Location： Home >> Environment >> Global Warming >>

How would you design an introductory course to climate change?

728X15s

You're given the task of designing a one semester introductory course to climate change. The course is undergraduate level and will likely be taken by freshman who have no extensive knowledge of science or politics. Basically you can assume that the students will have about the same level of knowledge as the average American.

How would you structure the course? Keeping in mind that your freedom to get too technical is limited, how would you introduce it? Would you start with basic science of the greenhouse effect? Would you start with addressing their previous opinions on it? Or would you start instead with the politics and carbon legislation?

Assuming that this will be the only formal education your students will receive on this subject, and keeping in mind the limited amount of time you have, what will you include in your course that will give them the most practical knowledge and the best ability to understand this issue (and vote on it) as it develops for the rest of their lives?

928X90

I'd start out with a basic explanation of how the planet's temperature and climate change. Explain that for a long-term change, there has to be a planetary energy imbalance, which can be caused by various sources. Introduce the term 'radiative forcing' as something which causes these energy imbalances.

Once they understand that basic concept, then I'd go into things like the basics of the greenhouse effect, solar irradiance, volcanic and orbital forcings, etc. Just the basic concepts, nothing too complex, since it's an introductory class.

Then I'd discuss how these various forcings have influenced some past and present climate changes. For example, glacial/interglacial transitions are triggered by the Milankovitch cycles and then amplified by various feedbacks primarily CO2. Explain that CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. Then talk about the current climate change and current radiative forcings. Basically cover my Global Warming Causes wiki.
http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-…

Then I think I'd go over some common myths, like 'past warming was natural so the current warming is natural'. At this point in the class, that should take all of 5 minutes. Cover some others like global warming has stopped, it's the Sun, CO2 is insignificant, etc. Basically the scientific ones on my myths wiki.
http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/global-…

Then I'd go into a bit more complex subjects like climate sensitivity, future warming projections, feedbacks, etc. Basically explain why we should be concerned about global warming based on the scientific evidence. My climate sensitivity wiki would be useful here.
http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/climate…

At that point I'd talk about solutions. I'd go over some policy options for regulating carbon emissions (carbon tax vs. cap and trade vs. cap and dividend vs. government regulation, etc.). Introduce the 2°C 'danger limit'. Maybe go over some of the basic economics to debunk the 'reducing emissions is too expensive' myth.

Hopefully I'd have enough time to cover all those topics. It would be a lot to cram into one semester, but by keeping it at a fairly basic level, I think I could get it all in there.
Catholic priests are not popular discussing Climate Change. It is strictly for politicians so the monastery children will be downplaying Climate Change and Climate Change may not be a popular BUZZ WORD in the future.

Corruption of politicians, now that is a subject a Catholic priest would get involved in.

An ordained Catholic priest has the education of a rich man and should know a worldly of subjects, but environmental issues will not give them the attention. They might as well act like a baby. Women might notice them in a crowd.
1) Paleoclimatology, Milankovitch Cycles and Carbon Dioxide
To foundation

2) AGW Theory, Svante Arrhenius to present.
More foundation

3) Climate Change and Public Policy. The IPCC
What policy makers are trying to do and why - inaction will cost more in the long run.

4) The AGW controversy - Environmentalism and Politics
Who are the vested interests? The campaign of disinformation. History of political opposition to environmentalism. Why? An open question.

5) Debunking Climate Myths
Near the end of the semester give an open mike to the Smart Alec's then deconstruct the arguments.

6) The Future
Projected impacts, projected energy use and alternative energy. How will you decide? The future is yours.
I would begin wit the greenhouse effect, explanations of why there is a greenhouse effect and the quantum physics behind it. Then I would go into climate fluctuations of the past, ice ages and so on and the probable causes. Next I would explain the current situation of each of those causes and delve into the greenhouse effect deeper and the anthropogenic effects of it.
If I were trying to convince people that the 7 degree end of the world predictions are true. I would probably start the course out with a bunch of hypnosis and brain-washing.

Karl Hungus,
Given that the use of "denier" was initially meant to refer to skeptics as no better than holocaust deniers, once again linking to Hitler, by your own logic, all of the warmers have lost the argument.
In many Technical fields it's already part of the curriculum, most start the introduction as; " Understanding the laws and regulations designed to reduce the environmental impacts of GHG's and ozone depleting substances"...etc.

Ethics, health and safety, along with environmental management is incorporate in most well rounded colleges and universities. Why reinvent the wheel?
Start with the long history of the world including the best we know about all of the history of the climate of the earth.

It would include some statistics. I would have them read the book "How to lie with statistics."

Once that's there, they can learn all of the theories... from all sides.
Environmental science courses have been going on now for many decades. I studied it at university in 1989. It isn't possible to understand it fully without studying fluid mechanics and thermodynamics as well as the laws regarding heat transfer and the calculations involved.
I would start off by informing every one, that the current theory on climate change is not proven, and then debunk the Al Gore film so the students understand that " the science is not settled" .
Begin with the story of Chicken Little, then move on to the Emperors new Clothes.
The first part of the course would be the history of the science of global warming. Such pioneers as Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius as well as James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones. Al Gore would get such a brief mention in this part of the course (he is only a minor figure in the history of the science of global warming) that students would need to take the second part of the course to understand deniers mention his name so often.

The second part of this course is a study of over 100 global warming deniers arguments and the responses to each argument. For example, when a denier says CO2 is plant food, say that that does not mean that CO2 does not absorb infrared

These arguments would be classified as to the nature of the error of the argument, such as Untruths (Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans), non-sequitors (CO2 is plant food or virtually anything deniers say about Al Gore), uncertainties (models are unreliable or not all scientist agree) and contradictions of uncertainties (it is definitely the Sun).
I would start with basic geology

Then I would add some English 101 and how to define terms. Climate Change as you mean it probably implies human contribution. If that is the case, say it. Being vague and imprecise is very bad science.

We would discuss the economics of taxing domestic energy production and how it caused more dependence on foreign sources DUH

I would then add some history. I would include some information about how the Thames often froze a few hundred years ago. I would talk about the Pilgrims and how they learned the lesson of the Tragedy of the Commons. Bacheous needs to learn about it instead of pretending to understand it. I would include information about Mussolini and how he wanted to get a group of scientists and experts to run the economy. I would add information about Woodrow Wilson and how he attempted to get a group of scientists and experts to run the country and economy. I would include how Lenin attempted to get a group of scientists and experts to run the country and economy. I would include how Mao attempted to get a group of scientists and experts to run the country and economy. Do I need to tell the results of each case?

I would make them read a couple books by Dr. Thomas Sowell an economist
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSow…
just a snippet "The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of the less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms-- and repeatedly with bad results as well."

Then I would include various climate proxies and how reliable they are. I would show how temperature and CO2 varied over time and how CO2 obviously didn't drive the climate and we would discuss why some people refuse to look objectively at the data. We would discuss numerous factors that influence climate, various theories, and yes we would even discuss the possibility that CO2 is affecting the climate and discuss possible benefits and consequences. The politics of the issue would be finally be discussed.

Note: Hitler would fit right in with the other examples as the best example of someone that sought to install scientists and experts to run the country. He was also an avowed Marxists except he preferred using nationalism over class warfare as motivation. Like some climate scientists and their political supporters, history revisionist are rampant and the gullible and ignorant swallow it wholesale. People like alarmists actually believe Hitler is conservative because people tell them to believe that. That is moronic. That is all.
To begin with you need to stay away from the political argument and stick with the facts of climate change.

You need to begin with an overview of climate systems since the beginning of climate. How it has changed, the similarities and differences from today.

This would be a good time to bring Milankovic into the course and a discussion about insolation and planetary albedo.

I would next go into a bit of science behind climate change and a simple overview of the planet’s atmospheric dynamics and its stratified layers. An understanding of how the atmosphere works is vital to the understanding of climate. An understanding of the planet’s ability to self regulate temperature is critical. This is a good point to make use of James Lovelock’s Daisyworld simulations you can find on the internet. http://zool33.uni-graz.at/schmickl/Self-…

The importance and functions of the oceans would be just after the atmosphere not forgetting the carbon chemistry in a simplified format.

Next I would bring up the radiation balance and introduce forcings of GHGs.

This is the point were there should be a relatively good understanding of climate and where you could introduce human impacts on climate. An open discussion could prove lively not forgetting discussions about solutions.

You can finish off with talks on other human impacts such as nuclear winter and geoengineering.
Create the course as an exploration of a mystery?

What is climate? Why does climate matter? How does climate relate life? How does climate relate to humans?

If you think about it like, "what is the origin of Superman," that creates a context of mystery for class participants.

Begin by asking questions. Engage the students in a general discussion.

Each class should continue to explore the mystery of climate.

Start with a brief introduction about Earth's geologic history. The planet has been through a lot in it's 4.6 billion year history. When did clouds first start to appear on the planet? What was the weather like at different periods of time? (For example, Alaska was once warm and tropical about 120 million years ago.)

Then get into the nuts and bolts of weather, but explore it from a related space. Like, if everyone was going camping, how would students know how to predict the weather?

Then get into the exploration of climate. (The measured history of weather over periods of time.)

Finally, get into why climate matters. Really, what's the big deal if we reach 700ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

Create assignment where people need to Google answers, maybe even solve mysteries or questions in class using people's cell phones.

The goal is to inspire curiousity about climate science, and science in general. Science is a great tool for discovering and exploring how the natural world works.

Put your passion into it, and others will be in to it.

Don't be afraid to get feedback from students also.
The first question is what department will teach it. Assuming it is taught as a PoliSci course rather than a physical science course, the physical science introduction could be fairly brief: perhaps the first couple of weeks out of 15. You might then have one or two discussions of the debates regarding the physical science -- only a mention of the frauds (Monkton) but a real discussion of the likes of Roy Spencer regarding how man might be responsible for only a portion of the warming. There is no need to spend more than a quarter of the hours on physical science. Students would need technical background to go farther than the fact that all experts agree.

Then discussions of what effects are already being seen and what effects are expected. How will those affect the world? Spend a healthy portion, perhaps a quarter of the hours, on the political puzzle, how difficult is is to get the nations of the world to agree. You'll have to cover a little game theory: "tragedy of the commons" at the least.

Then an update on what agreements have already been put into place. There are international agreements and individual states making laws. Then add current corporate actions, how individual companies are already changing.

If this is a top school, I might not do it as an introductory course. I would probably target it to older students by require prerequisites either in International Relations or in Economics (both micro and macro). Otherwise, a good understanding requires understanding the basics of too many subjects.
Jim Z loses by Godwin's Law.

That is all.

EDIT 2: When you pull the Hitler card in a climate change discussion, you lose. Good day sir.

EDIT: I think the course would have to be split about 2:1 in terms of physical science and social science. There needs to be a background (thermodynamics/fluid mechanics, meteorology, hydrology, geology etc.) before you can get into the reasons that it got so political. The social science (Economics of Crazy 101, Smear Tactics 102a) should be an afterthought. If anything it should focus on appropriate policymaking.

I think if more people had a fundamental understanding of the physics of the matter then the social part would be an afterthought. A two-part class might be appropriate, with the first quarter/semester/term being the causes (including a history lesson that includes long-term geology as well as modern industrial development, with a focus on CO2 and aerosol production) and the physical basis for global climate change, then the second term should be on effects/mitigation/policy etc. and focus on the ramifications of a changing climate, what humans need to do to adapt/possibly slow the effect, and what environmental, economic and social policy would have to look like in order to be effective.
assuming you have 2 lessons a week it will be 24 to 28 lessons over one semester. This is pretty good time.
I would start with a definition of climate and then give a historical overview of climate regimes in geological timescale, completed with a high resolution overview in historical timescale. The students will see that climate changes always and they HAVE TO ask why this is happening.
The next step will be an overview of the different drivers of climate, positioning of the continents, solar activity, changes in earths orbit, volcanism, chemistry of the atmosphere, basic physics of the atmosphere (here you get the greenhouse) and discussing their role in past climate changes. Now the students should be able to understand, why there are ice ages and warm times.
Last part of the course is a dissection of today´s climate change, the role of the different climate drivers and search and lecture of important scientific literature. This is the most important part of the course, giving the students the tool to further reading.

in reality i will have about 16 hours to teach.
Boy, that's a great question, and a hard one to answer since I'm neither a scientist nor an educator. However, as a student, I know how I would like to have a class organized that I was in by at least three different modules, devoting one or more classes to each module:

1) Overview
The first class would be primarily lecture, starting with the basic theory of AGW and how it fits in with natural processes. I think one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the issue is that science does not say that natural processes are not a factor in climate change. That theme is repeated so often that it would be very important to make that one of the foundations of the class.
The first assignment would be for each student to research the literature in the media, including television reports, on line resources, government organization reports and scientific resources.

2) Politics of Climate Change
In the second class, I would examine the positions of various groups, organizations and individuals that are either proponents of AGW or opposed to the theory. I'd define various labels that have been applied, including alarmist, believer, skeptic and denier, and what each label really means. Hopefully this would set the tone for class participation that focuses on the issue rather than idealogy, then I would open up the discussion on what resources each student found and how those resources fit into the mix of definitions.

3) Government Policy
For the third class I would devote time to discussing the various methods government has proposed to mitigate climate change including alternative energy, cap and trade, and other actions. We would discuss the potential economic and social impacts of mitigating global warming and other factors that influence policy, including such things as energy independence and geopolitical balance.

Following those introductory classes, I would want to return to each topic and explore them in more detail. I'd like to bring in a climate scientist to discuss the data, research, findings and recommendations, followed by a skeptical scientist to analyze the issues. Then I would bring in two politicians versed in the potential economic and geopolitical impacts of the proposals for a "debate" from opposite sides. I wouldn't want to stack the deck one way or the other in either case by bringing in say, Hansen and Lindzen, Monkton and Gore, etc. I'd try to get more moderate and less activist extremes. I'd also like to bring in media figures capable of analyzing the influence media has had in politicizing the issue of climate change. I'd also like to have a statistician address the class and give an overview of statistical analysis and probabilities, opinion polls, meteorology and so on-the evidence I have seen so far seems to indicate that most people are painfully ignorant about what statistics are really all about, how polls are conducted, the differences between scientific and straw polls, and so on.

Then I would break the class down into small groups, and assign each group to investigate and report on various topics, such as the historical record of climate change vs. mankind's impact(s), the future predictions, skeptical arguments, alarmism vs. denial, alternative energy, and geopolitical influences.

Of course, this is just off the top of my head and I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of details and perhaps getting the cart in front of the horse in some ways. I think one of the most important considerations is carefully outlining what constitutes legitimate debate and what amounts to alarmism or denial very early on in the class. That might help people focus on the issues rather than the emotional sidebars and save some embarrassment and wasted time on sidebars by whining about stuff like the Mayan calendar and how we are all going to die in 2012, Manhattan being 70 feet underwater next week, Al Gore being a big fat hypocrite and what that supposedly proves, or cavemen not having SUVs. All that stuff could be reviewed after the context of such arguments and how they divert us from grasping reality is discussed, but the overall emphasis of the class would be the analysis of the data and research rather than the public circus that has developed as a result.
I would start by telling them the history of climate change over the history of the Earth. The number of ice ages, and how the position of the earth in its orbit, and changes in the planets alignment to the sun, together with planetary alignment, causing increased tectonic and volcanic activity, was the major cause affecting the climate.
I would explain the theories that are currently being used to explain the so called "greenhouse" effect, are just that, theories, with no proven science behind them.
I would explain how underwater volcanoes are the main driving force of oceanic heating, causing the El Nino Al Nina effects on climate, and also how the continuous eruptions are also causing the mild acidic changes to the oceans we are currently experiencing.
I would explain that those pushing for political "solutions" such as carbon trading, are really just fringe political groups who also hijack peaceful demonstrations like the G 20 and other political meetings and turn them to violence to satisfy their anarchistic pleasures.
<<The first part of the course would be the history of the science of global warming. Such pioneers as Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius as well as James Hansen, Michael Mann and Phil Jones. >>

Michael Mann and Phil Jones with Arrhenius and Fourier???

Let me guess, if you were designing a course on Relativity you would include stuff on Einstein and Bill Nye the Science guy.

<<Al Gore would get such a brief mention in this part of the course (he is only a minor figure in the history of the science of global warming) that students would need to take the second part of the course to understand deniers mention his name so often>>

Not surprisingly the sort of person who attribues great important to jokers like Mann and Jones.takes a petty slam at a serious person like Gore.
Define climate first as the 30 year average of weather.
Explain the greenhouse gas warming effect of CO2.
It is proportional to the Log of concentration of CO2,
not to the concentration itself.
Explain that warming is beneficial to life on Earth,
with one exception: if Continental Ice Caps melt,
the seas shall rise.
Then explain that melting Sea-ice has zero affect on the sea-level.
That would be a good start
Understand about the subject frist.
Remember that you are dealing with the most sensitive and important issue.
Divide the course....
Human Rights violations in relation to the climate change should be emphasized.
Focus on the root cause of the Global warming issue.
And the current update and its future repurcussions should be highlighted as well.
All the best....

http://www.mystichealthcare.com/mystic-a…