The will change everything!
December 16, 2013 12:34 PM Subscribe
Futurama: Global Warming or NONE LIKE IT HOT!
posted by crush-onastick at 12:52 PM on December 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by crush-onastick at 12:52 PM on December 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
I agree with anthill that the video assumes too much. I was talking to a community college teacher last night who was focusing on climate change for a basic writing class. She began the class by opening up a discussion on climate change and people's feelings about it. She realized after about 15 minutes that only a handful of students out of a couple dozen or more had any idea what climate change was. Many thought she was talking about the difference in seasons. She had to stop and clarify exactly what she was talking about for several minutes.
posted by perhapses at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2013
posted by perhapses at 1:04 PM on December 16, 2013
> Many thought she was talking about the difference in seasons.
.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2013 [7 favorites]
Both light and heat are different forms of energy (energy is just energy, really, except when it's matter or heat or light, or mechanical energy, or potential energy, I guess). But you're right, that may be news to a lot of people.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2013
posted by saulgoodman at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2013
Is that statement accurate? Less than .3% of US adults can state "green house gasses cause global warming?"
posted by Phredward at 1:13 PM on December 16, 2013
posted by Phredward at 1:13 PM on December 16, 2013
I'll have to join in the dogpile on that video being bad. I'd find it unlikely that people would understand the assumptions made in the video, but not understand the pieces the video takes the time to explain.
posted by evilangela at 1:13 PM on December 16, 2013
posted by evilangela at 1:13 PM on December 16, 2013
maybe a slightly different approach? How many people understand the theory of "insulation", like, when you put on a fluffy blanket or coat that traps warm air close to your skin? Then you just draw the loose analogy of "insulating gases" trapping heat close in to the surface of the earth. Oversimplification?
I mean another thing practically zero climate change information I've seen talks about, but anyone who's walked through a parking lot on a hot day can understand is 'albedo', aka how black bodies / dark bodies warm faster than light bodies and how the consequent melting of the polar ice caps / glaciers leads to an amplified warming effect everywhere?
idk just spitballing here...
posted by lonefrontranger at 1:16 PM on December 16, 2013
I mean another thing practically zero climate change information I've seen talks about, but anyone who's walked through a parking lot on a hot day can understand is 'albedo', aka how black bodies / dark bodies warm faster than light bodies and how the consequent melting of the polar ice caps / glaciers leads to an amplified warming effect everywhere?
idk just spitballing here...
posted by lonefrontranger at 1:16 PM on December 16, 2013
I think it might be time to just give up and try a new approach to get everyone on board. Perhaps "When you buy gas for your car, it gets taxed. The taxes are collected by the Big Government and sent on to the United Nations via the Obamacare NAFTA Agreement. The United Nations then uses that money to fund the Soviet Union's Global Warming Collective, which aims to crush capitalism."
posted by Flunkie at 1:24 PM on December 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Flunkie at 1:24 PM on December 16, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'll have to join in the dogpile on that video being bad. I'd find it unlikely that people would understand the assumptions made in the video, but not understand the pieces the video takes the time to explain.
Maybe I should have flipped the via link and the video. There's more meat in the via link.
I thought some of the things the video said to be interesting. Out of 300 people not one could explain global warming? Personally that's the tact I would take if I was trying to address this. Out of 300 people how many can explain any given scientific concept? This is why we trust our scientists. So when they are in near unanimous agreement why do people challenge them on this one?
I thought the video was a fun easy concept, but I also think it was a waste of their time to make. I can't imagine it changing even one person's mind.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:35 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Maybe I should have flipped the via link and the video. There's more meat in the via link.
I thought some of the things the video said to be interesting. Out of 300 people not one could explain global warming? Personally that's the tact I would take if I was trying to address this. Out of 300 people how many can explain any given scientific concept? This is why we trust our scientists. So when they are in near unanimous agreement why do people challenge them on this one?
I thought the video was a fun easy concept, but I also think it was a waste of their time to make. I can't imagine it changing even one person's mind.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:35 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
So when they are in near unanimous agreement why do people challenge them on this one?
Because it would mean changing our lives (perceived as lowering our standard of living, but I'm not so sure) for a benefit (or lack of calamity) not likely to be realized in our lifetimes.
"Hey you, give me $5,000 and start biking to work to help out my grandkids. Because SCIENCE!! Yeah the same SCIENCE that says your God is fake -- which means you are stupid, you aren't immortal, and you will never see your dead parents/children/spouse/friends again. Also, nevermind that it's snowing in Texas."
It's a really hard pitch to make.
posted by NiceKitty at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
Because it would mean changing our lives (perceived as lowering our standard of living, but I'm not so sure) for a benefit (or lack of calamity) not likely to be realized in our lifetimes.
"Hey you, give me $5,000 and start biking to work to help out my grandkids. Because SCIENCE!! Yeah the same SCIENCE that says your God is fake -- which means you are stupid, you aren't immortal, and you will never see your dead parents/children/spouse/friends again. Also, nevermind that it's snowing in Texas."
It's a really hard pitch to make.
posted by NiceKitty at 2:00 PM on December 16, 2013 [8 favorites]
What we need instead is a video that explains how global warming does not mean year long summer for everyone (not for a long time, at least).
posted by ceribus peribus at 2:15 PM on December 16, 2013
posted by ceribus peribus at 2:15 PM on December 16, 2013
not likely to be realized in our lifetimes
But it already is being experienced in our lifetimes. There's already a ton of money being spent (and in a lot of cases specifically budgeted) for dealing with global warming. And that's to say nothing about the less direct increased costs estimated to be attributable to global warming. Those indirect costs have been estimated to run as high as 1.2 trillion annually right now (not tomorrow--today). Note, there's also direct spending on the problem--spending on research and policy analysis, rising sea-level mitigation plans, etc.--already going on in governments around the world.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:16 PM on December 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
But it already is being experienced in our lifetimes. There's already a ton of money being spent (and in a lot of cases specifically budgeted) for dealing with global warming. And that's to say nothing about the less direct increased costs estimated to be attributable to global warming. Those indirect costs have been estimated to run as high as 1.2 trillion annually right now (not tomorrow--today). Note, there's also direct spending on the problem--spending on research and policy analysis, rising sea-level mitigation plans, etc.--already going on in governments around the world.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:16 PM on December 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think it might be time to just give up and try a new approach...
Thanks, Obamatmosphere.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:53 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Thanks, Obamatmosphere.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:53 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
sio42: "Why do greenhouse gases make infrared light stick around? Is infrared light bad?
"
They heavily absorb the infrared light.
If we could only see in the infrared spectrum, greenhouse gases would look black. Your exhalations would be a faint gray; the result of stirring baking soda into a glass of vinegar would be a storm-cloud-black "smoke" (that's actually all gas) flowing up out of it, and then settling downwards slightly (CO2 is heavier than air) as it disperses.
posted by IAmBroom at 3:28 PM on December 16, 2013
"
They heavily absorb the infrared light.
If we could only see in the infrared spectrum, greenhouse gases would look black. Your exhalations would be a faint gray; the result of stirring baking soda into a glass of vinegar would be a storm-cloud-black "smoke" (that's actually all gas) flowing up out of it, and then settling downwards slightly (CO2 is heavier than air) as it disperses.
posted by IAmBroom at 3:28 PM on December 16, 2013
The longer version explains it much better
posted by Lanark at 3:37 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Lanark at 3:37 PM on December 16, 2013 [2 favorites]
Gee wiz! I can send this to all my family and friends who are climate change doubters living in areas with abnormally cold winter temps. This certainly will change their minds. NOT.
Stupid video. Why didn't it go into a bit of explanation of ocean temperature change driving the jet streams affecting weather patterns and influencing atmospheric moisture content and changing precipitation? How about a comparison of overall global warming?
Simplistic explanations that talk down to people and fail to make clear what the science is just fuels climate change scoffers. Makes ya wonder if the producer of this video was for or against climate change understanding.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2013
Stupid video. Why didn't it go into a bit of explanation of ocean temperature change driving the jet streams affecting weather patterns and influencing atmospheric moisture content and changing precipitation? How about a comparison of overall global warming?
Simplistic explanations that talk down to people and fail to make clear what the science is just fuels climate change scoffers. Makes ya wonder if the producer of this video was for or against climate change understanding.
posted by BlueHorse at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2013
Started to make a new post for this article but decided to put it here instead. Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? Scientists Consider Extinction
posted by jbickers at 11:06 AM on December 17, 2013
posted by jbickers at 11:06 AM on December 17, 2013
There continues to be essentially ZERO hard scientific evidence to support the idea of AGW, and there is a good deal of evidence for the opposite, including no warming with greatly increased (as a %, not in absolute terms) atmospheric CO2, corrupt "science" and scientists, fake data, and many other things. Climate change, like much of leftism, is a religion immune to facts. The nice thing is that while a certain strata of leftists continue to spout AGW takes, fewer and fewer people believe it. And about that 97% of scientist lie one hears all the time....
The Earth isn't getting dangerously warmer, and the oceans aren't rising. The ice caps aren't melting other than in a cyclical way that has always happened--big ice in the Arctic is back, baby! And by he way, many more people die of cold than heat, so perhaps it's too bad there is no warming.
The primary determinant of earth's temperature is the Sun. It's time that leftism masquerading as science end.
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:19 AM on December 17, 2013
The Earth isn't getting dangerously warmer, and the oceans aren't rising. The ice caps aren't melting other than in a cyclical way that has always happened--big ice in the Arctic is back, baby! And by he way, many more people die of cold than heat, so perhaps it's too bad there is no warming.
The primary determinant of earth's temperature is the Sun. It's time that leftism masquerading as science end.
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:19 AM on December 17, 2013
Here you go: this may kill some cute polar bears, but Arctic Ice hits 35 year high, and hasn't disappeared at all, Al Gore.
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:32 AM on December 17, 2013
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:32 AM on December 17, 2013
But it already is being experienced in our lifetimes. There's already a ton of money being spent (and in a lot of cases specifically budgeted) for dealing with global warming. And that's to say nothing about the less direct increased costs estimated to be attributable to global warming. Those indirect costs have been estimated to run as high as 1.2 trillion annually right now (not tomorrow--today). Note, there's also direct spending on the problem--spending on research and policy analysis, rising sea-level mitigation plans, etc.--already going on in governments around the world.
No, what's being experienced from the skeptics' perspective is that they're being taxed for no reason except SCIENCE/BigGovernment/LiberalAgenda/AtheistLies/blahblahblah when clearly NOTHING is changing or warming or disastering in their neighborhood -- I mean just look out the damn window! The danger, of course, is that these folks, of which there are many, won't be convinced until the changing climate *directly* affects them, by which time it'll be way, way too late.
I'm not being defeatist, as that's no better than denial; quite the opposite: How do we get these people on board and working with us, rather than against us?
posted by NiceKitty at 11:39 AM on December 17, 2013
No, what's being experienced from the skeptics' perspective is that they're being taxed for no reason except SCIENCE/BigGovernment/LiberalAgenda/AtheistLies/blahblahblah when clearly NOTHING is changing or warming or disastering in their neighborhood -- I mean just look out the damn window! The danger, of course, is that these folks, of which there are many, won't be convinced until the changing climate *directly* affects them, by which time it'll be way, way too late.
I'm not being defeatist, as that's no better than denial; quite the opposite: How do we get these people on board and working with us, rather than against us?
posted by NiceKitty at 11:39 AM on December 17, 2013
All these years later--I think almost literally a decade--and the same people are still here using the same debunked arguments to make themselves feel better. Meanwhile, the problem is real and only getting worse whether you believe it or not.
So I don't know.
In the past, you could appeal to the authority of the solid majority of scientists working in this field, but culturally, we've destroyed the very concept of authority and the only mechanisms we have left now are endless tedious debates where any idiot's opinion is considered worth the same as any other.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:47 AM on December 17, 2013
So I don't know.
In the past, you could appeal to the authority of the solid majority of scientists working in this field, but culturally, we've destroyed the very concept of authority and the only mechanisms we have left now are endless tedious debates where any idiot's opinion is considered worth the same as any other.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:47 AM on December 17, 2013
Here you go: this may kill some cute polar bears, but Arctic Ice hits 35 year high, and hasn't disappeared at all, Al Gore.
That link is about the Antarctic, champ.
posted by malocchio at 12:21 PM on December 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
That link is about the Antarctic, champ.
posted by malocchio at 12:21 PM on December 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
He's been known to mix those up before.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:46 PM on December 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 12:46 PM on December 17, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sorry, yes Antarctic above in link.
It's funny and tragic how the AGW cultists can have gotten so far on so
so much fakery and fear-mongering. But thankfully, the balance was tipped a few years ago, I guess with the release of the Hide The Decline Emails and a few other disclosures, and now there's nothing left except a money machine that keeps people silent, but slowly admitting they were taken for a lucrative ride.
When the epitaph is written for the global warming/climate change fraud, perhaps it should read: why were the "deniers" corrupted by at most a few tens of millions of dollars, but the believers not corrupted by the hundreds of billions available to promote their lies?"
posted by NiceParisParamus at 3:26 PM on December 17, 2013
It's funny and tragic how the AGW cultists can have gotten so far on so
so much fakery and fear-mongering. But thankfully, the balance was tipped a few years ago, I guess with the release of the Hide The Decline Emails and a few other disclosures, and now there's nothing left except a money machine that keeps people silent, but slowly admitting they were taken for a lucrative ride.
When the epitaph is written for the global warming/climate change fraud, perhaps it should read: why were the "deniers" corrupted by at most a few tens of millions of dollars, but the believers not corrupted by the hundreds of billions available to promote their lies?"
posted by NiceParisParamus at 3:26 PM on December 17, 2013
> Then you just draw the loose analogy of "insulating gases" trapping heat close in to the surface of the earth. Oversimplification?
I think it's a fine analogy. Not perfect, but better than most. Some differences:
1) The heat transfer process is different -
global warming is about radiative (EM wave) heat exchange (think glowing heat lamp), whereas
blanket-snuggling is about convective (air) heat exchange.
2) The heat balance is different -
global warming is about heat coming in from the sun as (visible) light versus heat radiated into space as (infrared) light, whereas
blanket-snuggling is about heat generated by your body metabolism versus heat convected into the air
3) The heat control mechanisms are different -
global warming the feedbacks can be positive, e.g. snow reflects more sunlight back into space, snowmelt increases heat gain
blanket-snuggling the feedbacks are negative, e.g. if you're too hot you sweat, if you're too cold you shiver.
But finding a metaphor that's exactly like the earth is going to be a long hunt. This is why AGW is a problem - our monkey intuition cannot grapple with it.
posted by anthill at 4:18 PM on December 17, 2013
I think it's a fine analogy. Not perfect, but better than most. Some differences:
1) The heat transfer process is different -
global warming is about radiative (EM wave) heat exchange (think glowing heat lamp), whereas
blanket-snuggling is about convective (air) heat exchange.
2) The heat balance is different -
global warming is about heat coming in from the sun as (visible) light versus heat radiated into space as (infrared) light, whereas
blanket-snuggling is about heat generated by your body metabolism versus heat convected into the air
3) The heat control mechanisms are different -
global warming the feedbacks can be positive, e.g. snow reflects more sunlight back into space, snowmelt increases heat gain
blanket-snuggling the feedbacks are negative, e.g. if you're too hot you sweat, if you're too cold you shiver.
But finding a metaphor that's exactly like the earth is going to be a long hunt. This is why AGW is a problem - our monkey intuition cannot grapple with it.
posted by anthill at 4:18 PM on December 17, 2013
maxwelton said it best:
"Science" (and I'm talking about the popular impression non-scientists have of the term) has turned from making promises of vast wealth and future awesomeness (flying cars, robot servants, limitless power) to largely warning of future disaster and major expense (global warming, dying seas, peak oil).posted by anthill at 4:21 PM on December 17, 2013 [1 favorite]
We all make decisions every day which it is now clear have troubling future consequences, from buying cheap goods whose environmental impact is significant to our reliance on petroleum to having kids. "Science" used to be the way we'd shrug and think that the problem would be solved easily a few years down the line--what we do today is of little consequence. ("Hell, how will the plastic-trash-fueled floating fusion reactors of tomorrow even work if the Pacific Ocean didn't have a plastic graveyard?")
Science now not only doesn't offer a way out, it points out that your lousy decisions last week permanently made the world a worse place, and the bad ones you made today only added fuel to that fire.
This (in my opinion) is why the masses now mistrust science. For years, when we asked "do these pants make me look fat?" science said "no, and in the future, all pants will be flattering!" Now, we ask, and science says "Jesus H. Fuckbomb Christ, your ass is so huge it's in danger of gravitational collapse."
No one wants to hear that. Even if it's the truth.
What's astonishing is that those who believe in the AGW cult almost never agree to debate the "deniers" in public, and almost never (in both cases I offer the qualification "almost" because I'm not on the case 24/7 but I've never seen it...) and never address the devastating fakery such as the lack of temperature increase, the faked or selective data, the evidence of past ice ages with much more co2 in the atmosphere, Greenland being farmable in the recent past, wine growing in England, and it goes on and on. It all reminds me of Soviet communism being scientifically proven to be the future! It would be funny were it not such an indictment of so many people, and institutions.
posted by NiceParisParamus at 10:36 AM on December 18, 2013
posted by NiceParisParamus at 10:36 AM on December 18, 2013
"Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table… I have no interest in doing it.”
posted by anthill at 11:26 AM on December 18, 2013
posted by anthill at 11:26 AM on December 18, 2013
Spoken like a true cult member: those who disagree with me are morons and I have no need to prove they are. Because they are. Because they are.
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:33 AM on December 18, 2013
posted by NiceParisParamus at 11:33 AM on December 18, 2013
« Older Professor Xavier is a JERK! | just a bit of what you might call magic, perhaps Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Sunlight is "visible energy" Huh?
- "Visible energy" becomes infrared light, or is it energy? How?
- Gases absorb light? What?
- Light not leaving makes temperature go up? Why?
This video assumes that people understand that light and radiated heat are the same 'stuff', that light has frequencies, that light is a form of energy, that gases absorb light/energy at different frequencies, etc....Aside from city-living people having never been inside a greenhouse, there is a good reason that metaphor has been the most widely adopted so far.
Maybe we need to rename it the "car left in parking lot" effect.
posted by anthill at 12:51 PM on December 16, 2013 [4 favorites]