Bathtub Model

The bathtub model can be used to explain the climate and different futures. I personally like this model because it is easy to understand and the concept allows you to play with different situations in order to determine the outcome. For example, the first tub that was shown was a tub at an equilibrium state. In this state the amount of water being put in the tub is the same amount that is leaving the tub. This allows the water in the tub to stay at a constant level. Comparing this to the environment, if humans were not on this planet, the atmosphere would be at an equilibrium due to the natural processes on Earth. Another situation that can occur for Earth is that more carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere than it is being taken out. This would mean turning up the faucet on the bathtub. This would cause the tub to over fill. This simulates when humans began using machines and producing carbon dioxide, putting more in than the natural amount. The opposite could also occur, where more carbon dioxide is being taken out than is being put in. The additional amount of carbon dioxide being added by humans can also be shown in this model by adding a second faucet. This would show that carbon dioxide is being put into the atmosphere by multiple sources. Some plants and oceans are partially absorbing some of the extra CO2, which can be represented by more holes on the bottom or  larger hole. Additional bath tubs can be added to the circuit in order to represent other parts of the carbon cycle. You can then change the input and output of the water in the tub in order to coordinate it with the emissions. This is a nice representation of the Earth's atmosphere and the multiple influences that cause it to warm up or cool down. This can be used to predict or visualize the future outcomes if we lower our emissions, keep them the same or even make them greater.

My Climate Widget!

What is the big connection between climate change and extreme weather events and disasters?

• Based on what you just saw and read - how would you answer this question?

There is definitely a connection between climate change and the extreme weather events/ disasters. There are going to be years where extreme conditions occur. But when these conditions are record breaking, more that regular, that is when you can draw connections. With climate change, the globe is heating, causing more rain in certain places, more drought in other places and sometimes more extremes/disasters. There is no significant amount of proof saying that they are 100% connected, but there is nothing to prove that is not.

• What are the connections? Does it even matter?

The most recent extreme weather disasters like Hurricane Sandy or all of the wildfires occurring, are not necessarily pure coincidence. There is proof that climate change has been linked to multiple heat waves. When it comes to linking climate change to specific hurricanes or droughts is where it becomes particularly shady. Personally, I don't feel as though we need to necessarily prove the connection between the two at this current moment. The extremes are causing people to open up their eyes enough to see that the climate is changing. Although there is no proof that the extreme weather is directly associated with climate, there is enough there to convince people it is.

• Is there a good analogy you can use to illustrate the connections?

The connections between climate change and the extreme weather patterns/disasters are like human emotions and different scents. It is believed that different scents make us feel different ways. How else would Yankee Candle be so popular? This is called aromatherapy. Although there way not be significant proof of this method, people still use candles and other scents to manipulate their emotions. There are scents that relax you, make you sleepy, give you more energy and other things. Although there is no real direct science, there is no science proving that it is not true. This is very similar to climate change and weather. Although there is no proof that the global warming is causing extreme weather, there is nothing saying that it is not.

• And - who is Kevin Trenberth?

He is a senior scientist with the federal government's national center for atmospheric research, He is originally from New Zealand, as well as a former rugby player. He also earned his doctorate degree from MIT. He has spent a significant amount of his career studying variability in climate but has recently switched to studying the global water cycle and how it is responding to climate change. He is currently leading a world climate research program.

Montreal Protocol VS Kyoto Protocol

It is sometimes said that the Montreal Protocol did more to slow climate change than the Kyoto Protocol - how is that possible?

• About 40 years ago, it was discovered that there were pollutants in the air called chlorofluorocarbons that are slowly but surely eating away at our ozone layer. The ozone layer that is being affected is what protects the Earth from harmful radiation, and if it does not stop disappearing, everyone would be severely affected by illnesses and skin diseases. In 1990 the Montreal Protocol was announced, which was enforced by many nations and allowed countries to stop using CFC's. This completely prevented us from losing our ozone layer. The building up to the Montreal Protocol first began in 1974. Two scientists, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, discovered that CFC's have the ability when sprayed to be carried up miles into the atmosphere. When there and mixed with the sun's UV rays, there was a chemical reaction that caused the depletion of the ozone layer. As this layer began to weaken, more UV rays were able to reach the Earth's surface. Although most of the companies that used or sold CFC's stopped using them, companies that completely depended on it decided to take more risks. These would be the companies that produced air conditioners or refrigerators. These companies began to rise again, and by the mid-1980s, the CFC level was peaking again. This caused a strong danger to our ozone level once again. A curve ball hit the scientists again when a large hole in the ozone was discovered above Antarctica. This added more urgency to the already pressing situation. The plan was to phase out CFC's with a ten year plan, being the Montreal Protocol. In 1990, after the Protocol was passed, they refined the agreement to a three part plan. This reflected what they wanted, but differentiated the responsibilities. Another protocol, the Kyoto Protocol was another plan to slow down and hopefully stop global warming. The Kyoto Protocol was developed after Montreal, and only included a control over greenhouse gases. The Montreal Protocol covers greenhouse gas emissions as well as other substances that negatively affect the atmosphere. This is mainly why it seems as though the Montreal Protocol was more effective in slowing the climate than the Kyoto Protocol. CFC's were proven to be very influential on our planet's atmosphere and had a huge impact. Once these chemicals were removed, our climate change crisis was sufficiently slowed.

This Figure shows the two possible futures that we could have had, whether or not the Montreal Protocol was founded. This focuses on the Chlorine concentration, which is not restricted under the Kyoto Protocol.

Source: here

THE MOST TERRIFYING VIDEO YOU'LL EVERY SEE

This video, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" is quite brilliant. He uses more of the fact that there may be something out there that impacts us, but whether or not it actually exists is not the problem. The real problem is whether or not we are doing something. At the very worst, we do nothing and global warming exists, the world as we know it no longer will. But if we play it safe, and global warming does not exist, it is a much better option than a catastrophic ending. I think this is a fantastic approach to it.

Fixing the Communication Failure

• What is cultural cognition?

Cultural cognition refers to the influence of group values on risk perceptions and related beliefs. These group values reflect on equality, individualism, authority and community.

• How does protective cognition manifest itself in the context of climate change science?

It is the main cause of political conflict over the credibility of scientific data on climate change and other environmental risks.

• Explain the two specific techniques suggested for improving scientific communication.

One method is to explain information in a way that affirms peoples beliefs rather that threatens them. This is because people tend to reject information that may prevent them from doing activities that are valued by their group. But in the other hand if they are also presented information that upholds their commitments then they are more likely to be open-minded about the subject. The second technique is to make sure that the evidence is backed up by a diverse panel of experts.

• What, unfortunately, is the reality of most scientific communication.

The method is to normally flood the public with as much information as possible, assuming that all of the truth will drown out the lies.

Test #1

Test #1 with my survey questions on there too!