Karle wrote:No problem with explaining the weather to the kids. When I tell them no reason to worry about the climate, however, it is more difficult. But after some time of explaining they start to understand that man does not change the climate.
Once they are around 15 years old brain wash has already worked and it gets more difficult.
phaster wrote:
…actually kinda curious about what sign made others a believer in “manmade climate change”
anyone?
..., there is no scientific consensus regarding the impact of climate research on the scientists performing it. It hasn’t been studied in a systematic way.
Yonnipun wrote:If you are going to explain the climate change to kids then how would you explain the next question - " why did you bring me into this world"?
Dry Facts, Debate, Despair: How Not to Teach Climate Change
...The message from popular culture can seem to urge that teachers just get with the program and tell students what to think., ...But effective teachers know that leading with the attitude that anyone who doesn't accept climate change is stupid is no way to help their students learn.
...Having students debate whether climate change is solid science isn't a good strategy, because the science is, in fact, solid; there's nothing there worth debating. As multiple studies using different methods have independently concluded,
...concentrating on the dire consequences of climate change isn't a winner either: While students will certainly pay attention to hearing about climate change's role in current extreme weather events and the like, the risk is that they will wind up feeling despondent and powerless.
Dry facts, debate, doom and gloom—teachers striving to teach climate change effectively despite the obstacles to doing so can be forgiven for considering all of the above.
Fortunately, there's a better way. Climate change education is no different from any other topic in science, in that teachers want students to learn how scientists arrive at their conclusions: by collecting and evaluating evidence, assessing different explanations for the evidence, and provisionally adopting the best explanation available.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/ ... ot-to.html
Children suffering eco-anxiety over climate change, say psychologists
...“Children are saying things like, ‘Climate change is here as revenge, you’ve messed up the climate and nature is fighting back through climate change’,” said Caroline Hickman, a teaching fellow at the University of Bath and a CPA executive.
“There is no doubt in my mind that they are being emotionally impacted ... That real fear from children needs to be taken seriously by adults.”
Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg has led a worldwide youth movement demanding action on global warming through weekly “Fridays for Future” protests.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN1W42CF
Hopeless or hopeful? How eco-anxiety affects kids and youth
...there may be some benefit to eco-anxiety -- as long as there’s not too much of it.
“Too much anxiety paralyzes you,” said Korol, relating the issue to the Yerkes–Dodson law that suggests stress can increase motivation. For many of the eco-anxious, encouraging engagement and participation in climate action may actually be helpful, she said, but so can turning down the TV.
That’s because hope is a key factor. “It’s important to counteract the nihilism and the hopelessness that people feel,” she said. “Hopelessness is the big enemy of solving any problem, including climate change. When we’re talking about children, we need to give them hope.”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/hopeless-o ... -1.4608324
Sinclarsorus wrote:One volcano puts out more CO2 then the whole 200 years of industrial revolution combined. Its fraud.
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
…spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... or-humans/
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.
…In a 2011 peer-reviewed paper, U.S. Geologic Survey scientist Terry Gerlach summarized five previous estimates of global volcanic carbon dioxide emission rates that had been published between 1991 and 1998. Those estimates incorporated studies reaching back to the 1970s, and they were based on a wide variety of measurements, such as direct sampling and satellite remote sensing. The global estimates fell within a range of about 0.3 ± 0.15 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, implying that human carbon dioxide emissions were more than 90 times greater than global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions.
…Occasionally, eruptions are powerful enough to release carbon dioxide at a rate that matches or even exceeds the global rate of human emissions for a few hours. For example, Gerlach estimated that the eruptions of Mount St. Helens (1980) and Pinatubo (1991) both released carbon dioxide on a scale similar to human output for about nine hours. Human emissions of carbon dioxide continue day after day, month after month, year after year.
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/cl ... activities
Sinclarsorus wrote:[one] big threat right now is plastic bottles in our oceans. Its in all the fish and everything else. People buy everything to drink in these bottles, its a total environmental disaster,...
Stop little kids from drinking out of these plastic bottles and other plastic lined containers. Thats what you should tell them now.
Sløtface tackle “the desperation of climate change” on powerful new single ‘Sink Or Swim’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgsLC2CnCdw
“…The climate crisis is a huge and bundled issue,” added Sløtface bassist Lasse Lokøy. “Instead of showing icebergs melting and things that feel so far away, we felt that it made sense to make this about something we all live every day: Trash.
http://www.nme.com/news/music/slotface- ... im-2551823
Coca-Cola's plastic secrets | DW Documentary
By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the sea. Ten tons of plastic are produced every second. Sooner or later, a tenth of that will end up in the oceans. Coca-Cola says it wants to do something about it - but does it really?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvYZ3sbTaQ0
....thanks phasterHuman activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions.
Plant scientists have observed that when levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise, most plants do something unusual: They thicken their leaves.
And since human activity is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, thick-leafed plants appear to be in our future.
But the consequences of this physiological response go far beyond heftier leaves on many plants. Two University of Washington scientists have discovered that plants with thicker leaves may exacerbate the effects of climate change because they would be less efficient in sequestering atmospheric carbon, a fact that climate change models to date have not taken into account.
In a paper published online Oct. 1 by the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, the researchers report that, when they incorporated this information into global climate models under the high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels expected later this century, the global “carbon sink” contributed by plants was less productive — leaving about 5.8 extra petagrams, or 6.39 billion tons, of carbon in the atmosphere per year. Those levels are similar to the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere each year due to human-generated fossil fuel emissions — 8 petagrams, or 8.8 billion tons.
“Plants are flexible and respond to different environmental conditions,” said senior author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and biology. “But until now, no one had tried to quantify how this type of response to climate change will alter the impact that plants have on our planet.”
In 1862, John Tyndall discovered that certain gases (water and carbon dioxide) help trap heat from escaping the atmosphere. Later, in 1895, Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius observed the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water molecules.
Sinclarsorus wrote:15 active volcanos around the world, I'm sure has more impact on C02 emissions than civilization ever has. Plants thrive in high CO2 environments anyway, so what is the problem? The sea levels are normally much higher then present anyway. We just happen to be in a inter-glacial period now, where sea levels are below normal levels of geologic time.
All this science comes from the same funded operations like foundations and all that malarkey controlled by Wall Street operations . Its just designed to make people think there is scarcity to keep prices high for everything we buy. If you took all the people on earth it wouldn't even fill up the size of Texas, but we are told the world is over-populated and all that jazz .
All this stuff is designed to make money or control something or someone.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 284 guests