5 ms·

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexiti

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for policy makers otherwise it is far to easy for mud-rakers to try and undo meaningful work/change in our policy/business arenas. Abstract away the complications. Great piece.

nverno 5y ago
I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  As an environmental engineer that deals with the interface between the public and policy makers, I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The public IS dumb, but every time they try to dumb down the principles they regulate on, it always comes at the detriment of the environment and the 'little guy'. It's almost always better to delegate policy to smart qualified people with correctly aligned interests. Getting that latter part right is hard, but that is the job of a competent public official.
  - boringg 5y ago
    It's a difficult place to be - damned if you do and damned if you don't.
- boringg 5y ago
  I disagree. There is an inherent risk that dumbing down or abstracting away the complexities of the science to have an appropriate discourse on appropriate policy action creates blowback but trying to create a system that accounts for the complexities of the science would just cause infinite headaches. The business mechanism to try and solve this needs to be simple and relatively clear and should align with the science. The general population doesn't have the time or capabilities to understand the complexities. I am not saying hide the complexity - I am just saying don't have it in the forefront of the policy decisions - and don't constantly change the regulatory mechanism unless it is grossly misaligned with the science. I am glad you think the average person has the same capability to understand the problems and has taken environmental science engineering programs - I feel much better about that.
photochemsyn 5y ago
I don't think it's that complicated. Start with water vapor - moisture evaporates from the ocean, lakes, soil, vegetation. On average such a water molecule stays in the atmosphere for 4-10 days - because water condenses as rain, unlike methane or carbon dioxide. Water vapor increase accounts for about 2/3 of the immediate global warming effect, but is controlled by temperature, which is in turn controlled by the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Hence we can think of water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback to the CO2/CH4 forcing. This is not too difficult for people to understand. The fact that methane is a reactive gas, i.e. CH4 + O2 -> CO2 over time (OH just being an intermediate), means it gets converted to CO2, accounting for the relatively short 10-year lifetime. CO2 + OH/O2 does nothing, so we can expect a longer lifetime. The notion that CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is 100 years is perhaps a bit more complicated, as it involves ocean uptake and things like that, but it's all fairly straightforward. The gas/oil/coal sector might want people to believe that passing gas in a closed room won't eventually create a stink, but it's the same general concept.
- boringg 5y ago
  I agree I don't think it's that complicated but when you have a regulatory industry surrounding complex science with politicians weighing in it can get very tricky. I refer to climate deniers/paid advocacy groups and mud rakers who constantly try and trip up progress by trying to bring sow doubt through poking holes in the argument or nitpicking small issues.
- lstodd 5y ago
  You forgot the albedo effect of the clouds. On both sides - top and bottom. This has not ever been modelled to my knowledge. And it is very complicated.
  - quantum_magpie 5y ago
    Albedo is included in every single atmospheric model.
    - lstodd 5y ago
the8472 5y ago
You can't push it out in a single news blurb. But if it were covered as some math/physics/chemistry sections building on each other in secondary education it should be manageable. Especially if you already covered exponential decays. Add the secondary effect of the exponential decay parameter varying based on concentration.

nverno 5y ago

I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Enginerrrd 5y ago
As an environmental engineer that deals with the interface between the public and policy makers, I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The public IS dumb, but every time they try to dumb down the principles they regulate on, it always comes at the detriment of the environment and the 'little guy'. It's almost always better to delegate policy to smart qualified people with correctly aligned interests. Getting that latter part right is hard, but that is the job of a competent public official.
- boringg 5y ago
  It's a difficult place to be - damned if you do and damned if you don't.
boringg 5y ago
I disagree. There is an inherent risk that dumbing down or abstracting away the complexities of the science to have an appropriate discourse on appropriate policy action creates blowback but trying to create a system that accounts for the complexities of the science would just cause infinite headaches. The business mechanism to try and solve this needs to be simple and relatively clear and should align with the science. The general population doesn't have the time or capabilities to understand the complexities. I am not saying hide the complexity - I am just saying don't have it in the forefront of the policy decisions - and don't constantly change the regulatory mechanism unless it is grossly misaligned with the science. I am glad you think the average person has the same capability to understand the problems and has taken environmental science engineering programs - I feel much better about that.

photochemsyn 5y ago

I don't think it's that complicated. Start with water vapor - moisture evaporates from the ocean, lakes, soil, vegetation. On average such a water molecule stays in the atmosphere for 4-10 days - because water condenses as rain, unlike methane or carbon dioxide. Water vapor increase accounts for about 2/3 of the immediate global warming effect, but is controlled by temperature, which is in turn controlled by the CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. Hence we can think of water vapor in the atmosphere as a feedback to the CO2/CH4 forcing. This is not too difficult for people to understand. The fact that methane is a reactive gas, i.e. CH4 + O2 -> CO2 over time (OH just being an intermediate), means it gets converted to CO2, accounting for the relatively short 10-year lifetime. CO2 + OH/O2 does nothing, so we can expect a longer lifetime. The notion that CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere is 100 years is perhaps a bit more complicated, as it involves ocean uptake and things like that, but it's all fairly straightforward. The gas/oil/coal sector might want people to believe that passing gas in a closed room won't eventually create a stink, but it's the same general concept.

boringg 5y ago
I agree I don't think it's that complicated but when you have a regulatory industry surrounding complex science with politicians weighing in it can get very tricky. I refer to climate deniers/paid advocacy groups and mud rakers who constantly try and trip up progress by trying to bring sow doubt through poking holes in the argument or nitpicking small issues.
lstodd 5y ago
You forgot the albedo effect of the clouds. On both sides - top and bottom. This has not ever been modelled to my knowledge. And it is very complicated.
- quantum_magpie 5y ago
  Albedo is included in every single atmospheric model.
  - lstodd 5y ago

the8472 5y ago

You can't push it out in a single news blurb. But if it were covered as some math/physics/chemistry sections building on each other in secondary education it should be manageable. Especially if you already covered exponential decays. Add the secondary effect of the exponential decay parameter varying based on concentration.