posted
I refer to Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory--A Clear Explanation that Anyone Can Understand." It's a fun read, but he explains in the foreword that "anyone" really means anyone who understands high school algebra and analytical geometry.
This thread is a suggestion to Rabbit. It seems to me that there are some straightforward equations that can be reconstructed in a high school setting, either math or physics class, to demonstrate the basic energy in versus energy out when slight changes in CO2 concentrations are present. Simple approximations, of course, such as a sphere with an average emissivity and albedo for the earth, Delta T and view factor for the sun and darkness of space, and how these are affected by atmospheric components. I think that Rabbit should publish a lesson plan that would enable a high school teacher to lead his/her students through the process, so they can see the results for themselves, thus bypassing all the rhetoric and claims. I bet it would be a big seller.
It has been a long time, but I used to do heat loss through radiation calculations, and also gas flow calculations, and I remember that changing the CP and ratio of specific heats for each gas changed the flow rate dramatically, and it occurred to me that if I was able to put the two together, it would represent a pretty straightforward and unassailable explanation of how the greenhouse effect works. You can't argue with math.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its a good idea Glenn, but its already been done. About 3 years back my husband was set to do something like this but then he did a proper search and found the resources already exist. There is even a website that has a simple radiation model programmed in. You can change the CO2 concentration and it will do the calculations for you.
I've posted the link the The Discovery of Global Warming many times here at hatrack. Its an excellent read that should be understandable by anyone with a high school education. If you are interested, I can ask my husband for links to other stuff he's found to be useful.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can change the CO2 concentration and it will do the calculations for you.
Well... This is nice and all, but there's much to be said for seeing the equations, personally putting the numbers into the calculator, and graphing the results. Automate after you understand, not before.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if you don't care / aren't able / don't want to calculate them by yourself, a program like that could be a good way just to get the feel for how things work. Not one you'd want to bet your life on, but it's better than nothing.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its a good idea Glenn, but its already been done.
What comes to mind is that we'd known about this for 40 years or so before An Inconvenient Truth came along. It doesn't surprise me that it's been done, but I don't know of any public awareness.
There's nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel, especially as far as education is concerned. My Side of the Mountain and Hatchet are essentially the same story, but some kids love one and strongly dislike the other.
I searched through teach-nology, thinkfinity, and Marco Polo for a lesson plan that does what I want it to do, and couldn't find any. That doesn't mean it's not there, but the best lessons are often not the easiest to find. An Inconvenient Truth hit a chord because it was not only explained well, but because is was accessible.
quote:Well... This is nice and all, but there's much to be said for seeing the equations, personally putting the numbers into the calculator, and graphing the results. Automate after you understand, not before.
I agree completely, and I also disagree. Yes, without doubt the best approach is to do the calculations yourself and experience the feeling as the results make themselves clear in your head. That's exactly the feeling I had when I realized how applicable the calculations I was doing were to greenhouse effect (but incomplete). But then, there are both teachers and students who simply won't make the effort, and tools like the website are very useful for that.
quote:You can if you know about the feedback effects and reservoirs.
Ockham's razor was never more appropriate.
White Whale: I haven't had time to go through them, but they do look very useful. Thanks.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Eh. There are two approaches to consider. One is the real analysis of what will be the actual effects of climate change; the science being done in research labs. For this you absolutely cannot ignore second-order effects, because on the scale of the Earth, second order can be quite large! The other is pedagogy, and here you need to consider the following scenario: What will be the effect on someone who has done this math in high school, when some climate denier pulls out a feedback effect which his physics teacher ignored to make the calculation possible? He'll say, "My God, in school I learned a simplified lie-to-children, a mere toy model! I'd better reduce my estimate of the probability that global warming is a real problem."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer there is simply to avoid the effects of climate change altogether and focus on energy balance. The earth is very nicely isolated and can be treated as a single body as far as the rest of the universe is concerned.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
