Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

[Joes Place]

Here's another whopper from you:

No, you didn't, but it's normally part of the claim you made, along with the claim that man is causing the "vast majority" of climate change. Your side tends to take a truth and then embellish it with a false statement and imply more to bolster your argument, and denigrate those not only who disagree with you, but also those who only agree partially with you.

Now if I'm mistaken, and you aren't in that camp then I apologize, but there are certainly people who fit that bill.

And, yet AGAIN, I've simply asked you WHAT are the 'natural' forcings which are currently contributing to the climate change being observed.

 

[KitingHigh]

Really? Because I was responding to who wrote THIS in the thread:

​

And I've asked you for WHAT the 'natural forcings' are which are contributing to recent warming many times, only to have to repost your same old bullshit here.

You've been thoroughly owned in this thread, and have nowhere NEAR the scientific understanding of this topic you think you do.

Thanks for proving my point. Read what you bolded more careful and consult a dictionary.

 

[Joes Place]

Thanks for proving my point. Read what you bolded more careful and consult a dictionary.

LOL. No. Even YOU don't know what your point is anymore.
You're 'out' alright again.

"Y'all" should go take a science class and come back to debate on this topic.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Kiting can very clearly tell you that you're wrong and he's right. What he's completely incapable of doing is telling you why either of those two beliefs might be true.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Thanks for proving my point. Read what you bolded more careful and consult a dictionary.

Well...that's just f'n stupid. You want a consensus...ask them what happens if we continue to accelerate our use of fossil fuels and continue to accelerate the rise in CO2. You'll get your consensus. Since nobody knows what we might be motivated to do in the future, NO ONE can tell you it's going to be "catastrophic". Quit hiding behind your idiotic word games and answer the questions I asked you earlier.

 

[Joes Place]

For someone who fancies himself clever, you really are struggling with the English language. You suck at logic too. I can't lose a debate that I'm not participating in. Sorry bro, but you can make whatever claim you want, but it doesn't make it true. You haven't owned shit and aren't exactly the brightest bulb in the box.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the debate here, then stop posting in the thread and insulting others or get the ban hammer....

 

[BioHawk]

For someone who fancies himself clever, you really are struggling with the English language. You suck at logic too. I can't lose a debate that I'm not participating in. Sorry bro, but you can make whatever claim you want, but it doesn't make it true. You haven't owned shit and aren't exactly the brightest bulb in the box.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Hint: the last 10,000 years does NOT show 'similar trends'. The Earth's temperature is going up faster than anything observed in the recent paleo record. It took >1000 years for Ice Ages to set in and return to normal. As you've admitted, we are talking about <1/10th that time.

 

[Joes Place]

Seriously? 'Greenland' = 'global'?

 

[naturalmwa]

Address these points please, TiA.

It is not 'my belief' that all the recent warming is manmade.

It is my observation and understanding that:

• Solar output is mostly unchanged for at least 70 years, and in fact has dropped in the past 2 decades. New analysis of historical sunspot data implies solar output has been in a 'lull' for the past several hundred years. Thus, it is highly unlikely that solar output variations, which are either stable at best and more likely decreasing, can explain recent warming - they should be causing a very limited and slow cooling.
• Milankovitch cycles occur on a range of 100,000 to 400,000 years, and we are already past the peak of the last cycle and on the 'downward' side. Thus, it is highly improbable (bordering on completely impossible) that these cycles can explain the recent warming - we should be experiencing an unmeasureable (on a century-scale) cooling.
• A complex system like our climate certainly has lots of internal variability, BUT in order for it to move significantly in one direction or another, there MUST be some forcing causing the change. The Earth and Earth's oceans simply have a massive specific heat value which will not allow major shifts in global temperature unless there is an imbalanced forcing, like solar output (which noted above, is stable or decreasing).
• ENSO variation can influence decadal temperatures, but cannot explain consistent warming over the past century. A simple look at ENSO vs. global temperatures shows rapid warming during any El Nino dominated decade, and NO COOLING, but instead stable temperatures during La Nina dominated periods. If the Earth's temperature were stable, we SHOULD see some cooling during La Nina periods but we don't.
• The ONLY variable that we have been able to track which is consistent with recent warming is GHG levels, particularly CO2 levels. Those levels are entirely driven my man-made influences, which is well documented by analyzing isotope levels for the C in the CO2; we KNOW that the 'new' CO2 has been sequestered for millennia because of the isotope ratios - either as oil, coal or natural gas. Thus, we KNOW we are the one causing the CO2 runup, and it is presently the ONLY variable consistent with the warming.

So, I don't "believe" that we are responsible, I am deducing we are responsible because no one has identified any 'natural mechanism' that can explain the temperature increases and observations. And nearly ALL climate scientists are in agreement on that. Even Exxon's internal documents predicted it was going to happen 30 years ago based on CO2 pollution.

 

[cigaretteman]

Address these points please, TiA.

Just another willfully ignorant denialist eager to demonstrate his willful ignorance despite his irrelevant point having been explained over and over again on this board.

 

[thewop]

My take has always been: Whether climate change is real or not, human caused or not, we should take care of our environment. After all, that's the end game right? We should use renewable energy and use natural resources wisely, but not restrict use unnecessarily, or turn unrelated issues into "climate change" issues (e.g. oil pipeline).

Hats off the to teachers for not taking young science with debated conclusions and preaching it as fact. It seems to me this "overwhelming evidence" is far from "overwhelming." Plus, it's a science class, not a political science class. Science classes are kind of like math, you largely study/learn what's known to be fact and understand why, and that's how it should be.

 

[Joes Place]

My take has always been: Whether climate change is real or not, human caused or not, we should take care of our environment. After all, that's the end game right? We should use renewable energy and use natural resources wisely, but not restrict use unnecessarily, or turn unrelated issues into "climate change" issues (e.g. oil pipeline).

Hats off the to teachers for not taking young science with debated conclusions and preaching it as fact. It seems to me this "overwhelming evidence" is far from "overwhelming." Plus, it's a science class, not a political science class. Science classes are kind of like math, you largely study/learn what's known to be fact and understand why, and that's how it should be.

What aspect of 'climate science' is 'young' and debated?

The greenhouse effect?
That's actually older than Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Carbon dating and other isotope dating methods for gases trapped in ice or for rock formations?
That's very clearly established as well.

The only aspect of 'climate science' which is relatively new (and new in almost ALL engineering/physics) is climate modeling. But, we use the exact same physics and equations for modeling ALL KINDS of physical systems, even very complex ones. We model how stars work, and how supernovae form heavy metals. Do we argue that supernovae do not exist, or that heavy metals came about from some other mechanism due to 'arguments over model details'?

The climate models are verified by running them from a starting point 150 or more years ago, then updating actual 'initial conditions' like solar output and natural volcanic activity to allow them to provide us an answer. If we DIDN'T use the actual solar/volcanic inputs, it would be like modeling a plane to fly in seawater, then not understanding why it doesn't work in air or compared to a wind tunnel test.

There are VERY FEW aspects of climate science that are considered 'young'; most all of them are based upon very old, very established physics and physical chemistry. So, teaching kids about the established aspects of our climate and using the established physics to educate them with what we REALLY DO KNOW is not political. People MAKE it political, because the output of the science doesn't mesh well with their particular ideological views. That does not change the science.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

 

[lawsonhawk]

What aspect of 'climate science' is 'young' and debated?

The greenhouse effect?
That's actually older than Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Carbon dating and other isotope dating methods for gases trapped in ice or for rock formations?
That's very clearly established as well.

The only aspect of 'climate science' which is relatively new (and new in almost ALL engineering/physics) is climate modeling. But, we use the exact same physics and equations for modeling ALL KINDS of physical systems, even very complex ones. We model how stars work, and how supernovae form heavy metals. Do we argue that supernovae do not exist, or that heavy metals came about from some other mechanism due to 'arguments over model details'?

The climate models are verified by running them from a starting point 150 or more years ago, then updating actual 'initial conditions' like solar output and natural volcanic activity to allow them to provide us an answer. If we DIDN'T use the actual solar/volcanic inputs, it would be like modeling a plane to fly in seawater, then not understanding why it doesn't work in air or compared to a wind tunnel test.

There are VERY FEW aspects of climate science that are considered 'young'; most all of them are based upon very old, very established physics and physical chemistry. So, teaching kids about the established aspects of our climate and using the established physics to educate them with what we REALLY DO KNOW is not political. People MAKE it political, because the output of the science doesn't mesh well with their particular ideological views. That does not change the science.

Bullshit

 

[BelemNole]

Bullshit

Well reasoned rebuttal. Clearly you are a man of science.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Bullshit

 

[IACub]

Except your info was generated by a political scientist NOT a scientist.

Only a moron would think I'm talking about Al Gore and not actual scientists. Or someone who was deliberately misinterpreting me to try and fool other morons. Which are you?

 

[Joes Place]

Well reasoned rebuttal. Clearly you are a man of science.

Right!!!??

It's like he spewed out another reactionary response, and THEN actually looked up Arrhenius to find out his work predated Einstein's by 10 years (depends on if you are counting Special Relativity, or General Relativity - I'm also betting he has no clue there were actually two 'flavors' ).

 

[lawsonhawk]

Well reasoned rebuttal. Clearly you are a man of science.

Yes, you have a very well tuned sense of humor as well.

btw, how could you have possibly taken "bullshit" seriously in context to what I was responding too?

 

[zwick99]

You clearly do not understand Milankovitch cycles and their relation to climate. They are responsible for overall warming/cooling of the planet, not 'seasonal extremes'. An Ice Age is NOT a 'seasonal extreme', it's a major climate shift.

Go read a science book and cut the namecalling bullcrap.

And the ice age took place long before man was driving cars. The earth warmed after the ice age without the help of man. All natural.

 

[Joes Place]

And the ice age took place long before man was driving cars. The earth warmed after the ice age without the help of man. All natural.

....and people died of natural causes LONG BEFORE guns were invented. Thus, there can be no such thing as a homicide using a handgun....

 

[fredjr82]

btw, how could you have possibly taken "bullshit" seriously in context to what I was responding too?

So the bullshit comment was more of a joke and you actually support what Joe's Place is saying? I'm terrible with tone/sarcasm through the internet.

 

[lawsonhawk]

So the bullshit comment was more of a joke and you actually support what Joe's Place is saying? I'm terrible with tone/sarcasm through the internet.

I thought "bullshit" as a rejoinder to an incontrovertible argument was funny, and obvious.

 

[fredjr82]

I thought "bullshit" as a rejoinder to an incontrovertible argument was funny, and obvious.

Seems to have only been funny to you which makes it pretty dumb to the rest of us. Better luck next time.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I thought "bullshit" as a rejoinder to an incontrovertible argument was funny, and obvious.

It's ok...Shia and I got it.

 

[lawsonhawk]

Seems to have only been funny to you which makes it pretty dumb to the rest of us. Better luck next time.

It's only dumb if you took it serious, otherwise it's funny as ufck. It's the equivalent of Adam Corolla's example of a person getting his ass kicked in an argument and responding with, "Yeah, but still. . "

 

[naturalmwa]

 

[BelemNole]

Yes, you have a very well tuned sense of humor as well.

btw, how could you have possibly taken "bullshit" seriously in context to what I was responding too?

Have you noticed some of the posters on this board? That wouldn't make the top 10 of most insane posts of the day. Hell, OiT posts 10 things crazier than that before breakfast.
You need to use the sarcasm font or add a little winky emoticon if you don't want to be mistaken for one of the fruitloops.

 

[Joes Place]

Could someone pin this to the top of the forum please? TiA.

Amazing, ain't it?

The minute that basic facts are presented, the deniers up and vanish like farts in the wind.
Still waiting for someone to deny or rebut the post you're referring to....

 

[naturalmwa]

Amazing, ain't it?

The minute that basic facts are presented, the deniers up and vanish like farts in the wind.
Still waiting for someone to deny or rebut the post you're referring to....

I really think the problem is just so big and complex they sort of shut down. Their rational mind is convinced we could never get the world pulling in the same direction long enough to matter. And their emotional mind can't deal with the guilt of dooming their grandkids to hell. So they close their eyes and plug their ears and hope to die before they can be held accountable. They desperately want off the hook.

 

[lawsonhawk]

I really think the problem is just so big and complex they sort of shut down. Their rational mind is convinced we could never get the world pulling in the same direction long enough to matter. And their emotional mind can't deal with the guilt of dooming their grandkids to hell. So they close their eyes and plug their ears and hope to die before they can be held accountable. They desperately want off the hook.

I don't. I think it's selfishness or denial due to religious beliefs.

 

[Joes Place]

I really think the problem is just so big and complex they sort of shut down. Their rational mind is convinced we could never get the world pulling in the same direction long enough to matter. And their emotional mind can't deal with the guilt of dooming their grandkids to hell. So they close their eyes and plug their ears and hope to die before they can be held accountable. They desperately want off the hook.

No...it's really more of a political/ideological issue. Most right-leaning people (even very rational ones) greatly detest government intervention and regulation at its core. And the only way to deal with CO2 emissions is to add a true 'tax' or actual 'cost' to the burning of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide release.

But that cannot occur without some global government intervention/agreement, and that is simply an anathema to most of them. And that's unfortunate, because by simply playing the deny-deny-deny card, they effectively remove themselves from the discussion and any negotiation to produce functional and fair regulation/treaties that are not over-reaching, but place an honest cost on CO2 emissions.

We have been essentially 'subsidizing' fossil fuels for >150 years by NOT including the cost of CO2 pollution, giving oil companies like Exxon and Shell, and regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc a 'free ride' to produce products without account for their true societal costs via some type of tax or adjustment. Those who will end up paying the bill will be our ancestors 100-200 years from now.

We Americans have benefited from the terrible sacrifices our Revolutionary War ancestors made fighting for our country's freedom and negotiating to create a Constitution and free society 200+ years ago that we still enjoy today. But today we are too selfish and short-sighted to make even any modest sacrifices for those who will be here 200 years from now. That's not only a terrible irony, it's also rather shameful.

 

[lawsonhawk]

No...it's really more of a political/ideological issue. Most right-leaning people (even very rational ones) greatly detest government intervention and regulation at its core. And the only way to deal with CO2 emissions is to add a true 'tax' or actual 'cost' to the burning of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide release.

But that cannot occur without some global government intervention/agreement, and that is simply an anathema to most of them. And that's unfortunate, because by simply playing the deny-deny-deny card, they effectively remove themselves from the discussion and any negotiation to produce functional and fair regulation/treaties that are not over-reaching, but place an honest cost on CO2 emissions.

We have been essentially 'subsidizing' fossil fuels for >150 years by NOT including the cost of CO2 pollution, giving oil companies like Exxon and Shell, and regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc a 'free ride' to produce products without account for their true societal costs via some type of tax or adjustment. Those who will end up paying the bill will be our ancestors 100-200 years from now.

We Americans have benefited from the terrible sacrifices our Revolutionary War ancestors made fighting for our country's freedom and negotiating to create a Constitution and free society 200+ years ago that we still enjoy today. But today we are too selfish and short-sighted to make even any modest sacrifices for those who will be here 200 years from now. That's not only a terrible irony, it's also rather shameful.

bullshit