Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 13 March 2024
Like many of the United States, the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed, or is passing, laws, rules, regulations that dictate how the often controversial topic of Climate Change is to be taught in its schools.
The latest reads like this:
“The Board shall develop, adopt, and make available to each local school board model policies and procedures, based on peer-reviewed scientific sources, pertaining to the selection of instructional materials on climate change and environmental literacy, including a requirement for any such selected material to accurately portray changes in weather and climate patterns over time, the impacts of human activity on changes in weather and climate patterns, and the effects of climate change on people and resources.”
Stephen D. Haner, of the Thomas Jefferson Institute, called my attention to exactly what they are doing in Virginia. To dig into the issue, we start with Teaching, Learning & Assessment » K-12 Standards & Instruction » Science. We can find the Middle School (depending on the school district, grades 6-8 or all grades 7-8) Instructional Plans here. [Warning, there are lots and lots of them.]
I picked just one sub-topic of Climate Change science that I know something about, having written here on the topic many times, Ocean Acidification [OA for short]. The inestimable Jim Steele has thoroughly covered this issue here as well.
If you are not well-versed in why OA is a climate change topic, or need to be filled in on the basic oceanic chemistry involved, read just this one essay by Jim: “Un-refutable Evidence of Alarmists’ Ocean Acidification Misinformation in 3 Easy Lessons”.
In my experience, Middle School students are just beginning to be really interested in the world around them and how it works. If you are not sure of this, go to a Middle School Science Fair in your area. But because they have not yet learned the underpinning basics of chemistry and physiology (for instance), they are exceptionally easy to mislead with “sciency” explanations for common phenomena. (Think Al Gore and The Science Guy).
How are the Middle Schools in Virginia going to teach this? Here is the abstract:
“Overview: Lesson plan introducing and exploring via hands-on lab the idea that raising acidity in the world’s oceans is reducing the availability of carbonate, which impacts calcifying organisms such as oysters and sea urchins.
Subject: Earth and Space Systems, Earth Resources, Living Systems and Processes
Level: Upper Primary, Middle School Grades: Grade 5, Grade 6
Material Type: Lesson Plan
Author: Erin Brown
Date Added: 07/25/2019“
They offer a video to be shown to the class: Science Bulletins: Acid Oceans. The video is out of the University of California at Santa Barbara (my alma mater). It is not absolutely terrible, but it is dangerously mis-leading for 12 and 13 year-olds. Refer back to Jim Steele’s primer on ocean carbonate chemistry. Note that the video only shows that in the lab, sea urchin larvae grow a little less when extreme amounts of CO are bubbled through 5 gallon pails of sea water containing the larvae. CO2 does not enter sea water by any action that is simulated by “bubbled through” small volumes of sea water
But the worst is yet to come….they offer up a hands-on experiment for the kids to do. Nothing impresses a young mind more than “seeing for themselves”.
Here’s the lesson plan: It is titled “Acidic Oceans Lesson Plan” (it is a .doc file). Saavy readers can see the problem already. The oceans are not, and cannot become, acidic. The oceans (the planet’s sea waters) are chemically basic.
But, let’s see where they are going with this:
“What phenomenon(a) is/are the focus of this lesson? Raising acidity in the world’s oceans is reducing the availability of carbonate, which impacts calcifying organisms such as oysters and sea urchins.”
Background: Shells serve as a protective structure for both marine and terrestrial organisms. Marine ecosystems that depend upon calcium-carbonate to make shells, such as coral reefs or oyster beds, can be impacted by changes in ocean pH due to increased carbon dioxide. In experimental conditions under very high levels of CO2, shells of clams, oysters, corals, snails and urchin shells dissolve. If these organisms are unable to build or repair shells, due to increased acidification caused by industrial emissions, deforestation and other human activities, they will likely cease to exist in these environments.
I don’t think the student’s see this lesson plan itself, and it does have caveats for the teachers: which contradict the blunt, and misleading, lead-in.
“These results do not occur for all organisms. In experimental conditions, extreme increases in carbon dioxide result in crabs, lobsters, temperate sea urchins, limpets, and calcifying algae all building thicker shells with the more acidic conditions. Some organisms are able to adapt more rapidly than others, some will leave an environment if they cannot adapt and others may cease to exist in that environment. Nutrient levels, water temperature, food availability and habitat changes also can have an impact. Efforts to reduce that impact have the greatest chance of preserving some of these habitats.”
So, teachers are given a bit more nuanced view in that second part. Do you think the teachers are telling students that some shellfish and some crabs and lobsters actually form better shells with more CO2? Let’s look at this from the student’s point of view.
1. They are told CO2 in the atmosphere enters the oceans cause “rising acidity”.
2. Then they are told that “In experimental conditions under very high levels of CO2, shells of clams, oysters, corals, snails and urchin shells dissolve.”
3. This is followed by: “…due to increased acidification caused by industrial emissions, deforestation and other human activities, they will likely cease to exist in these environments.”
None of these statements are strictly true, certainly not as received by the as-yet-uneducated minds of Middle School students
Despite the falsity of these assertions, the teach will then have the students demonstrate for themselves that these lies are true:
a. The teacher shows them the little UCSB video linked above ( link for you ).
b. Here is the experimental procedure:
Explore (20 min.):
- Using the pH test strip, test the pH of each substance. [lemon juice, vinegar, cola, ammonia, and water]. Knowing what you do after watching the video, predict the effect of the solutions on the pieces of shell. What will happen if I put a piece of egg shell in cola, water, vinegar? Which solution will have the greatest effect on the shell?
- Put a separate piece of shell into each small dish. Keep one piece in a dish on its own as a control.
- Use the dropper to place a few drops of selected liquid on the shell piece. Use a different piece of shell for each liquid. Label the dish with the type of liquid you used.
- Watch what happens. What do you observe? Which liquids react with the shell first?
- From your observation on the eggshell, what might be some consequences of ocean acidification for animals with shells? How might you test this hypothesis?
- Allow the shell pieces to sit overnight, then make another set of observations.
If you are not horrified yet by the mis-application of the scientific method in the above example, take a look at the explanation the teacher is instructed to give them:
Explain (10 min.): Allow students to share observations and theories. This activity allows you to see firsthand the effects ocean acidification can have on calcifying organisms. When exposed to vinegar, which is an acid, the calcified eggshell produces CO2 bubbles as it dissolves. The shells and skeletons of live calcifying organisms can be similarly affected as the ocean acidifies. If shell-building organisms are affected then all of the organisms that depend on them will also be impacted. Have students brainstorm ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
If the student’s are not sufficiently traumatized by the news that all the lobsters and clams and sea urchins are going to be dissolved alive, the teachers then directs (for 40 minutes):
Elaborate/Evaluate (40 min.): Have students do some research on a shellfish of their choice to determine its place in a food web. Students should illustrate the food web, and then write a paragraph describing how the acidification of the ocean affects not only the shellfish itself, but also other organisms in its food web. Students may also include some ideas on how to reduce human CO2 emissions.
Anyone see a pattern there? Mis-leading, exaggerated basic chemistry is used teach that the shells and skeletons of living sea organisms can “be similarly affected” – meaning dissolved – “as the ocean acidifies”. The emphasis always ends with “how to reduce human CO2 emissions.”
Readers with middle school children (in Virginia and elsewhere) should do something – starting with asking their children everyday, “What did you learn about in school today?” And then be prepared to re-educate them.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Science is not hard but ridding our schools of this kind of extreme advocacy is nearly impossible when our “experts” mouth these lies without blinking.
Egg shells do dissolve in acidic household solutions and don’t dissolve in water (neutral) or ammonia (basic). Instead of tricking the student into thinking that eggshells (or clam shells) will someday dissolve in sea water, they might have had students adjust the pH of a cup of water until add drops of vinegar into a cup of water until their pH strips showed a pH of 8.1 (pH of sea water) and then dripped that on eggshells. Nothing would happen. They could repeat this to discover how much vinegar they would have to add to a cup of water to lower the pH to less than 7. Drip on eggshells. Nothing happening, repeat and repeat. This lesson may lead to a different interpretation.
No person should be teaching science topics in middle school if they cannot see that the Virginia OA lesson is not only not good science, but it is mostly just plain false. What it is not is just “dumbed down for middle school”
It is simply indoctrination.
# # # # #
Very nice Kip.
I don’t think people have a good feel for the acid/alkaline thing. A casual glance at the PH scale and where different chemicals/foods fall on that scale is eye opening. For instance lemon juice is at number two on the PH scale and ammonia is at number eleven on the PH scale. With water at number seven neutral. So lemon juice appears to be a stronger acid than ammonia is an alkaline yet we eat/drink lemon juice without a second thought.
Bob ==> My university chemistry prof challenged us to drink 1N HCl, the usual hydrochloric acid used in the lab. Perfectly safe.
DO NOT DRINK 6N HCl — in fact, don’t even remove the stopper outside of a fume hood. Very dangerous.
Well the pH of human stomach acid is between 1.5 and 2 so similar to 1N Hal.
Citric acid and carbonic acid are considered weak acids because a small percentage ionizes, meaning that there are relatively few hydronium ions available to interact with anions. In contrast, things like hydrochloric and nitric acid are strong acids, meaning that the ionization is pushing 100% for all concentrations. It is the free hydronium ion concentration in un-buffered solutions that determines the interaction with other chemicals.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Anoka-Ramsey_Community_College/Introduction_to_Chemistry/15%3A_Acids_and_Bases/15.05%3A_Strong_and_Weak_Acids_and_Bases
It is indoctrination.
We are watching Darwinism in real time.
And when the majority of teachers don’t know enough about climate change beyond what a left-leaning curriculum tells them, it’s pretty easy to indoctrinate the students. However, if those students are expected to learn general science about as well as they learn math, language, history, geography, etc. these days, they really won’t have absorbed that much propaganda anyway, so maybe less harm is being done after all.
A good find,
but the problem here is not the question if you are allowed to call a drop in pH “acidification” if it happens above pH /, but the ocean in “ocean acidification”, when a sea surface effect is discussed!
All human CO2 together will not change the total pH of the oceans in a significant way, the effect is small compared even to the uncertainty we know the total amount of carbon in the oceans (when including the sea sediments)
Corrosion of bio-shells in the sea is real and is typically caused by up-welling acidic deep water!
A perfectly natural event!
So, that sounds like CO2 could be a path to creation of Hydrogen!
Perhaps they could do a similar experiment with water
Place a teacher in a bucket and slowly increase the water level …………
Conclusion: water is bad and must be eliminated
https://www.dhmo.org/
This indoctrination is not unique to the Virginia curriculum. We are taking a close look at the climate science educational materials being offered to K-12 students in Texas. We find that climate science teaching begins in earnest in the 8th grade. All of the materials from four publishers, who supply most of the school districts in Texas, demonize fossil fuels and CO2 and methane. None quantify the sources and sinks of CO2, so students would not be aware that over 95% of CO2 emissions comes from natural sources. Water is essentially ignored; none of the publisher material quantifies the relative contribution of each greenhouse gas to the greenhouse effect. There is no mention of the saturation effect in a gas’ emission band (e.g., the logarithmical decreasing impact of additional CO2). The paleo record is mostly ignored, except with Vostok ice core records that are presented in a way to avoid showing that temperature change precedes CO2 change. CO2 is repeatedly presented at the climate control knob.
There is zero discussion in these publisher materials about the greening of the earth.
There is zero discussion in these publisher materials on solar-induced ocean warming and the ENSO cycle. Ocean warming is positioned as an artifact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is no mention of the decadal oscillations like the PDO, AMO, AO, or IOD, nor of the impact of orbital variations.
One publisher offers a blatantly deceptive experiment on ocean acidification.
The experiment on involves three beakers of tap water or distilled water. Beaker 1 and beaker 3 are dosed with bromothymol blue and their pH is noted per a color chart. Beakers 1 and 2 are placed in a plastic tub, antacid tablets are placed in beaker 2 and a lid is placed on the tub. After a period of time (e.g., the next day) the pH of beakers 1 and 3 are noted.
The text states that “Beaker 1 represents the ocean water that we are monitoring for changes in pH, which will decrease if carbon dioxide is absorbed.” This statement and experiment are blatant deception as ocean water has a pH range of ~7.7 to ~8.2 and is highly buffered.
To demonstrate this sham, we have reconstructed the experiment using pH neutral bottled water, tap water, and tap water adjusted to 35 ppt salinity with aquarium sea salts. We also measured the CO2 level in the closed container, recording over 5,000 ppt CO2 for the 48 hours of our experiment. This concentration is over eleven times that of the 420 ppm CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.
Our experiment demonstrates the lowering of pH of unbuffered bottled water from about neutral 7.0 pH to slightly acid at about 6.4 pH. Treated municipal tap water showed a slight decrease in pH, whereas the simulated buffered sea water showed no change in pH color.
We conclude that the publisher ignored the reality of buffering to promote an alarmist position of harm to the ocean from anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
This fraud needs to stop.
Nobody mentions that gas bubbles in ice aren’t perfectly hermetically sealed time capsules. I recall reading in one article on deep ice core samples from Antarctica that combustion byproducts of diesel fuel were found in ice at a depth that should predate the internal combustion engine.
How would it get there? Slow diffusion through solid ice, just like how putting a smelly fish in a freezer can make the ice cubes taste and smell fishy.
The levels of CO2 and other gasses in ice bubbles isn’t going to stay the same as the instant the bubbles were formed, be it days or hundreds or thousands of years.
I recently read that microparticles of plastic can also diffuse through rocks (or at least sediments), showing up in rocks older than the possible beginning of the so-called Anthropocene, making the claim of a ‘Golden Spike’ problematic for even defining the Anthropocene. I tried to find a citation, but came up empty handed.
Martin ==> Do you have documentation of your experiment? Video? Instructions> Materials Lists? etc?
I would like to see it and get you permission to share….
Egg shells are not a good analogy for the shell-surface of calcareous organisms. The outer layer, the periostracum, is a protein layer.
The protein is conchiolin, which has chemistry that allows molecules to cross-link on the shell surface, forming a tough flexible outer covering.
The covering is a barrier between the shell carbonate and sea water.
So, that whole eggshell lesson could not be more misleading. it is calculated to frighten (and thus radicalize) children.
“ CO2 does not enter sea water by any action that is simulated by “bubbled through” small volumes of sea water”
But it does enter in the form of pH 5 rainwater, those drops that have been passed through a few thousand feet of air containing 400+ ppm CO2.
Not sure where that image at the header of the post came from but no chemist would use that for teaching, all the processes shown are reversible not one-way as shown, should have double headed arrows to be accurate.