giancoli, things get a lot rougher. Your next objective is Classical Mechanics. You cannot learn Quantum Mechanics without studying Classical Mechanics in depth. You can try, as I did, but you are in for a world of pain that you won't fully grasp until you take Classical Mechanics seriously. You will especially want to pay attention to periodic and harmonic systems. Giancoli's main disadvantage is a weak treatment of periodic systems. Any Classical Mechanics book will make up for this.

At this point you will also need a companion book to take you through Classical Mechanics and everything that follows (Statistical Mechanics, Electrodynamics, Quantum Mechanics). That book is Mary L. Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. Frankly, upper level undergraduate physics textbooks assume you have this knowledge. It's a fantastic book and it would have saved me a world of pain if I'd known about it right from the beginning.

Anyhow, after Giancoli you should look at Boas, then you may choose "Classical Mechanics" by Thornton & Marion. This book assumes you have Boas. Then you can plunge into Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, which assumes you have Boas. However, you'll have an easier time of the material if you read Griffiths' E&M book first, which assumes you have Boas. You'll also be well-served with a Statistical Mechanics textbook. Blundell & Blundell (Introduction to Thermal Physics) is a wonderful book conceptually, except that it lacks solutions. The mathematical and conceptual ideas in each of these subjects were fundamental to the development of Quantum Mechanics, and familiarity with the subjects is assumed by QM textbook authors.

I don't know what Kenny means there. A bunch of stuff in Aristotle's scientific works is super relevant to understanding his general ontological outlook (i.e. his concept of substance), which is still philosophically relevant, since there's a contemporary resurgence in neo-Aristotlean metaphysics.

If you want to read the Physics, and if you don't have much background in Aristotle, I really recommend Joe Sachs' edition. He's able to make a lot of the key ideas super clear. His IEP entry on Aristotle's view of motion is a great overview of some of these ideas, and is worth reading as a starter to see if you want to delve into this stuff more deeply.

If you're interested in the Aristotle's way of thinking about things (natural and otherwise) more broadly, I can't reccomend Aryeh Kosman's The Activity of Being highly enough. It's at once an accessible and rigorous introduction to Aristotle's theoretical thought.

For me, a "good read" in mathematics should be 1) clear, 2) interestingly written, and 3) unique. I dislike recommending books that have, essentially, the same topics in pretty much the same order as 4-5 other books.

I guess I also just disagree with a lot of people about the
"best" way to learn topology. In my opinion, knowing all the point-set stuff isn't really that important when you're just starting out. Having said that, if you want to read one good book on topology, I'd recommend taking a look at Kinsey's excellent text Topology of Surfaces.

If you're interested in a sequence of books...keep reading.

If you are confident with calculus (I'm assuming through multivariable or vector calculus) and linear algebra, then I'd suggest picking up a copy of Edwards' Advanced Calculus: A Differential Forms Approach. Read that at about the same time as Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds. Next up is Milnor Topology from a Differentiable Viewpoint, Kinsey's book, and then Fulton's Algebraic Topology. At this point, you might have to supplement with some point-set topology nonsense, but there are decent Dover books that you can reference for that. You also might be needing some more algebra, maybe pick up a copy of Axler's already-mentioned-and-excellent Linear Algebra Done Right and, maybe, one of those big, dumb algebra books like Dummit and Foote.

Finally, the books I really want to recommend. Spivak's A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry, Guillemin and Pollack Differential Topology (which is a fucking steal at 30 bucks...the last printing cost at least $80) and Bott & Tu Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology. I like to think of Bott & Tu as "calculus for grown-ups". You will have to supplement these books with others of the cookie-cutter variety in order to really understand them. Oh, and it's going to take years to read and fully understand them, as well :) My advisor once claimed that she learned something new every time she re-read Bott & Tu...and I'm starting to agree with her. It's a deep book. But when you're done reading these three books, you'll have a real education in topology.

I'm currently enrolled in a masters program in meteorology in Norway. I'm not sure what curriculum is in the courses you're mentioning, but the meteorology relevant courses in my bachelor basically consist of the geophysical fluid dynamics found in this compendium, and atmospheric physics found in this book. The compendium is written by my professor, so there is definitely better ones out there, but it gives you an overlook of what is relevant. The book however is used in four different courses at my university, and is basically our bachelor bible of meteorology. Good luck!

>Any other field can show raw data and explain how that data is extrapolated, even with regards to a complex system.

And in all those fields, there is a large number of people studying the issue, using different methods of data collection, and different methods of extrapolating it. And among all of them, there will be a general consensus, and disagreement about certain hypotheses - whether that comes from criticism of methodology, how the theory is applied, how applicable the theory is, etc. Climate science is no different. Look into any aspect of scientific research, and you're going to find disagreement within the field, and plenty of good reasons to back up each point - most of the time.

>If the issue is so complex, how can so many people be so thoroughly certain of it?

Within any scientific field there is a massive range of topics being explored. Since nobody has the time to read all the material and decide for themselves, they tend to trust that the researchers know what they're doing. Published material is subjected to peer review to ensure that it isn't nonsense, and scientists who disagree with an assertion criticise it, and explain why.

Here are some links to textbooks on the subject.

http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9789400757561 Climate Change Science: A modern synthesis - one of the authors is actually the guy who extrapolated the 97% figure.


http://www.cambridge.org/features/climatechange/textbooks.htm - a list of textbooks compiled by Cambridge university on the various subjects of climate change.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/0521173159 - Introduction to Modern Climate Change; this is a textbook for beginners at degree level.

The takeaway message I'm trying to get across is that modern day climate research has an incredibly broad scope, and trying to get a full, top-level handle on all of it is near impossible due to the massive amounts of material out there. Getting a degree in a related subject would be a start.

>Simply asking where the figure that 97% of scientists agree comes from should really get a direct answer, yet it really doesn't.

Here. This is the first study that NASA are citing. And curiously enough, the results for all the sources in the politifact article comes to above 90%, with the exception of a poll of earth scientists, which states the consensus at 82%, although it rises to over 97% once they cut that sample down to actively publishing climate scientists, and the American Meteorological Society poll, which states the consensus was only at 73%, but once it was narrowed down to actively publishing scientists, rose to 93%.

So even if the 97% figure is disputed, it's also got plenty of good information behind it too. The reason it gets used so much is because there is enough credit put by it to consider it "good enough", and that the consensus itself: "Humans are contributing to climate change" is correct.

Which leads us to the final conclusion: if the vast majority of the scientific community believe that climate change is A) happening and B) affected on a major level by anthropogenic activity, then do we wait for the rest to get on board (bearing in mind that there are also biologists who believe in intelligent design), or do we accept that this is probably going to happen, and start drawing up ways of mitigating it?

You can't beat Nightwatch imo.

I would also recommend Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, it's not entirely astronomy - it goes into geology, biology and anthropology too for example - but it really gives a great overview of the basics of physics and our place and scale in the grand scheme of things. Plus it's fun.

I will give you the same answer I give every one of my students, and that one of my mentors gave me: don't think that there is a logical progression to approaching mathematics. The reason that people think there is such a thing as a logical order to mathematics is due to the school system, which teaches things in a particular order before university, and then structures university classes using prerequisites, making you think that, for example, you need trigonometry before you do calculus. This simply isn't true. I could say more about this, but it won't answer your question.

Here is my suggestion. Go to the mathematics section of a library, yank any book off the shelf, and go to town. Most books aimed at advanced undergrad/grad students (which is the level you're looking for) will say in the introduction something to the effect of "there are no real prerequisites for this book other than mathematical maturity," and this is nearly always true. You probably won't have mathematical maturity starting out, which can be frustrating, but you'll develop it over time. You will encounter things that you don't understand in these books, and the correct response to this is to go find another book on that topic. You can't learn mathematics just by compiling a list of theorems and techniques.

So all you really need is a starting point. Looking at what you're interested in, I'd recommend this book, which is extremely practical. You'll find more computational things in there than mathematical things, but it has a pretty broad spectrum of techniques whose theoretical underpinnings you can pursue. This course of action is the only one I can recommend, because it's the one I took. The only math class I took in college was calculus, and now I do research in mathematics in grad school. The frustrating thing about this approach is that there's no quantitative way to measure your progress. On the other hand, you get a real feeling for why and how people came up with various aspects of mathematics, which is a feeling you can't get from a curriculum.

First you need Algebra and Trig. From this stage you mainly need to be able to manipulate equations (e.g. take x^2 + y^3 + z^2 = k^2 / n^2 and solve for x, it's one of the easier parts of algebra) and to understand exponents/logarithms. From trig you need to know how to break a vector into components, how to find angles, how sines/cosines/etc are defined, and all those nasty trig identities (e.g 1 - sin^2 = cos^2). You don't need to memorize them (usually, some professors are insane) but it helps to be kinda-sorta familiar with them.

If you've mastered all that, you want to study calculus. If you can take derivatives and solve integrals you're probably good enough to start, but the more you understand the better. It's a lot easier to solve physics problems when you're not struggling with the math you need to solve them.

If you get a book like this and work through it you'll get a lot of what you need, but it's not really necessary to go that far-- that is stuff you won't need until your fourth or fifth semester. Some of it is grad school math.

tl;dr: Trig, Algebra, and basic Calculus for sure. That's what you need for year 1. You can go further if you want, but there is no need to kill yourself to learn advanced math before taking intro physics.

In addition to those mentioned I would add:

Colliding Continents by Mike Searle is a fantastic read! Both from a geology and mountaineering perspective.

Annals Of The Former World by John McPhee is also good, currently making my through it, very accessible and covers a lot of ground in North America.

Also, more for its humour value than anything: Exploration Days: An A-Z of Ways of Dying in Mineral Exploration by S.J. Waddell is a good, light read written by a former exploration geologist working in SE Asia in the 60's and 70's, can be had on iBooks for about $5.

If you bothered to read the Springer link you would have learned of the different dating methods used and you would have seen that the article was supported by independent studies.

Attempts to link the Bible and geology were ended long ago. It’s only recently where creationist have regained a voice. Largely because of their ability to publish something online without a peer-review process.

So let’s look at his sources (that aren’t creationists). Most of his sources are from the small and discredited creationist community. They are discredited because the blatantly misrepresent the geological and larger scientific record.

Purdue source:

>The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

The ENCODE project has been criticized for its liberal interpretation of the word “functional”. They have since defined the term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE#Criticism_of_the_project

What is interesting about the Purdue article is that it establishes the scientific community’s pursuit of the truth regardless of what the truth is. If you look at the history of earth dating methods, you’ll see one scientists after another trying to confirm the work of the previous scientist. As time went on, the older ideas and discoveries were supplanted by better ones. And each time the earth was determined to be older than previously thought. The attempts to date the earth go way back to 1700s and even then it was realized that age of the earth was at least millions of years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html (note the diverse sources)

A creationist first believes the Bible and sets out to prove it. They discard what doesn’t fit, massage other data to fit and come back to same conclusion.

You’re entitled to your religion, but not your facts.

Challenge your beliefs and read this
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311

Barton Zwiebach's First Course in String Theory provides a good overview of quite a complex topic. Unfortunately, even though it is meant as an introductory textbook, it is likely to be entirely incomprehensible to the average reader.

 

To make it through this book, knowledge of quite a few preliminary topics is needed:

1. Previous knowledge of Quantum Mechanics is incredibly important. MIT OpenCourseware has some useful video lectures for the beginner, as well as textbook recommendations.
   
   
2. It is necessary to be fully comfortable with the principles of Special Relativity, as well as at least familiar with the mathematics of General Relativity. Unfortunately, since I learned relativity entirely from the homemade class notes of a professor at my university, I have no textbook recommendations.
   
   
3. Even though string theory is a theory of quantum gravity, some techniques and principles from classical physics are useful. In particular, ideas from the Lagrangian formulation of mechanics come up fairly often. John Taylor's book is useful here. Knowledge of Electricity and Magnetism is also useful; for that, I recommend Griffiths.
   
   
4. It doesn't come up quite as often in this particular book, but Group Theory and Lie Algebras are ubiquitous in string theory. I liked Gilmore's book on this subject.

Similarly, McQuarrie Physical Chemistry may be helpful.

At my school, pchem was divided into a first semester which covered the quantum chemistry of individual atoms/molecules, and a second semester which used some of these quantum ideas (but mostly statistics and thermo) to talk about the statistical mechanics of collections of particles. I believe that McQuarrie's Physical Chemistry covers both, but note that the "mathematical review" sections are just brief interludes. For a more thorough treatment of math methods for physical scientists, consider the Mary Boas book. This book mostly focuses on physics applications, but from my experience in pchem, I would argue that it's just a very "applied" or "specific" version of quantum (or thermal, E&M, etc.) physics.

Also, for quantum chem, it is of utmost importance to be familiar with matrices, vectors, and ideally some of the more fancy portions of a first course in linear algebra, like bases and diagonalization. Although the relative importance of calculus/DE vs. linear algebra might depend on whether your course follows a "Schrodinger" vs. "Heisenberg" (not the Walter White one) approach, respectively.

What are you trying to be? Have one book just slightly deeper than Greene's book, or actually learn theoretical physics to say become a theoretical physicist or at least understand it?

If the former, it will be difficult as there's a lot of things that might be tacitly assumed that you know about more basic physics. However, a very good intro to Quantum Mechanics is Shankar. I'd also look into Foster and Nightingale's relativity book for a brief introduction to special (read Appendix A first) and general relativity. Maybe after both try A. Zee intro to QFT if you want to learn more about QFT. If you want to learn about phenomenological particle physics, say look at Perkins. Also it may help to have a book on mathematical physics, such as Boas or Arfken. (Arfken is the more advanced book, but has less examples). Also it may help to get a basic modern physics book that has very little math, though I can't think of any good ones.

If the latter than you will have to learn a lot. Here's advice from Nobel Laureate theoretical physicist Gerardus t'Hooft.

Im currently in a mechanics physics course and this is the main text book we use

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-John-R-Taylor/dp/189138922X

I'd say it's pretty good and an easy read as well

We have also been using a math text book to complement some of the material

https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269

Hope this helps

An Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology by James Holton is probably the most commonly used dynamics book. Another one that I really like is Mid-Latitude Atmospheric Dynamics: A First Course by Jonathan Martin.

As far as thermodynamics goes A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics by Grant Petty is a good one.

Yes I have it actually. Very good visual guide. DK books are superb, there are a couple of others of theirs I have

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-History-Atlas/dp/1405302674/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324647974&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth/dp/0789496437/ref=pd_sim_b_6

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Definitive-Guide-Our-Species/dp/140530233X/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soldier-Reg-Grant/dp/1405344202/ref=pd_sim_b_21

All good

Khan Academy and Professor Leonard on YouTube will cover up to Calculus 3. From there you can use this Mathematical Methods book to cover the rest of what you would need for an undergraduate physics major. Then you can start learning the physics.

For a brief overview of the scope of math and physics, look at these two videos.

I want to emphasize that learning the math and the physics up to and especially including the theory of relativity is very difficult and time consuming. General Relativity itself is quite beyond undergraduate level physics.

I suggest if you are curious about topics like relativity that you check out Paul Sutter's Ask a Spaceman! podcast. He breaks down what the math says and explains complex subjects in a way that is easy to understand.

I also recommend watching Richard A. Muller's physics for presidents course, which is another great resource for learning about physics without the math getting in the way of understanding the concepts.

I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?

It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.


One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.


Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Here are some options for further reading.

Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.


Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.

I too have trouble with this, but I'm making slow progress purely through practice. I find this book quite helpful: Rocks and Minerals in Thin Section. Other good resources I've found online is Alex Herriot's collection and this collection of thin section from the Bushveld Complex

Interested in the hard sciences but got very little mental oomph to understand it?

I am much like you. As such, could I be so forward as to suggest you get yourself a copy of Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything?"

Mr. Bryson's writing is immensely readable, understandable and delightfully anecdotal.

Most of the topics you mentioned were what I would call algebra or single-variable calculus. I would start learning some linear algebra and multivariable/vector calculus first - the latter should be available in any good calculus text anyways. Besides these, you should at least know some basic probability and maybe a little about complex numbers. With this amount of math you could probably get through most of a "basic" physics degree, but you'll probably want to learn much more math if that's what you're into.

Many people on Reddit have glowing reviews for Boas' mathematical physics text (haven't read it myself though). Looking at the table of contents, I think it's a good overview of topics useful for an undergrad curriculum.

Here is his translation of the Physics on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Physics-Guided-Masterworks-Discovery/dp/0813521920/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346385001&sr=8-2&keywords=physics+aristotle

I'm sure you were looking for PDFs or something, unfortunately I don't know of any links to those :\ I'd love a link if you actually found any!

He also wrote these articles online:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-poe/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-met/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-mot/

But yeah, after reading Aristotle's Physics, I've come to a basic conclusion that his entire philosophical system emerged out of a refutation of Zeno's paradoxes—he spends the second half of the Physics destroying those arguments as well as big chunks of the Metaphysics (or so I hear). What's crazy is that most philosophy students (even graduate students!) only read the first half of the Physics! The first half is only his introduction to the refutation of Zeno in the second part (oh, by parts I mean the chapters before and those after the three middle, or 'topical' chapters, i.e. Time, Infinity, and one more that I can't remember right now—oh! two more: space and place). So yeah, I'd start with the last of the articles I posted up there (on Motion) and then go onto Metaphysics.

Hope that helps! :)

Ah! Those were questions addressed to the original reader of my response to get them thinking. The readers consist of conspiracy theorists and family members/family friends whom the conspiracy theorists CC when they share these articles.

Confirmation bias surely plays a role, as does, in many cases, misinformation, as documented in: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ and Hoggan and Littlemore's [Climate Cover-Up] (http://www.amazon.ca/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854).

John Cook's handbook is great, as is Oreskes and Conway's book (I've actually sent a copy along to one of the conspiracy theorists, not that I'm guessing it'll get read all the way through). I hadn't seen the Naomi Klein article, but I'm definitely going to check it out now. Thanks for passing that along!

Annals of the Former World by John McPhee is the best introduction to geology that I've ever read. McPhee, a geological layman, recounts his travels across North America in the company of several geologists, trying to understand the history of the continent and the forces that have shaped it. I have two degrees in the subject and I still find it a fascinating read, since McPhee weaves in human history as well; the result is one of the least dry science books out there.

Math, math and more math. If you don't feel comfortable with differential equations, or if you're like I was after freshman year you don't know what a differential equation really is, then that's where you should start. Quantum Mechanics basically starts with an awesome differential equation and then goes from there.

Learning the math of this level of Physics on your own would be challenging to say the least, but if you want to dive in I'd suggest Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Boas. Pairing that with Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths might be fun.

Nuclear theory goes into statistical mechanics, classical mechanics is multivariable calc/linear algebra, quantum field theory combines those two with differential equations and sprinkles in a bunch of "whoa that's weird" just to keep you on your toes. But it's really important that you know the math (or more likely you fake your way through the math enough to gain some insight to the Physics).

> Really, I just want to work in pretty country and find gold

Yeah that would be awesome. At least in the US you'd get to do a lot of work in NE Nevada and Alaska.

I know you've been working environmental for quite some time, how are you with mineral ID (sulfides and ig/met minerals specifically)? Did you take an economic geo classes? If you want to drop $100 on a text book the Geology of Ore Deposits is the quintessential economic geology text.

Most physics undergrads take a class called "Mathematics for Physics" or something similar which uses a book like this. It will help you cut to the chase and is a good reference for the math you haven't studied in detail.

As for where you are right now, you should be okay with ODE, multivariable/vector calc, and linear algebra. Those you probably want to devote considerable time learning.

this is an overview of everything related to geology and earth science.. its and awesome book and goes into enough detail about everything and has tons of awesome pictures

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Michael-Allaby/dp/0789496437

https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Alteration-Petrographic-Hydrothermal-Minerals/dp/0919216595

https://www.amazon.com/Ore-Textures-Interpretation-Roger-Taylor/dp/3642017827

These two are basically picture books with heaps of photos of altered rocks. Honestly though, recognising alteration is 90% experience, because your rocks will never look exactly like the photos. Everyone struggles a bit straight out of uni. Its harder now, but ideally move around a bit early in your career so you can see different rocks (and learn different ways of doing things).


https://www.amazon.com/Geology-Ore-Deposits-John-Guilbert/dp/1577664957

Guilbert & Park is good on alteration in terms of the minerals and chemical reactions involved, but its text with a few B&W diagrams.

If you want the Johnnie perspective on that, I'd recommend reading Harvey Flaumenhaft's introductions to the Masterworks of Discovery books. You can read it online on Amazon with the Look Inside feature.

I, for one, find that reading math / science works in the original is interesting beyond the history, challenging and educational. YMMV.

The standard textbook that I think most of us have used in atmospheric dynamics classes is Holton but has a bit of steep learning curve, depending on your background. Another book, that I think is a bit better at easing you into the material is Wiley, and then theres Wallace & Hobbs which is more of an undergraduate book.

That's the primary reason I bought it. I'm interested in evolution, but don't know enough details about why we know it. I have a copy of Futuyma (which seems very expensive from Amazon US compared to the UK), but it's hardly relaxing evening reading.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a better introductory textbook than Wallace & Hobbs. It's a comprehensive and informative introductory tome that still manages to have lots of judiciously chosen pretty pictures.

https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505767093&sr=8-1&keywords=wallace+and+hobbs+atmospheric+science

Boa's Mathematical Methods for the Physical Sciences will provide you a good foundation in linear algebra and multivariate calculus, completely sufficient math background for a physics student (and a great reference forever). This is the standard math text for physics students at many universities, and it is what people expect physics majors to know when conducting summer research (at least to having the competency to look up and apply without asking). Any high school/intro college calculus text will provide sufficient calculus background to read Boas (Larson; Edwards & Penney; etc.).

Here's how I was taught, but I was taught in physics not math.
Fourier transforms are more intuitive, so think about how you take a derivative of a FT. You carry the derivative operator into the integral and you just get a factor of 2(pi)ix under the integrand. Logically, if you want a second derivative, just take the FT of the functions transform times x^2 etc. If you want a 1.3^th derivative (yes fractional derivatives exist) then FT the function times x^1.3 etc. This means taking a n^th derivative in real space is the same as multiplying by x^n in transform space. Sounds alot like what logarithms did for multiplication back in the day doesn't it? So now you can turn a differential equation into a polynomial equation if you just take the Fourier transform of it. However, if the diff eq is more complex than just n^th order with constant coefficients, maybe the FT isn't the best transform available for simplifying it? Then use a transform that's tailored for the particular function you have.

If I remember correctly this book has a nice description. I consider this book to be the "readable" version of this one

BTW, G. Brent Dalrymple, PhD (the author of the paper at that link) is not just your average internet expert - he is a renowned expert in geology and radiometric dating. A President's National Medal of Science winner, former Asst Chief Geologist at the USGS and a principal investigator on the NASA team that analyzed the lunar rocks brought back on Apollo 11 to 13. He literally "wrote the book" on radiometric dating and the age of the Earth.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Earth-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Earth-Skies-Cosmic-Surroundings/dp/0804749337

> I remember someone stated that Earth has always had periods of warming and cooling.

It was not by accident that you just happened to hear this.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1347189033&sr=8-14&keywords=climate+change

Back to your question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/12/previous-temperature-climate-change

More here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/


Yes I agree we should grow up and take responsibility for our actions.

> The global temperature is increasing wildly

Define wildly. Since 1975 it's increased by an average of about .15 to .2 ^o C per decade and it's increased about 0.8^o C overall since 1880, with about 2/3 of that coming since 1975. It's probably increasing by a bit more than that now because global emissions keep increasing.

> in a few years many heavily populated areas will exceed "wet bulb" temperature, meaning they will become so hot that it would be impossible for human life to exist there

That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of wet-bulb temperature, although I'll admit to being very unfamiliar with the term; do you know in what context McPherson used it?

It would help to know exactly what McPherson's temperature projections are. To me, the notion that the usual projections could render places currently supporting hundreds of millions of people uninhabitable within the next few years, or even decades, is tough to believe without hard numbers to back it up.

If you're curious for other sources, my impressions are based roughly on Six Degrees, by Mark Lynas and Introduction to Modern Climate Change, by Andrew Dessler. I think climate change is definitely capable of causing our extinction eventually, but it would require a lot of inaction on our part, and it would still take several centuries at least.

Buy and read some textbooks that cover the required undergrad courses at a university. Here are a few that come to mind: structural geology and tectonics, sedimentology/stratigraphy, geophysics, earth materials (mineralogy), earth systems, petrography and petrogenesis, field methods and maybe volcanism and oceanography.


But back to your question... If you're mainly concerned with rock formations (sed/strat) then just read this book or this one, they will help you tremendously. Hope this helps!

How comfortable are you with math and at which "level" do you want to understand the concepts of weather? I.e., do you want to learn the physics behind it, or just know what fronts, cyclones etc. that they talk about on TV are?

For the former the book Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey is a comprehensive introduction, but I wouldn't recommend it to laymen who are just interested in weather.

For Calculus:

Calculus Early Transcendentals by James Stewart

^ Link to Amazon

Khan Academy Calculus Youtube Playlist

For Physics:

Introductory Physics by Giancoli

^ Link to Amazon

Crash Course Physics Youtube Playlist

Here are additional reading materials when you're a bit farther along:

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas

Modern Physics by Randy Harris

Classical Mechanics by John Taylor

Introduction to Electrodynamics by Griffiths

Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths

Introduction to Particle Physics by Griffiths

The Feynman Lectures

With most of these you will be able to find PDFs of the book and the solutions. Otherwise if you prefer hardcopies you can get them on Amazon. I used to be adigital guy but have switched to physical copies because they are easier to reference in my opinion. Let me know if this helps and if you need more.

If you understand and are able to work with this material before learning QM, you'll be in excellent position.

For a more in depth and thorough coverage, grab a math for physicists textbook, like Mary Boas'.

I as well am currently using this book for an ore deposits class. it is well written and easy to fallow. Another book I have for more technical indepth descriptions of specific deposits is The Geology of Ore Deposits by Gilbert and Park, this book has just about everything.

I have yet to read them all, but this one was the first and remains my current favourite:

A Short History of Nearly Everything

I also have a soft spot for "Notes on a Small Island" - for a solo traveler it makes for a wonderful companion.

If you don't mind reading a textbook, I like Evolution by Futuyma. Don't let the price scare you, you can get the previous edition for super cheap. One thing that's nice about it is it has an entire chapter at the end of the book with concise scientific answers to many "criticisms" of evolution and offers criticisms of its own for alternative "theories." The same chapter also goes on to talk about why teaching evolution is important in a broad way.

Get a decent book in Mathematical Methods, it will teach you basically everything you need for physics up to a good point. Boas is good.

I'd start reading books such as Geology of the SF Bay Region and, one of my favorites, Assembling California. You might be able to borrow these from your uni.

These will give you a good start/background and from there find more detailed publications with maps on USGS website.

Just want to mention that pop sci (which everything you mentioned is) and an actual rigorous study of physics are two very very different things. The romantic image of physics you get from those kind of programs is very different then what is actually involved in learning physics.

I would suggest getting more familiar with the mathematics (calculus, statistics, linear algebra) before diving into the actual physics.

Having the math first will make it much easier to see the actual physics behind the equations instead of sitting there trying to figure out the math and physics at the same time.

To that end I would suggest having Boas mathematical methods next to you at all times during your early studies. Its at about a sophomore (college) level but is easily accessible to most anyone with a basic mathematics background.

(http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269)

Other than that watch Kahn academy or the MIT online courses.

Read this:

https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269


The Cambridge Companion to Mathematics is good also.

Here is a path.

Calculus 1,2,3.

Introduction to Proofs.

Real Analysis.

Complex Analysis.

Ordinary Differential Equations.

Partial Differential Equations.

Calculus of Variations.

Linear Algebra.

Fourier Series, Fourier Transforms, Special Functions. Hilbert Space.

Probability and Statistics.

Abstract Algebra/Group Theory.

Well then

https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X

That should get it done. If you want way more "headaches because I don't understand" math then this

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Dynamic-Meteorology-International-Geophysics/dp/0123848660

Those 2 are pretty standard for the field

Boas Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences has a lot of useful math, although it is mostly focused on DEs and complex analysis.

some good resources:

Math for Physics books like Boas and Arfken et al. Here's one in pdf:

http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269

http://www.goldbart.gatech.edu/PostScript/MS_PG_book/bookmaster.pdf

-----

Cambridge and Oxford have all kinds of notes and study guides online (as do MIT, UCLA, UC-Berkeley etc:

http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/courses/material

http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/


http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/studentreps/res/notes.html

---------------

book lists: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html

https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib

http://www.amazon.com/Colour-Atlas-Rocks-Minerals-Section/dp/1874545170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462489109&sr=8-1&keywords=An+Atlas+of+Minerals+in+Thin+Section

Get this book! It's awesome for minerals.

Take a peek at this topology book. I enjoyed it. It starts with point set and moves onto groups and homology. You can read a lot of it right there on amazon!

This is the best book if you understand some basic undergraduate calculus.

http://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Science-Second-Introductory-International/dp/012732951X

There's Zweibach's text that was intended for senior undergrads at MIT: http://www.amazon.com/A-First-Course-String-Theory/dp/0521880327

But, most professors I've talked to suggest learning QFT and learning it really well first before tackling string theory. Some popular QFT books are Peskin and Schroeder, and Srednicki.

That and oil companies thought "climate change" sounded less scary than "global warming" so they pushed in every way they could to rebrand it. The scientific community was the last to embrace that change.

"Global warming" is the specific theory that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere will increase overall energy in the system and, in turn, increase global temperatures. Since energy companies depend, at least in the short run, on us pumping out lots of greenhouse gases, that's a scary term for them.

"Climate change" sounds more ambiguous and removes the blame from anybody in particular. Heck, it might even be getting colder.

Edit:

For an unbiased source of the difference in meaning between the two words, see NASA

>Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

>Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

For a discussion on how the oil industry, notably Exxon Mobile, pushed hard for the use of the second term over the first term, see this book

I agree here, they may be a little more "mathy" than what you're looking for but they cover important topics to physics and engineering. Byron and Fuller is pretty good and has already been mentioned, it's less mathy and more focused on how physicists treat the subjects.

Just stay the hell away from Boas, I have a degrees in math and physics, and that book is completely useless and confusing for physicists and extra disrespectful to mathematics

Just remembered another book that's worth looking into - Sedimentation and Stratigraphy if you want a good summary of sedimentary rocks etc

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927

For the QM

And

https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269

For the math.

Edit: I'm rereading both of these over the summer as a refresher. They make a great combo.

[This book] (http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Michael-Allaby/dp/0789496437) is great for a general concept of a lot of things you'd learn in your BSc geology. It's not just geology, it also has info about the oceans and the atmosphere which you'd also encounter in your studies.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rocks-Minerals-Thin-Section-Colour/dp/1874545170

This book did wonders for me during my degree, give it a look, worth getting a second hand copy on the cheap.

This is a great sedimentology book I used during my geology degree:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Sedimentology-Stratigraphy-Wiley-Desktop-Editions-Gary-Nichols/1405135921

Cliff Mass is a well known Pacific Northwest weatherman and climate professor who wrote this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Weather-Pacific-Northwest-Cliff-Mass/dp/0295988479

And he writes a popular blog too:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/

> the NYT publishes so much BS

> the church of climate change

Yikes, your bias is showing. You might want to consider trying to learn atmospheric science from an actual textbook instead of letting right-wing blogs tell you what to think. I'd recommend this one or this one if your math is up to par, after which you could probably then move up to a graduate-level text like this one.

Brush up on mathematical methods for physics. Learn Linear Algebra, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Multivariable Calculus, Complex Analysis, and Tensor Analysis. A good book would be this: http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Methods-Physical-Sciences-Mary/dp/0471198269/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Classical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625026&sr=1-7

E&M: http://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Fields-Roald-K-Wangsness/dp/0471811866/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
or http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electrodynamics-3rd-David-Griffiths/dp/013805326X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625100&sr=1-1

Statistical Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Statistical-Thermal-Physics-Frederick/dp/1577666127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291625184&sr=1-1

Quantum Mechanics: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-R-Shankar/dp/0306447908/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291625261&sr=1-4

As a poster mentioned above, Stewart's Multivariable Calculus, and [Boas' Mathematical Physics](http://www.Mathematical.com/ Methods in the Physical Sciences https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471198269/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_6zeYAbQ5R5KB6) are excellent sources for the required math background.

If your working with thin sections i'd suggest Gribble and Halls book, Not sure what level of detail your looking for but MacKenzie's rocks and minerals in thin section good to get the basics of optical mineralogy from.

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Introduction-Physical-Geology-8th/dp/0131148656/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331078232&sr=1-12

I've been self studying this book for some of my competitions - DOE science bowl/science Olympiad (high school senior) and I really like it. I found it recommended in this subreddit a while ago and decided to give it a go.

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Introduction-Physical-Geology-Edition/dp/0131148656

One of my Geology Texts - OK I was 2nd Ed. However, for my degree it wasn't great. I personally thought a good 16-18yr old book when studying geography and geology - when I got to Uni I bought the book and I'm not sure I got more from it than 10 or 20 pages.

I can't believe nobody mentioned John McPhee. I enjoyed all of his geology books; the four were republished as one volume in Annals of the Former World. http://www.amazon.com/Annals-Former-World-John-McPhee/dp/0374518734

John McPhee's geology books are quite entertaining. Annals of a Former World is four-books-in-one, tracing the geology of the US across the 40th parallel, more or less. You learn some geology, some geography, some personal history, and US history.

Read: A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, it shows how right you are. It's also fucking hilarious.

Brent Dalrymple's book, Age of Earth is also a good read.

A good reference book is Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Mary Boas

Amazon link

> then maybe something titled along the lines of “Math Methods for Physics”.

Boas is good.

So, you are gonna be an engineer/scientist, rather than a pure math major which, probably, means techniques will take precedence over ideas and rigor. To that end, you might like:

Engineering Mathematics

Advanced Engineering Mathematics

Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences

Basically, you need to put yourself through technical boot-camp that involves Calculus, Applied Linear Algebra, some Stats, Diff. Equations.

You might look at the age of the earth or plate tectonics. There is a good book on the age of the earth that goes through all of the evidence.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Earth-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311
I can't think of an equivalent book on plate tectonics, but a number of geology textbooks go through the evidence for it.

And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675

http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/

http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1

What part of geology are you interested in? Annals of the Former World is the go to book when this comes up on /r/geology

Ninja edit: I haven't read it, but it's on my list of things to read.

Linear algebra, calculus, multivariable calculus, differential equations, probability and statistics, complex numbers, Fourier transforms.

This book covers every topic and you can buy the solutions manual as well.

Before I took any classes on resource geology, I purchased an older book that was pretty handy here, but is far out-dated now (the PDF provided by Paaatrick_Baaaby_Boy is probably far more applicable).
For Cu porphyry systems (recommended to read up on these two papers by industry and a fellow who ran his own min-ex company) one of the go-to papers can be found here by Sinclair and another by Sillitoe can be found here.

Genre: Science/Geology

Author: John McPhee

Title: Annals of the Former World (Amazon link)

A few quotes from the book to provide some food for thought:

> If you free yourself from the conventional reaction to a quantity like a million years, you free yourself a bit from the boundaries of human time. And then in a way you do not live at all, but in another way you live forever.

and:

> If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone.

Cliff Mass's blog and book are worth reading too.

Also, there is A First Course in String Theory by Barton Zwiebach, a textbook about string theory specifically written for undergrads. It's definitely not an easy read, but it's not impossible to understand it.

Given that the fossil fuels industry is funding a rather substantial propaganda campaign to convince Americans that they shouldn't limit CO2 emissions, this isn't terribly surprising.

Go for the whole series:
http://www.amazon.com/Annals-Former-World-John-McPhee/dp/0374518734/ref=pd_sim_b_5

sprichst du von echten Fachbüchern oder von allgemeinverständlicher Literatur?

Fachbücher: String theorie: barton Zwiebach
https://www.amazon.de/First-Course-String-Theory/dp/0521880327

QM: Cohen Tannoudji
https://www.amazon.de/Quantum-Mechanics-Vol-Claude-Cohen-Tannoudji/dp/047116433X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books-intl-de&ie=UTF8&qid=1465804024&sr=1-1&keywords=cohen+tannoudji

I believe what you are looking for is a textbook.

How the Earth was Made

Geologic Journey

2 minute Geology

Annals of a Former World

When Life Nearly Died

they are literally discussing 'an' example
HERE

I am reading Assembling california by John Mcfee

This isn't really what you're after but may do the job - http://www.amazon.com/Annals-Former-World-John-McPhee/dp/0374518734 (Pulitzer Prize).

Geology of Ore Deposits is still around! New edition though: http://www.amazon.com/Geology-Ore-Deposits-John-Guilbert/dp/1577664957/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341627306&sr=1-1&keywords=geology+of+ore+deposits

Here is the mobile version of your link

While the AoPS are phenomenal books and should be used instead of the terrible books used in middle and high schools today, I think you may want to look elsewhere if your primary interest for mathematics is to cover engineering mathematics. The topics covered in these textbooks are mostly at a middle to high school level of mathematics.

To give you an idea of how they are written (at least from their algebra book), they are written in a tone of casualness to guide readers, typically younger students, into the concepts, many times having cute examples to go along with them (Captain Hook trying to find buried treasure comes to mind). After each concept is presented, further concepts are explored through problems. You are told to do each of the problems on your own and to check with the provided solutions that come right after each problem set. The idea behind this is to present the reader with different methods to tackle problems as well as to point out common errors and mistakes that a student might make. After every few sections, there is an exercise set with no solutions for you to do. To fully benefit from these problem sets, the authors recommend that you consult the solutions manual (if you order from their website it will come with the textbook) after giving the problems a good attempt or after you finished finding a solution. At the very end of the chapter there will be a large set of problems to do, including what they call "challenge" problems. These challenge problems, unlike the section problems, come from math competitions or are designed to probe more difficult concepts that are usually ignored in the standard curriculum.

For the money they are amazing but, again, you might want to look elsewhere for the level of math you are looking for. There exist mathematical method textbooks specifically aimed at engineers that cover essential topics, usually by the title of "mathematical methods for engineers". One that I know of is Boa's textbook. Google around for what you like. If anything you should be looking to learn calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra as a start.

I recommend you to read this book
I can't tell you the exact arguments, because I read it some years ago.
It doesn't dismiss the theory completely, but does put some questions, which doesn't makes the evolutionist theory wrong but incomplete.

For example:

• it seems that there is no continuous evolution, but in jumps.
  
• some traits might not be dictated by necessity only
  
  Also, I found a movie some time ago about the cell structure, where the problem was that some parts of the cell, like the sperm's flagella are very complex, that
  

1. it was an chicken-egg problem
   
2. the mechanism required several parts to work, and it was the minimum-workable mechanism. This means that if you take any part from it, it wouldn't work. The problem is that all these parts should have evolved all suddenly, it's not like you will have some rotor part, and the cell would say, now, hmmm, seems that I need some engine, and now, yeah, a propeller would be a good idea.
   I don't have a link, I've found it on a peer-to-peer network

https://www.amazon.com/Annals-Former-World-John-McPhee/dp/0374518734

Honestly if your not already well versed as a geologist (I’m not) you might find some sections to be a bit of a slog (I did) but my recommendation is that if you feel yourself struggling through a passage, just skip along until you find more readable prose. There’s a hell of a lot of book to get through, so even if you miss out on something the first time, you’ll still learn and enjoy a ton of it, and maybe you catch that piece you missed on a second reading a few years down the line