by Judith Curry
How the controversy over climate change affects America’s classrooms is receiving increasing attention.
PBS: Climate teachers share their stories
From the PBS NewsHour:
This week, the PBS NewsHour will report on one teacher’s struggles to teach climate change in her Colorado classroom. This comes as the National Academies Press is preparing to roll out new national science standards for kindergarten through 12th grade. For the first time this year, new standards will include guidelines on teaching climate change.
With the help of American Public Media’s Public Insight Network, we asked teachers and educators around the country to tell us how they teach climate change and climate science in their classrooms. It’s not always easy. Some have been met with challenges from parents, students and fellow colleagues.
Here are some comments from two of the teachers:
I have actually had more concerns and challenges from colleagues than from students.I have had colleagues laugh at me and say, ‘Well, you don’t really believe that climate change exists, right?!’ or ‘Why are you wasting time teaching students about climate change when everybody knows that it doesn’t really exist?’
In the conservative society that I live in, (climate change) is much more likely to be thought of as a myth than scientific knowledge. Politics make it extremely hard to teach it here. I get a fight from many parents and students each year that I teach it in Earth science. It is part of the core curriculum, so I have to teach it.I also like to teach it. I think it is very important that students understand what is happening to their planet and that we are the cause of it.
Science 2.0
Science 2.0 has a post Teaching Science in the Classroom. Excerpts:
The National Academies Press will roll out some new national science standards for K-12 educators and for the first time, those standards will include guidelines on teaching climate change.
Good luck with that. As No Child Left Behind showed, positive results and the welfare of kids will not matter in a political fight – any attempts to create an education standard and accountability are going to flop unless education unions buy into it and any attempts to create a science standard for climate education will flop unless teachers do. And a lot of them don’t.
In teaching hyper-politicized climate change, everyone has an opinion, mostly because it has been made into a cultural issue and not a science one. As Donna Antonucci, high school teacher in Savannah, told Saskia De Melker and Rebecca Jacobson of PBS, “The biggest challenge is to get the students to look at the data without injecting political bias”.
Well, it isn’t always easy to get scientists to look at data without political bias either. Anyone who scratched their head in 2007 at the unsubstantiated claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 was called a Flat Earther and a Holocaust Denier. It was a good decade for vitriolic science bloggers to run into free range hysteria and no science journalists tripped up the IPCC either, they were happy to rehash media talking points and look stupid when it turned out to be wrong.
But teachers have a more persistent problem, one that remains after shrill science bloggers have gotten jobs and science journalists have gotten…jobs in other fields; how to discuss the actual science. Hari Sreenivasan of PBS NewsHour has a piece tonight on how the controversy affects teachers and classrooms. One part deals with a political think tank creating climate change material, another examines new state laws dictating how global warming can be taught and they have a profile of a Colorado science teacher who got a student/parent rebellion in her classroom over it.
Skeptical perspectives
The Common Room provides a skeptical perspective on the topic: Climate Science in Public Schools, with some egregious examples of what is being taught in some places. Here is a multiple choice question for you:
Which of These Is Not Causing Global Warming Today?
A. Sport utility vehicles;
B. Rice fields;
C. Increased solar output.
There is an entire blog devoted to teaching climate change, called Climate Lessons, with the following objective:
A blog sharing information about materials presented to children on climate, highlighting those intended to frighten or mislead, and those which seek to inform and inspire rather than to recruit, even the very young, for an ill-founded political campaign. A campaign which is both soul-destroying and inhumane.
JC comment: Looks like the the forthcoming K-12 standards from the National Academies will be source of much debate in (US) statewide educational agencies. I would be particularly interested to hear how this issue is being dealt with in other countries.
“‘Well, you don’t really believe that climate change exists, right?!’ or ‘Why are you wasting time teaching students about climate change when everybody knows that it doesn’t really exist?’”
My Gleick detector is flashing red lights.
Dr. Peter Gleick’s actions this year were the latest in a long series of coincidences (Fate) that exposed the misuse of government science as a tool of government propaganda leading to servitude of people.
To be effective, propaganda messages start early !
None of us would have realized how pervasively science had been shaped into a dangerous tool of government control if:
a.) Dr. Peter Gleick had not been caught in 2012: http://tinyurl.com/7nc8e4o
b.) World leaders, the UN’s IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, the Nobel Prize Committee, editors and publishers of major research journals (Nature, Science, Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK’s Royal Society, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), government research agencies, the news media, major scientific organizations (ACS, APS, AGU, RS, NAS, etc.) had condemned evidence of deception in global climate reports.
c.) Climategate emails and documents had not been released in November 2009, documenting widespread manipulation of global temperature data.
d.) CSPAN news had not captured NASA Administrator Dr. Daniel S. Goldin belatedly releasing data in 1998 (collected in 1995) confirming 1977-83 reports: Earth’s heat source – the Sun – is NOT a giant ball of hydrogen (H) steadily heated by H-fusion.
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc1983/pdf/1232.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/224kz4
http://tinyurl.com/359rka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco
Today, a tyrannical world government is a far greater danger to society than global warming !
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
The Problem: Society is disintegrating; Citizens and world leaders are frightened.
These symptoms are NOT the problem:
Since Climategate emails and document were released in Nov 2009, responses and actions have documented widespread corruption in science, education, financing, industry, and government arising from selfishness, self-centeredness !
The Solution: Leadership that can return our country to these founding principles of government, described in the 1776 Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Instead politicians seek to distract us with emotional sideshows:
(a) Gay Marriages or
(b) No Gay Marriages
As noted below, we are dealing with good intentions on both sides.
Side 1: Our form of government – established in 1776 – cannot survive if government-funded scientists do not accept responsibility for publishing and promoting misinformation on CO2-induced global warming.
Side 2: The United Nations – established in 1945 to protect mankind from the threat of nuclear war – is a broader and more noble cause for the benefit of all mankind. That justifies occasional deceit if nteeded so nations will work together for the benefit of everyone.
Although both a.) Our form of government, and b.) The United Nations were established to benefit mankind, neither can be promoted by actions that undercut citizens’ access to the factual information needed to control government.
If the leaders of the scientific community do not step up to the plate and demonstrate by their actions that they (US NAS, UK RS and the agencies they control) will not condone or tolerate misuse of science to promote misinformation, then world leaders including UN leaders will have to take whatever actions are needed to ensure that science will no longer be used to deceive the public.
Good intentions pave a well-traveled path:
Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn told The Daily Caller in a video interview that the federal government is in the “midst of committing murder to our republic” and predicted that the U.S. faces a financial meltdown in 2-5 years:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/15/coburn-u-s-has-2-5-years-before-financial-meltdown-video/
Good intentions caused leaders to draft and adopt:
a.) The Declaration of Independence in 1776
_ http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
b.) The Ten Amendments to the Constitution in 1791
_ http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.htmll
c.) The UN Charter to avoid the threat of nuclear war in 1945
_ http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
Selfishness caused leaders to use deceptive means to achieve noble goals of the 1945 UN Charter.
Before finally surfacing sixty-four years (2009-1945 = 64 yrs) later in the Climategate documents and emails, they thus destroyed
a.) The integrity of astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, planetary, and solar physics; and
b.) Public confidence in their leadership
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-70
Science springs upward from the creative talents of individuals.
Government control flows downward in the opposite direction, especially from tyrannical governments.
Good education helps children develop their natural inquisitiveness to meet and enjoy the challenges of life creatively.
Genuine education promotes respect for the individual, the same basic rights of individuals that the US Declaration of Independence demanded in 1776 and the US Constitution guaranteed, especially in the first ten Amendments.
The 1776 US Declaration of Independence also states:“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I can understand this teacher meeting resistance if he/she teaches this very certain assertion. S/he would certainly meet me coming the opposite way, attempting to push this on my child in class as surely as if he/she were to attempt to press home an unequivocal statement on the existence of god.
+1
You object to teachers asserting that we are the cause of god?
In their role as a teacher in a public school- yes
Congratulations to Rob Starkey and everyone on post number 200000. I’ve been watching it tick down these last few minutes.
lol– do I win something? Oh well
Indeed, congratulations Rob. We are making history.
So long as they’re free to do so in the privacy of their own thoughts and speech outside the classroom, I can accept your milestone answer as fair.
So, out of its first 200,000 comments, one may wish to ask our host how her blog has changed her thinking, and which of them has made the most difference for her?
Smart Kids are not taught about introductory quantum mechanics till about 17/18 years.
Likewise special relativity.
The second law of thermodynamics is never taught at school level.
To introduce CO2 driven greenhouse gas theory without a rational basis for pupils/students to critically evaluate the material presented to them is just indoctrination.
Jesuits are reported to say give me a 7 year old and leave the adult to me.
Teaching dogma does nothing for the pupils/students educational development.
Who is driving this much inoculate the kids with global warming hysteria?
It does not stack up educationally .
It only makes sense to someone promoting a ’cause,.
That’s a really good point. They can’t teach the real science, because it’s all college material. They can kind of fake it and teach paleoclimatology and some of those sideshow topics, but that’s hardly doing students any service. Besides, the paleo is probably more controversial than the physics. You can’t teach Mann’s hockeystick without opening yourself up for M&M’s critique. Which again, gets into college-level statistics.
I’m having a hard time thinking of anything that you can teach K-12 students, even the high achievers, that isn’t either oversimplified to the point of worthlessness or highly controversial.
What you can teach them is that it is in fact controversial. This alone is very hard because K-12 science is taught as established fact, because it is all between 400 and 50 years old and well established. The debate is disruptive but unavoidable. Everyone has heard the GW scare. It cannot be ignored.
David,
I disagree with this.
First off. I don’t know that “climate change” or “climate science” is even a valid course subject for k-12. I have a hard time understanding how you can get to climate science without first going through covering weather.
I was in grad school before I had the background to even start to understand the issues of climate change.
The whole concept of teaching climate change in K-12 smacks of indoctrination more than education.
If anything, besides the basics that have been taught since I was in primary school, we should be teaching students to be questioning and having a clear idea of the scientific method. That will serve them better than any sort of specific course work on climate change.
Tim, science ed in the US is governed by state standards, which specify what is taught in each grade, but not how. I recently completed a large project cataloging all the K-12 technical topics, by grade. There are over a thousand topics, actually concepts. It is impressive. Weather is typically taught in fourth grade. Climate and climate models in high school. But each is taught just briefly.
So I do not know what you are disagreeing with, unless it is with how things are. See http://www.stemed.info, my cataloging project website.
David;
Obviously, he’s questioning the ‘state standards’ as they stand.
Better, IMO, that states be the ones setting curricula than either fed or teachers’ unions, but it’s unfortunate that the green ideology is so much in control. It’s being pushed as emotional commitment, not science.
Regarding “They can’t teach the real science, because it’s all college material”, you have to understand how K-12 scied works, which I have been studying for years. You start with the simplest concepts, then build increasingly complex concepts. Much of it tracks the history of discovery.
Concepts like heat, temperature, energy from the sun, ice ages and weather are all taught in elementary school, so that is where global warming enters. You have to be able to state the debate at that level. It is quite simple: Is the warming caused by humans or natural? Scientists are not sure, so it is a great debate. Then show them examples of the debate. End of lesson, next topic.
The topic is not climate. The topic is the state of climate science, which is that there is a controversy.
“It is quite simple: Is the warming caused by humans or natural? Scientists are not sure, so it is a great debate.”
That makes it sound like scientists have no opinion either way whether it’s natural or human caused, when in fact there is a very strong opinion in the field leaning towards substantial human causation of the recent warming and substantial future warming from human activity. If it is to be framed as a debate then students should go away understanding that the human causation side is winning that debate.
Giving undue weight to a minority view to make it seem like there are two equal sides in a debate is wrong. It’s the tactic creationists use in their educational approach.
Michael,
Wouldn’t you think that the strengths of the ‘teacher’ will have a major impact on what is retained by the disciple or student? I do.
Scientists believe the chemistry book, because when they follow the rules they are able to reduce s solution to a substance. Yes these same people will deney Christ, when he is providing the substance with his own solution. Once again all you need to do is follow. It works for us too.
It was judged long ago that we are all dead under the law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/11/colorado-appeals-court-declares-day-prayer-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29
Is science able to see a pattern today? One nation…
That’s just promoting controversy, not teaching anything.
Let’s not teach science, let’s talk about the state of science.
Hey, let’s not do English Lit, let’s talk about the state of the novel.
Garbage.
The state of the novel is a common topic in English lit. And controversy is an important part of the scientific method, not something to ignore.
As for climate there are only 3 alternatives where the science is too advanced for the grade. Say nothing when asked, which is no longer an option. Teach simple minded CAGW or teach that there is a debate. I am providing materials to do the latter. There are a host of green sources doing the CAGW version.
What do you propose, Michael? Teach thermodynamics in elementary school? Not an option.
I would like to see an engineer-level explanation showing where a scientific debate becomes a controversy.
That controversies we’re talking about are “scientific” is quite uncertain.
Denizens should never miss an opportunity to mention uncertainty.
Go team!
‘Teach the debate/controversy`’ is nonsense.
If there are differing opinions; 1. they need to be significant to bother mentioning, 2. you need to pay heed to proportion – 99 scientists saying ‘very likely x’ and 1 saying ‘could be Y’, is not a controversy.
People need to wake up.
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/02/17/pagan-worship-at-air-force-academy/
Live and let live.
P.E. “They can’t teach the real science, because it’s all college material.”
I don’t believe there’s any intention to teach the science, it’s a process of indoctrination, they’re being taught that humans are evil and unless they follow the rules laid down by environmentalists will destroy the planet.
Previous generations, myself included, were taught that humans were evil, and had to pay for their sins with eternal damnation unless they followed the rules laid down by the elders of the church.
geronimo, that is just old school.
1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1 Let me now remind you, dear brothers and sisters, of the Good News I preached to you before. You welcomed it then, and you still stand firm in it.
2 It is this Good News that saves you if you continue to believe the message I told you—unless, of course, you believed something that was never true in the first place.
3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.
4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said.
It has all been done for us. Were free.
To introduce evolutionary theory without a rational basis for pupils/students to critically evaluate the material presented to them is just indoctrination.
Do you think students have a sufficient grasp of molecular biology to understand and challenge it?
To introduce the history of the United States without a rational basis for pupils/students to critically evaluate the material presented to them is just indoctrination.
Do they get access to the original documents and writings? First hand accounts? Newspaper reports?
You can apply that reasoning to everything taught in a school, you might as well say “We know nothing” if you’re not confident enough to teach it to a teenager.
“You can apply that reasoning to everything taught in a school, you might as well say “We know nothing” if you’re not confident enough to teach it to a teenager.”
No… your wrong about that.
The reality is very few students in high school get through calculus until their junior or senior year and even fewer get to differential equations. This level of math is really a prerequisite to learning thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, both of which are necessary to understanding the physics of radiative heat transfer and energy balance in the climate. So if you can’t teach the core part of the science due to lack of mathematics knowledge at that age, then what do you teach?
Evolution does not require knowledge of molecular biology as a basis to understand. You can learn about cells, DNA and mutations without knowing molecular biology and much math. History does not require a base knowledge of mathematics to understand. Literature, writing composition, gym, wood shop, foreign language, grammar, all have no base mathematic requirements.
Physics does. So… if students are not prepared for this level of understanding, what do you teach them that does not resemble indoctrination?
They can learn about the greenhouse effect, carbon cycle, ice sheets, sea ice, ENSO, etc etc without understanding the physics. Loads of stuff.
The key is what is taught on each of the topics you list.
“Evolution does not require knowledge of molecular biology as a basis to understand.”
Of course it doesn’t but you’re the one inventing a new standard whereby a topic cannot be taught to students unless they’re going to understand it all the way down to the basic quantum principles in play.
Oh. You mean you meant to only apply that standard to climate science? Simply heap so many requirements onto the teaching of it that it’s actually impossible for students to learn it?
You can teach the basics of climate just as you can teach the basics of any topic. lolwot mentioned them above but even more simply you can teach the basics and even the existence of the greenhouse effect without having to get into backradiation at all.
In physics, chemistry and biology students are often taught gross simplifications which bear little relation to the actual way things work. That’s what a college education is for.
ok, I’ll concede to your point, what you say is done for other aspects of science regularly and can be done with climate science as well.
My question, which you did not address, is how you do that without indoctrinating into students that the cause of global warming is mainly due to human activities? (which is how it is generally presented in the media, but is really still uncertain wrt to what degree in the science).
“is how you do that without indoctrinating into students that the cause of global warming is mainly due to human activities?”
How do you teach evolution without teaching that the origins of humans can be explained without a need for religion? You can’t, it’s an unavoidable conclusion based on an understanding of the topic.
I do not believe students should be explicitly taught “Humans are responsible for climate change” any more than they should be taught “Your religion fails at explaining the world”. However there’s also no way to tip-toe around the fact that when you teach certain facts about the world certain conclusions are inevitable: C02 has a pretty well defined direct effect and a somewhat less defined but still range limited secondary effect. Humans are on track to double the amount of C02 and therefore changes are happening.
I think that in any scientific topic critical thinking has to be emphasised but that does not mean “Well some people believe this and some other people believe that but you can make up your own mind” but rather “When you get to the edges of human understanding things become a lot less certain. We often have to make decisions and conclusions based on a range of possibilities rather than a certain answer”.
You can’t find anywhere a single individual where it’s been proven their lung cancer has been caused by smoking, that does not mean we therefore have no case to make that the rates of lung cancer have been unaffected by smoking.
Attributing a particular weather event or even patterns within a particular region to any cause is exceedingly difficult but it’s staggeringly unlikely that human C02 emissions have had zero effect, even if you subscribe to the very minimalist feedback arguments of Lindzen, Spencer etc. For a “no effect” scenario you need to be in skydragon territory.
“How do you teach evolution without teaching that the origins of humans can be explained without a need for religion?”
Like this… though I don’t subscribe to it myself, one can take a position that evolution of man is part of a grander ‘design’ by some omniscient being. Agree with it or not, evolution fits in nicely with the concept of a ‘creator’ when using this position.
I agree students should be taught basic facts like CO2 level is rising, measurable and due to human activity and there are going to be affects to our environment and climate because of it. But we don’t know if the effects are going to be a net good or bad… and we only hear about the bad.
“When you get to the edges of human understanding things become a lot less certain. We often have to make decisions and conclusions based on a range of possibilities rather than a certain answer”.
I agree with this as well.
It is unfounded alarmism and scare tactics that concern me. It is far easier to show statistics of smokers vs non smokers and their probability of developing lung cancer… in fact it’s easy to do that with lots of human activities/habits/personal lifestyle choices where you can compare A consequence vs B. These are measurable comparisons that have been repeated over and again. Using alarmism in this context is acceptable IMO.
But comparing the type of understanding we have about smoking vs what we know about the climate are not equal and so this is not a valid argument. This type of argument is made to question the intelligence of someones position about AGW by making them agree with something totally different and obvious. Not a fair comparison and not associative.
How do we compare our climate now to what it might have been with less CO2? To what do we compare what our climate might be by 2100 vs what it also might be at 2100 due to differing levels of CO2? It is all presumptuous. It is not based on any statistical facts. There are no metrics to be applied. We are going by model predictions. How good are the models? Now we’re back to understanding the physics again… do we really know? How is the weather different today than what it might have been? Don’t know… won’t ever know. You can’t make any measurable comparison.
Yet those comparisons will be made and most likely that in the direction of ‘everything is worse’ now and in the future. Based on what? Based on nothing… so how do we prevent this from creeping into the learning?
“Like this… though I don’t subscribe to it myself, one can take a position that evolution of man is part of a grander ‘design’ by some omniscient being. Agree with it or not, evolution fits in nicely with the concept of a ‘creator’ when using this position.”
Do you think that when teaching science in science class the teacher should be sensitive to the student’s religious sensibilities and be careful to present evolutionary theory in a fashion that’s compatible with as much of that religion as possible?
“But we don’t know if the effects are going to be a net good or bad… and we only hear about the bad.”
We have a very good idea that when it comes to climate change is bad for the people experiencing that change. It’s quite possible that in say 200 years time the actual climate they have then will be better overall just that it sucks for most people living through the intervening years.
“How do we compare our climate now to what it might have been with less CO2? To what do we compare what our climate might be by 2100 vs what it also might be at 2100 due to differing levels of CO2?”
We can’t.
“It is all presumptuous.”
However, this statement does not follow from the previous. Certainty is not binary state that flips between “Completely proven” and “No knowledge whatsoever”.
Consider this: Our activities are very likely to have some type of effect on the climate of 2100, whether good or bad overall we can’t say for sure. To a person living in the year 2100 what would you say to them? How would you defend your actions today? How sure do we have to be of a positive effect versus a negative one before we decide to avoid the risk of the negative? Many would apply the precautionary principle and say we should first determine that increasing C02 will be neutral or good before doing so rather doing it first and hoping it somehow turns out ok.
Also remember that whatever you decide to teach or not teach, these kids stand a higher chance of seeing the real outcomes than their teachers or those debating the merits.
“Do you think that when teaching science in science class the teacher should be sensitive to the student’s religious sensibilities and be careful to present evolutionary theory in a fashion that’s compatible with as much of that religion as possible?”
Well, all I can say is school curricula today try to be sensitive to all sorts of differing beliefs so as not to ‘exclude’ any student or make them feel ‘uncomfortable’ about different subject matters. Personally, it is not a position I endorse. I gave an example of how it is possible to teach evolution from a ‘creator’ based ideology, which you said was not possible.
“We have a very good idea that when it comes to climate change is bad for the people experiencing that change.”
I disagree, how do we have a very good idea it will be bad?
“Certainty is not binary state that flips between “Completely proven” and “No knowledge whatsoever”. ”
I never said it was.
“To a person living in the year 2100 what would you say to them? How would you defend your actions today?”
A person living in 2100 will not have come from our vantage point or our life experiences. We can’t project our feeling on to them. What am I supposed to say? Sorry, we were trying to survive the best way we knew how at the time? We were limited in technology, we didn’t have home fusion reactors yet. Maybe it would be ‘your welcome, that extra 1 deg C does make things better’.
How do you feel the development and use of electricity? Do you know what the world was like before there was electricity? Did you live in those times, deal with life without electricity? Do you think electricity made the world a better place? Has it been a net good? I think so. Maybe that is a poor analogy.
Here’s a better one, how do you feel about those who invented the atomic bomb?
The answer is, it don’t matter what you think about it because the jeanie is out of the bottle and can’t be put back. We all have to live with the consequences of that development… good or bad.
Using the precautionary principle as guidance is not an answer either. Don’t get me wrong… I think we need alternative energy production.. we can’t stay dependent on fossil fuels forever, we need to advance our energy producing technology and finding ways that don’t
emit CO2 would be preferable. But it’s not likely this will happen over a decade or two period of time… is it? I don’t think you are advocating we just shut down all carbon emitting energy production without a suitable replacement. Don’t you think that might create a bit of unstability? What will you tell your children in that situation?
@sharparoo:
If you think evolution can explain the origin of man, then you are badly mistaken–in fact, you’re very likely a product of the hash of evolution government-funded education has made, and a good warning to us about why it ought not try to teach global warming in government schools.
I’m not the real expert. One of my best friends and my roommate in college has a Ph.D. in molecular bioligy and years of experience doing research, and he can catalog for you numerous failures in what we actually know about evolution to explain the origins of species, much less man. What we actually know is enough to explain how species are changing in the world today (and over the past billion years or so). But random mutation and selection does not explain where the information in the DNA came from originally.
Just so you understand, this is not coming from someone who believes that evolution will never be able to explain the origins of man because the real explanation is “God.” To the contrary, I expect the theory will eventually be completed and will explain the origins of species. I simply acknowledge that it does not, yet. However, I note a religious over-eagerness among those who want to assert that the theory is already complete, so that they can say things like “God is not necessary.”
sharper00 | May 13, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
“But we don’t know if the effects are going to be a net good or bad… and we only hear about the bad.”
We have a very good idea that when it comes to climate change is bad for the people experiencing that change. It’s quite possible that in say 200 years time the actual climate they have then will be better overall just that it sucks for most people living through the intervening years.
———————————————————————————–
Really? I grew up in the northeast US and we had harsh winters when I was a kid. The past 30 winters have been mild in comparison. None of my friends or family who live complain about how mild the winters have been. I’m pretty sure you’ll ful of crap and just making things up to buttress your worthless opinion.
Actually, without presuming that which is to be proven, the simple concept of the evolution of life (trial and error with feedback) needs to be looked at with some higher math in the disciplines of statistics, probability, and information theory. Just because something is physically possible doesn’t mean it’s necessarily going to happen in a finite universe. The odds of a random dance of atoms producing the Library of Congress seems a bit far fetched when you think about it. In an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of Libraries of Congress all produced by pure happenstance. In fact the only thing that can make this a reasonable concept is an infinite universe or infinite series of universes. But in an infinite universe something like God must also be produced so we’re right back to where we started. Or things like the Boltzmann Brain become inescapable. Evolution writ large is a bedtime story for atheists and little more. The truth is we just don’t know what produced the universe we observe which includes ourselves as part of that universe.
John Carpenter | May 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
“Using the precautionary principle as guidance is not an answer either. Don’t get me wrong… I think we need alternative energy production.. we can’t stay dependent on fossil fuels forever, we need to advance our energy producing technology and finding ways that don’t
emit CO2 would be preferable.”
Speaking as an engineer I do not agree that avoidance of CO2 production is preferable. In the near future synthetic biology will be producing artificial life which can be programmed to build things for us to specification. Carbon is an essential component of a great many durable goods, consumables, and is the element that life uses as a basic building block. The most ubiquitous globally accessible source of carbon for terrestrial construction is atmospheric CO2. We’ll be needing more not less of it. Of course I may have far more confidence in science and engineering than you do in my belief that it’s only a matter one or perhaps two more generations before synthetic biology harnesses the power of life to directly utilize sun, water, and air to produce a great abundance of material things without relying on stored chemical energy in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are just a stepping stone needed to keep the lights on in the lab until we make the next quantum leap in engineering. It’s right around the corner. One or possibly two generations at most. We won’t run out of fossil fuel before 2050 and in fact the IPCC even admits that benefits from global warming will likely outweigh the downside until 2050. By then we’ll be wanting all the carbon we can take out of the atmosphere to use in the construction of durable goods and it won’t matter how much there is it’ll matter how little there is.
Actually, Bryan I (and colleagues of mine) taught well beyond the laws of Thermodynamics. I was in a small to medium size public school. However, it was definitely never taught to the majority of students and the general public would never fully understand it.
You might find one aspect of thermodynamics interesting regarding the internal combustion engine. Considering the hot and cold body temperatures, the upper limit of the efficiency of automobiles is about 15%.
–and that is before considering friction. In reality about 90% of the energy is wasted.
About two decades ago, Engineers in Japan were working on a ceramic with the malleability of cast iron which could withstand much higher temperatures. They were unsuccessful. .
Darryl B re; automobiles at 10% efficiency
You’re not half as bright as you imagine. That you’re a high school science teacher is disturbing if true. It’s why I home-schooled my children. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
Thermal efficiency is encyclopedic knowledge. If you can’t at least get that right you have no business teaching. In the modern world some kid in your class is going to shoot your dumb ass down by consulting Siri in real time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
“When expressed as a percentage, the thermal efficiency must be between 0% and 100%. Due to inefficiencies such as friction, heat loss, and other factors, thermal engines’ efficiencies are typically much less than 100%. For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% efficiency, and a large coal-fueled electrical generating plant peaks at about 46%. The largest diesel engine in the world peaks at 51.7%. In a combined cycle plant, thermal efficiencies are approaching 60%.”
Excellent!
Teach them to plow ahead first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth#Early_life
Even while they may not be interested in the field.
They learn.
I recall being taught mathematics and reading every year of K-12. That seems to me all the foundation to understand what is and isn’t controversial for myself. ‘Teaching’ or indoctrinating or brainwashing children to know something is a controversy, rather than to come to that conclusion for themselves, smacks of an intellectually dishonest attempt to teach children that tobacco’s link to cancer is controversial.. which correct me if I’m wrong, I recall the Heartland Institute attempting in K-12 before.
I also seem to recall them being called on that insidiously morally bankrupt practice at the time. What next? Will cartoon characters championing the cause of gasoline be published as a comic book handed out free the first day of school? Carbon Camel? Albedo Albatross? Plantsteroid Pete? A squad of spies who uncover evil labcoated mad scientists hatching commie schemes to drain the treasury by pure research, printed in four colors on non-recycled news stock?
Teach K-12 math, reading, scientific method, how to observe, how to graph, what logic is and how to defend from general logical fallacies such as http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/; teach civics and an appreciation of the outdoors and health and what makes a good citizen, not what makes a good little follower. Educated people can learn to think for themselves and make their own decisions. Why fall into the trap of trying to force them to think how you want them to, and abide your decisions?
My favorite teacher, a grade seven science teacher who allowed a few of us to stay late and work on experiments from the back of high school textbooks, only imposed one proscription on us: “Do not blow up the lab..” and that I admit was my own fault, at ten years old.
I cannot imagine how low I’d rank a teacher who set out the rule, “The Earth is round is a controversy.”
You would rank such a teacher as crazy. The obvious difference is that climate change really is controversial. Our 200,000 comments here are ample evidence of that. A big fraction of the debate here is scientific. In fact showing students this blog might be a useful approach.
David Wojick | May 13, 2012 at 7:21 am |
“You would rank such a teacher as crazy. The obvious difference is that climate change really is controversial. Our 200,000 comments here are ample evidence of that. A big fraction of the debate here is scientific. In fact showing students this blog might be a useful approach.”
We’d need to clean up some of the tone before we let schoolchildren near the blog, lest they point at us and laugh at how immature we all are.
Indeed, the same teacher as let us experiment with fermentation and distilling, producing and denaturing nitrous oxide, titration and chromatography .. and the occasional pyrotechnic display.. also casually mentioned one day that one of his colleagues did believe the Earth was flat. Being the tactful, respectful ten-year old I was in grade seven, I protested out of turn, “What, are they stupid?”
The teacher patiently explained that no, the person in question — whom he did not name — was in fact quite intelligent, but belonged to a religion with a certain ‘literalist’ (and then he explained what literalist meant) viewpoint, and religious people should always be respected. No matter how stupid their religion was.
This is why I’m always so tolerant of those whose opinions here diverge from my own, even in ridiculous ways. :D
However, I was perfectly able at ten to decide whether that religion’s ‘controversy’ was controversial to me. It wasn’t. I didn’t need teaching to tell me that.
I did greatly benefit from being taught the controversy between Bernoulli and Newton a few years later in grade nine, though. It helped me understand more about Einstein’s writings in context.
Second law of thermodynamics (entropy) is taught in 9th grade physical science. Maybe you were out sick that day.
I made it quite clear I was talking about the UK.
Give me a link to your course content so that I can check your claim.
I have two current US universityphysics textbooks and they dont develop the second law until end of 101 or start of 201.
This is because calculus is required.
Your own grasp of the second law is very poor so perhaps you were just confused.
Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy of the system — in a process known as “thermalization”. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
Calculus is needed to understand that? Ooooooooooookay. Whatever.
http://ahs.athenscity.k12.oh.us/teachers/parmstrong/Curriculum_Map
Here’s a detailed course outline and exam topics for high school physical science. If this looks like it’s more advanced than what the kiddies get in the UK I can’t help that but it may help you understand why the U.S. leads the world in science and engineering while the UK leads the world in scandals, tabloid newspapers, and windmills.
David Springer
I will attempt to explain to you two methods of arriving at the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
You probably will not understand either of them but it might be of interest to other readers.
1. By analysis of the Carnot Cycle.
This is the easier of the two methods but requires calculus to understand the two adiabatic changes and two isothermal changes in the working substance of an ideal engine.
2. By taking studying a course in statistical mechanics then applying these methods to an analysis of an ideal engine.
Statistical mechanics normally is presented in the second year of a degree course in Physics.
There is another method used at Gradgrind Academy.
They do not attempt to prove anything.
To them Science is a set of rules which are to be learned by rote.
Athens City High School does not attempt any proof of the second law but instead follows the Gradgrind Method.
British schools on the other hand try to develop approach to the physical sciences where the Laws of Science are deduced from logical analysis and backed by experimental evidence.
The science curriculum of this school would never be accepted in any European country.
Perhaps you had the misfortune to receive such an ‘education ‘.
It would certainly explain why you know nothing about thermodynamics.
Dave Springer
Your link shows that you have misread your own source.
The 9th grade physical science contains basic science that would be appropriate to 14/15 year olds.
Certainly no mention of the second law or entropy .
A brief mention of entropy is made in chemistry at K12.
Its quite clear that this is a passing reference since there is no possibility that they would have the necessary mathematics (calculus) to analyse the Carnot Cycle.
As I’ve said in another post there is little educational value in premature rote learning of some thermodynamic laws.
If the students go on to university and choose physical science or engineering they will have the mathematical training to examine the second law in detail.
This will be included in a thermodynamics module.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
How old is grade 12 in the US?
Tonyb
17 to 18 years old
I taught physics and AP chem in high school. I am currently writing a book (which may never be read) which compares the absolute certainty of eugenics-as a science- and the absolute certainty promoted in all aspects of the science of climate change.
In the last years of teaching, I began first year chemistry with two general investigations, one with a determinate error, to introduce the concepts of precision, accuracy, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. (numerical class results were presented on the board). The first day of the year I used the end of a quote by Mark Twain…….’There is something fascinating about science, you get a wholesale return of conjecture on a minimum investment of fact’ (as I remember the quote). The point is good science and good scientists are always challenging results, in particular their own.
The general public always wants and the general media therefore always presents science in terms of certainty where none exits. Also bad news is good news and good news is no news. Most climate change news does not even scratch the surface of any technical knowledge. It is mostly he said, she said. I wonder how it would be presented in the class room? Walking into a school last year, I saw a picture of a polar bear climbing a pole as an acknowledgement of Earth Day. Such representations will eventually do more harm than good. I believe there are much greater environmental concerns than CC which will then also be deemed dubious.
Finally, I was in the position to teach the science portion of how to zap the ACT test, which is all about science reasoning and not scientific fact, It is as it should be. Invariably one question was of the type: (Which one the following is false?) Three answers will begin with sometimes or it maybe true
and one will begin with always, or it must be. In the real world, very little is always true. However, climate science never seems to address what Dr. Curry calls the Uncertainty Monster.
+1 Been there too as a teacher.
I am a science teacher in Sweden. Sweden’s new middle school curriculum (class 7-9), starting in the school year 2012-2013 (.pdf English translation) –
http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/publicerat/2.5006?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.skolverket.se%3A8080%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FRecord%3Fk%3D2687
– has this, in the of Physics subject section (p 123), instruction to teachers on what to teach:”Models in physics to describe and explain the earth’s radiation balance, the greenhouse effect and climate change”. That’s it.
However on the next page we have: “Critical examination of information and arguments which pupils meet in sources and social discussions related to physics” – this critical thinking about evidence and arguments is all through the new curriculum. Great!
So the new Swedish school curriculum is easy to interperet in a more rational and evidence based manner. Good!
But the Swedish science textbooks sold here are very much biased to explaining just the alarmist side of the story. Most Swedish teachers, I gather, don’t know about or have no time to bother about the skeptical side of the man-made global warming argument, as required in the new curriculum. But at least there is a way out for science teachers who want to avail their students of a critical thinking approach to their study of the world :-)
Hopefully, the teachers will touch on fuel poverty as well:
Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
Global-warming-related catastrophes are increasingly hitting vulnerable populations around the world, with one species in particular danger: the electricity ratepayer. In Canada, in the U.K., in Spain, in Denmark, in Germany and elsewhere the danger to ratepayers is especially great, but ratepayers in one country — the U.S. — seem to have weathered the worst of the disaster.
America’s secret? Unlike leaders in other countries, which to their countries’ ruin adopted policies as if global warming mattered, U.S. leaders more paid lip service to it. While citizens in other countries are now seeing soaring power rates, American householders can look forward to declining rates.
The North American exemplar of acting on the perceived threat of global warming is Ontario, which dismantled one of the continent’s finest fleets of coal plants in pursuit of becoming a green leader. Then, to induce developers to build uneconomic renewable energy facilities, the Ontario government paid them as much as 80 times the market rate for power. The result is power prices that rose rapidly (about 50% since 2005) and will continue to do so: Ontarians can expect power prices that are 46% higher over the next five years, according to a 2010 Ontario government estimate, and more than 100% higher according to independent estimates. The rest of Canada may not fare much better — the National Energy Board forecasts power prices 42% higher by 2035, while some estimates have Canadian power prices 50% higher by 2020.
The story throughout much of Europe is similar. Denmark, an early adopter of the global-warming mania, now requires its households to pay the developed world’s highest power prices — about 40¢ a kilowatt hour, or three to four times what North Americans pay today. Germany, whose powerhouse economy gave green developers a blank cheque, is a close second, followed by other politically correct nations such as Belgium, the headquarters of the EU, and distressed nations such as Spain.
The result is chaos to the economic well-being of the EU nations. Even in rock-solid Germany, up to 15% of the populace is now believed to be in “fuel poverty” — defined by governments as needing to spend more than 10% of the total household income on electricity and gas. Some 600,000 low-income Germans are now being cut off by their power companies annually, a number expected to increase as a never-ending stream of global-warming projects in the pipeline wallops customers. In the U.K., which has laboured under the most politically correct climate leadership in the world, some 12 million people are already in fuel poverty, 900,000 of them in wind-infested Scotland alone, and the U.K. has now entered a double-dip recession.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/
The problem I see with that, is that it’s not science. It’s technology policy. That sort of thing usually isn’t taught in K-12, and probably shouldn’t. We need bright lines between science and policy and technology, and mushing them all together in what is supposed to be a science survey course just makes the task all the more hopeless.
Perhaps that might belong in a social studies course on policy, but that would go off the rails and into indoctrination faster than the science stuff.
In the case of climate “science,” it depends on what your definition of science is.
I started reading the comment and it was much to well written for jim2, and then when I looked at the link, I realized he did a copy-and-paste with no quotes or blockquotes.
Go team!
“… much too well written …”
That is the difference between you and me. I only try to work out problems with original or novel approaches on my blog, whereas you … well, I don’t know exactly what you do.
Keep up the good work. I’m happy for you.
Web – Here’s more data for your models:
“(CNSNews.com) – The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
The GAO testimony said that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gao-recoverable-oil-colorado-utah-wyoming-about-equal-entire-world-s-proven-oil
WHT – I’ve noticed you like to throw in an assumption here and an approximation there in your DE vignettes, so let’s assume technology will be developed to harvest methane hydrates and that the above GAO prediction is correct. Now, when will we run out of economic oil? Economic meaning less than $150/bbl in today’s dollars. Here is your chance to show you are objective and not simply bending numbers to a cause.
Let me rephrase that – when will we run out of economic fossil fuels. We can further assume we use coal at the same rate as today.
Sure. It always has been and always will be a problem of limited flow rates pitted against geological constraints. The following comment that I wrote this morning encapsulates the situation for crude oil:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9182#comment-893373
The economic projections have always been one of predicting demand as opposed to what the geology and technology would allow. Read the top-level post to get a better picture of the economic view versus the geological view.
As far as coal is concerned, the same situation applies and Prof. Rutledge had a post here a couple of weeks ago that did a fine job of laying out the situation.
The comment seems to be related to my question. Looks like peak oil is in the future … still? At any rate, if we can get some rational people in office in the US, we will develop nuclear. The fact that oil is a raw material isn’t lost on me, a chemist. But we also all know the quantity of oil used as a building block pales in comparison to what we burn for energy. Of course, at somewhat greater expense, coal can be uses as a RM. None of this make wind and solar a good alternative right now. Personally, I would like to see the government cut subsidies, tax breaks, and any other aid to any industry to zero, except nuclear due to security and environmental issues.
Depends on what you pick for an ultimate recoverable resource estimate. Is it 2 trillion barrels? Then peak oil behind us.
If it is it 2.8 trillion, then there may be slack depending on how much the extraction rate can increase. That makes oil production a flow-rate problem. The current thinking is the actual number is closer to 2 than 2.8 but you throw out a 2.8 trillion barrel number to see what that would imply.
Do we want kids to learn how to do bean-counting and simple accounting of resources?
I like it how everyone wants to talk about the impact of this or that, usually preceded with “may,” “could,” or “might.” But there is one thing we are saddling our children with that is not in doubt – 16 trillion in debt and rising relentlessly. It is shameful for the government to be throwing our children’s money down the drain on “green” businesses that aren’t ready for prime time and continually fail. Look at Europe to see how the story unfolds. Germany is looking at burning brown coal due to being on the bloody edge of blackouts. Coal will be their saviour. If only they had pushed a modern nuclear program a decade ago – they would be energy independent.
I learned the three basic grades of coal in grade school — anthracite, bituminous, and lignite. Anthracite goes first as that is the highest grade, and then when there is nothing left of bituminous, we start going after the lignite, the brown coal. The beans are being counted by nature, regardless of whether we keep track or not.
Really can’t argue with that. Many are looking for solutions.
I recognize when you are speaking with some conviction, whether we agree or not.
Imo what is critical is to accurately teach that there is still much unknown and controversy in the science community on the topic of climate change.
Imo there is a risk of teaching kids a propagandized message if one presents the information as a certainty. Teachers have frequently been quick to accept and spread the positions of Hansen and Mann and to teach that disagreeing with those conclusions makes one an unscientific fool.
It would seem appropriate that whatever is taught is required to be approved by the local school board prior to being presented to kids. That will not prevent an inaccurate message from being taught, but it would ensure some degree of consistency of message.
Small countries just copy the big ones. They don’t dissent. Research is expensive.
Except Israel.
Israel is big.
And that’s one of the best exchanges on here, ever.
See Robin Murray’s blog ‘Invisible Serf’s Collar’.
================
And buy and read Mike Smith’s follow up to ‘Warnings’, the new ‘When the Sirens Were Silent’. Give me an ‘A’ for adaptation to severe weather, and give me a ‘T’ for tornadoes, which are severe. And highly local.
========================
Well, as long as the internet remains “free” as in free to choose, then students of all ages can circumvent the establishment. I don’t argue that K-12 teachers aren’t a big influence and that most parents see their primary role as possible at most transportation … OK, it’s a big deal.
The whole hijacking of the environmental agenda by climate change alarmists has caused this problem.
I teach Primary school student teachers in England and the arguments about what is indoctrination and what is critical thinking are not as simplistic as some would have you believe and as such are investigated and discussed throughout our courses. Alarmists understand this, hence their desire to preach AGW as settled science, thus bypassing any inspection of their viewpoint. However, it would seem that enough intelligent folk have caught on to this and will not be teaching AGW as settled science, indeed its controversial toxicity may mean it gets left out off the curriclum altogether from many school syllabuses. A great pity in my opinion as we need to teach all sides of any emerging area of science.
Go team!
Gen 2:7 And the LORD 3068 God 430 formed 3335 man 120 [of] the dust 6083 of 4480 the ground 127, and breathed 5301 into his nostrils 639 the breath 5397 of life 2416; and man 120 became a living 2416 soul 5315.
Today, science wants to tax mankind for exhaling the air of his lungs… Why does science always want to mimic the power of God? Be everywhere, see everything, know everything, fly around the world at hypersonic speed? Feeling a bit inadequate perhaps, it is a symptom of false pride we are told. Only natural really.
What should be taught on schools is that politics and science don’t mix. The former will destroy the latter. Climate Science can be referenced as a relevant example.
Andrew
Lots of confusion here. The new standards are not being developed by the NAS or National Academies. Here is their home: http://www.nextgenscience.org/ The first draft was just published, with a whopping 20 day comment period, until June 1. They are based on a Framework proposed by a small group of reformers under the NRC, the admin arm of the National Academies, but the drafting is being done by Achieve, with a work group from a bunch of states, paid for by Carnegie.
Climate change is already part of the standard curriculum in most states, in high school. What is not specified is teaching CAGW versus teaching the debate, and not just in high school, because the debate now permeates the schools down to the elementary level. That is the big policy iissue.
As some of you know, I am developing teaching materials for Heartland, to help teach the fact that there is a scientific debate. It is not a matter of teaching the substance of the scientific debate, just teaching that it exists.
The thrust of the PBS special is of course that there is no scientific debate, so all this skepticism is a political distraction at best, or anti science at worst.
> It is not a matter of teaching the substance of the scientific debate, just teaching that it exists.
To what does refer “the scientific debate”?
Sorry, Willard, but I do not understand the question. Too cryptic.
One suspects willard may be referring not to the practice of scientific debate in science, a healthy and productive activity, but the the practice of injecting techniques of debate from outside of science into discussions of science.
That is, it’s great to teach that scientific skepticism is a foundation of research, and what scientific skepticism involves by means of testing hypotheses, and withholding judgement until sufficient data and analysis allows confidence to be established; wherease it’s patently wrong to assert any goober with a pulpit can use his electoral status, social stature or supposed rank to make assertions and call it scientific debate.
There’s nothing very controversial about scientific controversy: this is the normal state of scientific inquiry; there’s a whole lot wrong about taking the commonplace definition of controversy, and commonplace rhetorical devices of politicians and confidence tricksters, and teaching schoolchildren that it’s in any way the same thing.
If this isn’t willard’s question, then it’s mine. (Less the rant.) How do you define scientific debate and distinguish it from mere debate?
Bart R,
You ask an interesting question. Mine is not. I just want to know what David Wojick is talking about.
For now, I believe this need to be settled. No, I do not mean that the debate is settled. I just want us to be settled on the debate.
Which debate is it?
Is it only one debate?
About what exactly?
Where can we see that debate occuring?
You know, the kinds of things one can easily see when a debate exists.
I’m sure pedagogs ask themselves that question when they read a curriculum.
Bart, I distinguish scientific debate by the topic, scientific, and the participants, which include scientists studying the topic. Seems simple enough.
David,
I think you meant ‘simplistic’.
That didn’t distinguish anything from anything else.
Q.
Q. Did we ever debate AGW?
A. Yes, at least since 1821:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/20914431455
They haven’t been “debating AGW” since 1824, they’ve been developing the greenhouse theory since then. Big difference.
P.E.,
I’m not sure what you mean by the AGW debate. I believe that AGW has a GW part, and that GW part relies on some theories.
In any case, I’ll amend the question. But I’m not sure what date I should pick for the “AGW debate”. You have any recommendation?
Probably the first AGW debate was between Arrhenius and Angstrom. Arrhenius was the first alarmist, and Angstrom was the first skeptic. And FWIW, Angstrom was closer to right about the point in question (the climate sensitivity) than Arrhenius.
Twas ever thus.
P. E.,
Thank you for your answer.
Would it be OK if I say that AGW is debated since 1896?
David Wojick,
You write:
> It is not a matter of teaching the substance of the scientific debate, just teaching that it exists.
The expression “the scientific debate” must refer to something to say that it exists.
So I wonder to what the expression refers. The notion of reference should not cause no problem to a logician:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference#Semantics
But if you prefer, I could ask:
What are you exactly talking about when you say “the scientific debate”?
I hope this is clear enough. If not, I can clarify my question.
The debate is regarding:
1. Science being uncertain over what rate of warming might happen over what time periods as a function of human released CO2. There is great uncertainty over what impact CO2 will have and when in the actual earth system.
2. Science is also highly uncertain of the changes to conditions that will result to various locations around the world over different time-frames in the event there is warming. There is no reliable information to describe the benefits vs. harms to the vast majority of the planet.
3. Because of the conditions described in points 1 & 2, as well as the worldwide economic environment, it appears to be extremely debatable that worldwide CO2 emissions will fail to continue to rise for several decades at a minimum. Based on this as a high probability, there is debate over the merits over taking actions that could be taken to mitigate any CO2 rise.
Thanks, David.
In the official narrative, the debate in fact does not exist. It’s in the periphery, the Web, for the most part (not entirely). This is the problem; there is in fact great urgency on the part of the Consensus to keep debate out of any and all official bodies and publications. It is failing, more and more, but it will take time for the school boards and politicians to perceive and acknowledge that development.
> It is failing, more and more […]
Join the bandwagon!
Willard, I am starting wth 20 debatable issues that occur at different grade levels and developing simple lesson plans forceach one. One example is Will GW make hurricanes worse or not?
To continue, my thought on teaching that the hurricane controversy exists is to look at Google, Google Images, Google News and Google Scholar search results for “hurricanes and global warming.” The titles along make clear that there is an open question under consideration. GS lists over 20,000 research articles. That is all they need to know, as this lesson is on the science of science. There being a controversy is an empirical fact and these search results are their data.
David Wojick,
Thank you for your answer.
Your transition from “debate” to “controversy” is duly noted.
Would you care to list the 19 other topics?
Many thanks!
Willard, I can’t list the other topics as I am just 45 days into the project. Figuring out specific topics that are central yet narrow enough for a 35 minute lesson is the biggest challenge.
David Wojick,
Thank you for your answer.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Models.
2. Feedbacks.
3. Temperatures.
4. Glaciers.
5. Extreme (?) weathers.
6. CO2 as food plant.
7. The C in CAGW.
8. Warmth warms our hearts, lands.
A template:
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-change-reconsidered
To this we could add:
9. Sea-level
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/display.aspx?id=13112
I’m sure there are many more among these 173 claims:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Oh, I don’t recall if you answered Fred Moolten’s offer to help you out. Have you answered Fred Moolten?
Many thanks!
hey!!
What about the Iron sun!
David, are you going to argue that the iron sun theory is not a part of the
debate.
Isn’t the “Iron Sun” a bordello in New Orleans?
P.E. | May 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
One believes you may be alluding to the Rising Sun, famous in song, and known to be the ruin of many a po’ boy.
Alternatively, considering the source, you may mean “iron butterfly”, but I don’t want to know.
willard | May 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
I like your questions better than I like mine.
But then, I know mine to be biased. I only suspect yours are set out to detect a bias.
Bart R,
To detect a bias, all there is needed is to look at the Heartland’s Institute campaigns. Yes, campaigns with an s. For instance:
http://heartland.org/newspaper/2012-april-school-reform-news
Bart R,
Perhaps the best would be to start here:
http://heartland.org/issues/education
David Wojick | May 13, 2012 at 8:33 am |
“Bart, I distinguish scientific debate by the topic, scientific, and the participants, which include scientists studying the topic. Seems simple enough.”
*blink*
So, you would recommend units be taught about Star Trek and Star Wars, Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica?
The longstanding and vigorous debates on these subjects dominate by many times the time spent in discussion of hurricanes in the context of global warming among scientists. And don’t get me started on Dr. Who.
Why waste valuable learning time with distractions and puff? Time that could be better spent teaching robotics and computer programming, the functioning of cellular communications and the importance of hygiene. Perhaps even a little chemistry, botany and physics?
I took a brief look at the standards. The website is a nightmare to use BTW.
A couple of brief observations:
“G6-8 Disciplinary Core Ideas MS.ESS.WC Weather and Climate
ESS.C
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and retain the energy radiated from land and ocean surfaces, thereby regulating Earth’s average surface temperature and keeping Earth habitable. (e)
Crosscutting Concepts
Energy and Matter
Energy may take different forms (e.g. energy in fields, thermal energy, energy of motion). The transfer of energy can be tracked as energy flows through a designed or natural system. (e),(f)”
Both of these statements seem pretty problematical to me. GHG don’t retain energy radiated from land and ocean surfaces. The statement on energy forms is confused.
It will be tough sledding trying to search that website and figure out what they are actually trying to teach.
“The Common Room provides a skeptical perspective on the topic:”
http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/climate-science-in-public-schools.html
The material the Common Room is pushing is far more inaccurate and misleading than anything they criticize. Far worse.
I do think they provide, or rather typify, the skeptical perspective though.
lolwot, dissent usually makes believers like you squirm.
Judith
Although I no longer have children in school, I know from others how climate science is being handled in schools in Switzerland.
The topic is highly politicized, of course, and the government authorities usually stick to the politically correct line that “climate change” is happening as a result of human activities. With this in mind, Switzerland has enacted a (very modest) “CO2 tax”. Switzerland is in a bit of a dilemma, however, since the government has decided to phase out nuclear power generation – which currently supplies almost 40% of the total electrical power – some time in the future. This decision was made rather hurriedly following Fukushima, without first having any real alternates, and these are now being weighed. Most of the power comes from hydroelectric plants today, but these cannot be expanded nearly enough to replace nuclear plus handle the future requirement. Switzerland has no natural gas, but gas-fired plants are being considered as one alternate, based on imported gas.
Unlike some other countries, there does not appear to be a concerted effort on the part of educators to brainwash (or frighten) pupils with the IPCC party line. This is not a part of the standard curriculum today although pedagogic material exists for teaching “climate change” to pupils in higher classes (projections from IPCC AR4 on melting of glaciers in Switzerland and elsewhere, endangerment of tropical rain forests, impact of projected sea level rise on small island nations, etc.). Some teachers may try to do this on their own, and this appears to be more prevalent in the German-speaking part of the country, where the “green” movement is stronger. Some have used parts of Al Gore’s AIT film as a teaching aid.
At university level climate change is being taught, but that is a different topic.
Max
PS Forgot to include the link
http://www.fhnw.ch/ph/iwb/download/umweltbildung/materialien-klima
Because a big tsunami could wash over Switzerland and mess up the nuke plants, huh?
P.E.
Exactly.
If not “a big tsunami” it could be the rapidly rising global sea levels backing up the Rhine river.
(I’m personally not going to get too excited until Basel is underwater.)
Max
“The Common Room provides a skeptical perspective on the topic: Climate Science in Public Schools, with some egregious examples of what is being taught in some places.”
Wait I missed this. What egregious examples? The only two examples given were articles students were directed to as assigned reading which were:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228392.300-hyperwarming-climate-could-turn-earths-poles-green.html
and
http://www.sharonlbegley.com/which-of-these-is-not-causing-global-warming-today
What is egregious about these articles?
lolwot
“Egregious?” Maybe.
I’d say a better adjective would be “silly”.
The two links you cite are good examples of hysterical hyperbole, not science:
Huh? The WEC tells us that there are just enough optimistically estimated fossil fuels on our planet to get us slightly above 1000 ppm CO2, an increase of 630 ppmv above today’s value, NOT 2000 ppmv, an increase of 1610 ppmv above today’s value. This is based on the rather optimistic estimate that we have only used around 15% of the total fossil fuel resources to date and still have 85% left to go. Chris, it’s time to get back down to planet Earth.
The Sharon Begley blurb includes:
“We cannot explain?”
Right, Gaby, there are lots of things ”we cannot explain”. Isn’t that what uncertainty is all about, as Judith Curry has pointed out to you?
And then, several years have passed since this was written. And we now see that it has stopped warming (at least temporarily) despite continued CO2 emissions.
Ouch!
Lolwot, you should come with some better examples – these are weak.
Max
“The WEC tells us that there are just enough optimistically estimated fossil fuels on our planet to get us slightly above 1000 ppm CO2”
That’s only half the picture. You’ve only taken into account the source of CO2, not the sink. A figure as high as 2000ppm would only arise if the sink also reduced, either due to warming or due to saturation of the ocean surface or biosphere, or both.
“Right, Gaby, there are lots of things ”we cannot explain”. Isn’t that what uncertainty is all about, as Judith Curry has pointed out to you?”
It’s saying there is no natural explanation for the recent warming, which is true. No-one has a natural explanation. The only explanation that currently exists involves greenhouse gases.
So the blurb is correct on both points.
lolwot
Try using a bit of common sense.
AGW comes principally from human CO2 emissions.
These come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels.
(The fossil fuels came from old plant life, which came from ancient atmospheric CO2.)
Based on rather optimistic estimates of remaining fossil fuel reserves by WEC, we have used up around 15% of the total fossil fuels to date, leaving around 85% still in place . (Other estimates are much lower.)
These remaining fossil fuel resources would generate enough CO2 to increase atmospheric CO2 levels from today’s 390 ppmv to around 1030 ppmv, when they are completely exhausted.
It is highly unlikely that this will ever occur. As fossil fuels become increasingly difficult and costly to extract, they will be replaced with something else for low added-value use, such as electrical power generation, and used only for higher added-value end uses, such as petrochemicals.
So we can conclude that 1000 ppmv is very likely to be the upper limit of atmospheric CO2 level based on human emissions from fossil fuels.
Anyone who makes silly projections based on 2000 ppmv is simply trying to frighten people without even checking if these are plausible.
Max
Again Manacker you are assuming the sink continues to keep pace with the emissions. You haven’t addressed that.
Underlying your argument that burning all the fossil fuels can only raise CO2 to 1030ppm is an assumption that half the CO2 emitted by man will be absorbed by Nature. That’s not necessarily going to hold, if as I pointed out, the natural sinks start having problems keeping up. That includes the prospect of catastrophic events like the methane bomb and amazon rainforest dieback occurring.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t appeal to the climate system being complicated and uncertain and then state that you are certain that 2000ppm cannot happen.
“These remaining fossil fuel resources would generate enough CO2 to increase atmospheric CO2 levels from today’s 390 ppmv to around 1030 ppmv, when they are completely exhausted.”
Per the same amount energy natural gas makes 1/2 CO2 emission.
“EIA estimates that there are 2,214 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas that is technically recoverable in the United States.1 Of the total, an estimated 273 Tcf are proved reserves, which includes 60 Tcf of shale gas.
At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2010 of about 24 Tcf per year, 2,214 Tcf of natural gas is enough to last about 92 years.”
http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=58&t=8
The burning of coal makes half of the World’s CO2 emission, therefore if you replaced coal with natural gas, there would reduction of 25% of global CO2 emission.
China is produces more CO2 than any other country and consumes about 4 times more coal then next highest consumer of coal [the US].
China’s yearly increase in coal consumption is limited.
“China will work to control coal consumption this year in the face of strained coal supplies, the country’s energy chief said Saturday.
…
China aims to cap its total energy consumption at 4 billion metric tonnes of coal equivalent by 2015, an annual increase of 4.24 percent.”
And:
“The country’s coal output rose 8.7 percent year-on-year to reach 3.52 billion metric tonnes in 2011, according to data from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.”
http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-02/25/content_24729089.htm
[US is about 1 billion tonnes]
So we don’t need rely China keeping it’s goal of 4 billion tonnes, it will run out coal in about 3 decades. And China will need to use natural gas or nuclear power. Of course nuclear power has zero emissions.
My point is not all fossil fuels are the same, and coal being mostly carbon, produces most carbon per energy received [other than burning wood]. Though wood is globally available, coal isn’t globally available.
Though one’s number of 1030 ppm as upper limit may or may have be accurate, it would require somewhere around century or more to get to such a level.
Let’s look at less time into the future. We currently increasing global CO2 at rate of 2 ppm. It seems likely that for next couple decade, we will continue at this level. So 20 years add 40 ppm. And say outer limit of 450 ppm by year 2032.
Say I am wrong. Say next year it climbs steeply so that in next 10 years
it’s increasing at average of 3 ppm per year. Now it’s 396 ppm add 30
giving 426 ppm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
A 50% increase would grab a lot attention- it’s completely unexpected
makes a strong case for CAGW crazies. And possible that people would regard this as serious issue. And as result, consider it important to increase nuclear power generation in US. Perhaps a political will campaign on doubling the energy production of nuclear power within a decade. So if we get 426 ppm in a decade the crazies get big boost, and it’s not the end of the world.
Of course same thing happen if more than 3 ppm per year increase,
say 4 ppm. With increase to 4 ppm, Al Gore could be elected President [as new messiah].
That isn’t going to happen. But let look at the fantasy, a little bit more rationally then “everyone will have live in the Antarctic, to somehow survive. ”
So the fanasty is within a decade it’s adding 3 ppm, and within next decade it would be 4, and next decade it’s 5, then jumps to 6 ppm added in decade after. So 30+40+50+60 ppm. Or by 2052 it’s around 580 ppm. We double the “pre-industrial” level of 290 ppm.
Or we will have increase current levels by about 45%, and since are wild and crazy let say global temperature have increased by 1 C.
Let’s make some assumptions. The greens are now the dominate political party in most countries. We aren’t cannibals.We can’t get significant fraction of energy from solar panels and wind mills. And for some reason the singularity has been delayed another 50 years or so.
China is now without any coal in it’s country, but is still importing massive quanities from other nations- say mostly Russia. The Chinese are weary all the rail traffic and the money being sent to Russia. The older coal plants are all scrapped, but there still few built in the later part of the first couple decades of 21st century, the coal use is 1/2 of what what being used in 2012. Since the Greens swept into office, US coal policy has been moderate, no new coal plants which are not zero CO2 emission, and high taxes on existing coal powerplants emitting CO2. Which means there is very few or no existing coal powerplants which not zero emission and have lasted as long as 2050.
US still has plenty of coal in the ground, and still has enough natural gas, but there worries it will run out. Perhaps there is a lot more interest in methane hydrates in the ocean by the year 2050:
“Recent mapping conducted by the USGS off North Carolina and South Carolina shows large accumulations of methane hydrates.
A pair of relatively small areas, each about the size of the State of Rhode Island, shows intense concentrations of gas hydrates. USGS scientists estimate that these areas contain more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of methane gas”
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
Recall that 2,214 Tcf was 92 year US supply, and so 1300 trillion would be around 50 year supply. and that is only couple deposit examined.
“Among the questions the DOE program will address are these: How much natural gas actually is present in the world’s methane hydrates? (Estimates range as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet”
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/methane.htm
So it’s huge potential amount energy if it could be mined.
But my point by 2050 the world consumption of coal in it’s emission that is allowed into atmosphere is at best 1/2 of current.
And other sources of CO2 may have increased, but halving of Coal
should roughly balance out this additional increase. And not looking huge increase in nuclear power use [could reduce it further]. A huge increase in nuclear power would be something similar to what India is currently doing, but worldwide. So something say a 1/10th of what India is doing.
So there still a lot coal being used because assuming china has only halved their use. So if methane hydrates have been started to be mined by the year 2050, and china replaces it’s coal use with natural gas- there is lot energy supply and it further lowers global CO2 emission.
Though possible in the time period to instead have all electrical production be from nuclear energy we could significant reduction in global CO2 emission. And fossil fuel used only in transportation.
lolwot
The “sink” will do exactly what the “sink” wants to do.
You have no notion what that will be – nor do I.
(Nor does Chris Jones.)
Max
lolwot
On your second point, you are again following an illogical path.
“We can only explain it if we assume that…” is an argument from ignorance.
It assumes that there is no uncertainty, i.e. we know everything there is to know about all natural causes of changes to our climate.
We do not.
To assume we do is not only ignorant, it is arrogant (see Einstein as well as Curry).
Max
“It assumes that there is no uncertainty, i.e. we know everything there is to know about all natural causes of changes to our climate.”
We’ve scratched off all the obvious natural causes. TSI, volcanoes, internal variation, orbital effects. All the big obvious stuff can’t explain the warming. All that is left are Rube Goldberg machines, which wikipedia describes as:
“A Rube Goldberg machine, contraption, invention, device, or apparatus is a deliberately over-engineered or overdone machine that performs a very simple task in a very complex fashion”
We could go down that route indefinitely. We could always imagine some bizarre chain of natural events could explain the warming.
But at some point you have to stop. We’ve had ages and no alternatives have passed, therefore until that does happen we are going with the explanation.
Just as we can only explain the diversity of life on Earth as due to evolution. Sure it may turn out that some alternative theory exists and is found in the future. But the state today is that it’s evolution.
lolwot
You have skirted around my point that WE DO NOT KNOW all the natural factors that impact our climate and how it responds to these.
So the argument as started by Hegerl is an “argument from ignorance”, rather than an “argument from evidence”.
Judith Curry has pointed this out to her in other words, citing the “uncertainty monster”.
Until you can address this point, you are just blowing hot air.
Max
…. we will be forced to adopt the same risk mitigation strategies, that is transition to a more sustainable energy source.
(finishing up the paragraph properly)
WHT
This is rarely the case, but I agree with your addition to my statement.
To summarize:
– We have used up 15% of the world’s total fossil fuels today.
– At the current rate of usage, we will use up the remaining 85% in around 300 years.
– If our rate of consumption continues to grow at roughly twice the expected rate of population growth, they will all be gone in 150 years or so
– However, It is highly unlikely that this will occur. As fossil fuels become increasingly difficult and costly to extract, they will be replaced with something else for low added-value use, such as electrical power generation, and used only for higher added-value end uses, such as petrochemicals.
– (add your paragraph)
Max
My added paragraph is that I hope something positive occurs to get us out of the conundrum.
‘We don’t need no thought control,
duh d’ duh duh, duh d’ duh duh
Hey, teacher! Leave them kids alone!’
Resources in Climate Change Education for Australian Schools:
K-12:Video, Professor Flannery, ‘We are the Weather Makers.’…
Tim Flannery is the poster child of the ABC CAGW movement.
‘Campus Green Game.’ Interactive, experiiential simulation for 20-150 players. Become responsible for your schools energy now before climate changes…
Bet they don’t raise renewable energy problems of intermittancy, inefficiency and COST.
‘Questicon Teacher Climate Change Handbook.’ Hands on Activities…
Colour in red all the bad things people are doing to bring about a TIPPING – POINT – GLOBAL – WARMING – DISASTER.
WWF for Nature. ‘Dangerous Aspirations. Beyond 3 Degrees Warming in AUstralia.’…
Fergit aspirations, git back to the Golden Age, kids.
The US Govt is pouring millions into something called Climate Literacy, which is CAGW for students. Google on the term. If you do not accept CAGW you are scientifically illiterate.
I would alter this to say:
“If you do not accept AGW as likely, you’ve either not done enough reading and understanding of the research, our you’ve got huge political or ideological blinders on.”
I would alter it to say:
“If you accept AGW as likely, you’ve either not done enough reading and understanding of the research, our you’ve got huge political or ideological blinders on.”
See, it is a debate. But claiming your opponent is stupid is stupid.
Big difference between stupid and ignorant. But you’re right, ad homs are bad form.
Funny, I would describe the controversy regarding AGW as being over
1. Science being uncertain over the rate of warming might happen over what time periods as a function of human released CO2. There is great uncertainty over what impact CO2 will have and when in the actual earth system.
2. Science is also highly uncertain of the changes to conditions that will result to to various locations around the world over different time-frames in the event there is warming. There is no reliable information to describe the benefits vs. harms.
3. Because of the conditions described in points 1 & 2, as well as the worldwide economic environment, it appears to be extremely unlikely that worldwide CO2 emissions will fail to continue to rise for several decades at a minimum.
The controversy regarding AGW is far from over. Wish that were the case, but it is not. But you are partially correct anyway in all 3 points.
In point 1: There is uncertainty over what all the impacts might be, but some of them we are already seeing.
In point 2: There is uncertainty about what all of the changes will be in all parts of the world, but some changes are already being made quite clear.
In point 3: Because of the perceived high costs of de-carbonizing the global economy, and the necessity for some sacrifice to be made now based on uncertainty as to what all the future impacts of a warmer future might be, it will take incredible international effort and cooperation to curtail CO2 emissions. I agree it is unlikely to see them fall in the next decade at least. Unfortunately, it might take the worst of what some in the CAGW crowd say could happen to actually begin to happen before we’ll get significant movement. Countries that de-carbonize their economies early through a variety of technologies and energy savings will be rewarded economically, even if the worst of the climate change doomsayers predictions never come to pass.
You misread my comment a bit.
I indicated that the debate is regarding the points that were described, not that there is no longer a debate.
Point 1 is simply a debate over what rate of warming will occur and when as a result of human actions. What will temperatures being doing between 2020 and 2030 as an example? Nobody knows with a reasonable degree of accuracy do they?
Point 2 you seemed to understand, but I think you have to acknowledge that there are not really any significant harms that can be associated with human released CO2 up to this point. Those who fear CO2 have to overcome this lack of demonstrated harms when they try to build a case that the future will be terrible with more CO2.
On point 3, you understand the basics, but are mistaken on a key point when you write:
“Countries that de-carbonize their economies early through a variety of technologies and energy savings will be rewarded economically”
That idea is incorrect, and would be a flawed economic policy. Countries that de-carbonize early will in fact be likely to adopt immature technologies that are more likely to have higher costs associated with them due to technical failures and high maintenance costs. Countries that wait for 10 to 20 years after the initial implementation of new technologies will be able to evaluate what was tried by the countries that tried to de-carbonize early and then only adopt technologies that worked cost effectively.
In the real world these are real considerations.
Climate literacy from your NOAA Climate Program Office- http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/
They are taking something that is not settled science and brainwashing our children that it is settled science. That is Criminal.
Fearmongering campaigns at K-12 school level are unacceptable, no matter what “good cause” they supposedly support.
When they are based on agenda driven politics and questionable science, as is the case here, they are criminal.
Basta.
Max
As I’ve mentioned before, I have spent more than 20 years as an education volunteer, from reading tutor to ESL to Head start and for the last 16 and 7 years respectively as a science education mentor and a Junior Achievement instructor. And I am not sure that climate change is a subject for k-12.
It is hard enough to get students to understand the concept of science inquiry. Just getting them interested in science at all is a challenge. That is where the focus needs to be. Trying to push specific concepts whether it be climate change or genetic engineering or any other topic considered a political as well as science issue strikes me more as indoctrination rather than education.
FYI – unless I find a way to access Climate Etc overseas, I won’t be able to follow this (or any other) thread. Will be in Korea meeting my wife’s family for the first time. (Just wanted to note that our choices were spring and fall, as summer is hot as hell and winter will freeze the tits off a brass monkey. If extreme climate was really a huge problem, there wouldn’t be Koreans. As it is, they have persevered despite rugged terrain, fierce climate and bigger neighbors. So when the Erlichs and Hanseons of the world bemoan our impending doom, I can’t help but think they have never met a Korean.)
They’re teaching climate science to kids who think ‘math is hard?’
I assume they discuss climate science some time after they pass a thermodynamics class. Of course, they don’t really want to teach the science – they want to teach the ideology.
WHICH OF THESE IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING TODAY?
A. Sport utility vehicles;
B. Rice fields;
C. Increased solar output.
Correct answer: ALL THREE. (It isn’t warming “TODAY” – in fact, it hasn’t warmed over the past decade or even longer).
warming hasn’t stopped
Please refer us where we can see that warming has not stopped.
Certain levels of the atmosphere? Sea Surface? Top 100 ft of ocean?
Below 700m in the ocean. I am sure we would all like to see any evidence that shows warming has not stopped.
Thank You, lolwot
Darryl, see:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
And realize that what you’re seeing represents thousands of times more energy than the atmosphere could hold. AGW skeptics would like to focus on the troposphere over some carefully selected period of time, when the ocean heat content is a far better metric for changes in the non-tectonic energy system of the Earth.
Nice interactive charts. I did a quick calculation of heat uptake, and it follows this behavior:
where F(t) is the excess radiation entering the ocean in watts/m^2 and T is the duration of excess in years. So if F(t) reached 1 watt/m^2 and it took 30 years to reach that point (see the chart @ 1980), then the excess heat is 15*10^22.
All very intuitive, and something that would not be out of place in a high school science class with calculus as a prerequisite.
WHT:
Nice that you can write an Integral, but you should spend some time thinking about units of measurement. As written your formula is nonsense.
Hey buddy, units are implicit. I did all the heavy lifting for the chumps out there.
The answer is in Joules and the variable is in Watts/m^2. To be dimensionally correct the 1022 term needs to be divided by the area of the oceans to get J/m^2. As well there are components of convection and latent heat that are very important and quite difficult to quantify.
The bigger problem is that F(t) is not constant – it is chaotically variable as can be seen in the CERES data.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS.gif
Chaotic because the underying climate modes are dynamically complex and exhibit abrupt and non-linear change.
To determine warming or cooling of the coupled ocean/atmosphere system – you are better off differentiating and looking at measured trends in power flux anomalies at TOA.
d(S)/dt = Ein – Eout
Warming of the ocean occurs in one way when the atmosphere is warming. As the atmosphere hasn’t warmed recently there can be no possibility that the atmosphere is involved in warming seen in the short term ARGO record. The other modes involve changes in losses from convection and evaporation or in changes to incident SW either as TSI or albedo changes.
Chief Hydrologist said:
“Warming of the ocean occurs in one way when the atmosphere is warming.”
____
Not true at all. Net energy flows from ocean to atmosphere, except for the very top of the ocean skin layer. The net rate of outflow from ocean to atmosphere is regulated by the temperature, humidity, and winds in atmosphere but the actual heat or energy in the ocean comes primarily from SW solar. The oceans act essentially as a storage battery of buffer of stored sunlight, with the atmosphere acting as the governor that regulates the release of this stored solar energy. Heat the atmosphere up just a bit (say through increased greenhouse gases) and the rate of the energy flow from ocean to atmosphere slows down as the thermal gradient between ocean and atmosphere is less steep. Cool the atmosphere off a bit, and the gradient become more steep and more stored sunlight flows from ocean to atmosphere. This mechanism serves to somewhat smooth out the otherwise extreme swings that we can see in atmospheric temperatures given it’s very low thermal inertia.
Thus, the energy in the ocean comes mostly directly from SW sunlight, and if you want to alter the amount of energy entering the ocean you alter the amount SW hitting the ocean Solar fluctuations and volcanoes and human aerosols are three of the most typical things that can affect the amount of sunlight entering the ocean.
That’s why the integral is in there, as it integrates the power over time. Integration of power (watts=joules/sec) over time gives energy (joules.) I already accounted for the area of the ocean in the pre-factor constant.
Too bad that civs don’t understand engineering very well.
Webby – you’re off base insults are absurd. Why you would imagine that an enginnering hydrologist with an advanced degree in environmental science would know less about calculus and climate than a misguided electrical engineer I haven’t a clue.
The minor point is that the variable integrates as J/m^2 because you’re function is in W/m^2 – but then the quantum is wrong because you haven’t corrected for ocean area – out by a factor of millions of times. Weren’t you taught dimensional analysis. It helps us civs keep the units correct. I was trying very hard not to say that you blew a simple idea yet again.
The major point is that there is hard evidence that there is nowhere near a constant 1W/m^2 energy imbalance. And that this varies chaotically – in the sense that the word is used in theroetical physics. You have such a limited concept – and insist on it with such vigour. Much as a dog with a bone withouit about as much hope of entering a meaningful dialogue as the aformentioned doggie.
I will not recommend that WHT read a physics book; that is difficult. But all one could want to know about units of measurement (and more) is published in a SI-“bible”:
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
Everybody who has spent some time in the US knows that units must never, never be implicit.
Of course it is still warming today, and shall continue to do so for quite some time even if we somehow magically stopped increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we’ve still got decades of warming ahead from our current levels.
It is sad that our classrooms will increasingly become a battleground for the extreme political divisions shaping up in the United States. Our children, already falling behind the rest of the world in math and science, will be increasingly confused, bewildered, and out of touch as their minds become the front lines in what amounts to a political battle.
And for what it’s worth, other factors being equal, SUV’s, Rice fields, and increased solar output would all cause the planet to retain more net energy.
I agree it is sad, but skeptics did not create this mess. Skepticism is a reaction to the scare campaign. No scare, no skepticism.
Actually, skepticism (real skepticism) should be taught from a very early age with children. Critically thinking, questioning, challenging everything they are taught– including the programming and social standards their parents give them. I’ve taught my children to question everything. To dig deeper for the answers until they are satisfied they really understand something. Are all parents and teachers really willing to create this “question everything” environment? They ought to be if they want true open-minded, and fully skeptical kids..
R. Gates | May 13, 2012 at 1:26 am |
Oh that you were running for office. With any luck, one day your children may.
Questioning everything is impossible. Critical thinking is taught via what is called inquiry sessions, but the students are usually challenging each other, not the basic science. Even here there is a problem, namely that it takes a lot longer to learn a given amount of basic science via inquiry. Thus the more inquiry they do the less they learn, so there is a trade off between inquiry and literacy, and the students are tested for literacy.
You also have the problem that 80% of the kids will never fully understand any complex issue.
David,
I don’t think questioning everything is impossible– in fact I know it is not. As my children are exactly this way because that’s the way I’ve raised them. They are extremely independent thinkers and skeptical (to the point of sometimes being obnoxious about it.) But I think it takes courage on the part of both parent and teachers, as you have to open your kids up to questioning some of the very assumptions and values you might hold dear
If you want you kids to be real thinkers with open and independent minds you have to open everything up and put it on the table for them to pick apart and search for truth. You can’t tell them to question one thing but not another, or otherwise put anything off limits. I’m not certain a lot parents are really willing to raise kids this way. They want them to be skeptical about some things but others things are simply to be accepted without question. IMO, this makes for very unbalanced “myopic” kids and eventually unbalanced and “myopic” adults in the long run.
Generally speaking there is no such thing as fully understanding a complex issue, because they have a tree structure, with potentially unending levels of detail. See my textbook:
http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
We strive to understand well enough, not fully. It is a case what Herb Simon called “satisficing.” As for your 80%, I doubt you have data to back this up.
Rice field!? You mean land use may have some impact?? :)
Absolutely, In fact, land use changes by humans were probably the very beginning of an identifiable Anthropocene period. Dinosaurs had their flatulence to alter the climate and humans had agriculture and then the fossil fuel powered industrial revolution.
Yes.
In fact you can use metadata to see how few stations are actually placed by rice fields. not many.
You can remove them from the pool of stations. Answer? no difference.
It’ still warming and will be for years to come.
As the atmosphere did not warm in recent times this cannot result in changes in net IR up – so the ocean temperature increase in the limited ARGO record did not arise from anything happening in the atmosphere as the atmospheric temperature didn’t exhibit much of a trend at all.
The change in ocean heat content since ARGO commenced in 2003 – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif
And the CERES record since 2001 are entirely consistent.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif
There are changes in cloud cover that are largely the result of Pacifc Ocean varibility – especially ENSO and the PDO – and these are non-stationary. There is no simple oscillation but parts of a single phenomenon and variable at many scales.
‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ Verdon and Franks 2006
This is baby physics but needs to be combined with a sophisticated understanding of natural variability in climate.
Chief,
You say the “atmosphere did not warm up in recent times”, yet 2011 was the warmest La Nina year on record. Before you stop to ask why this matters, remember that La Nina years are typically years in which ocean heat content increases. Thus, if 2011 was the warmest La Nina year (year of net ocean heat content increasing), it means it should be a record year for ocean heat content. And guess what, the latest ocean heat content data (Jan-March 2012) down to 2000 meters shows that is exactly the case. We had a record warm La Nina year and now we have the highest heat content on instrument record for any 3 month period down to 2000 meters. The Earth’s energy system is at instrument record levels. Warming continues for the Earth’s system. Oceans give energy to the atmosphere. Expect the next El Nino year to see record high tropospheric temperatures as some of that record high ocean heat is released back to the atmosphere.
You have a problem – or perhaps it is me. There is always a disjunct between what I say and what you report me as saying. I wonder why?
Here is the tropospheric temp. anomaly. – http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2012.png – It seems evident that temperatures are pretty much the same today as 2003.
Here is the ARGO ocean heat to 2000m with error bands. – http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html
Although von Schuckmann et al 2009 present it better. – [IMG]http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/vonSchuckmann-OHC.gif[/IMG]
The point remains that a non warming atmosphere cannot cause ocean warming. It is a matter of simple radiative physics. So we look for other explanations of ocean warming – it comes in the form of SW variablity at TOA.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS.gif
We have what is a small change in cloud causing an appreciable. Because the energy is cumulative – it is a running total when you add energy in and losses – it integrates all previous conditions.
The relation between ENSO and ocean temperature is complex. There must be some heat transfer bwetween the ocean and atmosphere but is minor. The big change is from ENSO cloud feedback. Something that is fairly obvious to anyone. So the current La Nina must result in cooler oceans. As La Nina intensify in the current cool Pacific decadal mode it will lead to more cloud and cooler oceans.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=ENSODSR.gif
You need a little bit more than ocean temp. and a narrative to understand what is likely to happen to climate.
Chief said:
“So the current La Nina must result in cooler oceans.”
_______
Did I quote you correct? I think I did because it is a direct cut and paste.
You are mistaken Chief. La Ninas are general times when ocean heat increases, and sometimes in dramatic fashion. The link in your last past shows ocean heat content to only 700m. At the 2000m mark, we’ve had the greatest 3 month ocean heat content on instrument record.
Over the past 40 years, ocean heat content has consistently risen in dramatic fashion. You would suppose that we’ve somehow had some huge jump in SW radiation striking the ocean, either through a more active sun or less clouds? The data would not support your contention. But what we have had is consistently rising atmospheric temperatures and downwelling LW to the ocean skin layer. The oceans are not warming because more heat is entering from SW or LW, but because less heat is leaving because of altered thermal gradients.
I am sure I linked to the NODC site – but simply switched the error bounds on. It is the same one you linked to – simply proceed in an orderly fashion to the next graph.
Please if you are going to arm wave about dramatic increases in ocean temperature in La Nina – we will need something a little better than a narrative.
I am not really sure just how good earlier data is – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/
But here is something from Wong et al 2006
It uses ERBS and sea levels from Willis. Yes it does seem to indicate a pretty big jump in shortwave and cooling in the IR. Note the 1998/2000 transition.
TAKMENG WONG, BRUCE A. WIELICKI, AND ROBERT B. LEE II (2006) ‘Reexamination of the Observed Decadal Variability of the Earth Radiation Budget Using Altitude-Corrected ERBE/ERBS Nonscanner WFOV Data’
Have fun, make mistakes, get messy.
A Government Radio-offshoot “…asked teachers and educators around the country to tell us how they teach climate change and climate science in their classrooms. It’s not always easy. Some have been met with challenges from parents, students and fellow colleagues.”
Each science teacher should be happy to address challenges: how else does one learn? Indeed, if the instructor has ears to hear, learning might occur on both sides of the desk. However, we could be happy with memorization and recitation.
The education system fails in general to teach children how to discriminate between normative and objective information. The current state of climate science has way too many subjective elements for the information of our children and they generally cannot assess whether they are being taught pulp fiction.
It seems to me that whatever the specifics we might teach about climate science in our neighborhood schools, it is important for the instruction to have a really good attention gainer.
In that regard, many, many of our students today will have had recent experience with loss of their home, their parents’ livelihood, their family’s life-savings, their parents’ dream of a comfortable retirement, and their own hopes for rewarding work with a reasonable compensation (naturally, this student profile does not apply to classrooms catering to the privileged, protected children of the hive-masters of various stripes and their tenured, sell-out academic tools).
And most of these same kids will also have had powerful, searing experiences of a once happy home ripped apart by daily stresses and worries over unemployment and money issues. And some will have even lived through the “challenging” transition that comes when unemployment benefits and savings run out and their family, once proud, prosperous and productive, is forced into a hand-to-mouth dependence on public assistance.
Now, teachers of climate science can tap into the above “reality” of their students’ lives by instructing the kids how it was that a coterie of smarty-pants financial modelers, in cahoots with some slicko money-bags/power-and-control types worked the sub-prime scam–a part of the lesson-plan devoted to how the “failure” of the whiz-kids’ financial models and how misplaced faith in those models devastated the students’ childhood years. All that, after the big-boys working the rip-off took their winnings off the table, of course, and got away with it, of course.
Interested pedagogues can Google: “sub-prime computer models” and find abundant material for the climate science attention grabber, I recommend. Though, I favor, as a starting point, an article by Warren Buffet (Google: “New York Times In Letter Warren Buffet Concedes a Tough Year”), in which this “money” quote appears: “Too often Americans have been enamored of a nerdy-sounding priesthood, using esoteric terms…Beware of geeks bearing formulas”
I’m sure it is obvious to the reader, by now, that with the above introduction, students will relate intensely with and be very attentive to the climate science instruction that follows. Namely, instruction as to how climate science’s CAGW hustle mixes phoney-baloney models and scare-mongering to enrich and further empower make-a-buck/make-a-gulag big-shots and their toady, ivory-tower enablers while destroying through job-killing carbon regulation and deliberately engineered carbon price increases the few financial props that might remain to the kids and their desperate, destitute families.
But, like I said, the above attention gainer must be employed selectively since it won’t work in those rare schools serving the entitled offspring of the “doing-great!”, eco-hypocrite carbon-hoggies that feed at the CAGW trough.
mike | May 12, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
We could call the course of studies “Civics and Paranoid Conspiracy Theory, Grade One”.
C’mon Bart. Rhetorical spike-strips, like “Conspiracy Theory”, are for the likes of Michael and company. Not what I would have expected from you.
But then, I must have struck a nerve, Bart. Struck a nerve and left you flailing for a response–hence your unwonted, though no less doofus, for all that, “Conspriacy Theory” booger-flick cum leg-hump.
While a bit over the top, Bart, I hope my prior comment made the point to you that the greenshirt hustle has some real-life consequences, just like all the recent financial scams. I mean, if you even care about those outside your protected, well-connected, privileged little world.
And, oh by the way, Bart, have you ever been in a family that has had its warmth and happiness torn apart by prolonged unemployment? I’d be surprised if you had. And I say that, because you have that cocksure, breezy attitude of someone who’s had one good-deal after another handed to him all his life. You know, like a cozy existence rather removed from the travails of the tacky hoi-polloi.
Though, in all fairness, it does appear, Bart, you’ve taken advantage of your good deals and you’re otherwise a nice enough guy. And your comments are generally worth a read, as well–though not your last to me.
Its amusing how so many conspiracy theorists absolutely hate being labeled conspiracy theorists.
If you really think there is a conspiracy for funding, then suck it up – you are a conspiracy theorist. Either love that or stop being one.
lolwot,
I think mike’s point was fair and well written. We should encourage commentors’ best efforts, and mike has done much worse, Bart R was lazy and deserves it.
A political movement and a conspiracy are two different things, but they tend to merge when the movement gains power. Was the founlding of the USSR a conspiracy? How about America? The founding fathers certainly worked closely together. Or does a conspiracy require evil intent? Or is it a conspiracy only if you do not believe in the cause, hence subjective? It is your word lolwot, so what say yee?
The folks who control climate research funding in the US devoutly believe in CAGW, and they work closely together. It is called the USGCRP. Is this a conspiracy, or just a movement?
Well, what would you propose the course be called?
And as for lazy.. I’m quite confounded. On the one hand, I’m criticized for too many, and overlong posts with too many big words; on the other, I’m lazy. What gives?
I’m not saying mike’s riposte wasn’t visciously hilarious, in its self-pityingly off-target way; just that I didn’t deem his original worth more effort.
My answer? mike’s assertion of negative consequences is baseless, unsubstantiated, and hackneyed. It’s been around since Spencer tacked the economic red herring onto the hind end of his attack on Kyoto, and it’s just not worth even answering any more.
Put some real analysis behind the claim, or withdraw it. It doesn’t withstand scrutiny so far.
Bart R,
The sesquipedalian [1] in me prefers your tirades to your name calling.
Don’t take it wrong. I admire your style. If we ever play street hockey, you’re my right winger of the shut-down line.
Keep these long words comin’,
w
[1] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/21716125559
Bart and lolwot,
Let me say right up front, Bart and lolwot, those “tits” you two lewd dudes offered up in response, directly or indirectly, to my previous “tats” were a creep-out, pornographic horror story.
So Bart, you’ve huffed and you’ve puffed and the best you’ve got is “mike’s assertion of negative consequences is baseless, unsubstantiated, and hackneyed”. And this thundering denunciation of yours is directed at what? Well, at my notion that sharp increases to carbon prices, engineered by you Luddite-lefties, and your complementary, burdensome carbon regulations, selectively enforced on behalf of your green-washed, crony-capitalist and hive-master betters, have an adverse impact on the economy, to include employment.
You know, Bart, I can’t think of anything that better demonstrates the disconnect between clueless eco-flakes like you and humanity than your last comment. You see, Bart, in addition to well-developed B. S. detectors, us real-live human beings have a coup de l’loeil that guides us in our daily affairs. And those are the tools of survival in the real world, Bart. The real world, Bart, that you’ve obviously been sheltered from your whole pampered, spoiled-brat, over-protected life. The real world where praise is earned, advancement is achieved through merit and not mommy and daddy’s connections, and where the price one pays for being a zits-for-brains booger-eater is failure. And it was through our B. S. detectors and coup de l’oeil that us real-live human beings figured out centuries ago that tabacco was bad for one’s health and, more recently, that the whole CAGW business was all hype and a make-a-buck/make-a-gulag, job-killing scam.
And in the real world, Bart, everyone knows that increased carbon prices and regulations have adverse consequences on the economy, including employment. Only a wannabe philosopher-king with a dork’s sense of entitlement and a narcissistic self-regard and a momma’s boy smart-mouth could think otherwise. In other words, Bart–the words of Warren Buffet to be exact–“Beware of geeks bearing formulas.”
As for you, lolwot, your invertebrate biology defies human understanding. So I was forced to devise a computer model of your hive-mind that produced a settled-science profile of your thinking (and NO! you can’t see my computer model’s code, data, or any of my e-mails relating to it) as a foundation for my response to you.
Sadly, my computer model described your mono-maniac, parasite mental-reflexes in such noogie-magnet terms that I cannot share its results with you. I mean, like, to do so, lolwot, would just send you scuttling back to the hive with tears streaming from your eye-stalks and with a desperate need for the comforting embrace of your hive-mates’ chitinous body-parts.
And I can’t do that to you, lolwot. ‘Cuz then we’d all miss that nerd-ball, goober-abuser freak-show of yours that you regularly treat us to here at “Climate etc” You know, lolwot, like that clownish spectacle you made of yourself in your last comment when you tried, in that whiny, silly-snot, doofus way of yours, to talk all tough–you know, shooting off your mouth with that macho-hombre “suck it up” crack. I mean, lolwot, like, you there pretending you’re some sort of regular-guy, hard-ass or something (I can just see you practicing that line in the mirror). True amusement, lolwot. Don’t change a thing, guy.
mike | May 13, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
Aw, shucks. It sounds like I’m warming on you there, you relentless flatterer.
So, you understand the assertion of yours we’re talking about is “an adverse impact on the economy, to include employment.”
Prove it. Don’t froth it. Don’t drool it. Prove it.
Dr. Ross McKitrick obtained his PhD on a paper that exactly contradicts your claim. Increasing carbon prices — in his case through carbon taxes directed to the coffers of the state — were, McKitrick demonstrated, less distortionate than other forms of taxation, and would naturally be better for the economy.
Do you have a peer-reviewed paper that has since discredited McKitrick on this subject?
Though I think it unkind to call Dr. McKitrick and his thesis advisers, “Luddite-lefties, .. green-washed, crony-capitalist and hive-master betters.. clueless eco-flakes.. pampered, spoiled-brat, over-protected.. mommy and daddy’s connections, and where the price one pays for being a zits-for-brains booger-eater is failure.. a make-a-buck/make-a-gulag, job-killing.. wannabe philosopher-king with a dork’s sense of entitlement and a narcissistic self-regard and a momma’s boy smart-mouth.. geeks bearing formulas.. invertebrate biology.. mono-maniac, parasite mental-reflexes in such noogie-magnet terms.. scuttling back to the hive with tears streaming from your eye-stalks and with a desperate need for the comforting embrace of your hive-mates’ chitinous body-parts.. nerd-ball, goober-abuser freak-show.. clownish spectacle.. whiny, silly-snot, doofus.. talk all tough–you know, shooting off your mouth with that macho-hombre “suck it up” crack. I mean, lolwot, like, you there pretending you’re some sort of regular-guy, hard-ass or something (I can just see you practicing that line in the mirror).” However, if you can pull a repudiation of his thesis out of your ample back pocket, he may deign to come to the defense of his own ideas which you so disparage.
Not that I’m implying that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and couldn’t back up a word of your really long obsolete and kinda lame rant if you had three dozen technicians from a cloud services company helping you.
Bart,
Beware of geeks with formulas and beware of geeks peddling self-evident, peer-reviewed, poppycock B. S.
And if you don’t like that response, Bart, “Suck it Up!!” (I kinda ripped that last zinger off lolwot–hope he doesn’t mind).
mike
Tch. A zinger kinda depends on the skill of the shooter.
It was barely a zinger when lolwot used it. From you.. not so much. And I see we’re courting moderation by spiraling down into personalities again.
Defend your claim against McKitrick’s work, or we know you can’t, because your claim simply got nothing.
Bart,
Let me begin with an apology. My last comment was, in part, inappropriate. I regret the comment and extend to you my apology. Thank you for calling me on it, Bart.
Normally, I offer an apology as a stand-alone comment, Bart. But given the length of this sub-thread, please forgive my discourtesy in launching directly into a further discussion.
Bart, let me address McKitrick’s paper as your represented it in relation to my views. Not saying you’ve accurately represented it.
Here’s my stated position: “In the real world, everyone knows increased carbon prices and regulations have an adverse impact on the economy, including employment.”
Then there’s your reponse to me: “Dr. Ross McKitrick obtained a Phd on a paper that exactly contradicts your claims.”
So, to put the matter in a testable form, Bart, you maintain that Dr. Ross McKitrick “exactly contradicts” my claims. Which means, in turn, that Dr. Mckitrick maintains that increases in carbon prices and carbon regulations do NOT adversely affect the economy, to include employment.” With me, Bart?
And here’s the specifics of Dr. McKitrick’s position that you attribute to him:
“Increasing carbon prices…through carbon taxes paid to the coffers of the state…were less distortionate than other forms of taxation, and would naturally be better for the economy.”
So, Bart, help me out. Where in the above description of Dr. McKitrick’s views can you find any claim that increasing carbon prices does NOT adversely affect the economy, including employment?
When, Dr. Mckitrick supposedly says “Increasing carbon prices through taxation…” does that phrase equate, in your mind Bart to an “exact contradition” of my claims, that is, to the equivalent of the statement “Increasing carbon prices does not have adverse consequences on the economy, to include employment”? I don’t think so. Do you, Bart?
But let’s press on. Consider this more expanded form of Dr. McKitrick’s claim: “Increasing carbon prices through carbon taxes paid to the coffers of the state…” Are we there now? Have I quoted enough of Dr. McKitrick’s purported claims that we can now say he has contradicted my claims. Again, I think not, Bart.
But, again, let’s persevere. When Dr. McKitrick purportedly claims that, “Increasing carbon prices through taxes paid to the coffers of the state were less distortionate than other forms of taxation…” does that equate, in your mind, Bart, to the proposition, that “exactly contradicts” my own, in the form “increasing carbon prices does NOT have adverse consequences on the economy, to include employment”. Not to me.
O. K., Bart, I’m a little tired of playing “cute” with you. The last part of your characterization of Dr. McKitrick’s point of view, “…and naturally would be better for the economy” makes sense, if it makes any sense at all, that carbon taxes paid directly to the coffers of the state (so who else’s coffers would you be paying taxes to, anyway, Bart) are better for the economy that taxes not paid to the coffers of the state.
Somehow, I think, Bart, me boy, Dr. McKitrick’s views are really as boogered up as you’ve represented, and they most certainly don’t contradict my claim that “Increasing carbon prices has an adverse affect on the economy, to include employment”–at least in your representation of them.
Jeez, what a waste of my time, Bart. You know, Bart, you missed the whole point of my prior comment. You challenged to me to produce a peer-reviewed refutation of Dr. McKitrick or “we know you can’t”. Now in the ivory-tower, hive-heaven world you inhabit, Bart, that’s, no doubt, a supremo-put-down, showed-him!, points-on-the-board slam-dunk response. But you’re working your little CAGW scam in the real world of public opinion–my world, Bart, and, I boldly declare, your little “peer reviewed literature” sub-hustle no longer works it agit-prop magic.
Again, the CAGW hustle is being decided by the lay citizenry, like me, using the same sort of coup de l’loeil evaluation we apply to flim-flam representations of used-car-salesmen, too-good-to-be-true investment proposals, and Florida real-estate deals. And you guys and your CAGW scam have been found wanting–and not just by me. In case you haven’t noticed, you guys are currently losing your greenshirts and your little gravy-train is soon to follow.
Neither I nor very many of my fellow citizens are going to read every bit of the climate science peer-reviewed literature, judiciously and knowledgeably weigh it, and based, then on an encyclopedic command of the subject and with perfect analytical acumen arrive at conclusions.
Rather, conclusions about CAGW are formed by the likes of me much as a jury forms its conclusions about “expert testimony” in technical matters beyond the personal competence of the jury members. That is, we watch carefully the back-and-forth of the courtroom dialectic with our B. S. detectors and coup de l’oeil pegged. And when we catch some “expert” pulling a stunt, Bart, like your Dr. Mckitrick, slicko trick, then we can instantly spot the weasley little game that’s being played.
So Bart, in reading Dr. McKitrick’s paper, how many other papers did you seek out that sought to refute it? And which papers were those and what were their defects that caused you to prefer McKitrick’s views to all other competing views? Or did you just latch on to a paper that seemed to favorable to the CAGW scam and salted it away with the expectation you could some day used it to score a debating-point or two?
One more thing, Bart, I don’t believe that you’ve properly characterized Dr. McKitrick’s views. But you’ve read the paper, you know what it says, why don’t just quote that portion of the Dr.’s paper–exact, verbatim quote”–where he says “increasing carbon prices and carbon regulations do NOT adversely affect the economy, to include employment. Produce the quote, Bart, or “we know you can’t.”
The screw-ups continue, In a badly misplaced May 14, 2:59 am comment, below, I apologized to the reader for the many grammatical lapses in my prior comment, with corrections noted as follows:
para 14: should read “…Dr. McKitricks views are really not [emphasize “not”] as boogered up as you’ve represented them…”
last para, next to last line: add to the end of that line “…, or words to that effect.”
Again, my apologies to the reader
I’ll go you one better:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/4896.html
One of the papers Dr. McKitrick surveyed in forming his own paper; in the citations sections you’ll find a link to McKitrick’s work.
You can find the passages that are pertinent for yourself, I’m sure. They’re short works.
Bart,
No Bart, don’t “go me one better”–thank you very much. And don’t slip-and-slide like you usually do. And, please, do show some intellectual integrity.
You said that Dr. McKitrick published a paper that “exactly contradicted” my claim that “…in the real world, Bart, everyone knows carbon price and regulation increases adversely affect the economy, including employment.”
So Bart, provide the exact quote from Dr. McKitrick’s paper that “exactly contradicts” my claim. In other words, quote the words Dr. McKitrick uses to claim–or so you say–that increases to carbon prices and regulations do not adversely affect the economy, to include employment. I mean, Bart, we’re dealing with a supposed “exact contradiction”, so it shouldn’t be hard to come up with the relevant quote. Right, Bart ol’ boy?
Remember, Bart, it’s you and your hive-mates who are singing the “CAGW blues” and entreating the rest of us join you in your sad song. So produce the requested quote, Bart, or we “know you can’t.”
And just to let you know, Bart, I’m on to you and I’m going to keep chasing you around on this issue until you either prove me wrong with the appropriate quote or you turn tail and run. Of course, there’s always the option of making a manly admission you screwed up and that Dr. McKitrick did not “exactly contradict” my claims in his Phd paper–but that’s not the style of you weasley greenshirts, as I first learned in my dealings with Joshua. Truly disappointing in Joshua’s case–but a not-unexpected confirmation of my suspicions, I think I’ll find, in yours.
Finally, Bart, where’s the list of the other papers you consulted that took exception with Dr. McKitrick’s Phd paper and your analysis of them and the basis upon which you rejected their claims in favor of those of Dr. McKitrick? Remember, Bart, you’re the smarty-pants know-it-all. You provide all the value added. So strut your stuff, guy. Lots of people watching, you know.
mike | May 14, 2012 at 3:51 am |
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
You’ve got a link to the link. Find it yourself. It’ll do you good to work for something for a change, instead of demanding it be handed to you as is your apparent habit.
Bart,
You really are shameless.
Either provide the quote that demonstrates Dr. McKitrick’s alleged “exact contradiction” of my claim that carbon price and regulation increases adversely affect the economy, to include unemployment or admit you can’t. You made a bold claim, Bart. Back it up with an exact quote.
You are truly making a fool of yourself, you know, Bart. It’s so easy to graciously admit when one is wrong. Indeed, when a man does so, it is a gentlemanly sign of integrity as it is a gentlewomanly sign of integrity in a woman. But when one fails to fess up to his screw-ups that marks the “denier” as a slippery weasel of questionable character–again, you know that, Bart, right? And it also marks him as a B. S. artist and a barf-bag creep-out, good for a laugh or two and as noogie-bait, but not much else.
Quote, please, Bart.
Dear mike,
Your comment at 11:43 could very well be a record, even by the Denizens team standards (?).
(Go team!)
Many paragraphs. Many, many, words. Many, many, many names. I felt there were more personal insults than there were words. While reading, I kept wondering if your inspiration (?) to slime could ever dry out. But then I recalled that slime was never dry.
The only sentence that did contain something else than an insult was this one, I believe:
> And in the real world, Bart, everyone knows that increased carbon prices and regulations have adverse consequences on the economy, including employment.
Not that the sentence is void of insult, of course.
I’m not sure what “adverse consequences” means, in that sentence.
Sounds like you’re understatement (?) to me.
The many, many, many insults attest of something that some might consider quite alarming (?).
Not that they’re alarmists or anything.
For we know who the alarmists are, don’t we, mike?
So, to make sure I understand that claim, could you explain what “adverse consequences” mean?
As it is, OPEC economists might take objection to this claim.
Willard,
You’ve provided a valuable comment and I treasure your every word and I have and will continue to study and profit from your many excellent observations and points.
And, oh by the way, since you seem to be, in some fashion, the honcho of this blog’s troll-team (out of curiosity did Bart ring you up to tell you I was picking on him?) could you goose Bart a little and get him to provide the quote I requested or admit he’s wrong.
I mean, if Bart can produce that quote that proves Dr. McKitrick’s “exact contradiction” of my claim, then think of the thrill that would provide lolwot and Michael, among others, to see me un-horsed. And I would then be obligated to manfully acknowledge that Bart was right and I was wrong–before all the world. Doesn’t get any better than that, does it, willard. So work on Bart, will yah?
You know, willard, I hate to say it, but there’s something of a uninspired, going-through-the-motions quality to your troll-team’s performance on this blog–you know, dogged, pestiferous annoyance; bold claims followed by evasions and link-booger run-arounds; and rhetorical spike-strip put-downs. Pretty thing gruel for those with the knowledge to command our very climate and conjure up globe-spanning green, sustainable economies. Fire those lads up, Willard. They can and should be doing better.
And, also, give your guys a break, Willard. I mean, like, you can’t expect the duty-troll to provide a response to every comment on every thread and expect a consistent quality to his/her work. Right? So make their assignment a minimum of say six good-quality troll comments per shift. And then adjust from there as warranted.
And thank you, thank you, thank you, willard for putting the kibosh on those smiley-face emoticon monstrosities. I mean, like, when all those grinning discs were showing up on this blog at the cyclic rate a short while ago, I felt like I had morphed into Charlie Brown, I was saying “Good Grief!” so often.
But, willard, if you can get to Bart, and convince him to provide the quote I requested, I’ll knock off the non-stop comments and the taunts I’ve directed at Bart in my desperate effort to shake from him the famous “exactly contradictory” quote, that Bart knows all about. And, no, willard, I’m not going to let Bart, pull his favorite trick, and lead me on a merry chase through link-land. Again, please pass that on to Bart for me, willard.
Got my coffee, but am about to hit the rack–hope you’re enjoying yours, willard.
Dear mike,
It would be a pity for you to chase links instead of researching for inspiring abuses. So I just did this quick fact checking for you, while sipping my coffee. In just five steps, I:
1. opened a search engine.
2. typed “McKitrick carbon tax”.
3. clicked on the first PDF in the list and read it in diagonal.
4. am reporting back to you.
5. am just kidding – there is no fifth step.
Here is the PDF:
http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/Dec97/Mckitrick.pdf
In that article, you can clearly see a theorical argument whereby:
1. carbon is more expensive.
2. there are more regulations.
3. the consequences are not adverse.
I believe this could contradict your claim I quoted above.
I say “could”, because I have no idea what you mean by “adverse consequences”, which sounds like an understatement to hide your alarmism (?) to me.
Bart R will answer you if he cares. Your apological (?) stances sound as sincere (?) as your name calling and your overall sliming.
willard, sounds like you have had another cup of, Joe.)
3. the consequences are not adverse.
Form a new committee. To make sure.
O. K. willard, i’m willing to chase a link for you. And you promise that in the link you provided to a paper by Dr. McKitrick that I’d find a “theoretical argument whereby:
1. carbon is more expensive
2. there are more regulations
3. the consequences are not adverse”
Well, first off, willard, let me note that I did not find in Dr. McKitrick’s paper any “exact contradiction” to my claim that carbon price and regulation increases would adversely affect the economy, to include employment.” So Bart’s claim is bogus just like I estimated in my B. S. detector/coup de l’oeil based evaluation of his original comment. And I take the lesson-learned from all that to be beware of geeks bearing idiot claims and trust in your God-given B. S. detector and coup de l’oeil instincts when one of these geek-balls starts promoting his idiot claims with a bunch of flim-flam, “nerdy-sounding”, “esoteric terms” of the “priesthood” (thank you Mr. Buffet)–you know, like the geek-bots do when pushing their CAGW scam.
And then there’s the further consideration of Dr. McKitrick’s paper–did Dr. McKitrick’s paper deliver as you advertised, willard? Well, willard, given the Clintonesque ambiguity and weasel-worded character of your claims about Dr. McKitrick’s paper I can’t be sure because I can’t be sure what you really promised. But I am left wondering why you guys can’t just be up-front, transparent, and forthright rather than forever playing point-scoring, tricky little mind games?
In particular, my read of McKitrick’s “theoretical argument” is not that he claims carbon taxes have no adverse consequences on the economy, but rather, he claims that the adverse consequences of carbon taxes, if offset by the revenue-neutral abolition of other taxes, that have even more severe impacts on the economy, then there would be a net benefit. Hardly, willard, the same thing as an “exact contradiction” of my claim that carbon price increases (whether driven by carbon taxes or other factors) adversely affect the economy, to include employment.
And let’s get real, willard. While we can both appreciate the ivory-tower elegance of Dr. McKitrick’s “theoretical argument”, you and I both know that the whole point of carbon taxes is to provide your eco-hypocrite, carbon-hoggie betters a whole new, heaping, trough-full of dough (with enough spillage to keep their useful-tool, tenured piglets happy little oinkers, of course). And we would be damn fools to think otherwise, right , willard? So Dr. McKitrick’s “theoretical argument” is about on par with “perpetual motion” machines.
So did the troll-team find I missed anything in my read of Dr. McKitrick’s paper, willard? You know, willard, I’m really all pumped-up and primed to make a gracious, manly acknowledgement before the world, that I’m wrong about something. I mean, I want to show you greenshirts how it’s done–rub your noses in it, in fact. So, please willard, put the team on the problem will you and prove my read of Dr. McKitrick’s paper to be in error.
willard,
One more thing, willard. While my apology, up-thread there, to Bart may very well “sound” insincere to you, I assure you my apology was offered in all sincerity–and believe me I can speak with authority in the matter since I’m the world’s leading expert on my interior, mental states.
Dear mike,
Thank you for your reading of McKitrick’s article.
This is your claim:
> Increased carbon prices and regulations have an adverse impact on the economy, including employment.
This claim would be contradicted by McKitrick if we can find in his work something along the lines of:
> Increased carbon prices and regulations might not have an adverse impact on the economy, including employment.
I believe that McKitrick’s article you just read establishes that.
You could of course disagree with Dr. McKitrick’s argument. I don’t necessarily agree with his argument either. But that’s another issue.
What matters is that Dr. McKitrick offered an argument that contradicts your claim.
***
Here’s another piece of evidence for you, with Dr. McKitrick’s own words:
> This paper came out of my PhD thesis work, using a computable general equilibrium model to show that revenue-neutral carbon taxes can achieve some emission reductions at no net macroeconomic cost. It wouldn’t get us to the Kyoto target, but I do believe that a low carbon tax of up to about $20 per tonne, if fully recycled into payroll and income tax cuts, would not harm the economy. Of course it wouldn’t reduce emissions much either.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/economicsclimate-policy.html
Which paper, you may ask, mike, does Dr. McKitrick is talking about?
This one:
McKitrick, Ross (1997). “Double-Dividend Environmental Taxation and Canadian Carbon Emissions Control” Canadian Public Policy December 1997, pp. 417-434.
I’ve heard this was a good article. Have you ever read it?
willard,
Sorry, guy, I’m not going to let you get away with your cheap trick. Dr. McKitrick’s words have to be understood within the context of his argument. Carbon taxes in Dr. McKitrick’s argument are, indeed, acknowleged to have, at least a short-term adverse impact on the economy. However, that impact can be offset if the revenue from carbon taxes replaces the revenue from other existing taxes, that have the same adverse impact or even greater adverse impact on the economy, and those latter taxes are abolished. Indeed, there might even be a net benefit.
Sorry, willard, but your bad-faith participation in this disucssion lacks intellectual integrity. And that last “sorry” is offered as a matter of rhetorical form–not as any sort of a sincere apology. Hey! I call ’em as I see ’em.
But let me acknowledge this aspect of Dr. McKitrick’s paper that does tend, but only that, to support Bart’s claim. He holds out the possibility that future changes in consumption patterns might further negate the adverse impact of carbon taxes. I take that to mean, by analogy, that a buggy-whip tax in 1910 might have had a measurable impact on the economy, but by 2012, the impact of such a tax on the economy would be virtually nil.
You know, willard, this “Climate. etc.” blog has almost miraculously revealed just what shaky “science”–indeed, what out-and-out B.S–is at the foundation of much of the CAGW hustle–especially when it comes to the “C” in CAGW and its derived policy recommendations. And to think how close we, and I mean the whole world, got to being hooked by the scam. Makes me shudder.
Dear mike,
I’m glad you finally recognize, albeit indirectly, that Bart’s point was valid:
> Increasing carbon prices — in his case through carbon taxes directed to the coffers of the state — were, McKitrick demonstrated, less distortionate than other forms of taxation, and would naturally be better for the economy.
Instead of reflecting on Bart’s point, you are now doubting my sincerity. I never doubted yours, by the way: I simply said that they were to be related to your mudslinging. Your apologies do honor you, but considering your overall misdemeanours, your honor is to be taken with a grain of salt. I do not doubt that you as much heart in your comments as you can put sweat in your nifty ways of solving rhetorical problems.
Speaking of which, here you go:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/23071871194
Please do notice Bart’s répartie, which almost predicted your actual fury into thinking that McKitrick’s argument involved ivory-tower leftist geekery.
And now that you are showing more understanding than at the beginning of this sub-thread, we can focus on Bart’s challenge:
> Prove it. Don’t froth it. Don’t drool it. Prove it.
You know what the “it” is.
If you prefer, you can take my own question:
What does “adverse consequences” mean, in “it”?
willard,
This is getting to be perverse, willard.
Bart’s “point” as you term it–that is, his preposterously mangled representation of Dr. McKitrick’s views–was not offered as a “point” in and of itself, but as a description of Dr. McKitrick’s paper that, supposedly, “exactly contradicted” one of my earlier claims. Of course, Bart’s “point”–his fun-house mirror caricature of Dr. McKitrick’s paper–did not support his “exact contradiction” assertion. Likewise, Bart, when challenged in that regard, declined to provide, then, by quotation the precise language employed in Dr. McKitrick’s paper to “exactly contradict” my earlier claim (most likely because Dr. McKitrick’s paper does not, in fact, “exactly contradict” my previous claim). Jeez, willard, why is this so hard?
Look, willard, I can see you’ve got the troll-team snappin’ and poppin’ now. And I really like that it’s discarded its former sclerotic ways. Good job, coach! Likewise, I can appreciate that Bart is sulking in his tent and you want him back since he’s one of your team’s stalwarts and all. And, believe it or not, willard, I’d like to help you get him back. But, willard, I just can’t pretend that Bart made some sort of really great “point” that I failed to appreciate. ‘Cuz he didn’t.
I’ll do this though, willard. If Bart wants to make like our last exchange never happened, then I’ll do the same and never bring it up myself, nor discuss it unless he or someone else brings it up first. And no grudges either–at least on my part. I mean, like, I generally like that goofy way Bart has of mixing up good-stuff with squirrely and nutty stuff. Like I told him, before, I generally find his comments worth a read.
That’s the best I can do, willard. Hope to see Bart back soon.
Entertaining though mike’s flailing is, we can clearly by his downward spiral into irrationality and dissemblage see he’s admitted that any rational person would find McKitrick has successfully crushed mike’s claims, and mike gots nuthin’. ‘Nuff said.
I have not read any of this – although I have a liking for Mike’s effortless inventiveness. But I did catch – by accident – how a $20 revenue neutral tax would not actually bust the economy but not do too much either. Very like Australia in a month and a half. But I am damned if I can see any point to it.
Dear mike,
Your last comment dearly lacks your effortless inventiveness. The last time this happened, the conversation was soon brought to a closure. So let me summarize what happened i this conversation.
Your gambit was to associate CAGW with the current morass in American economy. The variation you dished out was inventive: turning the Tea Climate variation into the Occupy Climate variation. This twist might explain why you consistently portrayed the climate establishment as the 1%.
Appealing to people is a known move, with its pros and cons. Appealing to common sense and people values is very powerful. That’s why Bart called you on a very specific claim:
> Increased carbon prices and regulations have an adverse impact on the economy, including employment.
This sounds like commonensical. But if we pay due diligence to this claim, we soon encounter some of its limitations. We have no idea what you mean by “adverse impact”; OPEC economists would certainly disagree; there are ways to falsify that claim at “no net macroeconomic cost”, which sounds a lot like “no adverse impact”. We could also add that the United States might not be better off by trying to imitate Somalia.
So you certainly need to adjust that claim to make any sense. But then it risks becoming trivial or too long to have any rhetorical bite. In a nutshell, you were in a bind.
Instead of defending that claim, except by appealing to your divine intuition of the People, you counterattacked. You issued a challenge to Bart: “quote needed”. This is where I entered the debate: I provided quotes. That quotes have been provided can be evidenced by your most recent shift to “Bart misrepresented McKitrick”.
I believe this argument is worthless, but I will accept your proposal to leave it aside. I will also agree that appealing to McKitrick was a bit devilish, and feel a bit sorry that you fell for it by trying to bulldoze your populist gambit. McKitrick’s argument is not the only one that can be invoked to challenge your claim.
That argument aside, the onus is on you to prove that increased carbon prices and regulations have the effect you claim them to have. (Perhaps you mean ceteris paribus?) We will meet again when you’ll try to reintroduce this one, which I predict you will.
The “including employment”, by the way, is the 7 of heart, the “Jobs” card:
> The trick to using the “Jobs” card is to totally over inflate the size of your industry and the number of employees it has. It’s quite a compelling argument, and sometimes it’s true. But I’ve seen many cases where a regulation creates new jobs and economic development.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/denialists_deck_of_cards_the_7.php
I admire your effortless inventiveness is welcome. But please try to understand that your bag of nifty ways to solve rhetorical problems are not always sufficient.
Farewell,
w
willard,
You know, willard, I was getting pretty much bored out of my gourd with this thread. I mean even Bart’s last comment, for all its intriguing, silly-little-snot, fuss-budget, mouth-off invective and the grotesque, zany charm of Bart’s improbable, totally-divorced-from-reality, poor-loser victory-lap failed to pique my interest.
But then I opened up your last comment, willard, and, to my very great surprise, found my interest in this thread powerfully re-kindled by your comment’s somewhat scatter-brain, orotund, relentlessly tedious, this-willard-guy-is-getting-a-little-strange-isn’t-he?, passive-agressive, milquetoast vacuousness.
So, like I say, willard, I was, like, reading your comment and all, and, like, getting all pumped at the prospect of further rounds of chit-chat with you, when–POW!!!–I read your comment’s devastating last word: “Farewell” Well, willard, as you might expect, my very first words after I picked myself up off the floor (I had fallen out of the chair) were: “Whoa! Did you really say “Farewell”, willard? Farewell?!! Wait! Let me read your comment, again, willard. Yep, there it is!–you said “Farewell”, willard!”
I mean, like, where’s this coming from willard? I mean, like, willard, who says “Farewell” now-a-days? I mean, willard, like, the last time I heard that word was in the final scene of a 1940’s era, black-and-white, big-budget tear-jerker to the accompaniment of an ambitious, but boxy-sounding swell of music in the sound-track. You’re not goofin’ on me are you, willard?
But O. K., I’m getting into it, willard. Give me a moment or two to get into character: O. K.–“Farewell is it willard? Ah….(sniffle, sniffle) Parting is such sweet sorrow.” (Please, willard, I hope you don’t mind but I had to substitute Annette Funicello for you in my head in working up my motivation.)
Bye-guy
You made me smile:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/23132317747
Let us mind our metaphors’ by Willard
‘Words are weapons we bring alright,
And the pen is mightier than the sword,
And what about the computer, this glorified pen!
But words can be cheap, too.
More so when they’re cheap shots.
All depends on what we can afford.
There is war, and there is War.
A war of words is not a real War.
A War with wounds and weapons.
Real weapons.
Real wounds.
Let us mind our metaphors.’
What do you reckon – Mike – is this guy deep or what? Deeper than the ocean? Deeper than Johny Depp and George Clooney combined? Deeper than JR Richards?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y12eg7lITx4
Well probably Richards is deeper. It has sorta inspired me.
The booger land express by Chief Hydrologist
Well I hadda deep down feelin
on the booger land express,
when everyone was kneelin
except for Willard in a dress.
Up the front he thumped his stump,
he thundered up his sesquipedalian
message which set me on my rump,
he’s obviously not an Australian,
As we are famed for not giving a
rat’s arse for self aggandisement.
It always gets us up and heaving
and leaves in our heads a dent.
Not quite up to the standard of half-arsed deepness set by Willard I know – and I am not quite satisfied with the scansion – but do you think I have hit a mark with my poetical bazooka?
Chief,
Thanks for the clip. And more so for the right-on-target poem (I am astounded that you came up with a rhyme for sesquapedalian. Indeed, Chief, your own verse and, of course, that of Beth and willard–along with kim’s enigmatic haiku creations are pure inspiration. And here’s where it gets a little tricky and a little sticky. You see, Chief, your example has even inspired li’l ol’ poetaster me. I know! I know! But, please, be kind–it’s my first timorous attempt at rhyme:
BIO-DIVERSITY
Now ol’ Al Gore
He had a farm
‘Cuz he perceived
A global warm
And on that farm
There were some pigs
Whose snouts were sunk
In tenured gigs
And on that farm
A hen-house hit
Starred shewonk with
Her chickenshit
And on that farm
Perched a mag-pie
A Gleick-bird sort
Of manque spy
And on that farm
A Deltoid ass
Ripped fart-jokes off
While passing gas
And on that farm
A Bart-like mutt
Was handed his
Own doofus butt
And on that farm
The golden rule:
Do as I say
Not as I do
Chief,
Thanks for the clip–great song. But, most especially, thanks for the poem (I am most impressed that you found a rhyme for sesquipedalian). Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, let me prove my admiration, Chief, and try my own, first-time hand at a poem (I know I’m following in the footsteps of the master).
BIO-DIVERSITY
Now ol’ Al Gore
He had a farm
‘Cuz he perceived
A global warm
And on that farm
There were some pigs
Whose snouts were sunk
In tenured gigs
And on that farm
Did shewonk buzz
A wannabee
Who never wuz
And on that farm
Perched a mag-pie
A Gleick-bird sort
Of manque spy
And on that farm
A Deltoid ass
Delighted in
His lack of class
And on that farm
A Bart-like mutt
Was handed his
Own doofus butt
And on that farm
Reigned this world view
Do as I say
Not as I do
Congratulations Mike – you have popped your poetry cherry with a nuanced performance. Doofus butt cracks me up.
Chief,
I see that two versions of my little ditty now appear. The first, and the more scatological of the two, appeared to have been “canned” by the moderator upon initial submission. And, on reflection, I was grateful for the moderator’s apparent editorial decision in that regard since my first effort at poetry, on reflection, was rather an embarrassment–indeed, rather more than that.
Alas! (us poets use that word a lot as you know, Chief), the spam-catcher has since disgorged the initial version of my poem to my acute, sensitive-poet discomfort. So, if the wishes of the humble bard count for anything, Chief, please, I ask you to pretend the first version is not there. I ask that knowing the unworthiness, indeed betrayal, of my very earliest scribblings, drawing, as they did, on your own masterful and inspiring example.
One who uses the word sesquipedelian is one.
Just read your poem, Chief.
I like it:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/22971845341
Not relying the RSS feed on a steady basis has its serendipity.
Many thanks!
Wrong link:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/28260847934
What can be taught?
1. It has warmed (most skeptics agree) more than half a degree, maybe nearly a degree.
2. It would not have warmed so much without fossil fuel burning (scientist skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer would agree, and their follower Monckton).
3. Continued fossil fuel burning will lead to the future climate being warmer than it would have been without them.
Then you get to the questions. How much warming by 2100? 1 degree or 6 degrees? How good or bad will it be for global communities? What happens to water and food resources? These are where the students get to know that the science is not complete yet. More measurements are needed. Only the future can tell us for sure which predictions are right.
Jim D | May 12, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
I don’t know which of us ought be more worried by how often I’m finding myself largely agreeing with you of late.
I am firmly in the AGW camp (maybe 3-5 degrees by 2100), but as for the C part, I don’t know how to judge how C it will be, regionally C for sure, but for specific areas I don’t know. This part is more social science or politics as to whether mitigation is done when and where it matters, and that is much less predictable than AGW.
Jim,
I think you are on the right track, but I would hope that any discussion of anthropogenic climate change is part of a broader environmental studies program that includes all the effects that humans have on the planet. As the human population continues to expand, in some enlightened future era there will be courses at the college level related to Geoengineering and Anthropocene Management. AGW skeptics will of course mock this notion, but I really think Mark Lynas is on the right track with this: The human pressures on planetary resources will demand we begin really looking at this from an Anthropocene Management perspective. The #1 concern to begin with is the status of our oceans.
I would add that there are other non-controversial things that could be taught related to the rate of growth fossil CO2 addition. The 21st century could see five times as much added as the 20th century, so the effects are only increasing. The basics of why fossil carbon and deforestation are different from things like breathing and wood-burning would also help to inform the students of the key issue in the debate. We even see some commenters here who could have benefited from this type of education.
And then the consequences: how many doublings of CO2 will all that warming produce?
Why not teach something important. Like what cause the there to seasonal changes in temperate regions. Tilt of earth axis, the precession of earth axis, how this causes ice ages and interglacial periods. The varying temperatures and changing climate of the present interglacial period.
How glacial form mostly in northern hemisphere, that large glaciers form in northern Hemisphere during previous glacial periods, and recently there has been a period called the Little Ice age, a period where modern humans mostly Europe live in times where glacier were growing and advancing human settlements and that starting around 1850 glacier stopped advancing global and began a steep retreat which still occurring at the present and probably will continue centuries into the future.
I am sure those are important too, but these kids will be living in the late 21st century, so they should be more invested in how this particular topic plays out, and it is not just academic for them.
Jim D, your #2 is AGW and your #3 is the beginning of CAGW so neither should be taught as establushed science. #1 also has its problems. I am amazed that your understanding of the science is so weak, but that is the issue, isn’t it. People think that just because the have taken a position the debate no longer exists. Have you not noticed that people here disagree with you?
No, this is only AGW, and I worded it carefully that even Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, etc. would not dispute these statements because the statements don’t quantify the effect which everyone agrees is there and will be as long as CO2 is emitted. As I mentioned, the dispute comes not in the existence of the effect (dragonslayers disregarded), but its size.
Jim D, this is the scare in play. You are not saying that it matters, just that is there waiting. Maybe big, maybe small, who knows, right? But elsewhere you are sure it is possibly big.
I say no, it is not there. Go Boo Yourself. You are doing the scare under the veil of false rationality. Possibility is not the basis for policy.
You are making an assertion that either the odds are very low that the IPCC is right in its projection range, or that if they are right, climate change doesn’t matter enough to teach it, or you want to censor ideas that make certain political factions look bad. The IPCC view is supported by independent scientific societies, and its support is international, while the best skeptic ideas we’ve seen here can be characterized as dubious to put it kindly, yet that doesn’t stop the other skeptics from adopting them without question, and you’re not seeing how this looks, and why those poorly reasoning skeptics should be prevented from access to schools.
JimD
Agree in principle, but:
Add:
4. There is much we do not yet know about natural causes for changes in our planet’s climate.
5. As a result, we do not know if future fossil fuel burning will cause a significant or an imperceptible future warming.
6. Scientists are now attempting to solve many of the uncertainties related to our planet’s climate
Max
And give the range of scientific projections for 2100, 1-5 degrees C warmer than 2000 with some sense of the consequences of this range, and uncertainty in CO2 by then (500-1000ppm depending entirely on fossil fuel burning).
@@ Jim D | May 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Jimmy boy, ”Skeptics” are not the ones that believe in your and others phony GLOBAL warmings. I’m a genuine Skeptic / you have fear in debating genuine skeptic. Lindzen, Monckton believe in more phony GLOBAL warmings than you – don’t wash your hands with them. GLOBAL warming is a 100% lie, not 90%. Connecting the normal big / small climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warming; makes you a ”compulsive / chronic liar. You should ask for assistance, to minimize your great problems; you will be able to sleep better and regain some honesty and self-respect .
Enquiry learning…’ how climate science’s CAGW hustle mixes phoney- baloney models and scaremongering to enrich and further empower make -a-buck/make- a- gulag big shots and their toady, ivory-tower enablers while destroying through job -killing carbon regulation …’
Mike, guess that jest about sums it up.
Ms Antonucci says, “The biggest challenge is to get the students to look at the data without injecting political bias”.
What a surprise: she finds it difficult to avoid injecting political bias. This IS her admission, no? Students look; she injects.
Other countries?
Well, in Alberta, http://www.fraserinstitute.org/education-programs/teachers/classroom-resources/lesson-plans.aspx has hired US writers to compose a ‘lesson plan’ that is pure propaganda.
How it’s going for them, I have no idea. I understand there are members of that group who follow Climate, Etc., so their input on why put out such a biased approach might be worth hearing out.
Bart
Why claim it is “pure propaganda” before you have read what they plan to teach? It is a dumb as writing what David is putting together is biased before you have read it-
Maybe he has read it, the lesson plans in PDF form are available from the link he posted. Eg http://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4242
I scanned through them, doesn’t look too bad, some omissions (never mentioning that human activity is causing the CO2 rise for example) and a few errors (the significance of carbon cycle uncertainty is over-exaggerated) but overall it’s more educational than mis-informational.
What I find odd is the phenomenon of a think-tank creating lesson plans for climate change. I don’t see them creating lesson plans for english literature or civil war era history.
lolwot writes:
“What I find odd is the phenomenon of a think-tank creating lesson plans for climate change. I don’t see them creating lesson plans for english literature or civil war era history”.
I suggest that the teaching of english literature or civil war era history does not have the potential to significantly alter or degrade an individuals lifestyle if they are taught incorrectly.
Teaching climate change incorrectly can result in society being immediately motivated to do things detrimental to their self interest.
I suggest their lesson plans include frankly flawed and somewhat advanced economic arguments that their audience is not expected to be able to appreciate in all their nuance and subtlety.
And yes, I read it. Why would you think I didn’t?
By the way, it’s not as if I object to everything the Fraser Institute says. Some of their other stuff is reasonable enough from a certain point of view. If the Fraser Institute producing material I find acceptable isn’t enough to convince you it ought be kept away from innocent, impressionable children, then .. ;)
Rob and lolwot,
I think you’ll find that think tanks do create lesson plans for English literature and civil war era history just as they do for biology and most subjects. Such lesson plans are most often used in private schools. There are modern and post-modern views on many aspects of English literature and literature in general, to give just one example. Civil war era history is even more contentious here in the bible belt where I retired, and the war between the states has not yet ended! Not sure what “taught incorrectly” means, but teaching history or literature from a Christian fundamentalist or a Marxist (or you name a different ideology) may well result in society being motivated to do things detrimental to self interest or the commonweal.
Actually it is really good. It points out the ratio of human emissions of CO2 relative to natural emissions but avoids the pitfall of talking about natural sinks or idiocies such as mass balance equations, it quotes reliable climate scientists such as John Christy, Richard Linden (sic) and Stephen Harper and avoids fringe groups like the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society or NOAA it states the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as today (no need to talk about controversy here) and there is much much more that a marsupial like me who works best in the dark and likes to stick my head in the ground can agree with.
As I said, propaganda and brainwashing that children are not equipped to defend themselves against.
The “omission” you cite is actually one of the big question marks I have with regard to AGW. What scientific evidence do you believe there is that shows that atmospheric CO2 is controlled by emissions, rather than dynamic sinks?
Obviously the sinks are dynamic on a year to year basis. But in the long term we know a couple of things:
1. CO2 concentrations were pretty stable prior to the industrial revolution.
2. Since the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by about half of anthropogenic emissions and that increase has – over decadal periods, basically been proportion to our emissions over each decade.
The question that is worth asking is ” What would be the level of CO2 in the air now if there had been no anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last two centuries?”
If you believe that the concentration would be basically the same as it is now (ie that anthropogenic emissions have only a small effect on the trend in atmospheric CO2) then you need to find a mechanism which automatically increases sinks to account for any anthropogenic emissions has been progressively reducing its own absorbtion of natural emissions over the last couple of centuries.
Any how the point here is not one of what the correct answer is. It is whether a course for school children should deliberately hide the most obvious explanation for the increase of atmospheric CO2 particularly when that is the explanation accepted by the vast bulk of atmospheric scientists.
Well, I disagree with you as to what *I* *need* to do. I’ve simply observed that science has yet to determine that atmospheric CO2 is controlled by emissions rather than dynamic sinks. Whether I can offer good theories as to what sinks might be controlling the concentration of CO2 has nothing to do with whether science has demonstrated the contrary. Once again, “we can’t think of anything else” does not prove the CAGW hypothesis.
But I ask the question because I do find it interesting to see who thinks this is an issue that needs an answer and who’s happy to accept it on faith. (This plugs into one of my standing soap boxes, from which I point out that everyone accepts their beliefs on faith. One need only act like a four year old, and ask “Why?” in response to every answer. Eventually, the rational explanations run out, and the response changes to “Well, that’s just obvious.” And there you’ve found where your interlocutor has chosen to place their faith.)
lolwot writes with his usual infuriating disregard for facts “warming hasn’t stopped.”
What can one say? I’ve an older brother with a mental illness called delusional disorder, which is characterized by fixed beliefs in things which are demonstrably false.
Of course lolwot is correct, the planet continues to warm, even though skeptics would rather focus on the tiny fraction of highly variable energy in the atmosphere over some cherry-picked time frame versus the much larger and more stable energy reservoir of the oceans over a much longer time frame.
thanks, R.Gates, that was my point but I had to log off before I could respond to the inevitable denial
10 years is too short to determine that the phenomenon, known as global warming, has stopped.
R. Gates,
You can keep repeating your claim that the
Earth is warming continuously and dangerously, but that does not make it true.
Hunter,
I Never used the word “dangerously”. That’s your addition.
But the Earth has been warming continuously for quite some time. Some research I’ve recently come across suggesting perhaps since 1850 the oceans have been warming from anthropogenic forcing. This would be about the time that the industrial revolution was really ramping up, and so any warming from the LIA was finished and anthropogenic forcing began to dominate.
See: http://tiny.cc/bfz9dw
If you really want to understand the continuously warming Earth (continuous for at least 40+ years) you need to look at ocean heat content first and foremost before anything else. The latest results confirm continued warming of the oceans, with the latest 3 month average down to 2000 meters (Jan-March 2012), showing the highest ocean heat content on instrument record, representing thousands of times more energy than the atmosphere can even hold.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Yes, the Earth continues to warm.
R Gates
If the oceans were really warming up by 1850 through the effects of the tiny amounts of co2 then being added, we can’t live on this planet as there is no way that 7 billion people all wanting to improve their standard of living can ever reduce co2 back to those levels. Cite the research yourve recently come across.
tonyb
You start the tournament with 100 chips.
by round 2 you have a 1000. by round 3
you have 1500. in round 4 you drop to 1200.
in round 5 you rebound to 1800.
In round 6 and 7 you hold steady at 1800.
Is your chip stack shrinking?
has it grown?
is it growing?
have you stopped winning?
if it went to 1801 how would you answer these questions?
steven mosher
Is your chip stack shrinking? NO
has it grown? YES
is it growing? NO (not recently)
have you stopped winning? NO
By putting the question “is it growing?” in the present tense, makes it clear that the change over the most recent period is being queried – and that has shown no growth.
If in round 6 and 7 you had not held steady at 1800, but rather dropped to 1500, the answer to the question posed would still have been the same.
However, if the question had been reworded: “have you started losing?”, the correct answer would be YES (most recently).
Pretty straightforward to me.
Do you see this differently?
Max
K-12 is a not all that great for the more complex points of climate science. It is hard enough to get kids to stay in school with college grads flipping burgers. Some parts though would be fine in K-12. Graphics arts is a great example.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/SouthernExtentreconstructionwithGISS24Sto44S.png
By mixing pastel with bold primary colors you can make a strikingly attractive poster suitable for framing.
Having taught math,physics and chem from 1969 until after 2000,
I would like to point some things that are of concern to many teachers.
1) Students do not understand numbers less than one or greater than one million very well. Teaching with ‘pretty numbers’ factors of 2, 10, or 100 to illustrate simple relationships was simple and obvious; not so much any more. ‘5’ is a symbol on a calculator and not a quantity, therefore students and adults have a more difficult time making decisions based upon results.
Some of the climate science, as it is presented and as a result decisions made, in particular political ones are so obviously skewed. Using a slide rule and keeping a decimal floating in your mind did have its benefits.
2) Students and therefore the general public never stops to realize that we are using solar energy which has been stored over a very long time,
( and it is finite) while most green energy is simply using current solar energy. We can use geothermal and a few others, but it will be limited..
Space does not allow a full analysis here, but I would teach about the total solar irradiance striking the earth, our total usage and look at the problem as a whole. We can and should be as efficient as we can; and there are many more things we can do; however, I do not see how using nuclear energy as a primary source can be anything but inevitable.
Where are the Swedish scientists?
“I do not see how using nuclear energy as a primary source can be anything but inevitable.”
In terms of decades to centuries [which is all one should be concerned with in terms being practical] nuclear energy has the advantage nearly limitless supply of energy [if confined it to century or four into the future].
The fact that in American government policy it is largely ignored indicate how unimportant politicians regard energy policy. And since politicians essentially get all their will to do anything from the public, it indicates American public are not too concerned about future energy sources.
The correct public policy would be to develop more nuclear power plants, but this isn’t inevitable. It might appear the most wise and prude course to take. And if you concerned about reducing CO2 emission it is the surest, quickest, and most effective route.
But in terms longer term energy needs, nuclear energy is finite resource.
In terms of long term, the best energy source is hydro dams.
hydro-power “is the most widely used form of renewable energy, accounting for 16 percent of global electricity consumption, and 3,427 terawatt-hours of electricity production in 2010”
With nuclear “in 2009 to 2558 TWh with nuclear power meeting 13–14% of the world’s electricity demand.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Hydroelectricity
With remaining 70% being coal and natural gas
With wind,solar and geothermal somewhere around 1% and no chance of getting to say 5%.
There a lot natural gas in the world, and if consider methane hydrate deposits a friggin lot of natural gas. More natural gas than coal.
So millions of year supply of hydropower- or until the Sun goes nova.
A couple thousand of years fission nuclear fuel
And basically natural gas is unknown, perhaps centuries.
And Coal as global supply is not practical, but in terms of global
supply quantity a few decades.
So if looking beyond a century, one has hydro and nuclear, and probably natural gas. Because technological advances possiblities it’s difficult to know energy needs and well possible means of energy production, one always has the possibility of getting fusion nuclear energy production. The problem this possiblity has been tried for decades with billions of dollars thrown at it.
The thing which could change the game is when humans leave earth. In space solar energy is a different story. Unlimited area, essentially; operating solar collecters in a “clean room”, have higher energy density, and have constant energy supply. One has some problems in space, but no real effort has made addressing these problems- micro meteorite, ionization, solar storms, and etc- but essential minor compared to tornados, weather in general, and weathering/erosive elements in earth atmosphere. Put this way no one leaves solar panel for decade with doing something with them- which routinely done with space satellites.
Roughly at this point space environment has degradation from “the elements” about the same as earth, though one should be able to design system needing no maintenance for centuries in time scales.
And on earth most efficient solar energy production isn’t solar panels but solar thermal energy- Concentrated solar power:
“CSP is not to be confused with concentrated photovoltaics (CPV). In CSP, the concentrated sunlight is converted to heat, and then the heat is converted to electricity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_Solar_Power
CSP could also be used in space environment, or something similar. Because the Sun be “always” be in one spot and because space is a “more” 3 dimensional environment, sunlight in general can have more practical uses.
The only problem with using space environment, is the problem of getting off Earth.
This is the BIG problem.
But isn’t much problem- it is not problem that can’t solved. It’s similar “scale” of problem as making machines that can fly on earth.
And we are technological at the level where we can do this. We have been for decades. We actually develop aircraft just about at point of having the technological level needed- having internal combustion engine which is light enough and powerful enough.
We way beyond the technological level needed in regards to getting into space.
But we aren’t politically at the level needed. By which I simply mean, we don’t think it’s important to do this. Which is NOT another way to say we need more government funding. What needed is correct laws, which would allow it.
So I literally, it’s not regarded as important enough- it has to be something which is allowed and/or wanted.
In practical terms, we need more and different markets in space- and I believe starting with a market for rocket fuel in space. Or perhaps simpler, we need fuel depots in space. Gas stations.
So if you include practical/real access the space environment, the significant increase of use of nuclear energy is not inevitable, nor does the energy source have anything approaching a finite limit- unless one envisions human population in excess of hundreds of trillions.
Not that I am against using nuclear energy- and you probably also use lots of fission power plants in space- particular if going far from the sun. And there far more nuclear fuel which can be mined from “minable ore” in space than available on earth. But that’s true of anything, gold, water, oxygen, rare earths, or whatever.
And there weirder things one could do in space- use gravity in same way use gravity for hydropower dams. One could also use water and be powered by gravity. Dam get more energy the higher the water falls, with space, instead falling 100 meters, it could fall tens to hundreds of kilometers. Useful if a planet also needs to import a fair amount of water from space.
The environmentalists don’t have a clue- if what is really wanted is for Earth to be some weird wild life park.
It’s similarly obvious with their *policy* toward nuclear energy. If in near term you want to dramatically reduce reduce CO2 emission, you want a mad program to build nuclear reactors.
Build them like the Soviets who had vast warehouses of stuff no one used [they wanted people employed, so had workers building stuff for decades which no one wanted- though I guess more correctly no one was allowed to have. Or Chinese who building lots of vast housing communities with no one living in them for years or if ever, they will have people living in them].
So one should not want the Moon as some lifeless “park” that no should be permitted to go to.
Instead they should want the red necks to go to the Moon- and transform it into some kind of Disneyland or some other kind of horror show.
They should think of it, as at least good way to get some of the knuckdragging beer drinking oafs off the planet Earth.
A long time ago, the Moon Treaty was soundly defeated by US government and never accepted by any nations capably of spaceflight.
But instead of the Moon treaty, one should have basically the opposite of Moon treaty.
Even [or especially] if one actually thinks/knows it’s not possible or impractical. Why is it important try to a pass a treaty that makes the Moon into some international park?
Politicians obvious **love** empty seemingly grand things they can take credit for. So making the Moon into some park, perhaps is somewhat wonderful for politicians. Except it’s not something they bragged about or campaigned on- so that tends to make me think they are serious about wanting to make the moon into park.
And this isn’t old news, you have nutty lefties who still want the Moon treaty. Or this case saying the Outer Space Treaty is actually the same thing as the Moon treaty [the Moon treaty was redundant]:
“Wouldn’t that imply that the United States still has a free hand on private property claims? Masson-Zwaan says no. She says the private-property angle is addressed by the Outer Space Treaty, and merely reiterated in the later Moon Treaty. “It’s often so in treaties,” she said.”
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11189692-private-property-in-outer-space-the-other-side-of-the-argument?lite
Why? I am sure Masson-Zwaan owns a car and probably an overly expensive house.
What other than their lefty fantasies are they trying to prevent from happening?
The absurdity is all the discussions here regarding how to package the debate. Active debates don’t belong in K-12. Debates belong in social sciences classes and only then after the result of the debate is clear. Discuss Piltdown Man, eugenics, Lysenkoism………then maybe we can discuss the climate debate. If we are going to discuss scientific debates as a social phenomenon then we must admit that the consensus has frequently been proved wrong.
If we do decide to teach the science of the earth’s climate we can do it right after the modules on ferroresonance and turbulent fluid flow.
Doug Badgero | May 12, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
Wouldn’t it be better to teach the real and legitimate scientific debates, rather than the hoaxes (Piltdown Man was disparaged by those in the field almost from the first day; it took the mass media the better part of a century to catch up with the science), the cultists and the politics?
The debate about the nature of gravity as it devolved through Galileo and Bernoulli, Newton and Einstein and Hawking over centuries, that would be a great learning opportunity.
The reason Plato’s Natural Science is no longer regarded as science at all; the roots of the scientific method in medicine through the works of anatomists doing careful work on structures and circulation, heredity and categorization against a backdrop of superstition and religion.. those might be amply explored in social sciences, or indeed civics courses to help teach why it’s so important to distinguish irrational faith and authority from scientific investigation.
Pulp fiction stereotypes from the back pages of Chick Tracts don’t really qualify for lesson plan material.
“Piltdown Man was disparaged by those in the field almost from the first day………….”
As were many of the more extreme claims of climate science. What’s your point? We are still making decisions as if we know what the multivariate coupled non-linear climate system will do next. We are still debating whether students who don’t know that Newtonian physics is an incomplete theory should be taught about climate before they are taught thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, heat transfer, linear dynamics, non-linear dynamics, etc.
Would anyone believe detailed instruction on this subject belonged in K-12 classroom…………except perhaps the final answers…….if there was no debate? We are not debating whether this subject belongs in the classroom, we are debating who gets to use the public infrastructure to control the message to impressionable youth.
Doug Badgero | May 13, 2012 at 12:13 am |
The difference being, it was archaeologists and anatomists who correctly spotted the errors in the Piltdown fraud and were ignored by the media, and it was tobacco lobbyists who incorrectly asserted errors with climatology and were given more than equal time in the media for the sake of ‘balanced reporting’.
Brilliant insight, Doug.
So you don’t want the Piltdown hoax taught? Fine.
How about Yamal?
Tijlander?
Short-centered principle components analysis?
Hide the Decline?
Himalayan glaciers?
“even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is”?
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I?ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”?
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
To teach about “climate science”, without teaching that it is a discipline where fraud after fraud after fraud is POLICY for those promoting CAGW is nothing but bullshit indoctrination.
Andrew R | May 13, 2012 at 2:30 am |
In an election year, which every child sees at least three of before they graduate high school, I really think there’s enough exposure to fraud in the USA. If you’re going to teach about hoaxes, then I’m going to want them to be taught about with honest objectivity and factual basis, within their social context, as you’re teaching sociology (or apparently socialism).
Compared to the centuries-long gravity controversy, including perpetual motion hoaxes, running up to the biggest names in science, the mere handful of decades of climate science is minor, and its scandals pretty tame. Compare the climategate molehill to the perpetual motion mountain, and you’d get a much better educational example from gravity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for limiting the access of children to information or to participation in debate in any way. I’m for limiting the access of those who’ve already determine what and how they will allow children to think to anything to do with education.
Wrong. Nature published a paper citing Piltdown favorably after it was determined to be a hoax.
Also, you know that nobody was given access to the bones. Only copies.
So yes, in the begining some questioned it. However, the hoax stayed in the science for 40 years and did have neative consequences sending researchers down wrong paths
Steven Mosher | May 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
You have a point.
Piltdown: a valuable object lesson in people picking up crap from the media, formulating a belief from popular mythology, and relying on it for science.
Bias travels into science like a parasite, latched on while the vulnerable mind wanders the wilds of science journalism without sufficient skepticism.
In Australia at least, the teaching of CAGW as fact is entrenched from preschool to Year 12 – and not just in science classes. There is a whole greenwash ideology which encourages school vegie patches as an example of ‘sustainable’ living (why aren’t these kids in class learning something they couldn’t learn elsewhere?); solemn tutorials about how humans are destroying the planet by bulldozing rainforests (no mention of palm oil plantations, of course); lots of cost-free cant about the virtues of ‘renewable energy’ sources like windmills – and the list goes on. ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is actually used as a teaching aid.
The anti-industrial, anti-technology bias is everywhere, ironically delivered using the latest technology in heated, airconditioned classrooms, both of which parents and teachers now insist on.
Fortunately, kids have better BS meters than adults think. I remember having to salute the flag, say prayers and sing songs supportive of the British Empire when I was at school back in palaeozoic times. It didn’t stick with me, and knowing quite a few of my peers from those days, it didn’t do much for them either. Other influences, and our own critical powers, came to the fore as we matured.
I agree that teaching stuff like how the solar system works, how the seasons come about, and basic physics and maths is about as far as schools can realistically go for the vast majority of students. Indeed, if they got that right, it would be a big improvement on where we are today. In chemistry, drumming in a few basic ideas like ‘the dose makes the poison’ and learning the differences between different compounds that contain carbon atoms, and how that comes about, would be useful. And as for biology, it is currently taught as ecology, complete with the predictable dodgy assumptions.
If they threw in a decent amount of earth history and also the history of science (both of which are fascinating if properly taught), and left the climate wars right out, the populace would be better educated. But, improving the standard of education and the capacity for critical thought is not what the curriculum is about, unfortunately. It is about mush like ‘equipping children for a sustainable world’ and the like. CAGW is only one element of this propagandist approach to school education.
Since1989, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers (the two primary unions for K-12 public schools in the US) have donated $38,284,919 and $32,850,516 respectively to political campaigns. The NEA contributed a total of 5% to (nominally) Republican candidates, and the AFT a whopping 0% to Republicans during that 23 year period.
AFSCME, which represents most non-teaching employees of public school (ie. the administration employees), donated $47,869,048 during that same time period, with a whole 1% going to Republicans.
And you wonder if the “curriculum” these independent thinking folks are pushing might end up being biased? My kids’ Weekly Readers were filled with CAGW propaganda back in the mid 90s when my kids were in grade school. Their government and social studies classes were multi-cultural progressive re-education camps. Heck, my son’s math teacher (and his social studies and English teachers) showed Al Gore’s climate porn movie
An Inconvenient Truth when he was in high school.
Forget whether climate science should be taught to K-12 students. They’ve been getting the whole progressive indoctrination program for decades. Why do you think so many denizens (and posters) here are progressives? They’ve never heard anything else.
GaryM | May 12, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
Curious that you leave out the sole criterion for these campaign donations resulting in the sparsity of donations to Republican candidates: education funding.
OK, Bart, since you want to talk about education funding, let’s. There have been massive annual increases in K-12 spending under both Republican and Democrat administrations fore decades.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2
Look at the chart for federal funding for elementary and secondary education, and see the greatest increases were under Bush. (It isn’t what you don’t know that makes you look most ridiculous, it’s what you think you know that just ain’t so.)
Guess where the bulk of those increases go? Books? More teachers? Better training of teachers? Nope. More administrators and enormous benefit packages for existing teachers.
Washington D.C. currently spends about $18,000 per student for public K-12 education. Take ten kids, put them in a single class, and pay some Harvard grad $180,000 a year and I bet they all learn reading, writing and even a bit of ‘rithmetic. Pour that same $180,00 per year into the toilet that is the public union/Democrat Party run “education” establishment in D.C., and you get illiteracy, innumeracy, and a sterling 75.5 percent drop out rate. But you also get a bunch of over paid, under worked, incompetent foot soldiers for the Democrat Party. Which is of course the point of those never ending increases in “education” funding that progressives (and suckers for their propaganda like you) love so much.
Open mouth A, insert foot B.
Any more questions?
GaryM | May 13, 2012 at 12:27 am |
http://usinfo.org/enus/education/overview/intro.html
G. W. Bush was responsible for the No Child Left Behind Act?!
Just what Administration was responsible for your education in civics and current affairs?
And how many Harvard grads are there in the USA? One per ten kids? Harvard grads that you’d let near kids? Ones that want to teach or have any aptitude for it? In a free room? With free utilities? With free computers? Heck, put them online at a Khan academy or Udacity or the like, maybe you have a point, sort of. Innovators will drive education further faster than governments, and I’m glad the yokes slowing down advancement in K-12 (and learning in general) embodied by government babysitting approaches are being thrown down finally..
But your point still drips with political invective that is frankly nowhere based in fact.
No federal administration was responsible for my elementary and secondary education. I am so old I went to school before the Democrats had conned people like you into supporting the federal takeover of education. In fact, I went to public grade schools in Chicago, and they were not bad at all.
But they weren’t unionized, and the “education” establishment had not been turned into a money laundering scheme for campaign contributions for the Democrat Party. Teachers were actually there to teach, and they got fired if they didn’t. No unions, no strikes, no 100% payment of pension and health care costs, no immunity from firing for incompetence or misconduct. You know, no protection racket as a reward for funding and working for the Democrat Party.
And the Harvard grad was just an example of a better use of so much money. It doesn’t cost near that much to teach a child. Home schooling, by non-college educated parents, teaches children just fine, at an average cost of $500+ per year for curriculum and materials. Of course, then you have parents whose motivation is that they want their children to learn, not union members who want to retire for life at 55 with full pay and benefits.
Do you notice that the tax payers in Wisconsin are slowly losing their enthusiasm for getting rid of Scott Walker? It’s amazing what happens when voters are confronted with the reality of conservative governance, rather than relying on the distortions of the left, and their sycophantic acolytes.
I sent my own children to public school, and I had to teach them to read, what with the ridiculous “whole language” fad (and don’t get me started on “whole math,” its bastard cousin). I also had to deprogram them from the steady dose of progressive propaganda they received daily disguised as social studies, history, government, and pretty much every other course they took. Propaganda which clearly worked quite well on you.
GaryM,
US unions have long been front groups to deliver campaign funds to their favored political groups. This donation system of taking involuntary dues from members and giving them to politicians is aggressively supported by the same people who condemn people who run corporations from giving to politicians they choose. That unions are corporate entities does not bother those defenders of this union tradition.
I see a simple way to make all school children AGW skeptics. Tell them that if CAGW is true, we should make efforts to cut energy drastically. Naturally we’ll have to restrict energy use to necessities, and eliminate frivolous luxuries like computer video games.
Alan D McIntire | May 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
Because schoolchildren are stupid enough to believe their Gameboy takes more energy than a float in the Rosebowl parade, or a tractor trailer loaded with Coors?
Or are you going to stop teaching math first?
You have a good point there, Bart. Let’s stop moving non-critical items like liquor, beer, and wine. If the liberals can do that, I would go along with anything they want.
jim2 | May 13, 2012 at 10:51 am |
Some may argue that beer sequesters CO2 for a good 21 days if not rushed, longer if you have a decent cooler; that vintage wine can sequester for decades, and a really exceptional whiskey might contain enough carbon in the alcohol that storing it for eighty years or more is perfectly feasible. That deep-rooted plants might sequester more carbon in their woody suberterrainean shoots before giving up their fruit, flowers and seeds to the vintner, brewer and distiller.
In short, it’s a balancing act.
They have to walk to school. They have to wash their clothes by hand. They cannot use the vacuum cleaner. They cannot use the heater in winter. They cannot use the air cooler in summer.
“I see a simple way to make all school children AGW skeptics. Tell them that if CAGW is true, we should make efforts to cut energy drastically. Naturally we’ll have to restrict energy use to necessities, and eliminate frivolous luxuries like computer video games.”
So they won’t be skeptical of AGW for any valid scientific reason, they will be skeptical of AGW because they don’t like the perceived implications. That’s the definition of being in denial.
Does this perhaps shed some light on the reasoning that lies behind skepticism of AGW in general?
So you concede that AGW is NOT so serious that energy spent on luxuries doesn’t need to be restricted?
@@ lolwot | May 13, 2012 at 8:10 am
with population explosion to 9 billion soon; demanding democratic west to decrease CO2 emission is: because all the third world cannot improve their economy to western standard – than your ”green march” is to lower the western economies to third world standard – nothing less would make you happy. Same as a suicide bomber, destroys himself, just to harm others.
Because I have proven that CO2 is not a global warming gas – that should make you and other extremist happy – instead, you are scared from the truth as the devil from the cross. Why lolwot, why? Every time they tell a lie in the media about the normal climatic changes – you are part of that crime; let it be on record. Are you too scared from THE
BOTTOM LINE, and why?
“Having read Harry_Read_Me and Jones’s remarks about his data retention and archiving procedures (or lack of them), I would not trust UEA/CRU to be capable of reading a thermometer on their campus correctly and report the information 24 hours later without transposing digits, inserting a negative sign or some other horror.” ~Latimer Alder
Poll – You Do Not Need a Weatherman to Predict Climate http://wp.me/p27eOk-kp
What is your prediction? For example, while it’s just a guess Salvatore Del Prete (3-Mar-2011) believes temperatures may be, 2F to 3F colder than they are now… [by] the end of this decade.
Quote ‘JC comment: Looks like the the forthcoming K-12 standards from the National Academies will be source of much debate in (US) statewide educational agencies. I would be particularly interested to hear how this issue is being dealt with in other countries.’
There is a remarkable level of ‘sameness’ as far as I can see (http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/p/climate-in-curricula.html): glib talk about greenhouses, scary talk about various threats, calls for action by children, and often contempt for humanity and its great achievements. It is disgraceful and seems orchestrated – so many groups have read from the same hymn sheet and have taken it upon themselves to ‘save us all’ or ‘the planet’ from our foolish ways as a matter of extreme urgency. It also happens to suit them for other reasons, be they ideological or religious or financial. All this in the complete absence of any observational indication of unusual weather, or ocean, or cryosphere behaviour! The frail theory that CO2 is such an important driver of climate has been included in competer models of the system, models which have been, what shall we say, rather disappointing their ‘predictions’, ‘projections’, ‘illustrations’, ‘imaginings’, or whatever they are to be called now.
this is a latest crib sheet for climate science communicators..
http://pirc.info/Climate_Factsheets_PIRC.pdf
http://www.pirc.info/projects/factsheets/
Dr Katie Hayhoe, Prof Phil Jones, DR Gavin Schmitt, Hansen, Trenberth all contributed: (and many others…
Spot one of the many problems with it here..
“Average global temperature has increased
by around 0.75ºC since the beginning of the
20th century. Most of this is very likely to be
due to human greenhouse gas emissions.”
——————
Spot the problem I have with it?
Define MOST….50%-95%?
As far as I’m aware, even IPCC say half natural..
.
So a very carfully worde document, tha would imply to ‘most’ people that 90% (most?) of warming in the 20th century, was AGW..
Lots of sections with ‘What Sceptics Say’
The PIRC advisory board member Chritsian Hunt, is the editor of the Carbon Brief) Tim Holmes author Climate Safety blog, funded by PIRC.
10:10 ‘No Pressure’ founder Fanny Armstrong (also Age of Stupid) was also involved with the PIRC. PIRC were also behind of the Zero Carbon Britain report (by 2030!)
Just lots more ‘communication’ by vested interests.
In the UK science teaching in schools reflects and must reflect the mainstream science of the day that includes climate change and evolution. For example, if an individual does not have an understanding of the role of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere how can they possibly have a view on man-made climate change.
Perhaps to introduce pupils to a discussion on the planets climate, four simple questions could be asked.
1. Is the planets present temperature above or below the long term average from the geological record?
2. Does the present Earths atmospheres contain more Carbon Dioxide than the long term average from the geological record?
3. From the geological record does an increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide lead or lag a temperature increase?
4. What current fraction of the atmosphere is occupied by Carbon Dioxide?
A discussion bringing out best scientific information should do much to remove the alarm that others driven by a ’cause’ seek to engender.
Its the least we can do for our fine young people!
“1. Is the planets present temperature above or below the long term average from the geological record?
2. Does the present Earths atmospheres contain more Carbon Dioxide than the long term average from the geological record?”
Geological record suggest 4.5 billion years. I have no clue of answers
but about 1/2 the record has unbreathable atmosphere.
Not much of earth has survived intact for 4.5 billion years.
Oh, actual none:
“Some of the oldest surface rock can be found in the Canadian Shield, Australia, Africa and in other more specific places around the world. The ages of these felsic rocks are generally between 2.5 and 3.8 billion years. The approximate ages have a margin of error of millions of years. In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.Researchers at McGill University found a rock with a very old model age for extraction from the mantle (3.8 to 4.28 billion years ago) in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt on the coast of Hudson Bay, in northern Quebec; the true age of these samples is still under debate, and they may actually be closer to 3.8 billion years old. Older than these rocks are crystals of the mineral zircon, which can survive the disaggregation of their parent rock and be found and dated in younger rock formations.”
And of course:
“The Genesis Rock, obtained from the Moon by astronauts during Apollo 15 mission, has been dated at 4.5 billion years. This is one of the oldest known rocks on Earth, even though it originated on the Moon. During Apollo 16, older rocks were brought back.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_rocks
The cause for alarm is not because CO2 or temperature is the highest ever.
Bryan,
Good questions. To avoid gbaikie’s issue with lack of detailed knowledge, lets confine the question to the last 500 million years, the time when multi-cell life has thrived. Then the answers are:
1. Below, in fact well below. Very roughly, from Scotese’s schematic diagram here: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm the planet’s average surface temperature has mostly been about 10 C warmer than now. In fact there have only been three short periods during the past 500 million years when the planet has had ice at the poles, see IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 6, Figure 6.1 here: http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1
2. Much less. In fact it is near the lowest it’s ever been and near the lower limit (170 ppm) at which vegetation can survive.
Scotese’s site, although greatly simplified, is aimed at school teachers. If school teachers were presenting this sort of information to school children, that information would get back to parents.
You describe Scotese’s site as aimed at school teachers, and for being greatly simplified.
I found this paragraph on it:
‘During the last 150 years humankind has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouses gases, principally carbon dioxide. As a result, the global climate is warming. As the Earth climate warms, the polar ice will melt and sea level will rise. This will decrease the amount of land and less energy will be reflected back into space. This additional warming will melt more ice and the seas will continue to flood the continents, resulting in more warming. It is likely that rapid global warming will trigger positive feedback mechanisms that will change the Earth’s climate mode from Ice House to Green House – like it was when the dinosaurs were around. The only question is how long will it take? 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.’
As we sit here at a cool end of the Holocene, our special interglacial which may well be coming to an end as the current ice age reasserts itself, as it has done before, the idea that we are going to reverse this by our CO2 is a remarkable simplification. It seems to hinge on CO2 by giving it a dramatic role in climate, a role which it does not seem to have had in the past, nor is it demonstrating it in the present. But then it complicates it a bit by adding in a ‘likely’ positive feedback, of a kind which is also remarkable for not being plausible in the past, nor in the present.
But given the enormous complexity of the climate system, these are indeed simplifications, and they have the political benefit of allowing talk not merely of the so-called greenhouse effect, but of greenhouses themselves – hot, sweaty, uncomfortable places. Plus flooded continents as if the heat wasn’t going to be bad enough by itself.
Step forward, ideologues, financiers, millenarians – tell us how we might escape this fate by doing what you ask! Tell us again of our great power over climate!! Tell us that warming is worse than cooling!!! We are ready to obey!!!!
Except, no we’re not. We don’t think very highly of you at all. I was just getting a bit carried away. Alarmism can do that to a chap if he’s not careful. I don’t think I’m going to recommend that site to teachers.
Funny how the ‘skeptics’ are so uncertain about the science on the planet warming, especially paleoclimate, but have no doubts about our knowledge of far distant climates states (eg it was 5C warmer 500,000,000 years ago!!). Same science, often the same techniques, but very very different responses to it.
Why is that?
Similar to how they argue the temperature record is unreliable but then argue it warmed just as fast before 1940 when CO2 was not rising as fast.
Or similar to how they claim CRU data cannot be trusted but then quote it to claim there’s been no warming for 15 years.
Or how they claim “it’s the sun” and then they argue it’s a step change, or cosmic rays, or el nino.
Or they argue other planets have warmed too and then claim the warming is due to UHI.
Or how they claim the concept of a global average temperature is meaningless but then argue there was a MWP where the world was much warmer on average than present.
Or how they argue the temperature record is unreliable but then argue that solar correlates with it perfectly over some period.
Or how they appeal to the insignificance of CO2 as a mere trace gas at only 0.038% of the atmosphere but then argue it’s a powerful plant food.
Or how they argue ice core CO2 measurements are unreliable but then argue there is a fine lag between CO2 and temperature in the ice core records.
Or how they argue temperature records of Earth are unreliable but then argue Mars has warmed.
Or how they argue temperature records and proxies are unreliable, but there’s definitely a clear 60 year cycle in them.
Or how they argue the temperature record is unreliable but the arctic used to be warmer in the 40s.
Or how they argue alarmism is bad, but CO2 limits will destroy the economy.
Or how they argue it’s cosmic rays, but clouds are a big uncertainty.
Or how they argue that AGW is not real science because it isn’t falsifiable, but then they claim it’s been falsified.
Or how they argue CO2 has been much higher in the past, but we can’t trust CO2 proxies.
Or how they argue climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted, but climate sensitivity is low.
“Similar to how they argue the temperature record is unreliable but then argue it warmed just as fast before 1940 when CO2 was not rising as fast.”
This is in context discerning CO2 signal and making 100 year prediction/projection. And one talking steepness or acceleration of “warming trend” .
“Or how they claim “it’s the sun” and then they argue it’s a step change, or cosmic rays, or el nino.”
And other factors.
“Or they argue other planets have warmed too and then claim the warming is due to UHI.
UHI is easily demonstrative. It’s obvious we should more closely monitor other planet’s temperature if want to understand what going on with Earth
“Or how they claim the concept of a global average temperature is meaningless but then argue there was a MWP where the world was much warmer on average than present.”
Global average temperature is not adequately defined- it’s meaningless.
Why do Lefties always want to erase history?
The people living in middle age were just interested as modern farmers in understanding the growing conditions. And the bureaucrats are more less unchanging over thousands of years
“Or how they argue ice core CO2 measurements are unreliable but then argue there is a fine lag between CO2 and temperature in the ice core records.”
Ice core are not used to measure current global CO2 levels. There many reasons question the attempt to measure past level of CO2. If CO2 were a significant cause of warming, one would not expect low levels of CO2 to cause temperature to go up and when CO2 are high for temperature to lower. And there appears in general for there to be large delay between rising temperature and rising CO2 levels. There are many proxies to use, all of them and more of them should found and used.
But they can be as accurate carefully measuring existing conditions with modern instruments. And the warmist are faced with an obvious problem
even with modern ways measuring the “fingerprint” of CO2 or even human effects upon the global climate or temperature has not been and isn’t measurable.
You wrongly generalize what people who are skeptical believe overall.
Individuals may believe as you havw written, but that is not a justification to claim to know the position of the overall population
I went to my son’s 9th grade P.O.L. Four students had presentations on CAGW. I asked all four if they could think of one beneficial effect from an increase in CO2 from 280 PPM to 390 PPM. Nope, four freshman high school students, not one of them could articulate an understanding of the beneficial effect CO2 had on plant life, food supplies, and water conservation; so this may be a helpful start. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/jul/01jul2010a2.html
So we could start with that, and perhaps include some discussions on the scientific method and what it means when projections do not match observations.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/may/31may2011a1.html
http://www.real-science.com/goto/http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-missing-energy-row-erupts-as-new-research-says-oceans-are-cooling.html
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
One thing the NIPCC report overlooks with regard to plant fertilization is competition between species. The CO2 changes will be global and every plant species on Earth will be affected. Not all plants are equal so some will benefit more than others. A lot of plants are in competition. So there will be losers. The greater the plant fertilization effect from the elevated CO2, the greater the competition based impacts. New species take time to emerge, but species can rapidly be wiped out. So any such changes to plant fertilization will certainly reduce biodiversity. The knock on effects will also go up the food chain.
If the plant fertilization effect is as strong as they suggest then the implications of elevating CO2 level as fast as we are doing is indeed quite alarming.
lolwot, , yes, yes, it must be worse then we thought, (Sarc) Really now you are speaking thory. What unruly weeds have destroyed wheat, soy, and rice production world wide? What speculative disaster in rising food production has materialized? It is likely that all crops worldwide grow 10% to 15% more food, on the same amount of water and land due to the “alarming” increase in CO2. The truth is “CO2 science” has some pretty good links on your concerns, which are substainially unfounded.
Far more cogent to reality is to ask yourself what would happen to the world right now if we needed about 12% more water and land to grow the same amount of food we now produce. The answer is likely a short five symbol response, WWlll. Once again the “C” in CAGW, is missing. This observation based evidence also should be taught.
BTW lowot, the reference was from here, “Friend, A.D. 2010. Terrestrial plant production and climate change. Journal of Experimental Botany 61: 1293-1309.”, not from the NIPCC; and there are dozens of similar studies, and thousands of experiments showing the benefits of increased CO2.
“. For a nominal doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration, for example, the productivity of earth’s herbaceous plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% or more (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air’s CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use efficiency of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency. Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs identified by Tilman et al. (2002), increases in the air’s CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase agricultural output without the taking of new land and water from nature.” These are the observed facts which the “scientific method” reveals. The difference between speculation, hypothesis, and theory has unfortunately not been taught in the current post normal science curriculum. Please try not to be a victim of such indoctronation.
David | May 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
In no way is what lolwot discusses about the downside of CO2 on plants theoretical. It’s an intensively studied field of agronomy. Large fields have been examined under high CO2 levels in the open for years, sometimes more than a decade. The results in the wild generally show extreme outcomes in Nitrogen depletion and change in microbial composition of soils.
If you know anything about plants – enough to assert “‘CO2 science’ has som pretty good links” – then you’re familiar with 2,4-D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid) and how it works by selective hormonal action on broad over narrow leaf plants. “Uncontrolled, unsustainable growth ensues, causing stem curl-over, leaf withering, and eventual plant death.” This is exactly the type of hormonal effect CO2 has, except CO2 is much stronger than 2,4-D for the same concentration at influencing auxins.
So, really, you could stack up links at CO2science from here to the moon, and even if I didn’t have an inkling of how well-known the bias of the Idsos was, I’d remain skeptical of such dismissal. CO2 is not a plant food at levels above 300 ppmv, but a plant hormone amplifier, just like other broadleaf herbicides.
You end up with a predominance of narrow-leaf archaic plants or plants that have become auxin-resistant, soil overrun with fungus, and about half the phytoplankton in the oceans wiped out. This is not theory. But it’s research you’re unlikely to find in the cherry-picked external links of the Idsos.
Also, these benefits you claim, you understand “more food” happens only in the plants that increase the mass of their edible portions under CO2. Not all do this. Dwarf varieties of many food crops have been painstakingly developed to concentrate resources in the edible portion (seeds, fruit, tubers, eg.) — and CO2 hormonally turns off dwarfism, causing all this development to be wasted and yields in such crops to drop.
CO2 is well-known to suppress and deform plant secondary sexual characteristics, so flowers and fruit may actually be sacrificed as the plant puts more resources into longer and brittler limbs and leaves that age and wither faster while depleting the soil of nutrients — speaking of, it’s shown that protein and other nutrient concentrations fall with rising CO2. More mass, less food value. You might as well cut out the middle man and go to McDonalds.
What future you’re describing is one where nitrogen fertilizers are more and more in demand, which will raise the price of food and of the petrochemicals fertilizer is made from.
Bart sure has a new angle on the catastrophy of increasing CO2! I’ll check with some of my younger biologist friends to see if they know that above 300 ppm, CO2 is not plant food, but a plant hormone amplifier with all those catastrophic results, much worse than 2,4-D. My biology graduate work was in the dark ages when CO2, many times higher than 300 ppm, was pumped into greenhouses to increase growth. Oh my, that’s still done! How tragic. I guess it’s killed everything, but the biologists and horticulturists and others are supressing the data.
Doug Allen | May 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
When you speak to the younger generation, get them to explain about auxins and ethylene to you, as it’ll help; also, the effect of CO2 concentration on suppressing and promoting plant hormones — though they’ll need to be fairly sharp, as that’s not a big area of study in agronomy courses — and maybe if you can get them to explain to you how to distinguish between concentrations in ppmv and concentrations that 2,4-D is applied, perhaps with special reference to terms like ‘order of magnitude’ and ‘persistence’.
So you can dabble a bit in the new modern terms, here’s a small sample from the literature of the current millennium: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16945092
You may want to make clear your interest in auxins and CO2 is for purely recreational purposes, or young people might get the wrong idea. Maybe they’ll tell you how greenhouse growers force plants with high CO2 selectively, to obtain the traits they want, rather than use increased concentrations on all plants in all circumstances.. if they know their stuff. It’s not like one expects Liebig’s law of the minimum to be taught to bio grad students, or soil exhaustion, or the distinction between ‘food’ and ‘hormone’. I’m sure you don’t gulp down vast quantities of hormone with your beer over a meal.
Here in Britain we have faith schools for the various religions Christians,Muslims,Jewish and so on.
When abstracted for religious instruction the method is rote learning of the various articles of faith.
I say this not to knock it , since faith requires no logical proof.
For science on the other hand a hierarchical sequential building of elements is required.
The experimental method is emphasised.
Pupils are encouraged to ask questions, to be sceptical and demand evidence.
To expect pupils to evaluate the consequences of increased Carbon Dioxide (when they barely know what Carbon Dioxide is) would be impossible.
Rote learning then, is the only practical method of climate science instruction at school level .
The question then arises should it be grouped in the part of the syllabus devoted to religious eduction?
God will keep his promises to any believer. He promises. Sad to say that this is not true with scientists. They seem to prefer to argue The Book, they have not studied, It is much eaiser to do and most in their class will be memeing by rout the words of past deniers that they have heard. God says that this type of behavior will one day come at a high price. Don’t worry scientists say. The world is going to drown again first…Wrong.
AGW indoctrination is just one of the many failures of public education. AGW belief is only a symptom of wider failures in so-called leaders.
Vaughan Pratt’s answer to **Is the Earth Warming?** might be accessible to K-12 students:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3019460680
> Hunter AGW shouldn’t be an issue. 7 billion humans can change things. The issue is the CAGW part.
CAGW is a big part of AGW.
Just look at the acronym.
Hunter AGW shouldn’t be an issue. 7 billion humans can change things. The issue is the CAGW part. Teaching the catastrophic part as science is no good because the C is unknown. It is especially a bad idea to teach C when the estimates of C are speculative and the probability decreasing.
Of course, there are creative writing courses where the C would be appropriate.
capt., When I use the term AGW, I am referring to the social mania that pushes what you call CAGW. As a big fan of SF, I can agree with about where the C is appropriate.
> When I use the term AGW, I am referring to the social mania that pushes what you call CAGW.
Hunty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Hunty Dumpty had a great fall.
> Hunter AGW shouldn’t be an issue. 7 billion humans can change things. The issue is the CAGW part.
CAGW is a big part of AGW.
Just look at the acronym.
Go team!
What is the current count on the Ummah, willard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah
They thought it a sin to count it, so how do we know?
Thank you, Tom, for reminding me Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom this morning:
> Some Englishmen, of whom Kitchener was chief, believed that a rebellion of Arabs against Turks would enable England, while fighting Germany, simultaneously to defeat Turkey. Their knowledge of the nature and power and country of the Arabic-speaking peoples made them think that the issue of such a rebellion would be happy: and indicated its character and method.
Somehowe, Ummah seemed to cause some alarm (?) among the Englishmen of the time.
Go team!
There is nothing new under the Sun,…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57433131/u.s-charter-schools-tied-to-powerful-turkish-imam/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
time will tell the tale.
willard, Kitchener was more of a historian and a pragmatist when it came to the world he lived in, he was a producer for the crown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#Sykes.E2.80.93Picot_Agreement
Intrigue. Plus the fields of Flanders, for free.
AGW indoctrination and the larger failure it is a part of underscores the good HI was doing in offering critical looks at AGW catastrophism. It is not surprising that unethical people like Gleick sought to stop HI, and then rationalize what he had done to make certain their indoctrination went unchallenged.
Q: Can we say the same about the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
A: Here’s Vaughan Pratt:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/12370513043
Arctic Sea Ice Nearly Disappears
September 22nd, 2012
http://bit.ly/IY8KRd
Lolwot writes: “10 years is too short to determine that the phenomenon, known as global warming, has stopped.”
Straw man. Not the issue. No one is claiming that the warming that started in the depths of the LIA has stopped. The point most skeptics are making is that 15 years (not 10) of no additional warming casts gave doubts on models that perhaps with one or 2 outlier exceptions did not predict such a pause.Try to think lolwot for a change, rather than just grabbing hold of whatever bogus point you blunder on first….
Sorry “grave” doubts..
“The point most skeptics are making is that 15 years (not 10) of no additional warming casts gave doubts on models”
Huh?
Michael,
Don’t fret. It is a fact thing, not an AGW thing. You don’t know, but it is all sciencey and statistical and stuff.
Got that nicely backwards hunter……what a surprise.
Climate Change as a high school course could be taught as a Political Science course. The core content would be the controversy surrounding the science. Students need to know that policy discussions entered a global political debate before the science was mature. The political consequences and economic consequences of such should be fully explored.
Don’t you think you scientists have done enough damage? If you need more to do, teach these kids to be properly skeptical.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/an-inconvenient-lawsuit-teenagers-take-global-warming-to-the-courts/256903/
dp | May 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
“Don’t you think you scientists have done enough damage? If you need more to do, teach these kids to be properly skeptical.”
From your link, it appears someone has, for at least one kid. :D
Look how angry these children look. They have been manipulated and deceived into being the equivalent of child suicide bombers. I wonder what they think of the 10:10 video?
“being the equivalent of child suicide bombers.”
There’s no doubt where the extremism lies here – kids using the legal system as it was designed, or someone equating that to “suicide bombers”.
Another ‘Heartland moment’ from the skeptics.
A bit like Monckton’s Nazi Youth moment
It certainly demonstrates the intellectual (quite likely moral as well) corruption at the heart of climate ‘skepticism’ – political/ideological extremists vilifying those who dare to have a different point of view.
“kids using the legal system as it was designed”
Sweet. Can’t wait to see what “evidence” they present. I’ve been waiting for someone to present some for about 10 years or so.
Andrew
It appears you’ve missed a lot in 10 years or so.
From the UK, a double header from the same judge: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
and
http://www.celsias.com/article/the-dirt-behind-the-recent-uk-inconvenient-truth-r/
If you’d sat through the hearings, you could’ve heard all the “evidence” the courts accepted.
See what you miss if you don’t pay attention to foreigners?
And then there’s http://www.climatecasechart.com/ for reference.
Hi Bart R
This guy you mention, Tim Nicholson, thta went to court about beliefs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/05/tim-nicholson-climate-change-philosophy
Oh look at the time of the judement, he was a 10:10 Campaign activist, employed by them as Health Strand Co-ordinator:
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/tim-nicholson/18/222/96b
Atthe time of 10:10′ ‘No Pressure’ video disasater, I recalled his bio, bragging about this..
Activists using the law to pursue their causes, what a surprise.
Bart R,
Forgive me, but what evidence do you think was presented? Your links don’t specify.
Andrew
Bad Andrew | May 14, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
Oh. Did you mean you were hoping we’d go out and get the evidence for you and bring it to you?
No, no. I was just observing that it went by at least a dozen times in under ten years, and you missed it. The implication being that the evidence can’t be all that important to you.
Who could guess you meant to be taken seriously, with a track record like that?
Michael,
Bunk. The legal system is not designed for children to sue blaming oil companies for the weather.
As to extremism, it is the AGW believers blowing up children in their videos, fabricating death threats against climate scientists and calling for worldwide destruction of technology to, they claim, save the planet.
You have shown up at a discussion that uses ideas and facts and logic with an amazing deficit in all three areas.
I think I have my answer.
OT but this is a good day to wish our hostess as well as all mothers, a very Happy Mother’s Day.
+1.
Go team!
dp your link says
“While teenagers serve as the public face of the lawsuit, the idea itself came from Julia Olson, an attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. Olson founded an organization called Our Children’s Trust after watching the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth while she was seven months pregnant.”
Instead of a minimalist diet of AGW propaganda that Jim D advocates or the rational discussions about the climate science debate that David Wojick works for, the American pupils are in reality fed a diet of anti -science.
Half digested, half truths and fiction are stunting the rational development of these American children.
Is the ’cause’ so important that science lessons are being used to indoctrinate these young minds before they have the maturity to reject pseudo -science.
Climate change education can be made quite simple. Here’s a perspective on the Canadian plan to lower emissions from my letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail (which has ZERO chance of getting published,).
“Let’s assume that the leading scientists who inform the International Panel on Climate Change are correct – a view that is not universally shared by all scientists.
In a peer reviewed article published in Nature magazine Dr. Damon Matthews of Concordia University tells us that a one tonne reduction in carbon dioxide emissions leads to a reduction of 0.0000000000015 degrees Celsius in global temperature. What then would be the effect on global warming of meeting Canada’s current target of a 17% reduction from the 2005 level of 731 megatonnes? Here’s the simple calculation that very few Canadians have seen:
731,000,000 tonnes x 17% x 0.0000000000015 degrees Celsius / tonne = .000186 degrees C.
In other words, if the IPCC is correct, meeting the target would avert annual global warming by roughly two ten thousandths of a degree or one degree Celsius per 5376 years. A similar calculation tells us that Canada’s total annual impact is 0.0011 degrees, or one degree per 909 years.
Armed with this information Canadians would be better armed to evaluate the wisdom and effectiveness of the government’s actions, or lack thereof”.
Pav We did similar calculations for the UK and sent them to Mp’s but they weren’t interested. I also asked 12 of the worlds leading climate scientists if they had told their respective govts what effect a drastic co2 reduction would have on temperartures but they weren’t interested either. The trouble is the powers that be are following a dogma-like the Euro-and once
embarked on this route they will do anything to save face and just lose all reason. I suspect the economic crisis will change peoples opinions in due course, even more that what nature may be telling us.
tonyb
Yes, Tony. I’ve seen your work.
I’m busy educating Canadian media editorial desks and columnists – one by one.
The Canadian Senate committee looking into climate change had presentations from a skeptical group, including McKitrick, a couple of months ago. At least one senator was paying attention. I’ve had correspondence with her.
Pav
Excellent, keep it up! I think your one by one approach is the best one . Collectively ‘they’ do not feel able to take note, but individually, away from the crowd and peer pressure, they may be more willing to listen.
tonyb
Start teaching the kids that their single vote won’t matter because there are at least 100 million other voting adults, and their individual vote accounts for only a 0.000001% difference.
Way to go Team Skeptic!
We can always depend on Web to miss the point and look foolish.
It’s Team Denizens to you, WebHubTelescope.
-lolwot likes WebHubTelescope’s comment
“In a peer reviewed article published in Nature magazine Dr. Damon Matthews of Concordia University tells us that a one tonne reduction in carbon dioxide emissions leads to a reduction of 0.0000000000015 degrees Celsius in global temperature.”
I can’t tell if you’ve factored this in or not, but he said that one tonne of CO2 leads to a 0.0000000000015C increase in global temperature, not one tonne per year.
A one tonne per year reduction in emissions leads to many tonnes less emitted over many years. Eg if you reduce emissions by one tonne per year, then over a 100 year period you emit 100 tonnes less.
So your figure of .000186 degrees C reduction is per year. Over a 100 year time period a 17% emission reduction by Canada leads to 0.0186C lower global temperatures.
lolwot
You have an uncanny ability to get things screwed up.
Matthews’ calculation is off by a factor of 2 to start off with.
He assumes that ALL of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere. As we know, the biosphere, ocean, etc, absorb around half, leaving only half in the atmosphere.
Eliminating Canada from the map today would not have a perceptible impact on the global temperature of 2100, proving the basic point that:
WE CANNOT CHANGE OUR PLANET’S CLIMATE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY WE THROW AT IT
Max
Manacker, I agree that Matthew’s figure is contoversially high. However, the payback for emissions reduction is very small, EVEN IF HE’S CORRECT.
“Matthews’ calculation is off by a factor of 2 to start off with.”
Does he? Are you sure about that. I would think he’s factored that in already.
maneker, yes we can change / improve the climate. But first people need to realize that: what you promote / Plimer’s crap, is the obstacle. Human cannot create GLOBAL warming; BUT HUMAN CAN DETERIORATE / IMPROVE THE CLIMATE!!! Because water controls the climate = human can control water, to a degree. If you don’t know that dry climate = extreme – wet / humid climate = mild climate, just ask.
Statement like yours that: human cannot change the climate is the biggest ever stupidity. Chop the trees and drain the lakes / overflows in Brazil – will make it as Sahara climate———–save extra storm-water on in dry countries = improves the climate. verdict: you personally are deteriorating the climate, just by promoting / merchandising Plimer’s crap. shame, shame!!!
Canada has no target to reduce beyond 17% of 2005 levels. You are changing the subject.
If Canada emits at 2005 levels for the next 100 years that’s 73 gigatons of CO2 emitted (730 megatons per year x 100)
Whereas if Canada reduces emissions by 17%, that’s 61 gigatons of CO2 emitted.
73 gigatons x 0.0000000000015 = 0.1095C
61 gigatons x 0.0000000000015 = 0.0915C
The reduction in warming then from a 17% reduction in Canadian emissions is 0.018C. Ie 0.0915C warming instead of 0.1095C.
So lolwot, let’s assume you are 100% brilliantly accurate in your superior wisdom confronted which we ordinary mortals cower in awe!
Let me point out that, once again, you are picking fly shit out of pepper.
Tell us, o great sage, is it a great deal for Canadians to wreck their economy to achieve these targets for trivial impact on global temperature when China, India and the U.S. have told us in absolutely no uncertain terms that they are not playing the game?
“is it a great deal for Canadians to wreck their economy”
Wrecked by a 17% emissions reduction? ooh you alarmist.
Your government would be better up putting pressure on China, India and the US to cut emissions too. Everyone knows the Canadian, UK and Australian self-imposed emission targets are non-serious. They’ll miss them, mark my words. All talk, not legally enforced.
This was kinda interesting, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/05/11/what-nordhaus-gets-wrong/#_edn2
Despite the potential economic benefit of a slightly warmer world, I loved this sentence, “It’s also interesting that Nordhaus invites his readers to not get caught up in the tiny details, and instead to take a step back and survey the grand picture of global temperatures.” Which is followed by a graph of global mean temperature, not anomaly.
Celsius is essentially an anomaly starting from the freezing point of water, so even your link hasn’t done it right according to their own rules.
Why not start the graph from 0 kelvin? Here, I’ll do it:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:287.15/plot/sine:10/to:1901
Now we can’t even see the 20th century warming in GISTEMP. It’s just a long flat red line.
“Furthermore, without more information to guide our charting decisions, choosing a y-axis range of 0–20 Celsius degrees—as I’ve done in the graph above—is just as arbitrary as Nordhaus implicitly choosing a range of 14–15 degrees in the graph he used.”
It isn’t. Nordhaus’s range is sensible – it fits all the data into the available space and makes the variations in the data as clear as can be.
The choice of starting the y axis from 0 celcius on the other-hand is a farce. If someone gave me a graph like that for analysis I would ask them WTF they are doing. What’s all that wasted white space I would ask, why didn’t maximize the use of space for the data so I can see the variations clearly? Notice that in Nordhaus’s graph you can clearly see the 1998 El Nino. In the instituteforenergyresearch graph you cannot.
lolwot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
You are way off base, but that is not a surprise.
Starting from 0degK is the correct way to graph the effects. All the relevant equations in the chemistry and physics of the earth’s biosphere are based on Kelvin- such as PV=nRTҝ. Keeps things in perspective.
My, you don’t say.
The difficulty with this thread is that you are all too smart, and debate the ability of K-12 students to understand this complex topic. The complexity has been reduced simply by making students calculate their carbon footprint: http://www.zerofootprintkids.com
This was assigned to my nephew in 6th grade in Michigan last month. You see, AGW is a given and the only homework for the student is to see how bad their contribution is. I was surprised there was not an embedded URL to report your parents gluttonous carbon habits.
Arcs,
The AGW climatocrats are working on just that topic now:
If you check out teaching about climate science in public schools will really help the kids to know a lot about the environment.
Mark Vj,
The uncritical indoctrination of AGW claims in public school is dumbing down the students and deceiving them about the environment. AGW, by pushing windmills, tidal power, large array solar, and the continued use of coal instead of new nuclear is harming the environment.
All of which turns them into “suicide bombers” as hunter has helpfully explained elsewhere.
> The uncritical indoctrination […]
I’d rather have critical indocrination:
http://www.aynrand.org
Climate science offers many valuable opportunities to teach critical thinking and the nature of truth claims, scientific method, confirmation bias and the role of tribal narratives, plus conflict resolution, the requirement for math literacy. It could generate learning experiences and discussions about uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity with examples of how climate science is interdisciplnary, involving physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, geology, and statistics. It might also lead to discussion of the precautionary principal and how attempts by governments to regulate climate for man’s benefit (if possible) require policy decisions involving energy, economics, and many other things. A good, enthusiastic science or social science teacher would love to use climate science as a catalyst for the above learning experiences!
“It might also lead to discussion of the precautionary principal…”
You mean how we should all live in caves, since it *might* be dangerous outside? Kids have enough nightmares without adults providing yet another layer of anxiety over nonsense.
“It *might* be dangerous outside,” is why humans have so many spare copi.. er, children to send out and test that hypothesis.
Low risk perception. High fecundity.
I said what I meant, caveman. Read it again!
A bleary-eyed review of my last comment reveals a train-wreck pile-up of big-time solecisms–some verb-subject agreement lapses being the most painful to view. But I’m sufficiently worn-out that I don’t care to fix them, except:
Para 14: Should read “…are not [emphasize “not”] really boogered up as…”
Last para, next to last line: add “…, or words to that effect.”
My apologies to the reader.
Don’t humble your train-wreck pile-ups, mike.
They’re good, but not that great.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/04/05/qa-heartlands-science-curriculum
Our emphasis.
Thanks Willard. There are actually two interviews with me and I posted links to both on an earlier thread, but you have picked the gist of it, here and below.
Glad to oblige, David Wojick. There are actually more than two hundreds hits when searching for your name in the Heartland Institute. For instance:
http://heartland.org/newspaper-submission/2005/05/02/another-false-alarm-global-warming?artId=17190
Again, my emphasis.
But to return to what does refer “the debate”, would you say that your interviews provide a fairly good idea of what you mean by “the debate”?
Many thanks!
No Willard. Unfortunately what I mean by the debate is an issue tree with several million question, objection and statement nodes. It is a very technical concept, basically everything of importance that has been said, in its underlying structure.
All I can do in the science education project is pick a few of the central issues, present them in grade level language, and point to places where the debate can be glimpsed.
David Wojick,
Thank you for your clarification.
So now, when you say that the debate does not exist, you mean that the issue tree with several million question, objection and statement nodes does not exist?
Many thanks!
David,
“the federal government side”
You meant “the science side”.
We look forward to the non-science side.
Michael, your rhetoric is silly.
Indeed – all that research, conducted all around the world, it’s all the “federal government side”.
I eagerly await reading your propa….errr, school curriculum.
There is plenty of research to support skepticism, some of which has been presented here. Your factual claims to the contrary are simply, and obviously, false.
Scientific scepticism is the norm – it’s how we’ve made several hundred years of astounding scientific and techological advances (somehow achieved sans blog !!).
What we have here, for the greatest part, is a lot of hypeventilated hypbole and ideological wheelbarrow pushing dressed up as scientific critique.
You used to hear this kind of nonsense at pubs of an evening, courtesy of a few too many beers.
Now people can do it in the comfort of their own homes. Sober!
Michael, your disdain for our work here is not persuasive. But it explains why you never join the scientific argument. Your standing in the middle of the debate crying “there is no debate” is quite remarkable. One wonders how you manage it.
David,
There is a scientific debate going on – in the peer reviewed literature.
Elsewhere, very little.
Brandon and Steven,
“CO2 affects the climate” could be an initial node which should be acceptable to all sides.
John Costigane,
How about?
1. Is the planet warming?
2. Is it due to AGW?
3. How much is due to AGW?
4. How serious is it?
5. Does it matter?
6. What is the optimum policy response?
6.1 if the world does not act in unison?
6.2 in the face of enormous uncertainty in consequences and likelihood
Peter,
Contention must be removed from the initial step otherwise this could not be the starting point since no agreement is possible. Which of your choices meets the condition?
John Costigane, you put this in the wrong fork, but:
This isn’t a good choice for a couple reasons. First, there are greenhouse gasses other than CO2 so it doesn’t make sense to limit the root to CO2. Second, it doesn’t limit the discussion to the greenhouse effect. Third, it necessarily requires clarification on its basis (meaning it would no longer be the root) since there are people who deny the greenhouse effect.
I’m actually a fan of Mosher’s. It basically can’t be disputed (I don’t think even the Sky Dragons do). Anything after that point involves calculations, but that one is just a matter of looking at frequency emission/absorption spectrums.
Peter Lang, that’s a bad list. First, as John Costigane points out, the root should not be a point of contention. Second, there’s nothing which says a theory of global warming would necessarily require us have seen (distinguishable) warming by this point as their could be noise/negative forcing getting in the way (there are other possibilities as well.
Brandon,
I disagree with your point on other greenhouse gasses, as they are non-controversial. The heart of the matter is CO2.
This issue tree must be readable to all interested parties so text must come first.
John Costigane,
I hadn’t understood this before your comment. I’ve learnt something from your question. Now I am stumped because I haven’t a clue how to start. Do we need a starting point that everyone would agree on, or would we choose a starting point that two people would agree on?
If the latter, then I still don’t know how to begin, because my main interest is the appropriate economic policy.
I am stumped. I can’t see where I could find common ground with what I regard as the catastrophists.
Can you point me to a link where I can read a bit about this. I Googled ‘Issue Tree’ and there are lots of links. Can you suggest where to begin?
Would or someone else be able to put this up on an appropriate tool on a web site where we can contribute. This JC thread has become too slow to use effectively now.
Peter,
I am happy the question helped. This is a learning experience for everyone, me included (binary trees having value beyond database handling).
David introduced this “Issue Tree” concept, possibly to make the climate debate clearer to all. We can start the process and others can join in as they wish. There are examples in David’s own links further up the topic.
I agree that a new topic may be the best way to proceed.
John Costigane,
This discussion is great. Thank you to you, David and the others participating.
If Judith Curry is watching, I wonder if you could consider starting a thread which would be dedicated to developing an Issue Tree for Climate Change debate?
Since we can go to just four levels on the thread, we may need to work to four levels for a start. That could be an excellent learning experience about both the discipline and the real debate over climate change.
John Costigane:
Huh? The effect of things like methane are not more certain than the effects of CO2. The only reason they are less “controversial” is CO2 has been the main focus of the global warming debate. That’s a matter of popular knowledge, not scientific knowledge.
Besides which, even if they were non-controversial, they’d still need to be discussed. If your root is limited to CO2 alone, there’s no room for them to come in. That means the entire thing would be built upon ignoring a major component of the global warming issue.
Peter Lang:
The root should be agreed upon by everyone participating in the discussion. If you’re willing to limit participants to people who agree to a particular point, you can set that point as your root, but you won’t be representing the views of people who disagree.
I still say Mosher’s sentence is a good start, “GHGs are relatively opaque to IR.” That directly leads to establishing the greenhouse effect, from which sensitivity can be discussed, from which potential danger can be discussed, from which economic policy can be discussed.
I’ve long said if I were on the side trying to convince people to take action to combat global warming, I’d want a site that does exactly this (this was even before I had read anything Wojick has ever said). It would be a good a way to show levels of knowledge/confidence, and if my position was right, it’d be a good way to convince people as they could address whatever concerns they might have. However, such a project would be a massive undertaking, and I don’t think it would work as a community project due to lack of structure/rigor.
I looked into how much much work it would be to make it for just the hockey stick controversy, and for even just that, it’s huge. I’d be happy to do it, but the amount of work is immense, and I couldn’t run a server right now anyway.
Oh wait. If all you want is an issue tree, that’s manageable. The site I had in mind would have each node in the tree linked to a page/article/whatever discussing the reasoning behind it.
For an issue tree alone, all you need is some online-sharable document which can handle the visuals you want. In other words, something like Google Docs would be sufficient (I don’t know if Google Docs has anything for visual layout creation, but I’m sure some site does).
Brandon,
I agree that there is more than CO2 in the debate. Scientific and popular perspectives are not the same. However we should form a starting point (node) which encompasses both viewpoints to allow the broadest access to the Issue Tree.
What is your suggestion for the initial node?
John Costigane:
I still like Mosher’s sentence, which I’ve mentioned a couple times. However, if you wanted to make the root more accessible, you could say something like, “There is a greenhouse effect.” It’s only a step or so away from Mosher’s sentence, and it is immediately recognizable by everyone.
Brandon,
How about “Many factors affect climate – some unknown”
Brandon Shollenberger,
You said: “I still say Mosher’s sentence is a good start, “GHGs are relatively opaque to IR.”
That statement is pretty meaningless to me. I really don’t care about that because for me the geological evidence suggest AGW is no big deal and certainly not catastrophic. And the economic analyses like Nordhaus (2012) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01544.x/abstract are what persuade me that economically damaging mitigation policies are not the correct policies. So arguing about one branch of physics would be irrelevant to me.
I want to know how the risks of warming have been calculated. I believe they are greatly exaggerated.
John Costigane, I’m not sure I see any reason to pick that over either I’ve offered. Why choose a vague starting point which has no direct connection to the global warming issue?
Also, saying some of them are unknown is superfluous. That would be brought up as a branch.
Brandon,
David has offered another initial node for the debate at the foot of the topic which I find is non-controversial.
Belated thanks for the earlier help with my ill-sited comment!
Peter Lang:
The sentence I gave is “pretty meaningless” to you because it isn’t the part of the tree you’d argue against. That’s natural. In a topic like global warming, you aren’t expected to disagree with everything. But remember, claims of catastrophic global warming are necessarily based on the sentence I gave. For example:
That would be one path along the issue tree. You may disagree with just the last point, or just the last two, or whatever, but that doesn’t change the structure of the tree. Each point must rely upon the preceding points being true, and thus, we need to include the preceding points.
John Costigane:
What he offered is fine if all you want to discuss is whether or not humans are causing dangerous changes. It is not fine if you want to discuss global warming as a whole.
No prob.
Brandon,
David’s offering is likely to be understood, and recognised, by more people than your purely scientific option. This makes it a better choice for newcomers to the debate ie the vast majority.
John Costigane:
It’s only a better choice if you’re willing to completely disregard parts of the global warming issue. If you make a debate point the root of your tree, you cannot possibly hope to examine the entire discussion.
If you’re okay with that, you can use his choice for a root. But if you’re wanting to make a general resource on global warming, you cannot use his choice.
Just to elaborate, you are making this claim on a blog that has logged over 200k comments, mostly dedicated to presenting different sides of the science, much of it skeptical. Claiming the skeptical side is non-science, in the face of this much data, is nuts.
Replies like Michael’s are common among the most fervent believers in CAGW. They claim their side is science, will the other is anti-science or propaganda. Name-calling appears to be a desperate attempt to right a sinking ship. Ironically, RC had a thread entitled, “The legend of the Titanic.”
Confirmation bias is strong with this one.
Not sure how 200K blog comments stack up against 200 years of research and the fact that this research has convinced every scientific body of any significance in the world. Not sure what it is that David thinks he knows that hasn’t already been argued through over the last 200 years.
Wondering if this is the same David.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick
Yes Chris, that is me. But I do not understand your 200 years of research comment. There is research on both sides, hence the debate. This is clearly reflected in the discussions on this blog.
As for the so-called scientific bodies, they are political institutions. None has ever polled its members on their political position statements, which mostly track the official positions of their respective governments, who fund their science. This is a political movement at work, not scientific progress.
Nutty comments about science are not science.
200,000 or 2,000,000 comments lamenting a one-world govt, conspiracies about scientific fraud, or denying basic physics is not “different sides of science”.
It’s just rubbish.
So we get to teach Iron Sun in schools! cool.
Ironically Mosher, I was including your comments among the sensible ones. Have to rethink that. Do try to be sensible. This blog has some cranks but much of the content is quite good. Yours used to be.
A brief history for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
”
…
Joseph Fourier, in 1824, found that Earth’s atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum, and he made the first calculations of the warming effect.
…”
“Politcial institutions”?
So, you can’t find fault with the science, and instead are proposing that everyone who has ever done research on climate has worked for the government (which I find doubtful), and only put out what the government tells them to, and this is taking place from Sweden to New Zealand. As far as that goes, I seem to recall that President Bush (second one) and his party members (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/29/usnews.climatechange) were not what you would consider activists in mitigating AGW, yet the US National Academy of Science stated that it was happening, and we were likely the cause. That would seem to be contrary to your assertion.
Just why should we believe your assertion (as a non-scientist) that X number of blog comments should be weighed more heavily than the culmination of 200 years of actual research?
Chris, unfortunately I find your comment to be incoherent, a mish-mash of ideas. My first point was that there is science on both sides, which you do not address. Your 200 years of research is inconclusive at best. Note that the GH effect per se is not the primary issue. The scientific issue is why it is warming (including how much and when) and what difference this makes?
As for the Societies, there has been a specific campaign to get them to issue these statements, to which many members objected. I myself am a member of the AAAS and I certainly do not agree with their endorsement of CAGW. NAS has itself made no such statement. Its admin arm, the NRC, has run numerous small group sessions, with varying results. Do you have a specific one in mind?
The fact is that the scientific establishment is hopelessly politicized on this issue, because 20 years ago most countries prematurely endorsed the CAGW hypothesis.
David,
What is missing from your writings is a clear and unbiased assessment of what constitutes “science” on both side of an issue.
For example: There is “debate” ( people that disagree) about the
core physics: GHGs lead to an atmosphere that is more opaque to IR.
People on each side of this debate have “science” degrees and scientific
“publications” . So my question to you is what proceedure do you use
to ascertain what is a scientific debate as opposed to mere disagreement.
1. Did you select that method prior to looking at the topic
2. is that method documented and tested?
3. is there a debate over what constitutes a debate?
David Wojick,
You say:
> The scientific issue is why it is warming (including how much and when) and what difference this makes?
Is “issue” another technical concept?
In that case, what does it mean?
Many thanks!
Steven, these are good questions, which I will be happy to address, given time, but how about restating them as a new comment, so we get some issue tree nesting?
Also, please drop the excessive quote marks because they render you unintelligible. Putting a word in quotes means you mean something other than the ordinary word. If you do not say what the new sense of the word is then I cannot know what you mean. See what I mean? If I say “I have a “dog” at home,” then it means something other than I have a dog, but who knows what? Maybe an under-powered car, but I have to specify what I mean. Or do your quotes not do that?
Willard, in this case the term “issue” means something like the question that drives the debate. The one the issue tree grows from, as it were. Science is driven by questions. See my little essay on the issue tree structure of science at
http://www.osti.gov/ostiblog/home/entry/sharing_results_is_the_engine
David Wojick,
Thank you for the article, but I’m not sure what the tree does here: it’s just a representation you chose to illustrate the exponential nature of asking questions, right?
I mean, is a science debate really a tree? A tree is simply an undirected graph with connected vertices without cycles. Is it rooted too?
And what about the semantics?
Am I creating a tree right now?
Willard, I actually claim that the issue tree is a fundamental structure of ordinary expressed thought, which means normal speaking and writing. See http://www.stemed.info/Repo_Tree.pdf for an example. The questions are there whether spoken or not. It is how sentences fit together, and the basis for my work. These structures have important properties.
So yes your comment has an underlying issue tree structure. So does any body of scientific writing on a given topic, including climate. All 200k Comments posted here so far form a single issue tree.
No David, you asserted that the fact that there were 200K blog comments was evidence against the main conclusion of every climate research institution on the planet. I asserted that I don’t count blog comments as evidence. (At least not with regard to the physical sciences; they may be very interesting in the realm of social sciences.) And, I pointed out that the history of climate science predates most current governments.
Instead of countering with a counter-example, or even any physical science, you made the excuse that these research institutions were pressured into making their statements by their governments, despite that fact that, for at least some of them, their governments would have liked them to say exactly the opposite.
I find your thinking process incoherent and irrational. You know David, just because you can’t understand what someone is telling you, does not mean that they are wrong.
David Wojick, I’m curious about something. How would your issue tree handle a non-responsive response or an intuitive leap? As in, a point in the thought process/discussion without a connection to what (not necessarily immediately) preceded it. Without a connection to the previous segments, it seems like you’d either need to “fill in” the gaps or start a second tree. For the former, you’re inputting data which wasn’t present. For the latter, you’re no longer following the single-tree theory.
David Wojick,
Thank you for all the answers you provided today.
One last question: you said that the tree structures have important properties. Which ones?
Many thanks!
You must mean this, willard…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary
Hope we can find more time soon to talk more.
Right, I see.
Tom,
There’s also this other tree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot#Death
but no, I was looking for more formal properties, this time.
Sorry mate, he was left. Right?
David.
Sorry about the quotes. Let me tell you how to parse them. It’s not that hard.
When I write that people have “publications” I want you to understand that this term can mean many things and I dont want you to try to
weasle out of things by playing games with the terms. I could provide an exhaustive list of everything one might consider to be a “publication”
The nesting doesnt bother me. So, you have the questions.
My sense is this. The decision about what is a debate and what is mere disagreement or gainsaying isn’t something that you can determine
in any objective manner. In fact I think that by trying to present “the debate” you really will just be recapitulating your own personal views.
Question: how will you know you have your list of topics done correctly?
steven,
Why not form a committee just to make sure. It’s for the kids.
willard.
“Is it rooted too?”
If you look at Davids schema, he definitately has a notion that a tree is rooted. That there is a first question, or first issue, or first statement.
To every statement, there are, supposedly, 5 types of responses
questions, answers, objections, replies,..
If I question your rooting ( typically a question of framing) then the
debate instantly goes “meta” Smart debaters understand that you
always question the root when your leaves are weak. In short, go philosophical early and often.
There should be rule: the first one to mention philosophy loses.
My experience has been that you can always fight on the philosophy level while you assemble and learn the “real” tree.
Actually it might be interesting to see the issue tree because you’d see how many skeptics are down dead branches of the argument. They are down lines of the opening where white wins.
On the other hand, some on the warmist side have pressed openings that are losers:
1. the change we see is unprecidented ( the failed HS line )
2. the models can be trusted ( opps the platuea)
3. Extreme events are becoming extremer ( hurricane nonsense)
It might actually be interesting to understand what the mainline is
for climate science
What is the root statement for climate science?
1. GHGs are relatively opaque to IR
Does David want to say that there is an issue tree there?
If so, then there is an issue tree for Water is wet and everything is “debateable”
sorry for the scare quotes
Steven Mosher:
Of course there is an issue tree there; an issue tree doesn’t require the root be disputed. For example, a “so-what” issue tree could develop from that point. First, there would be branches for things like, “What does ‘relatively opaque’ mean?” Then, it’d move onto, “What does that relative opacity cause?” Depending on the level of detail, you might then see detailed questions about radiative physics, or you might just see, “The planet will warm.” After that, you could then wind up with branches like, “How much?” So forth and so on.
One could work in the opposite direction, building a tree to detail how we know those are relatively opaque (even going so far as to reach the first principles), but that’s not the only way to build from a point. Issue trees don’t require the starting statement be disputed. In fact, it’s usually best to start with a statement both parties agree to, and have disputes be over the things which branch off that statement.
> What is the root statement for climate science?
Since scientific holism wins, there might not be any root statement.
In fact, there might not be any statement at all.
To represent the climate debate in a rooted tree, I suggest “the climate debate” as the root.
A question could be “What is the climate debate?”
Another question could be “Is there one climate debate?”
Another: “what is a debate?”
Or we just could read this thread.
David Wojick:
I have answered Steven Mosher’s questions with snippets of issue trees. How did I do?
A. What is the root statement of climate science?
B. GHGs are relatively opaque to IR.
A. Wrong. It’s that some gases are relatively opaque to EMR.
B. We are scrubbing SO2, not CO2. Effectively, all that matters is GHGs.
A. Weren’t we talking about the root statement of climate science? I doubt that climate science is as uninterested in the sulfur cycle as you seem to be.
B. Look. There is no root statement of climate science. It was a rhetorical device.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
This issue tree is a node of another issue tree which is about attending an awards ceremony.
A. Water is wet.
B. Yes, I know. What’s your point?
A. My point is that I just spent $800 on a new silk dress. It can’t get wet.
B. So what? The banquet room is in the cruise ship, not in the ocean.
News Flash
willard and moshpit agree
“Since scientific holism wins, there might not be any root statement.”
that makes my quinian heart go pitter pat.
There is always and forever the ability to go meta as the response to any node in an issue tree. Going meta necessarily invokes philosophy.
And so at the limit invokes the decision of whether to proceed with
metaphysics first ( why is there something rather than nothing ) or with epistemology first ( what can we know ) or to proceed with neither first and question the concept of a first question.
Language is a social art.
But you know it’s a conspiracy by the federal government to strip even more taxes out of the public so that they can have even thicker piled carpet in their ivory towered offices.
bastards!
Michael,
If you were actually informed on this you would be embarrassed.
tell me more about “child suicide bombers”.
I’m embarrassed that I seem to know far less about it than you.
Start here Michael,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
better late than never?
Michael,
This inability of yours to read what people write seems to be a persistent problem. Is it somethign you do deliberately, or is it something you are unable to control/
Here is my reference to suicide bombing, in full:
“hunter | May 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
Look how angry these children look. They have been manipulated and deceived into being the equivalent of child suicide bombers. I wonder what they think of the 10:10 video?”
Notice that I used a big word, “equivalent” to modify the phrase “child suicide bombers” in refernce tot he manipulation and deceipt being perpetrated on the children that were the subject of the post.. Now a reasonably biright person would know about how extremists ahve used children and mentally challenged youth as suicidal weapons. And a reasonable person would at least take a moment and use that google thing to look into it a bit. But a true believer like you has no need for facts, context, analysis or thinking: you have a quote to parse out and your ignorance to display.
You are doing an admirable job of displaying your ignoarnce, by the way.
You are one of our newest trolls, and certainly not a very good troll, but you are fun. Please do continue.
hunter,
People might be a bit more charitable towards your inappropriate use of words if you were willing to be similarly charitable towards those you criticise. The fact is that arguing equivalence between two particular actions or positions normally means they are directly comparable – in fact I’ve often seen people (unfairly) accused of arguing equivalence when their point is really a kind of “slippery slope” argument or argument ad absurdum. Now I can’t speak for Michael but I doubt that you really think there is no difference between children who want to further a cause through legal action and those who do so by committing mass murder. I also don’t think that the people at 10:10 believe that blowing up children would be an acceptable way to further the cause of combatting AGW. You just didn’t choose your words carefully, they indulged in a ham fisted and misconceived attempt at satire. Of course you know that, but continue to endlessly bring it up anyway, forgive me if I lack sympathy for Michael giving you a hard time over what was a pretty stupid comment.
Mr. andrew adams, I am sure that we would be able to agree, that in this day and age waterboarding would be the prefered way to train our children in proper thinking. It is PNS after all.
aa,
Thanks for the advice and comment. I would be less annoyed with the newbie trolls if they were not such a pitiable combination of snark and ignorance. The fact is whoever recruited these children into becoming plaintiffs in yet another faux legal challenge that could have come striaght out of “Climate of Fear” is manipulating those kids into a destructive bit of ignorance. I am against child abuse by anyone, particularly lying extremists whether they are blowing up kids or hiding behind them like cowards in a phonied up legal stunt.
Yes hunter.
Children using the law is “equivalent” to “suicide bombers”.
Hmmm, I see.
Are you on a mission from the Heartland Institute? Thy do a similar line in carefully reasoned argument.
Tom,
Nah, brainwashing them via the public education system is working just fine.
hunter,
I see no evidence that the young people in question have been manipulated in any improper way. No doubt they have learned in school that the mainstream scientific position is that AGW is real and has potentially dangerous consequences for the future – I would be surprised if that were not the case given that it is the mainstream scientific position. But I doubt they needed particular encouragement to take the action they are taking, as many young people tend to be idealistic and want to take action for causes they believe in.
Michael,
You are not in control of the terms of this discusssion. Your inability to read is not my problem. When I see you personally make statements against the the years of over-the-top false accusations against skeptics, get back with me and we can discuss if my point about manipulation of children to force society to adopt AGW extremism is a problem.
Additinally, Michael, it really is your lack of comprehension: The equivalent of a suicide bomber in a legal setting is a party that self-destructs and whose case falls apart. I am aware of no legal equivalent that involves killing in the Court. I was wrong: you are not even a clever troll.
It seems that SRN stands for School Reform News:
Our emphasis.
One side. One major debate.
Go team!
Source: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/04/17/qa-scientific-controversies-classrooms
Since Judith has adked how other countries approach this debate, could someone provide a breif glassary for US school terminology, please? i.e. what is K12, “High School”, “Elementary”, etc. A mapping to ages would probably be best.
Thanks.
Wow – apologies for the dreadful spelling above ;(
K is kindergarten or preschool, so roughly before age 6. Elementary is usually grades 1-6, or roughly ages 6-12. High school is often grades 9 or 10 to 12. In between is middle school. The ranges may vary from place to place. K-12 is the whole precollege range.
Most states have individual standards for grades 1 thru 6, then for middle and high school, but it varies a lot. When we cataloged concepts by grade and estimated the average grade for each concept we were lmited by the lack of grade specifity in higher grades. Students often have a choice at the higher levels as to when to take what science courses. Who learns what, when is an unstudied subject.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/3wci-weather-climate-and-impacts
They want to teach about climate and adverse impacts in grade 3-5. But I do not see anything about CAGW.
David,
This is not really any different than the post WWI era in the US when eugenics indoctrination and popularity was quite high. The saving part of this AGW mania is that public education is teaching nearly nothing in the first place, so they are not going to do much with AGW. After all, public education can barely teach reading and basic math, and is lost on any complex issue. AGW promoters can write all of the curriculum they wish. The delivery system is broken. And of course the reality that their apocalyptic claptrap is wrong ultimately makes their indoctrination pointless, except for those profiting from the promotion.
though apparently it’s doing a sterling job churning out “child suicide bombers”….or so suggests hunter.
Michael,
Is English your first language? Do you have reading comprehension issues?
I posted a nice link showing how some AGW extremists look at communicating the need to agree with their belief, by the way.
Few trolls seem able to ever actually engage on topics. You are very much a good example of this.
Comprehenion is fine.
You equated children following avilable legl avenus to addres their concerns, with mass murderers.
That was your point and you commncated it effectively.
Of course, such stupendously disgusting vilification of a group of childen (who are real ive people and have been piblicly identified ) puts you far far beyond the pale of the 10:10 video people, whom you apparently hold in very low regard.
This verges on wicked.
Michael,
The kdis put themseves in the public eye. Are you now so illiterate as to think I am calllnig for violence?
Take a look at this book, personally supported dr. hansen, and get back with me on what is evil.
http://www.amazon.com/Times-Up-Uncivilized-Solution-Global/dp/190032248X
It is interesting how true believers like you get the vapors so easily, even if you have to fabricate a reason for it.
As tot he children and their goals, greens who would cheer these kdis on if old enough were cheering for DT bans, have supported using food for fuel, and are OK with wrecking the environment with windmills and large solar arrays.
Your outrage is faux, as are your arguments.
Vilifying children with such extreme rhetroic is low, even for you.
Anyone with a shred of moral integrity would recognise that a line was crossed.
When I was 18 years old I would have felt insulted by being referred to as a ‘child’.
And, oh yeah, I knew everything there is to know about everything – nobody had any business telling me anything.
The oldest of the group is 17.
Silence from Team Skeptic about Hunter’s appalling and cowardly conduct.
Team Denizens, Michael.
Go team!
High five!
Michael,
Cowardly? Vilify?
The article was written with their cooperation, certainly at the suggestion of their handlers. In what way have I vilified them?
I vilify those who manipulated them into believing the world is ending due to CO2 and that they should go into court and force the issue. They are being abused by AGW fanatics, probably as stupid as you.
Pointing out that children are being abused is vilification only in the mind of someone who has no idea what they are reading.
You are a true blue idiot.
They’re children.
What kind of moral cretin are you to you to be equating school children exercising their civil rigths with “suicide bombers”??
Using this kind of extreme rhetoric and directing it towards an identifeid child is astoundingly stupid and dangerous. And you continue to defend it.
You make the 10:10 video people look like saints. Heck, this is even worse than Heartlands billboard. Much worse.
What’s wrong with you?
Michael, that’s not what hunter said. You read it wrong. Either put your hand up to it, or shut up!
Peter,
Michael’s inability to read, whether willful or uncontrollable, is probably linked to the reasons he is such an unorigianl cmbination of troll and true believer.
“Peter317 | May 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
Michael, that’s not what hunter said. You read it wrong”
Peter, here it is again.
“They have been manipulated and deceived into being the equivalent of child suicide bombers” – hunter.
What’s to get wrong?
Michael, you may look but you don’t see.
Are you comfortable about people who propagandise youngsters into doing their dirty work for them?
Because that’s the point of hunter’s comment.
hunter’s point was pure speculation, dressed up in the most vile rhetoric one could imagine.
Not even Heartland would touch this.
Oh do get over yourself.
You’re right, labelling school children as “suicide bombers” is just so nothing.
I disagree Hunter. Science education is doing very well in this country, considering there are only 60 to 100 hours of K-12 scied a year in most schools.
Moreover, my point was that CAGW is not part of the proposed new curriculum at the elementary level. It is something that individual teachers are adding, and polls show that skeptics are calling them out on it. This is good news.
David Wojick
Science education is doing very well in this country
Hmmm…
A current TV commercial tells us the USA has slipped to 27th place worldwide in science education.
You may be right that CAGW is not officially “part of the proposed new curriculum”, but it appears to me that instead of teaching kids the basics and how to be skeptical in the context of scientific inquiry, they are being fed socio-political propaganda on climate change, sustainability and environmentalism disguised as “science”.
I can hardly believe that this is simply the result of a few “rogue teachers” that are not sticking with the core curriculum.
Max
David Wojick
Here is the link to an article citing the finding of The National Academies on science education in the USA, to which I referred:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/opinion/26tue2.html
Max
David
The report actually says 48th place (rather than 27th):
U.S. mathematics and science K-12 education ranks 48th worldwide
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2010-09-23-science-education_N.htm
Max
The central issue: “When/Why did science cease being a tool to advance mankind and become a tool to control and enslave mankind with untruths like AGW, global warming, and oscillating neutrinos?”
How have important documents, intended to benefit mankind, like the 1776 US Declaration of Independence and the 1945 United Nations Charter, evolve into opposing visions of truth (reality)?
1976 US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
1945 Preamble to United Nations Charter: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.”
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
Wise leaders would find ways to protect and implement the objectives of both documents. Unwise leaders might try to implement the objectives by deception.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
Correction:
1976 US Declaration of Independence should be
1776 US Declaration of Independence
We can all appreciate the nuances of the various mathematical approaches to problem-solving. We should not, however, deceive ourselves or others when it comes to applying these approaches to believing public schoolteachers can model the Earth’s climate.
We can only legitimately undertake the task of modeling the Earth’s climate only if can first concede admit that our understanding of anything that is a holistic process will always be very limited. Only those with such candor also will know that our ability to effectively model climate is limited.
Divining reality from the shadows on the walls of Plato’s prison cave may be as close humanity will ever come: the shifting crusts and volcanic eruptions, oscillations of solar activity on multi-Decadal to Centennial and Millennial time scales with variations in gamma radiation, the roles of the big planets, Saturn and Jupiter, a changing North Pole and variations in the magnetosphere all are but a part of a holistic process that is the Earth’s climate.
Poll – You Do Not Need a Weatherman to Predict Climate http://wp.me/p27eOk-kp
By the way, the PBS transcript is here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/jan-june12/teachclimate_05-02.html
Note that they more or less begin with a parent saying this: “RENEE DOMICO: My biggest concern is that my kids are going to come home from high school and say: The world is warming up. We’re too industrialized. We drive too many cars. We have too many people. And human nature is polluting the world.”
Her concern is legitimate to say the least, but they just blow her off and go on to discuss the supposed problem that too many people agree with her, making teaching the scare a tad hard. Taken in perspective it is very funny.
But look, she doesn’t seem to care whether it’s true or not, she just doesn’t want it taught! Don’t teach them about world war II, I don’t want my kid to know something that bad happened!
I think she thinks it is false.
Some but not me might say that disdain for her work is not persuasive.
I really like Cheryl Manning’s way of explaining that is a scientific theory is a survivor:
The Denizens themselves show the importance of teaching to our kids that science proceeds by inferring to the best explanation.
Another interesting bit:
Warmth that warms our hearts, lands.
Who is NARRATOR?
A good question, Willard.. That line is out of place and not responded to. It reads like a skeptic’s insertion.
NARRATOR could belong to an ad by the Heartland Institute.
We’d need to check to video to validate this hypothesis.
And so it seems I’ve just created a tree.
Am I debating?
I think we need a tree about trees or a tree about debates. or a debate about trees.
What we need is the issue tree of the basic debate. I have never been able to sell that project because neither side wants to pay to have the other sides arguments clearly articulated.
“Issue tree of the basic debate”
Great idea.
Can you point to a good example so I can see what you mean?
Can you also suggest/explain how it could be set up on WordPress threads like “Climate etc.”
I cannot show you a good example, Peter. I discovered the issue tree in 1973 and pretty much moved on a decade later, so none are in electronic form, except a few little ones. The last big one I did was a strategic plan for the Naval Research Lab in 1990 and even then it was on paper.
It should be simple on WordPress, provided there are enough nesting levels. How many levels can one have? It would take at least ten. The problem is that issue trees are labor intensive, like engineering drawings or algebra word problems, because precision is important. It is basically a form of mathematical logic, so not simple.
David, If you want to do it right ( I used to draw these as a kid in the late 60s) you basically want to create a huge virtual canvas of the entire tree and then you can pan/zoom etc on the section you need.
If I wasnt so busy I’d code it up for you. The approach isnt that unique. Its basically an opening book for debate. Or, planning what to say when your parents catch you doing something wrong.
David Wojick and Steven Mosher,
Thank you. Can you give me a link to something that shows what and Issue Tree looks like?
I wonder if Mind Map would work?
http://www.matchware.com/mv3be_landing.php?gclid=CNXIl5u8g7ACFcIlpAodCjC_jg
It is a very simple tool to use. It is used in many organisations, such as in the Defence Materiel Organisation, in the early stages of project planning, e.g. Work Breakdown Structure, schedule and cost. Its also used bu PhD students to develop and plan their research program. It can integrate with MS Project, Excel etc. There are also much more sophisticated tools for risk trees. I realise a tool is just a tool, so I am interested, as a first step, to understand what you envisage as an issue tree? How would it work? Can you explain for me? Do you have a web site where you could post a reply so it does no get lost in the other discussions on this thread?
Steven, you have no vague idea what I am talking about. Have you ever even seen an issue tree? Where?
yes david I’ve seen your “issue” trees. Like I said Its exactly like the trees I used to draw as a kid preparing for debate. Later the approach was useful in many types of analysis, including operational analysis. By that point I was able to build a program to allow anyone to build a tree at their computer, plot the entire thing out and put it up on the wall.
Its pretty basic. It would be harder if it involved recursion or cycles, but it doesnt so its brain dead easy
Issue trees these days are generally just regarded as a subtype of mind maps.
The world’s full of freeware mindmap tools.
In a pinch, you can create them at http://www.prezi.com .. with bells and whistles.
Sure Peter, sorry but I tend to think that people have been here forever.
Here is my little textbook: http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
Warning, the one sentence exercises take hours to complete. This is an engineering textbook. I wrote it in 1975 because I used to teach my CMU students to do issue trees instead of essays. It turns out that what we say and write are complex systems of thought, not mere lists of sentences.
Mind maps have nothing to do with this. Everything we write and say has an underlying issue tree structure, and always has had. It is a property of language.
Here is a brief history, circa 1980:
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
David Wojick
Thank you for the link to your textbook. It’ll take me a while to digest this.
Just looking at the diagram on the front cover, it does look as if the Mindmap technique would work. Did you look at the link I provided above to see if it might work?:
http://www.matchware.com/mv3be_landing.php?gclid=CNXIl5u8g7ACFcIlpAodCjC_jg
If you say it wouldn’t work, can you please say why. I recognise it is just a tool, and does not avoid the hard work, the real work. But it may help because it is so easy to use as a tool to restructure and rearrange.
Glad to know, Stephen. Could we then have a brain dead easy issue tree of the top 200 points of the clmate debate? Or even of your two paragraph response? How about an issue tree of this comment? Anything will do.
You have no idea what I am talking about, do you? It is the same with climate science.
Peter, it is entirely possible that mindmaps might work to draw an issue tree. Any diagraming software might work. But issue trees need not be drawn as graphs.
Issue trees are not about diagramming; they are about the structure of expressed thought. How sentences fit together to make systems of thought. Issue trees are like algebra, which is not about symbols, but about relational structures. Our sentences are precisely related. Mindmaps has no hint of this, but it might be able to draw it. I have no idea one way or the other. We could try it.
david.
You ask if I have read your work. yes, some time ago and then again before I commented.
Instead of responding to that, you repeat the claim that I dont know what I am talking about. That statement could be
1. false
2. true
3. undecideable
Perhaps I do know what Im talking about because I read your paper and you just want to divert attention from your stupid question ( did I read your work.. yes I did. Perhaps I do know what Im talking about but Ive framed it in way you dont like. Perhaps youve misunderstood my understanding.
Maybe I dont know what Im talking about and its your fault because your paper is written poorly or confusing. And perhaps its undecideable whether I know what I am talking about.
In the end we have a failure to communicate. Your signs are not controlling my behavior. and my signs are not controlling your behavior.
No. David. before we apply a methodology we need to understand if it works. So we would need an engineering level exposition of it.
technical specs as willard suggests. So before we get to the climate issue, we have the issue of issue trees.
As you note, the concept of an issue tree hasnt settled anything
“The Giant Redwood. The Larch. The Fir! The mighty Scots Pine! The lofty flowering Cherry! The plucky little Apsen! The limping Roo tree of Nigeria. The towering Wattle of Aldershot! The Maidenhead Weeping Water Plant! The naughty Leicestershire Flashing Oak! The flatulent Elm of West Ruislip! The Quercus Maximus Bamber Gascoigni! The Epigillus! The Barter Hughius Greenus…”
Monty Python
Whatever type of tree it is, we know it will be full of nuts.
Louise I’m sad to have to tell you that due to climate change The Maidehead Weeping Water plant has had to move furter north and is now the High Wycombe Weeping Water Plant. Scientists say it will become the
Stow on the Wold Weeping Water Plant by the end of the decade. Be brave!
Tonyb
Willard, regarding “Am I debating?” It is only debating if the issue tree includes objections and replies, preferably in significant proportion compared to the expository material. One can actually measure the degree of debate.
The fun thing about issue trees is that there are many ways to measure the reasoning. For example, how much is allocated to the replies to different questions or objections. It is a new science of reasoning.
David Wojick,
> It is only debating if the issue tree includes objections and replies, preferably in significant proportion compared to the expository material
I can’t be debating because debates are not one-player games.
> I can’t be debating because I’m alone.
Before advertizing a new science of reasoning, you should look at what’s already being done, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical/
Please beware what you claim on the Internet. The Internet converges toward the only eternity we will ever know.
Willard, if you write something that presents both sides then it has the logical form of a debate. Both sides speak, as it were.
I discovered how our sentences fit together, or technically how our propositions fit together, on October 14, 1973. Your links do not address this issue. So far as I know no one has replicated my discovery, but it is certainly possible.
David is the first person in the world to discover “how our sentences fit together”!?
I’m sure linguists will be surprised to hear this.
Michael, others analyze sentences as well. What I discovered is one new specific form, the issue tree.
David Wojick,
What are the formal properties of issue trees, again?
David Wojick,
You claim to have discovered how sentences or propositions fit together on October 14, 1973. But I’m not sure that one can replace “sentences” with “propositions” and preserve the same kind of fit.
For instance, propositions have truth values. I wonder if issues are truth-functional in issue analysis. While trying to answer my question, I stumbled upon this other kind of issue logic:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141933106000858
In any case, I’ll read that textbook:
http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
I’m sure the logicians among us will appreciate the breadth of your investigations.
Thank you for your time,
w
David Wojick,
> It is only debating if the issue tree includes objections and replies, preferably in significant proportion compared to the expository material
I can’t be debating because debates are not one-player games.
> It is a new science of reasoning.
Before advertizing a new science of reasoning, you should look at what’s already being done, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical/
Please beware what you claim on the Internet. The Internet converges toward the only eternity we will ever know.
Nonetheless, good luck with your new science.
It rather reminded me of the tropes of classic skepticism.
David Wojick
Do you have a web site where I can ask you questions about Issue Trees?
Steven Mosher | May 15, 2012 at 2:28 ”Complaining about ”Skeptics”
Mosher, if it wasn’t for the ”CON ARTISTS” like you / WebHub, Rabbet; telling lies – wouldn’t be any Skeptics. For 5 months me visiting this website, you didn’t succeed to con one single commenter, into believing in the common lies.
You could have earned more loot money, by mugging people in the dark alleys; than by dignifying Hansen / retailing his crap. You are the one leaving in fear from the truth. Rodents / rats like you, and Eli Rabbet must be into panic, every time you hear some truth from me.. is it worth it Mosher? You can put yourself out of misery; by facing the truth. When you face the truth, the truth is not your nightmare anymore – so you can start to leave some happy life. You have intelligence, but not decency, honesty and common sense; I feel pity for you… every time a new scam is exposed in your ranks… billions squandered – the taxpayer needs to be reimbursed , with a modest interest… if psychotic medication is not helping you much – go for bigger doses – or medicate yourself on same crap what most of the Warmist fanatics use. I can look anybody in the eyes, because I stand up for the truth – I have real proofs; not like your ”maybe in 100y”
David,
Binary trees in database design allow fast access to data records since they avoid the slow sequential checking of all records otherwise required. I think this is the basis of your design as well though having much more complexity.
Have you done an issue tree for the climate debate?.
John Costigane and David Wojick,
That is what I’d really like to see. Can either of you point me to an ‘Issue Tree’ for the climate debate, or anything else that tackles this?
I’ve just seen this World Economic Forum report “Global Risks 2012”: http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition
It attempts to tackle the issues and relationships between them and present the information to show this.
The problem with issue trees is that they multiply dead ends and red herrings. The issue tree structure, unlike what most people familiar with data structures, is unfiltered and has no regard for truth value. False, true, proven, unproven, reliable, fictitious, opinion, fallacy, all are equally valid in an issue tree, and pretty much the only thing that matters to the interpreter is how heavily weighted issues are by visits.
The issue tree is never pruned except by tests of duplication and popularity. Two issues resemble each other so much that the interpreter does not distinguish them (for whatever subjective reason)? They get combined and treated as one. For instance, 100 degree warming in climate by 2070 would for some be no different from 10 degree warming by 2100, so the ‘duplicate’ gets pruned. Ten thousand hits on “cooling by 2050” vs ten hits on “100 degree warming in 2070”? Well, guess which issue gets taught as a major argument in the controversy to a six year old? Certainly not 10 degree warming by 2100.
Issue trees are great tools for marketers looking for catchphrases and soundbytes to appeal to a demographic. They’re crap for deciding what to put into a school curriculum.
Bart R:
Lulz. It is easy to assign truth values in Issue trees. In fact, it is easy to assign probability values in them (assuming those values are known), including values for uncertainty. In fact, one can use an issue tree with probability assignments to determine the probability of a statement being true or false (or unknown). In fact, on this blog some time back, there was a discussion which covered doing just that, and a link was provided to an example of where probability assignment had been done with an issue tree.
Bart R, please don’t tell us things just because you think are they are true. Just because assigning values like that in issue trees is optional doesn’t mean it is never done.
Brandon Shollenberger | May 16, 2012 at 1:07 am |
Here we come to the wonders of information structures, in that they are wonderfully malleable.
You _can_ weight an issue tree by some other factor than popularity, such as probability, or prune it by some other factor than subjective duplication — such as logical testing or removal of fallacious arguments.
You then have a hybrid of an issue tree and some other thing.
I entirely endorse the practice. Indeed, if you dispense with the issue tree in the first place and only entertain nodes that are not fallacies or logically impossible, you’ve saved yourself quite a bit of time and your reader quite a bit of confusion. If something isn’t on the tree, you can check the discard bin to see if it’s been disposed of already, or needs testing to see if it ought be discarded or added to the tree.
However, if you do this, you don’t have an issue tree that would appeal to a marketing researcher. It would prune off all sorts of things that might appeal to your target demographic: people who fall for fallacy and can’t defend themselves from illogical arguments.
See how useless that’d be to David Wojick and HI?
Bart R, your response to me is silly. The only thing you said which actually addressed my comment was you claimed if you do what I said, [“y]ou then have a hybrid of an issue tree and some other thing.” Not only is this the only responsive part of your comment, it is also untrue. If you include probabilities and/or truth ratings, what you have is still, by definition, an issue tree.
Your first position was to say an optional aspect of issue trees doesn’t ever get done. When I said that was wrong, your second position was to say that’s not really an issue tree.* Both are false. Moreover, you haven’t tried to argue either position. All you’ve done is state them, then discuss non-relevant issues designed to smear people.
I’m confident anyone reading this now can do a quick Google search to find out who is right. They could even just read the Wikipedia article (which mentions weighting as an optional component). Given that, and the fact you’ve chosen to use this exchange as a jumping point for stupid smears, I see not point in responding further.
David Wojick,
I think someone else got the credit for your invention. I think Tony Buzan got the credit. It seems that what you call ‘Issue Trees’ is more commonly referred to as Mind Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map
There are many Mind Map software packages that seem to do what your book describes (and much more with probabilities, relationships, dependencies, dates etc and can be turned into schedules, network diagrams, work breakdown structures, risk trees and decisions trees).
Google Mind Map.
Peter, while mindmaps are indeed tree structures, they are not my issue trees. Mindmaps are vague. In an issue tree every path from the top node proceeds by a combination of questions and answers and/or objections and replies. Each node expresses a specific proposition, just as each sentence does in writing. But the path is also part of the meaning. Thus an issue tree is like writing, only more precise. The issue tree presents not only the thoughts, but also the connections between them, the system of ideas.
For example, one can ask how the seven sentences in my paragraph above are related? Then too, most of those sentences hava a complex internal logical structure. An issue tree would display all
David,
Do you have a suggestion for the initial node in a climate debate?
David Wojick,
We need some sort of tool to work with. The ‘Issue Tree’ you describe has a structure like a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS); a WBS has the same basic rules that you have defined in your book. So we could use Excel, or tools that work with WBS type structures.
You said; “Mindmaps are vague.”
They don’t have to be. Surely it is a matter of how you use the tool and what rules you define for the different categories of questions, statements, etc. We can define a meta language for each if we want to. We can categorise each. We can colour code each category. And easily move branches and make relationships and dependencies. The tools are very flexible. And they interface with Word, Excel, MS Project and Power Point.
You said: “In an issue tree every path from the top node proceeds by a combination of questions and answers and/or objections and replies.” It seems to me that a MindMap tool would be ideal for this. Have you used or looked at the software?
You said: “Each node expresses a specific proposition, just as each sentence does in writing. But the path is also part of the meaning. Thus an issue tree is like writing, only more precise. The issue tree presents not only the thoughts, but also the connections between them, the system of ideas.”
Again, it seems to me the MindMap would be ideal for this. You just have to define the rules for writing each node.
I do not understand the significance of the last paragraph. I am probably not understanding the issue you have with the MindMap as a tool. I wonder if you have actually used them?
However, I learn by doing. So for now, perhaps it would be best if we could get started with defining the first node and hopefully on a new thread because this thread, for me, is working slower than climate change.
Peter, I have no problem with the mindmap tool, for drawing issue trees. I thought you were suggesting that the mindmap itself, as presently drawn, was an issue tree. It is not. It is what we call a brainstorming tool. The difference between the typical mindmap and an issue tree is like the difference between a sketch and an engineering drawing. Issue trees are precision instruments.
John, yes I actually have a small, draft top of the climate debate issue tree. The top node is something like “Humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways.” That claim is where the issue begins.
This claim generates three or four obvious questions, and we are off to the debate.
David Wojick
You suggested as the root statement:
“”Humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways.” That claim is where the issue begins. This claim generates three or four obvious questions, and we are off to the debate.”
I do not accept that statement. Therefore, it does not fit with the requirement that all involved in the debate must accept the root statement.
Does that mean this statement is not suitable or the requirement that we all accept the root statement is wrong?
David,
I like your suggestion and would like to second it.
If it does not breach the requirement that everyone must accept the initial statement as correc, then I’ll vote for it too. However, if by accepting that statemetn it exclude me from objecting to it, then it seem it will not work.
> Issue trees are precision instruments.
Precision instruments usually have specifications.
Sometimes, even formal specifications.
A list of formal properties for issue trees would be nice.
David Wojick:
That’s a strange choice. To address any uncertainties in global warming, you necessarily must work your way “up” the tree of the science. This means you cannot work “down” to possible conclusions if it is true. You’re effectively picking a point in the middle of the discussion, not at an end.
Peter Lang:
I imagine Wojick will say that requirement is wrong. The problem is if the root isn’t agreed upon, you wind up with a bi-directional issue tree. Since the issue tree is necessarily uni-directional, you have to omit one side of the root. You can do it (and you could later transpose the tree to a branch on a fuller tree), but it’s a bad idea if you want to cover the global warming issue as a whole.
To put it simply, if you start with a point of contention, you won’t map out the entire discussion. You’ll only map out a portion of it.
Peter and Brandon, in an issue tree the opposing sides occupy roughly alternating layers. Thus the skeptics get to go next and pose questions and objections, which the warmers then respond to, including posing their own questions and objections. And so it grows. Most importantly, there is no pro-con division, other than alternating layers.
You really should read the textbook, or at least look at it. This is not simple. If it were it would not have taken until 1973 to discover. People have been disagreeing for a long time.
David,
I did read the book (most of it). However, I’ll understand when I’ve actually applied it. So I am ready to begin. Lead on. I’ll follow. More words describing how it works are not going to help at this point.
I hope when I return tomorrow, you and the other contributors will have agreed the wording for a root node and made a start. I support you and John Costigane as the most meaningful root node to get started with (other than my suggestion, of course).
I look forward to seeing the progress when I return tomorrow.
David Wojick, It’s cheeky of you to ignore my legitimate criticism of your point while telling me to read your book to figure out what I already know. I’ve understood this topic since I was in my mid-teens. It isn’t complicated.
The simple reality is the sentence you picked necessarily forces the issue tree to not cover the entire global warming issue, and it does that because you picked a debatable point. That’s no different than isolating a segment of an issue tree, and taking that as a new starting point. It can work well if all you want to discuss is the isolated point, but it cannot possibly address the full breadth of the original tree.
Sorry Brandon, I am not ignoring your point, it is just that your point is wrong as far as my issue trees go. That is why I suggested reading the textbook. An issue tree begins when one makes a claim or asks a question. The climate change issue began when CAGW was asserted. All of the sub-issues, including all of the uncertainties, appear when one questions that claim, hence it is the top of the tree, or the root as some here call it.
If you have in mind a logical structure that starts with all the science and somehow builds to the issue of CAGW, I am all for it. It just is not my issue tree structure.
Humans lack the capability and capacity to perceive and analyze the relevant information or to even manipulate in any meaningful way any of factors that are involved in such a grand heuristic undertaking modeling the climate. And, there is nothing humanity can do that will ever have the slightest effect on the outcome of the process. Believing otherwise is to dedicate the living to an irrelevance that can only result in the building of another Tower of Babel.
So despite humans lacking the capability and capacity to know how the climate works, you are sure that humans can’t affect the climate? Does that mean you aren’t human?
A man’s GOT to know his limitations. Those who are honest enough to concede their ignorance understand that a holistic process is comprised of many factors and that Nature teaches us increases in atmospheric CO2 level is not correlated with global warming whereas it is inescapable that changes in solar activity explain both global warming AND cooling and that only charlatans pretend to be able to predict what the weather will be 30-50 years from now. Everything else is dogma.
I still think you are contradicting yourself. You can’t know whether the Sun warms the climate if we have no idea how the climate works.
When people agree that patterns and relationships between things are not well understood no one is surprised that events are unpredictable. When we run into problems is when people like — for example, Al Gore a seminary school dropout, Leftist, lifetime politician coming from a background of entitlement and privilege — is allowed to make the case (for political and ideological purposes) that everything is very well understood and anyone who cannot appreciate that fact is an idiot. That is when everything becomes Oh so predictable. And, that is what has lead to the sacrifice of individual liberty on the altar of self-interested government action against CO2 and the attempted takeover of energy and by extension the economy. That is what liberal fascism is all about.
” is allowed to make the case (for political and ideological purposes) that everything is very well understood and anyone who cannot appreciate that fact is an idiot.”
Al Gore or you? You were the one who pulled a It’s The Sun Obviously claim.
Of course. Nominally, It’s the Sun, Stupid. That does not mean rational people try to convince others that they can predict what the weather will be over the next 50 to 100 years.
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
Odd I thought clouds were supposed to increase during a warm period in order to act as a negative feedback and reduce climate sensitivity.
Now you are telling me they are meant to decrease and cause the warming.
Seems either way whether clouds increase or decrease skeptics will claim it refutes AGW.
Schoolteachers have similar problems. Hang in there and you’ll get it. Fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
@ lolwot | May 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm said: if we have no idea how the climate works
Wrong lolwot, people are learning that: weather is climate – is controlled by H2O, not by CO2 or by you the Swindlers. Dry climate is, more extreme between day and night – wet climate is milder – anything else you want to know. Or, your only wish is: people not to know that the big / small climatic changes have nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warmings?! THIS IS THE ”HONESTY DETECTOR”
lolwot
“humans can’t effect the climate”?
Let’s reword that slightly.
We humans cannot change our planet’s climate, no matter how much money we throw at it.
Like that better?
(If not, please indicate a specific actionable proposal that would have a perceptible impact on our climate.)
Max
manacker,
In addition to altering the atmospheric and ocean chemistry of the planet through the rapid increase in greenhouse gases, humans could detonate every nuclear weapon we have in some all out nuclear war. Climate would be altered severely for quite some time…
Humans can and do affect the climate and have for quite some time. Weclome to the Anthropocene…
High School Science somewhere . . .
Topic 1. “Change is to Climate as Wet is to Water”
Debate.
Easily done. Change has to be explained. Your move.
first it has to be defined. Change is always relative and instrumental.
a difference that makes no difference, makes no difference
I had a teacher at school tell the class, out of the blue, that global warming was a bunch of crap because when icebergs melt they don’t contribute to sea level rise.
And, you burst into the classroom and blurted out “Mann’s hockey stick ist quatsch,” right?
@ lolwot | May 14, 2012 at 6:14 pm
lolwot !!! Global warming is a bunch of crap, for MANY different reasons, not just because of melting ice scam. You should have listened to your teacher; instead of waiting some Warmist bigot to clone another idiot of himself. Now you have to keep telling lies in which; you yourself cannot believe…. Time is against you, give up; stop making fool of yourself, for some loot money. No happy ending for any Warmist; some will end up in jail – the rest will climax on their butt / dysentery! Think about that now, not then lolwot; you are leaving fingerprints all over the blogosphere of your crimes – children are reading your crappy deceiving manipulation – even plenty grown- ups, that never matured mentally.
You Lolwot, as a full time Bull-Dung Distributor, will be hold responsible for their brains damage, to all the Bull-Dung-beetles on both sides of the sandpit – the ones that are playing with their own water pistols, to cool the planet. Lolwot, your 15 minutes of glory, will turn into dysentery. Keep lots of washing powder handy. You cannot say one day; that I didn’t warn you. I hope you are not a compulsive / chronic liar about everything as you are about the phony GLOBAL warming. Cheers!!!
G’DAY DUNG BEETLES from both camps. Same as you; when the truth is known regarding climate; children will need electric shock treatments – to bring them to reality. Same as for the people that never grow-up, the truth is painful and scary. You should start using some truth from me as salad – together with your regular bull-dung consumption, from IPCC, Ian Plimer, Hansen &Co. Bull-dung addiction will not be trendy and popular for long
See how painful the truth is for you: ANOTHER BOTTOM LINE:
To calibrate the variation in Global temperature; needs a solid / RELIABLE starting point. As for example: water freezes on zero centigrade / boils on 100C.
1] If you exclude part of the planet – that is not GLOBAL temperature. If you exclude 95%, as it is the case with the Conspirator’s GLOBAL temperature – it’s brainwashing business, nothing to do with the reality. If is monitored on 6000 places for IPCC, that says about the temperature on 6000m3, not GLOBAL temperature. On one small hill there are 1000 different temperature; AND THEY CONSTANTLY CHANGE, for every 10 minutes, in 24h. There are even days when between 10-11AM is warmer than at 12, doesn’t that matter? Temperature changes every 10 minutes – unless is data collected for every 10 minutes – is only fodder for the Urban Sheep. If upper troposphere is warmer than normal (because of dimming affect) – lower troposphere / just above the ground is always cooler during the day / if upper atmosphere is colder – on the ground is hotter. Excluding one or the other – is not earth’s temperature; because on the earth, temperature distribution is 3 dimensional. Thermometer is for monitoring the temp in a room; not one thermometer for a million cubic kilometres. With 6000 thermometers officially monitoring for IPCC; can collect temperature for 6000 rooms; Hilton hotels have 12000 rooms – not enough thermometers to monitor those rooms; what about for the rest of the planet?
Therefore: must be included the warmth in the WHOLE troposphere / for every 10 minutes / on the WHOLE planet. Only if that is done, can be calibrated. But if that is done – no need for calibration, because OVERALL the warmth units in the WHPLE troposphere are ALWAYS THE SAME. Because the laws of physics and my formulas say so. They use the word ”sensitivity” to confuse the ignorant. If they use ”sensitivity” in oxygen + nitrogen in expanding when warmed / shrinking Instantly when cooled… the conspiracy would have fallen a part in days. When gets warmer than normal close to the ground, VERTICAL WINDS speed up! As soon as it cools – they slow down; why the real laws of physics are discarded? Using the word ”thermodynamics” but not using it, WHY?! Which people don’t want to see the end of the propaganda? The Warmist believe in 90% possibility in GLOBAL warming / brainwashed Skeptics believe 101% in GLOBAL warming. They are the Devil’s advocates – doing the Warmist dirty job
Horizontal winds take the heat away from solid objects / vertical winds are taking the heat up and exchange it for extra coldness / as soon as it gets warmer > the vertical winds increase in speed / strength. 2] Warmed troposphere expands accordingly / increases in volume INSTANTLY; that is the second and most important factor; taboo for both camps… Look at it on the bright side: the brainwashing propaganda will make the psychiatrist rich.
Extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative – because of INSTANT expansion / shrinking of oxygen + nitrogen in change of temperature!!! For the last 150y, the planet hasn’t accumulated enough extra heat, to boil one chicken egg. Look at their GLOBAL temperature charts… those charts don’t tell about the GLOBAL temperature, but are the ‘’smoking gun’’ admission that they are the biggest liars. Time to get on the front foot and expose the Warmist conspiracy, and the fundamentalist Sceptic’s ignorance / stupidity. Same laws of physics were 5BC, 1230AD, 1850AD, 1998AD, 2011AD, and it will be the SAME LAWS OF PHYSICS in 2100 !!! O+N will be expanding / shrinking in change of temp, just the same as today. If you use the laws of physics, is same as travelling in time. Unfortunately, if you take the Fundamentalist Warmist and fake Skeptics in time machine to 2100 – they see that is same temp as today – then bring them back – they will still promote GLOBAL warming for 2100. About 80% of the people on the street are secular Warmist / Skeptics – interested in the truth. Ignore fanatics from both camps in the blogosphere, help me inform the truth, to the people on the street = you will be doing noble job. The truth always wins on the end.
Nobody knows the temperature in the troposphere for last year, to save his life; but the fake Skeptics + extreme Warmist pretend to know for year 1700, 1200AD, 5BC for the WHOLE planet. They know which year was warmer by 0,012⁰C, or colder than the previous year… look at their charts… What was the temperature 345km NE of Wellington? People didn’t even know that New Zealand existed at that time… What about 432km SW of Hobart, at 357m altitude on the year after, on 4 of July at 9,35AM; or 456km SW of Easter island on that same time of the day at 69m altitude? Is Easter island not on their globe? Easter island in Pacific represents 20 times larger atmosphere than Europe + USA. Was it cloudy on that day? When gets cloudy – upper atmosphere gets warmer – on the ground cooler; but that rule is only for daytime; at night is opposite; but not if it wasn’t cloudy… depends on the thickness AND altitude of the cloud, also if it was cloudy all day; or as usual, clouds accumulate by the evening. Com-on ‘’leading scientist with temperature charts’’. Temperature in the troposphere is 3 dimensional. Would you buy a used car from a GLOBAL temperature chart maker?! Because of them, billions of $$$ are getting ripped-off, because of them, tremendous damages are getting done to the economy, environment and to kid’s brains in school and university.
With that lousy accuracy, when they state that: one year was warmer or colder than the next by 0,025⁰C, it’s only admission that he / she is honesty deficient! For correct data, must be from every cubic meter of air, equally; for every 10 minutes in the year; from the ground to the edge of the troposphere. Not only from the hottest minute in the day – unless the hottest minute is on same time, every day on every place on the planet; and ALL other minutes go up every day by as much as the hottest minute. Otherwise it’s all bull. When some place is warmer than usual – declaring the WHOLE planet is warmer – is same as saying: the planet is warmer at lunch time by 12⁰C, than before sunrise…?! That’s how reliable their data collection is. They collect data on 6 000 places on the planet / not evenly distributed. It’s ESSENTIAL to have from 6 000 trillion places data to be collected, for every few minutes, before can start talking about reliability of GLOBAL temperature. They are not interested in correct data; because correct data is proving them wrong. Local temperatures always fluctuate, (otherwise the winds would stop) – GLOBAL, never!
Do you know why the hottest minute of the day is not on same minute, not even in same hour every day?! B] Why different places have different minutes as the hottest minute of the day? Therefore, collecting temperature for the hottest minute in the day is completely meaningless! B] If one day has one hour above 20⁰C, but the following day has 3h-4h above 20⁰C, is much more impotent than picking the hottest minute. 2] average temperature for every minute in 24h and the hottest minute don’t fluctuate the same == it’s only useful for the B/S Merchants. 3] if vertical wind with extra coldness was only 55m on the way down; when the temperature for that day was recorded for that place, but not tomorrow, or not on the other side of the hill…?
–>For the last 150y, the planet hasn’t accumulated enough extra heat, to boil one chicken egg.</em
Is that Australian for 'global warming alarmists have their heads up their up their collective arses?'
Tran
Ooops, I have zinned.
–>For the last 150y, the planet hasn’t accumulated enough extra heat, to boil one chicken egg.
Is that Australian for ‘global warming alarmists have their heads up their up their collective arses?’
@ Wagathon | May 14, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Well Wagathon, I have proven ”beyond any shadow of a doubt” that ”for the last 150y, not enough extra heat has accumulated in the atmosphere, to boil one chicken egg”. Therefor, people that don’t believe me, or are avoiding the truth – will get the egg ”raw” on their face – or if they delay – will be a rotten egg, even more unpleasant on their face. Google keeps records.
Criminologist and historians will be ”researching” in the climate blogosphere, for activist that were avoiding the truth / bagging the truth from me, until the last days. Worshiping Hansen & Plimer and the data from IPCC, by the Bull-dung Beetles; will be uncomfortable to most of the players from the both sides of the sandpit. Wagathon, I need your help!!!
Take two aspirin and see you psychologist in the morning
My extensive comment above is ”proving” beyond any shadow of a doubt, in details, that the Warmist are a shameless conspirators. Proving that the ”Rabbet is a con / bigot, wrong on everything… all he can say is: ”Take two aspirin and see you psychologist in the morning”
WOW!!! What an education?! Typical of a swindler; avoid the accusation on any possible way. That will not work on the witness stand, under oath; think about then, Bunny & Co
True, true at this point the global warming alarmists that remain cannot argue the science. For them it’s simply jumping from whatever hatred du jour the Leftist mob calls out–e.g., Bush hatred, Palin hatred, antcapitalism, anit-oil/ gas/ cars/ nuclear/ coal/ incandescent light bulbs/ hamburgers, cigarrettes, apples, marriage, Christians and Jews, whatever…
“[T]here are a large number of punters [Australian for ‘customers’ or ‘gamblers’-in this case, skeptical customers who may or may not buy what the government’s selling] who object to being treated dismissively as stupid, who do not like being told what to think, who value independence, who resile from personal attacks and have life experiences very different from the urban environmental atheists attempting to impose a new fundamentalist religion. Green politics have taken the place of failed socialism and Western Christianity and impose fear, guilt, penance, and indulgences onto a society with little scientific literacy.” (Ian Plimer)
Wagathon,
Well said. Have you seen “Environmentalism and the Decline of the West” (May 17):
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/environmentalism-and-the-decline-of-the-west
It puts meat on the bones of your comment
stefan,
You are a kook. Get help.
@ hunter | May 16, 2012 at 8:30 am said:
stefan, You are a kook. Get help.
Hunter, if I was kook, I would have supported / defended the Warmist, but I don’t; that is the Fake Sceptic’s job. Every time I say something, I can prove it: I hope only couple of proofs will doo, but I have another 1000 proofs for you:
1] the Fakes are pointing that is NO warming, even though CO2 emission is doubling – but in the same comment are arguing about bigger / smaller carbon footprint – because Eli Rabbet dropped it in his comment. It’s same as; when a bull drops something – the sparrows start digging into it, looking for seeds. Normal Skeptic would have said: CO2 is not a GLOBAL warming gas; what’s your problem Bunny?! Instead, the Fakes are giving impression that CO2 is a warming gas. How much more CO2 you need, without the GLOBAL temp going up; before you realize that you have being duped by Plimer / university and IPCC??? Instead of as Skeptic, saying: CO2 increased, but no warming, what’s your problem Bunny?! Full stop.
2] yesterday on other popular blog I noticed the statement from Melbourne university that: ‘’for the last 1000y, the temp is gone up by 1C. WOW! Without them saying; they are only ‘’supporting’’ the Mann’s statement from a month ago on ABC (Aust. Nation. Broadcaster) It’s a complete lie; because nobody knows what was the tem last year – but they ‘’pretend’’ to know what was the GLOBAL temp 1000y ago. It’s difficult to prove the truth to the honest people that: if somebody pretend to know exact temp for a 1000y ago = is only admitting that he / she is a liar; when the Fakes are lying that 1000y was warmer planet – but they call themselves ‘’Skeptics’’ Minimum of 20% of the ‘’pretend Skeptics’’ started to accept that: ‘’proxy data is a 24 carat crap’’ (even though they hate me for proving it to them) Still, the rest of the bigots give impression that is a genuine data – just to give oxygen to the leading Warmist. (reason from next week Australians will be paying the highest carbon tax on the planet) Warmist have no single legitimate proof – but are exploiting the Fake’s bigotry!
A] because of the Fake’s bigotry, Warmist get away with brainwashing the kids in school. B] because of them ‘’the Warmist researchers’’ are getting the cash, to tell lies legitimately; instead of redirecting the money to honest scientists. C] because of the Fakes, nobody is talking about ‘’improving the climate’’ Because the Bullshine Addicts from both camps still cannot get into their heads that: ‘’water vapour is NOT a GLOBAL warming gas, but creates milder climate’’!!! people / vegetation / animals get burned in regular bushfires; because of lack of water vapour in the air + extra water vapour replenishes the melted ice.
Hunter, since the Warmist declared about the ‘’missing heat’’ 60% of the guilt is Fake’s, for any damage to the economy, children’s brains and deteriorating regular moisture on land, only 40% is the Warmist fault. Hunter, for you and the rest of the Fakes; commenting on the net is strictly as playing bingo – scoring points – but finding out the truth is completely irrelevant – occasional visitors believe that you represent the Warmist opposition – without knowing that the Fakes are the most irresponsible people on the planet; doing the Warmist dirty job; deceiving the people that are interested in the truth / reality. Anybody pretending to be a ‘’Skeptic’’ but believes in more phony GLOBAL warmings than Hansen is ‘’KOOK’’ Nothing personal Hunter; you have decorated yourself with that rank and more – elected yourself as their ‘’Alpha Male’’ In future, try to point out where am I wrong in my theories, instead of giving your medical opinion; as a Warmist’ bootlicker.
@ Peter Lang | May 18, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Peter, Australians will be paying the highest carbon tax in the world, in 2weeks time. To use the money for promoting that; water vapor is bad for the climate… Australians are world leaders in ”environmental lunacy” they are even proud of it. Thanks to Tim Flannery and Ian Plimer &Co. They still confuse the climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warming.
Most of the continent is desert = produces dry heat; they are repossessing even farmer’s water, to drain it in the estuary – less water vapor inland = speeding the deterioration of the climate. The D/H in the ”Climate Department” don’t know that: less water inland = drier future? Bullshine!!! What they are doing, is as a self-fulfilled prophesy. Same as arsonist predicting when your house will be on fire… big deal.
what are you babbling about?
aspirin dont work as anti psychotics
And, the liberal Utopianism of the Leftists and libs don’t work. All we are saying is give individual liberty and economic freedom a chance.
Take two of these yokes and get the White Rabbit before morning.
===============================
@ Steven Mosher | May 15, 2012 at 9:56 pm SAID:
aspirin dont work as anti psychotics
Yes Mosher, the best proof of it are: the persisting Swindlers to keep everybody in the Warmist vacuum – to prevent of being exposed, for what you and the rest on both sides on the sandpit stand for. Time is against you.
Your fear of facing the truth will only grow and grow. If you are using taxpayer’s money, to con the people; I’m preparing 101 questions, for the Poms to put you on a witness stand, under oath. Better analyze ALL my comments now, prepare your answers. The best advice you will ever get.
Just for the fun of it, here are two observations and a question that I gave to students in 9th grade (regarding density) and in chemistry (regarding the shape of water molecules).
Very few arrived at a correct answer. For a couple extra points they could present the observations and question to their parents. They came back with eloquent but very incorrect answers.
Then I had them do the same with their grandparents. Amazingly, about a third answered correctly thinking the answer was obvious. I did this off and on for over ten years. Take from this what you will.
Observation 1) Ice cubes float in water
2) What happens when you put soda (pop, if you are from Minnesota) in the freezer and then forget it.
Question: (to be answered only from these observation): Why, even though the temperature may be well below freezing of water for months on end, do lakes in Minnesota never get more than about two feet thickness of ice on top?
—The answer leads to much more and should be considered in discussion on climate change.\.
darryl b | May 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
Having lived in Minnesota (which I recommend for anyone who hasn’t), I’ll add a question the grandparents get the answer to right more often: why does the dog always survive when the truck goes through the ice, and never the people?
From fires in South America, to truck loads of people freezing in the vast northern lakes, as they hang on to their pickup after fishing for a bit…
You sure get around Bart.
Tom | May 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
Rivers, Tom. Teenagers in Minnesota drive on frozen rivers. They park on frozen lakes.
Tried describing that to some people in the Amazon, they couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea of an ice cube you could drive a truck on, or would.
Then again, tried explaining the idea of flying a plane under a waterfall and looking out one window seeing water rushing down toward the plane as far up as you could see, and looking out the other window watching water fall until it disappeared into mist hundreds of feet below, and they didn’t get that much, either.
Some things you just have to experience for yourself. For instance, passing an upper year university course in statistics. I highly recommend it, especially if they discuss Bayes in any detail.
Beware of plunging buses … my favorite National Lampoon article from a long time ago. I can’t find it online. This will have to do.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2006/11/the_rise_and_fall_of_the_bus_plunge_story.html
http://users.lmi.net/tcs55/
The dog is sitting in the back of the truck.
With decreased energy there will be rationing of course.
http://youtu.be/BFZMabvqJyw
So. What do they tell the kids when they ask the difference between weather and climate ?
Climate is long term weather. Bear in mind that this distinction is usually taught in high school, along with basic quantum theory, relativity, cosmology, etc., also climate modeling. What you call kids know quite a bit by this time.
“Climate” can also means what long term weather is like in specific geographic areas (e.g. Mediterranean Climate). Here’s a link that explains climate types to kids:
https://sites.google.com/site/climatetypes/
Hi Max.
I compared the maps of “Tropical Wet” and “Tropical Wet and Dry” for South America. and the map for the world and 12 climates. They don’t match. I fear some places may have no climate, only weather. How will they survive ?
Check out India on the world map of 12 climate types. That site really isnotgoodtogo.
Yes, the maps need more work. There are some errors.
I don’t know about places with “no climate,” but some areas may have transitional or “in-beween” climates, which is hard to show on these small maps.
How long is long enough to not be weather ?
Weather is short term climate ?
Is flooding a weather event separate from rainfall ? How about mudslides ? Weather ?
When is is Weather?
When is it Climate?
Amazingly, this quandary can be solved using the inverse C:W relation.
When it’s Warmer than normal, that’s Climate.
When it’s Colder than normal, that’s Weather.
Quite simple, really – once you know the relation.
Climate per see does not exist. It is not observed. When you do math on weather over long periods of time you get a variety of statistics.
Those numbers, those mathematical constructs which are never observed, are posited as an entity called “climate”.
Climate Change and Economic Growth
Robert Mendelsohn (2009),
World Bank
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
In the introduction we have some caveats:
“The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations or the governments they represent.”
“The sponsoring organizations do not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.”
The key point to be teaching in science classrooms is not facts (eg AGW = TRUE or AGW = FALSE) but how to evaluate claims made on scientific grounds. Increasingly, appeals will be made to this next generation and justified through data driven models. Whether it’s a policy wonk building fiscal policy, a financial planner offering a consult, or a celebrity doctor diet, almost everything is imbued with the veneer of scientific validity. Critical thinking, not indocrination is what we need.
SUT
Couldnt agree more.
I thought the Gradgrind teaching method went out with Dickens.
Gradgrind on facts.
“They are all that is needful, presented, it must be said, without color or animation to detract from their merit.”
This didactic method is particularly unsuited to Science.
However Its a very useful method of imparting propaganda and as you say our young people require
“Critical thinking, not indoctrination is what we need.”
There are any number of things you can teach, for example, the thermal structure of the atmosphere, the thermal structure of the ocean, the biological pump, the role of the ozone layer, the cause of the Antarctic ozone hole, how heat is transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. Moving on we have the observed increase in carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 100 years, etc.
You do have to go slowly and provide the needed background, but there are enough fact centered things that this can be taught in high school and somethings like the structure of the atmosphere should be taught in elementary school.
To teach the kids; how to avoid reality, and leave in the world of deceit. Or, much better to teach the kids; how to defend themselves from con / swindlers like the Rabbet. B] The biggest robbery (the great train robbery), in today’s money wouldn’t be more than $30 million – compare with the trillion dollars fleeced, to prevent the non-existent GLOBAL warming.
2] pedophile can damage the brains and future of 2-3-7 children. That is bad; but compare with damaging the brains of all the western children in school – brainwashing them that; they can stop the climate from changing. Instead of improving the climate, by building more dams on the land, to save extra storm-water – they have being brainwashed that: water vapor is bad for the climate. If a child graduates, but doesn’t know that Brazil has better climate than Sahara… will be more and more bigots as the Rabbet on the lose on the street. More and more spenders than earners / more and more shearers than sheep = the shearers without lamb, turn into cannibalism; thanks to the sick contemporary propaganda… Remember who are the instigators!!!
Dr. Mosher recommends Ritlain for delusions. Try it, it might help
What you want to convey first is facts, which are simpler things than the reasons for things happening. The first thing in atmospheric science is the structure of the atmosphere, the overall circulation (why does weather in the US come mostly from the west, etc.)
It would appear that since the lobotomy didnt work that other measures may be indicated
Mosher, lobotomy is given to doctors, for malpractice.
I don’t need to convince you; that you are wrong, Your avoidance to debate my proofs, is your admission in not believing in what you preach. Insecurity in your theories is Desperado’s way of trying to silence me. Your fear of arguing against the truth. Honesty is the best policy, think about it
@Hi Bunny! What Dr. Mosher and you are using to delude yourselves that: you can con all of the people, all of the time’ I don’t need – I leave in the world of reality. Delusional / psychotic substances are mostly used by the Warmist foot solders of the lower genera and IQ. You know that I’m not one of them. Me and you have crossed swords twice – on both occasions; you developed dysentery – therefore, I’m of the most solid mind.
2] I’m conveying the real facts, that can be ALL proven now – I don’t use the Nostradamus trick like your mob. In the past, scientists point on somebody’s work and say: this is wrong, for those reasons – the other part is correct. Now, you. Mosher avoid debate; because is difficult to argue against the truth – because other people are reading and can compare what is correct (.you tried on methane subject and pooped yourself) Instead, you are recommending medications for me = that is your admission of loosing the plot. Maybe I should feel sorry for you… One day you will have to face my proofs / facts and formulas. Until then – it will give you insomnia… sorry.
3] ‘’atmospheric science’’ you included, is for ‘’Meteorology’’ interesting / noble / beneficial science – climatology is the biggest organized crime on the planet. Half of my first book, and 30% of what is on my website is about: how to improve the climate. Climate has nothing to do with CO2 and the phony GLOBAL warming; H2O improves / deteriorates the weather / climate. I can tell you a lot about the weather / climate / meteorology; but first to make it clear: those cheap tricks you the Swindlers use: talk about USA weather – then jump to Arctic – Antarctic – sea temperature; is suitable for playing with the immature / irresponsible Fake Skeptics. But, from a REAL Skeptic: Bunny, you have to think for yourself, where to shove up those cheap tricks; because I’m not going to tell you; unless you pay me for the advice!!!
4] The ‘’structure of the atmosphere’’ you are referring – is 998999ppm of oxygen + nitrogen. B] when is water or dirty cloud – upper atmosphere is warmer / on the ground days are cooler. Minus those molecules – on the ground days are hotter / nights colder. C] no, ‘’weather in the US’’ doesn’t’ come from the west, you are wrong!!! A] earth’s centrifugal force is bringing cold winds from Arctic – they end up in US from NW. B] By earth spinning eastwards – the surface has less path to cover than the clouds (same as 2 athletes running – the one in the outside line appears that is slower; because has more ground to cover). Reason he gets 2-3m advantage in the start, to be fair. In nature is no fairness, that’s why it appears as if the clouds travel west. C] Hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons are good visible example for what smaller clouds and just ‘’water vapour’’ from the sea onto the land do, on every continent. D] Brazil has the best rainforest – just on the western side of the hill / on same latitude is the driest place in Chile… sorry.. for your religion ‘’water vapor’’ is bad for the climate – WOW!!!
Even the fakes know about the trillion dollars loot, to prevent the non-existent GLOBAL warming + damages done to school kids, brainwashing. But you all have to learn about even bigger crimes in progress, from my blog. Here is one small example: as the strength of Sahara grows = higher evaporation in the Mediterranean system -> to compensate for evaporated water deficit -> the ‘’Gulf Stream’’ speeds up -> surface water as soon as warms up in the Mexican gulf – instantly travels east – *no enough time to produce moisture there* = Texas dryer + more water siphoned from Arctic ocean. I.e. stronger current melts MORE ice, from below – Plus more warm salty water syphoned from north Pacific = that destroys even more ice on Arctic.
The opposite: saving extra stormwater can improve the African climate – less evaporation / river Danube on years that contributes extra water in the Mediterranean system -> gulf stream slows -> west of the Gulf more rain + Arctic ice repairs itself. As long as the ‘’Organized Crime’’ (to which you and Mosher belong) is misleading that ‘’water vapor’’ is bad for the climate… deteriorating of the climate is inevitable; NOTHING to do with the phony GLOBAL warming! Predicting worse climate by you, the Swindlers; is same as arsonist ‘’predicting’’ when your house will be on fire. Because the Organized Crime is doing it; with the fanatical assistance from the Fake Skeptics.
Instead of using the money to improve the climate; Australia as the driest continent, from next week will be paying the biggest carbon tax – for preventing the phony GLOBAL warming. People / animals will be drowned in floods / billion protected birds / animals will be dying without water and ‘’water vapor’’ in dry seasons + burned into intensive bushfires. All thanks to the Warmist cult and clowns as the amorous ‘’ Chief hydrologist’’ … He is writing poems… gives the real clear picture of another similar psychopath; Nero was fiddling, when Rome was burning…!!! In Victoria 170 people didn’t incinerate, because is too much CO2 around Kyoto city and Beijing, but because for the previous 10 months, the DRY heat from inland was vacuuming all the moisture from the vegetation close to the coast. Because wasn’t any ‘’water vapor’’ Proof that: everybody promoting that: ‘’water vapour is bad for the climate’’ is a Premeditated Mass Murderer.
I have just pulled together a team for something called value mapping in a couple of shipping ports and surrounds. It is a process of mapping economic, community, cultural and ecological values and comparing these spatially to environmental threats. It involves a basis in GIS, bio-geochemical cycling, geomorphology, anthropology, economics, turtles, migratory seabirds, corals, seagrass and mangroves. Real world environmental problems require just this multi-disciplinary approach.
There are some essential principles. How to distinguish between data and narrative. How to evaluate the reliability of data. Comparing and referencing sources. Scientific scepticism. The philosophy of science in brief. The scientific method. Other than that – explain methods and techniques, put them in teams and provide questions to resolve. A lack of information is not the problem anymore.
‘It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.’ Discuss
Here’s the problem I see with approaches like HI’s in K-12.
Eventually, kids get out of the K-12 system, and let’s face it, a very small minority will do very well for themselves if they don’t complete post-secondary education.
Well, here’s the level of work they’re expected to be able to understand and eventually complete themselves in even a middle-ranked school: http://www.stat.osu.edu/~sses/collab_projects.html
Note their very useful tutorials on kriging and Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling (www.stat.osu.edu/~sses/ice_tutorial.html), for example.
By the way, budding statistical technicians who think they have a good handle on predicting future trends in climate may wish to challenge their abilities by trying to recreate these results. It’d be a learning opportunity. You know who you are.
Bart, the links you provide have nothing to do with what students are expected to learn under existing state standards. Have you looked at your state’s standards?
David Wojick | May 16, 2012 at 11:13 am |
One would wish states wouldn’t fabricate standards that fail the students, by leaving them unprepared for what they need education for. Do the standards uphold critical thinking, integrity, honest self-assessment, logic, discernment, questioning authority, taking care of their own, thinking about consequences, understanding of technology principles in a world where technology advances so quickly what a child learns at ten is obsolete before they’re a teenager, understanding of scientific principles where what was a scientific controversy when they were six is a foundation of the next generation of investigation by the time they are sixteen?
And really, what room in a curriculum to the standards the educated adult needs is there for propagandization and time-wasting HI polemics and dogma?
Bart, Critical thinking would require that since, as you point out: “…technology advances so quickly what a child learns at ten is obsolete before they’re a teenager,…” this would also make our current Higher Education System ‘oboslete’ for all practical purposes as well. We should close the old-way-schools now and embrace Home Education for all parents & children. Let the resposibility fall where it belongs. Makes sense too. Just think of the money we save. Blog On.
Tom | May 17, 2012 at 11:31 am |
Where did I give the impression I’m a fan of all of what higher education does, either?
To be somewhat fair, the schools that teach principles and process rather than mere rote and mechanical ‘as-is’ instructions to dominate, and for good reason. However, home school varies widely in quality, and often dips into the well of obsolete method far more than organized professionals do.
I say it is an insult to parents to foist on them the expectation to limit their children only to what they themselves know. Parents should want more for their children than they themselves had. I learned that from mine.
Bart, your first lengthy paragraph has nothing to do with science education per se, which is focused on teaching the basic facts about how the world works. Contrary to popular belief, science is not some new form of rationality. It is just a systematic way of explaining those things that are relatively easy to explain, given 400 years of effort, and counting.
Your second paragraph is just a sentence of garbage.
David,
Your first paragraph is a transparently fallacious argument from authority.
And not even a very good one.
”
It is just a systematic way of explaining those things that are relatively easy to explain, given 400 years of effort, and counting.
”
I can’t help but notice that neither epistemic consistency nor evidential confirmation have entered into your personal description of science.
Your second paragraph is just a sad little ad hominem.
Keep up the good work.
Ceteris, what authority am I appealing to in my first para?
Where is the ad hom in my second para?
Do you understand these fallacies? You seem to be misusing them. Every objection is not a fallacy.
“Ceteris, what authority am I appealing to in my first para?”
Your own.
“Where is the ad hom in my second para?”
“garbage”
“Do you understand these fallacies?”
Just fine, thank you.
Once again – I can’t help but notice that neither epistemic consistency nor evidential confirmation have entered into your personal description of science.
“a systematic way of explaining those things that are relatively easy to explain”?
Epicycles are relatively easy to explain. But they have the unfortunate additional property of not existing outside of the human imagination.
Expressing an opinion is not an appeal to authority.
Claiming something said is false is not an ad hominem.
You might want to study up on these terms before you use them again. Likewise for “epistemic consistency” and “evidential confirmation”.
Big words are a poor substitute for thought.
David,
”
Expressing an opinion is not an appeal to authority.
”
Actually, all expressions of opinion are appeals to personal authority.
That’s why sound arguments are composed of propositions, not statements of personal credulity.
”
Claiming something said is false is not an ad hominem.
”
It is if your only evidence is calling what was said “garbage”.
Anyway – Thank you so much for deflecting my criticisms with such casual and smarmy arrogance.
Believing that you are an expert is a poor substitute for being one.
Sorry, but your criticism consisted of the incorrect use of certain fallacies. If you have an actual criticism, I will try to respond to it.
Sorry? Don’t be sorry, David.
I hate to break this news to you – but you are not the arbiter of correctness here or anywhere else.
If you really believe that science “is just a systematic way of explaining those things that are relatively easy to explain”, then your responses are not worth my time anyhow.
Ceteris, I am going to use your empty response to amplify my point, as it is something I have long worked on. The logic of explanation was not invented in 1600, so where did science come from? My view is that what was discovered was that simple things revealed universal laws. That was new, and incredibly important. If you have an alternative hypothesis about the rise of science around 1600 I would like to hear it. We can debate it.
David.
Science is a form of human behavior. Not something that emerged 400 years ago, but rather fundamental aspect of who we are.
Best account I know of this is Morse Peckham’s Power and Explanation
http://www.amazon.com/Explanation-Power-Control-Human-Behavior/dp/0816616574
essentially. key concept is the concept of explanatory regress and the imposition of ultimate sanctions.
David Wojick wrote:
”
Ceteris, I am going to use your empty response to amplify my point, as it is something I have long worked on.
”
Ah – my response is empty – but your point requires amplification because it is important. I am beginning to understand how you treat criticism.
”
The logic of explanation was not invented in 1600, so where did science come from? My view is that what was discovered was that simple things revealed universal laws. That was new, and incredibly important. If you have an alternative hypothesis about the rise of science around 1600 I would like to hear it. We can debate it.
”
Wow. “Simple thing revealed universal laws.” That’s a brilliant account of the history of science you have there. I’m sure the ancient Ionians and Greeks never thought of that. I’ll have to mention this to my colleagues.
I am guessing that your predilection for overly-broad historical deconstruction is a sign that you have never actually studied the primary texts by Copernicus, Reinhold, Rheticus, Clavius, Brahe, or Kepler – nor conducted or published original scientific research. Otherwise, you might have bothered to mention something about the correspondence of hypotheses with measurable data.
Your rhetoric may impress Joe Bast and the denialist illuminati, but you might keep in mind that some of the people posting here actually do their own homework.
David, did you read any of this guys stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
Believe it or not he even saved his notebooks and I can tell you they are worth a pretty penny too.
Bart R
You mention that K-12 curricula in science (presumably at ages above around 10) should uphold:
– critical thinking
– integrity
– honest self-assessment
– logic
– discernment
– questioning authority
– taking care of their own
– thinking about consequences
– understanding of technology principles
Except for “taking care of their own” (which belongs into an “ethics” or “religion” class, i.e. the “Golden Rule”), I would wholly agree.
“Thinking about consequences” should be limited to scientific “cause and effect” discussions rather than getting into more nebulous “human stewardship of the planet” diversions, IMO.
There is no place for brainwashing with scientifically dodgy CAGW dogma, and I’m glad you haven’t included that in your list.
While you have listed “critical thinking” and “questioning authority”, I would expand on that by adding another bullet point:
– skeptical insistence on empirical evidence before accepting hypotheses
Looks like we’ve got a basis for a program!
Max
My question is what does any of this have to do with science education?
That is, how is any of this unique to science, as opposed to basic rationality:
– critical thinking
– integrity
– honest self-assessment
– logic
– discernment
– questioning authority
– taking care of their own
– thinking about consequences
– understanding of technology principles
manacker | May 17, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
What it looks like, how it is done, and why people do or might take care of their own isn’t an ethical question until it’s something understood. The ethics, let their families and communities teach them to decide for themselves.
But to turn out a graduate who can’t take care of their own needs or their own family’s needs, their own civic responsibilities, their own work performance, their own scholarship, their own research, their own thinking and voting and decision-making? Or to recognize that others will compete for them to take care of their own from the limited resources available? That’s simply wrong.
And while you refer to the outmoded notions of empirical evidence before accepting hypotheses, which for matters where such evidence is available are perfectly true, ‘insistence’ is simply silly in a world of string theory and dark energy, economics and sociology, history and similar useful fiction.
Science, and scientific thought, are optional for many people. Some won’t or can’t do it. Some rabidly flee it. Many contort it to support patently false claims, or to dismiss obvious truths. I’d rather see collegiality in scientific discourse taught to all, and save the rigor for the few who can get it right.
Thinking about consequences, however, is altogether too missing from education in civics, as crime rates and tax cheating and the conduct of elected officials demonstrates. So too, it is missing in countless other areas of human endeavor. If you want to teach it as a general principle ‘except for the environment’, so long as you teach logic and integrity as well, then I’m pretty sure able students will spot your inconsistency. If you don’t want to teach it at all, then we who have learned to think about consequences foresee an issue.
David Wojick | May 17, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
My question is what does any of this have to do with science education?
David Wojick | May 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
That is, how is any of this unique to science, as opposed to basic rationality:…
The beginning of wisdom.
Would you find the statement that anyone who has ever studied Philosophy and not rejected all of it should not be allowed near Science controversial?
Science, other than being the implicit rejection of Philosophy untested by objective standard, has no memory of itself. What it was 400 years ago it no more is than the English language froze in time in 1612.
We cannot teach the Science of 2025 to a child in 2012, because we simply don’t know yet what it will become. Basic rationality will serve them better, even if they do not choose to make Science core to their lives. We can’t pretend most will, however advisable it would be.
And further, I claim no Scientist is prepared for Science who lacks thorough grounding in all of:
– critical thinking
– integrity
– honest self-assessment
– logic
– discernment
– questioning authority
– taking care of their own
– thinking about consequences
– understanding of technology principles
plus mathematics, statistics, probability, estimation, and measurement.
What a waste if a science curriculum is subverted to take away from these vital components for short-sighted political purposes. It weakens America, and betrays its children’s trust to do so.
Bart R: “what a child learns at ten is obsolete before they’re a teenager,”
All knowledge has a 3 year expiry date?
Teacher: “Now Now Johnny … you know it isn’t called Global Warming anymore … its called Climate Change … children … stop laughing … what do you mean they call it Climate Disruption now … oh, you mean it isn’t called that either?”
sunshinehours1 | May 19, 2012 at 9:56 am |
What a cunning device! I’ve never seen that rhetorical tool used before!
Why, that taking something out of context and pretending it means something else, to bludgeon an irrelevant point with, it’s so original!
understanding of technology principles in a world where technology advances so quickly ..
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Cressie. Nice link Bart
Welcome to 21st Century Gradgrind Academy.
For your science lesson today Jim D and Eli Rabbet have compiled a set of ‘Facts’ for you to memorise about our climate.
To make the learning experience more effective we will adopt the rocking body method as used in a Saudi Arabia or Pakistan Madrasa.
No need for science equipment for you to ‘test’ whether these ‘Facts’ are valid.
Your superiors have guaranteed their divine certainty.
Once upon a time the old fashioned experimental method was thought essential for science.
Unfortunately as well as being costly this led to the great error of excessive sceptisism.
Sorry, Bryan, but indeed the old ways of science still persist – you have to learn the fundamentals, and demonstrate your understanding, and then go on to a higher degree publishing in the peer reviewed literature to test your ideas with others who have a high level of knowledge. All very slow and painstaking.
None of this post-modern blog-science where instant experts sit in their underwear at home banging out nonsense on their keyboards, while proclaiming themselves to be modern day Galileo’s.
Michael, Eli sitting here in his underwear would like to point out that there are some things that might be measured, for example the difference in temperature with altitude. Ask the kids next time they are on a flight to find out what the altitude and temperature are. There are some planes where on the personal entertainment system you can follow the temperature and altitude. Tell them to record this during descent and to note when they enter the clouds. If there is a local mountain, a field trip could be in order. Or you could build a Spencer box to measure backradiation, you know the stuff that Claus does not believe in. Similarly there is much to be done with reports on daily ozone levels and the correlation with sunlight and auto traffic.
The story of how CD Keeling came to Mauna Loa and the results of his work would make a great science book for teenagers, or at least the nerdy kids. And so on.
Eli
Keeling has a very good autobiography which as far as I recall was available in its entirety on the internet for free. He was a very good scientist but knew nothing at all about co2 measurements when he first came to Scripps.
tonyb
Eli/Michael
Here is the link to the C Keeling autobiography. He seems a very nice man and did much interesting work
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf
tonyb
Well Eli, all the bunnies know that kidz aren’t interested in all your silly experiments with boxes.
They want to hear about the controverzy! David and Heartland will keep them amused for hours with their Tales from Climate Etc.
Suspender & belt bunny?
Who’s wearing underwear?
Eli of course. Ms. Rabett would not have it any other way
It’s a very worrying mental image.
tonyb
One thing the public indoctrination machine can teach is that scientific results have to be reproducible. This means you publish all you data and code and tell us what samples were rejected, if any, and why. ie, full disclosure. Then and only then will people trust what you say. That isn’t the case with climate science and it seems some of the yahoo climate scientists are simply too dumb to understand this simple fact.
Judith Curry,
David Wojick has introduced to me and begun a discussion on ‘Issue Tree’ to develop and clarify the debate on climate change.
I wonder if you might consider starting a thread which would be dedicated to developing an ‘Issue Tree’ for Climate Change debate?
Since we can go to just four levels on the thread, we may need to work to four levels for a start. That could be an excellent learning experience about both the discipline and the real debate over climate change.
Peter,
An early branch in that tree should deal with the implications of the latest name, “climate change” that the AGW movement has claimed for their belief system: When has the climate not changed? Is it changing in unusual or dangerous ways? Why is “climate change” taking the place of “global warming” / “catastrophic global warming” / etc. etc. etc.?
“the latest name, “climate change” ”
Do try to keep up.
Michel,
You are not even in sight of the tree, and I doubt if you would understand the tree if you stumbled into it.
Michael,
This link
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8297
would be insightful to a thinking person.
the punchline is that selling the AGW movement depends on branding. The support for AGW is so lacking it has to be sold like soap or cigarettes or politicians.
Brandon Shollenberger says
“. if you wanted to make the root more accessible, you could say something like, “There is a greenhouse effect.” It’s only a step or so away from Mosher’s sentence, and it is immediately recognizable by everyone.”
But even there you will find well educated people who say the greenhouse effect as promoted by the IPCC does not exist
Both these papers are peer reviewed.
Falsification Of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame Of Physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner; International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) pages 275-364.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact
Full Text(PDF, 8186KB) PP.971-998 DOI: 10.4236/ns.2011.312124
Author(s)
Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi
The root should be “is there is a greenhouse effect?”
Bryan,
I am new to this so just learning how to define the starting node.
You suggest: “David Wojick
You suggested as the root node should be:
The root should be “is there is a greenhouse effect?”
However, that is of little interest to me. We know there is a greenhouse effect? So what? It doesn’t help in the slightest to say whether we should send the world bust implementing global Cap and Trade policies. That is what I want to know.
Therefore, if I am allowed to ask a question it is:
“Mitigate AGW or adapt to climate change whatever it may be”
I disagree. The sentence provided by Mosher, that greenhouse gasses are relatively opaque to infrared wavelengths, is something even the people you refer to won’t dispute. As such, the people you refer to would be included in a branch off of his sentence. The sentence I offered is would branch off of his as well, and thus, it wouldn’t be the highest root possible.
I was asked about an accessible starting point, so I think it’s okay to not discuss things even more “out there” than the Sky Dragons. If accessibility was less of an issue, I’d be happier with your choice.
Though really, making the root a question is just sloppy.
Eli refers you to the now disappeared Sky Dragon threads, the Gerlich and Tsheuchner threads, the Chilingar threads, the Mizkolski threads, here there and everywhere and much much more as experimental disproofs of “no one would”. It’s called denial in depth
Now some, not Eli to be sure, would claim this is a deliberate strategy to make nonsense seem reasonable by comparison, the nonsense being the sort of stuff that Wpjick and Schollenberger are selling, as compared to Bryan’s insanity. Eli merely thinks it is a convenient circumstance that some like Judith Curry are taking advantage of.
Eli Rabett says
“Gerlich and Tsheuchner threads, the Chilingar threads, the Mizkolski threads,………. It’s called denial in depth”
Denial of what exactly?
Brandon Shollenberger, Eli.
Please beware.
Don’t mistake Eli’s lack of web-fu (or WordPress’ quirkiness) for “disappeared threads”. I’m sure a competent web nerd could find them in about 30 seconds.
Speaking of denial in depth, and what you can do to stop it…
Twyla Barnes reached out to Elizabeth Warren and said “It seems you would like the “attacks” against your claims of Cherokee ancestry to stop so I thought I would offer some advice on how to make it stop. Tell the truth…. ”
Liz knows now, how about you?
Brandon
I agree that Moshers ” that greenhouse gasses are relatively opaque to infrared wavelengths …”
Would command greater common acceptance than …”there is a greenhouse effect”
There are as many branches of greenhouse belief as this are of world religions
No, there is one convergence to the valid GHG model. If you skeptics had your way, you would have to teach all the competing models. The models that show up here and you never question them.
The iron sun model or whatever thing that Manuel pounds.
Joe world model
The SkyDragon model
Arno Arrack model
Pope model
Haynie model
Chief’s model
Vukcevic model
Huffman model
Postman model
Girma model
Nahle model
Stephan the denier model
Seifert model
And probably more.
According to your logic all these models are just as valid because you don’t have the courage or intellect to nail them to the wall and call them on it. You would rather spread FUD than teach science correctly.
It’s all very embarrassing for you.
WebHubTelescope says
“No, there is one convergence to the valid GHG model.”
That’s what all the fourteen models (and more) you list say.
Manabe S & Wetherald model seem to get most support but also the higher is colder model advocated by Leonard Weinstein and Nullius in Verba gets support.
But which one (if any) is the valid one?
Webby
You once again spout off nonsense.
All skeptics (or any reasonable people) want is one or multiple models that accurately forecast future climate/weather conditions with sufficient fidelity to determine the impacts upon people. Models that cannot predict changes in conditions at local levels reliably have very little value to policy makers.
Currently there are no models that meet this criteria more than a short period into the future.
No Bryan. Those 14 are all insane models and the fact that you and your team can’t see that doesn’t put you guys in the best light.
By comparison, any halfway competent climate scientist can shoot holes through all 14 of those models. They probably find them good for laughs and that’s about it.
WebHubTelescope says
“No Bryan. Those 14 are all insane models and the fact that you and your team can’t see that doesn’t put you guys in the best light. ”
Perhaps all the 14 greenhouse models are as you say “insane”
Eli Rabbet doesn’t take the one he advocates very seriously either.
Asyou say;
“They probably find them good for laughs and that’s about it”
Advising public school pupils to join the jet set and fly when a good healthy hill walk would establish the same end.
I do wish you greenhouse enthusiasts would take your own theory more seriously.
Web,
What do you think of David’s Issue Tree?
Food for thought.
http://www.unpious.com/2010/03/maimonides-and-method-acting/
Good enough yet?
Great article.
The valid GHG model is not valid because it has forecast temperatures that did not occur for fifteen years or more. Pope’s Climate Theory does forecast temperatures that stay in the range of the temperatures that have occurred during the past ten thousand years. My forecasts have been accurate so far.
I will be embarrassed if temperature gets outside of the range of the past ten thousand years. Neither of us will likely live long enough to see temperatures get outside the range of the past ten thousand years. As long as we do live, we will see temperatures that do stay inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. Each year, look at the temperatures and acknowledge that Pope’s Climate Theory has not yet been proven to be wrong.
Yes Bryan.
The thing about starting with a known fact is that you very quickly discover who is interested in advancing our understanding and who is not.
Very quickly you will see that two groups develop.
Our difficult with defining the root node makes me wonder: why are we spending billions on climate change research and policies (like renewable energy) when we don’t even no the question we want to address?
Is it possible to original trerms of reference for IPCC were wrong? Perhaps even biased?
Brandon Shollenberger,
Probably due to my inexperience with Issue Treews, I cannot see how this could progress to satisfy people like me. It would be physcisists talking amongst them selves and expecting others to believe them. However, I do not accept that. For me the geological evidence is the most peruasive. From my perspective, the various disciplines doing modelling are likely to miss things. So the models cannot be trusted.
Therefore, I cannot see how we would progress from your question to what I want to know, which is “Mitigate or adapt?”
i.e. Peter are you saying that your ignorance is our problem??
Peter Lang, I don’t get your objection. You’re saying you don’t accept certain arguments, thus you don’t see how things could progress to the question you have, but the arguments you reject are the ones that question is based upon. Of course you won’t progress to a point in the tree if you reject what leads to that tree!
If you want to know how things would progress, try this. Imagine someone was trying to convince you of the risks of global warming. Walk through the process they’d use, starting with, “There is a greenhouse effect.” When you get to the point where they’re talking about the dangers of global warming, you’ll have reached the point you’re interested in.
Brandon
“Peter Lang, I don’t get your objection.”
In short, I wouldn’t trust the process. The reason is because we don’t understand all the physics of the climate so we cannot predict what’s going to happen from physics.
The models are unreliable. So, I do not expect starting where you want to start will get us to the point where we can decide whether to mitigate or adapt.
I am wondering if the Issue tree could be reversed. If we asked the final question in the top node, then we’d drill down progressively to get the answers and information e need to answer the question.
That approach would be consistent with WBS and decision trees.
With a WBS the top node defines the output of the project. The subordinate nodes define all the products and services needed to deliver the project output.
Therefore, I am wondering if it could be structured with the final result we are seeking at the top, e.g.
“Mitigate AGW or Adapt to whatever threats we face”
After all, that is what most people really want to know. We want to know whether or not we should implement CO2 taxes and Cap and Trade schemes and go to war to make everyone else do what we think is necessary. I am exaggerating to make the point. But that really is what most people what to know.
The subordinate nodes would be the ones we need to answer the question. No irrelevant material should be included. But bottom up will have every conceivable peace of irrelevant science included.
Peter Lang, you’re still rejecting arguments then asking to discuss points based on those arguments. That doesn’t work. If you don’t accept those arguments, it doesn’t matter how you structure things. You won’t get anywhere.
As I’ve discussed elsewhere, this is completely possible, but it will necessarily exclude large portions of the global warming discussion. And it will do so without contributing anything different. And it will necessarily require extensive backtracking after each new point is made.
An issue tree creates paths. Each path is a logical argument stemming from a particular point. Because of that, irrelevant material cannot be included within a path.
The fact the issue tree has other paths you aren’t following at any given point in no way distracts from anything. All you do is point to where on the tree you want the discussion to be then ignore whatever parts aren’t relevant to it.
Brandon,
My concern with the root node you propose is that I cannot envisage how we can get anywhere from that starting point, given the resource constraints we have.
I need to see an example of how your root node would flow effectively and efficiently through to assist people to understand and then agree to the critical decisions we need to make.
Can you sketch out or link to an example of how you proposed route node would flow through to the end – the decision point?
To elaborate on my concern, what I envisage your proposal would lead to is:
1. everyone who wants to enter the bit of science they are interested in will get it included one way or another. The tree becomes so huge that we get nowhere. It has no focus on the outcome we want to achieve.
2. The warmists would recreate the arguments and material that rus through IPCC WG1, WG2, WG3. But still we have not focused on the critical issue “what should we do?”
3. It is implausible to believe an approach that burries everyone in piles of undirected science will give any outcome whatsoever. If the scientists can’t predict accurately now, what is going to change by constructing an Issue Tree? Answer, nothing.
4. It occurs to me to ask whether the purpose of the Issue tree is to clarify the issues and make sense of them or to sell the Warmists belief. If it is the latter, then I’d suggest leave that to IPCC, Hockey Team, RealClimate, SkepticalScience etc.
There is something seriously wrong with Climate Science if we cannot define the central issue and the outcome we want to achieve. For me it is:
“Mitigate to AGW or adapt to climate change whatever it may be?
More broadly: “Mitigate to AGW or adapt to what ever threats confront us”?
“Global Risks 2012” http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition does not rate climate change as one of the highest risks confronting us. Do we want to waste our wealth chasing a low priority issue when there appears to be much greater threats to human wellbeing? This is the outcome we need to get to. Tha tis what most people want to know. I urge we put that as the top node.
Then we drill down step by step into the science that is relevant to making the decision.
Peter Lang, I’ve provided a sample of a path before:
Obviously, a lot more detail could be added, but that gives a direct path to where you’d want to be. You could just put those five nodes up as a tree, and you’d be set. Everything you could want to discuss could be attached to something that simple.
It doesn’t matter what else gets added. You can choose to look at only the things connected to the path I described. If people don’t add much to the issues you’re interested in, well, that just means they’re not that interested in the issues you’re interested in. There’s no helping that.
First, there’d be no reason to be buried in anything. It is easy to pan and zoom. Second, an issue tree ensures there is no such thing as “undirected science.” Everything included in the tree must necessarily have a direction. That you aren’t interested in it doesn’t change this.
It’s interesting you say this. An issue tree starting at a root like I describe is neutral, designed to inform. An issue tree starting at a root like David Wojick describes is confrontational and almost always designed to “win” a point.
On a slightly technical issue, I should be fair to Wojick, there is one benefit to his approach. Issue trees don’t allow converging branches, meaning reversing the direction of a tree allows one to modify layouts for simpler designs. This can be avoided by not using a tree, but rather, something like a directed acyclic graph. That’s why I suggested that exact approach on this site something like a year ago, long before I saw Wojick say a word about issue trees.
Congrats to Judith on assembling what is looking to be one of the finest collections of nutters on the interwebs.
Just on this thread we’ve had hunter equating school-children concerned with AGW to “child suicide bombers”.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/12/climate-science-in-public-schools/#comment-200195
And now stefanthedenier (at least he’s honest) explain that teaching the science of climate change in schools is worse than (this is not a joke, sadly) paedophilia.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/12/climate-science-in-public-schools/#comment-200734
Go Team!
Michael- another of your silly, pointless comments. There is and never has been a team assembled by Judith. As you know, there are just individuals uncoordinated comments. Why do you write untruthful statements?
Bees to honey and flies to……
Michael
Can you point out any other site when there is a nearly uncensored exchange between people discussing the science of climate change?
Those are 2 quite different things.
But for good uncensored science discussions – Science of Doom and Real Climate and quite good.
For discussions (social media, if you like) with some science thrown in – well there’s here, WUWT etc.
And how do you feel about those sites refusing to post comments that disagree with their positions.
As I said, “uncensored discussions” and “discussing the science” are rarely the same thing, on least on blogs.
“at least”
Rob,
Reading comprehension and critical thinking are not Michael’s strong points.
…..extremism is hunters’.
Michael mistakes reason for extremism- an important tool of those who lack good comprehension and critical thinking ability.
yes, equating school children with suicide bombers is reason….if you are a complete nutter.
Michael,
Are you still stuck on stupid and unable to understand a simile?
Perhaps your educational deficits have made you more vulnerable to extremist manipulations and left you with no alternative expet to embrace AGW extremism.
She merely set out sky dragon paper.
Rob,
While Dr. Curry is not working any sort of “team” on this blog, the hive-oppostion is most certainly fielding such a team–a troll-team. And Michael is a stock character in the line-up of that troll-team, in succession to the likes of M. Carey, Robert, and ianash of yore.
And Michael’s troll-bot function is to wear one out with relentless, brain-dead annoyance. He’s the blogospheric equivalent of real-word critters of the mosquito, bed-bug, picnic-ant, hair-lice, tape-worm, and flesh-eating bacterium variety.
And given the demands of Michael’s niche in the blogosphere’s ecology his lineage has been selectively bred so that it is now genetically impervious to ridicule, reprimands, appeals to reason, and requests for good-faith discussion. Rather, Michael’s limited repertoire of hard-coded reflexes can only be selectively engaged or dis-engaged by hive-vibe commands that sympathetically reasonate with the hair-sensors that cover his segmented exo-skeleton like a fine fur and the antennae afffixed either side of his two compound organs of sight. In other words, Rob, Michael is under the exclusive control of his hive-master betters.
So, Rob, I think we’re all wasting our time engaging Michael. I mean, it’s like trying to have an intelligent discussion with a swine-flu virus. He’s programmed to perform a wrecking mission on this blog and nothing you or I or anyone says or does have any effect on Michael’s instinctual, insectoid functioning. So probably best to just ignore him–not so hard to do in the blogosphere.
And, at the same time, we might even be thankful that the hive sent us, in Michael, a pest that actually seems to simulate humor pretty well from time to time–indeed, at Michael’s best you can barely detect the arthropod behind the human persona. A vast improvement over his predecessors.
mike,
Your long-winded hyper-hyphenated histrionics are ‘engaging’ anyone.
“aren’t “
But he got you.
is mike a bot? – it’s the same post, with the word arrangement changed, that’s he put up in response to several other people.
It was amusing the first time…..now it looks like he has a problem.
MIchael,
A “problem”? Maybe so, but the problem’s yours not mine, Michael. And I go with what works, guy. Meaning I always ground my little purple patches in the truth, Michael. And I like my “greenshirts are insect booger-eaters” metaphor and intend to keep with it. And sometimes the truth hurts. But, again, that’s your problem, Michael.
And just so you know I’m an easy-going sort of guy, Michael, let me conclude with a little buddy-buddy hive-patois. Buzz off, MIchael.
Michael,
You are missing your target and shooting yourself in the foot. Please continue firing.
Eli Rabett suggests as a public school science activity
” Ask the kids next time they are on a flight to find out what the altitude and temperature are. There are some planes….”
I have to ask, just how serious do the “true believers in the greenhouse effect” take themselves?
A far more healthy and sustainable school activity would be to take the class of young people for a hill walk.
A vertical assent of about 1000m should show a temperature drop of 6K to 9K.
They could measure this for themselves if supplied with a thermometer each.
They would not have to take someones word for it.
Climate Science in Public Schools:
Once upong a time there were these 10 Yamal — living trees — and thier rings were full of valuable data
These trees are the original Ten Disciples of Mann, upon whose rings the Church of Warmanism is founded, and through them spreading the Gospel of Leftist-lib, enviro-wackpot anti-humanism.
Through the power of the Spirit Gum of the Ten Yamal, there is no Medieval Warm Period and no Little Ice Age and all Twentieth Century Warming is vanquished before the time of the magic blade of the sacred `hockey stick’ that shall inexorably points toward Heaven’s Gate and the path to salvation for all believers on the dark side of Comet Hale-Bopp,
All will become clear after the great global warming Armageddon that is to come for be it known that rivers will run red as Mao’s little book.
Bryan, perhaps you have noticed that there are lots of places without 1000m hills. And yes, Eli thought about that, but the better variation if you have one in the neighborhood is to put the class at different levels linked by cell phone and the take the temperatures having previously calibrated the thermometers.
Really Bryan, rent a clue, they are not very expensive.
Eli Rabett says
“Bryan, perhaps you have noticed that there are lots of places without 1000m hills.”
There are still more (> 1000m) hills than aerodromes.”
Take the pupils in the school bus to the nearest hill.
Its still a lot more sustainable than flying.
It is worth pointing out that greenhouse theory advocates are fond of flying in aeroplanes to various conferences to save the planet.
The less generous amongst us would find that a bit hypocritical!
C’mon man, most people fly at least once a year. Stop clowing.
Actually, most people don’t. I haven’t flown anywhere since 2009. And I have no current plans to, either.
Might be more inclined to if I didn’t have a thing about other people handling my junk.
It’s tough to nail the number of flights per person per annum down. The one reference Eli has found says 2 for the US, but that includes people who travel by air almost every day and those who never do. The median if anyone can find it would probably be better
A travel site said 42% of Americans flew in 2008. That has dropped a touch with the StayCation economics.
Eli Rabett says;
“C’mon man, most people fly at least once a year. Stop clowing.”
I just wonder how seriously greenhouse theory advocates actually believe the stuff they preach.
There are now 8 million people in Britain officially classified as being in fuel poverty.
Definition: They spend more than 10% of their income to heat their home.
The fuel bills are grossly inflated because folk like you persuade the politicians to tax the ‘pollutant CO2.’
Yet you advocate that pupils should fly as part of a routine test of temperature against altitude.
You pump masses of the stuff right up there where it does most damage.
I’m shocked!
Surely the fuel bills are inflated because you use it to fill up your car.
How many vulnerable fuel poverty people do you kill with each 1000 miles of gas?
That’s not funny. I spend more than 10% of my income just commuting to work.
And I’m one of the ‘better-off’ – if I’m hurting the I can imagine how others feel
Eli
I hope you’re a bit more precise with your students. surely 1000m high would be a mountain and not a hill?
Tonyb
tony b
Whether 1000m is a “mountain” or a “hill” depends on how high the “flatlands” around it are.
In Britain, I’d say 1000m would qualify as a “mountain”.
In Switzerland…?
Cheers,
Max
Max
Yes, its perception as well. Nearby Dartmoor has two points just above 600metres. By many definitions thats a mountain but we would never think of them as anything but hills.
tonyb
Good Ol’ Rocky Top,
Big Rock Candy Mountain, see?
March, bang drums, blow horns.
=======================
Then we have Mt. Prospect, IL, elev ~ 200m. It’s next to Arlington Heights. This is about 25m higher than nearby Chicago.
(Root) node 1: “Humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways..
node 2: Where is the evidence?
There is no empirical scientific evidence that humans are changing (global) climate perceptibly, let alone in dangerous ways.
This is the primary objection, which rational skeptics of IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis have of this premise.
And it is the principal weakness of the CAGW premise.
Now to the “mountain walk” with students to show that it gets cooler as one increases in altitude – what’s that got to do with “humans changing (global) climate perceptibly”?
Absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Teachers shouldn’t try to bamboozle their pupils into swallowing such hogwash.
Max
.
Max
If one was to change the word climate to environment would you feel the same way?
As an example, Imo we are doing terrible things to the oceans, I just am not of the opinion that CO2 is anywhere the top of the list, or that it would even be on the list.
Rob
Yes. We are undoubtedly changing the “environment” on a local and regional basis, if not globally. And it could be argued that we are making the “environment” more suitable for human habitat in many instances, just as we are undoubtedly making it less habitable for other species (“winners and losers”, as our host has said).
I cannot opine on what we are doing to the oceans or whether or not these are “terrible things”, but I’d agree with you that CO2 is not on the top of any list of harmful human emissions (if it is on the list at all).
In fact, it appears that crop yields have increased dramatically since the 1970s, and some of this may be linked to higher atmospheric CO2 levels. It could well be that another factor has been slightly warmer temperatures, especially in northern latitudes, although these changes have been too small to have had much of an impact IMO.
The one thing that appears certain: there is not enough carbon contained in all the very optimistically estimated fossil fuel resources still available on our planet (based on a 2010 WEC study) to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to much above 1,000 ppmv when they are all used up completely – so we have an absolute upper limit on atmospheric CO2.
This probably translates into an absolute upper limit on change to the ocean pH, but in view of the much larger “carbon sink” of the ocean (compared with the atmosphere), I would doubt that this impact would be in any way harmful.
Just my thoughts on this, Rob.
Max
Max
Where your analysis on atmospheric CO2 is most likely flawed is that it does not take into account any changes in non human emissions as a result of higher temperatures (or other changes in conditions that would lead to CO2 emissions changes). I cannot criticize this very much since there is very, very little reliable information on how natural emissions and absorption vary over time in responses to changes in conditions.
It has been shown that natural CO2 emissions and absorption rates vary over time, but science is barely beginning to grasp the factors that lead to the changes or the levels of the changes. So, in summary, we know a bit about the roughly 5% of the total CO2 that is emitted by humans, but not much about changes to the other 95%.
Maybe we should teach kids some of this stuff.
Rob
And
Yeah. One can conjure up all sorts of secondary and tertiary effects, but the fact remains that the amount of carbon contained in all remaining fossil fuels is limited and that this places an upper limit on human CO2 emissions as well as increases in atmospheric CO2 content caused by these emissions.
[We should teach this to children.]
But there is no physical evidence of increased “natural” CO2 emissions resulting from human CO2 emissions, so this is purely conjectural.
[We should therefore not teach this to children.]
In fact, we see that the percentage of the CO2 “remaining” in the atmosphere compared to the amount of the total human emission varies greatly from year to year, but on a longer-term basis has remained constant or even decreased very slightly over time – suggesting that the overall biosphere plus ocean, etc. is increasing its uptake of CO2 as concentrations increase, rather than the other way around.
[This is too ill-defined to teach to children IMO.]
As far as “absorption rates” (by the oceans, I presume) are concerned, we cannot conclude based on any physical evidence that these have changed. Theory would tell us that a slightly warmer ocean (on average) would absorb slightly less CO2 than a slightly cooler one, but we do not even have enough hard data to tell us whether or not the global ocean is warming or cooling.
[This is also too ill-defined to teach to children IMO].
Most of all, we should NOT frighten children with a lot of scientifically poorly substantiated doomsday scares – even if we think they might be “politically correct”.
Again, just my opinion, Rob.
Max
Max
Good discussion.
You wrote- “But there is no physical evidence of increased “natural” CO2 emissions resulting from human CO2 emissions, so this is purely conjectural.”
My thoughts- But there is substantial evidence of increased emissions as a result of of higher temperatures. We do not know how much overall, but we know it changes.
Regarding absorption- No, I am not meaning just the oceans. I am meaning the system overall. It has also been demonstrated that plants intake of CO2 varies in response to the CO2 available. Not much is known overall regarding variances in different types of plants as a function of CO2 availability. It would not be possible today to accurately model because to little is known.
Perhaps my overall point of the carbon cycle is that Imo, far less is actually known than most people wish to believe.
People tend to think we know how much CO2 is emitted by country (as an example), but we don’t. We have pretty crude estimates.
People believe natural emissions do not vary much- and why do they think that? No data supports that conclusion.
People believe absorption rates remain constant–again, why is that?
Rob
The CO2 absorption rates have not really remained constant.
We have year-to-year data of both human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations since Mauna Loa measurements were started around 1959.
These show us that there is no year-to-year correlation between the two, i.e. the amount of CO2 emitted by humans that “remains” in the atmosphere on an annual basis varies from 15% to 88%, averaging around 50% over the entire time period.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8022/7217075972_fdaf62972a_b.jpg
However, if we look at the linear trend since 1959, we see that this amount has decreased from around 56% in 1959 to 48% 30 years later in 2008, so that, at least statistically, it appears to be decreasing as atmospheric CO2 level increases (and possibly as temperature increases ever so slightly as it has since 1959). Is this because the biosphere absorbs more at higher atmospheric concentrations? Or is this simply a fluke? I don’t believe we know the answer to that question.
Whatever the reason, it is safe to say that the (very limited) data we have at present seems to tell us that there is an overall “negative feedback” at work here, despite the theory that tells us that warmer temperatures should result in lower overall absorption rates (caused by more “out-gassing”).
So it would be ill-advised IMO to teach children that higher temperatures are likely to result in less absorption of CO2 by the entire biosphere, oceans, lithosphere, etc. – because we do not know based on empirical scientific data whether or not this is the case and we have some indication that exactly the opposite may be so.
That was my point, Rob.
Max
Rob
typo
Should say 50 years (rather than 30 years) [of data since Mana Loa started].
Sorry
Rob
The data sources to the graph I just posted are:
Mauna Loa:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
CO2 emission: Fossil fuels: CDIAC:http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2008.ems
Other sources: various estimates
If you would like the data in tabular form, let me know.
Max
Max, so the airborn fraction is decreasing and another AGW prediction is failing. In 2011 dCO2 at ML was only 1.87 ppm/year, in spite of the record human emissions. The airborn fraction will decrease further, when the cooling really kicks in.
Edim, Do you have any analytical intuition at all? Millions of independent agents (humans) working together are not going to change the amount of carbon emitted that much. This is due to the central limit theorem and and the law of large numbers. You don’t give any references, how much did the “record human emissions” change? The noise in the emission data estimation is probably larger than the yearly change.
Web, the airborn fraction (of human CO2 emissions) is DECREASING, while the human emissions are still increasing. Use your analytical intuition. And go to RC or SKS and tell them that the seasonal atmospheric CO2 cycle is caused by the SST cycle (I agree by the way).
Edim,
To quantify what Web is saying, I think the past decade has seen record growth in fossil fuel emissions yet by my calculations this amounts to something like +0.04ppm/yr when translated to concentration increase. Clearly this isn’t going to be noticable watching from year-to-year in a dataset in which annual growth typically fluctuates by +/-0.5ppm.
By the way, I’ve calculated an expected CO2 concentration trajectory by summing fossil fuel and land usage change emissions, then dividing by the airborne fraction around 1960. There is a divergence over the past decade where observed concentrations are higher than expected. This could be due to an increased airborne fraction though I doubt the divergence is beyond uncertainties in the emissions records at this point.
While searching on the topic I came across this site which Web might find interesting: http://www.nimr.go.kr/2/carbontracker/
Paul S, the so-called airborn fraction is decreasing, while the consensus predicted increasing (another one bites the dust). I predict further decline if the cooling really kicks in. Human emissions are almost irrelevant, because the increased atmospheric CO2 partial pressure will cause uptake by oceans/water.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
http://csironewsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/gcp-2010-proof-nature-climate-change1.pdf
By the way, what do you think causes the seasonal CO2 cycle, SST cycle or NH greening?
Edim, the people at realclimate and skeptical science absolutely encourage what I am doing. You don’t have the scientific intuition to realize that the activation energy for co2 is largely the same across processes, whether it is biotic or physical.
Wrong column, so I’ll post again…
Edim,
There is absolutely no evidence for a decreasing airborne fraction. As I’ve noted there is some hint of an increase but nothing conclusive.
Manacker’s graph fails to take into account anthropogenic emissions due to land usage change, around 25% of the historical total. There is little trend in this source over the past few decades so of course failing to include it will produce a result which suggests decreasing airborne fraction.
By the way, what do you think causes the seasonal CO2 cycle, SST cycle or NH greening?
In the absense of any great understanding on my part, I’ll refer to the annual carbon cycle diagram from AR4: http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html.
Over land there is about 120 GtC/yr going up and down related to vegetation etc. I would presume the timing of these fluxes would follow seasons, particularly relating to the NH growing season.
Over sea there is about 70 GtC/yr up and down. Again, I would presume there would be seasonal differences, relating to SSTs.
The shape of the overall annual cycle in the Mauna Loa, or global, data will be largely determined by a combination of these.
Right, and Hawaii is so close to the hottest region, we can correlate against the SST fluctuations. The tracking of CO2 seasonal fluctuations with equatorial SST is incredibly close.
For other geographically located CO2 measurement sites, the correlation may work better against land/biotic seasonal fluctuations.
Web, I agree about Hawaii. How about comparing other CO2 sites with the temperatures of the respective SST latitude band? The seasonal (annual) cycle is very interesting IMO.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Rob Starekey,
“I just am not of the opinion that CO2 is anywhere the top of the list, or that it would even be on the list.”
If you want authiritative support for your statement you may be interested in the report from the World Economic Forum “Global Risks 2012 – Seventh Edition”
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition
Edim,
There is absolutely no evidence for a decreasing airborne fraction. As I’ve noted there is some hint of an increase but nothing conclusive.
Manacker’s graph fails to take into account anthropogenic emissions due to land usage change, around 25% of the historical total. There is little trend in this source over the past few decades so of course failing to include it will produce a result which suggests decreasing airborne fraction.
By the way, what do you think causes the seasonal CO2 cycle, SST cycle or NH greening?
In the absense of any great understanding on my part, I’ll refer to the annual carbon cycle diagram from AR4: http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html.
Over land there is about 120 GtC/yr going up and down related to vegetation etc. I would presume the timing of these fluxes would follow seasons, particularly relating to the NH growing season.
Over sea there is about 70 GtC/yr up and down. Again, I would presume there would be seasonal differences, relating to SSTs.
The shape of the overall annual cycle in the Mauna Loa, or global, data will be largely determined by a combination of these.
Paul S
Just to correct an error in your assumption
I have increased the estimate of human CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (from DOE and CDIAC estimates) to include cement production (estimate by Wiki) and deforestation (an estimate from several sources, with the primary cause the reduction in tropical rain forests, as in Indonesia, Brazil, parts of Africa, etc,). One source is:
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation_country.html
These two added sources of human-caused CO2 increase the global total by around 15%.
Seasonal differences are immaterial, as the data are on an annual basis.
Hope this clear things up, Paul
Max
Paul S,
According to this::
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
the airborn fraction is indeed increasing overall (linear trend for 1960 – 2010), but since ~1995 the trend is negative. It started decreasing and it’s obviously related to global temperatures. The linear trend is negative since 1977 as well. The reservoirs/sinks are clearly not losing their absorbtion ability and are not becoming saturated.
Edim, WHT and Paul S
The published data on atmospheric CO2 content (Mauna Loa), human CO2 emissions (CDIAC, DOE, Wiki and several sources on deforestation) provide us raw data on an annual basis.
From these raw data we can plot the percentage of the CO2 emitted by humans which “remains” airborne on a year-by-year basis. (This is based on the assumption that human CO2 emissions are the cause for the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.)
The airborne percentage varies greatly from year to year (from 15% to 85%).
But on a long-term basis (since 1959) it appears to have diminished slightly (by a statistical 1.7% per decade using a linear regression) – from around 56% to 48% of the total.
I have made another analysis, which I posted on another thread here several months ago. This appears to show a fairly good correlation between whether or not the year the atmospheric content is being measured warmed with respect to the previous year or not. Years that were warmer than previous years had higher airborne percentages and vice versa.
My conclusion was simply that we cannot teach our children that the airborne fraction is increasing as time progresses or with higher concentration (a “positive feedback”), but, if anything that the opposite appears to be the case (a “negative” feedback).
And I stay with my point on this until someone can show empirical evidence to the contrary
Max
Max, I agree. Furthermore, the so-called airborn fraction is clearly decreasing since the climatic indices plateaued. The rest of this decade will be very interesting – if the relation (dCO2 = f(T)) continues and the climatic factors start declining. I sense another divergence.
You guys apparently know nothing about impulse response functions. The amount of excess atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to the convolution of the anthropogenic carbon emissions with the adjustment time response function of CO2. The latter describes the distribution of times it takes to sequester a CO2 molecule out of the active carbon cycle.
The first term is the conventional convolution of the forcing function, FF(t), of anthropogenic carbon against with the response function R(t). The second term is a small positive feedback term describing outgassing of CO2 with increases in temperature, which then has the same problem with slow sequestering. From the data on seasonal variations, this appears as a small factor, but will keep increasing as average temperature increases.
Talking about teaching subjects to budding engineering students, this is the story with convolution:
This classic book has been cited on Google Scholar 34,000 times.
When I worked out the convolution myself, this is what I got:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-j7ldTlCB338/ToKH4T5drLI/AAAAAAAAAjE/U-i6xhRj1SE/s1600/co2_and_t_ver_20th_century.gif
John
Should Node 1 read ‘..changing the climate RAPIDLY in many ways….’ After all the supposed speed is considered as dangerous as the change.
tonyb
Tony,
The idea of what the dangers, including rate of change, are can be developed in David’s 3 questions following on from the initial stage (node). These 3 can be answered by the Team before we present our perspective. This will probably be a slow process initially as David indicates.
John Costigane
“(Root) node 1: “Humans are changing the climate is dangerous ways …”
node 2: what does dangerous mean?
How dangerous?
What are the consequences?
What are the consequences given our proven ability to adapt?
What should we do about it?
Perhaps this question should wait a few more years?
Judith Curry,
John Costigan, David Wojick, Manacker, Rob Starky, Brandon Shollenberger, Bryan, Climate Reason,
Good morning, This is a good start and good progress.
I wonder if we could jointly ask Judith to transfer this start to a new thread, dedicated to developing the Issue Tree. Hopefully with some guidance at the top.
Science in Private School–e.g.,
Psychology 101: Hot World Syndrome—i.e., fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.
Wag,
Why not take the plunge and make node 3, another comment or question based on node 1?
Regarding some of the above discussions, technically you can start the issue tree anywhere, because every question has an inverse. Thus any node in the issue tree can be made the top (or root) node. I like to start them with the most provacative issue, but that is art, not science. But it does not matter where you start, as all the important questions and objections will be drawn in.
Thus the claimed existence of the greenhouse effect is as good a starting point as the claimed threat of CAGW, as far as issue analysis is concerned. But it will take a while to get to CAGW, which will only be a sub-tree.
This is all esoterica if not for policy. The science questions by themselves are uninteresting to all except a handful of nerds. The cardinal question is policy.
Everybody works this backward. They insist that the science demands the policy. Baloney. The policy demands the science and it always did. So the cardinal question is, what policy is considered desirable, and can it be justified?
P.E. I agree!
> [T]echnically you can start the issue tree anywhere, because every question has an inverse.
I’m not sure what it means for a question (presumably in an issue true) to have an inverse, David Wojick.
Do you have an example?
Sure Willard, in fact this is quite important, because when you find an issue tree in situ you often want to restructure it. Most of the issue tree moves in ordinary discourse involve simple questions, such as “such as, what evidence, who, how, why, when, where, etc?”
Every one of these questions has a simple inverse. For example, if I say A and you ask for evidence, so I give B. I may well have presented B first, then postulated A as evidenced by B. Likewise, How? Has a simple inverse, as does Why?, and so on.
Reasoning always works in both directions, such as it is, as it were. In AI it is called forward chaining and backward chaining, more or less.
You of all people should be able to figure this out without me.
I have one. Negative feedback implies low sensitivity implying climate doesn’t change much. Paleoclimate implies climate does change much. Hmmm. Broken branches on the tree somewhere between paleoclimate and negative feedback?
David Wojick,
Thank you for your explanation, which makes more clearer where you come from. If I hear you right, the inverse is simply the node above a question. This means that the root can’t be a question.
Here’s why I asked: suppose E is “Evidence?” and that E occurs in many nodes in a issue tree, say in response to claims C1 and C2. (Asking for evidence should occur many, many times is a skeptical process.) What would be the inverse of E?
As I see it, the question is ill posed. It is the nodes that contain questions that have an inverse. E has as many inverse than occurences in the tree.
We should then distinguish the nodes from what they contain. In fact, researchers distinguish many levels:
– the implementation level
– the logical level
– the epistemic level
– the conceptual level
– the linguistic level
Here is a paper where the ontological level is being introduced:
http://wiki.loa-cnr.it/Papers/OntLev.pdf
It’s been a while since I studied this, but I believe that this article is short and clear enough. As a bonus, it provides a short overview.
Willard, yes, the inverse merely means that if you have a node A followed by question Q1 with answer B then there is a question Q2 such that it can be asked of B and A is the answer. This means any node can be the top or root node. In fact this captures something that happens in discourse, where a discussion begins with a relatively narrow topic then transforms to a broader topic, or vice versa. I call it reconceptualizing the issue.
As for Q = Evidence?, it does indeed occur many times in the climate debate issue tree. Much of the debate is about evidence or the weight of evidence. The inverse of Evidence? Is something like What does this imply? or What does this suggest?
As for the rest of your comment, there are indeed many ways of looking at the issue tree, some of which are independent of the content. I have tended to focus on simple aspects one can count, such as branching rates and the allocation of nodes to questions, but the deeper stuff you mention is certainly there. It is a new science, after all.
David Wojick,
Thank you for your response. When you say that the inverse of E is something like “What does this suggest?”, you must agree that the meaning of being an inverse is not the same as in “is the node above” or “is one of the node below”. That is, the level at which you look at the issue tree switches, i.e. from the conceptual level (nodes) to the epistemic level (evidence, suggestions).
What we could call “content” basically contains all the levels besides the implementation level.
Conceptual graphs (i.e. the epistemic level) have been developed in the 70’s:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/
Work on ontologies has also matured:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/
Willard, I think you are making too much of this. My point is simply that if you have an issue tree, where p is a node within the tree, you can make p the top (or root) node, but you will have to change the questions that lead to p into their inverses.
David Wojick,
Yes, I believe we can agree that your semantics is mostly implicit.
If we can agree on this, then I believe we have made progress.
This progress is necessary to solve technical problems, like the one about the exponential growth of issue trees.
Chess machines can play decently at a game with a problem space that lies outside the number of atoms in the universe. There are quite efficient ways to prune trees.
The problem seem to be to create equivalence classes for questions and answers. Once this is done, I doubt the tree would take more space than it takes to archive Judy’s website.
David Wojick:
This isn’t true. An issue tree is uni-directional, meaning it can only go one way. If we take as our root, “Humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways,” we have two possible directions to go. First, there is the option people have been discussing, where the science behind that claim is discussed. The second option is the, “So what?” option. This is the option which covers things like, beneficial changes and the mitigation/adaption issue. We cannot go in two directions, so we cannot discuss both at the same time if we use the root you gave.
It’d be just as easy to start with the greenhouse effect and build a partial tree leading to the claimed dangers as it would be to use your root. Nothing says we’d have to fill in everything not related to a particular sub-tree in order to discuss that sub-tree.
Oh well. You guys can do as you like. I don’t even think it is a good idea to use a tree structure rather than something like an directed acyclic graph.
What you are calling directions or options will be subtrees. That is the thing about the tree structure, the issue is constantly diverging. In contrast, speaking and writing are linear sequences of sentences, This is a major source of confusion, using a string of sentences to express a tree of issues.
Ghg are relatively opaque to IR seems a much better starting point.
If you don’t start with that I suppose my first response to your issue tree would be the question: why not start the tree with my root.
And then the issue tree is transformed into the issue of the starting point and not the issue itself.
Steven Mosher, one thing I’d change is I don’t think one necessarily needs to give detail as much detail on the greenhouse effect as you do. Issue trees can have varying levels of detail, and in many cases, it’d be fine to just say, “The greenhouse effect exists.”
Of course, you can always have multiple issue trees with different levels of detail. In fact, it would be fairly easy to make software which allowed you to create “layers” of detail that could be turned on and off so people could choose how much they’d be viewing.
Mike: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Ike: I dunno.
Mike: To get the Chinese newspaper.
Ike: (dumb simper in face found)
Mike: Do you get it?
Ike: No.
Mike: Neither do I. Neither does the chicken. That’s why he crossed the road.
=========
I think its best to start with a known fact. For various reasons.
But you see since we have all played this game everyone knows, contrary to davids assertion, that the root is key. White moves first and has an advantage.
Mosh
The first three or four questions are vital as they set the tone and shoud be as objective as possible. Whether we will ever agree on the first few questions depends on how objective everyone is prepared to be in setting aside their existing prejudices and politics.
tonyb
OK. So, if you do not like David’s node 1 questions or statement, why do you object to mine?
“Mitigate AGW or Adapt to climate change whatever it may be?
Surely that question is:
– Objective
– Unbiased
– Free of prejudices and politics
– Focuses on the key issue that needs to be decided (and agreed)
– Is likely to be recognised by the vast majority of the population as the key issue
– Is not buried in the bowels of science, and in just one branch of science
“Adapt” could have different meanings to different people at different times or circumstances. Could be that some think of evolutionary change in genetics, others think of change in phenotypes, some might think “moving away from the coast”, some might think “buying an air conditioner”, while others think of becoming inured to suffering.
Adaptation could be WWF culling the human stock, deniers first .
Bean counters go to a nut-cuttin? What a trip.)
You can start wherever you like, but my practice when analyzing an issue is to start with the issue, which by definition is not a known fact. White has no advantage. White just raises the issue.
thisisnotgoodtogo | May 17, 2012 at 8:32 am |
Good point. We’d have to define the scope (and what is included and excluded) and define terms.
By “Adapt” I meant “whatever we do to adapt to climate changes” – as distinct from what we do to try to prevent climate changes or control the climate (sea levels, pH or sea water, etc).
However, I have been told I am running on the wrong track altogether, so the question I want to ask is not appropriate for an Issue tree, at least not as the top node.
Mosher, I think you are thinking of a kind of deductive approach, but that does not work when you have a tree structure. Assuming a branch rate of three you would wind up with a lot of stuff on radiative physics. It would take a series of So what? steps to even get to the climate change debate. It would be a small subtree at best.
The top (or root) of the tree should be the central issue. GHG opacity is not the central issue, unless you want to debate the GH effect.
Just to elaborate, if the branch rate is three then a ten level tree has about 100,000 nodes, with the tenth level alone having almost 60,000. Three to the tenth power. This combinatorial explosion is one of the fundamental problems of dealing with complex issues.
David Wojick and Willard,
Practical question about Decision Trees and how to progress
I have a question. I want to understand, in a practical sense, how the Issue Tree will progress from Node 1 to answer the key policy question(s)?
How do we get from the ends of the many branches to addressing the policy question?
If we can’t, then what is the point of developing all the branches that do not address the policy issue?
The key question to be addressed (IMO) is:
“Mitigate AGW or Adapt to climate change whatever it may be?
I include below some quotes from this discussion and my comments to assist you to understand my dilemma and to help to answer my question.
Willard @ May 17, 2012 at 4:39 pm said:
How do we focus to address the key question(s)? Or is that not the intent?
David Wojick @ May 17, 2012 at 8:32 am said:
With divergent branches; how do we focus to address the key question(s)?
David Wojick @ May 17, 2012 at 11:03 am said:
It seems to me that the question I’ve stated above is the real issue we need to address. That is what the vast majority of people want answered. That is the issue the decision makers and politicians need to address. So I wonder what is the purpose of an enormous decision tree if it does not:
1. address the key question; and
2. help to educate the public about the reasons for the proposed policy response?
David Wojick @ May 17, 2012 at 10:29 am said:
How do we get from 100,000 end points to answer the key policy question(s)?
David Wojick @ May 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm said:
Question:
How do we get from the ends of the many branches to addressing the policy question?
If we can’t, then what is the point of following all the branches that do not address the policy issue?
Key question to be addressed (IMO)
“Mitigate AGW or Adapt to climate change whatever it may be?
That is why I suggest we start with the question we want answered.
How was the AGW lie missed by the smartest and most well paid people in the world over the last forty years? They lie to our faces and have the gall to call us ‘deniers. Even until today…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100158834/obama-used-to-be-a-kenyan/
they just won’t stop. Why? Who denies who? You all know, the Left.
Peter, an issue tree is not a decision tree. The issue tree is about Understanding, neither more nor less. The decision tree people assume understanding, but 90% or more of decision making lies with understanding, so that is what I study. Issue trees do not make decisions, any more than writing makes decisions. Issue trees are just a form of writing, in which the relations between sentences are made clear.
Issue trees can make the debate clear, but they cannot resolve it. Only people can do that.
David Mojick
OK, David. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I’ve been ‘barking up the wrong tree’.
However, my impression is that there is an enormous amount of work in using an Issue Tree at it seems it will be hard to justify in terms of what we’d get out of it. If it had been used from the start to develop the information to go into AR4, for example, would AR$ have been more valuable, reliable, trustworthy? Would AR4 have contained the relevant information we need for decision making?
At the moment I am struggling to accept that the effort required would be worth it. Have you any idea of the cost benefit of using an Issue Tree?
Issue trees are labor intensive, like engineering drawings, so their use is specialized to important issues. These have mostly been either strategic plans or federal regulations, where large sums are involved. Given the financial magnitude of the climate debate it would certainly qualify. If there were an issue tree of AR4 you would see the lack of balance in the consideration of natural causes versus CAGW.
The fun part would be to merge the issuetrees of the IPCC and NIPCC reports. That would be a start on balance.
Here is an article from 1980 that will give you the flavor of issue tree analysis as a business. http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
Unfortunately we crashed in the 1981-82 recession, when short term interest rates on our commercial loans hit 22% and government payments on completed work slowed to a crawl. But we were basically profitable. I never tried to restart the start-up. I moved into defense as a consultant, unraveling confusions in weapon system procurement programs, especially Trident and Aegis. Lots of fun there. I call it the wacky world of weapons.
David Wojick @ May 19, 2012 at 9:14 am:
Would be the value of that? We can see it already. So what would be the value of doing all that work just to see the imbalance.
If we are going to do an enormous amount of work we need to be able to get a useful output from it. The work involved needs to be able to be justified in benefit/cost terms.
Therefore, I say again, I believe the top node needs to be one that is focused on finding the correct policy response to AGW.
The world has trillions of dollars at stake by implementing policies to try to control the climate (or reduce climate damage). But the uncertainties are enormous. Each country is exposed to enormous costs for potentially no return, especially if other countries do not do their bit. Nordhaus’s work shows the cost to countries that participate would be 250% higher if countries that contribute just 20% of emissions do not participate (the figures may not be quite; they are from memory). So there is potentially high benefit/cost from doing this work, but only if it is laid out in a way that will lead to giving us the result we need. If not, it is a waste of time and money. And people will not participate, because they will recognise their effort would have little or no benefit.
Therefore, I suggest this should be set up to do due diligence on the proposal for Mitigation of CO2-eq emissions. Or some better statement of the final decision we want to make or information we need.
I think of the top box as providing the answer to the question, (or the information to inform the decision makers):
“What is the correct balance between Mitigation and Adaption given all the real world constraints and economic inefficiencies”.
Or
”Mitigate AGW or Adapt to whatever climate changes occur, or combination? What combination?
Have you looked at “Global Risks 2012 – Seventh Edition”
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition ?
[I’d recommend download the pdf version rather than the online version]
Peter Lang:
Again and again, you ignore the fact the exact same information could be placed in the tree regardless of whether one uses an issue tree “focused on finding the correct policy.” Presumably, you’re continuing to base this on the fallacious assertion that an issue tree which began with a node focused on understanding science, such as, “The greenhouse effect exists,” would necessarily include irrelevant material. As I’ve pointed out multiple times, there is absolutely no reason that would be true, so your position is baseless.
Starting as you suggest would accomplish nothing more than an alternative root would accomplish, save to create a confrontatiional environment seeded with confusion and bias. Moreover, it would be inherently limited, so much so, it couldn’t truly address the questions you say are ever so vital.
I’ve provided a simple explanation for how the roots Steven Mosher and I offered would address the questions you say are important. You’ve never disputed it. As such, I’m at a loss as to why you insist on promoting such a bad root node.
For the record, I could make an issue tree addressing the questions you raise in a couple hours. While it obviously wouldn’t go into too much detail, it would give a solid outline for the necessary discussion, and any details people wanted to consider could easily be added to it. Issue trees are not complicated.
Brandon,
I don’t find your attack-mode is helpful or persuasive. I also don’t find your arguments persuasive. You have not been able to address the questions and points I’ve made, other than to restate your position.
I cannot see how your approach would:
1. get us efficiently to the answers we need – i.e. what is the optimum policy response to AGW
2. focus effort on achieving the goal as opposed to simply having a chat about what you are interested in
3. be of interest to the broad cross section of people who may be interested in the policy questions/issues and consequences, and who once on board would bring others on board.
Peter Lang:
There is no “attack-mode” here. I stated the situation as simply as I could. It’s unfortunate you perceive that as attacking, but I don’t see that as my problem.
You may not find them persuasive, but you’ve done nothing to show them wrong.
I did, in fact, address each question and point you’ve raised. You claim I’ve just restated my opinion, yet we can see that is obviously untrue when you claim unanswered points include things like:
I have given a direct response to this answer multiple times. For example, I gave a simple demonstration of how the root node I proposed would lead to the issue you want to discuss. You didn’t respond. I later repeated the example, offering more detail on the issue. Again, you didn’t respond. So again I’ll repeat the demonstration:
In just four steps from the root node I propose, we are at the issue you say is the most important. A fifth step would take us to what kind of response would be best. That’s all it takes. You put those five steps on a sheet of paper/graph/whatever, say you only want to add things related to those steps, and go at it. You get a simple issue tree completely devoted to the topic you’re interested in.
And if people want to discuss more things? They can copy and paste, then add to their heart’s content. Or, if they want to discuss more limited issues, they can just copy the parts they’re interested in. Or, if any sort of decent software is used, a single copy could be made, with everyone adding to the same thing, and people would just extract the portions they’re interested in discussing. That is, quite literally, as easy as any drag-and-drop operation on a computer.
Peter Lang,
Sorry for the late reply.
You ask:
> How do we focus to address the key question(s)? Or is that not the intent?
I suppose so, but I’m not sure if that can be decided in any objective mean. The most interesting Q&A games are dialectical processes: we don’t have a way to decide the answer by direct means, e.g. “What time is it? It’s 8 o’clock”. Dialectics, at least in the most classical sense, seems to have two parts:
> One will be a method for discovering premises from which a given conclusion follows, while the other will be a method for determining which premises a given interlocutor will be likely to concede. The first task is accomplished by developing a system for classifying premises according to their logical structure. […] The second task is accomplished by developing lists of the premises which are acceptable to various types of interlocutor. Then, once one knows what sort of person one is dealing with, one can choose premises accordingly.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#DiaArgArtDia
I’m using Aristotle’s example to show that this project is an old one, that the idea to pick the arguments one needs to reach the conclusions one wants might anticipate think tanks. More importantly to me, Aristotle already thought of distinguishing different playbooks depending on the opponent. That is, when you play a game, it’s important to identify players.
So I guess one answer to your question could be: it depends with whom you’re playing.
Willard,
Thank you for this. Your comment is helpful. I will forward your comment to some others.
(Root) node 1: “Humans are changing the climate in dangerous ways..
node 3: Who is spreading this nonsense, and why?
node 4: Is constructing a greenhouse an example of “changing the climate in dangerous ways”?
node 3.1 the UN IPCC provides the science/ policy framework behind the scare
John, you raise an interesting point. One could restrict the issue tree to just the scientific arguments. One could include the policy arguments. Or one could include the political arguments about motivation, allegations of fraud and corruption, merchants of doubt, etc., which would encompass all the comments made here. These would be very different projects.
Note that just to include all the content of all the 200k+ comments made here so far, plus all the original posted articles, would take an issue tree of a million nodes or so. And this is just a small fraction of what has been written. It is a very big issue. What we are realistically looking for is the top 2,000 to 10,000 nodes or so. That would be a work of art.
David,
This is just an intro but so far the other side has not joined in. Maybe a devil’s advocate would be required to start the alarmist side. They might demand the tree be setup to suit their outlook ie their scientific basis which is a harder challenge for sceptics.
What questions/comments would you suggest for the reply to the initial statement at node 1?
root node: A free man cannot be trusted.
The next thing you know we will all want ice cream,…
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_20635020/ice-cream-spot-hits-rocky-road
like your fat kids do? That’s why we have been given the E-Police with all their big trucks. Tie downs too?
Here is a money quote from Tom’s link, “Mark Duffy, who has operated the dairy farm at the state-owned park for 26 years and has a lease with the state to run the stand, said armed Environmental Police officers showed up at stand on Friday evening and stood guard throughout the weekend, turning away customers craving delectable sundaes and frappes.”
Exactly! Some jobs are so essential that an employer deems it essential if you just predictably and reliably show up for work on a daily basis and if you cannot do at least that, you’re fired. When it comes to the fearmongers of global warming alarmism is there anything they contributed to society since 1995 that has been essential?
But everyone was safe…. right? No one was injuried, so it had to be the right thing to do. I mean… the farmer’s financial loss doesn’t really count ….does it… he’s just in it for a profit, so tough luck for him. He’ll recover sometime… right? At least he knows who’s boss now.
What would we do without a nanny?
Heh… what a great learning experience for the kids too…. shows them how the real world works. Valuble lesson learned there no doubt.
Ice Cream and You Scream,
We all scream for Baby Ice.
Getta croxx that track!
==========
The crowd of free people must have not cared enough about global T.
All they wanted was their ice cream. Today, WHO is the UN-pig, NOW?
I know it is always about the planet but we need to remember that the men in black were gold on Saturday, and had a double gold Sunday too. Not that there is anything wrong with money.
John, I suggest the 3 questions “How (are humans changing the climate)?”, “In what ways (are humans changing the climate)?” and “What does dangerous mean (in this case)?”
The how? question will introduce GHG increases and land use changes, plus whatever else there is. The What ways? question will introduce warming, sea level rise, extreme weather, etc. The WM dangerous? question will introduce the threat. Note that each sub-tree so introduced will take some work to articulate.
One might also add an objection of the form “not so, because X” but there is really no content to support that at this point.
At this stage it is rather tedious. Then as points build one repeatedly restructures the tree, to keep the branching rate near 3 nodes per node. The ultimate form is not up to the analyst. I call it meeting the beast.
David,
That is a better approach which respects the views of the pro CAGW side, allowing their argument to develop. We, of the opposing side, can then develop our viewpoint.
Feel free to restart from the top node, adding nodes 2,3 and 4 as you described. ..
root node: Global cooling kills; how best can humanity prevent the misery, poverty and death of global cooling?
The first two questions should not be asked on the same level as the answers to the second are dependent on the answers to the first.
Brandon,
What 3 questions would you consider appropriate from the top node statement?
Brandon, since you have no experience with my issue trees, you might consider not making strong claims about them.
John Costigane, is there a reason you specifically ask for three questions?
Some questions which immediately come to mind are, “What is ‘the climate’?” “What is considered ‘dangerous’?” “What are these ‘dangerous ways’?”
The third question would be where the topic of risks comes in. From it, you’d ask how we know humans are causing those changes. From that, you’d get into the nodes about the scientific evidence behind global warming concerns.
David Wojick, your behavior is pathetic. First you ignored legitimate points I raised, saying I should read your book. Now you ignore legitimate points I raise, saying I don’t have experience.
For a person who talks about logic as much as you do, it’s incredible you would keep relying on such pathetic rhetorical tricks. How do you propose anyone take you seriously about issue trees when you consistently avoid discussions which disagrees with you?
Brandon, the problem is that your disagreements refer to what I am talking about, and they reflect a lack of understanding. It might be better if you asked questions first. Have you even seen an issue tree?
Brandon,
I am deferring to David’s experience on issue Trees. Let him drive the process and if change is required later other views can then be aired.
David Wojick, you’re now dismissing my remarks out-of-hand, without addressing them, followed by demeaning comments. That’s even worse than before. Three times now you’ve claimed I’m wrong without offering any reason to believe it. It’s pathetic.
John Costigane, you guys are welcome to make whatever you want. Given the last three responses Wojick has given to me, I wouldn’t want to rely on him for this sort of thing, but I won’t interfere with other people doing so. For all I know, he’d help make something decent even though his behavior to me is pathetic.
David Wojick
Why have you ignored or avoided the question that is most important to most people; i.e. “so what? What is the cost and benefit of the mitigation policies?”
We are being led into implementing highly damaging mitigation policies which will probably make no difference to the climate whatsoever. How do the three nodes you suggested so far address this issue – which is really the only issue that really matter to most people?
Ive already said what the first node should be.
GHG are realatively opaque to IR. You you have any questions, statements, comments, or observations about this fact, or would you like to deny it?
Steven Mosher,
My question is: “So what?”
What I mean by this is it is a million light year so argument to get to what is relevant – i.e. policy. We’d have to go through all the science summarised in AR4, the new stuff published since, and all the irrelevant science that has been justified and funded on the basis of “climate science”. It cannot get us through to addressing the policy questions.
Therefore, I am happy to support David Wojick’s nodes so I can learn how to progress.
We need to give David some room to move and demonstrate the Issue Tree method he developed initially. I’d urge we support David and see where it takes us.
Peter. You are not playing the issue tree game properly I made a statement. You can’t reply “so what?”
Steven Mosher, said
I thought the procedure is:
You make a statement and I either challenge it or ask a question. I asked a question. My question is about the relevance of your statement to the key issue; i.e. the policy decisions.
Peter is right, Mosher. So what? is by far the most important question to ask if we are trying to get to the climate debate. How else do we get to AGW and CAGW?
Generally speaking, So what? is the inverse of What evidence? (When doing issue trees one talks a lot about questions, trying to pick the most important ones, looking for patterns or lack of balance, etc.)
So if one started with AGW or CAGW, your opacity statement might well appear down in a evidence sub-tree. But you seem to want to proceed deductively and derive AGW from the opacity statement. In that case So what? is the perfect question, as it asks for an implication.
CO2 is not relatively opaque to IR. It is opaque in relatively small windows of the IR spectrum. Relatively speaking Mosher is a science illiterate.
There is nothing illiterate in Mosher’s single sentence statement. It just needs a lot of unpacking to get where we are trying to go, which is the climate debate. First of all, CO2 is not mentioned, just GHGs, so we need to identify CO2 as a GHG. Then too the term relatively opaque is quite vague, so we need to develop that concept, then fit it to CO2. Mosher’s statement is really the top of the tree for explaining the GH effect, not for the climate debate.
As I have said, issue trees are tedious and laborious, like maps or engineering drawings. Scale and focus are essential considerations going in.
David Wojick and John Costigan,
I am now wondering what we will get out of this? If we are not going to get a result that helps to inform policy and educate the public to be better informed so they can support good policy, then what is the point?
The goal is to inform the public about the debate, including which policy is good. You do know there is a great debate, right?
David Wojick, you said:
Yes, David, I do realise there is a great debate.
However, what I don’t see is how to focus it on a useful output – i.e. how to redirect it from a general chat about peoples’ areas of interest and belief into a directed, purposeful debate about the particular issues that are most relevant to making a decision about policy. So far, I am underwhelmed about the potential value of the ‘Issue Tree’ approach. I get the impression it may be of interest for a philosophical discussion. But it would require an enormous amount of resources and not produce a useful result.
Therefore, I would like to urge you to consider how you could modify your method to make it valuable for informing policy. I’d like you to make it clear, to people like me, it can be valuable. You won’t do that unless it can be focused on helping to get us to the decisions we need to make.
I’ll post a few links I hope you and others who are interest in pursuing this may find helpful to better understand what I am suggesting.
The first is to a letter written to the Australian Prime Minister by an experienced, senior, engineer. He argues we need ‘due diligence’ into CAGW before we commit large amount of public funding to try to mitigate it.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/spending-billions-why-not-do-a-due-diligence-study/
I suggest that it would be valuable to modify the ‘Issue Tree’ approach to enable ‘due diligence’ into CAGW and policy to mitigate it. Due diligence is directed at what is relevant to making the decisions.
My second link is to my submission to the Australian Parliament “Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation”
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136435
And Addendum:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/06/carbon-tax-australia-2011/#comment-136436
Third, Yale Professor William Nordhaus has done some excellent work to evaluate the costs and benefits of CO2-eq pricing. They provide many insights such as (in my words):
• AGW is net beneficial to about 2 C of warming, so to about 2070 on “best estimate” projections
• Costs of mitigation greatly exceed benefits to 2050 and probably to 2100.
• The “best estimates” of AGW damages are not catastrophic, not dangerous, not extremely costly, possibly beneficial for early stages of warming (most of this century).
• Only the ‘fat tail’ of high consequence, low probability catastrophic climate change is potentially scary. But there is no “loaded gun” suggesting these are realistic (see Nordhaus: “Economic policy in the face of severe tail events”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9779.2011.01544.x/full
• Delaying global mitigation action (i.e. CO2 pricing) to 2050 would cost about $3.5 trillion for the whole world (that is insignificant).
Nordhaus “In the Climate Casino: And Exchange”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/26/climate-casino-exchange/?pagination=false
Fourth, For Australia the benefit/cost = 0.11 for our legislated CO2 tax and ETS (Cap and Trade) to 2050:
Benefit = $41 billion
Cost = $390 billion
Refer to the last two comments here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/4/nordhaus-and-the-sixteen.html
Fifth, “Why the decision to tackle climate change isn’t as easy as Al Gore” says “In the face of massive uncertainty, hedging your bets and keeping your options open is almost always the right strategy” (read especially the three paragraphs towards the end of page 2 of this article”:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says
Sixth, Bjorn Lomborg has been making the same point for a long time.
Seventh, World Economic Forum does not rate AGW amongst the highest risks currently facing us.
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition
David, can you modify the “Issue Tree” process to work top down instead of bottom up? By top down I mean the top node would be the result we want. The branches would drill down to get only the information we need to make the decision.
A properly balanced issue tree should make it clear that there is little basis for serious action on AGW. What it adds is showing how all these various arguments fit together.
David Wojick,
David, that is an assertion by the person who developed the Issue Tree and is a true believer.
However, you have not made a persuasive case to convince me. I am not being stubborn. I am seeking a clear explanation of how it could work, effectively and efficiently, to help to answer the key question the policy advisers and the public want to answer.
You have not made the case. At the moment I suspect it would require enormous effort for no benefit.
I suggested you consider trying to modify the approach to make it clearly focused on achieving the result – perhaps present it as a top down approach like a decision tree. Either you did not understand the question, the reason for my suggestion, or you do not want to consider that approach for some reason.
Peter Lang, indeed I do not understand what you mean by “achieving the result.” What result are you trying to achieve? It sounds like a policy outcome. If it is different from mine, which is simply to display the scientific debate, then it is no wonder we disagree. Your result may require a different issue tree, such as one proposing a specific policy, or one opposing a specific policy. These three are all quite different issue trees.
As for modifying the issue tree, in their broadest aspect issue trees are equivalent to essays, with the additional property that the lines of thought connecting the sentences is shown. Essays can say anything, in any way you like, and therefore so can issue trees.
Issue trees are not like decision trees, which are specialized decision making tools. Decision tree links typically include just three specialized relations. Issue trees are a form of writing, neither more nor less. Their links are any question or objection one can ask or make. Issue trees relate to decision making only because understanding is important to making good decisions. Issue trees are about understanding.
But of course an issue tree can be about making a decision, and many have been. One of the first big issue trees asked this question in 1976: “Where in the US can we build a new chemical plant?” (The answer was nowhere and globalization was underway.)
However, I was talking about a specific issue tree, namely the best top of the tree for the scientific climate debate. There is an art to issue trees, just as with any writing.
You on the other hand seem to be talking about another specific issue tree, I know not which. It might be useful and fun to figure out what issue tree you are talking about.
David Wojick | May 21, 2012 at 11:05 am |
Yes, it might. But where could we do that. It is not possible on Judith Curry’s web site. This thread is frustratingly slow to load, and only goes down four levels. The site is not suitable for building an issue tree.
I would like to use an online tool where we can insert the nodes and branches and as well discuss how to build it.
Can you give me a link to a site that is set up for us to both input into an issue tree? If not, can I suggest we use one of the free online MindMap tools. I suggest they would do everything you argue is needed. If you haven’t looked at them, can I suggest you try using one. Some are free, others have a free trial period.
I’ve stated repeatedly on this thread what I want to achieve, and I believe it is what the policy makers want to achieve too.
Peter, I can look at mindmap. But we are talking about a significant issue analysis and mapping effort. Do you have a possible source of initial funding?
http://s11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/index/
It’s Chris Ho-Stuart’s board.
It seems to me, he likes that kind of thing.
David Wojick.
No. I do not have any source of funding. This would be purely a volunteer effort. At the moment I am far from convinced that Issue Trees are a good place to put ones effort, so I want to see at least the start of a tree before I see if it is worth putting any more effort into it. As I say, at the moment I am far from convinced. Continuing to make assertions about how good it is, without being able to address my concerns nor demonstrate how it can be used, is further convincing me that it is not a practical tool. Therefore, I need to see it in practice and I want to be able to see how the issue I have repeatedly stated, can be progressed – and progressed in such a way that many people become interested in it.
I’d urge you to take a serious look at mind map tools. Until you have looked at them I am not persuaded by your dismissal of them.
We have found the trend:
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION
(Report authored by Edward J. Wegman, et al.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(Excerpts)
________________________________________
“ While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
________________________________________
“ The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. Vague terms such as “moderate certainty” (Mann et al. 1999) give no guidance to the reader as to how such conclusions should be weighed.
________________________________________
“ Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research.
________________________________________
“ In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of [McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and compelling.
________________________________________
“ Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by [Mann’s] analysis.
________________________________________
“ … the fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility. Specifically, global warming and its potentially negative consequences have been central concerns of both governments and individuals. The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of PCA puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position. We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.
________________________________________
“ As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
________________________________________
“ Our perception is that principal components (statistical) analysis was used incorrectly and, based on this, unsupportable inferences were drawn about the current magnitude of global warming relative to the historical past.
________________________________________
Source: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
Thanks for the link to the report by Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (Johns Hopkins University) on the “Hockey Stick Global Climate Reconstruction”
Lock-step, consensus science was initiated as the means to implement noble intentions of the 1945 UN Charter and “save the world” from nuclear war by selectively funding misinformation on Earth’s heat source – the Sun – after 1946. This abuse of science surfaced as manipulated global temperature data sixty-four years later, in 2009 (2009-1945 = 64 yrs).
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-70
Now that world leaders are encountering voters’ wrath at the polls, it is time for climatology and astrophysics to abandon models favored by politicians and return to empirical science.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18092779
Leaders of the UN’s IPCC, the UK’s RS, the US NAS and editors of major research journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, PRS, JGR, etc.) and public news organizations (PBS, BBC) will probably have to be replaced by the new political leaders after the next election.
It’s unlikely to be replaced. There will simply be a shift to total dissent and negativity if Obama is removed. The signs of full paranoia and victimization are everywhere in leftist circles and there is a “last word before going out the door” quality of setting radical agendas in expectation of victory or defeat in November. Certainly the revival rise of AGW dogma is a confirmation of this trend.
They should be removed but Romney is a soft moderate who will pander just as the Bush’s did. There will be some social and economic improvements but it will hardly be settled. California will become Greece of the U.S. at some point, the social rejection of these values is underway.
It will take decades is the main point. They aren’t going to be replaced, they will simply be far less important then they ever were socially. They are a bit of joke to most thinking people already.
Environmentalism – A significant risk to wellbeing:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/environmentalism-and-the-decline-of-the-west
That’s a great link and article.
The rise of cults in general in declining societies is worth noting. British socialism around 1870-1900, assorted Gaianist cults though the ages usual associated to social and religious breakdowns.
“Science” is now a code for secular/neo-Marxist extremism. So is public education in many locations.
David Wojick
I’ve reread all your comments on this thread. Very informative posts. They reveal you have a good knowledge of science education in schools and of the ‘Issue Tree’, which I am keen to learn how to use in practice. I hope we can continue to develop it. I’ve mentioned to a group including engineers, economist and medical doctors at lunch so we may get more interest.
In Britain Climate Science would not be taught as such.
Looking at the subject areas, the closest match to the elementary study of Climate would be carried out by the Geography Department.
They would not call it Science though, probably call it Climate Studies.
Comparative climates and effects on agriculture and so on.
Physical Geography would touch on elementary geology and explanation of the shape and features of the land masses.
Cloud patterns and elementary meteorology might also be studied.
In science the climate would only feature as examples of the science being studied.
Convection, on shore and off shore winds and so on.
Types of rock and a simple explanation of their origin.
Biology would include evolution and examples of various forms of plant and animal life.
This would include how the climate has changed and how its effects determined the changes in living things.
So you can see its a multidisciplinary approach.
For instance it would seem very contrived to stick on Al Gores DVD of Science Fiction.
Political pressure might be exerted on schools though.
In which case the Al Gore DVD might find a place in the Social Studies Department.
Perhaps Religious Studies might take up the topic.
Mike @17/05 5.24pm:
I like yer prose better. Yer twenty -linked – adjectives – extended sentences are yer distinctive style.
Thanks Beth, I got the hint. Henceforth, I’ll leave the poetry business to Chief, you, kim, and willard–this blog’s undisputable masters of the form.
But I’m still putting “poet”–or maybe “poet emeritus”–on my CV. I’m pretty sure I can get away with it.
mike,
I’m sure you can get away with anything.
Go for “the bard formerly known as Shakespeare”.
Is it right to call Mike’s natural style prose? I find echoes of Ginsberg.
‘who dreamt and made incarnate gaps in Time & Space through images juxtaposed, and trapped the archangel of the soulbetween 2 visual images and joined the elemental verbs and set the noun and dash of consciousness together jumping with sensation of Pater Omnipotens Aeterna Deus
to recreate the syntax and measure of poor human prose and stand before you speechless and intelligent and shaking with shame, rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm of thought in his naked and endless head,
the madman bum and angel beat in Time, unknown, yet putting down here what might be left to say in time come after death,
and rose incarnate in the ghostly clothes of jazz in the goldhorn shadow of the band and blew the suffering of America’s naked mind for love into an eli eli lamma lamma sabacthani saxophone cry that shivered the cities down to the last radio
with the absolute heart of the poem butchered out of their own bodies good to eat a thousand years.’
It’s not often I agree with anything coming out of NPR, but this is how they ought to teach science in grade/high school.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/05/17/152913171/the-essence-of-science-explained-in-63-seconds
“Science is our way of describing — as best we can — how the world works.” A quote attributed to Richard Feynman. Imagine science being taught in public schools with such humility. Imagine it, because it’s not going to happen until there’s a sea change in the education industry.
On the contrary Gary, if you look at most state standards, this is precisely what is being taught. This is why CAGW is so disruptive. It has no place in scied, but there it is. Politics overriding education.
Just to clarify, we are teaching, as best we can, how the world works. Get off our backs.
Get results. Centralized education has failed this country for forty years straight. Why? Probably the highest cost per head in the world. You have a year or else it is going to be Home School for everyone.) Where is that Gung-Ho spirit David? Go Team Too!
David Wojick | May 17, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
Just to clarify, we are teaching, as best we can, how the world works.
Wow. That’s such a http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque in sheep’s clothing. Aren’t the people teaching right now teaching how the world works as best they can?
I’m all for contributing meaningfully to the betterment of education. I am. I’d hope and expect it of everyone who doesn’t need a restraining order keeping them a quarter of a mile from the nearest school.
But I’d hope that the contributors would be able to tell the difference between education and brain-washing, teaching and obfuscating, providing the best for children and recruiting defenseless minds by subterfuge and ulterior agenda. And I see no sign of that in HI, past or present. It’s not that HI is the only, or the worst offender in this; certainly there are terrible tentacles coming out of Texas strangling the education of America’s future, too.
Do you really have to fight in front of the kids?
Very true. The worst is obviously government, by quite some orders of magnitude. Its financial muscle and self-interest in the alarmist orthodoxy it finances, sweep all before it.
After leaving a comment 68,902 posts ago, I wish I would not have subscribed to this particular thread. You all need to move on down the road or get Dr. Curry to start a thread on your latest love/hate/hug-fest (or tree).
Mike @15/05 8.29pm:
‘Poet emeritus’ on yer cv, Mike?
Why not? AS Climategate enquiries have shown, these days seems yer can get away with anything …
Here’s is an example of how we do government funded education in Australia:
“Living Green, drinking tea and weaving” on the Government’s Clean Energy Future web site.
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/living-green-drinking-tea-and-weaving/
Be quick because this page will almost certainly be taken down quickly.
The Government subsidy for this is $72,121
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/grants/2012-04.aspx
The Department of Climate Change Energy Efficiency web site says:
“Living Green is a grassroots community education program that focuses on exploring environmental issues, including climate change and energy efficiency,” Claire said.
“Thanks to support from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, we have extended our project to include digital climate stories, information seminars in community languages and a community-wide forum for service providers who work with our multicultural community members,” she said.
This is just one of who knows how many examples of what tax payers funds are used for in the name of “education”
Looks good.
Even better is their de-bunking of Ian Plimers garbage.
Chief @ 18/05 6.19 am
Echoes of Ginsberg? Mike Ginsberg? lol
Hmm … on the other hand…
Ginsberg’s ‘American Change.’
‘Then we’ve George Washington, less primitive, the snub-nosed quarter, smug eyes and mouth, some idiot’s design of the sexless Father,
naked down to his neck, a ribbon in his wig, Roman line down the nose, fat cheeked, still showing his falsetooth ideas-‘
AGW in a “nut”shell;
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-face-genocidal-eco-fascism
Happy Earthday!
PeterLang@18/05 5.52am:
‘Living Green, drinking tea and weaving.’
Pervasive and invasive community ‘education’ at tax payers’ expense by
our good ol’ Oz Department of Climate Change and Thought Control.
Beth,
I am wondering if funding these events is next:
Issue trees make me think of arrows..nodes and arrows…
Ubiquitous arrows, one-way streets,
Highway. low way, misnomered freeways,
Go right, go left, look up, look down.
And if I come to a fork in the road,
Would I, like Frost, take the road less travelled?
O could I dare and could I dare?…
When the arrow says ‘no.’
And would we, like lemmings, take the leap
Off the cliff? -if the arrow said ‘go.’
And shall we, at the last great summons
That makes us rather wish to bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of,
Standing before the elevator’s dark portals,
Obey the requirement to step inside.
Go up
…. or go down.
.
Beth,
Lovely!
But, does that mean we should or should not impose a CO2 price?
It is the tyranny of specificity. Whenever we write or speak we must say something. But I find that seeing the hidden structure of thought is liberating. Others may not.
Just to elaborate, I developed the issue tree while teaching at Carnegie Mellon. I taught my students to do issue trees instead of essays, which they mostly liked, but my faculty colleagues did not. One of them, an historian, called me a fascist mind controller. But these structures are there, like it or not.
Well, historians can’t always be wrong.
Did he elaborate on his reasoning?
Symmetry can be imposed on almost any arrangement where opposite or contrary statements are possible. It doesn’t mean it forms a structure, or is even really there apart from the formulation of the utterance.
For every meaningul statement, there are countably infinite meaningless adjuncts, by the Worfian Hypothesis. Issue trees are just a way to climb that ladder into irrelevancy.
> Did he elaborate on his reasoning?
No, I believe he used a debate graph:
http://debategraph.org/
I guess poetry does not deal with policy decisions..
Peter I couldn’t hear the sound for yer hippy gaia event but perhaps just as well…the images were evocative enough!
A selection of poems about politics and patriotism:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20047
A good one:
I can promise you this: food in the White House
will change! No more granola, only fried eggs
flipped the way we like them. And ham ham ham!
Americans need ham! Nothing airy like debate for me!
Pigs will become the new symbol of glee,
displacing smiley faces and “Have A Nice Day.”
Car bumpers are my billboards, billboards my movie screens.
Nothing I can say can be used against me.
My life flashes in front of my face daily.
Here’s a snapshot of me as a baby. Then
marrying. My kids drink all their milk which helps the dairy industry.
A vote for me is not only a pat on the back for America!
A vote for me, my fellow Americans, is a vote for everyone like me!
If I were the type who made promises
I’d probably begin by saying: America,
relax! Buy big cars and tease your hair
as high as the Empire State Building.
Inch by inch, we’re buying the world’s sorrow.
Yeah, the world’s sorrow, that’s it!
The other side will have a lot to say about pork
but don’t believe it! Their graphs are sloppy coloring books.
We’re just fine—look at the way
everyone wants to speak English and live here!
Whatever you think of borders,
I am the only candidate to canoe over Niagara Falls
and live to photograph the Canadian side.
I’m the only Julliard graduate—
I will exhale beauty all across this great land
of pork rinds and gas stations and scientists working for cures,
of satellite dishes over Sparky’s Bar & Grill, the ease
of breakfast in the mornings, quiet peace of sleep at night.
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/19336
Bryan | May 12, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Reply
” The second law of thermodynamics is never taught at school level.”
Bullsht. Entropy is taught in 9th grade physical science, dopey. You were probably cutting class.
Dave Springer
Your link shows that you have misread your own source.
So who is the dope now?
Your link covers course content for K-9 physical science.
There is also material for K-12 Chemistry in a separate heading
The 9 th grade physical science contains basic science that would be appropriate to 14/15 year olds.
Certainly no mention of the second law or entropy .
A brief mention of entropy is made in the separate section on chemistry at K- 12.
Its quite clear that this is a passing reference since there is no possibility that they would have the necessary mathematics (calculus) to analyse the Carnot Cycle.
As I’ve said in another post there is little educational value in premature rote learning of some thermodynamic laws.
If the students go on to university and choose physical science or engineering they will have the mathematical training to examine the second law in detail.
This will be included in a thermodynamics module.
http://ahs.athenscity.k12.oh.us/teachers/parmstrong/Curriculum_Map
Peter Lang | May 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
….
Therefore, I say again, I believe the top node needs to be one that is focused on finding the correct policy response to AGW.
…
“The world has trillions of dollars at stake by implementing policies to try to control the climate (or reduce climate damage). But the uncertainties are enormous. ”
The correct policy response, should not to tax or ration, or attempt to control populations.
What is needed is a better energy source. Wind mills and solar panels are not a better energy source.
Also in general one should be able to look around the world and notice what countries are doing better than others. Such survey is horribly wrong if you look at N Korea and decide it’s doing anything which one could call “better”.
One should be able to see that N Korea is doing everything wrong, any country could do wrong, if you unable to have such reasoning ability you should not have anything to do with anything to do with being part of government.
Though N Korea is doing swell job at lowering it’s population, and not using many resources, and not emitted much CO2, you would crazy to think it’s a model to copy. You would be too stupid to be in government, and you shouldn’t assume there is some high bar of being bright to be in government.
If you concerned about CO2, one should look to what the government doing to prevent the development of more nuclear energy.
One should realize that the deal we made with countries part of NPT was that existing nuclear powers, would assist those countries develop nuclear energy, and they therefore could get benefits from nuclear technology, but would also be prohibited from making nuclear weapons.
The countries who signed this treaty, were promised access to the use of this technology. All the US seems to pay attention to are the parties violating this agreement.
Generally much better to use carrots and sticks, rather than only acting in reaction, and pay extortion money to criminal governments. Such as N Korea and Iran.
For example, if the conversation started with, we want the relationship of what Mexico or Brazil is getting- one has a carrot.
Yes, this require a competent government, but let’s start there, rather imagining that government should be mommy and daddy making grand plans for it’s “children” citizens. How about first step is a government practice being vaguely adult in regards to other governments?
gbaikie
No single person or group cannot dictate the answer. We need a process that allows everyone who participates to move towards agreeing the optimum policy response, what ever it may be. The optimum policy response could be do nothing to rapid mitigation (by what ever means) or anything in between.
http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/physicscoll/ucb/video/col.streaming.11-01-10.mov
Lecture video by Will Happer, an atomic physicist of Princeton (90 Min)
“I think it is very important that students understand what is happening to their planet and that we are the cause of it.”
In other words, this teacher wants to teach CAGW as a clear-cut fact, rather than get students to think and investigate for themselves.
Understanding is overestimated.
Investigating is undervalued.
Let’s investigate.
Yup: Climategate.
Are students taught anything about the process of science I wonder ? eg that hiding inconvenient data is not being scientific.
And how funding can effect the process and hence the results? Are they even told about Climategate and the attempts to cover it up?
Or are they just told to believe the official government dogma ?
Yes, but Climategate.
Node 1:
Liquid water is opaque to thermal IR. Water vapor is relatively opaque to thermal IR. CO2 is relatively transparent to thermal IR. Nitrogen is transparent to thermal IR.
For so-called greenhouse warming due to anthropogenic CO2 to have more than marginal influence on global average temperature it must act to put more water vapor into the atmosphere. This is called water vapor amplification and it ostensibly trebles the warming of CO2 alone. Water vapor amplification is quite controversial while the much smaller amount of CO2-only warming is not. The fact of the matter is that if water vapor amplification does not exist then the warming from CO2 alone would be a welcome thing on an earth that has been in the grips of an ice age for the past several million years and may at any time end the brief respite from mile-thick glaciers covering much of the northern hemisphere land masses.
There’s your node 1 for climate change.
David Springer
Very succinct “node 1” – pretty much summarizes it.
Max
David, first of all, your little essay is not suitable for a node. It is more like an issue tree of 30 to 50 nodes, maybe more, when one breaks these sentences down into atomic propositions and adds the questions needed to connect them. You have some very complex sentences. These are not allowed.
Then too you do not have both sides represented, certainly not in a balanced way. I see no pro-CAGW points explicitly made, except by implication. Plus the ice age stuff is pretty peripheral, not part of the central debate.
“Then too you do not have both sides represented, certainly not in a balanced way. I see no pro-CAGW points explicitly made, except by implication. Plus the ice age stuff is pretty peripheral, not part of the central debate.”
CAGW is an irrational fear.
Similar to Social Darwinist fear corruption of “better” bloodlines, racism.
Irrational fear should not permitted at the table.
Rational fear or concern is the topic of the node.
So rational fear could the problem related to the finite supply of cheap energy. The only major supply of cheap energy which not going to used up in centuries or within a thousand years is hydro power.
Another CAGW relate concern is related to use of coal. And this is not a global issue, rather it’s mostly US, Canada, Russia, Australia, and Chinese.
It appears that China will burn all it’s coal within next few decades- and for reasons they have stated they have a right to do this.
One could say that all other countries do not have this need to use up all it’s coal- but they do need a source of cheap energy. And for the other countries using more nuclear power seems like a better option.
Coal and nuclear is about electricity. It’s about keeping the lights on for residential, commerce and industrial use.
If you hinder the use of nuclear power in countries with large coal reserves, one will tend to use more coal. Promote nuclear energy use, and you will lower coal use.
So in regards to CAGW a node issue should the increase of the use of nuclear energy.
Another CAGW issue is possibility of methane being released in large quantities. And best way to reduce this possible threat is to mine this methane. So development of best means to mine methane hydrate
should major concern. Also of course is a source of large quanties of finite but large supplies of potential cheap and low content CO2 emission.
This illustrates the absolute lack of logic and reason in the typical skeptic. He both admits to the possibility of CAGW (large release of methane) yet thinks that mining this stuff (large release of CO2 after combustion) is somehow better.
They really don’t know how how ridiculous they appear.
They really don’t know how how ridiculous they appear.
Projecting?
“This illustrates the absolute lack of logic and reason in the typical skeptic. He both admits to the possibility of CAGW (large release of methane) yet thinks that mining this stuff (large release of CO2 after combustion) is somehow better. ”
The release of large quantities of methane mostly likely would have little to do with human activity.
It seems like a reasonable guess that there isn’t any methane hydrate deposits which are extremely old. Plus methane hydrate deposits are not something that “evolved” within the last, oh, say million years. But rather methane hydrate deposits have been forming on order of billions of years.
Since we know that methane hydrate deposits can only form at a certain ocean depth and within last 10,000 years or so, sea levels have risen about 400′ this must mean that methane deposits at a shallow depth were form within last 10,000 years.
Add to this, if mining the most desirable area would be the largest and most concentrated AND shallowest depth of methane hydrates.
A cause of why we have the degree of knowledge we do have regarding climate in related mining activity of “fossil fuels”- knowledge is needed to mine better.
So if we engaged in development of mining methane hydrate we should gain further knowledge regarding how they form and the age of them, etc.
So I am advocating a path to gain further knowledge, and you advocating remaining in the dark.
Whether it’s ridiculous or not it’s not the issue, the issue is how stupid are you?
gbaikie follows up with this.
Point 1, note that gbaikie believes this is a spontaneous release that would happen whether humans were around or not.
Point 2, note that gbaikie believes that methane hydrates are not very old.
But now he completely contradicts his previous point, placing them older (“billions of years”) than even most fossil fuel hydrocarbon deposits such as oil and coal.
Now, he essentially contradicts his previous contradiction, saying that they are recently formed.
Point 3, gbaikie hopes that methane hydrates are concentrated enough to be mined efficiently. Yet this contradicts his Point 2, as most concentrated hydrocarbon deposits benefited from millions of years of material migration.
Now he spews out some non-sequitor sentence that makes no sense.
Now gbaikie advocates taking a stick and poking at the hornet’s nest to see what will happen. His Point 1 was that he thought that the methane was being released spontaneously. If it is on the edge of spontaneous release, then obviously the best idea is to start poking at a concentrated (Point 3) source.
The issue under discussion is presenting an issue tree of the debate, as it exists. Calling the other side, in this case CAGW, irrational, takes you out of the discussion. Same for those who call your side irrational.
“The issue under discussion is presenting an issue tree of the debate, as it exists. Calling the other side, in this case CAGW, irrational, takes you out of the discussion. Same for those who call your side irrational.”
How can someone who thinks following:
On what will happen if global warming is not addressed immediately:
TED TURNER: Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
If you have a Ted Turner in a discussion, one wants/needs this honest frank assessment.
It’s funny.
And sadly, unfortunate if Ted wants you to take him seriously.
Other than for more laughs, I don’t see any value in prohibiting someone from saying that Ted is being irrational.
David,
What progress have you made in developing the Issue Tree?
You mentioned using questions on lower nodes as replies to higher level statements.. Why not stick to statements at each level ie from my node 2: instead of “where is the evidence?”, you could use “The evidence for this is questioned.”
As Brandon mentioned earlier, your choice of node 1 may skew the tree to the “deniers” side while the “alarmist” offering is similarly skewed. Ideally, both sides should find the choice acceptable, Failing that, 2 issue trees may be required. Then both views would be available and readers could decide which was better.
Peter Lang @ 20/05 8.34pm:
I sent hard copies of your review of Elliston et al to government opposition reps, Joe Hockey & Andrew Robb.
Thank you Beth, much appreciated. It’s been sent to all MPS and Senators as has a 1 page Summary. The more often they receive ti the better.
In case others want to read it, here is the URL:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/
You can also download the pdf version (includes the appendices) and an Excel file from this site.
You may also be interested in this email I sent to all Members of Parliament and Senators yesterday (feel free to circulate):
“Point 1, note that gbaikie believes this is a spontaneous release that would happen whether humans were around or not.”
“Gas hydrates occur abundantly in nature, both in Arctic regions and in marine sediments. Gas hydrate is a crystalline solid consisting of gas molecules, usually methane, each surrounded by a cage of water molecules. It looks very much like water ice. Methane hydrate is stable in ocean floor sediments at water depths greater than 300 meters, and where it occurs, it is known to cement loose sediments in a surface layer several hundred meters thick. ”
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
“In the open ocean, where the average bottom-water temperatures are around 2 to 4 degrees Celsius, methane hydrates occur starting at depths of around 500 metres.
Surprisingly, there is no methane hydrate in the deepest ocean regions, the areas with the highest pressures, because there is very little methane available here. The reason for this is because methane in the ocean is produced by microbes within the sea floor that break down organic matter that sinks down from the sunlit zone near the surface.”
http://worldoceanreview.com/en/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/
I believe that humans did not cause sea levels to rise and fall over 120 meters many times over the last few million years.
Also in time scale millions to tens millions of year, the entire ocean temperature has increased and decreased signiicantly, and I don’t think humans caused this.
–Point 2, note that gbaikie believes that methane hydrates are not very old.
” Plus methane hydrate deposits are not something that “evolved” within the last, oh, say million years. But rather methane hydrate deposits have been forming on order of billions of years.”
But now he completely contradicts his previous point, placing them older (“billions of years”) than even most fossil fuel hydrocarbon deposits such as oil and coal.–
I said hydrate deposits could be forming for somewhere around billion years
Rather than saying there are deposits a billion or more of years old.
Coal most made from trees and plant life on land- and this occurred recently in terms of geologic time [4.5 billion to present].
Whereas it seems possible that lifeless world could generate hydrate deposits- it seems there is biologic element involved. But a sample methane hydrate is not proof of like, whereas coal is proof of biological process. And if there is biological aspect related to formation of methane hydrate [which apparently there is strong correlation] such biological processes could be part of the earliest life on earth.
So when methane hydrate deposits first formed could been quite ancient.
Coral is ancient, the oldest record of coral is found in ancient rock, this kind preservation [Methane hydrate staying as methane hydrate] is unlikely to be old.
Methane hydrate is sort of like ice. Ice could have formed billions of years ago on earth, but oldest ice on earth is only a few million years old.
Give it up. You are just digging a deeper hole trying to pretend you know what you are talking anout.
“Point 3, gbaikie hopes that methane hydrates are concentrated enough to be mined efficiently. Yet this contradicts his Point 2, as most concentrated hydrocarbon deposits benefited from millions of years of material migration.”
No it’s not some hope. It’s just concentration and amount of deposit would seem to be related to how economical it would be to mine. It’s normally an aspect related to most mining of anything.
Of course the main issue is getting to the point of how exactly one can mine methane hydrates. The Japanese have done some work relate to this:
“In a bid to shore up its precarious energy security Japan is to start commercial test drilling for controversial frozen methane gas along its coast next year.
A consortium led by the Japanese government and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (Jogmec) will be sinking several wells off the south-eastern coast of Japan to assess the commercial viability of extracting gas from frozen methane deep beneath local waters.
Tokyo plans to start commercial output of methane hydrates by 2018.
Methane hydrates could make Japan energy independent. “Japan put a lot of research and development into this project because of course the less energy it imports the better. Whether they can commercialise methane hydrates remains to be seen,” said Lucia van Geuns, an energy analyst at the international energy programme of the Clingendael Institute. “If it does succeed, and that’s very much a long shot, it will have a huge impact — equivalent to the use of gas shales in the U.S.” Japan’s ministry of trade, which is behind the scheme, has requested a budget of ¥8.9bn (£667m) for the drilling to start next spring. The huge budget reflects the difficulties of drilling deep offshore. In Japan, hydrates in the Sea of Kumano are found about 30km offshore in about 100 metres of water and at a depth below the seabed of 200 metres, making it difficult to mine the unstable hydrates.”
So no one knows how exactly how to mine it commerically- but research could result in finding best way to do this, and then further develop the technology.
It is a pity that the discussions of this post have been derailed and diverted away so often from the topic in question – the teaching of children about climate. I have just added a link to this post to one of my own on ‘calming the climate curriculum’. I think we need to have a little more respect for children, and stop viewing them as potential ‘little climate activists’ – an attitude which leads in some cases to fantasies about destroying them with explosives (see the 10:10 video ‘No Pressure’) if they do not comply, and in others ‘merely’ to scaring them about the future and misleading them about the past. (See: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/calming-climate-curriculum.html). There is a gross irresponsibility at work here, a failure to recognise the basic adult responsibility of protecting children from harm.
John Shade
Good post but I would go even a bit further.
I challenge any parent (of whatever view on climate issues) to honestly answer the following question.
Your son or daughter is about to enter secondary school (ages 12-18).
Both schools allocate the same number of hours to the science topics.
School A is a traditional school teaching as separate subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Climate is mentioned only when giving an example to illustrate the basic science.
School B thinks that the climate issue is so important that it must be woven into the science curriculum.
Climate issues would form a significant part of the science curriculum.
Students leaving school B would have a good understanding of the current climate debate.
Which school would you choose for your child?
As a parent (though with a much older child than that, now) my answer would be ‘A’, without hesitation. In fact, I’d laugh at the assertion “would have a good understanding of the climate debate”. Such curricula are universally disguised advocacy and brainwashing.
Rarely are parents given warning about such distortions, though. You’d be astonished at the response if they were!
Brian H, you are dodging the choice. Assume B means what it says, namely a good understanding of the climate debate. As things stand the kids are getting their climate knowledge on the street, as it were, mostly the scare, via cohort diffusion. Surely it is better if the debate is explained to them. It is a bit like sex education. You can’t stop teenage sex by not talking about it. The same for CAGW, so B is better.
Brian H
I was not particularly careful about the selected list of names.
They could easily have included Richard Lindzen, Kevin Trenberth, Roy Spencer for instance.
The point is that most parents would seek the logical build up of concepts provided by school A for their own children.
Some would want other peoples children to be indoctrinated (good word) with the current desired political outcomes.
David Wojick
The thread is about the place of Climate Science in the school curriculum.
If it is to be included in the Science area it must conform to the structure of science education.
This would entail a sequential build up of concepts and a heavy reliance on the experimental method.
School A would touch on aspects of Climate Science in a natural way.
For instance different types of heat transfer and insulation.
The periodic table, elements and compounds, gases in the atmosphere, tests for Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen.
The origin of fossil fuels and their sustainability.
On the other hand questions like whether Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant could not be addressed within the students framework of developed concepts.
Students at school level would be unlikely to have studied
Blackbody radiation
Maxwell – Boltzmann Statistics
Planck Radiation Envelope
The Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics.
The vibrational and rotational modes of molecular absorption of electromagnetic radiation.
Both school A and B spend equal time on science.
So if an expanded module in Climate Science is taught (as in B) there will have to be a reduction in traditional topics to make room.
In Britain about 10% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 12,13.
About 10% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 14,15 for non- science specialists.
Up to 30% of curriculum time is spend on science in ages 14,15 for science specialists.
Science is not compulsory beyond age 16.
There are many important areas of scientific study that are not thought to be appropriate in a school curriculum.
Medical Science,Forensic Science,Veterinary Science and so on.
Climate Science as a coherent body of knowledge is best left to the tertiary level.
Its possible that Climate Issues could be discussed at a superficial level in Civics.
I fear that at school level this would be little more than a screening of the Al Gore video and subsequent discussion.
What he said, above. TANSTAAFL. The time spent on (necessarily superficial) discussion of climate change comes from somewhere. Actual experience with such “agenda-driven” education strongly suggests that fundamentals and basics are what suffer, abbreviated to the point of a bit of rote learning.
And the ASSUMPTION that (Anthropogenic) Climate Change (the physical reality) is real and a problem begs the question. The problem is the hyping and exploitation of the meme, and school B students would be in no position to assess or resist that.
Indeed, the implementation of CS indoctrination in schools at the present time is a horror show of unsupported emotive manipulative indoctrination. Not “teaching”. And the last thing it is designed to do is produce independent thinkers!
No thanks, no way, not a chance, fuggedaboudit.
Edit:
“Indeed, the implementation of CS instruction in schools at the present time is a horror show of unsupported emotive manipulative indoctrination.”
P.S. Sorry, can’t assume the “good understanding”. According to whom, based on what?
As it happens I am developing climate debate educational materials for K-12 classes, for Heartland. The kids are getting CAGW by cohort diffusion, and asking about it in scied class, at least as early as 10 years old. It is vital that they be taught that there is a debate. Their concerns cannot simply be ignored, or the alarmists win by default.
My approach is based on the progression of concepts, which my team mapped in an earlier project. See http://www.stemed.info. Climate related concepts occur in many grand levels and that is where the debate needs to be taught, concept by concept.
One does not need to know about blackbody radiation to learn why CO2 may not be a pollutant. All that matters is that CO2 is emitted naturraly in quantities that dwarf human emissions and it is the global food supply. This must be weighed against its questionable harmful effects. How can food be a pollutant?
And David is also concerned that there isn’t enough anti-Green rhetoric. I hope he’ll be stressing their threat to democracy and civilisation in his bid to “recapture” the kids.
Go Team!
Michael, the green ideology is a topic for civics or social studies, not scied. My scied focus is how to see a scientific debate in progress. How to see the frontier, which is a new topic for K-12.
David
I don’t know if you saw this very long thread which I briefly participated in, that reflected on the British schools experience with the teaching of AGW
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=340&cp=all
I suspect the education debate on this subject in the UK is some years ahead of the US as AGW has been a hot topic for longer here and one that, unfortunately, the UK is a world leader in. There might be some useful pointers for your material and an insight into the concerns of parents
tonyb
Thanks Tony, I will try to read some of this; there appears to be a great deal.
David Wojick –
I would choose B. And if your curriculum was the only one that offered intro to climate debate, then fine. It is exposure to unresolved questions that inspires curiosity and the drive to develop analytical thinking. The earlier the better.
Hope you are successful.
Seena to be that every time the catastrophiliacs want to dismiss she prices they just trot out the tired old “do you want me to believe the climate is changing” bs.
Mailman
Brian H you say;
“As a parent (though with a much older child than that, now) my answer would be ‘A’, without hesitation.”
I would agree and furthermore, I would guess Judith Curry, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Myles Allen John Houghton and Richard Muller would also send their children to school A.
Parents generally know whats best for their children.
Is it too much to ask that other peoples children are given the same consideration?
Its a form of educational NIMBY.
Agree about JC, but have strong doubts about the rest. (Though I don’t know MAJ Houghton. Are you conflating Myles Allen and John Houghton?)
I think they’d go with the indoctrination option.
IMO there is one huge difference between high school and post graduate studies.
Outside of science fairs etc, rarely in high school or in undergraduate studies do students design their own experiments. Students simply do investigations or procedures as determined by an instructor.
Working on a masters is when students first put their own colors on their palette. –and then, the palette is often influenced by the instructor as in Doran and a 97% consensus or as in a National Academy of Sciences blacklist. How would you like to figure out standard deviations or confidence intervals on those studies?
In what course of study is that valid Thesis work?