MITx course injects science into the global warming debate (MIT News)

MITx course injects science into the global warming debate
12.340x focuses on teaching students academic rigor, not rhetoric.
Steve Carson and Sara Sezun, Office of Digital Learning

January 17, 2014

global_warming_608x211In many public discussions of climate change, science takes a back seat to political agendas and rhetoric. But 12.340x (Global Warming Science), a new massive open online course from MITx now open for enrollment on the edX platform, aims to change that dynamic by providing a solid scientific view of what is really happening with global warming.

“We are trying to bring back some of the intellectual excitement that belongs to the field,” says Professor Kerry Emanuel, a co-teacher of the course whose research focuses on hurricanes. “This is a serious science course.”

The MITx course will use many of the lecture materials developed for the on-campus version of the course, along with new videos and visuals. The course will also include new exercises, problem sets, and a final exam, all tailored to the assessment tools available on the edX platform and developed with an eye on preserving the rigor of the course. “You have to have a background in mathematics up through differential equations, and a background in physics,” says Emanuel, the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science. “Our intent is that it will be as challenging as the classroom course.” Read more.

One thought on “MITx course injects science into the global warming debate (MIT News)

  1. In the debate on global warming / climate change I find discussion of Dome Fuji ice core samples missing. Specifically, the interglacial warm up temperatures of all interglacial peaks of the past 350,000 years, appear to be 3 to 4 degrees centigrade warmer than current average earth temperatures. Yet we hear admonitions to prevent the next 2 degrees of warming. Instead short term statistics are used and ignore these normal naturally occurring events. Additionally I hear rumblings of greenhouse gasses causing a reaction that could result in the rapid on slot of cooling and the resulting glacier. However according to the temperature analysis presented using Dome Fuji data, that is exactly what has always occurred normally and naturally without any assistance from man. Here is the NOAA web site link and chart with the black temperature line does anyone care to explain how this Dome Fuji data is flawed unsound science:
    Additionally does anyone care to explain the flawed science and data that went into all 42 global warming computer models that did not predict nor explain the warming plateau since 1997 and the initial IPCC discussion that predicted the cooling event could last through 2050.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s