|
Post by rickmaltese on Jun 5, 2012 14:53:40 GMT 9.5
My beef is with the idea that deniers and fence sitters look at the difficulty climate science has being certain and they choose to be passive. Whereas if the focus were more about loss of life and quality of life then the oceans for example would be worth trying to save, and making the air more breathable and more free of GHGs. One website called "The Resilient Earth" has a section on the moderating effect of the oceans on CO2. www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-co2-storage-revised It is not very long and I would like it if anyone here can tell me how accurate the claims are. Thanks. These kinds of links make it sound like the oceans will take care of the planet like some kind of regulator. What I'm finding is that websites that should be giving the whole picture are sadly lacking. What I keep ,wondering is whether sites like these are attempts to be cover ups of the real issues such as acidification and gradual warming of the atmosphere. www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vd.html and www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html are two examples of what I'm talking about. It's what they don't say that seems criminal.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 5, 2012 17:34:37 GMT 9.5
One website called "The Resilient Earth" has a section on the moderating effect of the oceans on CO2. The Resilient Earth site appears to be mainly a crank denialist site. They don't think the Himalayan glaciers are melting for instance. It doesn't mean they don't communicate some interesting specifics. Commonly these folks have some scientific background. As far as the article if the oceans are generally becoming more acidic with the rise of CO2 that would suggest that the biological processes leading to the sequestering of CO2 aren't sufficient to neutralize the problem.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 5, 2012 20:45:54 GMT 9.5
The oceans do absorb CO2 but they aren't doing it fast enough to prevent atmospheric concentrations from rising (there's an equilibrium process at work here, the higher the concentration in the atmosphere the more the oceans will absorb).
Ever since we started emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning and got the concentration up nature has been absorbing more CO2 than the natural rate of emission (and absorption), it just hasn't been keeping up with our extra emissions.
|
|
|
Post by rickmaltese on Jun 6, 2012 9:56:53 GMT 9.5
But the uncertainty is a big factor. The idea that the ocean has been saving our ass and will continue for another, say 500 years (wild guess), is the kind of fact that would be good to know. On the other hand if we had a conscience about the damage we're doing to all living things including ocean creatures should be enough to motivate us.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 6, 2012 15:35:16 GMT 9.5
But the uncertainty is a big factor. It's one of the bigger problems in that we don't actually know exactly what'll happen so we really can't prepare for the changes in advance and will instead have to react to whatever ends up happening. The idea that the ocean has been saving our ass and will continue for another, say 500 years (wild guess), is the kind of fact that would be good to know. It would be, if it were true, but it probably isn't. Though the thermal inertia of the oceans has been delaying the effects somewhat (along with effectively locking them in for about the next thousand years). On the other hand if we had a conscience about the damage we're doing to all living things including ocean creatures should be enough to motivate us. Of course to be able to care about such things we'd need to already have our basic survival needs met (this is also why the idea of everyone going back to a simpler life would be an environmental disaster).
|
|
|
Post by rickmaltese on Jun 11, 2012 12:46:32 GMT 9.5
So far no comments address my original point that the PR of climate change might not be as effective as the PR of species extinction in the face of pollution. Yes, I agree that the PR of climate change does put an urgency to the need to act now but winning over the believers is a harder sales job.
I think the recent Town Hall meeting in which Barry Brook and three others participated was a good PR move for nuclear energy. Two good outcomes. The media paid some attention because the PR angle is good. Four cases that are both pronuclear and environmentalist is an important spin on the subject. The other good out come was the phrase "Know more. Fear less."
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 12, 2012 10:03:39 GMT 9.5
So far no comments address my original point that the PR of climate change might not be as effective as the PR of species extinction in the face of pollution. Yes, I agree that the PR of climate change does put an urgency to the need to act now but winning over the believers is a harder sales job. The evidence does indicate that those who tend to disbelieve in global warming tend to be more likely to accept it as happening if they are told the solution is nuclear power than if they are told anti-pollution legislation is the solution (and any birds sent extinct can always be replaced :-)). From the Cultural Cognition Project's Second National Risk & Culture Study: Individuals' expectations about the policy solution to global warming strongly influences their willingness to credit information about climate change. When told the solution to global warming is increased antipollution measures, persons of individualistic and hierarchic worldviews become less willing to credit information suggesting that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and poses significant societal dangers. Persons with such outlooks are more willing to credit the same information when told the solution to global warming is increased reliance on nuclear power generation.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Maltese on Jun 16, 2012 14:35:30 GMT 9.5
Thanks for that. Good find.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 16, 2012 16:16:34 GMT 9.5
Individuals' expectations about the policy solution to global warming strongly influences their willingness to credit information about climate change. When told the solution to global warming is increased antipollution measures, persons of individualistic and hierarchic worldviews become less willing to credit information suggesting that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and poses significant societal dangers. Persons with such outlooks are more willing to credit the same information when told the solution to global warming is increased reliance on nuclear power generation. The problem Anon is the type of folks who are attracted to large imposing hierarchical forms of energy production are also the kind of folks who don't want to spend public money on them or the infrastructure that makes them possible as you may have noticed from our present congress.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 16, 2012 21:22:19 GMT 9.5
Well they don't want to spend the money on anti-pollution measures either but it's going to be a lot easier to convince them to spend money if it's a solution which they approve of (and also if they actually believe there's a problem which needs solving, a person who doesn't believe in global warming is less likely to want to spend money to solve it, even than a so-called fiscal conservative who thinks global warming is happening and a threat).
|
|