You are here

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

Share

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

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.


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, 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.


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.)


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.


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.


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?


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments