Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court December 27, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Arnold, Legal Fight With USD.add a comment
So, the South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed my appeal in Keating v. James Abbott and the University of South Dakota without an opinion, merely stating that it had no merit. This created a very interesting situation. The heart of my appeal was that the civility clause is unconstitutional. Now, my appeal has gone through the entire South Dakota judicial system without any comment at all on the principle issue. It isn’t that they issued an opinion that I disagreed with, they simply did not issue any opinion at all.
I’m actually glad that it was dismissed this way. My main concern during this whole fight was that the bad guys would make a strong case for why I was wrong. I would then be stuck having to find a way to refute their arguments. As it is, they were unable to make any comment or counter-argument.
The next question after I received the court’s statement was how I was going to proceed from there. I already knew I was going to the U.S Supreme Court. The fact is, I was told years ago that the only chance I had was to get it into the federal courts. I used the SD court system to force the bad guys to put their arguments in writing before the court and to present their evidence. I also used the time to develop my own argument and collect my evidence. All in all, it worked out exceptionally well, almost exactly the way I envisioned it back in the summer and fall of 2004 when I first started this fight. I was hoping (always the optimist, even in the face of overwhelming odds) that some decisions would go my way. As it is, one decision actually did and I’m using it to full extent. I’m sure Judge Steven Jensen is upset that I’m using his decision in my favor, because that isn’t what he wanted to achieve. But, bad judges should be more careful when they rule in opposition to the law and evidence. It can come back to haunt you.
No, the question wasn’t whether or not I was going to the U.S. Supreme Court, but how I was going there. My plan all along was to find someone to represent me at this stage. Once I got the decision from SD, I went shopping for a lawyer. That is when I became disappointed. Most of the lawyers I talked to weren’t interested because there wasn’t enough money involved. They told me they could make more money doing something else. Then, the ones that were willing to take my case failed to impress me. I would have conversations with them, telling the history of my case and they would not know any of the court precedents involved. Or, if they did, they hadn’t read them and didn’t know what they said. I would talk to them about these court cases and they would just be in the dark. Universally, I was unimpressed with them. I thought, ‘Well, they could study and become familiar with everything.’ But, I remember a lawyer I talked to in South Dakota. He was interested in taking my case and we went through everything. Finally, he looked at me and said, ‘I don’t understand why you’re looking for a lawyer. No lawyer is going to do as good a job as what you’re doing.’
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was going to have to proceed on my own. It was true, there was no lawyer that knew the law and evidence in this case as well as I do and there is certainly no one that is motivated the way I am. So, I read the Rules of the Court for the Supreme Court to learn what I needed to do. The first thing is to submit a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. This is essentially asking the Court to hear your appeal. If the Writ is issued, the Court will tell the lower court to send forward all the documentation on the case for the Court’s review. I studied the Rules of the Court to make sure I was doing everything correctly, and wrote my petition. I submitted it to the Court on Wednesday, December 24. The bad guys will get their copies on Saturday, or maybe Monday. I’m sure it will be an unpleasant Christmas present for them.
So, what now? The bad guys get to respond to my petition and I get to rebut anything new they raise in their response. Then, the Court will decide whether to issue a writ.They can deny the petition for any reason and if they do, it doesn’t reflect on the validity of your case. If they don’t, I get to petition them to reconsider. If they do, I get to submit a brief to the Court, the bad guys get to respond, I get to rebut anything new and then we’ll be placed on the docket. This raises the real possibility that I may get a chance to stand before the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and argue my case. And, that is a very exciting thought.
So, what are my chances? I think they’re good. But, we’ll have to wait and see. Come back for updates.
Now, if you were wondering what a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari looks like, here’s mine.
************************************
No.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
CHRISTOPHER F. KEATING, PETITIONER
v.
JAMES W. ABBOT, in his personal and professional capacities, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CHRISTOPHER F. KEATING, Pro Se
QUESTION PRESENTED
1.Whether the civility clause of appendix G of the collective bargaining agreement between the South Dakota Board of Regents and the faculty as represented by the Committee on Higher Education (the COHE agreement) is constitutional.
2.Whether the civility clause was applied against Petitioner in violation of his constitutional rights to free speech.
3.Whether the South Dakota Supreme Court erred in denying Petitioner’s appeal concerning the non-renewal of his tenure-track contract with the University of South Dakota for violating the civility clause.
4.Whether the University of South Dakota retaliated against Petitioner for engaging in protected activity.
5.Other issues surrounding the non-renewal of Petitioner’s tenure-track contract.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED 2
Table of Authorities 5
Cases 5
Statutes 7
OPINIONS BELOW 10
JURISDICTION 10
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 11
STATEMENT 19
A. Facts Giving Rise To This Case 19
B. Legal Proceedings 21
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION 25
CONCLUSION 32
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) 9
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S., 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006) 10
Chamberlain v. Bissell, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 1067 (W.D. Mich.1982) 10
Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996) 9
Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) 9
Corry v. Stanford (No. 740309, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, 1995) 9
Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 839 F. Supp. 477 (E.D. Mich. 1993) 10
DeJohn v. Temple University, Case No: 07-2220 (2008), Third Circuit Court of Appeals 10
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F.Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989) 9
Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 9
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972) 9
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972) 9
Harrison v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 80 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1996) 10
Heath v. General Services Admin. (1998 EEOPUB LEXIS 4562 (1998)) 10
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 345 F.2d 236, 239 9
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) 9
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 1734-5, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968) 9
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) 9
Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987) 9
Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243-44 (9th Cir.2000) 10
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949) 9
Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 9
UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D., Wis. 1991) 10
Statutes
First Amendment To The United States Constitution 5, 9
Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution 5, 10, 11
SCDL 1-1A-3 11
SDCL 1-1A-1 6, 11
SDCL 1-1A-2 6, 11
SDCL 1-1A-3 7
SDCL 3-18-3.1 7, 8
SDCL 3-3-4 7, 11
SDCL 3-3-5 7
The civility clause of Appendix G 6, 8, 10
In the Supreme Court of the United States
CHRISTOPHER F. KEATING, PETITIONER
v.
JAMES W. ABBOT, in his personal and professional capacities, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
The Petitioner respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the South Dakota Supreme Court in this case.
OPINIONS BELOW
South Dakota Supreme Court Order Directing Issuance of Judgment of Affirmance, dated October 8, 2008, is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, pp 1.
South Dakota Supreme Court Order Directing Issuance of Judgment of Affirmance, dated November 10, 2008, is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, pp 2.
The opinion of the South Dakota Circuit Court is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, pp 3 – 17.
The opinion of the South Dakota Department of Labor administrative hearing is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, pp 18 – 24.
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the South Dakota Supreme Court was entered on October 8, 2008. The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 28 U.S.C. 1257(a).
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
First Amendment To The United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The civility clause of Appendix G to the collective bargaining agreement between the South Dakota Board of Regents and the university faculty as represented by the Committee on Higher Education (the COHE agreement)
Civility in working with colleagues, staff members, students and others
Universities play a special role in preparing students to lead the complex social organizations through which businesses and professions operate and through which free people govern themselves. Students must be taught, and they must be shown through the example given by institutional employees, that members of stable, effective and prosperous social organizations observe norms of conduct under which all participants treat one another civilly and carry out their respective tasks in a constructive and informed manner. Complex social organizations derive their strength from the cooperation of those who participate in them. By virtue of their special role in preparing future generations of leaders, universities have a particular concern with conduct that destroys the bonds of cooperation and common purpose on which society rests by demeaning members of the community, and such conduct cannot be tolerated in an institution whose very purpose is to shape the skills and conscience of the rising generations.
Faculty members are responsible for discharging their instructional, scholarly and service duties civilly, constructively and in an informed manner. They must treat their colleagues, staff, students and visitors with respect, and they must comport themselves at all times, even when expressing disagreement or when engaging in pedagogical exercises, in ways that will preserve and strengthen the willingness to cooperate and to give or to accept instruction, guidance or assistance.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 1-1A-1. Unconstitutional state actions void. It is the public policy of the State of South Dakota that every statute, rule, regulation, executive order, and office policy of the State of South Dakota enacted, promulgated, issued, or established in contradiction to the provisions of the United States Constitution, and so judicially determined by a final judgment rendered by the South Dakota Supreme Court, the federal district court for the State of South Dakota, the United States Court of Appeals for the eighth circuit, or the United States Supreme Court, is void within the jurisdiction of the State of South Dakota.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 1-1A-2. Enforcement of unconstitutional policies prohibited. No person may enforce any statute, rule, regulation, executive order, or office policy that is in violation of § 1-1A-1.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 1-1A-3. State officers to protect constitutional rights. Every state officer is directed to utilize the full force and authority of his office to resist the intrusion of such unlawful provisions and to protect the constitutional rights of the State of South Dakota and its individual citizens from the encroachments of such provisions.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 3-3-4. Restrictions on removal of veteran from employment–Hearing and review–Burden of proof. No person holding a public position by appointment or employment, and belonging to any of the classes of persons to whom a preference is herein granted, shall be removed from such position or employment unless replaced by another person of a class to whom preference is herein granted except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upon stated charges, and with the right of such employee or appointee to a review by writ of certiorari. The burden of proving incompetency or misconduct shall rest upon the party alleging the same.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 3-3-5. Noncompliance as misdemeanor.
Any person in the public service who shall neglect or refuse to comply with the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 3-18-3.1, Unfair practices of employers defined
(1) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by law;
(2) Dominate, interfere, or assist in the formation or administration of any employee organization, or contribute financial or other support to it; provided, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
(3) Discriminate in regard to hire or tenure or employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization;
(4) Discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed a complaint, affidavit, petition, or given any information or testimony under this chapter;
(5) Refuse to negotiate collectively in good faith with a formal representative; and
(6) Fail or refuse to comply with any provision of this chapter.
STATEMENT
A. Facts Giving Rise To This Case
Petitioner was a tenure-track professor at the University of South Dakota (USD) from August 1999 to May 2004.
Petitioner was informed in June 2004 that he was being considered for non-renewal of his tenure-track contract under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the South Dakota Board or Regents and the university faculty as represented by the Committee on Higher Education (the COHE agreement). Petitioner was informed the charge against him was that he violated the ‘civility clause’ of appendix G of the COHE agreement. Specifically, he made a comment concerning his supervisor in a private email that he sent from his private residence on a Saturday morning during his off hours.
Petitioner met with members of the administration and was informed of the charge and given an opportunity to defend himself against the one charge. No other charge was made and petitioner was not allowed to defend himself against any other charge.
Petitioner was never, at any time, accused of being disruptive in the workplace, no evidence was every produced showing he was disruptive in the workplace, and he was never provided any opportunity to defend himself against any such charges.
The university administration personnel have steadfastly insisted this was not a disciplinary action.
Petitioner’s tenure-track contract was non-renewed and he was given a one-year term contract that expired in May 2005.
B. Legal Proceedings
Petitioner pursued five grievances under provisions of the COHE agreement and two unfair labor practice complaints through the South Dakota Department of Labor under provisions of SDCL 3-18-3.1, Unfair practices of employers defined.
Petitioner’s first grievance claimed the university’s action was actually a disciplinary action and Petitioner was denied his due process rights the 14th amendment and provisions of the COHE agreement. Petitioner’s second grievance claimed the non-renewal of his contract with USD was in retaliation because he engaged in protected activity by filing a grievance in September 2003 against his supervisor for creating a hostile work environment. Petitioner’s third grievance was that his years of service were improperly calculated and, as a result, USD failed to provide him with the proper compensation provided for by the COHE agreement for late notice of his non-renewal. Petitioner’s fourth grievance was that the COHE agreement is not fairly and equitably applied. Petitioner’s fifth grievance claimed he was discriminated against due to his military status and denied protection as provided by law.
Petitioner’s grievances were found in Petitioner’s favor by the faculty review board, but the administration found against Petitioner on all grievances. Petitioner appealed his grievances to the South Dakota Board of Regents, where they were again denied, and then to the South Dakota Department of Labor.
Petitioner’s first unfair labor practice complaint filed with the South Dakota Department of Labor claimed that the civility clause was unconstitutional under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other statutes, and the way it was applied against Petitioner was unconstitutional. Petitioner’s second unfair labor practice complaint was the same as the same as his second grievance listed above and claimed his non-renewal as a retaliatory action taken because Petitioner had engaged in a protected activity.
An administrative hearing administered by a South Dakota Department of Labor administrative law judge was held on the campus of USD in January 2006 to hear Petitioner’s grievances and unfair labor complaints. The South Dakota administrative law judge issued his opinion in October 2006 and denied all of Petitioner’s grievances and unfair labor complaints.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the South Dakota Circuit Court and a hearing was held in July 2007. The circuit court issued its decision in December 2007. The court found in Petitioner’s favor on his third grievance concerning his years of service, but denied him the payment due under terms of the COHE agreement. The circuit court found against Petitioner on all other points except Petitioner’s claim concerning the constitutionality of the civility clause. The circuit court did not address this issue in its decision.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on October 8, 2008 with the statement that it was without merit and issued no opinion on Petitioner’s appeal.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The issue of government restraint on speech has been previously addressed by this court and other federal courts and the courts have consistently found that all such speech codes are unconstitutional. Specifically, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the Supreme Court said that the government cannot decide which speech it will allow and which speech it will not allow.
Further, in Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court stated, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable.” Further, the court stated, “”Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, … a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens.”
Other pertinent cases where the courts have struck down free speech limits by the government include: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S. Ct. 1731, 1734-5, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1968); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 345 F.2d 236, 239; and Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562.
Speech codes have also consistently been found to be vague and overbroad. Specific cases supporting this determination include: Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); and Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-109 (1972)
At least six such university speech codes have been declared unconstitutional by the courts in recent years: Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F.Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989), Corry v. Stanford (No. 740309, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, 1995); Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996), UWM Post v. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D., Wis. 1991), Dambrot v. Central Michigan University, 839 F. Supp. 477 (E.D. Mich. 1993), and DeJohn v. Temple University, Case No: 07-2220 (2008), Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
By prohibiting any speech considered to be uncivil, without any definition of what constitutes ‘uncivil’, the civility clause is punishing and banning a broad range of speech, including that which is protected by the U.S. Constitution and other statutes. As a matter of law, the civility clause is overbroad. Without any definition or measure of ‘uncivility’, the civility clause is also vague, allowing the measure to be applied in an arbitrary manner.
Additionally, there is no due process available to anyone accused of violating the civility clause, in violation of the protections of the 14th amendment. Since there is no definition of what constitutes ‘uncivility’, the accusation cannot be challenged. With the exception of one grievance step that is adjudicated by the faculty, the grievance process is adjudicated by the administration, the same individuals that pursue the action against the faculty members and whom grievances are filed against. The findings of the faculty review board are disregarded and are termed ‘irrelevant’ by the administration. The administrative law judges in the South Dakota Department of Labor sit as judges in hearings against state interests, but also act as advocates representing the state in other hearings. With the judge acting as both judge and advocate for the state, it is not reasonable that any faculty member can expect a fair and unbiased hearing against a state entity.
This court has also addressed the issue of retaliation in the workplace. Notably, Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243-44 (9th Cir.2000); Heath v. General Services Admin. (1998 EEOPUB LEXIS 4562 (1998)); Harrison v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 80 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1996); Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S., 126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006); Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985); Chamberlain v. Bissell, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 1067 (W.D. Mich.1982); and Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (99-536) 530 U.S. 133 (2000) 197 F.3d 688, reversed.
Most of the cases cited above are final judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As a veteran, Petitioner was entitled to protection in his employment by SDCL 3-3-4. None of the actions required in this statute were fulfilled by the university and Petitioner was denied this protection under the law. SDCL 3-3-5 states that violation of this law is a misdemeanor. The courts refused to enforce this law.
South Dakota Codified Law SDCL 1-1A-1 voids any action that is in violation of judgments of U.S. Supreme Court, while SDCL 1-1A-2 prohibits the enforcement of anything that is in violation of SDCL 1-1A-1 and SCDL 1-1A-3 requires all South Dakota officers to protect the constitutional rights of the individual citizens. By failing to uphold the findings of the U.S Supreme Court, USD, James W. Abbott, the South Dakota Board of Regents, the South Dakota Department of Labor, the South Dakota Circuit Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court all failed to uphold these three state laws. By failing to enforce the final judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court, these officers of the State of South Dakota have violated Petitioner’s 14th amendment rights.
CONCLUSION
With its decision, the South Dakota Supreme Court decided important federal questions in a way that conflicts with the decisions of United States courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. It has also decided important federal questions in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. For these reasons, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted.
CHRISTOPHER F. KEATING, pro se
Christmas Traveling December 24, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Musings.add a comment
My son is now out of school for the holidays. We’ll have our Christmas today and then its straight into the Christmas whirlwind. He flies out to spend Christmas with his mother this afternoon and I’m off to do my thing. My ex’s family all live close together and have a big routine for Christmas. Its much more festive than what I do, so I let my son spend Christmas with his mother every year. It works for us.
That leaves me free to either sit around and read in front of the fireplace the whole time, or to engage in an adventure. This year I’m taking a small adventure and going back to New England for a few days.
I really fell in love with New England when I lived there. I’ve even given some serious thought about returning there when my time with the Navy is up. Although, I must admit I miss Texas and think about returning there, too. But, that’s another story.
So, the car is packed (or nearly so) and I’ll be hitting the road after seeing my son safely off. I’ll be spending Christmas with friends and family and make my way up to Providence, RI for a couple days before heading back. I have reservations in a hotel in Times Square for the 30th and 31st and theater tickets in my pocket. It promises to be a good time in Manhatten. That should put me back in Maryland with a few days to spare before my son comes home. Then, it’ll be time for the new semester to start for both of us.
While this may sound more like a road trip and not such a big adventure (Hey! I said it was a small adventure.), my experience has taught me that I can somehow stumble into adventures doing even the most mundane thing. So, I’ll be ready.
I’ll close by wishing everyone a Merry Christmas.
Chris
Why Global Warming Means Record Cold December 23, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Musings, Science.add a comment
One of the the things I dread every year is the so-called wit that points out a snowstorm or a fierce winter storm and makes some ridiculous joke about global warming. I’ve been seeing, and hearing, a number of these comments with the big winter system that has been moving across the country this week. They always make these comments as if they are saying something new and original. I try to point out to them that the reason we have these fierce storms is BECAUSE of global warming. Of course, their reaction is that I’m some kind of nut. Such is the life of trying to convince someone that a scientist knows more about science than a non-scientist.
I’m reminded of a quote I read by E. M. Butler regarding supernatural phenomena. He said that “humanity tends to believe in the teeth of the evidence, or disbelieve in spite of the evidence, but never believes because of the evidence.” Supernatural phenomena – global warming skepticism. There’s really not much difference in my mind. Neither has any basis in reality or science.
First, let’s be clear. No one has been claiming that winter will go away, at least not in the near term. The Earth is still tilted on its axis and the four seasons will continue unabated. We will still have equinoxes in the spring and fall and solstices in the winter and summer. What this means is that the polar regions will have long periods of darkness or low light. The exact amount depends on how far you go away from the pole. But the point is, the polar cap will still get very cold in the winter time. The air over the Arctic Ocean will sit in darkness for a long period of time and it will get very cold. Global warming is not going to stop that.
But, what global warming does is to provide the energy needed to move this gigantic mass of cold air. Left to itself, the cold air will continue to sit over the Arctic until spring comes along to warm it up. But, currents in the atmosphere will not leave this cold air mass to itself and never has. The atmospheric currents work to move masses of air around, including the cold air mass over the polar regions. This, of course, has been the way things work for millennia, at least. What has changed, though, is how much energy there is to move this cold air mass.
To move trillions of tons of air from the polar regions to lower latitudes takes an awesome amount of energy. The atmosphere is a big heat engine and needs energy to move air masses around. The more energy there is in the atmosphere, the stronger the air currents will be, which means more air will be moved around to greater extent and at higher speeds. As the global temperature rises, the amount of energy available for storms will also rise. Global warming should result in shorter winters, that begin later and end earlier, with more moderate average temperatures, but with more severe storms.
And, this is precisely what is being observed.
Unfortunately, its even worse than what I’ve described here. That extra energy in the atmosphere will also mean more energy to move air masses the rest of the year. This will result in more severe storms all year, not just in the winter. And, they will be more severe, on average, than they were in the past.
I always wonder about the wit that makes the same old jokes about record cold weather or a big snowstorm. I wonder, just when are they going to stop chuckling and realize we are in a mess of a situation? Or, at least, make some new and original witicism.
One Smart Wife December 20, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Musings.add a comment
Would you let this woman interview your husband?
Why Bother? December 18, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Evolution and Creationism, Global Warming, Nostradamus and 2012, Science.add a comment
I have, over the years, made it a point to stand up to the various kinds of non-reasoning people that claim to have some enormous insight beyond what science tells us. Among these claims that I’ve stood up to are: cigarette smoking isn’t hazardous to your health; astrology; a face on Mars; psychic powers; global warming skeptics; anti-nuclear activists; 9/11 conspiracy nuts; Holocaust deniers; endless government conspiracies (there are so many you would need a Department of Government Conspiracies to manage them all); and my two favorites, creationism and the moon landings hoax theory.
If you find your particular belief in this list and are offended because I’ve lumped you in with these others – Good! You should be offended because you are yourself offensive. The fact is, all of these are different manifestations of the same malady. What the cause of this illness is, I’m not sure. But I sure do recognize it when I see it. And, the important thing is to make sure these people understand they can’t spew their nonsense unopposed.
What happens is they come out and make unfounded and unsupported claims, but these claims then become accepted as fact and people base their beliefs on them. Let me give you an example.
I saw a news article quoting a number of scientist as being critical of a prior news report on global warming, even calling it ‘hysteria.’ The critical article quoted David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma. Among the things Demming said was:
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.”
This is a pretty definite statement and sounds very convincing. But, let’s look at the facts for ourselves.
He says that the ‘mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980.” Well, we can check this here and here. Even the most casual inspection of the data shows Demmings statement is false.
He also said, ‘In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising.’ The data shows this is simply not true.
Then, he said, ’sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.’ Again, there is no basis in truth for his statement.
What about, ‘Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low’? Check out the data or read this article for yourself and you decide.
So, when we make the effort to actually verify statements like this, we see they are completely false.
As for the creationists, well they sure do have all sorts of problems. Of course, if you’re going to believe in creationism and reject evolution, then you can’t believe in DNA evidence because without evolution, we would all have the same DNA. Why bother getting a flu shot? Without evolution there is only one strain of flu. Nothing to worry about. You must believe the Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth revolves around it. The Bible says so!
Talking to a creationist runs something like this:
Creationist: “Well 2 plus 2 is five and that proves creationism.”
Evolutionist: “But, 2 plus 2 doesn’t add up to five. It adds up to four.”
Creationist: “Exactly! And, since we know that two plus two is five, we now know that evolution is false!”
Evolutionist: “But, wait a minute! Two plus two doesn’t add up to five. Your argument is false!”
Creationist: “See? Its so simple. Two plus two adding up to five proves it!”
Now, you may think I’m making fun of creationists. I’ve been known to do that and its certainly fun and worthwhile, but I’m not doing that here. I have had conversations with creationists that have gone almost exactly like this. They will pull out some false argument and cite it as proof. Then, no amount of evidence or logic will ever persuade them that there is no substance to that argument.
Things just keep getting worse for creationists. Like this news story about a find of 9000-year old human bones with tuberculosis. Unfortunately, creationists believe the universe (and man) was created about 6000 years ago. But, this really isn’t a problem for creationists. They simply ignore evidence like this.
And, that is why I feel the need to stand up to them and speak up. As an educator, I am constantly confronted with students that are sucked in by statements like this and then its my job to convince them that there is no truth to them. Unfortunately, all too many people buy into this. For instance, I saw a survey recently that said 40% of Americans believe in creationism. What a national shame that is.
But why do people buy into things that are so clearly wrong? Why would someone believe in something that is proven to be false by mountains of evidence and not supported by any logic or documented evidence? I really don’t know. The only thing I can think of is that it is some deep-seated psychological flaw in our personalities that demands we reject reality and find refuge in a fantasy world that provides us comfort. I can imagine it is something like retreating to the womb. A place where you can feel warm and secure, a way to not have to deal with the real world.
Personally, I revel in dealing with the real world, but I’ve known lots of people that are just overwhelmed by it. I enjoy the obstacles, the challenges, the opportunities, the uncertainties, the twists. I love to wonder about what’s around the next bend in the road. I love even more going around the bend and finding out. I can’t look at a hill without wanting to go over it and see what’s on the other side. Sit me down in a field and I’ll be turning stones over to see what’s underneath. Isn’t life grand?
But, not everyone sees it that way. So, they deny the Nazis liquidated millions because it is too horrible to contemplate. They believe there is a face on Mars because that would mean there is a great civilization out there that put it there and they may provide us with answers. They deny we landed on the Moon because the concept is just so big to them they can’t deal with it, so they simply deny it ever happened. These are people that look at the bend in the road as a threat, something to worry about. Hills not only hide what’s on the other side from them, but hides them from what ever may lie on the other side. And, these people will never, ever, turn a rock over just for the fun of it. The world is a threat and they are looking for a safe haven.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the way I see it. There’s not much you can do for these people, they have rejected all logic and all science and nothing you can do or say will ever change their minds. So, why do I bother? Because, maybe I can prevent someone else from sinking into this disease. Maybe, I can get through to someone that has yet to become infected and convince them to check the facts and to think for themselves.
Some people say I’m wasting my time. To quote Thomas Paine “To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.”
As usual, Thomas Paine was correct. But, it misses the point of how much fun it is.
So, keep your facts straight, check the story for yourself, and don’t buy into the nutcake arguments.
Pass it on.
Thoughts on the Fall Semester December 17, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Arnold.add a comment
I finished my first semester here at the academy. It was a most pleasant semester, but extremely busy. I had some military duties in addition to my normal teaching duties that added to my responsibilities. Most of them were pretty light in comparison to shipboard military duties, but still took up time. Training for the sailing squadron was the biggest of these and did take a tremendous amount of time, but the others were not as demanding. I managed to write a scientific paper and get it accepted to a journal. I also wrote most of my challenge to the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge this semester. This was a project that took more time than I anticipated, but was, I felt, a good exercise. I took care of my son, continued to settle into my new home and community, saw a lovely woman that I met in Connecticut on a regular basis, and even found time to read a little. I manage to squeeze enough time from my schedule that my son and I were able to go to Freeport, Bahamas for a week over Thanksgiving where we did a bunch of outdoor activities, including parasailing and scuba diving.
So, I can only be thankful for the new life I’m living here. I’ve worked hard all of my life to get to this point and have made a lot of sacrifices, so I feel like I’ve earned it.
But, I’m still a little dissatisfied.
There were 45 sections of introductory physics and I had two of them. We were doing very well over the semester, but then it seemed it came apart about Veterans Day and we just kept falling behind. Both sections finished with about 81% averages (a B-average) and within a fraction of a point of each other. But both sections only scored about average on the common final that was given to all sections.
And, that’s where the dissatisfaction comes in. I’m used to my classes doing better than average. I look at how we got behind late in the semester and I feel that I was really off my game. I feel I really need to make some adjustments for the spring semester. I want and expect my classes to do better. I just feel like they should be doing better than average.
The responsibility is ultimately on the student, but the teacher does make a difference. I only have to look at the way the scores and averages for my two classes were always lock step together. This was not the first time this happened. In fact, its the rule for me when I have mulitiple sections. This shows the teacher is making a difference. I work very hard to teach both sections exactly the same, even to the point of raising the same questions, doing the same examples, and even cracking the same dumb jokes to get their attention. The fact that my two sections always score the same on the homeworks, the quizzes, the tests, the final exams and on the overall course grade cannot be coincidence.
So, if I am making a difference, then it is my responsibility to ensure that I am making as much of a positive difference that I can. And, I don’t feel I succeeded in doing that this semester. I feel that I could have done better. Next semester, I will do better. I know what I have to do and how to do it. The adjustments are severe and should be quite doable.
One last thought. I noticed something about the final exam. We gave a common final exam to all sections at the same time. Because there were twenty something professors involved, it was established that no one could answer any questions about the exam. If a student wasn’t clear about something, he had to figure it out on his own. This was the only way to ensure everyone was treated equally. Consequently, I was in the hallway between my two classes while they were taking the test, along with the professor of another two sections, where I could monitor both of them through the windows in the doors without disturbing them.
As my students finished the exam and were leaving, they would come up to me and talk about the exam. Then, they would shake my hand and wish me a Merry Christmas before leaving. I didn’t really think about it at the time, but it occurred to me later that not a single student did that with the other professor. They just turned in their exams and left.
Global Warming Affects Land Ice December 16, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Global Warming, Science.add a comment
I saw something in the news I wish I had known a few weeks ago. I made a posting about how I submitted a proof that manmade emissions are causing global warming. Today, I read how scientists at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have shown that 2 trillion tons of land ice have melted in the five years since 2003. Doing some quick calculations shows that this would take 6 x 10^20 joules of energy to accomplish. To put that into perspective, that is equal to the total energy output of 150,000 1 megaton (MT) nuclear weapons. You would have to detonate, and absorb 100% of the energy output, one such weapon every 17.5 minutes for five years to absorb that much energy.
This energy represents only the amount of energy needed to melt 2 trillion tons of ice and turn it into water. It does not include any heat needed to warm the ice to the freezing point and it does not include any warming of the water that may occur afterwards. It also does not include any energy that may have gone to heating any other part of the global environment.
Since this ice was not melting before, we can conclude that the system (i.e., the environment) did not have that excess heat in it before. Therefore, this heat was added to the system in recent years.
So, the question is: Where did this excess heat come from?
Naysayers will say all sorts of things, all unsupported, and will deny the overwhelming mountain of evidence that shows this is extra heat that is being stored in the environment via the greenhouse effect.
I feel my proof stands on its own and doesn’t need this additional information to make it more valid. I also don’t believe it would make any difference to JunkScience.com. One look at his website tells you he still would not accept the argument as proof.
But, it would have been nice to be able to include it, none the less.
Dear Jennifer Aniston December 15, 2008
Posted by physics309 in Musings.add a comment
Jennifer, I saw an article that you’re shopping around for a date.
Jennifer, my email address is physics309@yahoo.com. Contact me anytime.
Chris
