The Science of Climate Change for Non-Scientists
Over the years here at 2GreenEnergy, I’ve pointed our readers to several explanations of climate change that I thought were particularly on point. But it wasn’t until yesterday that I came across this masterpiece: “13 Misconceptions About Climate Change,” which, as its title suggests, refutes each of a baker’s dozen arguments commonly propounded by climate deniers, in the form of a discussion between a man of science and his alter-ego. Not only is this clever beyond belief, it’s incredibly accessible to a non-scientific audience.
In fact, there is so much cleverness going on here it’s awe-inspiring. The fellow operates the enormously popular YouTube channel “Veritasium” (the element of truth), and does amazing videos on a wide range of topics within the realm of physics.
I’ve always believed that it’s incumbent upon all of us to have a working knowledge of climate change, especially insofar as it’s destined to become the defining issue of the 21st Century. Do yourself a favor and check this out.
Thanks! I’m always on the lookout for good explanations of science things in plain language. Here’s a good one by Peter Griffith, a NASA climate scientist, who is also my neighbor: https://youtu.be/nm8jat5VI_g
He does a great job of explaining how we KNOW it’s anthropogenic — b/c old carbon has a different “signature” than newer carbon. I didn’t know that until Peter told me.
That really is a good, concise video. Thanks for sharing it with us.
I can’t figure out to access your info, what am I not doing to get the Science of Climate Change..
Did you click on the link? What happened then?
We humans use the energy equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb explosion every 3 to 4 seconds, or about 2 Krakatoa’s worth per day. This isn’t climate science; it’s math and physics. Even without all the scientific evidence I would suggest that the more reasonable conclusion would be that we are likely to affect the climate.
It DOES seem kind of intuitive, doesn’t it?
Although it is reasonable to counter the positions of climate change deniers, there are many people who will remain unmoved.
It is a well-known psychological phenomenon that the majority of people, once they have made up their minds, will access only material which supports their conclusions and will disregard any material that does not support their conclusions. Of course that is irrational and those of us with better judgment make a point of reading and understanding all viewpoints including viewpoints with which we disagree. Also, rational people are amenable to changing their minds when new information is presented.
Even when the results of climate change become inescapably obvious to everyone, many of the deniers will claim that it is an entirely natural phenomenon and that we had no part in causing it.
Several years ago I myself changed my mind. Prior to that, I thought, without carefully studying the matter, that the solution was wind and solar power. I simply assumed that those renewables would solve the problem of CO2 emissions because respected people said so. But then, on a motorcycle trip to Savannah, Georgia from Albuquerque, NM, I saw many wind farms with stationary blades. That led me to study the matter which eventually led me to conclude that for most large prosperous countries renewables had only a minor rôle to play and that we’d have to get most of our power from nuclear reactors. That position is now considered tabu and those of us who support it are censored by the popular medial.
(” renewables had only a minor rôle to play ” Ssshh ! Craig might hear you, he takes great exception to that point of view ! 🙂 )
But Craig is right that the presentation is very professional and persuasive. It employs a lot of sophisticated production techniques usually found in the best advertisements.
Because that’s just what it is, well made propaganda, or advocacy. As such it’s very effective.
Public opinion toward the issue of climate change is more complex. Public opinion seems to fall into five categories:
1) Apathetic; These folks don’t really give a damn, and can’t see what all the fuss is about. They dislike and distrust alarmist advocacy, and don’t relate to climate change in their daily lives.
2) Fanatical climate change advocates and “true believers” : These folk have taken to the politics of Climate Change action, as a replacement for previous aging social and political ideology that became extinct or obsolete. From selective scientific information, they constructed a vast movement with it’s own industrial base,political ideology and fantical following, The most extreme have morphed a quasi-religious movement, enthusiastically advocating a crusade demanding persecution, silencing, imprisonment, and even death to those heretics who dare question or oppose the true faith.
3) Extreme Climate Change doubters and skeptics : These are equally dogmatic, although usually less violent toward their enemies. The more extreme base their opposition to the science of climate change on a wide range of religious or irrational pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. These are people are creationists, survivalists, sensationalist media commentators, and other cranks.
4) Rational Climate Change adherents: These folk accept the veracity of rational, reputable scientific information and believe the world should actively strive to evolve a low-carbon, less pollutant industrial output and lifestyle. They do not desire a hugely disruptive “revolution”, or major political change. They’ll happily buy an EV, but not a “revolution” ! Essentially, these folk believe that evolving technology will provide the answer.
5) Rational Climate Change Skeptics: These folks are a little more conservative and critical than moderate adherents, and less convinced about the veracity of the science, and certainly the scale of effect and outcome. They are also more dubious about the effectiveness of most emerging technologies. Rational skeptics are alienated by the fanaticism and perversion of scientific principles employed by fanatical climate change advocates and “true believers”.
Moderate Skeptics are often committed environmentalists. They see the problem of excess pollution etc, as undesirable regardless of climate change. They support new technology and even limited government incentives and support for emerging technologies. They reject long term taxpayer subsidies, or radical policies. Basically, they want to see efficiency and value for money. Like rational Climate Change adherents, believe in a gradual, carefully planned evolution toward a low emission future.
But mostly, they support a continuing, de-politicised, ideologically-free debate about the issues and aspects of climate change. A debate where the opinions of scientist like Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever ,Prof Plimer, Freeman Dyson, Richard Muller, Roger Pielke, Art Robinson are all analyzed with equal weight. In other words, science should be left to scientists, not determined by wild-eyed advocates.
I don’t think I missed anyone.
Assuming that you’re being sincere, I submit that you may be over-thinking this. There are people who agree with the vast majority of scientists who are fairly certain that we’re in the process of ruining our planet, and there are those who, for whatever reason, hold opposing views. In the latter camp are a diverse group of crackpots and shills of the oil companies.
Craig you put the tight words and tone in your reply to the post categorizing the various segments of climate change denial folks. Some will accept it , some will not and the reasons are all over the Board.
Thanks again for the nice sharp well produced video , good messaging for sure as you said. Regardless of the topic. A person coul dlearn something from that tight format.
Thanks and take care
Craig,
I suppose it would be convenient to cast everyone (including scientists) into one of two camps. Those that agree with you (virtuous righteous enlightened folks) and those who don’t (misguided fools and knaves).
Fortunately, people are a little bit more complex. Strangely enough, people have begun to examine various shades of grey (I’ll refrain from the pun) in issues. I consider this a very good thing. The world has suffered enough, especially in the twentieth century, from fanatics who wanted the world in black and white.
The oil companies no longer really care, after an initial knee jerk reaction, they’ve realized they sell sell a product that few nations can phase out, and even though sales of gasoline and diesel are a large part of their revenue, they are the least profitable. On the other hand, any rash attempt to precipitately disrupt the economy by removing the contribution made by the Oil Industry to tax revenue, economic activity, and surplus wealth to fund high cost items such as retirement services, would completely cripple most nations.
I believe the vast majority of people fall into categories 1, 4 and 5. I don’t think the ” vast majority of scientists ” agree with climate change alarmists. In fact most reputable, qualified scientists do not accept any extreme scenario, certainly not as incontrovertible facts !
Moving to a low carbon based economy, will involve a great deal of social organization. It will certainly involve enlisting contributions and co-operation from all sectors of the economy and society.
I would submit that these highly complex dynamics can’t be ” over-thought” and that any simplistic approach would lead to chaos, catastrophe and failure. Just choosing up sides and cheering for one side like fans at a football game, is counter-productive and a waste of time..
I was once a supporter (and investor) in Bio-fuel. Back in the 1970’s it seemed a perfect win-win solution, especially for the US farm belt who were going through some really tough times. The bio-fuel experience, has not turned out to be the panacea it was considered. In some areas and situations bio-fuels have proved valuable and useful, others including US corn ethanol, have proved a hugely expensive, wasteful disaster both economically and environmentally.
People like yourself are to be praised for your dedication to promoting a better, cleaner and healthier environment. My concern is with those who advocate a narrow “you’re either for us or agin’ us ” attitude.
My attitude is to remain open minded, objective and retain perspective, while trying to promote small, practical, achievable, evolutionary steps to a low carbon future. That’s why I recommended objectives such as the conversion of lawn mowers and similar small engines to electric. Not glamorous perhaps, but far more achievable than ranting on about the immediate introduction of EV fire-tenders!
A study by the EPA reveals pollution from lawn mowers and similar equipment could be as high as 7-11% of all US emissions ! Imagine being able to cut emissions by say 10% , without all the political fussing and fighting?
To gain mass public acceptance, you must first convince people that they have a problem and then convince them you have practical solutions that in their best interests and can be achieved without to much disruption.
Few modern societies are eager for “revolution’. Society will accept “evolution”.
I submit that there a potential downside to being open-minded during a catastrophe.
In particular, it’s now 100% clear that the oil companies have spent vast fortunes manufacturing open-mindedness.
Craig,
Perhaps during a catastrophe is exactly the right time to remain calm, objective and open-minded !
Shrill demands for ill-considered and precipitate action doesn’t strike me as a likely method of achieving anything positive. Inventing enemies and demons that don’t really exist is the hallmark of the impotent.
Perhaps it’s my training as first a strategist, then lawyer, and finally analyst taught me to consider every aspect a give situation or proposition, as objectively as possible. It’s important to not only seek the veracity of a problem, but also the logistical practicability of proposed solutions.
I understand the value of commitment and passion, but also the dangers of narrow mindedness and fanaticism.
Oil companies have spent vast sums on alternate energy technologies. BP was the main developer of Solar until driven out of business by the PRC price dumping practices. Exxon laboratories developed the lithium battery. Chevron took over when everyone else failed (including governments), and persisted with Geo-thermal investment.
Only after spending vast sums, particularly on bio-fuel R&D, did oil companies return to funding R&D into their primary product. The result was a staggering array of new technology that created the present glut in oil/energy production, effectively destroying Hubberts predictions of “Peak oil”.
( It’s interesting to note that only 10 years ago, alarmist advocates were also passionately committed to the absolute certainty of immediate peak oil).
The problem with alarmist advocacy is the same as the “boy who cried Wolf”. The public loses interest when sensationalized predictions fail to materialize, while die hard adherents become a self convinced movement, refusing to listen to listen to any information that may challenge their faith, and angrily accusing moderates of “heresy ” and ” denialism ”. .
This a commonly observed phenomenon when scientific theories become hi-jacked by ideology, political agenda’s or self interest.
Faults and errors made by adherents and advocates, even criminal behaviour, can be excused in the necessity win a ” battle” against perceived enemies.
The Oil and Fossil fuel industry has a dilemma when producing fossil fuel. On the one hand it produces the main source of industrialized power generation (about 86% ) . Due to the versatility and economic viability of it’s products, most of the developed technology and economic infrastructure of modern society has been created around it’s products. The Fossil fuel industry is deeply embedded in of society and economy. On the other hand the use of that fuel, creates pollution.
This is not a planned “evil ” by a cabal of evil plotters, but a natural product of our industrialized civilization. Disengaging from fossil fuel energy will be a highly complex affair.
Skeptic’s have a right to be skeptical, especially when questioning the pontifications of self-appointed prophets of doom. In 2007, eminent advocates predicted the arctic would be ice-free by 2011. (no more polar bears) Instead, by 2013 the ice had stopped retreating, and began advancing. (oh, and the polar bear population has been doing pretty well, increasing from 7000 to 26,000 in past 50 years This is good news, as I’m fond of Ursidae).
Nor do all scientists, not even a majority, share an alarmist view of climate change. Most adopt the position of John Christy, who while remaining convinced of the dangers of man made climate change, especially pollution, condemns advocates ” who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels “.
In the words of a famous singer/songwriter of my youth, ” I know you’re set for fightin’, but what are you fightin’ for?”
You write: “Perhaps during a catastrophe is exactly the right time to remain calm, objective and open-minded!”
When my house is on fire, I don’t philosophize with the blaze; I extinguish it.
That’s always presuming your house is really on fire, and you can actually extinguish it with your garden hose instead of calling the fire brigade !
It’s always easier to propose simplistic answers to complex problems, instead of dealing with the complexity of the real world.
The biggest danger of alarmist advocacy is that it discourages practical initiatives in favour of grand projects involving vast public expenditure that invariably result in failure.
Those who loudly proclaim to be 100% right and in possession of the only valid truth, can’t complain if others remain skeptical, especially when unable to answer inaccuracies, or anomalies in their pronouncements.
It’s the nature of science that knowledge changes as more research is conducted. Ice core readings were once accepted as exact, precise and cutting edge technology to determine the accuracy of certain data. Development has shown a wide range of factors can create inaccuracies, and ice core reading can no longer be considered ‘exact’, but just one more indicator.
I suggest that it’s better to concentrate on the more moderate proposition that a rational, economically evolution to a low emission future is more likely to attract positive long term support. Especially, if evolution involves and minimum of disruption, and a maximum of economic benefit, than crying ” havoc and letting lose the dogs of revolution” ? .
I can appreciate your interest in nuclear, however the issue of waste has not yet been solved. We would be better served, in my opinion, by working on storage since that is the challenge of renewables.
The issue of waste HAS been solved.
You seem to be assuming that the only possible nuclear technology is the pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology which is able to extract only ONE PERCENT of the energy from the nuclear fuel after which the remaining 99 percent is discarded as if it were waste. Better nuclear reactor technologies can extract up to 99 percent of the energy from the nuclear fuel the result being that the amount of waste is only about one percent of what we are currently generating. Moreover, better reactor designs can even use the existing nuclear waste as fuel thereby getting rid of most of it.
One of the problems is that there has been absolutely zero attempt to educate the public about nuclear power. The result is that, except for those of us who have spent countless hours actively searching for more information, the public actually knows very little about nuclear power.
I suggest checking out the following link:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=2
I also suggest not stopping with the above link, but rather, actively pursuing more knowledge about various types of nuclear reactors. Also, try a google search on “energy from thorium”. Expect to spend many hours studying to get up to speed on this. Also search for information comparing the amount of concrete and steal required for wind and solar power and compare it with the amount of concrete and steal required for nuclear power. You can find the information, but probably it will not be easy.
Unfortunately, even mentioning the work “nuclear” has become taboo. Even politicians who are well informed, and there are a few, are afraid that their political careers will be destroyed if they even mention nuclear power. I greatly fear that we will pay a very high price for this censorship.
Craig nice you tube video and pretty clever presentation , if just everyone would be Rational and stay in that state of mind then we could move faster to correct our bad behavior and implement more good behavior much more rapidly and the Planet and its Inhabitants would be better served. Current and Future generations etc. would all benefit from accepting what is so Obvious. We have warmed up the planet and the negative consequences will pay us back in Spades and it is already happening Globally.
Why the debate Freggersjr touches on it well. Something about the pysche , we all are not wired the same. Many people suffer from self imposed cognitive dissonance due to their neural programming and many , many others well in America I speak for , well they suffer from all the american exceptionalism Myths so they have cultural , social , political cognitive dissonance and then factor in the poor quality of real news , informative and technically accurate which is in short supply now due to a broken for profit media business model so ignorance is understandable in the US. Last but not least and perhaps the Coup de Tat ta ta , and we can’t forget the 25 year plus privately funded global warming denial campaign sponsored by Exxon Mobil Oil and others with both sunk costs and profits at risk if Public Policy adapted to the reality of global warming and made necessary changes. So against this combination of mis information it is no small wonder that the public is so confused! over something that is so obvious. maybe that is what american exceptionalism is really all about – being confused!
Freggersjr dont base your verdict on the growing potential of wind power from a cruise thru Texas. Like All technologies it has various stages of technical development, cost and performance– capacity factors have risen from 16 to 20 % 15 years ago to averaging high 35 % plus depending on where in the United states the site is. Some in Dakotas and Wyoming attain mid 40 % . Off shore Britain and Scotland is doing better than that and soon they deploy floating turbines thereby reducing deployment costs and they are going to 6 meg and 8 meg sizes so the economic cost curve is trending steeply down. It is the cheapest or lowest cost of power in the entire United states and is putting aging nuclear units in mid west out of business unless the nukes get another subsidy.
Freggerjr the wholesale power market is dynamic , complex and interactive and often the load drops off and the power producers have to curtail their production , they call it spilling the wind even when the wind is blowing. Just some reality. In Texas they have negative wholesale wind energy prices when the load is down and the wind is strong but they are building 15,000 more megs and 12,000 megs of solar now and big gas units CC but no lil nuclear genies to be seen!
One last new concept is Warren B and his concrete towers being developed in Iowa. This allows tower height to reach 110 to 120 meters . NREL in Colorado has done wind production modeling on these prototypes and the results are really amazing. They compare a low wind area at 80 meters the common size now versus the 110 and 120 meter heights with larger turbines capacity. The lower height model at 25 TWHR while the higher ones reach 1,747 TWHR’s so a massive increase in production. This will be great progress in such a short R & D and deployment time frame for wind like maybe 35 years . Performance matters. This new concept could convert low wind areas like the South East section of US into wind areas. Reduce costly transmission lines and losses too.
Those nuclear fellas have had 65 years since over a Trillion $$ and much more domestically in tax dollars have been underwriting their development and retirement. And the bottom line is htey are still in development but their cost curve goes UPWARDS.
But Hope does spring Eternal, and now the Silicon Valley whiz kids and cyber moguls and even Mr I want to be everyone’s friend Obama are playing around with the new small versions and we may see Light at the end of the Genie Bottle yet. Maybe 15 more years lots of venture capital ( hope government makes them play with only the private sectors money no more tax money) but I remain one who is not waiting on that based on poor prior performances from the nuclear follies club.
Maybe if we end cognitive dissonance we can stop global warming! Probably many levels of Ignorance what a concept. After all ignorance is fizable but stupidity is not!
Seasons Best Blessings to All
stjoseph09,
I can think of two things which would cause me to accept the practicality of renewable sources of power.
1. If any fairly large and prosperous country, with only a modest about of hydro power, and at an acceptable price, succeeded in reliably generating at least 90% of its power from renewable sources, I would agree that renewables are practical unless that country had some unusual advantages.
2. This would require installing sensors at many of the locations where wind and solar power installations would be practical. An analysis of the data would have to indicate that real wind and solar power installations at those sites, when interconnected, would result in getting at least 90% of our power reliably without resorting to fossil fuels and at an acceptable cost.
So far as I can determine, neither of the above conditions have established renewable power as practical for most large prosperous countries. Also, few people with PV panels have found it practical to be disconnected from the grid. The few who are not connected to the grid are usually in very remote places where connecting to the grid would be impractical. They have found the result to be very expensive. That includes taking into consideration the limited life of the deep cycle batteries they require, and perhaps also the Diesel generators they must use as a last resort if the PV system is beclouded for too long thereby causing the batteries to become discharged.
It also seems odd that those who sell PV systems do not use a method to determine the return on investment that enables buyers to compare the investment with alternative investments, such as paying off their mortgages early, investing in the stock market, etc. Instead, the sellers talk about the number of years to recover the original investment; that is not a good way to evaluate investments!! They should be using internal rate of return, either instead of or in addition to payback years.
My guess is that within the next 20 years, when it is found that renewables have not been able to reduce CO2 emissions to acceptable levels and costs have been high, it will finally be realized that nuclear power is required by most large countries. By then CO2 emissions may have actually increased and we will be in even more trouble. Renewables may be the primary source of power for people living in remote areas and for small island nations. They are important too and their needs most not be neglected.
And finally, biofuels, including ethanol produced from corn, will be realized to be a disaster with the POSSIBLE exception of countries which can economically grow sugar cane in large quantities. Many of us questioned the wisdom of ethanol from the beginning. Now even many of the environmentalists who pushed for corn ethanol realize that it was a mistake, but the powerful farm and ethanol lobbies make it difficult to phase it out. In fact, they are pushing hard to increase the percentage of ethanol in motor fuel.
Hi freggersjr ,
You raise an interesting point. Renewable Energy Associations world wide, and their members have become massive organizations, with heavily funded, powerful political professional lobbyists to protect their privileged and protected vested interests.
This is always a danger with government sponsored industries, they become like Frankenstein’s monster, politically impossible to control or eliminate.
Great video.
The green party candidate, Jill Stein, has a plan similar to Kennedy’s moon goal to divert military spending into climate change solutions.
I noticed a “Hillary” sticker on a client’s car and asked what they thought of Jill Stein who seems to be the only candidate sincerely interested in climate change. Although a liberal with environmental leanings they said they are against her because she had spoken against Israel.
This left me pondering. How many others are all for solving climate issues but want their issues or their perspective to be the last to sink as the world founders on the shoals of climate change.
We all tend to be fairly conservative by nature: http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-do-we-get-off-fossil-fuels-when-weve-always-feared-change/