The discussion continues...

I’ve included below two of the questions that we didn’t get to the other day. Please find some time over the next two weeks to post some of your thoughts and responses to these two questions. I’ll try to keep up, but if I don’t respond right away, look for me to do so over break. I look forward to your thoughts...

1) Climate change “skeptics” (their word; my word choice is “deniers”) often claim that the science of climate change is not being carried out appropriately. To begin a discussion of the true “scientific method”, please take a look at http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01. It’s a simple website, probably intended for an audience younger than you, but its content is right on target. Thoughts, comments? How does this differ from what you learned in primary school; how does it differ from what you believed before you read it? How do computer models of the global climate “fit” into the scientific process described in the website above?

2) In a nice synergy of accident, Elizabeth Kolbert contributed the segment at the end of Chapter 2 of Schmidt & Wolfe: Picturing the Science. Read that segment (pp. 70-71) and think about the way climate change is portrayed in the media, both locally (i.e. the Spectator) and nationally (USA Today, perhaps or even the Web); maybe even Google some articles to get a feel for it. Also read (or re-read) the segment at the end of Chapter 6 of Schmidt and Wolfe: Picturing the Science by Naomi Oreskes (pp.153-155). What are your thoughts on the reporting of climate change; is it generally “fair and balanced”? What does that phrase even mean in the context of reporting an inherently scientific story, but one with enormous socioeconomic implications? What sources do you trust; which do you exclude?

An Idea for Our Report

Hey everyone,

As the heating team met today after class, the idea came up to include a quote from the heating plant supervisor Jim Franklin. I bring this up to the whole class because I was wondering if for consistency, we would all like to include at least one quote in our respective sections. It could make our writing more personal as it did when Kolbert added her characters. Ours would be on a smaller scale, but I think it's something we should consider and decide on.

Also, maybe we would like to discuss consistency with photos as well. Would everyone be willing to commit to providing at least one photo for their section? We could use it at the beginning of each section with the heading, perhaps.

Finally, I have a separate question regarding the electricity team. This might be over your heads, but I hear every now and then that a lot of electronics take energy when they're plugged in even if they're turned off. I personally use a power bar for most of my electronics, and I turn it off every night. I'm curious to know if that makes any difference in my carbon footprint, and if so, could we promote the use of power bars for the campus especially with the student body living in the dorms?

Letter: Global warming evidence exists

When you have a minute or two, read Dr. Crispin Pierce's letter to the Spectator.  I've included a link to the on-line edition (which I hope will work-it's an awfully long URL).

Survey to be Opened on Later Date

Hello again, my fellow CNTers-

The Transportation Team (along with Dr. H and Robyn) met this morning for a bit of review work. While editing the survey, we came to the conclusion that with our potential participants already being swamped with surveys and midterms, our difficulty preparing multiple incentives, and the delay in finalizing our "year," we would be better off moving the survey to a later date.

The survey will now be sent out after spring break.

This means that we have a longer time to do test-runs of our survey for clarity and content, and a few more weeks to find incentives. If you have any ideas, suggestions, or incentive-connections, please contact me or another member of the Transportation Team right away and we will take care of it.

In addition, we have decided to use the 2009-2010 fiscal year for our data collection.

While this includes estimations, "Choice 3: July 1, 2009 - June 31, 2010" was by far the most popular choice of our classmates, as shown on our Timeline blog comments. This means that each of the teams using University-recorded data will need to view the data for May and June of previous years in order to estimate the carbon output for May and June 2010 (based on trend). The Transportation Team will be using the June and July 2009 transportation data as June and July 2010 in order to keep our data as accurate as possible. Though the estimations will result in a small drop of data-integrity and reliability, the vast majority of the class believed this to be our best option for the sake of relevance and clarity.

Until Friday,

Andi

Transportation Survey, Rough Draft 4

Hello, CNTers -

The external reviewer has replied and given us many constructive suggestions. I went through the survey and made the changes that I thought were appropriate and have emailed the Transportation Team with the edited version of our survey.
(In case you wanted an update on how it's going!)

Also, the Transportation Team is working hard on finding incentives for the survey. If you know of any ideas or have any great connections, please contact me at: krunnfae@uwec.edu so that we can finalize our prizes.

I will see you all on Friday,
Andi

It's All About Timing (elevated from a comment to a post by Dr H)

Because this is an important issue, and I'm afraid Andi's thoughtful summarizing of the situation will be missed where it is, I'm copying/pasting/posting it here to get your attention.  The rest of this is all from Andi.  (also, don't miss Lynn's post right below this one, which I don't want you to miss because it is so COOL!)

I agree with Elizabeth - we should quickly come to a decision; until we do, our survey and data-collecting are at a stand-still. I also agree with Isaac in that we absolutely cannot use data from two separate years. The transportation and University-usage data must be from the same year or our results will be more skewed than they would be from estimating one or the other. We have three year choices: July 1, 2008 - June 31, 2009 June 1, 2009 - May 31, 2010 July 1, 2009 - June 31, 2010 Below, I've commented on what I see as pro's and con's for each. Please let me know what you think, and let's make a decision.

Making and storing energy; learning from plants

I was checking out a Public Radio report on Methane bubbling up from the perma frost in Siberia and happened on this great article in Scientific American about storing energy like plants, by spliting water molecules. I always believed that plants have a lot to teach us.

"One drinking-water bottle could provide enough energy for an entire household in the developing world if Dan Nocera has his way. A chemist from M.I.T. and founder of the company Sun Catalytix, Nocera has developed a cobalt-based catalyst that allows him to store energy the same way plants do: by splitting water."

Check it out!
"Shift happens: Will Artificial Photosynthesis Power the World?" 

Maybe someday the mighty Chippewa will be our salvation for energy storage.