Mine used to come home with climate change homework but not very often. No "creative" answers were welcomed.
OK, so I am a die-hard denier, then ...
I have seen the view of the physics that is generally presented but I still want to know the complete story and not just the bit that fits in with the "consensus theory".
For instance:
1. As can be seen from the wikipedia spectra, about half the radiation from the sun is in the infra red region and this can be blocked by water vapour. What happens to that? Clouds will regulate that energy. Is that effect bigger or smaller than the effect due to man-made CO2?
2. The animation of the CO2 molecule is too simplistic. It shows all the emitted infra red being returned to the earth. In fact, half will go down and half will go up.
3. Another problem with the CO2 animation is that not only man-made CO2 is involved. About three times as much natural CO2 is involved and about a hundred times as much natural H2O - not forgetting the other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Another instance of bias.
4. Yet another problem, the low level greenhouse gases (GHGs) will not have time to emit a photon before the GHG molecule loses its energy by collision. Why is this not mentioned?
5. The high level GHG molecules will emit photons into space. This is how the earth loses energy. The GHGs, therefore, are instrumental in cooling the earth - again no mention.
6. Everyone (?) agrees that man-made CO2 is not sufficient to cause any serious warming. To create the projected large amount of warming there has to be a "feedback" effect that causes the amount of H2O to increase in sympathy with the man-made CO2. Have we any proof of that effect yet?
7. On all time scales, the temperature change preceeds the change in CO2, not the other way round.
8. For the last seventeen years the proposed increase in temperature has not been happening even though man-made CO2 emissions are at an all time high.
9. Then there is natural variation. The climate changed before man existed. Those effects will still be occuring so will be causing changes in temperature. Those effects need to be isolated so that the residual man-made portion of any warming can be clearly identified.
The classical consensus theory as generally presented has large holes. Nine large holes from my list. When those are similarly addressed then I will reconsider my sceptical view - but not before.
"How often? Once a week? Or more?"
Huh? Really? I doubt it.
Clearly it could happen, but it'll be part of the science part of the school curriculum, not every week.
And, if there a problem? There's no longer a question of the validity of climate change,
other than in the minds of die-hard deniers.
http://www.rkm.com.au/ANIMATIONS/carbon-... <== here's the physics.
http://web4.audubon.org/globalwarming/im... <== this is why CO2 is a problem.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co... <== Note that CO2 intercepts a different wavelength than water. In addition, as CO2 warms the oceans, more water evaporates, increasing it's global warming effectiveness.
I hope that what they are coming home with is a list of the names of all the denial industry's marionettes.
they did, part of Geography section
to my horror, they also did something on evolution contrary to the scientific evidence of the bible :-)
if it's a problem, you can always home school in front of FOX news.
I don't see what this has to do with GW are you asking the same question in Chemistry or Biology or English????
Private school. We don't put up with that crap.
Parents: Are your kids coming home with Climate Change homework projects? How often? Once a week? Or more?
