Teaching Resource
TAPping into Climate Change
By Damian Murphy
A resource designed to help students construct persuasive arguments
RATIONALE
PAGE
1
LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND LESSON OUTLINE
2
BREAKDOWN OF LESSON
3
BACKGROUND NOTES FOR TEACHERS
6
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
14
REFERENCES
17
APPENDIX
18
RATIONALE
Rather than a single theory or conjecture to be checked, it is often the case in science that there are two or
more competing theories. The key activity of scientists is then to evaluate which of these alternatives does,
or does not fit with the available evidence, and hence, which presents the most convincing explanation for
particular phenomena in the world. To achieve reliable knowledge scientists hold a core commitment to
evidence as the mediator between competing theories. However, it is on the basis of the strength of
arguments (and their supporting evidence) that scientists judge whether to accept or reject a particular
theory.
The current GCSE and A-Level Science curriculum reflects this. “How Science Works” (HSW) now
forms the backdrop to all GCSE and A-Level science courses. The area central to HSW is that of ideas
and evidence, which involves encouraging students to evaluate, interpret and analyse evidence from
primary and secondary sources in science. This has led to the serious consideration of the role of argument
in school science, in the sense of putting forward claims and supporting them with sound and persuasive
evidence (Bennett, 2007). Small-group discussions have a key role to play here, since the practice of using
evidence in argumentation requires interaction with peers. Further impetus for the inclusion of smallgroup discussions in science lessons has come from the development of ideas about social constructivism
(Driver et al., 1994). These draw on the work of Vygotsky, who emphasises the importance of the social
dynamics of interactions in fostering learning. It is this view that knowledge cannot be transmitted but
must be constructed by the mental activity of learners that underpins this teaching resource.
There is also the view developed in literacy studies that secure knowledge and understanding are as much a
product of knowing why some ideas are flawed as much as why other ideas are correct (Osborne, Erduran,
Simon, 2004)). It follows, therefore that students must, at the very least, spend time considering not just
the “scientific world view” explanation for a phenomenon but alternatives, including the alternatives
constructed by the students themselves.
Backdrop to Lesson
Global Warming is a contemporary, active and controversial area of science, evolving and attracting as
much criticism as other pioneering but now established theories from yesteryear, for example: plate
tectonics, quantum theory, and evolution. As such, the climate change debate is considered to be a
fantastic backdrop to a lesson that aims to utilise dialogic argument in the social construction of scientific
knowledge.
Suitability
This lesson is targeted towards Year 12 chemistry students. All chemistry courses now share a common
curriculum aim, which is to develop and demonstrate a deeper appreciation of the skills, knowledge and
understanding of How Science Works. As such all UK AS Chemistry courses require students to learn
about global warming in the context of realising the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, and
appreciating the role of the scientific community in validating new knowledge.
1
TAPing into Climate Change
Teacher’s Notes
Objectives
 To understand some of the competing ideas on global warming from both sides of the climate
change debate
 To make students more aware of the nature and structure of arguments
 To become familiar with a tool known as the Toulmin Argument Pattern and use it to support and
develop scientific arguments
 To appreciate that science often progresses through dispute, conflict and argumentation rather than
through general agreement
Key Words:
Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP), claims, data, warrants, backings, rebuttals, climate sceptic, climate
advocate, anthropogenic
Lesson Outline
Total time ~ 2 hours or 2 lessons
LESSON 1
1. “The hook”. Starter and teacher setting the scene “Is it warming?”
PowerPoint (15-20 minutes)
2. Introduction to argumentation, TAP diagrams, low level and high level arguments
PowerPoint (5-10 minutes)
3. TAPing into Climate Change (25-30 minutes)
o
o
o
o
Teams of three. Number of climate sceptic teams = number of climate advocate teams
Opposing teams sit facing each
Cards issued. Sort cards into Claims/Rebuttals, Data, Warrants, Backings ~ 8 minutes
Argumentation. Using cards, sceptics always initiate arguments and advocates counter – 20 minutes.
LESSON 2
4. Create teaching aid (10 minutes)
5. Knowledge acquisition in the “market place” (~18 minutes)
Teams re-assemble and share/teach information acquired in the “market place” (12 minutes)
6. Test (5-7 minutes)
7. Peer Assessment (10 minutes)
2
Detailed Breakdown of Lesson
1. The “Hook” including Background Information
The “Hook” is the means by which you will get students interested in the Global Warming debate and
hopefully begin to develop their healthy sceptical attitude to scientific claims. Arguably most people today
are acquiescent with the notion of global warming but the starter and subsequent discussion turns this
notion on its head. The purpose is to deconstruct this “unquestioned presumption” in order that students
might acquire a greater appetite to analyse the evidence presented from both sides of the climate change
debate.
Starter: “Is it warming?” Slide 2 of PowerPoint
Set the scene by asking students to begin thinking about which side of the global warming debate they
wish to be on – climate sceptics or advocates. Students may be surprised by the notion that many people
still dispute the Earth is warming, but as the ensuing slides illustrate, global warming is a matter of
perspective and only becomes apparent when the time scales are sufficiently small. Slide 4 is a visual
resource that can be used to outline the science of the greenhouse effect.
Then follows ~15min discussion on “Is it Warming?” with the intention to stir up some lively debate.
The approach, at least at the start, is biased towards the climate sceptics as the first few graphs, on
successively smaller time scales, do not show the current global warming trend, but rather the opposite
picture (Slides 5-13)
2. Introduction to Argumentation - Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP) (Slides 14-16)
“TAP” stands for Toulmin Argument Pattern. A Toulmin argument sets out to establish a claim on the
basis of the available facts, or data. However, why should anyone see the facts as relevant to the claim?
We need a warrant for believing that the facts support the claim; in other words an argument that connects
them. This argument may in turn need to be supported with some backing, essentially another argument –
and in its turn that could be supported by further arguments and further facts. Rebuttals, on the other hand
are counter-arguments. Once again, for a rebuttal to be persuasive, the counter-claim needs to be
supported by data, warrants and backings.
Figure 7. TAP diagram
In this activity TAP is used as a scaffold
to help students construct persuasive
scientific arguments and rebuttals.
The Activity – 5 minutes
In the PowerPoint presentation there is an example of a low level argument (claims based on impulsive
warrants with no evidence or backing) and a high level argument.
3
3. TAPping into Climate Change (25 minutes)
There are a total of 12 claims/rebuttals (see appendix). This collaborative learning exercise assumes teams
will comprise preferably two if not three members, and that each team will initially familiarise themselves
with two climate-change claims or rebuttals. If all the claims/rebuttals are to be used, then there are
enough arguments for a maximum of twelve teams of climate sceptics and twelve teams of climate
advocates. Adjust the time accordingly if allocating a different number of claims/rebuttals per team.
i.
Students sort themselves into teams of two (or three). There must be an even number of teams in
order that opposing teams can face each other across a table or bench. Full student instructions are
in the PowerPoint presentation.
ii.
Issue and sort arguments – 8 minutes
Give each table two packets of arguments. Each packet contains claims, warrants, data (maybe)
and backings (maybe) from both sides of a climate change argument. The cards are divided
between the opposing teams - the sceptics’ arguments use blue text and the proponents use back
text. The advocates’ packet consists of three corresponding rebuttals with relevant data, warrants
and backings. None of the teams will know the exact details of the opposing team’s claims or
rebuttals. Teams to be given eight minutes to sort their cards into the two separate arguments,
familiarise themselves with the arguments and prepare their cases. A list of all the claims can be
viewed in the appendix.
iii.
Argumentation begins - 15-20 minutes for parts iii - vi
Sceptics always lead with the first claim. They select data (if available) to back a claim and place
both these cards down on the table for the opposing team to see. They put into their own words,
information from their warrant or backing cards to justify and explain their claims. When the
sceptics have finished their argument they lay down the warrant and relevant backing cards beside
the claim and data cards in the arrangement of a TAP diagram.
iv.
Now it’s the turn of the advocates to construct a counter argument. They may spend a few
moments reading the cards presented by the opponents. The appropriate rebuttal and data cards are
placed down on the table facing the opposing team, and in their own words, the advocates justify
their rebuttal with reference to selected data, warrants and backings. When the counter argument
has been presented, the appropriate cards for that rebuttal are arranged in the layout of a TAP for
the opposing team to examine.
v.
Once both formal presentations have finished, argumentation continues back and forth as students
use their own powers of reason to synthesise new backings, point out weaknesses in the opposing
team’s argument or discover other aspects to the evidence which they may have overlooked, to
construct new warrants. Where a team is lacking data or backings, then they will have to be
resourceful in making their arguments as plausible and reasonable as possible. They may wish to
use their opponents’ data and interpret it differently
vi.
Go back to (iii) as sceptics construct their second argument
Before the end of the lesson, ask teams to remember the arguments they were given. The number is
written on envelope so that they can be re-issued to same teams next lesson.
4
LESSON 2
Get back into the same groups as last lesson. Re-issue arguments
4. Creating a Teaching Aid (15 minutes)
Give out blank A3 sheets of paper and instruct teams to create a teaching aid that can be used to summarise
their two arguments including the associated rebuttals. In the episode to follow, one person in each team
will elect to stay and be the teacher, while the others will move off and learn about the other scientific
arguments and rebuttals that took place between other teams. A further challenge is to restrict the total
numbers of words that can be used in the summary to ten. This strategy encourages mind mapping. Like
the brain, mind maps work in a non-linear way. Memory is naturally associative, non linear and allows
associations and connections to be recorded and reinforced. Because mind maps are more visual and
depict associations between key words, they are much easier to recall than linear notes.
5. Knowledge Acquisition in the “Market Place” (25-30 minutes)
i.
In the next episode of the lesson, teams temporarily disband one member from each group
remaining to take the role of ‘teacher’. “Disbanded” students have 8 minutes to enter “the market
place” moving from “stall to stall” listening to different teachers use their teaching aids to outline
the other climate change arguments (both sides). After 8 minutes ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ swap
roles. The new students go out into the market place and research a different climate change
argument (both sides). Students should be encouraged to make notes, for they will then return to
their original teams to share and teach each other what they have learned. In this episode the
“teachers” internalise their understanding through repeated verbal interactions with other students.
(~16 minutes)
ii.
Class reassembles into their original teams and begin sharing the information they have learned in
the “market place”. It is now the turn of the “teachers” to listen to their team members, while the
team members, who have been out in the market place, assume the role of teachers and disseminate
their knowledge of other climate change arguments. Each team should now be reasonable well
versed with six climate change arguments (12 minutes)
6. Test (5 minutes)*
In the final activity, teams are assessed on their ability to recall a specific argument and present it in the
form of a TAP diagram. All notes and teaching aids are to be put away and new blank sheets of A3 paper
handed out to groups. The task is presented as:
“Summarise in a TAP diagram a compelling argument which claims that climate change is natural and not
anthropogenic. In the same diagram include a detailed rebuttal”. See slide 22 of the PowerPoint presentation
Teams are to continue working collaboratively, although only whispering is permitted!
7. Peer Assessment (10 minutes)
Test responses are to be evaluated through peer assessment. Circulate the test responses, which were done
on A3 paper from group to group. The TAP diagrams are critiqued, with comments written on post-it
stickers before being passed to the next group for further peer assessment. Encourage teams to write one
positive comment (What was done well?) and a comment that outlines an improvement.
* Alternatively, if you don’t fancy doing a test then go to slide 21 in the Power Point presentation and have a debate. Arrange
that Advocates are on one side of the room and Sceptics on the other with opposing teams facing each other. Then chair the
debate. Award a point to a team when (a) a student who has not yet made a contribution, makes a contribution to the debate, (b)
when any claim/counter claim is well explained (warrant) using reasons (i.e. data - empirical or otherwise) to support the
warrant. Bonus points for backing (reasons which support warrant)
5
Background Notes for teachers
If you look at Figure 1, you should be able to see that we have just entered the latest ice age and
temperatures are on their way down.
Seems to be cooling over
the last 30 million years
Figure 1. Adapted from http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=171497: Temperature not to scale
One might be forgiven in thinking that we should be more worried about global cooling than warming, but
lets zoom in on the tiniest right portion of this graph, the last 400 000 years of which, temperature proxy
data are available from Antarctic ice core analysis.
6
Still appears to be cooling
Figure 2. Record of temperature variations over the last 420 000 years. Source: J. R. Petit et al., (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of
the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica; Nature 399, 429-436
Figure 2 should spark a lot of interest because firstly, it puts into perspective how the last 400 000 years of
the current ice age represents such a tiny fraction of time compared to Figure 1. Secondly, the relatively
fleeting occurrences of interglacial periods in the current ice age may come across as a novel and
fascinating detail of climate change. Through questioning, it should be possible to establish that once
again, based on this time scale, global cooling as opposed to global warming appears to be in evidence.
Discuss how it looks like we are on the edge of a “precipice” and temperatures seem to be about to
plummet into another glacial period. However a paper published in Nature (EPICA, 2004) by the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, has put forward the theory that the next glacial period is not
imminent. The team recovered a deep ice core from Dome C, Antarctica, which provided a climate record
for the past 740,000 years. Ice cores record climate signals, as well as forcing factors of global significance
such as greenhouse gases. All interglacials are slightly different, but the Termination V interglacial that
began some 430,000 years ago is the most similar to our own. It mirrors the pattern of solar warming
7
between seasons caused by fluctuations in the Earth's orbit known as the Milankovitch cycles. The
transition from glacial to interglacial conditions about 430,000 years ago (Termination V) resembles the
transition into the present interglacial period in terms of the magnitude of change in temperatures and
greenhouse gases. The interglacial stage following Termination V was exceptionally long - some 28,000
years compared to the 12,000 years recorded so far in the present interglacial period. Given the similarities
between this earlier warm period and today, it may be implied that without human intervention, a climate
similar to the present one could extend for perhaps another 15,000 years.
It’s only possible to discern current global warming when the temperature variations over the last ten
thousand years are analysed. Assuming the Greenland ice core is representative of the Northern
Hemisphere temperatures for the last ten thousand years, the overall trend still appears to be one of
cooling.
Global warming begins
Climatic optimum
Line of best fit since climatic optimum
Figure 3. Reconstructed temperature variations over the last 10 000 years: Source: Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2), 2000
However, if you focus on the last one hundred years of Figure 3, on the very left hand side you can see that
temperatures have taken an upward turn. Students may be unimpressed when they learn that this “blip” is
the cause of the current international furore on climate change. Some students may recognise that the
current warming trend, when put into context of the natural temperature variability of the past, is utterly
unremarkable. Even if the current warming trend is anthropogenic which the IPCC are more than 90%
certain about (IPCC 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports, 2001 & 2007), natural forcings on the temperature in
the past have been much more powerful. It’s a persuasive argument from the climate sceptics; however, it
should be noted that the graph in Figure 3 is constructed on approximately 1 data point per hundred years.
This implies that the smallest interval of time on this graph for which an upward or downward trend in
temperature can be discerned is about three hundred years. Therefore, it will be many centuries until such
a long view of today's climate is available, which is why the upward trend on the far left of Figure 3 is still
only a blip. If global warming were to stop tomorrow, then this “blip” will rise no further and will be no
more remarkable than any of the other “blips” on this graph.
8
In order to be convinced that the Earth is truly warming, we need to study the temperature variations over
shorter time intervals. Graphs based on tree ring analysis, deep sea mud core and ice core analysis have
been constructed to show the temperature variation over the last 1000 years:
The plot in Figure 4 shows how temperatures over the last 1,000 years varied from the 1961-1990 average.
Figure 4. Source: IPCC (2001) "Summary for Policymakers"
Figure 5. Atmospheric CO2 levels over the
last 1000 years.
Source: (Sarmiento and Gruber, 2002)
When scientists review such data they conclude that the average global temperature has most likely never
been this high for at least 1000 years. When the temperature graph is viewed along side a graph showing
the CO2 variations over the last 1000 years (Figure 5), the correlation is clear. In addition, there is
compelling circumstantial evidence that the relationship between these two variables is causal because
both CO2 levels and temperature begin rising at the same time soon after the start of the industrial
revolution. However, the evidence becomes less compelling when it comes to light that solar activity
began to increase at the same time (Figure 6).
9
Figure 6: showing two different proxies of solar activity: 1. cosmogenic 10Be isotope production as measured in an annually
layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland (Beer et al. 1994) and 2. Changes in sunspot number based from historical observations
by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b). The image was produced by Robert A. Rohde of Global Warming Art Project.
Now we are in a bit of a quandary. Did temperatures rise after the Industrial Revolution because the Earth
was a receiving more energy from the sun or was it because of the increase in levels of the greenhouse gas
CO2? If it was both, then which had the bigger effect?
This is where the power of computer modelling comes into it own. While there have been large variations
in climate over the course of Earth’s history, paleoclimatic evidence can often tie these to specific events,
such as variations in Earth’s orbit, changes in solar activity or changes in atmospheric composition. When
computer models remove these variations you are left with much smaller fluctuations in temperature and
it’s easier to distinguish genuine anthropogenic global warming (or cooling) from the natural variability.
Figure 7. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and Global Temperature – 1885 to 2000. Source: www.skepticalscience.com
In 2007 the IPCC reported in its 4th Assessment Report that warming from 1700s up to the middle of the
20th century was largely attributable to the increase in sun activity. However, there has been no correlation
between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. This has led the IPCC to conclude
that global warming, which has since continued, is predominantly anthropogenic.
10
Greenhouse Gases
To understand how human activities might cause global warming, we must first explore why our planet is
warm in the first place. As solar radiation from the Sun reaches Earth's surface, some of it is reflected back
into space and some of it is absorbed. The absorbed energy warms Earth's surface, which in turn radiates
the energy back toward space. Molecules in the atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, absorb some of
this outgoing energy and radiate a portion of it back to Earth's surface. Through these two actions, they
slow the escape of heat and keep Earth warmer than it would be otherwise. Without greenhouse gases, it
has been calculated that Earth’s average temperature would in the region of –18oC.
Figure 8. Source IPCC 2nd Assessment Report 1995
The most dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. It’s significance is noted when the lack of water
vapour in the driest deserts on Earth results in blistering temperatures by day and freezing temperatures by
night.
When the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is capable of
absorbing more energy. As a result, the planet warms up — until it reaches the temperature at which it
again radiates just enough energy to keep the temperature stable. The higher the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet becomes before it reaches the point at which it
radiates all the energy it receives and the temperature again stabilises. Consequently, an increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations - whether as the result of natural causes or human activities - causes the
average global temperature to rise.
The physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat energy is well understood and it has been
calculated that a doubling in the concentration of CO2 levels equates to a temperature rise of about 1oC.
11
Carbon dioxide levels are predicted to double from today’s 2009 levels (0.038%) – that’s assuming CO2
emissions continue unabated - by around 2050. However, it’s very difficult to estimate the effect of
feedbacks in the system, especially water vapour, which is the largest positive feedback in the climate. As
temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a
greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. So
CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? This is the big question. Taken on its own, water
vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. But then other feedbacks need to be taken
into account such as the loss of albedo* due to melting ice, increased cloud formation may reflect more
solar radiation back into space, etc. Probably the greatest uncertainties in future projections of climate
arise because we don't know the impact of changing water vapour levels in the air and because we are
unsure how clouds affect the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth.
This positive feedback is the primary reason why the current emission of CO2 is such a concern. It appears
that our climate past has undergone dramatic climate shifts in short periods of time due in some part to
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Paleoclimate models have difficulty reproducing the recent ice age cycles
without including this carbon dioxide feedback, implying that carbon dioxide is indeed important in our
climate. This is certainly a cause for alarm given how much CO2 we are emitting today. It is known that
the concentration of CO2 is higher now than at any time measured in an ice core – and they now go back
800,000 years. The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high or higher than today was probably tens of
millions of years ago in the Tertiary Period, when much of the Earth was tropical or sub-tropical. There
were certainly no ice sheets and subsequently, sea level was between 50 and 100m higher than it is today
(Figure 9).
Tertiary Period: 1.8-65 MYA
Figure 9: Comparison of the Hallam et al. (1983) and Exxon eustatic (global) sea level reconstructions for the Phanerozoic eon.
Source: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level_png
*
Albedo: The fraction of solar radiation reflected by a surface or object, often expressed as a percentage. Snow covered
surfaces have a high albedo
12
Getting back to the original question: is it warming?
The answer is yes. But if you ask the question: does the current global warming trend stand out from
previous global warming episodes in Earth’s long history? The answer is no. While today’s climate may
yet rank (but not yet) as the most variable in the current interglacial period, this really isn’t that remarkable
given that the last 10 000 years appears to have provided the longest period of relatively stable climate for
at least 400 000 years, with global temperatures fluctuating by little more than one or two degrees. Before
the Holocene, the climate was much more unstable. Global temperatures varied by as much as 5 to 8 °C
oscillating between short warm interglacial periods and longer cold glacial periods about every 100 000
years, interspersed by many more short-term fluctuations.
Figure 10. Temperature changes over the past 400 000 years reconstructed from the Vostok ice core.
Source: The Open University: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172089
Today’s current global warming trend is significant in one respect - it is predominantly anthropogenic, i.e.,
the result of human activities.
Does Global Warming Matter?
This question is never directly addressed in TAPing into Climate Change because the activity focuses more
on the science and less on the ethics and politics. Climate change science is limited to understanding and
predicting changes to global temperatures, sea level, rainfall patterns, and how this may affect soil
chemistry, harvest times and how agricultural practices may have to adapt. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 4th Assessment Report), a minimum of 207 million
people in Latin America, Asia and Africa will not have enough water inside a decade. In Asia, an extra 130
million people will be at risk of hunger by the middle of the century. By 2100, crop revenues in Africa will
drop 90 percent. Rising sea levels will wipe out more cultivated land in Bangladesh than anywhere in the
world. By 2050, rice production is expected to drop 10 percent and wheat production by 30 percent. While
science can predict with varying degrees of certainty the events that may be caused by global warming, it’s
the responsibility of human conscience to reason whether any of this matters.
Given that climate change is most certainly anthropogenic, should humankind bear the responsibility for
the deaths that will inevitable result from famines, diseases, displacement of communities and mass
migrations?
It may cost trillions of dollars to stabilise carbon dioxide levels to say, 1990 levels but is this price
acceptable if an immeasurable number of deaths are to be prevented? Should society even put a price tag
on a human life? These are some of the stark ethical questions that must be addressed.
13
Sources of Information
Download PowerPoint presentation “Tapping into Climate Change”
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupId=693643&ResourceID=3908067
Download a copy of all the climate sceptics’ claims, data, warrants, backings and associated rebuttals, fully
labelled:
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupID=693643&ResourceId=2009137
Download resource materials: climate sceptics’ claims only, with associated data, warrants and backings unlabelled. Use this resource to cut out and laminate cards.
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupID=693643&ResourceId=2009138
Download resource materials: climate advocates’ rebuttals only, with associated data, warrants and
backings - unlabelled. Use this resource to cut out and laminate cards.
http://www.school-portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupID=693643&ResourceId=2009139
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Website. All IPCC reports can be downloaded
from here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
EPICA. (10 June 2004). Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature 429, 623-628
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02599.html
S. K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler & J. Beer. (28 October 2004). Unusual activity of
the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years, Nature 431, 1084–1087
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck (2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global
Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325–1337
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1
Open University
Self-contained, comprehensive and accessible resource for teachers all about global warming:
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1526
Great summary on “What do we know about recent climate change?”
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172099
The meaning of ‘consensus’: peer review and the IPCC process. Very good How Science Works resource
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172093
The human impact on the atmosphere: the coming of the industrial age
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172081
University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/
14
The Met Office website gives some in-depth information about the science behind climate change.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed. A good round-up of the most common climate myths and
misconceptions.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
Skeptical Science. Examining the science of global warming scepticism
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Global Monitoring Division.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/
Provides good explanation of modeling and projecting future climate. Also, take part in modeling climate
change!
http://www.climateprediction.net/
Sir David Attenborough: “The Truth About Climate Change”. If previous website comes across as a little
too technical, then this YouTube clip illustrates clearly the predictive power of modelling the climate
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
Australian Antarctic Survey – good website on ice cores
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
Exemplary Writing from Introductory Writing Subjects at MIT - Angles 2008 is the inaugural issue of a
magazine that publishes exemplary writing by students enrolled in one of MIT's introductory writing
subjects.
“Temperature and CO2 Correlations Found in Ice Core Records”
http://web.mit.edu/angles2008/angles_Emmanuel_Quiroz.html
The Climate Change Website - definitive guide to Climate Change
http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/contents.php
This is the first post in a 4-part series on the connection between the sun, sunspots, and climate. Very
readable and understandable blog
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/solarvariation
“Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age”; posted 10.06.08; NASA and sun spots.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/spotless_sun.html
ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2007) “Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new study in
Science suggests, contrary to past inferences from ice core records”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927154905.htm
Great website for graphics and for making climate change data accessible to the public through a collection
of figures and images that accurately highlight and describe key global warming issues.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
Climate and the Carboniferous Period
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
15
Climate Action Network Canada. This web page contains a concise summary of the science and issues
pertaining to climate change
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/issues/cc-primer.html#3
The ESPERE Association website: Environmental Science Published for Everybody Around the Earth.
This page explains clearly the effect of positive feedback as more water evaporates
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/254.html
Climate Change 1 of 12: The IPCC and Prior Climate Predictions. Taken from Spring 2008 webcasts of
Physics For Future Presidents. Lecture by Richard A Muller at Berkeley University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis
From approximately 4 minutes into video clip, Richard Muller discusses the history of setting up the IPCC.
Good How Science works opportunity - How do you influence the culture of climatology particularly
when you think there are mistakes in data analysis (soon after the 7th minute)? Would recommend
watching all 12 YouTube clips. Suitable for sixth formers and students reluctant to carry out extensive
literary research.
Plausible Climate Sceptic Websites and YouTube clips
Global warming: why cut one 3,000th of a degree? Thought provoking article by Bjørn Lomborg who is
adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and the author of Cool It: The Sceptical
Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. Examines the economics of climate change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4849167.ece
Australian website “dedicated to expose the fallacy of anthropogenic or man-made global warming
(AGW)”
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/climate-change.html
“Don’t Panic”. Takes a look at climate sensitivity models. Suitable for a scientifically literate audience.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8
Concludes that large assumptions in positive feedback make CO2 warming forecasts catastrophic (runaway
greenhouse effect), which are hard to justify in a long-term stable process like climate, particularly since
temperature history over last 125 years does not support catastrophic levels of feedback.
“Climate Change: is CO2 the cause? Part 1”: Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
From 9 minutes, argument is forwarded that global warming needs to be put into context. Temperature
trends appear to be dependent on chosen time scales. Really compelling arguments, which have been
incorporated into this TAPping into Climate Change activity.
“Climate Change: is CO2 the cause? Part 2”. Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Magnitude of climate change is discussed. How biodiversity has had to adapt to larger magnitudes of
climate change in the past so modern climate change should not pose any new challenges to biodiversity.
Rate at which temperatures have changed over last 500 000 years is analysed. Asserts that modern times
are not that unusual. Convincing climate sceptic arguments, which have been incorporated into this
TAPping into Climate Change activity.
16
References
EPICA. (10 June 2004). Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core. Nature 429, 623-628
Bennett, J. (2007). Talking Science: the research evidence on the use of small-group discussions in science
teaching. York: University of York, Department of Educational Studies.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. (1994) Constructing Scientific Knowledge in
the Classroom, Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
IPCC 4th Assessment Report, (2007), Chapter 5 “Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level”
IPCC 3rd Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Summary for Policymakers”
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
17
Appendix
List of Claims/Rebuttals
Sceptics
Advocates
There is no proof that the observed temperature
increase is due to the current build up of greenhouse
gases.
While there have been large variations in climate over
the course of Earth history, paleoclimatic evidence can
often tie these to specific events, such as variations in
Earth orbit, changes in solar activity or changes in
atmospheric composition.
We should be more worried about an impending ice
age than global warming
A new ice age will be unlikely for perhaps another
15,000 years
The rate of temperature change ( oC per century) in
recent times is very unremarkable when compared to
that the last 5000 years
Global warming stopped in 1998
The rate of change of temperature that we observe is
indeed much slower than expected. The main reason
for this is due to global dimming.
While 1998 was an unusually hot year due to El Nino,
the long term trend since 1998 is still that of warming.
The validity of climate models can be tested against
climate history.
The Medieval Warm Period may have been partly a
regional phenomenon.
Climate is too complex for computer models to make
accurate predictions
Global warming is nothing new.
Climate scientists make false claims
The majority of climatologists in the 1970s did not
believe we were going into another ice age
If scientists can't predict the weather next week, then
they cannot predict how Earth’s climate will change
over the next hundred years.
This argument betrays a misunderstanding of the
difference between weather, which is chaotic and
unpredictable and climate, which is weather averaged
out over time.
Present levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented for
the long period of geological history that scientists are
able to analyse from gas samples trapped in the frozen
bubbles of deep ice cores.
The relatively tiny amount of CO2 produced by human
activity has a negligible effect on climate change
The sun is mainly responsible for current global
warming
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the
70's when the modern global warming trend began.
Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is not the cause of
global warming
Does temperature rise cause a CO2 rise or the other
way around? A common misconception is that you can
only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is
both.
Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving
global warming
Regional cooling does not disprove global warming. In
any case, Antarctica has warmed overall over the past
50 years
18