California Lawmaker Seeks Climate Change as part of Public Education 313
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.'"
Re:Bad Idea (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds political (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Educational NASA Global Climate Model (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Hostility to Science, and Avoiding Indoctrination (Score:5, Informative)
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 [nytimes.com] 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 [realclimate.org].
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.
Re:Correlation != Causation. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re:Correlation != Causation. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:No, that was Intelligent Design (Score:5, Informative)
Just read the fourth assessment report. Heck, if you're too lazy at least read the AR4 Synthesis Report.
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark [wikipedia.org] 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.
A little thing called States' rights... (Score:1, Informative)
Unnecessary (Score:3, Informative)
curriculum, we already have much broader legislation addressing this: NEEA of 1990 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No, that was Intelligent Design (Score:3, Informative)
That is indoctrination... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Global Warming not a Religion? C'Mon! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Aw shit... more of this? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html [popularmechanics.com]
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.