Climate Change Workshop For Teachers Coming To Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Next Month

Teachers will travel to Stockton Island to learn about climate change impacts in the Apostle Islands as part of the "Changing Climate - Changing Culture" teacher institute scheduled for July 15-18. NPS photo.

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore will be participating in the 2013 Parks Climate Challenge program using national parks as classrooms to educate students about climate change, thanks to funding provided by the National Park Foundation.

The ability to learn about this important issue through a hands-on, science-based field curriculum, has proven a positive model through which to reach students.

The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore’s Changing Climate, Changing Culture teacher institute is scheduled for July 15-18. This professional development program is based at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland, Wisconsin, with field experiences in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest; Apostle Islands, and neighboring tribal communities. Program information and registration materials are posted at this site.

The Changing Climate-Changing Culture Institute provides what’s missing in most climate change training and teaching -- the integration of climate change science with place-based evidence of how it is affecting both the environment and people. Participants discover how climate change is affecting cultural traditions of the Lake Superior Ojibwe people through Native perspectives. They will learn how to apply the latest climate research, from sources like the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, to determine if culture and science agree that climate change is affecting all people and cultures.

“This Institute provides teachers with the training and tools to create hands-on service projects and dynamic lessons for their students to address climate change while incorporating a national park experience either within or outside the boundaries of a national park," said Neil Howk, assistant chief of interpretation and education at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.

Teachers will also lead their students on field trips to parks they are studying to deepen their understanding of climate change and their connection to the national parks. Service learning projects and lesson plans developed by the Institute participants are shared through the Parks Climate Challenge website so teachers everywhere can replicate the learning strategies.

Besides outstanding experiential professional development from nationally recognized instructors, teachers can receive a $400 stipend, credit, and transportation funds to bring their class to a national park for climate change field experiences. Applications to participate in the institute are due June 21st.

For more information about the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore “Changing Climate, Changing Culture” Teacher Institute contact Cathy Techtmann, UW-Extension Environmental Outreach State Specialist at 715.561.2695 or visit this site.

Comments

Somehow, I suspect this "workshop" will have only one side of the issue. Got to keep the indoctrination going.

ec--I happen to know the Superintendent of Apostle Islands and have respect for his honesty and integrity. I am sure that this workshop will explore the varying opinions about climate change.

Rick


I am sure that this workshop will explore the varying opinions about climate change.


Which is why he already has billed the workshop as a way to demonstrate the impact.

Would love to see the syllabus.

{added} Yeah - balanced. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fclimatefriendlyparks%2Fdownloads%2Fpresentations%2Fapis%2520presentations%2Fbob%2520krumenaker-apis%2520impacts.ppt&ei=3bjAUc7UNubDyAGjnIH4Cw&usg=AFQjCNEMsQLPsUXz7pL8rPC3V9aiHIsPJQ&sig2=v0_9vgZ4mWrYLP2PHIs2YQ&bvm=bv.47883778,d.aWc

Traveler, thank you for this post. As the vast majority of world scientific opinion supports the issues surrounding climate change, and the discussion of same, its appropriate to see our parks having programs such as this. I realize that there maybe many who do not agree, and that is OK, but it is happening for all to see.

Thanks for sharing the superintendent's power point presentation, EC, as it clearly shows via a strong list of agencies and individual researchers how the climate has been changing around the lakeshore.


As the vast majority of world scientific opinion supports the issues surrounding climate change


Please show us the poll that solicited the opinion of the vast majority of world's scientists.


changing around the lakeshore


Yes Kurt- it was a great (and ypical) onesided presentation that "blames" (by inference) the warming on human action yet provides no such proof nor does it provide the evidence that CO2 emissions don't necessarily result in "climate change".

EC, I don't see any blame in the presentation placed on anthropogenic causes.

As for the world's scientists, it has been frequently stated by the IPCC and others that the majority of climate scientists agree on the causes of climate change. The last two links below provide a fairly good list of the scientific organizations (U.S. and international associations) that agree.

http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i2/p22_s1?bypassSSO=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


it has been frequently stated by the IPCC


And many of you believe if you say it enough it is true.

Do you know where that "97%" in "97% of scientists agree comes from? A graduate student sent out surveys to a selected 10000 "scientitsts" - mostly in the US. Some 300 responses were returned - many citing the poor structure of the survey. The student then hand selected 77 of those responses - after reveiwing them - and based his 97% on that sampling.

That 97% number is based on the hand selection of 77 people. But gets quoted as 97% of all scientist.

Unfortunately, that's what the AGW pumpers believe is the scientific method. That and "hide the decline" and supressing contrary science.


I don't see any blame in the presentation


You must of missed the slides on CO2 emmissions and what we can do about CC.

Quote:

"Do you know where that "97%" in "97% of scientists agree comes from? A graduate student sent out surveys to a selected 10000 "scientitsts" - mostly in the US. Some 300 responses were returned - many citing the poor structure of the survey. The student then hand selected 77 of those responses - after reveiwing them - and based his 97% on that sampling."

Please supply the source of this information. I'd be very interested in reading it.

Well, EC, the document you cited comes from a man who is the author of "The Deniers," which would seem to be a red flag right off the bat. Beyond that, a study in 2004, five years before the one he relies on, concluded that "In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" agreed on the human influence on climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

The last link I provided cites nearly 200 organizations outside the U.S. alone, so I'm guessing the number of scientists who believe in the anthropogenic influences on climate change are more than 75.

As for 97 percent, well, where that number grew from is indeed curious, though I would not agree with Mr. Solomon's contention.

Now, now everybody. One of the world's foremost self proclaimed experts on everything has just told us that climate change is bunk.

Who are we to question him and his infinite wisdom?

He quoted Lawrence Solomon and we we discover "Lawrence Solomon is a Canadian writer on the environment and the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, a Canadian non-governmental environmental policy organization and fossil fuel lobbyist group."

In fact, one of the scientists Solomon portrayed in The Deniers as one in opposition to man caused climate change had some of his thoughts quoted in a book review:

"Dr Nigel Weiss responded immediately and did not mince his words “The article by Lawrence Solomon, which portrays me as a denier of global warming, is a slanderous fabrication. I have always maintained that the current episode of warming that we are experiencing is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that global temperatures will rise much further unless steps are taken to halt the burning of fossil fuel”. Unusually the rebuttle was accompanied by an official press release from the University of Cambridge."

Hmmmm. Solomon sounds like a person we can really trust, eh? Fortunately, there are many of us out here who aren't gullible enough to swallow his line and hook. For those who do . . . . there's probably not much anyone can say to change their minds because facts are so doggoned inconvenient to a locked mind.

Kurt - As I said, one of many. Rather than attacking the source, why don't you provide evidence that disputes any of the points?

Were the scientists polled not a selected list excluding fields that would have been relevant?

Were responses that were counted just 77 hand selected responses?

Were the questions not ambiguous?

All those facts are absolutely true, no matter who is reporting them.

Read the study. Taking the hand selected responses of 77 individuals and extrapolating that to 97% of all scientists is pure BS. But, its serves the AGW purposes so facts don't really matter. Just remember to keep repeating it - especially through the public school system were minds that don't know better can be melded.

And best yet Kurt (and Lee), please explain if CO2 causes global warming, why have temperatures not risen over the last 16 years despite record levels of CO2 output?

No doubt, there are differing opinions about CC and AGW. All those opinions should be presented in our educational system because the science isn't settled.

In the outstanding program presented by ranger Kevin Poe at Bryce Canyon, there are arguments both for and against. He carefully explains that the science is not settled and then lays out a wide variety of options to be explored. It is an extremely well balanced presentation designed to simply make people who have opinions on both sides of the issue do some real thinking. I found many surprises in the presentation and had to change my mind on some of the issues.

I'd be very, very surprised if the program in Apostle Islands is not very similarly constructed. Without seeing it, none of us can make that judgement.

In any case, a person who is truly well educated and accustomed to doing some real thinking, will examine all arguments carefully before making any judgements. It's extremely foolish to clamp tightly to one side of an issue and refuse to examine any others.

Your source is an article from 2010 looking at one particular survey. Since 2010 there have been numerous surveys, all with the same conclusion. The 97% number doesn't solely come from there.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

"Expert Credibility in Climate Change" from the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

There are dozens of other articles and briefs but I am not going to waste anyone's time. The climate is changing. That is undeniable. One can choose to believe whether or not man is adding to the rate of change but one cannot choose to believe whether or not the earth is getting warmer. If changing human habits will slow the rate of change and lessen the likeliness of catastrophic events, it seems stupid not to attempt to do so.


but one cannot choose to believe whether or not the earth is getting warmer.


Over what time frame? Yes there have been periods of warming and periods of cooling and periods like recently of no change. Scientific Method depends on repeatable results. The fact that CO2 has continued to rise but temperatures haven't breaks the "repeatable results" chain. (I noticed no one tried to address that issue) The fact that CO2 based models predicting temperature rises have been embarrassingly wrong further undermines the "established science" position.

Lee - I admire your willingness to admit there are competing arguments. Unfortunately, after seeing the core presentation of the featured presenting organization, I don't have your faith that both sides will be fairly represented at this workshop.


well balanced presentation


That's probably the key point here, Lee. Just about every stance in science (as in any discipline) has its dissenting voices, but in any pedagogical situation, how much time is devoted to an elaboration of these dissenting voices in order to give a "well-balanced presentation"? Should that time reflect the proportion of consensus/dissensus within the scientific community? As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.


As far as opponents to anthropogenic climate change, they would seem to warrant about as much attention as acquatic ape theorists would in a presention on the theory of evolution.


So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions. Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.


So Justin, perhaps you would like to explain the lack of warming despite ever increasing CO2 emmissions.


(Where are you getting your science? Surely not from rightwing political sources?) You seem to be confusing temperature with heat. The pop culture myth you seem to be invoking has been thoroughly debunked. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm and its links to the peer-reviewed science.


Remember, science isn't determined by "consensus" (especially manufactured consensus) it is determined by science.


Not sure I need the reminder. There is 97% agreement among scientists on anthropogenic climate change. This percentage comes from a survey of the number of articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1991 to 2011. See http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Are you suggesting that 97% of scientists and the scores of professional and national organizations Kurt linked to have "manufactured" (i.e. fabricated their science) in order to reach a consensus on climate change? And where is the list of professional and national scientific organizations that have issued a position statement against anthropogenic climate change?


The pop culture myth


I didn't realize the NYTs was into pop culture myths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

Re the studies. I have reviewed the University of Illinois study and its conclusions were clearly manufactured (as exposed above). I haven't researched all the others but I suspect they have similar flaws, i.e. leading questions, selective sampling, false extrapoloations etc. The fact the Illinois researches had to go to such lenghts to manufacture the data shows how wrong the 97% number must be. Kind of like the "hide the decline".

As to studies/groups refuting AGW, they are certainly playing against a loaded deck. If you are at all familiar with the East Anglia emails - you would know that there has been a concerted effort to suppress research and opinions discrediting AGW. Nevertheless, a long list (partially shown below) of very reputatble scientists from mainstream institutions have expressed there skeptisim.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Teaching about Climate Change is important no matter whether your part of the 97% or 3% on the cause. The only constant on earth is change. Our Earth has gone through many climate changes, and teaching the young to consider how to best deal with the changes is important no matter if it is caused by us or mother nature. You can point fingers at the cause but how to deal with the results of rising oceans, changing weather patterns, moving communities affected, etc..may be important. Just my thoughts.

David,

I agree. If the workshop is how to cope with change, no matter the cause, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests it is one of the typical, one-sided presentations that blames change on humans and encourages government intervention.

EC, again, I disagree with your interpretation of the ppt. It casts no "blame," though it does, in a draft footnote, point to GHG levels produced by different parks in the system. And unless there's another hidden footnote I haven't seen, it doesn't encourage "government intervention" outside of leading by example. What's wrong with government agencies trying to reduce their GHG footprint?

There are many indications that there may be substantial lag time between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and resultant air temperature increases. What alarms most scientists is not the increase in air temperature, but the undeniable increase in average water temperatures in oceans and large lakes. Temperature increases in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans are of greatest concern because melting of ice packs will effect reflection of sun rays beside raising sea levels. In the northern hemisphere, our weather every day is heavily influenced by the Arctic. Our recent spate of extreme winters and summers are believed to be direct results of warmer Arctic water producing changes in the jet streams that drive weather patterns.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-temperature-rise/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/ocean-temperature.html

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/warming-world-caused-southern-oc.html

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html

There are many more. In fact, I didn't find any that try to claim ocean water is not becomng warmer.

Take another look at NY Times article; it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to. As for this list of scientists, it would seem to support the 97/3 ratio of consensus/dissensus.

Are you really bringing up the long-debunked East Anglia controversy? ALL eight separate committees (Inspector General of the U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Science Foundation, EPA, Penn State, etc.) that reviewed the situation concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. In the words of the EPA report, those making accusations of misconduct "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues," reached "faulty scientific consclusions," and "cherry-picked language that created the appearance of impropriety." This pretty much sums of the conclusions reached by all eight committess as well as investigators ranging from ex-Republican pols to the National Acady of Sciences. Even Wikipedia has a run-down of how thoroughly debunked this controversy is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inspector_General_of_the_U.S._Department_of_Commerce

So, I'm not sure what you're still arguing at this point. That the vast majority of the scientific community has been intentionally fabricating its research fro the past 20 years out of some unknown motivation? That schoolteachers and park rangers should not be teaching climate change that accurately reflects what is currently known with respect to 97/3 balance in presentation?

A good teacher will present points from both sides and let you make an educated evaluation. So it is important to have workshops like this so our teachers have the latest info. I would not be so quick to say it is biased unless you have been to it or are already biased and not open to actual science.


it supports the basic science of heat/temperature I pointed you to


Of course it supports it given its liberal agenda. Nevertheless, it had to concede that temperatures hadn't risen in 15 years despite massive increases in CO2 emissions.


long-debunked East Anglia controversy?


Debunked? LOL - only in the view of those that want to brush it under the rug. Did they not say "hide the decline'? Did they not show concerted efforts to suppress contrary views?


That the vast majority of the scientific community has been intentionally fabricating its research fro the past 20 years out of some unknown motivation?


Nope, because the "vast majority of the scientific community" has NOT expressed their opinion much less belief in AGW. Only the "vast majority" of hand selected scientists from a selected number of relevant disciplines.

Oh, and you might recall the "vast majority of the scientific community" once believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Fortunately, the community was not so politically driven that its beliefs considered the "science settled" and thereby ignored the empirical evidence.

CO2 emission are up dramatically, temperatures are not. The empirical evidence has proved the AGW premises false.

ec,

You've managed to essentially ignore each of my posts and links above. At least others following this thread can check them out for themselves.

For what it's worth, this just in from the University of Alabama:


Global Temperature Report: May 2013

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade

May temperatures (preliminary)

Global composite temp.: +0.07 C (about 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

Northern Hemisphere: +0.16 C (about 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

Southern Hemisphere: -0.01 C (about 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for May.

Tropics: +0.11 C (about 0.20 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for May.

April temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.10 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.12 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

April temperatures (revised):

Global Composite: +0.10 C above 30-year average

Northern Hemisphere: +0.12 C above 30-year average

Southern Hemisphere: +0.09 C above 30-year average

Tropics: +0.17 C above 30-year average

(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

Justin, ec is a master at ignoring anything that doesn't match his preconceived notions.

This comment has been edited to remove a gratuitous remark. -- Ed.

Only focusing on air temperature is also leaving out the other important global effect...ocean temps. and large bodies of water temps. It was interesting to look through the link that ec put there yesterday pertaining to the syllabus. I also enjoyed the comic strip at the end.

Justin,

You links are merely attempts to shift the focus kind of like prediciting global warming will create less snow and then blaming global warming for more snow when you didn't get less. Air temperatures aren't rising as all the AGW alarmist models predicted, so now they have to look for other things that might of warmed. Perhaps you could explain why AGW warmed the air for all those years but now that has stopped and it is now warming the oceans. What has changed that would cause that shift? The AGW alarmist need something to boost their case and as each prediction fails they shift to another metric.

[added]

In fact, lets have some fun and see how bad some of those predictions have been:

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

We are not going to settle whether AGW is real or not here. What I think has been demonstrated that we are far from "established science" and that both sides of the issue should be represented in the educational system.