Dear colleages,

Will you and your students take a few minutes to answer some questions on the Climate Change Problem?
 My students are doing a research on the topic and they need responses from all over the world.

Here is a link

Thanks a lot!
I would really appreciate your participation!!!!

Tags: Climate_Change, Questionnaire, climate, form, help, response

Views: 3937

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dear Ekaterina,

Your survey is biased toward the theory that the human combustion of carbon is a direct cause of increasing average global temperatures. The term" climate change" is an euphanism for "global warming" which is less in vogue. The questions in the survey assume that global warming is directly caused by combustion.

It is true that atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased since first measured in the 1950's (date,from memory), the first readings were approx. 50 parts per million. the most current readings are 390 parts per million, an increase of 7 fold. For clarification: that is 390 molecules of carbon dioxide for one million molecules of all other atmospheric components. This is a small fraction of atmosphere, IF CO2 is as extremely thermogenic as proposed, we are in for armageddon.
I am doubtful.

All science is based on observations, hypothyis, experimentation, and theories based on the results of the non-biased experiments. Results should be interpeted without prejudice.

If we assume that temperature readings are accurate and are not skewed by a political and financial bias, then there appears to be a correlation between observed temperature increases and CO2 levels. However, correlation does not prove causation.

Secondly, we assume that scientific research is pure and non-biased. This is not always the case.
Scientific research is funded by financial grants. These grants are administered by government/bureaucratic agencies. Funds are "earmarked" for certain topics of research. So, bearing this in mind, would a scientist be more likely to receive a grant to "study the effects of global temperture change" or "in attempting to disprove that global temperture changes are significant'? (Give them what they want, you get what they got!)
I have friends that are scientists, if they do not receive grants for their research, they lose their job. A friend of mine, a neuro physiologist, recently lost his support, JOB THAT IS.

There is a lot of money involved in "Global Warming" politics. "Cap and Trade" will shift vast sums of monies toward "developing" countries, from "developed" countries, excluding China and India, I believe. These funds are intended to establish non combustion methods of generating energy to stimulate their economy.
Carbon Credit exchanges will be created, to manage these "credits" and they will be traded as derivitives on the world market...does that sound familiar? Mortgage market trading did not do too well in recent years.

Some considerations:
The most significant thermal component of our atmosphere is water vapor.
We can test this easily. Lets take three aquariums, insert thermometers, seal them off and fill one with CO2, one other with air at lets say 70% humidity, the third is a control, a vacuum would be nice, but just leave it open. Place them on a shelf in the sunlight and record the readings. Then analyse the results. Criticize the data, what other factors could influence the data? See what happens!

The earth has undergone vast climate shifts over its existence, 30-50 thousand years ago, 1/3 of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in miles of ice.

A greater theoretical threat to our existence is enthalpy. Temperature is only maintained by a continuous input of energy from the Sun. Any interruption of this energy exchange, "the blocking or reflection of sunlight". will result in a rapid reduction of global temperature and the subsequent failure of agriculture. No food, CHAOS, no people.

There's more to discuss, but I am getting tired....
I hope that I have not offended anyone.

First Off, I'd like to say I just took the survey and I'll pass it along to our Environmental Science teacher so that she can share it with her students. I will also briefly reply to JJC's comments. But I will keep my comments brief as they really have nothing to do with your original post.

When you're done with your project will you please share your experiences in using Google Forms for primary research? I think this is a great use of an awesome tool!


By your logic we should neglect all grant or corporate funded science that leads to more questions or fails to answer questions definitively. Oh, wait, that would be ALL science done at any university or corporate funded labs, because virtually no science can answer any question with 100% certainty and research always leads to more questions.

As for proving a definitive link between CO2 and climate change, and yes I believe "Climate Change" is a better phrase than "Global Warming" for the same reasons I like "Plate Tectonics" rather than "Continental Drift", science will never be able to answer that question with 100% certainty. For the same reasons we're forced to still call Evolution "Just a Theory". In addition there is no "controlled experiment" we could do to prove it. But that doesn't mean we can't know stuff. For an example of how we might be able to know stuff without an experiment I'd recommend "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitat...".

You point out that there's a lot of money involved in "Global Warming" politics and imply that it is mostly on the side of the environmentalists. While it's true that there's lots of financial interest on the side of environmentalists, it is also true that most corporations would like to see this whole discussion go away. Because, if it does happen to be correct it would cost them a lot of money to mitigate their effects.

Yes, water vapor has the potential to trap more heat than CO2. There is not a single scientist who will disagree with that statement. Your proposed experiment doesn't really prove anything. I'll also propose an experiment ao address the question of whether CO2 Traps heat. You'll need more than your three tanks, though. You'll need tanks of air all at the same humidity level with varying levels of CO2 and tanks of air with the same component gasses with varying levels of H2O. What you'll find is that H2O does have more of an effect than CO2, but the more CO2 in the tank the more heat is trapped. This is also a fact that can't be argued from looking at the data. We can't control water vapor in the atmosphere, but we may be able to control CO2.

One last bit in my not too brief "brief comments". Personally, I've stopped mentioning Climate Change with students as it really is too politically charged and even as a physics teacher students still ask me about it. I go from the argument that we really do need to decrease our dependance on fossil fuels. By depending on oil we send massive amounts of money to other countries. If those countries were to decide it is in their best interest they could unilaterally cripple our economy and the only way we could stop them would be to launch another war. Personally, I'd rather see all that oil money stay in the United States to enrich our own economy and remove this threat to our national security. The added benefit is we can also decrease CO2 emissions which many scientists believe would be environmentally beneficial.

Just my $0.02 or so.
I also hope I did not offend anyone. I just felt the need to argue a little this morning even though I know these sorts of arguments almost never change anyone's opinions.

Steve Dickie
Hey Steve,

Yes I agree with yiu, our dependence on oil as a power source is unsustainable. At some point in time, there will be no oil to burn. No argument there.And, yes! Reducing our CO2 emissions along with other airborne pollutants and water bourne pollutants as well. ver my lifetime, I have benefitter from the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts passed in the early 70's. Right around our first "Earth Day" celebration....yeah, I was there.
The air quality of NYC is noticeably clearer than when I was a child. The water, no longer filled with dicarded bilge oil and tar. I could taste the oil in the water, our mothers would scrub our feet with turpentine or olive oil to remove the tar. The PCBs are still there lingering and accumulating in marine species. We still have a way to go, but we are on the right track.

As far as funding of Science, all money has the ability to corrupt science. Wheter it is granted by "for profit" or "non--profit" corporations or government/bureaucratic offices, there is still an agenda allocating the money.

I am glad that you mentioned "plate techtonics". The American continent is moving away from Europe. What effect might "drift" have on the equitorial to polar distribution of heat carried by the Gulf Steam?

The Earth is a phenominally dynamic sphere. The amount of enegy that is disperesed by wind, water vapor, ocean currents, and reflection is beyound prediction. But enthalphy is the rule, Heat is a measure of random molecular motion. Without a contiuous supply of energy, the velocity decreases. Simply put, if an object is hotter than its surrounding enviroment, it gets colder until it reaches the same temperature.
The space that surrounds us is close to absolute zero.

My propsed experiment came to mind as I was writing the response. It is not meant to be a publishable document, just a short classroom based test. I cannot even predict the results. I just thought that it would be a fun experiment.

Theories can not be proven, they can be reliably demonstrated. They can be collaborated and undergo statistical analysis. Science utilizes theorys.

I argue that climate change is occuring, It has been for eons.

Our race evolved about 250,000 years ago and fully colonized the Continents about 10,000 years ago.
The Industrial Revolution started about 150 years ago, with the widespread adoption of petroleum at 100 years ago. Before that, we burned coal, wood, whale oil and animal fat,to light and heat our homes.

We do need to develop a "non-poluting" form of energy. No doubt about it, Yet every form of energy production, that is available to us, has a negative effect. Burning carbon releases air pollutants into our atmosphere. Nuclear Reactors create radio active "spent" fuel to disspose of. Dams fill up with silt. Air Turbine generators or "wind farms" will have a significant down wind climate effect. An effect that has not been considered. Using solar energy probably has the least predictable negative effects. "Unobtainium" and "Trillum Crystals" do not exist, we are out of luck there.

I'm sorry to be a "Carbon Doubter"...There are many factors affecting climate. We may be able to control the release of CO2. I can not foresee a significant effect.

Ralph Nader is the only "muck raker" that deserves respect. He has probably never driven a car since he published "Unsafe at Any Speed". Contrast him to Al Gore, who has increased his personal wealth from 2 million to 80 million dollars by preaching the Global Warming narative.He has bankrolled an enviromental concern, not to raise awareness, but rather to icrease his personal wealth. Just like any of those evil corporations.He is not an enviromentalist, like you and I, he is a profiteer.

Popularizing an enviromental concern is a "good thing". Over the years we've heard about "acid rain" and the hole in the "Ozone Layer". The result: a reduction in sulfur content in diesel fuel and a ban on the use of fluorocarbons in aerosols and air conditioners. Rachel Carlson championed the ban on DDT with her publication of "Silent Spring", in 1962. She made the connection between DDT and egg shell fragilty. True science is evident.

Lets imagine that, we as a nation, intentionally increase the cost of energy. The price of everything will rise. The cost of enery underlies all shelf or end user pricing.
Schools will pay more for electricity and heating fuel. Food programs wil cost more, transportation will cost more. .

An enviromentalist at heart and mind.
It is a great issue. Air, water and all environmental aspects are now harmed by the extreme and detrimental impact of the so called global warming.Mankind, the creation, all in terror.
It's much more than storm in a tea cup. The copenhagen issues are ensuing just because mankind has to be saved- saved from the eternal and imperial grasp of the monster that causes so much devastation.
Its related with world politics, no doubt. If man is dying day by day, what will the other successful survivors do? Obviously, LOOT AND PLUNDER.
When there was terrible famine in France during the reign of Louis VI of Bourbon dynasty, the villagers came to Paris and looted and plundered on a large scale. Similarly, when no food, water is left, internal strifes among various races will frighten world politics -- no unity at all.
This warming leaves manifold pernicious influence. Scarcity of water, etc will arise; the outcome will be the abovesaid things.
It is obviously more than a teacup. Nations friends with present India will try to attain as much wealth as possible; take it to their own country for welfare. India's camaraderie will ber lost with america, etc. World politics will undergo huge change with each person adopting violent methods to save one's life



Win at School

Commercial Policy

If you are representing a commercial entity, please see the specific guidelines on your participation.





© 2022   Created by Steve Hargadon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service