 |
 |
Hi, I have never done this experiment myself so can't vouch for its success, and people may already have tried and dismissed it but I thought i'd post it in case it was useful. I found a paper describing an experiment to demonstrate the greenhouse effect when looking for a suitable demonstration to show the importance of atmospheric scientists. I didn't try it because it required too much apparatus and I was only doing a one-off presentation. Take two fish tanks with identical lamps heating them as evenly as possible. The reaction of baking soda with vinegar is carried out in only one tank with the other as a control. Prove that CO2 is produced by lowering a lit match inside which will be extinguished once it enters the layer of CO2 produced. Start a timer and track the temperature change in both tanks for between 5 and 20 minutes and you should see that the temperature increase in the control tank is noticeably less than that in the experimental tank. The paper with full experimental description is available at the following address: http://serc.carleton.edu/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Lueddecke_v49n3p274.pdf Sarah. Sarah Moller, University of York On Feb 16 2010, Richard Ellam wrote: >HI All > > >>> Out of interest, how easily do science communicators nowadays go >>> about engaging the public in dialogue about climate change without >>> acknowledging the contested nature of the science? >> >> Well, the science is not really contested. > >...SNIP... >> >> I don't want to be critical, but to be honest I think there is a >> certain failure of the science communication community to make it >> clear to non-scientist how science works in social terms; who the >> scientists are, how they think and what drives them. >> >> I have seen many science communication "shows", and many do appear >> as shows - slick presentations of "fun"tastic phenomena etc. But >> they seem just like many other entertainment shows, from stage >> magicians to TV special effects. Everybody knows these are fakes - >> so how do we know the science shows are real? Sometimes shows are >> presented by a "mad scientist" because everybody thinks that's fun. >> Yes it is, but it also reinforces the stereotypes about scientists' >> personalities. >> > >As a science communicator of the kind who writes and presents Science >Shows (see www.lminteractive.co.uk if you want to know more about >me) I feel that I need to defend what I do from some of Stephan's >remarks, and also to possibly explain why people like me don't tend >to talk about Climate Change, and why this is a BAD THING (emphasis >intended). > >First off I, and I think most professional science show presenters >are well aware that there is a danger that the public will regard >what we do as being tricker, and we take considerable pains to avoid >creating this impression - actually some of us ARE actually stage >magicians as well, so we know better than most how to both misdirect >the audience, and how NOT to do so. Certainly in my own practise I >take considerable pains to ensure that my presentation of the >phenomena I demonstrate is transparent as physically possible. For >instance I try wherever possible to avoid the use of the kind of >'black box' instrumentation, with outputs to real or virtual meters, >that would be commonplace in a real lab. I do this because I don't >want there to be the nagging question in the audience's mind about >what happens inside the 'black box' > >Having spoke to a number of people over the years who evidenced >varying degrees of skepticism about Climate Change, and read some of >the rubbish they publish I've come to the conclusion that a LOT of >these people are actually ignorant of the basic physics driving the >whole process of climate change. I think that one of the most >powerful arguments against thoes who would deny climate change is to >actually be able to show them the basic process at work before their >eyes, and therein lies the rub. > >You see, I, and I suspect many other hands-on science communicators >would like to do a show, or part of a show, which looks at climate >change. But, there seems to be no really convincing table-top >demonstration that we can use to show the basic effect of CO2 >absorbing infrared light in the wavelengths relevant to climate >change. I think I can say this with some confidence as I've been >going to conferences where demonstrations have been discussed, and >shared freely, for about 15 years and I've never seen a good >'greenhouse effect' demonstration in all that time. I also think >that, although I'm a solo freelance, I'm reasonably well connected >with the rest of the hands on science communication community here in >the UK and I don't know of anyone who's doing a decent demonstration >of the greenhouse effect. > >Maybe I'm just not clever enough to invent such a demonstration, or >well connected enough to know of anyone else doing one. If that's the >case and if (whoever you are, reading this) you've got a good, >reliable, tabletop demonstration of the greenhouse effect using CO2 >as a greenhouse gas, please will you share it with the rest of us? > >IF it were possible to convince the skeptics that the basic effect >driving climate change was real then we'd be in a much stronger >position to command public opinion: if the basic science is accepted >than it surely follows that we would expect to see rising CO2 levels >in the atmosphere producing a stronger greenhouse effect, and so >increasing global temperatures. Viewed against this background the >issues of dodgy e-mails, and whether the 'hockey stick' graph is >right or wrong become essentially matters of detail whose outcomes >don't affect the underlying validity of the basic science. > >It also seems to me that it is worth thinking about what else would >be different if the basic science underlying climate change and the >greenhouse effect was simply wrong - what things that we know work in >the world as it is would fail to work if the physics was wrong? > >I suppose my big point overall is that the discussion of climate >change science, both by science communicators and the media has >become dominated by arguments over the validity of this piece or that >piece of (complex) evidence. The Deniers like this, because it allows >them to sow the seeds of dissent, and suggest that the divisions >between various groups of climate scientists are deep fissures in the >structure of climate science, rather than the blemishes on the >paintwork they actually are. If we can actually SHOW people, not >just TELL them, that the basic physics stacks up then we've got a >powerful argument on our side which provides, amongst other things, a >stepping off point for discussing the messier aspects of climate >science. > > >Hope this helps > > > > >Cheers > > > > >Richard > > >Stephan wrote >Richard Ellam >L M Interactive >Science Shows and Hands-On Stuff >tel/fax 01761 412 797 > >www.lminteractive.co.uk >[log in to unmask] > > > >********************************************************************** >1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, >send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message: > >set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] > > 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to > [log in to unmask] with the message: > >set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] > > 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the > message: > >leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] > > 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list > archive, can be found at the list web site: > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html > > 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication > and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk > > 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to > mailto:[log in to unmask] > ********************************************************************** > > > > > ********************************************************************** 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] 4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html 5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk 6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] **********************************************************************