Climate Change Workshop For Teachers Coming To Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Next Month

Somehow, I suspect this "workshop" will have only one side of the issue. Got to keep the indoctrination going.

ec--I happen to know the Superintendent of Apostle Islands and have respect for his honesty and integrity. I am sure that this workshop will explore the varying opinions about climate change.

Rick

I am sure that this workshop will explore the varying opinions about climate change.

Which is why he already has billed the workshop as a way to demonstrate the impact.

Would love to see the syllabus.

{added} Yeah - balanced. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFUQ...

Traveler, thank you for this post. As the vast majority of world scientific opinion supports the issues surrounding climate change, and the discussion of same, its appropriate to see our parks having programs such as this. I realize that there maybe many who do not agree, and that is OK, but it is happening for all to see.

Thanks for sharing the superintendent's power point presentation, EC, as it clearly shows via a strong list of agencies and individual researchers how the climate has been changing around the lakeshore.

As the vast majority of world scientific opinion supports the issues surrounding climate change

Please show us the poll that solicited the opinion of the vast majority of world's scientists.

changing around the lakeshore

Yes Kurt- it was a great (and ypical) onesided presentation that "blames" (by inference) the warming on human action yet provides no such proof nor does it provide the evidence that CO2 emissions don't necessarily result in "climate change".

EC, I don't see any blame in the presentation placed on anthropogenic causes.

As for the world's scientists, it has been frequently stated by the IPCC and others that the majority of climate scientists agree on the causes of climate change. The last two links below provide a fairly good list of the scientific organizations (U.S. and international associations) that agree.

http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p22_s1?bypassSSO=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

it has been frequently stated by the IPCC

And many of you believe if you say it enough it is true.

Do you know where that "97%" in "97% of scientists agree comes from? A graduate student sent out surveys to a selected 10000 "scientitsts" - mostly in the US. Some 300 responses were returned - many citing the poor structure of the survey. The student then hand selected 77 of those responses - after reveiwing them - and based his 97% on that sampling.

That 97% number is based on the hand selection of 77 people. But gets quoted as 97% of all scientist.

Unfortunately, that's what the AGW pumpers believe is the scientific method. That and "hide the decline" and supressing contrary science.

I don't see any blame in the presentation

You must of missed the slides on CO2 emmissions and what we can do about CC.

Quote:

"Do you know where that "97%" in "97% of scientists agree comes from? A graduate student sent out surveys to a selected 10000 "scientitsts" - mostly in the US. Some 300 responses were returned - many citing the poor structure of the survey. The student then hand selected 77 of those responses - after reveiwing them - and based his 97% on that sampling."

Please supply the source of this information. I'd be very interested in reading it.

Well, EC, the document you cited comes from a man who is the author of "The Deniers," which would seem to be a red flag right off the bat. Beyond that, a study in 2004, five years before the one he relies on, concluded that "In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" agreed on the human influence on climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

The last link I provided cites nearly 200 organizations outside the U.S. alone, so I'm guessing the number of scientists who believe in the anthropogenic influences on climate change are more than 75.

As for 97 percent, well, where that number grew from is indeed curious, though I would not agree with Mr. Solomon's contention.

Now, now everybody. One of the world's foremost self proclaimed experts on everything has just told us that climate change is bunk.

Who are we to question him and his infinite wisdom?

He quoted Lawrence Solomon and we we discover "Lawrence Solomon is a Canadian writer on the environment and the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, a Canadian non-governmental environmental policy organization and fossil fuel lobbyist group."

In fact, one of the scientists Solomon portrayed in The Deniers as one in opposition to man caused climate change had some of his thoughts quoted in a book review:

"Dr Nigel Weiss responded immediately and did not mince his words “The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel”. Unusually the rebuttle was accompanied by an official press release from the University of Cambridge."

Hmmmm. Solomon sounds like a person we can really trust, eh? Fortunately, there are many of us out here who aren't gullible enough to swallow his line and hook. For those who do . . . . there's probably not much anyone can say to change their minds because facts are so doggoned inconvenient to a locked mind.

Kurt - As I said, one of many. Rather than attacking the source, why don't you provide evidence that disputes any of the points?

Were the scientists polled not a selected list excluding fields that would have been relevant?

Were responses that were counted just 77 hand selected responses?

Were the questions not ambiguous?

All those facts are absolutely true, no matter who is reporting them.

Read the study. Taking the hand selected responses of 77 individuals and extrapolating that to 97% of all scientists is pure BS. But, its serves the AGW purposes so facts don't really matter. Just remember to keep repeating it - especially through the public school system were minds that don't know better can be melded.

And best yet Kurt (and Lee), please explain if CO2 causes global warming, why have temperatures not risen over the last 16 years despite record levels of CO2 output?

No doubt, there are differing opinions about CC and AGW. All those opinions should be presented in our educational system because the science isn't settled.

In the outstanding program presented by ranger Kevin Poe at Bryce Canyon, there are arguments both for and against. He carefully explains that the science is not settled and then lays out a wide variety of options to be explored. It is an extremely well balanced presentation designed to simply make people who have opinions on both sides of the issue do some real thinking. I found many surprises in the presentation and had to change my mind on some of the issues.

I'd be very, very surprised if the program in Apostle Islands is not very similarly constructed. Without seeing it, none of us can make that judgement.

In any case, a person who is truly well educated and accustomed to doing some real thinking, will examine all arguments carefully before making any judgements. It's extremely foolish to clamp tightly to one side of an issue and refuse to examine any others.

Your source is an article from 2010 looking at one particular survey. Since 2010 there have been numerous surveys, all with the same conclusion. The 97% number doesn't solely come from there.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

"Expert Credibility in Climate Change" from the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-adva...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013...

There are dozens of other articles and briefs but I am not going to waste anyone's time. The climate is changing. That is undeniable. One can choose to believe whether or not man is adding to the rate of change but one cannot choose to believe whether or not the earth is getting warmer. If changing human habits will slow the rate of change and lessen the likeliness of catastrophic events, it seems stupid not to attempt to do so.

but one cannot choose to believe whether or not the earth is getting warmer.

Over what time frame? Yes there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling and periods like recently of no change. Scientific Method depends on repeatable results. The fact that CO2 has continued to rise but temperatures haven't breaks the "repeatable results" chain. (I noticed no one tried to address that issue) The fact that CO2 based models predicting temperature rises have been embarrassingly wrong further undermines the "established science" position.

Lee - I admire your willingness to admit there are competing arguments. Unfortunately, after seeing the core presentation of the featured presenting organization, I don't have your faith that both sides will be fairly represented at this workshop.

well balanced presentation

That's probably the key point here, Lee. Just about every stance in science (as in any discipline) has its dissenting voices, but in any pedagogical situation, how much time is devoted to an elaboration of these dissenting voices in order to give a "well-balanced presentation"? Should that time reflect the proportion of consensus/dissensus within the scientific community? As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.

As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.

So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions. Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.

So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions.

(Where are you getting your science? Surely not from rightwing political sources?) You seem to be confusing temperature with heat. The pop culture myth you seem to be invoking has been thoroughly debunked. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm and its links to the peer-reviewed science.

Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.

Not sure I need the reminder. There is 97% agreement among scientists on anthropogenic climate change. This percentage comes from a survey of the number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1991 to 2011. See http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Are you suggesting that 97% of scientists and the scores of professional and national organizations Kurt linked to have "manufactured" (i.e. fabricated their science) in order to reach a consensus on climate change? And where is the list of professional and national scientific organizations that have issued a position statement against anthropogenic climate change?

The pop culture myth

I didn't realize the NYTs was into pop culture myths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climat...

Re the studies. I have reviewed the University of Illinois study and its conclusions were clearly manufactured (as exposed above). I haven't researched all the others but I suspect they have similar flaws, i.e. leading questions, selective sampling, false extrapoloations etc. The fact the Illinois researches had to go to such lenghts to manufacture the data shows how wrong the 97% number must be. Kind of like the "hide the decline".

As to studies/groups refuting AGW, they are certainly playing against a loaded deck. If you are at all familiar with the East Anglia emails - you would know that there has been a concerted effort to suppress research and opinions discrediting AGW. Nevertheless, a long list (partially shown below) of very reputatble scientists from mainstream institutions have expressed there skeptisim.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
• Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [52]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[53]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[54]

Teaching about Climate Change is important no matter whether your part of the 97% or 3% on the cause. The only constant on earth is change. Our Earth has gone through many climate changes, and teaching the young to consider how to best deal with the changes is important no matter if it is caused by us or mother nature. You can point fingers at the cause but how to deal with the results of rising oceans, changing weather patterns, moving communities affected, etc..may be important. Just my thoughts.

David,

I agree. If the workshop is how to cope with change, no matter the cause, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests it is one of the typical, one-sided presentations that blames change on humans and encourages government intervention.

EC, again, I disagree with your interpretation of the ppt. It casts no "blame," though it does, in a draft footnote, point to GHG levels produced by different parks in the system. And unless there's another hidden footnote I haven't seen, it doesn't encourage "government intervention" outside of leading by example. What's wrong with government agencies trying to reduce their GHG footprint?

There are many indications that there may be substantial lag time between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and resultant air temperature increases. What alarms most scientists is not the increase in air temperature, but the undeniable increase in average water temperatures in oceans and large lakes. Temperature increases in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans are of greatest concern because melting of ice packs will effect reflection of sun rays beside raising sea levels. In the northern hemisphere, our weather every day is heavily influenced by the Arctic. Our recent spate of extreme winters and summers are believed to be direct results of warmer Arctic water producing changes in the jet streams that drive weather patterns.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-temperatur...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-t...

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/ocean-temperature.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/warming-world-caused-south...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html

There are many more. In fact, I didn't find any that try to claim ocean water is not becomng warmer.

Take another look at NY Times article; it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to. As for this list of scientists, it would seem to support the 97/3 ratio of consensus/dissensus.

Are you really bringing up the long-debunked East Anglia controversy? ALL eight separate committees (Inspector General of the U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Science Foundation, EPA, Penn State, etc.) that reviewed the situation concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. In the words of the EPA report, those making accusations of misconduct "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues," reached "faulty scientific consclusions," and "cherry-picked language that created the appearance of impropriety." This pretty much sums of the conclusions reached by all eight committess as well as investigators ranging from ex-Republican pols to the National Acady of Sciences. Even Wikipedia has a run-down of how thoroughly debunked this controversy is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inspector_General_of_the_U.S._Department_of_Commerce

So, I'm not sure what you're still arguing at this point. That the vast majority of the scientific community has been intentionally fabricating its research fro the past 20 years out of some unknown motivation? That schoolteachers and park rangers should not be teaching climate change that accurately reflects what is currently known with respect to 97/3 balance in presentation?

A good teacher will present points from both sides and let you make an educated evaluation. So it is important to have workshops like this so our teachers have the latest info. I would not be so quick to say it is biased unless you have been to it or are already biased and not open to actual science.

it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to

Of course it supports it given its liberal agenda. Nevertheless, it had to concede that temperatures hadn't risen in 15 years despite massive increases in CO2 emissions.

long-debunked East Anglia controversy?

Debunked? LOL - only in the view of those that want to brush it under the rug. Did they not say "hide the decline'? Did they not show concerted efforts to suppress contrary views?

That the vast majority of the scientific community has been intentionally fabricating its research fro the past 20 years out of some unknown motivation?

Nope, because the "vast majority of the scientific community" has NOT expressed their opinion much less belief in AGW. Only the "vast majority" of hand selected scientists from a selected number of relevant disciplines.

Oh, and you might recall the "vast majority of the scientific community" once believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Fortunately, the community was not so politically driven that its beliefs considered the "science settled" and thereby ignored the empirical evidence.

CO2 emission are up dramatically, temperatures are not. The empirical evidence has proved the AGW premises false.

ec,

You've managed to essentially ignore each of my posts and links above. At least others following this thread can check them out for themselves.

For what it's worth, this just in from the University of Alabama:

Global Temperature Report: May 2013

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

May temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.16 C (about 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

Southern Hemisphere: -0.01 C (about 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for May.

Tropics: +0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

April temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.10 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.12 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

April temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.10 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.12 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Justin, ec is a master at ignoring anything that doesn't match his preconceived notions.

This comment has been edited to remove a gratuitous remark. -- Ed.

Only focusing on air temperature is also leaving out the other important global effect...ocean temps. and large bodies of water temps. It was interesting to look through the link that ec put there yesterday pertaining to the syllabus. I also enjoyed the comic strip at the end.

Justin,

You links are merely attempts to shift the focus kind of like prediciting global warming will create less snow and then blaming global warming for more snow when you didn't get less. Air temperatures aren't rising as all the AGW alarmist models predicted, so now they have to look for other things that might of warmed. Perhaps you could explain why AGW warmed the air for all those years but now that has stopped and it is now warming the oceans. What has changed that would cause that shift? The AGW alarmist need something to boost their case and as each prediction fails they shift to another metric.

[added]

In fact, lets have some fun and see how bad some of those predictions have been:

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

We are not going to settle whether AGW is real or not here. What I think has been demonstrated that we are far from "established science" and that both sides of the issue should be represented in the educational system.