Education the New Form of Segregation Assignment

Education the New Form of Segregation - Assignment Example The assignment "Education the New Form of Segregation" analyzes the article "A Future Segregated By Science? The Opinion Pages" by M.C. Blow. Blow in his article suggests that there is a new emerging parameter under which the American society is being divided based on science and STEM-based education and employment.The author directs our attention to the development and progress of historical injustices such as economic disenfranchisement of the African Americans. The article presents irrefutable facts such as the chronology of the growth of the STEM jobs in the coming decade. The projection of the growth of STEM jobs is more impending than non-STEM jobs. The main strength of the article is the statistical evidence. Blow systematically explored the data presented from credible institutions such as the national math and science initiative and the USA today. He assesses the admission and interest that black and monitories have in STEM-related courses and subjects. The research in the a rticle shows that the black population receives about 7% of all STEM-related bachelor’s degrees and even lower number of these professions gets hired. About 6% blacks and other minorities such as Hispanics hold STEM jobs in most of the prestigious companies and leading institutions. The weakness in the article is that the argument of the author fails to offer a solution on how best to improve on diversity in the workplace. Blow compares gainful employment to access the achievements of the black race and other minorities.

How Taubman Technique Essay Example for Free

How Taubman Technique Essay How Taubman Technique can be applied to young beginners piano learning- using traditional materials Background information With hundreds of years of evolution in the study of elementary piano, nowadays materials of this sort have been widely available, perhaps even gone rampant. This article argues the effectiveness of solely relying on certain elementary piano methods to teach, without the incorporation of a more holistic approach to piano playing. The beneficiaries of the renowned Taubman approach to piano technique are mostly injured concert pianists, conservatory students, and piano teachers, people who lready have more or less a certain degree of piano proficiency. Since Taubman approach is so effective in helping intermediate and advance pianists, I would like to experiment the application of it to young beginning childrens piano lesson. Seeing that systematic materials for young beginner based on Taubmans approach are extremely limited, my goal is not only to incorporate part of Taubmans ideas to the standard beginning teaching, but to suggest a way to make it an essential part of teaching, using existing beginning materials. This article will discuss how the Taubman Technique can be systematically taught, learned in young beginners lessons with traditional materials, using the Alfreds Basic Piano Library lesson series as a model. The need to incorporate a more holistic approach to beginning piano teaching There is a huge array of beginning piano materials- Hal Leonard, the Music Tree, Alfreds Basic Piano Library, Piano Adventure and so on. The methodology each publishing company varies slightly. Hal Leonard Piano Student Piano Library starts with off- staff notation recognition, and the Music Tree starts with recognition of roups of two and three black notes. Most of the companies sell books introducing theory, lessons, and other activities at a sequence. For example, Hal Lenard has lesson books, technique books, theory books, ear training books, game books tc. , and in the first page of lesson book, a chart is used to explain the sequence. None of the piano methods is perfect or complete; each has its own unique combination of strengths and weaknesses. Contrary to popular belief, a child doesnt become great by going through the designated steps in a beginning lesson book. To know simple heory, history of mus ic, and enjoy some fun piano games may be important for a 6- year-old beginner, but its not the most important thing to make a good pianist. A young beginner becomes great when his coordination with the instrument is properly developed. We make motions to produce music, therefore, music and technique are inseparable, and technique is coordination. (Lister-Sink) The and young beginning students, its not so much as to pound the concepts on paper into their brains- the head knowledge, rather, its the connection between their body and the instrument they feel that sticks- the body knowledge. Without a deliberate emphasis on teaching in the physical aspect of playing, the teachers found the most popular piano method books insufficient to help the student reach his full potential. Thats why there are so many people who quit after learning the piano for couple years, and so many advanced students, even those in the conservatories, suffer piano related injury. That makes me wonder, what can supplement my teaching with the Alfreds Basic Piano Library materials, or more precisely, what makes the material stay with the students, how to ingrain the sense of playing to the students. I suppose its not about the methods, its about the truth in the mechanisms of piano playing. Since its the people, human beings, who invented piano and developed its technique, the piano technique must be something thats inherently natural, and there must be a set of principles that can solve any pianistic problems. Through couple lessons with Certified Taubman teachers and research, I found out there are governing principles thats beyond the scope of existing materials in piano teaching. These principles need to be included in the very first lessons, regardless of what material used. Why using the Taubman concept to teach Started in 1976 by Dorothy Taubman, a New York piano teacher, Taubman approach is a ground breaking analysis of the invisible motions that function underneath a virtuoso technique. Ms. Taubman and her analysis helped pianists overcome technical limitations as well as cure playing-related injuries. Before meeting Tauman, American pianist Leon Fleisher and professor of Peabody Institute of Music was forced to play with only one hand for many years due to playing related hand injuries.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer Against Hitler

Dietrich Bonhoeffer Against Hitler Dietrich Bonhoeffer is remembered for many things. He was a highly influential theologian and preacher. His importance as a theologian has only increased since his death. However, he is also remembered for his opposition against Nazi Germany. For the purposes of this paper, I look at three aspects of Bonhoeffers involvement. First, I examine his statements against Hitler and the extent to which he sought to make his opinions known. Second, I consider his involvement in conspiracies to eliminate Hitler. Lastly, I examine Bonhoeffers reflections on his actions, which he wrote while in prison. Although Bonhoeffers actions may raise many questions of morality and ethics, there is no doubt that he played a significant role within the opposition of Nazi Germany. When many people study the Holocaust, they fault Christians for remaining silent as Hitler performed one horrific act after another. Many would say that silence was just as horrible as killing the victims. Bonhoeffer cannot be faulted for this. Rather, he proved to be very outspoken. One of his most popular speeches was that on a German radio show. He was to speak on The Younger Generations Altered View of the Concept of Fuhrer in the Berlin Potsdamerstrasse Voxhaus (broadcasting house). Dietrich was not hesitant to express how he felt about the Fuhrer principle. This speech was given on February 1, 1933, and Hitler had just risen to power days prior. Much of Bonhoeffers words addressed the notion that the youth had been led astray concerning their concept of the Fuhrer. His boldest statement was said toward the end of the broadcast. However, once broadcasters realized that these words should not be heard by others, he was turned off. This was proof that Joseph Goebbels (the Nazi min ister of propaganda) had most likely gained the control of the radio station. Bonhoeffer stated that his speech was carefully planned to fit the allotted time. His final sentences read, should the leader surrender to the wishes of his followers, who would always make him their idol- then the image of the Leader will gradually become the image of the misleaderà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Leaders or offices which set themselves up as gods mock God (Bethge, pg. 260). His entire speech was later copied and distributed. Bonhoeffer felt that the Fuhrer principle was nothing short of idolatry. Therefore, he was implying that Hitler demanded his people to worship him. This was contempt. This proved to be one of Dietrich Bonhoeffers first outbursts on Hitler. However, there were many others of the sort. There is an account in which Bishop Bell gives that he speaks of Bonhoeffer being very outspoken against Germany. Bell recalls sitting with him amongst others at a friends home in Geneva. Dietrich is approached with the question about what he is praying for. He responds with very harsh statements. If you want to know the truth, I pray for the defeat of my nation, for I believe that is the only way to pay for all the suffering which my country has caused in the world (Bosanquet, pg. 229). He was much convicted about the acts of injustice in which Hitler was repeatedly performing. Bonhoeffer knew that the annihilation of the Jews was wrong, and he was not ashamed to let others know his beliefs. Bell gives an account of a later statement that Bonhoeffer made, If we claim to be Christians there is no room for expediency. Hitler is Antichrist; therefore we must go on with our work and eliminate him, whether he be successful or not (Bosanquet, pg. 229). He felt that it was necessary for him to aid in the elimination of the Fuhrer. Next, I study Bonhoeffers involvement in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. He participated in the Abwehr, which was the military counter intelligence. Within this group was also his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi. It is said that Dohnanyi was directly involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. However, Bonhoeffer had somewhat of a different role. It was his duty to contact other countries to gain their support if the assassination were to prove successful. He spent much time traveling, making others aware of the resistance movement. He felt that it was important to know that they had allies assuming that the German government was taken over. Upon visiting Geneva, he attempted to convince them of this, What they needed, Dietrich explained, was a signal from the Allies that once the Nazis were overthrown, the Allies were prepared to recognize a new German government (Raum, pg. 126). This was clearly a well thought out plan. Dietrich traveled to Norway, Italy, as well as Switzerland to gain the support of Bishop Bell. He also attempted to make connections with other German resistance groups, but difficulties arose. A very important assassination attempt took place on March 7, 1943. Hitler was traveling to East Prussia by way of plane. A gift disguised as a box of Brandy was given to him. However, it was a bomb. The bomb was sneaked onto the plane, but it never ignited. Involved in this attempt were members of the Abwehr. This included General Oster, Admiral Canaris, Dohnanyi, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, and General Henning von Tresckow (Raum, pg. 132). Due to the failed attempt, the Abwehr decided to try again. They developed another strategy to kill Hitler. Hitler was originally scheduled to attend a ceremony at an army museum on March 16, 1943, however he rescheduled for March 21st. Colonel von Gersdorff was supposed to get the bomb into Hitlers presence without causing much commotion, even if this meant killing himself in the process. Needless to say, this attempt failed as well. Fortunately, they were not caught in the attempt to execute the assassination. Bonhoeffer was at home with his family during this attempt; however he was expecting a phone call announcing Hitlers assassination, and was disappointed to hear of the failed endeavor. There was in fact a third attempt to kill Hitler, but Bonhoeffer had already been arrested. He was arrested in 1943 in connection with the assassination attempt on Hitler (Scott and Cavanaugh, pg. 139). However, since the Abwehr was a secret group, many of the documents were hidden or destroyed. As a result, there was limited evidence. Much of the evidence used to arrest Bonhoeffer was his connection to Operation 7. The operation was designed to help to free several Jews. The Abwehr was attempting to help the Jews to Switzerland. The fact that Bonhoeffer was involved in several attempts to kill Hitler raises many questions. Due to the fact that Dietrich considered himself a devout member of the Confessing Church makes one question how his beliefs would support such an act. However, Dietrich does not express any conviction about his involvement in the multiple plots to murder Hitler. Bonhoeffer clearly felt that the assassination of Hitler was the last resort. Hitlers actions were proving to gain momentum and were spinning out of control. Therefore Dietrich felt that it was necessary to take action. Through the reading of his writings leading up to his death, he does not seem to be living in fear. He almost appears to be welcoming death. In the first sentence of a writing titled Death, he states Come now thou greatest of feasts on the journey to freedom eternal (Bosanquet, pg. 265). As one can see, Bonhoeffer appears to be at great peace with his fate. Many within the prison commented that Bonhoeffer seemed to be very lively and almost happy. Others would argue that this was due to the fact that the Soviets were closing in and that the prisoners were anticipating liberation. However, fellow prisoners describe it as an inner joy that he experienced. This joy Bonhoeffer desired to share with others. During his imprisonment at Tegel while awaiting trial, many descri be Bonhoeffer as victorious. Bonhoeffer experienced a change of heart. As a result, he no longer viewed his own sufferings within prison as something of which he should be concerned. Rather he stated, we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously not our own sufferings, but the sufferings of God in the world (Bosanquet, pg. 271). Bonhoeffer viewed the acts of injustice as not only actions taken against innocent victims, he saw them as actually taking unjust actions toward God. It appears as if Dietrich did not view his involvement in the Abwehr as wrong. Through his writings in prison and the comments of others, he had a clear conscience and eagerly awaited his arrival in Heaven. In conclusion, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a very influential person during the World War II and especially in opposition to the Nazi Regime. As one can see in his radio broadcast, from the beginning he was very outspoken against Hitler and the Fuhrer principle. He was very bold in comparing this principle to the mockery of God. He played a very active role in the military counter intelligence (Abwehr). Bonhoeffer never hesitated in completing his assignments to gain support of the actions to overthrow the German government. Many would agree that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was very confident that his actions against Hitler were not wrong. Rather, he felt that they were his duty as a result of a conviction to do the right thing. His statements on death and also his inner joy as a result of a relationship with God greatly support this claim.

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea Essay -- essays research papers

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea Some time ago, I decided to read Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, by Jules Verne. I figured that because it was so well known it must be an extremely interesting book. In addition, it was science fiction, the one area that I was always interested. My assumption was only partially correct, for I only was to a degree interested in the piece of writing. When Jules Verne was writing this book, he must have been reading some incredibly dull science book the day before, for that was what the book was written as. The style of writing was utterly against my tastes, and though the plot was moderately interesting, the style of writing really ruined it. Often, the author will trail off describing some marine animal for pages at a time. Two entire chapters were almost entirely this! However, the setting and characters of the story seemed to be well thought out. Nevertheless, 20,000 Leagues under the Sea was an extremely tedious volume. When the story w as introduced, Jules Verne described M. Aronnax, the main character, whose love for marine biology was more important than anything else to him did. This immediately led to the international crisis about a bizarre aquatic creature, which immediately dragged M. Aronnax into the action. Due to his expertise on the matter, the public expected Pierre to be the one to solve this mystery. M. Aronnax, under all this pressure, concluded that the animal was to be called the Narwhale. At first, the mat...

Statue of the Blessed Virgin :: Religion Prayers Irish Papers

Statue of the Blessed Virgin One of the best-kept secrets of Irish culture is the moving statues phenomenon that erupted in the mid-eighties all over the republic of Ireland. In August 1985, there were reports from the small town of Mountcollins that a statue of the Blessed Virgin had been seen to move. In the following months there were reports of the same phenomenon coming from small rural areas all over the country. Many people traveled to county Limerick to view the statue at Garryowen, following reports that some people had seen blood coming from one of the hands of Our Lady. The Rosary was recited several times each night as hundreds converged on the shrine. I myself went to once such gathering late at night at Mountcollins to see what was going on. The crowd chanted the Rosary over and over with their eyes glued to the statue of the Virgin Mary that was standing up in an alcove of a fake grotto similar to hundreds all over Ireland. It was dark and the statue had a spotlight on it. Behind the faithful, the re was a wood with the main road beyond. The Rosary recitals gradually gave way to "Mother of God, pray for us" that quickly became a rather feverish chanting of "Pray for us, pray for us, PRAY FOR US"! that got faster and more desperate as time pasted. Scenes like this sprang up nationwide with new sightings everyday. Everyone was talking about it at the pub, church or school and the media fanned the flames even more with daily coverage. Each person you spoke to who believed it was a true miracle, claimed a unique experience of the phenomena. Some said they saw the statue's hand move a bit or that a tear feel from her eye or most commonly the apparition of Christ's face upon the statue of Mary's face. The most skeptical about the whole rumpus was actually the clergy who found themselves dealing with a religious happening that was not within their control with impromptu prayer gatherings springing up everywhere. Their calls for caution in the media were generally disregarded by the members of the public caught up in the excitement. Some of this excitement began to turn a bit sour when rumors began to circulate that these miracles were actually dire omens of a coming apocalypse. It was reported in the papers that some woman claimed t o have had a vision that this was the beginning of a series of pre-apocalyptic portents that heralded the end of everything.

student :: essays research papers

Organizations have long sought to provide employees with consolidated desktop access to the various applications, business processes, and sources (both technology and human) required to perform knowledge-based work. But as recently as five years ago, the desktop environment was still woefully inadequate to this task. The ability to access aggregated enterprise information on-demand required a more reflective, process-centric model of desktop computing-that is, if someone were to look over your shoulder as you work, would their view of your desktop reflect the nature of the work (i.e., the business processes) in which you're engaged? The classic desktop computing interface did not allow this kind of on-demand access-much of the integration between information, enterprise apps, and business process still occurred in the "gray matter" between the ears of knowledge workers. The enterprise information portal (EIP) addresses this need.. At their core functional level, EIPs are all about access-a single point of personalized, on-line access to business information and knowledge sources, as well as, increasingly, real-time access to core applications and processes. Key enabling technologies here include advances in security (including sophisticated directory/authentication services), the proliferation of "portlets" or "gadgets" (API-like chunks of code for plugging enterprise apps into the portal), as well as the maturation and widespread adoption of XML (for "active" or "intelligent" content). As the technology behind portals evolves, so do the ways in which enterprises are using enterprise portals to achieve their business goals. Originally adopted by small departments and subsets of employees, the portal concept has expanded to encompass virtually all employees as well as the extended organization's partners and su ppliers. Enterprise portals are reaching all the way out to individual customers, providing them with a personalized view of the organization or enterprise.

Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming?

Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? A REVIEW OF THE FACTS APRIL 2007 AUTHORS James Wang, Ph. D. Bill Chameides, Ph. D. Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts: †¢ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. †¢ Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm.Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice. †¢ Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique â€Å"fingerprint. † †¢ Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0. 7? C , with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades. The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The U. S. National Academy of Sciences—the independent organization of the country’s most renowned scientists established by Congress to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues—has concluded: â€Å"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Some argue that the recent global warming is due to natural fluctuations and not to human activities. This argument and its fallacies are discussed below. Argument 1: CO2 is not coming from human activities CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale? The Facts Natural processes e mit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates.This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique â€Å"fingerprint† that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. Argument 2: No one really knows why the climate variesThe global climate has fluctuated considerably over the Earth’s history, either for unknown reasons or because of â€Å"internal variability† in the climate system. We do not know enough about the climate system to attribute the present global warming to any specific cause. The Facts It is true that the Earthâ⠂¬â„¢s climate has exhibited wide swings over geologic time due to natural processes. However, scientists have reasonable qualitative explanations for most of the significant variations in 2 limate over geologic time;1 they can be largely attributed to specific processes, not to unknown internal oscillations. Many of the major climatic changes can be traced to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). Others can be linked to specific events (such as the impact of a comet or meteorite or the assembly or breakup of supercontinents) that led to large changes in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases.For more recent times (the past millennium), scientists have been able to quantitatively attribute the major temperature fluctuations to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. These natural processes can not explain the current warming. Argument 3: The Medie val Warm Period disproves global warming The current warming trend is analogous to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Since the MWP was obviously a natural event, the current warming is also likely caused by natural processes. The FactsThe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) refers to a relatively warm period lasting from about the 10th to the 14th century. 2 However, the initial evidence for the MWP was largely based on data3 gathered from Europe, and more recent analyses indicate that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. A number of reconstructions of millennium-scale global temperatures have indicated that the maximum globally averaged temperature during the MWP was not as extreme as present-day temperatures and that the warming was regional rather than global. Perhaps the most well-known of these is that of Michael Mann and colleagues (Nature, 392, 1998, pg. 779).Their reconstruction produced the so-called â€Å"hockey stick† graphic that contributed to this conclusion in the 2001 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: â€Å"The†¦'Medieval Warm Period' appear(s) to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. † The accuracy of the â€Å"hockey stick† graphic was widely discussed in the press when the Mann et al. methodology was criticized by McIntyre and McKitrick (Geophys. Res. Lettr, 32, 2005, pg. L03710). Less attention was given to subsequent studies, such as that of Moberg and colleagues (Nature, 433, 2005, pg. 13) and Osborn and Briffa (Science, 311, 2006, pg. 841) that were based on different, independent methodologies but reached conclusions similar to Mann. Observations of melting high altitude glaciers are perhaps even more telling. Andean glaciers that have been intact for more than 5,000 years are now rapidly melting (Thompson et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 103, 2006, pg. 10536). If the MWP was truly global, these glaciers would not have sur vived. More generally, it is a logical fallacy to argue that because the climate has changed in the past due to natural causes, the current warming trend must also be due to natural causes.The debate over the magnitude and causes of earlier climate change such as the MWP is of scientific interest, but it does not invalidate the considerable direct scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases have been causing the Earth to warm recently. Argument 4: Recent predictions of a new ice age disprove global warming In the 1970s climate scientists were saying an ice age was imminent. Now they say the Earth is warming. They don’t know what they are talking about. The FactsThe Earth’s climate for the past 2 million years has been characterized by ice ages lasting close to 100,000 years, punctuated by relatively short (10,000- to 30,000-year) warm periods or â€Å"interglacials. † The swing from glacial to interglacial is caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun amplified by natural feedbacks involving greenhouse gases (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). The Earth entered the present interglacial about 10,000 years ago. All things being equal (i. e. , in the absence of a large human-produced source of CO2) it is highly likely that the Earth will swing back into a glacial period or ice age.But this will not occur for thousands of years. 3 As early as the 19th century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming on time scales of decades to centuries—much shorter than the fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to increase and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat.This led some scientists to become c oncerned about global cooling and, in turn, to headlines in the popular press about an imminent ice age. What the skeptics fail to admit is that within the scientific literature—as opposed to the popular press—global warming remained a serious concern. Many scientists of the time argued that whatever the cause of the cooling, natural or otherwise, it would be eventually overshadowed by the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by 1. 5 to 4. oC (Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, NAS Press, 1979) and shortly thereafter a resumption of the upward trend in temperatures was detected. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified, and programs on an international scale have been organized. More and more data are included in computer models that are capable of recreating past trends and more precisel y predicting future scenarios. We now know that the mid-20th century pause in global warming was caused by pollution from burning coal, which produced tiny particles or aerosols that blocked the energy from the sun.As aerosol emissions were controlled but greenhouse gas pollution continued to increase, the cooling effect of the aerosols was overwhelmed by the greenhouse gases, and global warming resumed. Argument 5: Scientists cannot â€Å"prove† current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference. The Facts It is of course true that, in a complex system like climate, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative; i. e. that natural processes are not causing the current warming. What we can do is eliminate every possible natural explanation that can be posited. Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earthâ€⠄¢s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased absorption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or â€Å"albedo†; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere.Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Change in solar output from 1980 to 2005. Figure 1 shows the relative change in solar output determined from two of satellite measurements over a two-decade period. The data show variability in solar output corresponding to the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no secular trend. Source: After Lean and Froelich, 2006. 4 Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since. 4 The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2).This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 3 08, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases. Figure 2.Change in heat content of ocean 1955 to 2005 Source: After Levitus et al. 2005. FIGURE 2 SHOWS THE RELATIVE CHANGE IN THE HEAT COTENT OF THE OCEAN FROM 1955 TO 2005 BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OCEAN TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. THE DATA SHOW SHORT TERM VARIABILITY BUT A CLEAR UPWARD TREND ON DECADAL TIME-SCALES. Conclusion †¢ The Medieval Warm Period does not represent an analogy to the warming of the late 20th century, for which scientists have independent evidence of human causation, and the evidence strongly suggests that the MWP was a regional, rather than a global phenomenon. Our understanding of the climate system is sufficient to provide qualitative models for most global or hemispheric climatic variations over geologic history and quantitative models for variations over the past millennium. †¢ The Earth’s climate may return to ice age conditions in thousands of years, but this does not preclude devastating effects from global warming over the next few centuries. 5 †¢ All known natural explanations for the current global warming trend have been eliminated by direct observations.The human-intensified greenhouse effect provides the only quantitative explanation for the current warming trend. About the authors Dr. Wang received his doctorate from Harvard University and works as a climate scientist at Environmental Defense. He has published several peer-reviewed papers on the global methane budget and was the author of â€Å"The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming,† which was read into the congressional record by Senator John McCain in 2005. The report is available at http://www. undoit. org/pdfs/mythsvfacts. pdf. Dr. Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, is a member of the U.S. National A cademy of Sciences and has been named a National Associate of the National Academies. He is also an American Geophysical Union Fellow, and has received the American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Award. Dr. Chameides has served as editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and is the author or coauthor of more than 120 scientific publications and five books. He received his doctorate from Yale University. The explanations are qualitative instead of quantitative because we do not have quantitative data from these events in the distant past to construct their exact histories. It has been suggested based on temperature reconstructions and model simulations that the MWP may have been caused by increased solar activity or a dearth of volcanic activity. 3 th Because worldwide temperature measurements do not exist before the 19 century, temperature records before th the 19 century are based on reconstructions of the temperature from the variations in temperature-sensitive proxies (e. g. , tree rings, isotopes in ice cores). 4 These variations are possibly due to changes in the concentrations of atmospheric aerosols produced from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. 1 6 Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? A REVIEW OF THE FACTS APRIL 2007 AUTHORS James Wang, Ph. D. Bill Chameides, Ph. D. Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts: †¢ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. †¢ Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm.Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice. †¢ Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique â€Å"fingerprint. † †¢ Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0. 7? C , with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades. The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The U. S. National Academy of Sciences—the independent organization of the country’s most renowned scientists established by Congress to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues—has concluded: â€Å"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Some argue that the recent global warming is due to natural fluctuations and not to human activities. This argument and its fallacies are discussed below. Argument 1: CO2 is not coming from human activities CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale? The Facts Natural processes e mit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates.This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique â€Å"fingerprint† that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. Argument 2: No one really knows why the climate variesThe global climate has fluctuated considerably over the Earth’s history, either for unknown reasons or because of â€Å"internal variability† in the climate system. We do not know enough about the climate system to attribute the present global warming to any specific cause. The Facts It is true that the Earthâ⠂¬â„¢s climate has exhibited wide swings over geologic time due to natural processes. However, scientists have reasonable qualitative explanations for most of the significant variations in 2 limate over geologic time;1 they can be largely attributed to specific processes, not to unknown internal oscillations. Many of the major climatic changes can be traced to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). Others can be linked to specific events (such as the impact of a comet or meteorite or the assembly or breakup of supercontinents) that led to large changes in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases.For more recent times (the past millennium), scientists have been able to quantitatively attribute the major temperature fluctuations to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. These natural processes can not explain the current warming. Argument 3: The Medie val Warm Period disproves global warming The current warming trend is analogous to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Since the MWP was obviously a natural event, the current warming is also likely caused by natural processes. The FactsThe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) refers to a relatively warm period lasting from about the 10th to the 14th century. 2 However, the initial evidence for the MWP was largely based on data3 gathered from Europe, and more recent analyses indicate that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. A number of reconstructions of millennium-scale global temperatures have indicated that the maximum globally averaged temperature during the MWP was not as extreme as present-day temperatures and that the warming was regional rather than global. Perhaps the most well-known of these is that of Michael Mann and colleagues (Nature, 392, 1998, pg. 779).Their reconstruction produced the so-called â€Å"hockey stick† graphic that contributed to this conclusion in the 2001 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: â€Å"The†¦'Medieval Warm Period' appear(s) to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. † The accuracy of the â€Å"hockey stick† graphic was widely discussed in the press when the Mann et al. methodology was criticized by McIntyre and McKitrick (Geophys. Res. Lettr, 32, 2005, pg. L03710). Less attention was given to subsequent studies, such as that of Moberg and colleagues (Nature, 433, 2005, pg. 13) and Osborn and Briffa (Science, 311, 2006, pg. 841) that were based on different, independent methodologies but reached conclusions similar to Mann. Observations of melting high altitude glaciers are perhaps even more telling. Andean glaciers that have been intact for more than 5,000 years are now rapidly melting (Thompson et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 103, 2006, pg. 10536). If the MWP was truly global, these glaciers would not have sur vived. More generally, it is a logical fallacy to argue that because the climate has changed in the past due to natural causes, the current warming trend must also be due to natural causes.The debate over the magnitude and causes of earlier climate change such as the MWP is of scientific interest, but it does not invalidate the considerable direct scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases have been causing the Earth to warm recently. Argument 4: Recent predictions of a new ice age disprove global warming In the 1970s climate scientists were saying an ice age was imminent. Now they say the Earth is warming. They don’t know what they are talking about. The FactsThe Earth’s climate for the past 2 million years has been characterized by ice ages lasting close to 100,000 years, punctuated by relatively short (10,000- to 30,000-year) warm periods or â€Å"interglacials. † The swing from glacial to interglacial is caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun amplified by natural feedbacks involving greenhouse gases (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). The Earth entered the present interglacial about 10,000 years ago. All things being equal (i. e. , in the absence of a large human-produced source of CO2) it is highly likely that the Earth will swing back into a glacial period or ice age.But this will not occur for thousands of years. 3 As early as the 19th century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming on time scales of decades to centuries—much shorter than the fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to increase and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat.This led some scientists to become c oncerned about global cooling and, in turn, to headlines in the popular press about an imminent ice age. What the skeptics fail to admit is that within the scientific literature—as opposed to the popular press—global warming remained a serious concern. Many scientists of the time argued that whatever the cause of the cooling, natural or otherwise, it would be eventually overshadowed by the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by 1. 5 to 4. oC (Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, NAS Press, 1979) and shortly thereafter a resumption of the upward trend in temperatures was detected. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified, and programs on an international scale have been organized. More and more data are included in computer models that are capable of recreating past trends and more precisel y predicting future scenarios. We now know that the mid-20th century pause in global warming was caused by pollution from burning coal, which produced tiny particles or aerosols that blocked the energy from the sun.As aerosol emissions were controlled but greenhouse gas pollution continued to increase, the cooling effect of the aerosols was overwhelmed by the greenhouse gases, and global warming resumed. Argument 5: Scientists cannot â€Å"prove† current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference. The Facts It is of course true that, in a complex system like climate, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative; i. e. that natural processes are not causing the current warming. What we can do is eliminate every possible natural explanation that can be posited. Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earthâ€⠄¢s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased absorption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or â€Å"albedo†; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere.Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Change in solar output from 1980 to 2005. Figure 1 shows the relative change in solar output determined from two of satellite measurements over a two-decade period. The data show variability in solar output corresponding to the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no secular trend. Source: After Lean and Froelich, 2006. 4 Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since. 4 The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2).This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 3 08, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases. Figure 2.Change in heat content of ocean 1955 to 2005 Source: After Levitus et al. 2005. FIGURE 2 SHOWS THE RELATIVE CHANGE IN THE HEAT COTENT OF THE OCEAN FROM 1955 TO 2005 BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OCEAN TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. THE DATA SHOW SHORT TERM VARIABILITY BUT A CLEAR UPWARD TREND ON DECADAL TIME-SCALES. Conclusion †¢ The Medieval Warm Period does not represent an analogy to the warming of the late 20th century, for which scientists have independent evidence of human causation, and the evidence strongly suggests that the MWP was a regional, rather than a global phenomenon. Our understanding of the climate system is sufficient to provide qualitative models for most global or hemispheric climatic variations over geologic history and quantitative models for variations over the past millennium. †¢ The Earth’s climate may return to ice age conditions in thousands of years, but this does not preclude devastating effects from global warming over the next few centuries. 5 †¢ All known natural explanations for the current global warming trend have been eliminated by direct observations.The human-intensified greenhouse effect provides the only quantitative explanation for the current warming trend. About the authors Dr. Wang received his doctorate from Harvard University and works as a climate scientist at Environmental Defense. He has published several peer-reviewed papers on the global methane budget and was the author of â€Å"The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming,† which was read into the congressional record by Senator John McCain in 2005. The report is available at http://www. undoit. org/pdfs/mythsvfacts. pdf. Dr. Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, is a member of the U.S. National A cademy of Sciences and has been named a National Associate of the National Academies. He is also an American Geophysical Union Fellow, and has received the American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Award. Dr. Chameides has served as editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and is the author or coauthor of more than 120 scientific publications and five books. He received his doctorate from Yale University. The explanations are qualitative instead of quantitative because we do not have quantitative data from these events in the distant past to construct their exact histories. It has been suggested based on temperature reconstructions and model simulations that the MWP may have been caused by increased solar activity or a dearth of volcanic activity. 3 th Because worldwide temperature measurements do not exist before the 19 century, temperature records before th the 19 century are based on reconstructions of the temperature from the variations in temperature-sensitive proxies (e. g. , tree rings, isotopes in ice cores). 4 These variations are possibly due to changes in the concentrations of atmospheric aerosols produced from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. 1 6