#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Free online professional journals in climate science and related topics

Do we already have a list of professional journals that are free and online accessable?

Is there something similar to the arXiv in physics?

• Options
1.
edited June 2011

Do we already have a list of professional journals that are free and online accessible?

No. It's a good idea!

Is there something similar to the arXiv in physics?

No, and I think it's a big problem that climate science papers are only easy to find if you're an academic whose institution has access to them, while 'climate skeptic' blogs are easily accessible by everyone. It makes it seem that there's more controversy among scientists than there really is!

Here's a quote:

The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities.

Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change.

Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming.

"Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said.

Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.

Comment Source:> Do we already have a list of professional journals that are free and online accessible? No. It's a good idea! > Is there something similar to the arXiv in physics? No, and I think it's a big problem that climate science papers are only easy to find if you're an academic whose institution has access to them, while 'climate skeptic' blogs are easily accessible by everyone. It makes it seem that there's more controversy among scientists than there really is! * Richard Harris, [Climate change: public skeptical, scientists sure](http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137309964/climate-change-public-skeptical-scientists-sure), _Morning Edition_, National Public Radio, 21 June 2011. Here's a quote: > The American public is less likely to believe in global warming than it was just five years ago. Yet, paradoxically, scientists are more confident than ever that climate change is real and caused largely by human activities. > Something a bit strange is happening with public opinion and climate change. > Anthony Leiserowitz, who directs the Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication, delved into this in a recent poll. He not only asked citizens what they thought of climate change, he also asked them to estimate how climate scientists feel about global warming. > "Only 13 percent of Americans got the correct answer, which is that in fact about 97 percent of American scientists say that climate change is happening, and about a third of Americans just simply say they don't know," he said. > Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.
• Options
2.

A big problem is that a lot of people with academic credits publish harsh criticism like

• "debunking AGW according to simple scientific principles",

which is just wrong. At least everything I read. But in online discussions you'll meet a lot of people who say "look, physicists and astronomers have debunked the whole theory some time ago, so...".

On the side of the cricits it is a surprising combination of academic credits in different topics (chemical engineering, physics, whatever) with a basic misunderstanding ("there cannot be any downward longwave radiation, because...", despite the fact that it has been measured) and a lot of arrogance ("only people too stupid for real physics try to have a carreer in so called climate science").

That's why I have to write the A Quantum of Warmth and The Color of the Night posts: To get this off of my chest. I think it is important to keep up the dialog; and I hope that your reputation, John, will shield Azimuth against claims that "pro-AGW people" don't understand elementary math and undergraduate thermodynamics.

Comment Source:A big problem is that a lot of people with academic credits publish harsh criticism like * "debunking AGW according to simple scientific principles", which is just wrong. At least everything I read. But in online discussions you'll meet a lot of people who say "look, physicists and astronomers have debunked the whole theory some time ago, so...". On the side of the cricits it is a surprising combination of academic credits in different topics (chemical engineering, physics, whatever) with a basic misunderstanding ("there cannot be any downward longwave radiation, because...", despite the fact that it has been measured) and a lot of arrogance ("only people too stupid for real physics try to have a carreer in so called climate science"). That's why I have to write the [[A Quantum of Warmth]] and [[The Color of the Night]] posts: To get this off of my chest. I think it is important to keep up the dialog; and I hope that your reputation, John, will shield Azimuth against claims that "pro-AGW people" don't understand elementary math and undergraduate thermodynamics.