Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

The forecast here is for cold. We've had SOME good weather but today it's cloudy and cold. Currently about 56 degrees. I have friends in Montana right now. The forecast for this weekend is up to a foot of snow at Glacier National Park. 4 inches of snow in some of the valleys. They are saying it could bring down power lines. Nobody likes to be without power in the snow. Especially in June.

I don't actually care how long it takes initially, but once a love of learning and solid foundation to take in new knowledge is established, then it's "go time". Personally, if I were worldwide education Czar, I would say this system would be great:

- Montessori self-paced schools replace elementary and middle schools (this requires good Montessori schools, not phoning-it-in style facilities).

- High school becomes foundational general education across a broad range, at the age where kids are able to take in a broader view. Probably 3 years, but could also be self-paced.

- College becomes a more modular, tighter institution with 12 month, 18 month, 24 month building block programs that prepare you for jobs. Some jobs require 1 block, but most would require 2, and some of the more advanced would require 3. Internships should be possible and heavily encouraged during this "block" phase. Need to change career? Pick a block or two and go back to school instead of hoping you can finagle your way into a different role at work that will teach you some new skillsets.

The government, instead of funding colleges broadly, would take the allotment-per-person they currently fund directly to universities and hold it for individuals...not to give them directly, but to only give the college as a "credit" that the student has to release when the student starts a block, helping ensure the funds do not go to general administrative bloat. Funds and grants for research would be handled with a separate budget, as they always should be.

High school would maintain a critical role, because without it in this plan, you could selectively get yourself to adulthood having dodged a general education by focusing your self-paced efforts and then your college "building blocks". This would be dangerous for kids but even moreso because it would encourage over-zealous parents to force their kids into narrow choices the parents want and the kids do not.

Almost any education plan for the US would be better than the current one.

It isn't as much about time spent, although it is, in my estimation, exceedingly long. It's more about what is taught and what isn't.

Assuming the means ($$) were available to bring class sizes down to a teachable number, there remains the wasted repetition and antiquated memorization of basic maths , historic events and literary requirements while things related to real life like personal finance, global politics and practical geography are ignored.

I also stand firmly against any attempts at political indoctrination at any age in public schools. That includes pledging allegiance to a flag, excessive American history that ignores reality or so called citizenship.

"Patriotism" is the rot that destroys societies.

Nationalism and patriotism are both ultimately harmful divisions between people, and are pushed by powerful people that want to control others via misdirection of blame. This is a trick learned during colonial times...take over a populace, then find some local/internal social divisions, play them up and make them more acrimonious, and people will ignore that their problems actually rest with their new rulers.

As a general point, I am only bringing this nuance up for historical support of the premise, it's not an invitation to start talking specifics of patriotism or current politics in XYZ country...so don't.

Apparently we are not understanding each other.

When I say global climate, and any changes happening to it, cannot be "experienced" by personal observation in one's own home, I mean that no one can possibly see all the varied climatic conditions around the globe and how they change over time. We must rely on information gleaned from a variety of sources.

Our local climates are naturally affected by wider regional and global climatic conditions, so we should expect that a significant change in global climate will result in local changes--greater in some places, negligible in others. Of course we can experience those changes.

When I posited that global warming might affect snowpacks and reduce river flows in your area, you said that that was "local climate". Now you say that worldwide temperature rise IS "global climate". You also say that sea level rise on the Oregon coast is global climate, but why is it not just local climate, as sea levels don't matter in Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Uganda, Kansas, and thousands of other places far from the coast?

My opinion is that global climate is the conglomeration of all local climates and noticeable changes in global conditions will cause variations in regional climatic conditions that people everywhere will experience.

The poster in question understands the distinction, and the obtuse retreats to pretend otherwise are disingenuous (and are repeated ad nauseum just to rile the other side up). IMO.

I prefer elucidation to blanket condemnation.

I also prefer elucidation, but this has been going on for a decade across many threads. At some point...

To answer your question, because global climate includes all of what you mentioned. If global rise (global climate) in temperature causes our snowpack to melt, yes, that would be something experienced locally.

So I'll ask again, if global climate cannot be experienced locally, how would one go about experiencing it any other way? From my experience, a person can only experience climate at the local level. It is impossible to experience the entire global climate, all at once. So I'm curious, how would one go about experiencing global climate on a global scale?

Is it because global climate cannot be experienced at all? If that's the case, global climate CHANGE cannot be experienced, wouldn't you agree? And if something cannot be experienced, it's probably not something to be worried about.

I will suppose your last paragraph is your answer, which I agree with. I think it's probably a way of saying, yes, global climate is experienced locally. Just worded differently to help bail out Fester.

Me too.
Elucidation.
But that takes different forms. Refers to different things.
Over one billion people don't agree with the science consensus about manmade climate change.
It won't do any good 'condemning' them. None.
Nor will it do any good claiming its about education or IQ or elitism or credentials.
In fact - such stances make things worse.
-----------------
Climate is complex. So are commerce and industry and consumerism.
How do the one billion disagreeing people react to the complexities?
Its something like they don't trust complexity.
And science is often relegated to a kind of black box.
Its harder for them to 'black box' weather disasters and news about same - 
but the way their stance works is often in how they interpret 'regional'.
'Hey we don't like cold. And if its warmer here because of this carbon thing then we like that. And if its harder for people in some regions then maybe that was going to happen anyway. '
And they don't like governments doing things about the problems.
If they don't see it as connecting to the benefit of their family job money property neighbourhood they don't like it and don't trust it and are more comfortable regarding it as a scam.
That's the situation.

Elroch should start a thread about Global Warming, and then THIS one could be designated as a secondary alternate.

It snowed in July of last year in Montana
 https://www.mtmemory.org

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bozeman/comments/1bsarag/come_to_montana_where_the_only_holiday_it_doesnt/?

Fireworks might have to be cancelled

And bbqing in a blizzard?

That looks familiar. Oh yes. My comment #31110. Imitation being the most sincere flattery, I thank you.

It is certainly easy for adults to do that. But the potential of children remains unrealised.

When I was in kindergarten, the smarter kids, instead of saying numbers out loud to do addition, just used their fingers, increasing accuracy and speed. The average kids, on the other hand, were slow, inaccurate and rather confused. Fast forward a few years and the smart kids and the average kids are basically the same. They were just a bit faster than the average kids in two digit multiplication. The average kids didn’t get better. The smarter kids got worse. All the children were being made to apply principles they didn’t understand and weren’t taught. They were taught to use ‘tricks’ using the distributive property of multiplication. After some time, it was more about the tricks than actually understanding. Later, this understanding, which the smarter kids had more of, will affect their ability to do double integration and make proofs. The smart kids lost their ability to understand, and the average kids didn’t gain any.

Currently, I’m in fourth grade and very popular in my class. Using my popularity, I have convinced my classmates to do homework. The fifth and sixth graders’ homework. After explaining how and why 2x-x is x, they’ve developed the ability to find GCF’s, solve linear equations and use and solve problems with exponential notation. This all happened because instead of making the class recite ‘multiplication is repeated addition’ I made them understand the relationship between unary operations and multiplication. They figured out most of it with barely any spoon feeding from me. All I did was literally tell them what’s in the textbooks, give them some basic problems to solve and make them reason how to solve the more complex ones and derive methods of solving them.

So far, I’ve just been talking about how I did things. I am a typical nine-year old who is good at being popular. With some basic techniques, the kids in my class are at least a grade ahead of their peers. The class’s average score in tests has jumped by eighteen percent. And the lowest score is 72%, which was once 56%. The Polgar sisters were raised to be chess prodigies. Their childhood was full of chess. These people don’t have to spend much time or energy every day. They still have time to chat with their friends and go to football tournaments or whatever. Sounds like a good ROI to me.

The point is, you can make people improve significantly with little resources. This doesn’t make me some sort of genius child psychologist. This means that people are being given much, much less than they can chew. I’m not for making everyone great at everything. I don’t believe that’s possible. I just think basic education can be completed much faster and that humans can develop and improve more than they are currently doing. And no, I do not study in a school for gifted children.

That is a very mature way of looking at it. Not everyone is capable of that kind of observation.

To solve ANY problem, you have to always consider the concerns of those who disagree.

Figuring out who will be opposed to the steps taken is very important when trying to solve problems. You can figure out how to effectively combat them, how to do damage control and how to convert them. All your preparations can go to waste if you don’t account for people who not only do not contribute, but attack your actions and you.

Today is 6/21. It's 10:30 in the morning. We currently have a fire in the woodstove so the radiant heat doesn't come on. The high temperature today is forecasted to be about 56 degrees. And it's currently snowing at Timberline Lodge.

But they are saying good weather is coming next week.

I already knew about brownouts and blackouts during over-use of air conditioning during heat waves.
I lived through one of those in New York City a long time ago.
Idea: the approaching terrible heat wave about to hit the US hard is not about 'you and me'.

I suppose it will be interesting to see how people react to your comments.

Could be. What do you think?