SOURCES are listed in the next video, because of space constraints. Predictable posts are answered here. Please spend your time and effort in addressing the evidence presented in the video:
“This is a straw man argument. Of course skeptics [sic] accept that CO2 warms the atmosphere,
We just don’t think the warming will be catastrophic.”
Answer: “Skeptics” have all kinds of positions on climate science, depending on their personal beliefs and feelings. This video addresses those critics who claim there is no evidence for the link between CO2 and global temperature. Whether you want to call such changes “catastrophic” or benign, or terrible, or bad, or good is your feeling, and therefore outside the scope of the science.
“Correlation does not mean causation.”
Answer: It is still consistent with the theory. And where a mechanism has been shown that should produce a correlation, then the correlation is yet more confirmation that a theory is correct.
“Here’s a piece of evidence — there’s no hot spot”
Apart from the fact that this ‘no hot spot’ idea is another piece of Internet mythology, the idea of the ‘hot spot’ is based on a computer model. If you think computer models are all wrong, then the lack of a hot spot must be wrong.
And critics — please try to address the evidence shown in this video, rather than repeat myths that have been dealt with in my previous videos. If you’re not sure, check them out:
“Warming is due to galactic rays/cosmic rays/the sun”
See: 2. Climate Change — the objections
20 - Are cosmic rays causing global warming?
Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord?
1. Climate Change — the scientific debate
“There was a consensus about global cooling in the 1970s”
See: 3 - Climate Change — Anatomy of a myth
“There’s been no warming since 1998.”
See: 8. Climate Change — Has the Earth been cooling?
8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the ‘no warming for 15 years’
24 - Global warming has stopped? Again??
“The climate always changes”
See: 8. 5. Climate Change — isn’t it natural?
Climate Change — Has the Earth been cooling?
Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
“31,000 scientists disagree”
See: 9. Climate Change - Meet the Scientists
“We’re headed for another ice age”
See: 10. Climate Change - An imminent ice age debunked
21 - “Earth facing mini-ice age!!” say the media. Now for the science….
“Global warming will cause more hurricanes”
See: 11. Climate Change — Hurricanes, atolls and coral
“A recent study found that warming will be just 1.64 degrees”
See: 12 - ‘Doubled CO2 means just 1.64 degrees of warming…’ or maybe not.
“Global warming is drowning islands “
See: 13 - Misleading media reports on sea level rise - a case study
11. Climate Change — Hurricanes, atolls and coral
“Global warming will bring an end to snow in the UK”
See: 14 - BP oil spills and an end to snow
“Greenland/arctic ice is not melting”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice
“There is very little amplification due to CO2 rise”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity
“There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past”
See: 5. Climate Change — isn’t it natural?
Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
“Himalayan glaciers are not melting.”
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
See: Monckton Bunkum Part 4 — Quotes and misquotes
“It’s been shown that climate scientists engaged in fraud”
See: 22 — Climategate mark 2 — the quotes and the context
6. Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails
7. Climate Change - “Those” e-mails and science censorship
“The Medieval Warm Period proves….”
See: 23 — Medieval Warm Period — fact vs. fiction
“CO2 always lags temperature rise”
See: 25 - Climate Change — The “800-year lag” unravelled
“I don’t believe it”
See: 26 — Science vs. the Feelies
“Evidence never convinces me, I believe whatever I hear in my head.”
See: A psychiatrist
Yes, this is America in 2013, where high school science teachers can and do instruct their students in the religious doctrines of late antiquity.
First, a graphic:
That is from a new story out today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Yes, according to that newspaper’s survey, roughly one third (a little over 32%) of PA science teachers believe in creationism. (Note that the total adds up to over 100%, meaning some teachers marked more than one answer.)
Now on to parts of the story:
“Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth,” said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. “I tell them that I don’t think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.
“Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that’s one I don’t shy away from,” he said. “It doesn’t in any way disrupt the educational process. I’m entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is.”
Mr. Sohmer responded to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette questionnaire distributed this spring to school teachers statewide, and he agreed to discuss his teaching philosophy. He said school officials are comfortable with his methods.
In this case the teacher is intentionally casting doubts over what nearly all physical scientists agree is solid science, that has been tested and retested time and again, for the purpose of preparing the students to accept what is known to be false: a Young Earth.
An Indiana County science teacher responded to the questionnaire more adamantly.
“Most parents and officials do not want evolution ‘crammed’ into their children. They have serious philosophical/religious issues with public schools dictating to their students how to interpret the origin of life,” stated the teacher, who did not respond to a request for an interview. His questionnaire says he teaches creationism for the equivalent of a class period, with five classes devoted to evolution.
“I have been questioned in the past about how I teach evolution principles, and [school officials] are satisfied with my approach,” he said. “My approach is to teach the textbook content of Darwinian evolution but modified to explain that data can be interpreted differently dependent upon one’s world view.”
Yet another teacher accused the Post-Gazette of conducting a witch hunt to identify and punish teachers who believe in creationism.
This gets to the heart of the problem. The creationists don’t want evolution “crammed” into their children. What is happening is clear - the parents are projecting onto their childrens’ school instruction their own fears that what they hold dear is indeed quite false. The creationists call the burden of knowledge that science gives a “cram”, a sense of being forced to accept something, which they refuse to do no matter how much evidence exists for the truth of an old earth and changing (evolving) life.
Recommend reading the entire Post-Gazette story as it discusses this issue of creationism with more detail than often found in media stories.
Finally, it should be noted that the teaching of creationism in schools is not limited to Pennsylvania and there is no reason to suggest that PA is any worse at this than many other states. In Texas some lawmakers even want to legally protect creationism in colleges. We all know about Bobby Jindal’s explicit endorsement of teaching creationism. Creationists also find creative ways of sneaking into public schools, under the guise of being expert speakers on fossils.
This is America, 2013.
Just in time for the Craft Brewers Conference in Washington, D.C. at the end of March, Maryland’s Flying Dog and Evolution Craft Brewing are introducing a new collaboration beer, one that will evolve over the course of three iterations.
Natural Selection will first be released as a stock ale, one that carries caramel and dark fruit notes that mingle with hints of roast and chocolate. Genus One, as it will be known, will only be available in draft form at the CBC.
Then, the beer will branch off in two evolutionary ways. Genus Two will come from Flying Dog, as brewmaster Matt Brophy dry hops the stock into something new. Genus Three will be Evolution’s doing, after brewmaster Geoff DeBisschop barrel ages it for several months. Both of these versions of Natural Selection will be available in Mid-Atlantic markets come October.
Anti-creationism activist Zack Kopplin joins Bill to talk about fighting laws and voucher programs that let publicly-funded creationist curriculum in the back door of American classrooms. Also on the program, journalist and historian Susan Jacoby talks about the role secularism and intellectual curiosity have played throughout America’s history.
Environmental scientist Robert J. Brulle has an op-ed in the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, calling for the environmental movement to redouble its efforts to move climate change onto the presidential agenda, and criticizing the irresponsible behavior of both candidates as the climate continues to heat up: Conspiracy of Silence: The Irresponsible Politics of Climate Change.
In a summer dominated by heat waves and a devastating nationwide drought, it would seem that climate change would be a major issue in the US presidential campaign. However, quite the opposite is happening. Neither President Barack Obama nor the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has focused any attention on this critical issue. In a recent speech on the Senate floor, Senator John Kerry characterized the political discourse in the United States as a “conspiracy of silence … a story of disgraceful denial, back-pedaling, and delay that has brought us perilously close to a climate change catastrophe.” This silence means that we can expect further delays in addressing climate change, delays that we cannot afford.
A very sobering passage on where the problem already stands, and what’s at stake if the inaction continues:
The consequence of this inattention is an irreversible commitment to dangerous climate change. Twenty years ago, the United States signed, and the Senate ratified, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The objective of this treaty was to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,” which was defined in the Copenhagen Accord of 2009 as limiting the overall temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius. There are three reasons why that goal is now unobtainable. First, even if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere could be held steady at 2005 levels, scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have calculated that global temperature would rise by 2.4 degrees Celsius if not for the air pollution that is masking the warming by blocking some of the sun’s rays. Second, as a 2011 paper by British climate researchers explains, emissions reductions that are constrained to levels thought to be compatible with economic growth are not sufficient to stay below 2 degrees Celsius. Only a period of planned austerity and an intensive effort to build a carbon-free energy system could now achieve the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change. Finally, the International Energy Agency has estimated that the carbon-emitting energy infrastructure that will push global temperature rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius is already 80 percent complete, and will be fully installed by 2017. This will lock in future emissions unless capital equipment is retired earlier than anticipated. The best we can now hope for is to avoid catastrophic global warming in excess of 4 degrees Celsius, which will require an aggressive response by governments around the world.
Listening to the presidential campaign, you would be hard pressed to find any inkling of this situation. The official statements still maintain that there is no reason for alarm, and that we can still avoid dangerous climate change. While ignoring climate change might be a good political strategy, both the Obama and Romney approaches are intellectually disingenuous and morally irresponsible. Romney’s position is ridiculous, as it ignores the enormous scientific literature on anthropogenic climate change. But is Obama’s position any better? Any delay increases the probability of reaching a tipping point beyond which mitigation measures will be too little and too late to avoid catastrophic consequences. Yet the Obama administration has ignored this threat, offering instead a thin and uncompelling case for developing clean energy.
Dealing effectively with greenhouse gas emissions will require substantial transformations of both our economic and energy systems, and adoption of politically unpopular measures such as a carbon tax. Rather than attempting to build a public consensus to address climate change, the Obama administration is perpetuating the cultural delusion that we can continue business as usual, and that climate change does not require substantial and politically painful actions. While this strategy might prove to be advantageous in the short term, it saddles future administrations and generations with a heavy political, economic, and environmental burden. Even if Obama wins, he will have built no mandate for action during his second term.
In the span of just a few years, Berkeley Prof. Richard Muller went from being a climate change skeptic to a believer that humans are responsible for climate change. The reason: overwhelming evidence.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.
Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the ‘flattening’ of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
While specific weather phenomenon (such as Hurricane Katrina) can’t be attributed to global warming and there’s real need to be skeptical about claiming specific instances are attributed to climate change, the carbon dioxide curve can better describe what’s going on in the climate than anything else - observed temperatures and their rise hew closely to carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere.
Still pictures will be available at http://www.corypoole.com
700 pictures through a Coronado Solar Max 60 Double Stack telescope were used to make this video. The Telescope has a very narrow bandpass allowing you to see the chromosphere and not the much brighter photosphere below it. The music was composed in Abelton Live.
(h/t: Dangerous Minds.)