Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Talking To the Public: the Biggest Enemy To Reducing Greenhouse Emissions 324

Posted by Soulskill
from the none-of-us-are-as-dumb-as-all-of-us dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Talking To the Public: the Biggest Enemy To Reducing Greenhouse Emissions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2014 @03:47PM (#46902259)

    Methane, much more insulating than C02 per pound, released at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than industry-regulators "estimated" for fracking sites.

    That's probably a good mistake not to make.

  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday May 02, 2014 @04:00PM (#46902407) Journal

    to the point where I can't leagally buy a shower-head that doesn't have the power of warm snot.

    Two seconds and a small screwdriver to pop out that stupid flow restrictor works wonders. Five minutes and a drill handles anything tougher to remove.

  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday May 02, 2014 @04:20PM (#46902593) Homepage

    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.

  • by mbkennel (97636) on Friday May 02, 2014 @04:35PM (#46902765)

    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.
  • by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday May 02, 2014 @04:44PM (#46902851) Journal

    You will take a hit on your water and heating bills.

    Not necessarily - greater flow means a faster shower; instead of having to stay in longer while waiting for that slow flow to get everything wet, then wait for it to wash off the soap, I can cut shower times down to a mere fraction of what they would otherwise take. Then you have the fact that with a restricted flow, a huge percentage of the heat in your hot water is radiating out into your walls while it sits there waiting its turn to go out the shower head (few houses insulate hot water pipes all the way from heater to bathroom, so...) Finally, you don't have to wait as long for the shower water to heat up in the first place, so you can get right in without waiting.

    To be honest, I haven't seen hardly any an increase in water or heating costs since I did it, and it saves me a bit of time.

    Also, there are folks living in areas where water flow is kind of sluggish in the first place - why should they have to suffer even more?

  • Surface temperatures (Score:4, Informative)

    by mbkennel (97636) on Friday May 02, 2014 @04:55PM (#46902983)

    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.
  • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday May 02, 2014 @05:56PM (#46903467)
    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.
  • You forgot the part where they vehemently oppose any real solutions, instead insisting that we live in a magical land where everyone rides bicycles everywhere and eats 100% locally commune-grown food.

    Can't build nuclear because nuclear power = nuclear bombs.
    Can't build desalination plants [dcbureau.org] because some worthless mutant breed of fish might somehow kill themselves on it.
    Can't build wind farms because equally worthless birds might fly into them.

    So fuck those obstructionist idiots. They are against any technological solution to problems. Which is, no doubt, the result of wasting their life studying sociology or gender theory or whatever other circlejerking shit that places postmodern Marxist theory as the centerpiece of the curriculum.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to go burn a pile of tires with spent motor oil just to spite them.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...