Changing people's minds on climate change

most conservatives don't conserve anything these days. i doubt the understand the meaning. conservation is almost an independent way of thinking, outside the labels of liberal and conservative.

 

To the ops subject, you will have to study how a person gets someone to change religions.

That is how people treat this, remembering that people blow themselves up in the name of religion

 

Every day I hesitate at this thread .... then pass. I know I will get slammed for my comment.
I do drive a hybrid; I never sit with the engine running; I drive less; I have reduced by A/C use in the summer and wear warmed clothes inside in the winter. I'm trying to be good to the planet.

First, I acknowledge that from my personal experience ..... it is warmer than when I was a child. Sixty years ago we wore a parka to football games in the deep south. Today, we wear a shirt. So, I am a believer.

But I do not believe that man is the greater culprit. I have walked on ground in Alaska that was covered by a glacier 250 years ago; long before automobiles arrived on the scene. That particular glacier has signs posted every 50 - 100 yards that identifies the year that the glacier was at that point. It has receded significantly in 250 years.

I believe the earths internal core, the sun, volcanoes, and other natural events has more to do with the warming than man. Greenland was once lush and green. I recently saw a report on the Weather Channel that stated the early would be too cold if it were not for volcanoes. OTOH, man has abused the environment without question ... ISIS setting oil fields afire; forest fires (often set intentionally by man) are another factor. Just think about how many hydrocarbons are burned every season my athletic teams criss-crossing the country.

I believe there is way too much politics in the discussion .... to which I will add: Al Gore has done more damage than good for the cause.(His alarming predictions have long since expired). If the president truly believed that global warming is mans greatest challenge .... why doesn't he park AF 1, with the added benefit of saving taxpayer money?

 

i take a little different approach: what if the science is correct? i'm not smart enough to understand it, and i don't see a downside to slowly eliminating fossil fuels. in fact there are many positives that come with it, aside from cc.

 

It wasn't always quite that way. President #26, a republican and by many measures a conservative (and unquestionably a conservationist), did more for the environment than any POTUS before or since.

Sometimes, for red leaning folks these days, it's better not to discuss anthropogenic climate change at all. Instead, talk on reducing one's carbon footprint may be better sold within the merits of pollution mitigation due to its ill effects on health as well as national energy security. Such folks are more likely to agree that clean air is important to them and their community.

 

agreed. two of the many benefits.

 

Ah the ambiguity of 'good old English' language.

 

You've been lied to:

So does everyone who studies the problem. We look at all factors and weight them. There has never been an exclusion of 'earths internal core, the sun, volcanoes, and other natural events' except by those who would fool you and insist there are no man-made effects. Unless of course, you're here to fool us. <GRINS>

One of the ironies of life is Dr. Hansen in the 1970s had studied orbital mechanics and calculated that the earth should be cooling off. Then he looked at the data and found 'something is wrong.' When he dived into the difference between what should be happening and is happening, the climate models incorporating CO{2} began that include as well:

• earths internal core
• the sun
• volcanoes
• other natural events

These became the current studies of man-made, global warming (I like to use this phrase because the deniers lose their minds.) The last time I counted, there were over 34, major climate models whose results vary:

1. Some are great on planet temperature but not so hot on regional effects.
2. Some are great on regional temperatures but miss on water and global temperature.
3. Some on great on water balance but miss on the others.

There is no one climate model that is 'the gold standard' which is why it is such a fascinating subject. But a few things are shared in common. One of which is polar effects.

The greatest temperature increases are expected at the poles and that has been true of the Arctic. The summer Arctic sailing season has become predictable and the Chinese and Russians are ahead in the race to exploit this new resource. Antarctica has not been following the models and investigation has been a rich study. Then we look at the most recent sea ice coverage, less than a few days old:


So I'm fairly sanguine about man-made global warming. It isn't a question of 'faith' but 'facts and data.' If like our local gadfly @mojo you choose to cut-and-paste nonsense, fine. But don't expect any more respect than posting any other noise. Of course, you may actually be curious.

If you'd like some insights and current facts and data, I would recommend:

• Making Sense of Climate Science Denial | edX
  
• Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis - Volume 1 - The | G. Thomas Farmer | Springer

Both have been helpful; reasonably priced, and; credible sources. The book has the advantage of 'your time and schedule.' The online course marches to a different drummer. Finally, when it comes to weather effects, our own @wxman has been a great help.

Good luck!
Bob Wilson

 

Science and engineering are tough disciplines. The best you can hope for is to find your experiment to disprove a hypothesis fails. I know, this sounds strange but it is how the art works. If your mind does not or can not work this way, it will always seem like magic (evil magic to some!)

We use math and accepted principles of physics, chemistry, biology, and a whole bunch of accumulated rules and tools to do what we do. But the brightest are always happily surprised when it works ... well at least I am. And that is the delight, learning something new, a better approach. Being excessively curious helps a lot.

GOOD LUCK!
Bob Wilson

 

Before CO2 emissions were viewed as pollution, there were others. USA scrabbled about costs and benefits, and finally took a side that ought to be described as 'conservative'. USA became global leader in those areas, became quite a clean country (air and water), and made a lot of money on technology.

A similar thing could happen with carbon but there are 3 aspects working against. First is that this is the world's largest industry. Second is that current +T and +sea level, while interesting, are not yet presently on track towards calamity. Models etc. point towards calamity, but those are not bulletproof.. Third is that USA and a few other countries recently have made political choices towards repeating 20th-century energy choices - because what is the worst thing that could happen as a result?

Answer is - we don't know. It may be decades before we do know. Precautionary voices say "don't go there". Biggest-industry-ever voices say the opposite. I see this as so different from putting insect-and-all-poisoning chemicals everywhere, harmful industrial chemicals just ought to be released everywhere, sulfur (acidity) from coal burning just ought to be released everywhere, and ozone-destroying chemicals just ought to be released everywhere.

Why? because the earth (especially its oceans) have thermal dynamics and time constants that continue to elude our research efforts. None of those other earlier 'conservative' efforts came up against something similar.

So, it would be best for us if during a few more decades of +carbon, the whole system does not change to a state unfavorable for human enterprise. I hope for that, because there we will go.

 

I would add to that list tetraethyl-lead, something we once used to improve the octane level of gas. After it was banned in the USA, testing revealed a long term reduction in lead pollution along roads and highways. This meant the wild black berrys that grow in the ditches and long the fences are becoming safer to eat. But the risks were known for a long time: Tetra-ethyl lead used in &ldquo;ethyl gasoline&rdquo; - - 1925 - Science Education - Wiley Online Library

The new anti-knock chemical--Tetra-ethyl lead-- which is added to gasoline, has brought recent publicity to itself through the poison victims at the Standard Oil Plant at Bayway, New Jersey, lead poisoning resulting in acute mania having been produced in a number of workers. . . . January 1925​

First the refinery workers and then everyone else to a greater or lessor extent.

The effort to minimize pollution effects has a history steeped in a common, shared reality. And then the USA made it better and generations have grown up without any memory of how bad it has and can soon become.

Bob Wilson

 

e lso shipped a lot of our pollution creating manufacturing to mexico and overseas, to keep costs down.

 

Renewable E is growing fast (compared to itself) but slow compared to fossil-C energy. Until we agree on ways to make the former 10x faster, a coexistence is necessary. Because we are not equipped to get by with less energy.

This means atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase. 600 ppm? Hard to predict. With that there will be +T and + sea level. If they are small over a few decades, great. We have more humans needing more food, water and energy to attend to.

If instead it blows up in our faces, it's not like we were presented with an adequate low-to-no carbon and rejected it. I think there is not one yet presented.

Just pick a time scale; 4 8 16 32 years or whatever. Over that time, what mix works best for the human enterprise? How do you know? If you don't know, how to acquire additional information?

Meditate on amazing human progress over the last two centuries. Much of that will contribute in the future, but not all. New things will join in, as they always have.

Plenty of fossil C remains. Plenty of renewable energy awaits. We have everything we need, except perhaps enough wisdom to chose a path supporting 9 billions humans with improved health & wealth.

 

There is no single, magic bullet, that changes minds. However, where we can, fight the FUD, one-on-one.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob Wilson is completely delusional.All of the climate models predicting temperature rises due to CO2 increase have been wrong for their initial 20 years.James Hansens predictions have all been wrong for 20 years as well.
Most of the global warming memes are exaggeration or flat out lies.Michael Manns "hockey Stick " graph is a great example of that.
The problem of crying wolf is when people realize that there isnt any wolf.
The Democrats lost the election because of Obamas CO2 policy.Hillary made a huge screw up when she said out loud that she would shut down coal JOBS.
When trump reveals to the public just how the Democrats have been lying, it will give him credibility, because hes right on that one issue.
The alternative energy goal is a fantasy.Germany is the perfect model.electricity costs twice as much as it does in the USA .Elderly wont be able to heat their homes in Europe.They are planning for blackouts in the UK .
Solar and wind energy are both intermittant.Meaning you need a conventional power source as a back up.Thus twice the cost.
So if you need coal,gas or nuke to back it up ,why bother with wind and solar at all?Because it lowers CO2 emissions?But the CO2 climate models have been wrong for the past 20 years so we are planning to spend hundreds of trillions of the worlds economy for nothing?
Screw Tom Steyer the contemporary Ken Lay.He wants to control the Dem Party and lost seats he backed in Congress and he lost us (yes Im a lifelong Dem) the Presidency and the Supreme court.
We basically lost control of the USA because this Steyer Ahole want more billions pushing alternative energy.Americans want their jobs back .They dont give a f'ing dang about global warming.
But Imagine the world where the $trillions wasted on fake climate abatement was spent to end poverty.Provide clean water to the worlds population.Cure disease.

 

Minor edits and a few thoughts to add.

In the case of Mexico, a growing, domestic prosperity and less pressure to jump the border. Also sales opportunities for USA technology in the factories. It is what happens when you teach a man to fish.

Pollution in Mexico City has reached a point where the local people are asking for relief. China is already well on that road. In contrast, some in the USA have moved 'post pollution':

Cheap goods to sell to those who resent non-WASPs and exporting low-paying jobs.

Bob Wilson

 

if the only way we can prosper is to build pollution creating factories, we may need to rethink our priorities.
as for china, they may have started in a few area's, but there are many that lag way behind. and the only solutions may be to move production to an 'innocent' country.

 

The funny thing is the USA, Japan, and Europe are technology leaders in this area. Reports are that China is gaining a clue too.

A lot of that pollution was ignorance of how to do it right. For example, in the 1970s the first emissions controls came out for USA cars and the engine compartment became a plumber's nightmare and mechanic's boat. What disappointed me then was the inefficiency at trying to make carburetors were trying to do what fuel injection does today.

Bob Wilson

 

agreed. but can we clean up manufacturing and remain competitive? electronics, blue jeans? chromium? brass forging? chemical mfg? i'm sure there are many more. we solved a lot of those problems by exporting the manufacturing, not by cleaning them up.
in fact, a lot of sites still haven't been cleaned up, decades later.