Slashdot Mirror
Talking To the Public: the Biggest Enemy To Reducing Greenhouse Emissions
Lasrick writes: "Lucien Crowder is fed up with the notion that solutions for climate change would be easier to enact if only the public (especially the American public) understood the science better. Crowder looks to nuclear disarmament advocates as a model, as the move to reduce nuclear weapons has seen comparatively greater success even without public awareness and understanding: 'Indeed, in the nuclear and climate realms, desirable policy often seems to flow less from public engagement than from public obliviousness. Disarmament advocates, no matter how they try, cannot tempt most ordinary people into caring about nuclear weapons—yet stockpiles of weapons steadily, if still too slowly, decrease. Climate advocacy provokes greater passion, but passion often manifests itself as outraged opposition to climate action, and atmospheric carbon has reached levels unseen since before human beings evolved.'"
I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives. That's why most average people can't be arsed to give a care.
In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone. Things will get more expensive or need to be rationed. People will feel put upon by these regulations. They will be effected by whatever steps are taken.
Note, I don't really want to carry on a debate about it but I do believe in man made climate change and wish my country would do more to be a meaningful part of a solution. My statement above is just my opinion on why there is such a backlash against by the public in the USA.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Shorter AC: I don't like the science or its implications, so I'll attack the man instead and thus derail the discussion. At least it's not yet another anti-Al Gore screed.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
1. heating bills to go up.
2. My cooling bills to go up.
3. My gasoline cost to go up.
4. My food cost to go up due to all the above costs for the food producers to go up.
5. Local brownouts due to power plants being taken off line.
Hippies always start with education. But it never takes long for them to turn to laws and court cases to force their point of view on the rest of us. That's why "Let's work together to conserve water!" turned from voluntary to the point where I can't leagally buy a shower-head that doesn't have the power of warm snot.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
What TFA seems to fail at pointing out was that nuclear disarmament isn't happening because of anything the activists or advocates did - it's happening because one of the main cold-war aggressors was forced to give up. When the USSR collapsed, the biggest reason that the US and (let's be honest) China were stockpiling nukes was, well, gone - almost overnight. Without that reason, disarmament could get underway in earnest.
Same story here: until something happens that makes the public at large want to do something about pollution, you're not going to get them to stop polluting as much. In this case, the ideologues aren't going to accomplish jack - like the activists of the 1970's and 1980's, all they'll manage to do is polarize and piss-off the folks whose minds they want to have changed.
Instead, if you want a real solution, how about making a cleaner lifestyle a preferred one? Make green tech cheaper over time, and make it easier to use than the old polluting stuff (and no, not by simply levying a "carbon tax" on the existing stuff, either.) Make the preferred stuff more durable.
For example, look at Germany - they put in some damned nice tax breaks for alternative energies, big enough (and personal enough) for Germans to shingle nearly every damned building and outhouse in the nation with solar panels, and for companies to erect wind farms wherever they could. Make biofuels cheaper than regular gasoline by not charging a federal excise tax on it (and get the states to do the same), and I bet the stuff would suddenly get competitive. Sweeten the deal on alternative fuels a bit by cutting (or eliminating) road use taxes on all vehicles fitted to use only natural gas, electricity, or suchlike.
The idea is to not prohibit, but to entice. To remove the reasons why someone would want to stick with the old, bad ways. If you can do that, you can get somewhere, but I sincerely doubt that activists are going to blaze that trail...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid. so, when dealing with cults/religions i think it's valid to point out the hypocrisy of the cults leaders. it's also important to show why they want you to believe what they're selling. it's probably not for the greater good, it's most likely to gain more control and power.
it's always about control and power.
this heretic is ready, mod me down.
Drawing down strategic weapons is a part of the "peace dividend" in the public mind. What "dividend" is the public supposed to believe will appear by making energy into an expensive luxury? This analogy is just bogus.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
1) We have care overload. I have to care about global warming, and nuclear proliferation, and school shootings, and AIDS, and breast cancer awareness, and domestic spying, and and and... It's hard to get people to care about thing A when they're exhausted from being told to care about things B-Z.
2) There is very little an individual can do about climate change. I was at Disney's Animal Kingdom once and they had a display about conserving energy and bullshit and I thought I was taking crazy pills. This park wastes more energy in a day than I could in a hundred lifetimes, and they're lecturing me? As if I'm the problem?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
They tried the direct approach, lying through people like Al Gore, and then got caught cooking the evidence. Now it's time to end the direct propaganda war
Ahem. You're the one engaged in a propaganda war.
Actually isn't it the exact opposite? Nuclear disarmament happens because no one anywhere wants anything to do with nuclear anything if it's in their personal backyard. So there's no place to even store the weapons, waste, processing plants, or anything else, that doesn't make it a political storm. We're gaining nuclear disarmament mostly for the same reason we can't gain new modern nuclear power. The public simply freaks out about the word, not because there's any real logic applied.
The problem with greenhouse emissions, is the word greenhouse just doesn't inspire any fear.
I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. Nuclear disarmament is not perceived as effecting people in their daily lives.
More to the point, nuclear disarmament hasn't happened.
There has been some shift in the composition of the nuclear forces, but that's primarily due to changes in the expected way that a war would proceed and thus the planned utilization of nuclear weapons, not due to disarmament.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I, too, am willing to accept that man-made climate change is actually happening. That doesn't mean I won't remain a skeptic when it comes to government or private industries with agendas telling me I need to pay more money for their "solutions" to the problem.
The Republican 9 step plan to Global Warming Denial.
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
I welcome the progression of at least accepting anthropogenic global warming is real.
Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.
Pardon me, but the ideology of deniers is based on trying to debate things they know nothing about.
Next, let's debate whether gravity exists or it is actually electric! Why isn't this revelation taught from the rooftops? Where is the balance in the discussion?
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/...
http://blackholeformulas.com/f...
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/...
PS. Yes, I'm sarcastic.
The actual physics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (of which anthropogenic CO2 is one but not an exclusive component, and no scare quotes needed as it is fact) is based upon the infrared emissivity of gases and their actual dynamics and concentration in the atmosphere.
This physics is lab validated and confirmed by in-situ objective measurements.
Analogies made to the lay public are imprecise, but the underlying science never was.
"Skeptics" talking science is like listening to New Agers go on about the quantum theory of consciousness. They both think the science is on their side. Both have a few crank scientists who support their cause. The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Speaking of elite lying Democrats, How Did Harry Reid Get Rich?
Oh, same way the Republicans got rich.
To clarify:
This is the fundamental problem that occurs when people who speak of warming (like Dr. Roy Spencer) compare CO2 to "insulation": thermal insulation actually works on a completely different principle than the claimed "greenhouse effect".
The idea of "the greenhouse effect" is based on the concept of trapping outgoing radiation. And this is where a lot of confusion occurs, because that's not how actual greenhouses work.
A real greenhouse work this way: sunlight enters and warms things inside. Those things (plants, dirt, the ground, etc.) in turn warm the air via conduction. Then that warmed air is prevented by carrying that hot air away (via convection, you know, like in a convection oven) by the glass walls of the greenhouse. Therefore all the heat (minus losses via conduction through the glass walls) is trapped inside.
The way you cool off a greenhouse is by letting the hot air escape, not by using a different wall material that "lets out the infrared". Because in fact greenhouses that use such material (like acrylic for example) work just fine. My sister has one.
The "radiative trapping" effects of greenhouse walls has somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.000000 effect on the heat inside. We know from real observation... it has been measured innumerable times over the last few hundred years.
So... the point here is that the concept of "the greenhouse effect" doesn't work like real greenhouses. Okay so far?
As it turns out though, regular thermal insulation DOES work in a way similar to real greenhouses. It prevents loss of heat via conduction and convection, by limiting both.
As counterintuitive as it may seem, that has little to nothing to do with radiation.
So anyway, back to my main point: it is not the "insulation" properties of CO2 that are purported to cause "greenhouse warming". The whole "greenhouse" label is a misnomer that arose for historical reasons. It has nothing to do with either insulation or greenhouses.
well, when deniers talk the science, the believers go into "burn the heretics at the stake" mode. it's hard to have an honest debate with people who have drank the kool-aid.
I read Science and New Scientist. I don't have any problem getting the facts.
The New Scientist once did a story about the respectable scientists with good credentials who didn't believe the standard version of global warming. The arguments were fairly technical and the New Scientist gave them a good hearing. Since that time a few of them were finally convinced of global warming.
Maybe you're reading the wrong magazines.
OK, this is going to be full of people saying climate change isn't real. They'll be saying that it's all a hoax by 99% of the world's scientists, or they're in cahoots, or they just want that sweet sweet grant money..... Then there are the folks who will say that those of us that respect scientists and science in general are just drinking the kool-aid.
To them, I give this link. http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/02/...
On top of that, you can see the stupid data yourself with a few seconds work. Here. I'll give you that too. http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
You can quite clearly see a rise in temp that started around the 1900s(almost looks like ... some sort of.... hockey stick....). You can quite clearly see which data is from historical data, which is from readings from instruments, and which is reconstructed from tree rings and the like.
I wonder what happened right around that time that was so different from all of our history before that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... There's even a lag time for a hysteresis effect, which one would expect.
In ending, I will paraphrase Dawkins when speaking of how EASY it would be to disprove evolution. All you have to do is find ONE modern fossil in the wrong era. Just one. One duck fossil next to a T-rex fossil would throw doubt on the whole thing. Just one. And it's never been found. It's EASY to disprove evolution. It's never been done, because it's right. Same thing here. Just show that tree ring growth doesn't correspond to temperature, and the entire thing goes out the window. Just show that C02 isn't a greenhouse gas. Just show that the global mean temperatures are NOT rising. Bring your data. It's so EASY to disprove, and you have nothing but FUD.
That is all.
Science, how does it work?
With fucking magnets, that's how.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Venus average surface temperature is 735 Kelvin.
Earth surface temperature is about 287 Kelvin.
Remember that outgoing heat flux is in fourth power of absolute temperature, so ignoring atmospheres (black body) Venus would be emitting 43 times as much heat and so would have to be that much closer.
You can't separate the pressure from the temperature and the actual heat flux and hypothetically imagine a '1 atm' pressure on Venus. With a similar atmosphere as Earth you'd have roughly a surface temperature T so that (T/287)^4 = 1.911, difference in solar insolation.
Because my understanding was that the public never had them in the first place.
So in what way are the two situations at all similar?
They aren't.
In the one case you have nuclear weapons in government nuclear stockpiles and silos. And in the other case you have everyone with a car in their garage. They're not remotely similar.
But you know what... if the end result is they bitch about global warming less, then I'm all for it. That is one if the biggest mcguffins of the last 100 years.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I love how people who are so obviously full of !@#$ always end their posts by claiming that they're going to be persecuted/modded down, as if the INSERT CONSPIRACY extends all the way down to Slashdot posts.
Maybe people are just sick of listening to the crazy guy in the corner? No. That couldn't be. I'm sure YOU'RE the victim here.
It seems it also has a lot more to do with money. When disarmament is discussed, everyone can agree that it's a good thing (even if it doesn't affect them personally). Companies agree with the politicians and see an opportunity to bid on contracts to help dismantle and dispose of nuclear weapons and eventually make a lot of money. But climate change solutions mean that many industries will have to make significant changes to their business. The coal industry could stand to loose significantly if they are forced to make truly 'clean' coal. They also have the possibility of being shut down completely. These companies respond with 'outraged opposition' to prevent either of the two. If there was no money in things like coal produced electricity, climate change solutions would probably happen much like disarmament did.
Disarmament and reducing CO2 are just about as different as possible. People have never been inconvenienced by disarmament, in fact they have more cash than they would otherwise if the nuclear warhead race was still on. On the other hand, reducing CO2 threatens to inconvenience people and might even cost a few bucks. These two things are not comparable, though thinking about them this way might be useful.
Nuclear disarmament vs. greenhouse gas reduction is a poor comparison.
How much did nuclear disarmament affect the day-to-day lives of the average person? Zilch. Zero. Nada. 50 nuclear missiles sitting in some empty part of the country vs. 200 nuclear missiles sitting in some silos in some empty part of the country affects people not at all (unless there is a nuclear war, but were all screwed anyways).
Greenhouse gas reduction involves changing things in peoples day-to-day lives. How much is, of course, up for debate, but the perception is that we will have to sacrifice some of our standard of living to accomplish this.
Nuclear Disarmament spokesperson: "We are going to have fewer nuclear missiles in our subs. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: "Uhhhhh, OK...."
Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson: "We are going to slap a tax on the fuels you use, so now you will get to pay more at the pump. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: [punches Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson in the face]
Holy crap, folks. Stop modding for fake reasons.
I stated nothing but the simple truth. If you disagree, you disagree, but that does not "troll" make.
Owing to its composition of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere at sea level pressure is mostly opaque to infrared, and heat is transmitted through the air largely through circulation and convection, accounting for weather. The "radiative thermosphere", that altitude where the air temperature is determined by radiative equilibrium with space, occurs when the air gets thin enough. That altitude is a little bit below the "flight levels" where aircraft with pressurized cabins operate.
The warmer temps "down here" are the result of compression heating of air as it circulates in relation to the thinner air at the radiative equilibrium boundary. What CO2 does is it raises the altitude of thermal equilibrium, increasing surface temps through increase compression heating.
The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is very high, but the air pressure diminishes with altitude just like on Earth, and that even with the high CO2 content of its atmosphere, the pressure altitude where Venus is in radiative equilibrium with space isn't that much difference as that for Earth. What makes Venus not simply hot but hellishly hot is not just the CO2 atmosphere or being closer to the sun, but the very thick atmosphere, raising the temps to these high levels at the surface.
That doesn't mean you cannot construct a narrative for a runaway greenhouse on Venus. CO2 plus proximity to the sun could have raised temps to liberate more CO2 from rocks in a positive feedback until the atmosphere became incredibly thick, but it is the thick atmosphere operating through compression heating that accounts of the melts-lead surface temps.
You need to get some science
Wow. Is that like picking up a six-pack on your way home from work? Which brand do you prefer, or is the word science now so 'commodified' that you can just buy whichever generic brand is on sale?
science is not a cult.
It very easily can become a cult-like practice. First you need to label someone as 'the scientist' then everybody else listens to them raptly. Above all, anybody who demands to see the raw data is a filthy ignorant denier heathen.
Nuclear is safer than any other form of energy production.
It's safer than hydro, and significantly safer than wind and solar - and several orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels.
---- Sig. gone.
I agree.
Methane is far far FAR more dangerous than CO2.
Natural systems on the earth do not use it much, and it can accumulate quickly. Essentially the only way to get rid of it is through ignition, very bad, or photolitic processes that break it down via sunlight.
CO2 input in our Biosphere is much less of a problem due to the large numbers of ways CO2 can be consumed, and it is often consumed very quickly and by a wide variety of sources, unlike methane.
One of the reasons why CO2 is not a big deal to me, is because the Earth has experienced huge increases of CO2 in the past, and biological systems quickly deal with it. In the geological record that usually means gigantic and prodigous amounts of plant growth.
The amount of CO2 pressure with relation to quantity in the atmosphere, allows plants to more efficiently obtain it, along with water based geological systems. Less work is required to obtain CO2 and it can be processed faster in plants, and microorganisms.
What I do not like about the CO2 debate is the obvious ways in which people are using it to deindustrialize societies and cause chaos to bring about a new ruling class by any means possible.
If you do just a little bit of home work and look at the companies surrounding the climate change debate and who is funding it, it is obvious that these individuals and companies are using it to solidify military and economic dictatorship on every individual on the planet.
If we can remove people like Al Gore and his paid chrony academics from the discussion, we can get some real science done and instead of building billion dollar carbon credit exchanges to save the planet, we can look at developing new technology to really deal with the problem.
IF there truly is one.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.