• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of us spend a lot of time trying to help inform our families, friends and the public about the threat of climate change but we are battling a very clever and well funded disinformation campaign and the amount of time that we have left to respond to the threat is quickly running out. Perhaps some of our time would be well spent developing better sources of information which are much easier for people that are new to this issue to comprehend and which are far more compelling than what is currently available.

I have two suggestions and would appreciate your thoughts...

Unfortunately, this is sounds more like an attempt to "re-invent the wheel," especially as everything you suggest has existed for at least most of the last decade.

I don't mean to be discouraging, merely noting that all that you suggest already exists. It isn't so much a matter of creating new and improved resources, as it is getting several generations of population to properly value critical thought and scientific principles.

Unfortunately, until the issue can be moved beyond the political decisions that will accompany accepting the science of AGW, we're forced to endure the current quagmire. Issues like this may play a role:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/exposed-to-facts-the-misinformed-believe-lies-more-strongly/

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
 
You replied to an article that made a claim that, in the opinion of an official interviewed, the emails showed that UEA broke the law but the only reason they weren't charged were statutes of limitations. That is the opinion of one guy, in one department, and is in no way indicative of their guilt or otherwise in this matter.


Great for sending to any septics you may know:[/i]


I think you must be referring to Graham Smith at the ICO? I don't think he was on his own in making these statements and I believe they were reflected in the House of Commons report.

That's a very good video, and very well put together.
 
"Unfortunately, this is sounds more like an attempt to "re-invent the wheel," especially as everything you suggest has existed for at least most of the last decade."

I agree that the information has been around and there are lots of good resources but I don't yet know of any website that provides links to almost all of the subject matter. I still end up getting the latest infromation from a number of sources rather than having it linked to a central website. What are the most compelling websites at the moment where a lot of information is linked at one location?

I also believe that a much larger and more global reaching scientific consensus statement could sway many more people's opinions if they do not have their minds made up yet. My guess is that people can be underwhelmed by the singular and somewhat spread out consensus studies that have been done to date and many probably don't really understand what the scope of the IPCC is.
Perhaps being able to view a much larger and better graphical interface showing the percentage of scientists that concur with the threat of AGW globally would have more impact IMHO. Any country that you looked at would have the percentage and number of supporting scientists clearly posted and one could move around the world to look at different countries or zoom into areas and then right down to the individual institutions. Anywhere you looked the consensus would be glaringly obvious and hard to dismiss.

Great article by the U of Michigan by the way as I did believe people could be more easily swayed when given better information. In hindsight though it's so true that many people that I have tried to convince that AGW is true will not accept any information contrary to that which they already believe. It's unfortunate that we have to compete against corrupt prime-time television stations and so many other forms of well funded denier media.

Any thoughts on the global consensus statement?

Thanks!
 
I think you must be referring to Graham Smith at the ICO? I don't think he was on his own in making these statements and I believe they were reflected in the House of Commons report.

That's a very good video, and very well put together.

It's quite possible that I mistook your link for another, I'll go back over the thread when I get a few minutes to spare.
 
I agree that the information has been around and there are lots of good resources but I don't yet know of any website that provides links to almost all of the subject matter. I still end up getting the latest infromation from a number of sources rather than having it linked to a central website. What are the most compelling websites at the moment where a lot of information is linked at one location?

It deals with denier claims against the science, but ends up being a pretty comprehensive repository of all of the relevant issues and the research that supports our understanding of them:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/
 
"Unfortunately, this is sounds more like an attempt to "re-invent the wheel," especially as everything you suggest has existed for at least most of the last decade."

I agree that the information has been around and there are lots of good resources but I don't yet know of any website that provides links to almost all of the subject matter. I still end up getting the latest infromation from a number of sources rather than having it linked to a central website. What are the most compelling websites at the moment where a lot of information is linked at one location?

I also believe that a much larger and more global reaching scientific consensus statement could sway many more people's opinions if they do not have their minds made up yet. My guess is that people can be underwhelmed by the singular and somewhat spread out consensus studies that have been done to date and many probably don't really understand what the scope of the IPCC is.
Perhaps being able to view a much larger and better graphical interface showing the percentage of scientists that concur with the threat of AGW globally would have more impact IMHO. Any country that you looked at would have the percentage and number of supporting scientists clearly posted and one could move around the world to look at different countries or zoom into areas and then right down to the individual institutions. Anywhere you looked the consensus would be glaringly obvious and hard to dismiss.

Great article by the U of Michigan by the way as I did believe people could be more easily swayed when given better information. In hindsight though it's so true that many people that I have tried to convince that AGW is true will not accept any information contrary to that which they already believe. It's unfortunate that we have to compete against corrupt prime-time television stations and so many other forms of well funded denier media.

Any thoughts on the global consensus statement?

Thanks!

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
 
That is a great video by the way BitPattern and as I watched it all I could think about was the volume of heat which has been added into our biotope. Unless there is drastic global action taken to reduce the amount of both the CO2 and the heat procduced emmediately (doubtfull) then I would guess that the permafrost will probably start to melt in a significant way in less than a decade. My opinion is based on the data showing the Arctic heating up faster than anywhere else, warmer air sitting over the Arctic longer in the fall, and as the ice melts and the albedo increasing as well as illustrated on this page once again.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/images/heat-wiring-400.jpg

It's kind of funny that the latest post at http://www.skepticalscience.com/On_Consensus.html addresses the topic of the consensus.

Thanks TShaitanaku for another great link to the G8+5 document. Once again the U of Michigan study was an eye opener for me.

Too little too late I think and I'm glad I was able to see this coming many years ago and I'm relieved that I made the choice not have children.

Thanks!
 
Hot you say?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE67009W

The hottest weather since records began 130 years ago has withered crops and pushed thousands of farmers to the verge of bankruptcy.

Around 240,000 people were battling the flames, the Emergencies Ministry said. Army units, including elite paratroops, were taking part in the fight.

I read elsewhere that the peat in the ground had caught on fire.
 
That is a great video by the way BitPattern and as I watched it all I could think about was the volume of heat which has been added into our biotope. Unless there is drastic global action taken to reduce the amount of both the CO2 and the heat procduced emmediately (doubtfull) then I would guess that the permafrost will probably start to melt in a significant way in less than a decade. My opinion is based on the data showing the Arctic heating up faster than anywhere else, warmer air sitting over the Arctic longer in the fall, and as the ice melts and the albedo increasing as well as illustrated on this page once again.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/images/heat-wiring-400.jpg

It's kind of funny that the latest post at http://www.skepticalscience.com/On_Consensus.html addresses the topic of the consensus.

Thanks TShaitanaku for another great link to the G8+5 document. Once again the U of Michigan study was an eye opener for me.

Too little too late I think and I'm glad I was able to see this coming many years ago and I'm relieved that I made the choice not have children.

Thanks!

The permafrost has been experiencing significant melt for quite a while now.

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/081705/081705_shns_permafrost.html (note the date)

BTW many scientific papers and reports require a PDF reader to view, if you don't have one installed on your computer they can be downloaded for free from Adobe (http://get.adobe.com/reader/)

‘Drunken forest’ and near-surface ground ice in Mackenzie Delta,
Northwest Territories, Canada
http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/NICOP/DVD/ICOP 2003 Permafrost/Pdf/Chapter_100.pdf

Permafrost Disappearing, Siberia Terraforming
http://www.gadling.com/2007/01/23/permafrost-disappearing-siberia-terraforming/

And finally, an excellent Wunderground piece with lots of attached supporting references:
"Permafrost"
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/permafrost.asp

To have or not have children is a personal choice, but, IMO, intelligent, economically stable individuals choosing not to have children may be as big a problem for the future, as the choices of many people globally who are less embued with these characteristics to have large families.
 
Thanks again for the links and I'll read through all of them.

"To have or not have children is a personal choice, but, IMO, intelligent, economically stable individuals choosing not to have children may be as big a problem for the future, as the choices of many people globally who are less embued with these characteristics to have large families."

In the late 1990's many articles about global warming warned that by 2100 things would be a mess. As of about seven years ago a lot of the predictions started mentioning dire predictions by the year 2050 and now the last IPCC report looks to be too conservative. So lets just guess that there will likely be a lot of challenges by 2040. What will the quality of life be like for a child born today when they are fifty years old in the year 2060? I'm too pessimistic to think that they would be enjoying a nice stable lifestyle with a rosy outlook for the future. It's already clear to many of us what lies ahead so imagine what people will know in 30 years and be dealing with in 50 years?

I believe that plants and animals will adjust to a warmer world once the temperature swings are not so abrupt but this massive spike in heat will likely cause mass extinctions. 90% of the oceans are depleted and the population is expected to increase to 9 billion people. The Arctic is melting rapidly, Russia and Austrailia are losing their crops to historic heatwaves and droughts and this is just the beggining. I'm a hypocrite as I don't do all that I can.

Intelligent people have been having children since the 70's when we watched Jaques Cousteau programs warning us all to protect the oceans and not enough has been done. The US should be one of the more intelligent countries given our quality of life but look at the results of public opinion polls at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ under the heading Global Warming The Debate. Socially and intellectually less fortunate people will probably continue to have larger families than more intelligent people in the future as this seems to be very much the norm now.

So once again what do people think that the quality of life be like for a child born today when they are fifty years old in the year 2060? Fun and enjoyable or challenging and stressful?

I accept that I may be too pessimistic but this is my present illusion of certainty :0

Once the 2010 temperature is plotted on the following graph the heat level will normally be above the spike in heat in 1998 that caused coral bleaching worldwide. We are going off the charts!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
 
"To have or not have children is a personal choice, but, IMO, intelligent, economically stable individuals choosing not to have children may be as big a problem for the future, as the choices of many people globally who are less embued with these characteristics to have large families."

In the late 1990's many articles about global warming warned that by 2100 things would be a mess. As of about seven years ago a lot of the predictions started mentioning dire predictions by the year 2050 and now the last IPCC report looks to be too conservative. So lets just guess that there will likely be a lot of challenges by 2040. What will the quality of life be like for a child born today when they are fifty years old in the year 2060? I'm too pessimistic to think that they would be enjoying a nice stable lifestyle with a rosy outlook for the future. It's already clear to many of us what lies ahead so imagine what people will know in 30 years and be dealing with in 50 years?

The way I look at it, the next generation is going to have an even greater need for intelligent, well rounded individuals to face and help deal with the problems we are incapable of resolving for them. Unfortunately, if all the intelligent, well rounded individuals of this generation forego having children both out of a sense of responsibility for reducing population burdens and to spare their children life in a harsh world, the next generation won't have these leaders and problem solvers that the future of our species will be so dependent upon.

I believe that plants and animals will adjust to a warmer world once the temperature swings are not so abrupt but this massive spike in heat will likely cause mass extinctions. 90% of the oceans are depleted and the population is expected to increase to 9 billion people. The Arctic is melting rapidly, Russia and Austrailia are losing their crops to historic heatwaves and droughts and this is just the beggining. I'm a hypocrite as I don't do all that I can.

The main problem isn't that we will lose so much life, but rather that we are and will likely, increasingly lose so many types of life. It is the loss of diversity and wholesale niche destruction that bodes ill for the future. In general, I would term this current time more the closing notes of the prelude than the actual beginning, but yes, nowhere near as dramatic as what lies ahead.

As for personal responsibility, don't be too hard on yourself, no one does all that they can, and personally, I'd consider it a major step forward if everyone simply did a little of what they could. Perhaps we need a more general discussion thread in a different section laying out the various steps that individuals can and should take to help transition into a more involved role in positively shaping the future.

Intelligent people have been having children since the 70's when we watched Jaques Cousteau programs warning us all to protect the oceans and not enough has been done. The US should be one of the more intelligent countries given our quality of life but look at the results of public opinion polls at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ under the heading Global Warming The Debate. Socially and intellectually less fortunate people will probably continue to have larger families than more intelligent people in the future as this seems to be very much the norm now.

Well, intelligent parents don't guarantee intelligent children, and intelligence without strong measures of compassion and empathy can actually be counter-productive, but the concept is still valid. It isn't so much the American "quality of life" which has led to the current situation, but rather the cultural values we have allowed to usurp and dominate our existence,...but these are my personal perceptions and not ones that are appropriate discussion fodder for a Science and Technology board.

So once again what do people think that the quality of life be like for a child born today when they are fifty years old in the year 2060? Fun and enjoyable or challenging and stressful?

I was born into an era that had just survived two devastating global wars, and every day that broke and night that swept upon us carried the portents of a global thermonuclear war. We were taught to "duck and cover" from the flashes of nearby nuclear detonations in grade school. Pollution in the air and water were killing wildlife and wreaking illness and death on our own populations,...and yet, we found ways to rise to those challenges and still managed to have some fun along the way. So, yes, I think it is possible to raise children with an optomism for the future in the current situation. Challenges aren't something to run from or dispair over.

I accept that I may be too pessimistic but this is my present illusion of certainty :0

Once the 2010 temperature is plotted on the following graph the heat level will normally be above the spike in heat in 1998 that caused coral bleaching worldwide. We are going off the charts!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

We're number 1! We're number 1! ...til next year.
 
Great response as always TShaitanaku and I wish the overwhelming majority of people were like you and the many others that post about AGW here.

"As for personal responsibility, don't be too hard on yourself, no one does all that they can,"

I did spend seven years and $70,000.00 of my own money doing environmental work to protect the reefs so I don't feel too bad.

"We were taught to "duck and cover" from the flashes of nearby nuclear detonations in grade school."

I always have to laugh when I hear this having listened to Lewis Black joke about it. Something like - "Nothing like hiding under kindling wood when a massive fire ball goes off" If you haven't seen the video of comedian Lewis Black joking about "Duck and Cover" you can Google it. I would post a link but the foul language used may violate the forum rules.

I may be totally wrong but my assesment at this point is we have added so much heat and CO2 into the system that a large scale geoengineering solution is needed on an intenational scale to stop the heat from melting the permafrost. I can't imagine how a meaningful and large scale response will happen in time all things considered. The video that Bit pattern posted earlier illustrates this all too well IMHO.

Many enviromental efforts have brought about improvements in the past but this is global and very large scale and there are many countries that lack the resources to effect change.

China is adding a new coal fired power plant every week or two weeks and there are many ships sitting off the east coast of Austrailia waiting to pick up coal and this is after a huge new shipping teminal was built which is already over capacity. This is not to blame China but to illustrate the continued large scale inputs of heat and CO2 which continue to be added.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...l-port-ship-queue-longest-in-three-years.html

Edward Burtynski shows the large scale manufacturing changes increasing in China in the program linked below and I believe he states one new coal fired power plant is added every week.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html

It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans get back into office that we are told not to worry about global warming and we are further advised just to buy some duct tape and plastic and cover all the windows and keep the air conditioner running. Problem solved!

All the best!
 
More coal capacity to be added...............

Australia’s Abbot Point Seeks to Be Biggest Coal Port

June 25 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s Abbot Point plans to increase its export capacity 11-fold, transforming the port into the world’s biggest coal harbor as demand for the commodity from Asia rises.

[snip]to develop additional terminals and expand export capacity to about 230 million metric tons of coal a year, Chief Executive Officer Brad Fish said in an interview. The harbor is being enlarged to 50 million tons in 2011 from 21 million tons now.

“If you were to fast forward about 10 years, it’s not impossible to imagine that there could be four or five coal terminals sitting at the port of Abbot Point,” Fish said from Brisbane today. “That would make it, by a country mile, the largest coal port in the world.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...bbot-point-seeks-to-be-biggest-coal-port.html
 
The abstract is not written in an alarmist manner.

I'm sure alarm was their intent. They are trying to influence people -- politically and economically.


The content, however, should be alarmist. It should send up red flags. We're seeing trends that we've seen in the rocks. Increasing ocean acidity, increasing ocean temperature, increasing atmospheric CO2, sea level rise, increasing ocean anoxia, decreasing biodiversity, etc. And now it appears the base of the ocean food chain (and a rather large and important carbon sink) is decreasing rapidly. We've seen these trends in the rocks. The results are generally not good for living things.

Isnt this more? It sounds like an appeal to emotion, snce humans, after all, are living things.

It doesn't mean we're all going to die. These are indicators. We don't know for sure what will happen. But we never know for sure what will happen. We have to work with incomplete data sets. We're forced to. And we're forced to now.

I can't tell you with 100% certainty that we're on a path to destruction. I can only tell you that we've got to be idiots to not be concerned with these indicators. Hey, maybe that blood you've coughed up and the decades of smoking don't actually mean you have lung cancer, but I'll bet you're still worried.

So with these charged statements you made about biodiversity, rapidly decreasing ocean food chain, sea-level rise, and it not being good for life, you say its not very certain. Do you advocate costly (monetarily, civically and socially) policies that would aim to change this uncertain boogeyman while certainly undermining our economy and freedoms?
 
I'm sure alarm was their intent. They are trying to influence people -- politically and economically.




Isnt this more? It sounds like an appeal to emotion, snce humans, after all, are living things.



So with these charged statements you made about biodiversity, rapidly decreasing ocean food chain, sea-level rise, and it not being good for life, you say its not very certain. Do you advocate costly (monetarily, civically and socially) policies that would aim to change this uncertain boogeyman while certainly undermining our economy and freedoms?

WE acted in uncaring uncertainty in creating the mess, now that we are certain that what we are doing is making the mess worse, we're just not sure if its going to go from bad to incredibly bad in two decades or not for 7-8 decades, that we should just keep doing what we are doing?

BTW, keeping up what we are doing is what undermines our economy and freedoms. Developing new technologies, robust and efficient, diversified non-carbon energy sources and infrastructure boost the economy and insure both our national security and a strong stable political system essential for protecting our freedoms and liberties.
 
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for moderated thread.

The consequences of continuing to emit fossil carbon ARE certain....as Russia is finding out the hard way just now. The Russian President just woke up to the need for emission controls.

Exactly how and where and to what degree of damage the consequences unfold is where the uncertainty lies....

BAU = devastation.
Sometime within the next century or less the climate and biome will undergo changes not seen in millions of years and far outside the narrow 1-2 degree swings in the Holocene.

Why is it uncertain?
We don't know what steps future governments and people and organizations will take to reduce fossil carbon use or increase it. We do know that even if we stopped now the warming in the pipeline would continue for another 6 decades or more and to twice the current .6 degree C.

But we won't stop.

Increases on par with the last 30 years will hasten the consequences. THAT is certain and the costs, as outlined several years ago in the Stern Report will be far higher to the first world than reducing carbon....and BTW spawning the biggest tech boom in history.

The Mother Lode

By: Fred KruppApril 1, 2008 VC god John Doerr explains what it will take to score the untold treasures of the green-tech boom.
more
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/124/the-mother-lode.html

I'd say John Doerr has a far better handle on the energy situation than you.... and a history of money making to back up his opinions....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom