myths about global climate change from the Skeptical Scientist Website
INSTRUCTIONS
Format
- ive ones to get you started.
The idea here is to get a conversation going. Replies should not be lengthy, likely 2-4 sentences should be plenty.
Discussion Guidelines & Grading Rubric
Additional Material: Global Climate Readings and Activities
Reading: U.S. EPA website with lots of information on global climate change
Reading: National Science Foundation funded project describing global climate change
Reading: NASA sponsored project for teachers about global climate change
Reading: National Geographic overview of global warming
Reading: Manufacturing efficiency and reduction of carbon emissions
Reading:International Energy Agency (2007) on manufacturing efficiency
Activity: Explore this interactive Global Effects Map.
Activity: Video on CO2 offsets in tree preservation (carbon banking).
Activity: NPR audio (https://www.marketplace.org/?legacy_topic=sustainability/calculating-value-carbon-trees) on trees and carbon calculations.
please respond to these 4 discussions:
1. I will start out with a basic explanation of what this means. Climate sensitivity is the measured outcome from the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, with some models taking in to account other forces or feedbacks like volcanic eruptions or ice melting causing water vapors to increase. The data behind debunking this myth is firmly rooted in measurable facts and mathematics. The data is generated from comparing ocean temperatures over time, CO2 concentrations in glacier ice and modern collection systems such as various satellite data and weather data. According to my reading it seems that climate sensitivity indicates if CO2 were doubled a global surface temperature increase of around 2-3 degrees Celsius on average would occur when run across different models, with some outliers being much less (.5 C) or much more (9.5 C). This is fairly enlightening given that when you read the intermediate or advance pages you can see that with or without other factors, just the CO2 increase will cause significant global issues.
2. The myth I chose to address is that the earth has not had a temperature increase since 1998. The backing used on this point was a study of atmospheric temperature even though global warming tends to most notably raise the temperature of the oceans. Even after watching the satellite imagery one can see there are changes between the period of 1998 and 2005, while minor they are still present. The cherry picking of a small portion of study that may seem scientifically sound to the layman is still not accurate science, its bending truths to support a position. I think the average person can agree that the temperatures are rising year over year. I am in Texas and our winter is getting shorter every year, we see 90 degree temperatures until January and then when winter hits it short and brutal. I have only been here for 7 years and I can see that there is a pattern of change in the average temperature year roun
3. The popular belief that animals and plants can adapt is a common misconception. While it is true that organisms can respond to changes in their environment, the ability to adapt is a much more complex concept. Adaptation is an evolutionary process that occurs over long periods of time, as organisms pass on successful traits to their offspring. This can lead to the development of new species or changes in existing species.
In contrast, short-term responses to environmental changes, such as migrating to a different climate or changing food sources, are not considered adaptation. These responses are called survival mechanisms and are an important part of the reproductive process, but they do not lead to evolutionary change.
There is evidence that some animal species can adapt to changes in their environment, but this is not a common occurrence. For example, marine organisms have developed specialized cells that allow them to tolerate high levels of salt in their water. However, adaptation does not always work in favor of the organism; for example, the salt- tolerant cells may lead to the death of other marine species that cannot withstand the increased salt levels.
Plants are also capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions, but this process is much less common. For example, plants may adapt by growing in locations that are not suitable for their original habitat. Or they may develop chemical defenses against pests or diseases, depending on the type of plant. However, adaptation rarely leads to the development of new species; rather, it usually results in the modification of existing species.
There is data that shows that animals and plants cannot fully and quickly adapt to changing environments. A study published in Science magazine in 2018 found that when faced with a rapidly changing environment, species often cannot adapt quickly enough to survive. The study looked at a variety of plants and animals, including frogs, mice, beetles and coral. The researchers found that when environmental conditions changed very rapidly (within a few days), the species were unable to adjust quickly enough to survive. This suggests that the myth of "animals and plants can adapt" according to Skeptical Scientist Website is merely a myth.
4. A common misbelief in America is that there is not a general consensus that global warming is caused by humans. When asked, the average American citizen estimated that only sixty seven percent of scientists agreed that global warming is the cause of humans. The actual number of scientist that agree in consensus that global warming is caused by humans is between ninety and one hundred percent, according to multiple studies. The average of those studies showed ninety seven percent are in consensus. where this gets interesting is the reasons the public view of this consensus might be this way. One reason could be misinformation. For years this ninety seven percent has been publicly refuted by major names in science and politics. From capitol hill hearings to Good Morning America segments, this percentage is refuted by politicians and celebrities.
A large reason the ninety seven percent consensus could also be refuted is because of the expertise in climate science ratio. In the chart shown below, you can see that the number of scientists with a high level of expertise in climate science correlates with the high consensus in human caused global warming. In contrast, scientist with a low level ok expertise in climate science tend to have much lower numbers of consensus in human caused global warming. It is very clear what this means. The scientist who spend all of their time studying global warming agree that it is caused by humans, whereas the scientist who focus elsewhere disagree. The Scientist with less expertise are heard just as much as the others and convince the public that scientist cant agree on the matter.