Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmaker Seeks Climate Change as part of Public Education
Andrew Feinberg writes "A California State Senator is seeking to mandate climate change as part of the standard science curriculum. Other members of the legislative body seek to teach an opposing view. 'Simitian noted that his bill wouldn't dictate what to teach or in what grades, but rather would require the state Board of Education and state Department of Education to decide both. Although global warming is mentioned in high school classes about weather, it is currently not required to be covered in all textbooks, said the head of the California Science Teachers Association ... teachers would have plenty to discuss: rising levels of carbon dioxide, how temperatures are measured globally, and what is known and not known about global warming.'"
It seems to be a rather peculiarly US thing not to want a national curriculum for teaching. In the UK, we've had one for ages, and it is generally set by competent people (the politicians, ya know, consult) and seems to work quite well. Did until recently, anyway, when they started mandating silly things like '5 hours of culture per week'...
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I completely agree. I'm not certain what the norm is with regards to Science education. But it doesn't seem to bode well to politicize the choice of what gets taught.
To me it would seem far more important to mandate a course or two throughout the K-12 curriculum on Critical Thinking.
I'm rather worried about too much spoon-feeding of children in education. I'm not talking about presenting the traditional opposing sides of a controversial issue (eg. Creationism vs. Evolution) and letting the children make up their minds. Indeed, I really don't have a problem teaching primarily or only the consensus viewpoint in the early years.
But as the kids get a bit older, they really should be adequately prepared to digest the immense volume of information available today. Critical Thinking might help equip them to withstand the constant onslaught from Madison Avenue and Hollywood. It would hopefully help them see through most political shenanigans. Toss in some good logic, dialectic and debate and these kids would be well able to discuss most controversial issues such as what to do about Climate Change.
The EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Targeted to high school and undergraduate levels. Includes lesson plans, sample homework assignments, and documentation about how it meets the education standards.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
Firstly, the level of many of the posts here, the reflexive and snide referral to the principles of atmospheric science as religion indicate to me that an increasingly large group in society are hostile to science. Here is a New York Times article that argues just that, that there is a rising tide of anti-intellectualism building in America today.
As for the accusations of indoctrination, I believe that climate science should be taught in schools. However, it should be taught at a far more advanced level than they typical caricatures that appear in popular culture. Students should first be taught about the physics of electromagnetic radiation, about absorption, reflection, and emission. They should be given an understanding of how some wavelengths transparently pass through some materials, while others wavelengths are absorbed by the same materials. In my experience, students today typically have a terrible understanding of these concepts.
They should also be taught some basic atmospheric science. For example, they should know why the air becomes cooler as altitude increases (up to the thermosphere at least) because the reduced pressure causes the air molecules to move more slowly. This means that they should be familiar with gas laws, and with the concept of adiabiabatically raising a parcel of air. They should be taught about the latent heat in water vapor and also about relative humidity and the capacity of air to hold water vapor. They should understand that raising a parcel of air causes it to cool, thus reducing the amount of water vapor it can hold. When the water vapor condenses to form clouds, heat is released, causing the parcel of air to rise even faster...this is the main mechanism of storms.
Finally, they should be taught the mechanisms of the greenhouse effect. They should especially be taught that the typical pop culture caricature of the greenhouse effect is wrong. The greenhouse effect is typically portrayed as a sheet of gas reflecting infrared radiation back to Earth. This is not the way it works. Instead, increased carbon dioxide, especially at high altitudes (where it is dry) makes it more difficult for infrared radiation to escape to space. The high altitude carbon dioxide causes the Earth's infrared radiation to be emitted to space at a higher altitude. However, since the air is cooler at higher altitude, the infrared radiation is emitted to space less effectively, thus causing an increase in temperature of the entire system. Here is a nice summary.
If the material is taught in a logical scientific way, then I believe that it cannot be called indoctrination. If the students are familiar with the detailed science underlying the field of climate science, then they will be more able to judge between authentic and fallacious arguments. Mandating that this material be taught is really not that different than mandating that chemistry be taught.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Your argument is disingenuous. The importance of a greenhouse gas is more than simply the strength of its absorbtion lines, but also its sources/sinks and residence time in the atmosphere. Water is a strong absorber, but its distribution is highly time dependent and its residence time in the atmosphere is exceedingly short. Water acts as a strong feedback mechanism rather than a direct cause. The simple fact is that if there were no CO2 all of the water would freeze out of the atmosphere and its contribution to warming would be lost. See for example the Snowball Earth.
Water is highly unstable in Earth's atmosphere and has a very strong tendency at positive-feedback processes in both directions. If it gets colder and more ice starts forming, more water freezes to ice and makes it get even colder. Methane is a minor effect for a different reason. Without a constant source there would be no more methane in a very short time (it breaks down quite quickly in the atmosphere). CO2 however has a very long lifetime in the atmosphere and as such has a much stronger influence on long-term processes.
Don't try to confuse with a nonsensical argument. Water being the biggest contributor doesn't say anything about the effect on carbon dioxide on global temperatures.
Let's take an example. Say that the global average temperature is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases (plus say -40 degrees Celsius, supposedly the temperature on an Earth without any greenhouse gasses). If CO2 makes up for 10% of the greenhouse effect, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a 3 degrees of a rise in average temperature that would bring all sorts of consequences. There you have an example of why your logic fails so badly.
Just read the fourth assessment report. Heck, if you're too lazy at least read the AR4 Synthesis Report.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere may be much smaller than most scientist claim. A number of scientist are looking at other causes for the increased global temperature, among them a team at CERN http://public.web.cern.ch/PUBLIC/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html who are looking at the correlation between cosmic-rays and low cloud cover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark has written a understandable book about this correlation and the effect on the global temperature which is well worth the read if you are interested in discussing the subject based on scientific research.
Something tells me the states would not be amenable to forfeiting their constitutional powers, nor should they. In a country as large as the US, the federal government is ill-equipped to create a national educational curriculum that reflects the diversity of local populations. The federal government is already too bloated and overreaching as it is. Making it even more so will not help anything.
This is silly. Besides, the problems inherent every random schlub mandating their pet topic be covered in the school
curriculum, we already have much broader legislation addressing this: NEEA of 1990
Were that I say, pancakes?
actually if you had maybe done a little research on military meteorologists you would realize that they are probably the best forecasters in the world. Our forecasts actually matter, they are not "will it rain/wont it rain" they are will it rain, when (down to the hour) how much (down to the 100th of an inch) for how long what the winds will be (down to the knot) what is the visibility going to be (down to the nearest 100 meters) what is the projected cloud cover (and not clear/partly/mostly, its few sct bkn ovc and at what level to the nearest 100 feet) max and min temp for the day and at what time, what the altimeter setting will be (down to the hundreth of an inch of mercury). so before you think that your local meteorologist on TV is what the standard is for all meteorologists, pull your head out and realize there are people that are held to a standard those locals could never hope to meet. oh and in my branch all forecasters must keep an 85% accuracy standard, and all that i have ever met maintain over 90%. your picnic isn't that important. pilot lives and mission effectiveness is.
Which islands were evacuated on what dates because of global warming?
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
You have just described the basic tenets of the AGW hypothesis. It would be more appropriate to teach children about the limitations of peer review (see Wegman), the miss-application of statistical methods (see McIntrye), the more plausible alternative theories (see Svensmark) and the complicity of the media in the promotion of political agendas (see Gore). You didn't once mention the scientific method (hypothesis, falsification, and proof) and how it can be misappropriated by special interest groups (environmentalists). You have failed to include the psychology and history of catastrophism. All in all, C-. Could do better.
"C'mon yourself. That last bit is a hyperbolic reduction meant to provoke a negative response and justify the whole "religious fanatic" analogy. I'll take it otherwise the day somebody sets off a bomb"
This has already happened. Remember the uni-bomber? In all, the guys writings were right in there with main stream environmentalism. After reading up on that, take a moment to observe that many of the terrorist groups, and activities, in the US are related to environmentalist groups.
I am not saying that they are wrong; but, to deny that they exist is just plain dishonest.
They have done that. Back in the 50's to 70's they were worried about climate COOLING and considering dusting the icecaps with coal dust. More recently:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html
I have no argument against actual global warming. In fact, there is very good evidence that we are warming from a control source outside our ecosphere: Mars Ice Caps.
They have been observed and recorded longer than our own, since Newton. The trend is that the ice caps are melting, therefore the temperature must be rising.
No humans... and the ice is melting. The evidence suggests we have been in a warming cycle that effects at least the inner planets.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra