Month: October 2011

I boneheadedly missed a week (or 2?)  keeping up with this lecture series. Here’s the third lecture from David Archer’s University of Chicago class, Phy Sci 134 – based on his book,  “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” – one of the key books for understanding the larger picture.

Atmospheric physics for poets.

Eugenie Scott in the OC Register: 

Poll scientific specialists on evolution and global warming, and the results are overwhelming: a strong consensus that the scientists say is founded on equally strong data.

But among the general public, the response can be quite different. Eugenie Scott, a science education activist best known for fighting creationism in public schools, says denial of evolution has much in common with the popular backlash against climate science.

Both, she contends, have ideological underpinnings, and both represent a threat to education.

Scott, who is accustomed to stirring controversy, gives a free public talk in Anaheim Saturday: “Deja vu all over again: Denial of Climate Change and Evolution.” She is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland; the talk is part of a biology teachers’ conference at the Anaheim Marriott, and begins at 8:30 a.m.

Q. How did this come about?

A. The National Association of Biology Teachers is the largest group of biology teachers in the country. They usually invite me to speak every few years or so. Clearly, teaching evolution is going to be something biology teachers are going to be concerned about.

Q. Is there concern about the teaching of evolution in California schools?

A. There are concerns about the teaching of evolution and there are concerns about the teaching of global warming, in California schools and all over the country.

We actually are going to be, next month, announcing a new initiative for NCSE. We’re going to be adding climate change to our portfolio of topics that we will help teachers cope with.

Q. Why are you adding climate change?

A. Because we were finding that, as teachers have come to us for years for advice about how to handle the teaching of evolution as a controversial issue, we are now being approached by teachers who are being pressured to either not teach global warming, or teach it only as tentative, even though the scientific consensus on global warming is very, very strong — as it is with evolution. So we see it as a parallel issue.

Having seen the embarrassing ruby slippers nonsense about sea ice “recovery” from Joe Bastardi, Anthony Watts, and “Stephen Goddard” crash on the hard rocks of reality, how about let’s give someone a chance who has actually been accurate?

Tamino at Open Mind gave me permission to repost his recent sea ice piece:

The numbers are in from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for Arctic sea ice extent and area in September 2011. The average September extent came in at 4.61 million square kilometers. It was back in October of 2010 that Ipredicted this year’s September extent would be 4.63 million square kilometers. That prediction turned out to be right on the money.

Before you’re too heartily impressed, bear in mind that my prediction was 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2. It was a simple statistical prediction, based on continuing the existing trend into this year. Clearly this year’s evidence indicates: the trend continues. That’s why my prediction was correct. But the error range (the range in which we expected the result probably to fall) was sizeable. The reason my prediction was so close to the final result is: I got lucky.

Or maybe not. It’s good luck that the prediction was so close. It’s bad luck — for all of us — that the trend continues. It’s because of global warming, and that’s bad. For all of us.

Continue reading “Sea Ice: 2012, A Prediction”

This is the infamous SpongeBob clip that got Fox and Friends panties in a bunch.

We’d like our Tundra back. We’re asking nicely.

UPDATE:

Mystery Tundra person has come forward. see post above, and comment below.

 Thomasnet.com:

.. one has to wonder where Governor Perry and his people dug up the idea that Americans are against the EPA. It’s certainly not from polls…not even Republican-backed polls.

A recent study conducted by the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies for the League of Conservation Voters found that 71 percent of Americans wish the EPA would mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (even when the politically charged words “climate change” were used), while only 17 percent are strongly opposed to that idea.

Public Opinion Strategies performed analysis on the overall results, and some interesting trends emerged:

Political affiliation. When the numbers are stratified by political party, 89 percent of Democrats support stronger EPA carbon dioxide rules, 72 percent of Independents are supportive, and 55 percent of Republicans say “yes.”

Ethnicity. African-American voters are most likely to support stronger EPA carbon rules at 86 percent. Eighty-five percent of Latino voters show support, while 68 percent of white voters say “yes.”

Urban versus rural. Among city residents, 69 percent support the EPA’s rules on carbon, 72 percent of suburbanites show support and 66 percent of rural residents are on board.

Education level. Among college-educated Americans, 75 percent are supportive, and among those with no college education, 68 percent are in favor.

So while opinion appears to be somewhat stratified by party affiliation, the biggest differences show up not by personal demographics, but according to where you get your news:

• Among Americans who watch CNN, 87 percent support the EPA and nine percent oppose;
• MSNBC: 86 percent support, and 13 percent oppose;
• ABC, CBS, NBC (combined): 81 percent support, and 17 percent oppose;
• Non-TV news watchers: 73 percent support, and 25 percent oppose; and
• Fox News: 49 percent support, and 47 percent oppose