Science Of Global Warming Research Articles

Analysis of Students' Initial Science Literacy Ability on Global Warming Materials

Physics is a science that is very much needed in the world of education because it helps students face the challenges of the 21st century. In facing the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century, everyone, especially students, needs two competencies, namely 21 st -century skills and scientific literacy. Improving scientific literacy skills can increase Indonesia's PISA scores. This study aims to determine students' initial literacy skills related to science material studied in high school physics classes about global warming. The type of research used is descriptive research. Descriptive research aims to describe, analyze, capture, and explain the prevailing conditions. This is intended to describe the initial competence of scientific literacy about global warming. The results obtained by the average student response to global warming science literacy are in the "enough" category. The scientific literacy context dimension is smaller than the knowledge dimension.

Are “Climate Deniers” Rational Actors? Applying Weberian Rationalities to Advance Climate Policymaking

ABSTRACT In recent decades, the label of Climate Denier has become an increasingly popular ad hominem device for climate change communications. Yet, what constitutes climate denial has evolved considerably from its original ascription for those who deny the physical science of anthropogenic global warming. This paper unpacks the multiple contemporary meanings of climate denial to examine whether this moniker can correlate with rational action (i.e. principled action logically derived from reliable knowledge), and how rationality can be deployed when pursuing political priorities that conflict with the orthodox normative positions of experts. Valid modes of rationality are diverse and not the sole preserve of those proponents of transformative and/or unified climate change action. Modes of rationality are also intimately linked to problem framing. Experts' existing problem-frames may actually facilitate Deniers' avoidance of the sorts of rationalisations that experts wish them to make. By better understanding the rationalities pertaining to the climate change debate, the paper concludes, experts and advocates can tailor their communication to more effectively influence the design of effective policies. A better understanding of how Climate Deniers can be rational and how rationalisation relates to problem framing may be necessary to address the most polarised politics of the climate crisis.

Index to Titles and Authors/Editors of Books Reviewed

Index to Titles and Authors/Editors of Books Reviewed

地球温暖化の科学 : 遅れて来た懐疑論の虚妄と罪(話題)

地球温暖化の科学 : 遅れて来た懐疑論の虚妄と罪(話題)

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE AND SPORTS

Climate change is not the new phenomenon. The palaeo-climatic studies reveal that during the Pleistocene and Holocene periods several warm and cold periods occurred, resulted change of sea level and change in climatic processes like rise and fall of global average temperature and rainfall. The last medieval warm period was observed from 950 to 1350 AD, followed by the little Ice Age from 1400 to 1900 AD. Occurrence of these climatic changes and their impacts are considered due to natural processes that are geological and astronomical. In 1970s environmentalists and some climate scientists pointed that earth’s average temperature is rising linked with the anthropogenic causes of global warming and emission of carbon dioxide through fossil fuels. In late 1980s the problem was discussed in politics and media. To examine and monitor the global rise of temperature and its impacts due to the emission of carbon dioxide an organization of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The IPCC released several reports based upon anthropogenic causes of climate change and their impacts. According to IPCC, 2007 report on climate change during the last 100 years the earth’s average temperature has increased up to 0.6 degree Celsius and if emission of greenhouse gases particularly carbon dioxide continues to rise, global temperature will rise up to 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of 2100 AD. Similarly as a result of this threat of global warming, glaciers will disappear even from Antarctica and Arctic sea will open for navigation throughout the year. Many islands and coastal cities will submerge as a result of sea level rise. In 2004 Canadian Broadcasting T.V presented a documentary with the name “ The doomsday called off” in which leading climate scientists, astrophysicist and geophysicist presented evidences that science of global warming presented by IPCC scientists is incomplete and incorrect based upon computer models and stimulations which are deliberately exaggerated. Many climate scientists have shown disassociation with the IPCC views and speculations on the basis of its doubtful manipulated and exaggerated figures of global warming and some consider it a climate scam. Since then debate between UN pro man-made global warming scientists and anti-man-made global warming climate scientists continue.

Notes from the Editors, February 2019

buy this issue
 Climatologist James Hansen's 2018 "Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm," known as the Nutshell document, is the single most important analysis currently available for general readers seeking to stay abreast of the science and politics of global warming. Nevertheless, denial of the extent of the conflict between capitalism and the climate remains pervasive. Such views were subjected to a strong refutation by Enno Schröder and Servaas Storm in a November 2018 paper entitled "Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions: The Road to 'Hothouse Earth' Is Paved With Good Intentions."

The Science and Politics of Global Warming

First the science, then the politics.The indisputable fact is that a rapid increase in global warming coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution early in the nineteenth century. The ...

Why Popper can't resolve the debate over global warming: Problems with the uses of philosophy of science in the media and public framing of the science of global warming.

A notable feature in the public framing of debates involving the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming are appeals to uncritical 'positivist' images of the ideal scientific method. Versions of Sir Karl Popper's philosophy of falsification appear most frequently, featuring in many Web sites and broader media. This use of pop philosophy of science forms part of strategies used by critics, mainly from conservative political backgrounds, to manufacture doubt, by setting unrealistic standards for sound science, in the veracity of science of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It will be shown, nevertheless, that prominent supporters of Anthropogenic Global Warming science also often use similar references to Popper to support their claims. It will also be suggested that this pattern reflects longer traditions of the use of Popperian philosophy of science in controversial settings, particularly in the United States, where appeals to the authority of science to legitimize policy have been most common. It will be concluded that studies of the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming debate would benefit from taking greater interest in questions raised by un-reflexive and politically expedient public understanding(s) of the philosophy of science of both critics and supporters of the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Global Warming

Everywhere one looks – newspapers, websites, books, statements by public leaders and nonpartisan organizations – one hears that climate change is a misguided and unsupported conclusion (Inhofe, 2012; Dixon, 2013; Fox News, 2014; see also http://www.climate changedispatch.com/Sites-of-Interest/; http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Books.htm; http://www.iloveco2.com/p/resources.html). Even more disturbing, however, are the claims about what Tim Ball (2014) recently called “the deliberate corruption of climate science.” For example, one website dedicated to “exposing the truth about global warming hysteria” says global climate change science is a scam (Minnesotans for Global Warming, 2014; see also Rivero, 2009; Pruden, 2013). The Chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, Jim Inhofe (2003), by contrast, called the threat not a scam, but the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a view echoed by GlobalWarmingHoax.com, “Where Only the Truth Heats Up™” (see also Caruba, 2014; and World Natural Health Organization, http://wnho.net). Or is it fraud, as alleged by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a senior member of the House Science Committee (Fang, 2013; see also Ferrara, 2013; Adams, 2014)? Each not only dismisses the claims about global warming and climate change, and the plentiful evidence that supports those claims, but also notes the dangerous erosion of science. But which is it? Scam, hoax, or fraud? It’s all quite alarming. What is alarming, of course, is not that the science is wrong, but that so many people reject the science, typically while appealing to the very principles and banner of science in doing so. Somewhere, science education has failed miserably. But what is the remedy? How do we prepare scientifically literate citizens? How indeed would the naive student know if global warming science is (or is not) a scam, a fraud, or a hoax? Most would say that you …

Scepticism and the science of global warming: a rejoinder

An adequate epistemology of science will not, as some Old Deferentialists expected [pre-Kuhnian thinkers who held that science progresses by the accumulation of well-confirmed truths], be exclusively logical, but will have a social dimension. Unlike the New Cynicism [of post-Kuhnian critics who write about science with factitious despair], however, it will not see the fact that science is a social enterprise as illegitimating its epistemic pretensions, but as an important factor contributing to its epistemic distinction; not as a reason for favoring the notion of acceptance and neglecting warrant, but as an important factor helping to keep warrant and acceptance appropriately correlated. Puzzling out science, Susan Haack (1995, p. 27). This paper is a rejoinder to the three forum pieces stimulated by our original article in this journal: ‘Scepticism and doubt in science and science education: the complexity of global warming as a socio-scientific issue’ (Bryce and Day 2014).

Scientific Counterpublics: In Defense of the Environmental Scientist as Public Intellectual

Global warming and climate change pose a significant threat to the livelihoods of future generations. Although there is a consensus among qualified climate scientists who believe that scientific evidence supports anthropogenic climate change (ACC) theories, this has not translated into public understanding or trust in these theories. In this essay, I trace policy debates in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s concerning the link between CFC pollution and ozone depletion. Based on a rich tradition of counterpublic scholarship and empirical success of ozone scientists, I argue that a rhetorical defense of global warming science in the form of counterpublic intellectualism may help environmental advocates overcome public disbelief in ACC theories.

The Influence of Global Warming Science Views and Sociocultural Factors on Willingness to Mitigate Global Warming

The science education field readily recognizes that perceptions about science's claims and nature influence socioscientific decision making. However, sociocultural factors may overshadow these perceptions when people are forced to make personally impacting choices contextualized within actual socioscientific issues. This investigation determined 324 secondary students' perceptions about global warming (GW) science and willingness to mitigate GW across five categories of actions—each requiring varying levels of personal sacrifice (e.g., supporting GW education versus limiting personal reproduction). Identified sociocultural indicators among the students included ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic classification. Results indicate that GW science views and sociocultural factors became less impactful on the participants' willingness to mitigate GW as the GW-mitigating actions required greater personal involvement and sacrifice. However, most consistently significantly predicting willingness to mitigate GW was the participants' perceptions about the validity of GW science claims. Furthermore, while the participants' perceptions about the nature of GW science methods significantly influenced their willingness to enact certain GW-mitigating actions, socioeconomic classification and ethnicity were oftentimes stronger indicators of the participants' inclination to mitigate GW. Implications for education discussed include promoting responsible socioscientific decision making through contextually teaching about how and why GW science is valid while also considering how sociocultural factors can impact socioscientific choices.

More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change

The public receives and presents science-related information on global warming and climate change in many forms, but little is known about how this information is conveyed through the Internet. More specifically, very few studies have considered YouTube videos focusing on climate change. This study provides a better understanding of how this type of information may be disseminated through several levels of analysis. For this purpose, the exact narrative for the 10 most popular videos about climate change was first established by concentrating particularly on the presentation of the science of climate change. Then the public’s responses to and engagement in each video were examined through a semantic analysis of comments on the video. The results indicate that, regardless of the narrative, science-based comments dominated, but often discussed climate change in general instead of specific videos to which they were attached. In the absence of gatekeepers, YouTube users rode the coattails of popular videos about climate change and addended the videos’ messages by highlighting evidence of weak, strong, or politicized science.

Global warming science most important in last two decades: Druyan

Global warming science most important in last two decades: Druyan

Systematic and Logical Problems in Global Warming Science

Arguments put forth in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are frequently lacking in objectivity due to the use of imprecise terms and unwarranted extrapolations. A salient characteristic of such arguments is, moreover, the seemingly arbitrary attribution of causes to certain phenomena [Singer, 2012a]. As a result, such arguments run counter to the reasoning that is a hallmark of the scientific method. The purpose of this paper is to reason about some of those erroneous arguments in order to better inform people about pitfalls from a misuse of the scientific method in arguments about AGW. In a time when many scientists, scientific organizations, and educators have apparently been compromising their honesty and their integrity [Ball 2014a], S. Fred Singer stands out: As a rallying point for those who haven't compromised, as a trusted source seeking the truth, and as a beacon for those who seek moral support to carry on the grand tradition of science. It is my pleasure to dedicate this essay to Fred (a scientist for all seasons), with gratitude and admiration, on his 90th birthday.

The Science of Global Warming

Global warming is unequivocal, as is manifested in three internationally known global temperature records with the global average temperature rising at a rate of 0.70–0.75◦C per 100 years during 1910–2009 [Wen et al., 2011]. In other words, the earth has warmed more than 0.8◦C since the Industrial Revolution. If it is true that 2◦C above pre-industrial level is a threshold of climate “safety”, we will have to confront a serious situation where less than 1.2◦C warming is permissible in the future [Liu et al., 2011]. According to climate system concept [Wang, 2011], the global warming is not only reflected in global temperature change but also in changes of other climate system components, such as widespread melting of snow and ice, rising of global average sea level, and permafrost degradation [IPCC, 2007]. Due to its great influences and potential risks on the society, global warming now attains more and more concerns from governments, scientists and public media. Today, global warming becomes one of the most important issues, which must be taken into consideration in strategic decision making of national development. As a scientific issue, however, global warming has been studied for almost 200 years [Mitchell, 2002; Cullen, 2011]. And it now has evolved as an independent discipline closely associated with meteorology, oceanography and environmental sciences. In order to review the development of global warming concisely, in this paper, we shall only focus on the science of global warming itself, excluding impacts, adaptation and policy associated with global warming. In 2011, Archer and Pierrehumbert [2011] compiled the previous studies on the global warming and added their brief comments. This work offered a great foundation for further investigating global warming. In order to understand global warming systematically and comprehensively, we summarize ten essential issues based on the five cornerstone literatures from Archer’s compilation together with four IPCC Assessment Reports and the First World Climate Conference. These ten issues will be reviewed as follows. Greenhouse effect Joseph Fourier was the first scientist argued for the greenhouse effect in 1824 [Archer and Pierrehumbert, 2011]. The earth receives energy from the sun and re-radiates to outer space. Calculations based on the planetary energy balance indicate that the temperature of the earth is much lower than 0◦C as opposed to the observation of 14◦C. This discrepancy is believed to be produced by the atmosphere, which traps more long-wave radiation from earth surface and keeps the earth warmer. A mechanism named greenhouse effect is proposed to describe this process. Greenhouse gases An Irish scientist Tyndall in 1849 verified through his designed experiments that CO2 has greenhouse effect on earth’s climate [Tyndall, 1861]. He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases including

Environmental Pragmatism, Global Warming, and Climate Change

This paper begins with a presentation of some important aspects of the science behind global warming. Following that, I argue that attempts to address global warming and climate change as problems facing humanity ought not to center around economic understandings of the problem or it solutions. Moreover, I argue that (environmental) pragmatism is especially vulnerable to this sort of misappropriation in seeking solutions to climate change, and that environmental pragmatists ought to make a conscious effort to avoid potential mischaracterizations of pragmatism by providing a clearer sense of the boundaries that delimit its approach to climate change, or any other environmental crisis.Public discourse concerning the rising average surface temperature of our planet is not far to seek at present. There is almost daily mention of the phenomena in print, radio and television news media; and no shortage of special reports by various stations and channels, Discovery and PBS: Frontline1 are two that come to mind), special issues of periodicals, or documentaries (think former VicePresident Gore) all addressing some aspect of the myriad concerns over the continued burning of fossil fuels and its effect on the climate. In what follows, I first provide a lay account of the science of global warming; one that I hope will interest readers not already preoccupied with the subject, as well as further inform those who are. Following that I argue that attempts to address global warming and climate change as problems facing humanity ought not to center around economic understandings of the problem or it solutions, and that pragmatism especially ought to resist such an approach.1. The Balance of EnergyEarth receives energy from the Sun in the form of light (much of which is not within the visible range of human beings). Various frequencies of light carry energy across the 150 million kilometer wide vacuum that separates the Sun from the Earth.3 The heat provided by the sun is crucial to making our planet inhabitable. Theoretically, the Earth should overtime radiate or reflect back into space the same amount of energy that it receives from the Sun - barring temporary or regional imbalances.4 I will refer to this throughout this essay as the Earth's energy balance or energy budget.What this means is that if we consider the total amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth that same amount of energy must be returned to space by the Earth. All solar energy comes at the Earth from one direction, but energy is radiated from the Earth in all directions. Light that is reflected by the Earth's atmosphere back into space never reaches the planet's surface. The total energy release from the earth can be divided into two broad categories: heat radiated and light reflected. The first category - the heat radiated from the Earth - accounts for approximately seventy percent - roughly fifty eight percent by clouds and the atmosphere and twelve percent by near surface emissions - of the solar energy that the Earth receives from the Sun. The other category - light reflected - accounts for the solar energy that is reflected back into space - approximately twenty three percent by clouds and atmosphere and seven percent by the surface of the Earth.5 The total amount of visible light reflected - as opposed to radiated - by a body is called its albedo^ and in climatology is sometimes expressed as a percentage of the total incoming light. Earth's albedo is roughly .30; that is, thirty percent of the visible light from the Sun is reflected back into space before it enters the planet's atmosphere.2. The (Anthropogenic) Greenhouse EffectGases present in the Earth's atmosphere are classified as greenhouse or nongreenhouse gases based on whether their molecules are reactive to infrared (IR) light. If a molecule has three or more atoms, it is infrared active. Gases are not good blackbodies - objects that absorb and radiate all frequencies of light - because they are very selective about the frequencies of IR light they will interact with. …

Decades Away or The Day After Tomorrow?: Rhetoric, Film, and the Global Warming Debate

In the summer of 2004, scientists and environmental advocates engaged the film, The Day After Tomorrow, in an effort to raise awareness of global warming as a serious environmental threat. The popular fictional film creates a dilemma for scientists and environmental advocates who highlight the dangers of global warming; while the film's underlying message has scientific merit, the cinematic depictions of such dangers push the boundaries of scientific credibility. This article examines how scientists and skeptics treat the film as a rhetorical resource to articulate claims about global warming science often obscured in existing public discussions of climate change. I argue that the rhetorical strategies used by both sides of the global warming debate demonstrate the opportunities and limitations of popular culture in situated public scientific discourses.

Snow and Dickens: The Victorian ‘Inconvenient Truth’

Scientists’ investigations into environmental issues often fail to promote political change unless those investigations are popularised in the public consciousness. We will illustrate this thesis through the work of Dickens and the pioneering physician, Dr John Snow. In Victorian London, Snow challenged the deeply held theory that miasmas caused diseases such as cholera. However, his investigations, now considered the foundation of modern epidemiology, were dismissed by the medical establishment. By 1884, his work had been verified. Contemporaneously, Dickens worked with early advocates of public health, Edwin Chadwick and his brother-in-law, Henry Austin, to promote and then defend the landmark 1848 Public Health Act. By 1850, however, the Public Health Act was being eviscerated, and Dickens attacked the vested interests he saw as opposed to public health. Fast forward to the present, and we see this history repeating itself in the issue of global warming. The science of global warming has been developing since the 1820s and is now well accepted, but serious political debates continue in North America over scientific uncertainty and the economic costs of tackling the problem.

Science controversies past and present

Reactions to the science of global warming have followed a similar course to those of other inconvenient truths from physics.