deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[Tinordi]

How does one accomodate denialist irrational people who are ideologically opposed to doing anything about climate change? How do we coddle them into being a part of the fold? How do we ensure that we respect the scientifically rigid call for action while still appealing to those who are at best irrational and at worst real living trolls to want to take part?

Why are we blaming the people wanting to do something for not convincing those who don't want to do something? Why are those who could care less about future generations, the future of ecosystems and species, or those in poorer developing countries the victims in this and the people who do care about those issues to blame for not reaching out better?

What a messed up sense of entitlement. "Oh you haven't appealed well enough to me and my ideologically cemented priors about the world and my place in it. Therefore it's YOUR problem and YOU'RE the failure."

Freaking ridiculous EE

Sure we absolutely need to forge a broad alliance moving forward and the only way we'll be effective is in broad societal buy in but in doing so we'll be sacrificing actually y'know actually doing something worth doing. We don't need however the real life trolls. Those who want to do nothing will never be convinced until they run looking for handouts such as a flood payout or federal subsidies to prop up their farming income. Even then they still wont want to actually do something that might involve even the most trivial of sacrifices.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

35 years ago it was global cooling. Well, they messed that up so they switched it to global warming. Well, that hasn't panned out either so now they call it climate change. Blah blah blah. We're tired of their extremist stupidity."

I realize this was a facebook post you were quoting, but one of the issues to the people believing in man-made CO2 causing climate change is that there have been different variations over the years.

In the 1970s it was global cooling. There was even plans proposes on how to raise the planet's temperature.
In the 1990s it was CFCs causing holes in our ozone layer.
At the turn of the century it was global warming
This decade the name was changed to "climate change"- which is a more accurate description.

Then the number one set of numbers being given is a correlation between the increase in temperature, and the increase in CO2 levels. However there are other things that correlate; without being related. The silliest is the one we have all seen showing the decrease in the number of pirates being inversely proportional to the global temperatures.

While we all know that one is silly, the one thing that is almost never brought up is what is happening with the sun. It isn't unreasonable that in increase in solar activity could cause climate change on the earth, however that is rarely ruled out as the cause. I have also seen things that correlate our use of nuclear energy with climate change, as well as one that talks about our electricity and radio frequency use. Those last two are both directly proportional to the increase in global temperatures.

I did recently see a documentary that showed why CO2 levels are the most likely cause of climate change. It went far beyond the correlation and used a lot of good science to make the point; which was great to see. (I wish I could remember what it was called.)

I think part of the problem is that by dumbing it down to just the correlation, it leaves room for doubt. Especially with an extremely plausible theory (solar activity) being out there.

[troutman]

BMW Solar Charging Carport Unveiled

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...rport-unveiled

[troutman]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think part of the problem is that by dumbing it down to just the correlation, it leaves room for doubt. Especially with an extremely plausible theory (solar activity) being out there.

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I realize this was a facebook post you were quoting, but one of the issues to the people believing in man-made CO2 causing climate change is that there have been different variations over the years.

In the 1970s it was global cooling. There was even plans proposes on how to raise the planet's temperature.
In the 1990s it was CFCs causing holes in our ozone layer.
At the turn of the century it was global warming
This decade the name was changed to "climate change"- which is a more accurate description.

Then the number one set of numbers being given is a correlation between the increase in temperature, and the increase in CO2 levels. However there are other things that correlate; without being related. The silliest is the one we have all seen showing the decrease in the number of pirates being inversely proportional to the global temperatures.

While we all know that one is silly, the one thing that is almost never brought up is what is happening with the sun. It isn't unreasonable that in increase in solar activity could cause climate change on the earth, however that is rarely ruled out as the cause. I have also seen things that correlate our use of nuclear energy with climate change, as well as one that talks about our electricity and radio frequency use. Those last two are both directly proportional to the increase in global temperatures.

I did recently see a documentary that showed why CO2 levels are the most likely cause of climate change. It went far beyond the correlation and used a lot of good science to make the point; which was great to see. (I wish I could remember what it was called.)

I think part of the problem is that by dumbing it down to just the correlation, it leaves room for doubt. Especially with an extremely plausible theory (solar activity) being out there.

It's not extremely plausible at all. One iota of internet research on Google scholar would have told you that were you truly interested in educating yourself on this.

Global cooling: a straw dog and revisionist history - there was some mention of global cooling in a two year period but it never exceeded the amount of published papers on global warming

CFCs - great example, a global problem that we coordinated internationally on and addressed with effective policy mechanisms. The reason we aren't talking about it is because we addressed the primary polluters. That supports the argument to do something not inaction.

1990s - global warming, climate change - yep here we are, it has nothing to do with either of the cases below however

Here's an analogy to your argument:

In the 1970s it was the black panthers
Then in 1990s it was high rates of violent crime
Now in the 2000s it's internet crime and fraud

So therefore internet crime and fraud is not a problem based on my two previous examples.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's not extremely plausible at all. One iota of internet research on Google scholar would have told you that were you truly interested in educating yourself on this.

I think you are missing my point. Is it possible that if the sun produced more energy that the earth would get warmer? Yes- that is quite possible. The fact that it is not happening; with comparisons like Troutman produced, does not come up. Instead we typically have "do some research" or "look at the correlation."

[Knut]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think you are missing my point. Is it possible that if the sun produced more energy that the earth would get warmer? Yes- that is quite possible. The fact that it is not happen
ing; with comparisons like Troutman produced, does not come up. Instead we typically have "do some research" or "look at the correlation."

I was once in your boat with my thinking until that consensus report came out. I feel that if I call my self someone that believes in evidence based medicine then it would be hypocritical to not believe the scientific consensus on climate change.

[ken0042]

Let me be clear. I also believe the evidence shows that what we are doing is having a significant effect on climate change, and we need to clean up our act. What I am saying is that I also understand why people deny it, and what we need to do to convince those people.

[Ice_Weasel]

This is a trillion dollar global issue so to suggest that there isn't an "agenda" on either side is pointless. I found the following essay to be particularly interesting...and just to be clear the climate change movement hadn't yet begun...any of this sound familiar?

http://www.sealevel.info/GettingAlon...utDoomsday.pdf

[Knut]

^ oh I see. A conspiracy theorist.

It was Marx who said that the real point of a political or social theory was revealed in what it was used to justify, be it in terms of social reality or political action. By this token, the real point of doomsday theories is revealed in their masochistic insistence that we must either submit to authority or be destroyed, and the justification they seek for the sacrifice, which they advocate, of freedom.

What authority is this they speak of ? Illuminati ?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I think the problem is (and will always be) that there will never be a clean, direct and reliable link between (Polluting activity X) and (Climate behaviour Y). And that makes sense since the climate is a big complex system...in Alberta, IMO, we need to wrap our heads around:

-We live off of exporting hydrocarbons that may become un-economic for a range of reasons.
-The impacts of climate change on Alberta might be less about direct weather patterns (e.g. floods) and more about the ramifications climate change from outside of Alberta (e.g. wars arising from conflict over food/water which have unknowable consequences)
-We are really pretty scientifically savvy in many areas and f***** rich...we could make a much bigger contribution to 'green tech' than we are
-We are not getting much credit for the environmental innovation we have accomplished

My biggest concern is that we aren't prepared for a post-hydrocarbon economy or even an economy where our hydrocarbons can't get a decent price.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

In the 1970s it was global cooling. There was even plans proposes on how to raise the planet's temperature.
In the 1990s it was CFCs causing holes in our ozone layer.
At the turn of the century it was global warming
This decade the name was changed to "climate change"- which is a more accurate description.

Others have addressed most of these (and the "global cooling" thing is a perfect example of how the media muddies things), but for climate change vs. global warming, the term climate change pre-dates global warming in scientific papers, an the terms address different things. Global warming is the observed phenomenon that the planet is warming long term, climate change is the effects that result.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Then the number one set of numbers being given is a correlation between the increase in temperature, and the increase in CO2 levels.

The correlation isn't the basis though, there's a lot of things that actually lead to a cause/effect relationship, the most basic being basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this cannot be debated.

But I get your point, if people think correlation is the only evidence it's far easier to have a space to ignore further evidence. My point was that eventually people have to be accountable for remaining there if they want to continue to maintain an opinion.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

This is a trillion dollar global issue so to suggest that there isn't an "agenda" on either side is pointless. I found the following essay to be particularly interesting...and just to be clear the climate change movement hadn't yet begun...any of this sound familiar?

http://www.sealevel.info/GettingAlon...utDoomsday.pdf

So I read this, but I'm not sure what this has to do with global warming.

Is your argument:

It can't be real because people are always trying to get us to submit our liberties to a higher authority therefore this must be it?


Because that's absurd

[Ice_Weasel]

As stated, the essay was written before the climate change movement so no, it has nothing directly to do with global warming. The point was not to say whether global warming is 'real' or not...just highlight that there is some historical perspective to these type of debates.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

My biggest concern is that we aren't prepared for a post-hydrocarbon economy or even an economy where our hydrocarbons can't get a decent price.

Any numbskull knows that a diversified anything is better than all your eggs in one basket.

It's a proverbial situation. This wisdom is ancient. Diversify or suffer the consequences.

Say what you will about climate change, expose yourself as an idiot and deny deny deny, but if payments on your audi (god that was a funny post) is all you care about, then care about diversifying the economy of the province.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

As stated, the essay was written before the climate change movement so no, it has nothing directly to do with global warming. The point was not to say whether global warming is 'real' or not...just highlight that there is some historical perspective to these type of debates.

Right, and you are on which side of the fence on this?

[LChoy]

Just wanted to post this link, really cool way that NASA is educating the public on Climate change:

http://climate.nasa.gov/index

My personal 2 cents
I think the greatest challenge now isn't educating the masses that don't believe in climate change, or disagree with man's role in it, but how do we act on this information going forward.

As pointed out above, our society and way of life completely revolves the use of hydrocarbons from the way we heat our homes, generate power, transportation, to material goods. Plastics in general has become an essential material in our lives.
It is going to take a significant shift and buy in from everyone, to start shifting our lives away from non-renewable resources to something sustainable and less impactful than hydrocarbons.

The other thing is that even if all human driven activity that contributes to climate change ceases tomorrow, there is already so much heat trapping gases in the atmosphere, that global temperature will still increase for years. We really have to start thinking and preparing how to mediate and adapt to the changing climate.

LChoy

[Bill Bumface]

I thought global cooling was legit, and all the particulate from smoke stacks was blocking the sun and dropping surface temperatures? I also thought I read that once scrubbing started to be more commonplace the particulate was reduced and temperatures jumped up sharply.

Can't remember where I heard that, so no idea how credible it is.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

As stated, the essay was written before the climate change movement so no, it has nothing directly to do with global warming. The point was not to say whether global warming is 'real' or not...just highlight that there is some historical perspective to these type of debates.

But it has no bearing on this debate. The church once punished Galileo for postulating that the earth revolved around the sun. There is also historical perspective about people challenging a theory that makes them uncomfortable too then, no? In the end, that paper is meaningless in this discussion about facts and repercussions. If you want to insinuate a grand conspiracy, you better have more than "historical perspective" as these things are not related

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by ken0042

^^^ That's the thing- there are always numbers missing from the equation. Looking at 8¢ per KWH, what they are showing will give 10 KWH per day back to the grid. However does that make it a 1 KW system, 2 KW, or 3 KW? If it's 3 KW, that's a pretty good deal. If it's 1 or 1.5; not so much. Without looking hard you can get 1.5 KW panels for around $2000. Factor in another $2000 for installation; that's 1/2 of Enmax's price.

Nage Waza- you've looked into it; do you have the numbers?

The average rate is about 8¢ per KWh, but they only pay you what you pay them. If your contract is for 10¢ per KWh, that is what your generation earns (of course, getting 25¢ to 40¢/KWh makes this much better). What you give back to the grid is dependent on a lot of factors, including how many watts each module can generate and what your 'parasitic load' is. I would imagine a 1.5 KW system (perhaps 6 250 W modules) will yield 1,500 kWh annually. That would cost anywhere from $3,000 to $9,000.

Keep in mind, you do not have to purchase from Enmax and you could do some of the work yourself, but there is more to buy besides panels.