dohboi wrote:"we know the climate is changing both in the political realm as well as in the real world,... and the only way to mitigate the symptoms is to use "hard" science and math concepts to develop and build countermeasures"
Science and math are important, but they also are insufficient to deal with the existential threat presented here. For example, the title question of this thread is a very important, but it is not one that either math or 'hard' science has anything to say about.
That being said, I always thought it would be a good idea for kids to make simple instruments to measure air pressure. This can be good for studying changes in weather. But you can also ask them to think about what it means as far as how great the mass of air is above them at all times. Then for kids the appropriate age, have them work out the mass of the entire atmosphere. From there, they could look at how much oil, gas and coal is burned every year, and figure out how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere.
There are also chemicals that turn water blue (iirc) when a certain level of CO2 is dissolved in it, because the carbonic acid reduces the pH (acidifies it). This could be an introduction into how increases in atmospheric CO2 also increases the acidity (or decreases the alkalinity) of ocean (and other) water, with predictable (and probably some upredictable) negative results on most life forms.
And of course having an actual greenhouse in the garden can be a powerful introduction to how greenhouse gasses work, if approached the right way. It also is a good introduction to thermal solar power.
Newfie wrote:I’m no expert but a mistake I continually make is to press too fast. I expect to see some immediate recognition of my wisdom. I think it takes patience and understanding that you can’t reach all, and I fail at that.
Let the kids guide you, do the intro and hint you have more. Some will seek more, let them take as much has as they want. Don’t push. The kids are your seedlings, don’t over water.
I sincerely hope this helps. Good on you for trying.
Most Teachers Don't Teach Climate Change; 4 In 5 Parents Wish They Did
More than 80% of parents in the U.S. support the teaching of climate change. And that support crosses political divides, according to the results of an exclusive new NPR/Ipsos poll: Whether they have children or not, two-thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats agree that the subject needs to be taught in school.
A separate poll of teachers found that they are even more supportive, in theory — 86% agree that climate change should be taught.
These polls are among the first to gauge public and teacher opinion on how climate change should be taught to the generation that in the coming years will face its intensifying consequences: children.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/22/71426226 ... h-they-did
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:I was raised on Science Fiction, and a big part of describing fantastical planets far away is to lay out how their climate in whole or in part is different than what the average reader has seen around themselves.
This is where distrust of science really comes from — and it’s not just your politics
...In particular, being a biblical literalist — endorsing the statement, “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” — was a much bigger factor than liberalism or conservatism in explaining why some people disagreed with the use of science in “concrete government policy decisions,” and also why they were against federal science funding.
...Political ideology became more significant in driving people’s views about science as they became more scientifically literate. Thus, being a liberal or a conservative alone didn’t matter much to how the questions above were answered – outside of the cases where political beliefs were combined with scientific knowledge.
“Only for scientifically sophisticated respondents, those 1.5 standard units above the mean, is conservative political ideology associated with less favorable views towards science’s authority,” wrote Gauchat. That’s not surprising: More scientifically literate conservatives are surely more literate and informed in all aspects of life, including politics. And thus, they’re more likely to be aware that the scientific community is a very politically liberal place, overall — far more liberal than the American public.
And knowing this, in turn, they’re inclined to distrust it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... -politics/
West Wing: Take This Sabbath Day, "The Man Who Lived By the River"
01:33 I'm not kidding you know do you remind
01:40 me of the man that lived by the river he
01:43 heard a radio report that the river was
01:44 gonna rush up and flood the town and
01:47 that all the residents should evacuate
01:50 their homes but the man said I'm
01:53 religious I pray God loves me
01:55 God will save me the waters rose up a
01:58 guy in a rowboat came along and he
02:00 shouted hey you you in there the town is
02:04 flooding let me take you to safety but
02:07 the man shouted back
02:08 I'm religious I pray God loves me God
02:12 will save me a helicopter was hovering
02:15 overhead and a guy with a megaphone
02:18 shouted hey you you down there
02:21 the town is flooding let me drop this
02:25 ladder and I'll take you to safety but
02:26 the man shouted back that he was
02:28 religious that he prayed that God loved
02:30 him and that God will take him to safety
02:33 well the man drumming and standing at
02:41 the gates of st. Peter he demanded an
02:44 audience with God Lord he said I'm a
02:50 religious man I pray I thought you loved
02:54 me why did this happen
02:57 God said I sent you a radio report a
03:01 helicopter and a guy in a rowboat what
03:04 the hell are you doing here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06dQaOZIcH0
jedrider wrote:The Washington Post let me squeak through their paywall this time, so I skimmed through the article.
Conservatives know their views go against the FACTS and, so, they naturally distrust science (in order to affirm their conservative bias). Liberals, on the other hand, I suppose, would be swayed by religious beliefs as an adjunct motivation, but FACT-wise, they are NOT afraid, unless it did conflict with their beliefs on some issue. So, it boils down to one believes what one wants to, no more, no less.
That is certainly interesting, if one were to explain climate change to kids and they would actively resist, rather than just leave it to expediency, as most people do. Even the kids are being dragged into this political divide.
I think one has to approach this as the kids WANT to learn about this because it is interesting and exciting to explore new things. If they are already politically and theocratically (?) jaded, than that is just their problem and not the teacher's. There will be plenty of young people who do want to learn the truth, or learn science, which is the process of uncovering the truth.
Why Central Banks Are Taking on Climate Change
...Why are central bankers so interested in climate change issues? One reason is that serious effects from climate change now look much closer to the horizon than recently thought, said Orts, who is also director of Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership. Not long ago — when big climate trouble appeared to be 30-50 years away — there was little interest from bankers. Now, impacts are visible and “the window for making a significant transition in order to avoid radical crashes in the world, including financial crashes, is 10 to 12 years.” Given that central banks are responsible for financial stability, there is a newfound focus.
The U.S. is still not part of this central bank organization in part because it is so new, Orts added. But the signatories represent “a huge number of countries – you have China, Mexico, many European countries, etc., and the U.S. will be compelled to come into this.” China is one of the key leaders of the new process, noted Campiglio, who is also a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/art ... te-change/
GHung wrote:how would you explain climate change and weather to kids?
My kids figured it out for themselves. We just gave them the tools. Now it's their problem to get their kids to the point where they can figure things out rather than adopt some suicidal narrative.
Not that they'll have many win/win choices.
Why Doesn’t Everyone Believe Humans Are Causing Climate Change?
...Climate illiteracy isn’t just limited to the general public, either. Ranney recalls a scientist’s presentation at a recent conference which said that many university professors teaching global warming barely had a better understanding of its mechanism than the undergraduates they were teaching. “Even one of the most highly-cited climate change communicators in the world didn’t know the mechanism over dinner,”
...When Ranney surveyed 270 visitors to a San Diego park on how global warming works, he found that exactly zero could provide the proper mechanism.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/c ... cceptance/
It's Official: Atmospheric CO2 Just Exceeded 415 ppm For The First Time in Human History
Yet another alarming milestone of humanity's damaging effect on the environment has now officially been reached – crossing a barrier into a hot, polluted future like the planet hasn't witnessed in millions of years.
This weekend, sensors in Hawaii recorded Earth's atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) passing 415 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since before the ancient dawn of humanity.
https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-offic ... an-history
Newfie wrote:Here is how Bill Nye explains it to adults.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ate-change
It’s best to be sober when watching.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests