Communicating Climate Change (and other issues)

[TerryM]

Conjecture....conjecture...and then more conjecture.

Its irresponsible to go about claiming a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is so uncertain.

The fact that your understanding of the science is so uncertain presents no barrier to the rest of us understanding what is happening.

Name one credible scientific body that agrees with you and claims that this is not a "big problem"

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

Disagree entirely. It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant.

We definitely will disagree on this then. There's always "potential consequences"...but taking drastic action when the potential for those consequences are not high enough to warrant such action is totally irresponsible.

I suppose you think a small chance of "X" happening is enough to take "drastic action"....all these terms are subjective. That perhaps is where much of the disagreement comes in to begin with.

What does drastic action mean? What does it entail? How high of a chance do we need a defined consequence to be in order to warrant that action? Do we say that if there's a 1 in 1,000 chance of sea level rising 2+ meters by 2100, that is large enough of a chance to take some sort of major action? What if the chance was 1 in 2,000? 1 in 900?

Where are we drawing the lines for this? We could also experience a massive volcanic eruption in the next 50 years....or a 9.0 subduction earthquake off the west coast of the U.S. Should we take major action to prepare for these?

[ORH_wxman]

I do you have a general question about that though. When is the science certain? As a scientist, I'm constantly working on uncertainties. I'm often tabulating statistical values such as P99, P75, and any other P-value you can think of. Science is always uncertain. Meteorology in particular.

Does NYC not prepare for a blizzard 2-3 days in advance because 1 out of 5 models suggests mostly rain? I remember in winter of 2011, Mayor Bloomberg took a lot of flack because the city was not at all prepared for the 20 inches of snow they recieved. In that storm, the majority of meteorologists on this board knew that at least of foot of snow was a likely possibility. Climate should be no different. Experts are experts for a reason (because they can quantify uncertainty and make sense of it). At this point, with 90+% of climate scientists sounding some alarm on this, you would think there would at least be a bit more concern and action in government.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are also falsely assuming I think there is "no problem" or we should do absolutely nothing or that I think AGW doesn't exist.

These types of debates always seem to fall into this mindset that someone who doesn't think impending disaster is likely means they are some sort of "denier".

90+% of climate scientists believe that we are causing significant anthropogenic climate change. I agree with those scientists. What I disagree with is the scare mongering, disinformation that only focuses on "worst case scenarios", and a push to take hard economic action when our understanding of the consequences of AGW is not anything close to precise...particularly from a rate change basis and even a sensitivity standpoint.

When we are talking an 80% chance of a blizzard in NYC, that is far different than saying there's an outside shot at 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, so its time to take major economic/societal action.

I have never said we shouldn't take action. That is something people have come up with on their own. I believe in converting our society to green and efficient energy, but doing so in a responsible manner, and not an irresponsible knee-jerk reaction to scare mongering from climate change. I think the scare mongering and disinformation is bad because it inhibits our ability to responsibly change the public's thinking. We should be slowly getting ourselves off of fossil fuels, but its difficult to present that argument without climate change coming up which results in a whole mess because of the mud slinging.

[ORH_wxman]

The fact that your understanding of the science is so uncertain presents no barrier to the rest of us understanding what is happening.

Name one credible scientific body that agrees with you and claims that this is not a "big problem"

Terry

This is purely your opinion. Glad you are so well informed compared to a total dolt like myself.

[TerryM]

This is purely your opinion. Glad you are so well informed compared to a total dolt like myself.

That is the opinion of every scientific body charged with studying these things.

Not believing that those better informed than yourself are capable is not a sign of ignorance, rather of hubris. (although the DK effect could have application)

Terry

[TerryM]

A factual accounting should include such phrases as:

The Arctic Ice was at a level not seen for at least the last 3700 years, then it dropped another 18 to 23% this past summer.

The Arctic is melting at a rate considered impossible only a decade ago.

Weather patterns in the NH are becoming more chaotic. exactly what experts in the field have predicted. There is a vanishingly small chance that this can be rectified.

AGW is accepted as the primary driver of these events by every scientific body charged with studying them.

These are not alarmist phrases, nor projections, rather simple factual statements that succinctly convey the situation as it exists.

Terry

[SVT450R]

We definitely will disagree on this then. There's always "potential consequences"...but taking drastic action when the potential for those consequences are not high enough to warrant such action is totally irresponsible.

I suppose you think a small chance of "X" happening is enough to take "drastic action"....all these terms are subjective. That perhaps is where much of the disagreement comes in to begin with.

What does drastic action mean? What does it entail? How high of a chance do we need a defined consequence to be in order to warrant that action? Do we say that if there's a 1 in 1,000 chance of sea level rising 2+ meters by 2100, that is large enough of a chance to take some sort of major action? What if the chance was 1 in 2,000? 1 in 900?

Where are we drawing the lines for this? We could also experience a massive volcanic eruption in the next 50 years....or a 9.0 subduction earthquake off the west coast of the U.S. Should we take major action to prepare for these?

+1 I don't understand why some think or at least come off that climate change is the only thing humanity needs to worry about there are plenty of more harmful situations that could happen tomorrow that would jeopardize masses of life.

[ORH_wxman]

That is the opinion of every scientific body charged with studying these things.

Not believing that those better informed than yourself are capable is not a sign of ignorance, rather of hubris. (although the DK effect could have application)

Terry

I wasn't aware that the science support increased hurricane or tornadoes from AGW...or that AGW was the primary reason for the drought in the plains and southwest this summer....exactly the type of misinformation I have been arguing against on this forum.

I don't have an issue with saying there is a slight shift to the right in temperature extremes or that we have seen a much faster melting in arctic ice than models predicted, but lets keep it factual or scientifically supported rather than extreme claims that have no backing in either science or factual observation.

If there was ever a time to use the word "strawman" on this forum, it would be the bolded text above. Rather than actually show evidence of the issues I have debated, you decide to use the childish ad hominem (perhaps combined with some ad verecundiam) attack.

[Mallow]

We definitely will disagree on this then. There's always "potential consequences"...but taking drastic action when the potential for those consequences are not high enough to warrant such action is totally irresponsible.

I suppose you think a small chance of "X" happening is enough to take "drastic action"....all these terms are subjective. That perhaps is where much of the disagreement comes in to begin with.

What does drastic action mean? What does it entail? How high of a chance do we need a defined consequence to be in order to warrant that action? Do we say that if there's a 1 in 1,000 chance of sea level rising 2+ meters by 2100, that is large enough of a chance to take some sort of major action? What if the chance was 1 in 2,000? 1 in 900?

Where are we drawing the lines for this? We could also experience a massive volcanic eruption in the next 50 years....or a 9.0 subduction earthquake off the west coast of the U.S. Should we take major action to prepare for these?

I wasn't aware that the science support increased hurricane or tornadoes from AGW...or that AGW was the primary reason for the drought in the plains and southwest this summer....exactly the type of misinformation I have been arguing against on this forum.

I don't have an issue with saying there is a slight shift to the right in temperature extremes or that we have seen a much faster melting in arctic ice than models predicted, but lets keep it factual or scientifically supported rather than extreme claims that have no backing in either science or factual observation.

If there was ever a time to use the word "strawman" on this forum, it would be the bolded text above. Rather than actually show evidence of the issues I have debated, you decide to use the childish ad hominem (perhaps combined with some ad verecundiam) attack.

Uhh, your bolded above are also perfect examples of strawmen. I didn't mention anything about "drastic action", and Terry didn't mention anything about recent hurricanes and tornadoes and droughts.

I still stand 100% by my point.

"It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant."

The fact that you disagree with that statement is more worrying to me than your strawmen, frankly.

[FPizz]

Its the What Ifs, they are worse than we thought!!!

[ORH_wxman]

Uhh, your bolded above are also perfect examples of strawmen. I didn't mention anything about "drastic action", and Terry didn't mention anything about recent hurricanes and tornadoes and droughts.

I still stand 100% by my point.

"It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant."

The fact that you disagree with that statement is more worrying to me than your strawmen, frankly.

Well I never supported doing nothing first off. Your first response to me was:

Disagree entirely. It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant.

I never said "do nothing." I simply said "its irresponsible to claim that a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is still so uncertain." Unless I missed something, this says nothing about taking no action at all or saying there is no problem at all.

If you trace back the responses to me further up, it came after discussing Romm's site and what I thought was misinformation coming from his site. It was he (not me) that linked the tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc to AGW. I said it was sites like that which hinder the commincation of climate change to the general public.

However, upon pointing this out, I got a flurry of attacks which also included paraphrasing things I never said or simply making assumptions about my comments which were completely inaccurate. Somehow, my comments about putting out misinformation such as what Romm's site has done, gets turned into me thinking we should take "no action", or think that climate change is a non-issue. It gets turned into me being "misinformed". I suspect the reasons for this is because the posters who responded feel so strongly about climate change that they interprete the words how they want to interpete them rather than simply reading them for what they are.

If you disagree with my thinking after this, then we'll agree to disagree. But I'm not going to take up anymore space on a semantics argument.

[TerryM]

ORH

"This is purely your opinion. Glad you are so well informed compared to a total dolt like myself."

This I suppose you don't consider an ad hominem? I simply chose ignorance over dolt which you seem to prefer.

In a chaotic system, which weather is acknowledged to be, adding energy adds chaos (think extreme weather). It's known that AGW adds energy to the atmosphere, by what rational would you not expect more extreme weather to result?

Ad verecundiam is understood to apply when the authority is commenting outside his specialty. Otherwise relying on a lawyers advise in a legal matter would considered a logical fallacy.

I suppose you'd rather blather on about specific hurricanes or specific tornadoes, but this is inconsequential. All the weather in the NH this fall is going to be influenced by the fact that the Arctic is no where near what it was a mere decade ago.

On reading your last comment, I concur that your time would be more profitably be spent elsewhere. Semantics does not appear to be your strong suit. (that was an ad hominem)

Terry

[Mallow]

Well I never supported doing nothing first off. Your first response to me was:

...

I never said "do nothing." I simply said "its irresponsible to claim that a problem is so big when our understanding of the science is still so uncertain." Unless I missed something, this says nothing about taking no action at all or saying there is no problem at all.

If you trace back the responses to me further up, it came after discussing Romm's site and what I thought was misinformation coming from his site. It was he (not me) that linked the tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc to AGW. I said it was sites like that which hinder the commincation of climate change to the general public.

However, upon pointing this out, I got a flurry of attacks which also included paraphrasing things I never said or simply making assumptions about my comments which were completely inaccurate. Somehow, my comments about putting out misinformation such as what Romm's site has done, gets turned into me thinking we should take "no action", or think that climate change is a non-issue. It gets turned into me being "misinformed". I suspect the reasons for this is because the posters who responded feel so strongly about climate change that they interprete the words how they want to interpete them rather than simply reading them for what they are.

If you disagree with my thinking after this, then we'll agree to disagree. But I'm not going to take up anymore space on a semantics argument.

Alright, let's compare...

Disagree entirely. It is irresponsible to do nothing about it when the potential consequences are so significant.

We definitely will disagree on this then. [...]

You're either saying that it's not irresponsible to do nothing IF the potential consequences are significant, or that the potential consequences aren't significant. The rest of that post, you argued in favor of the idea that POTENTIAL consequences might be significant (even if they're low probability). Which leads me to believe the former of the two possibilities: that you think we should do nothing. Otherwise, you wouldn't have disagreed with my statement. In other words, what you're telling me now is that you actually AGREE with my statement (that we shouldn't do nothing). But earlier you said you disagreed. So it's not my fault you didn't say what you meant.

On the other hand, I also said I disagreed with your post. That could either mean that I didn't think it was irresponsible to claim there was a big problem IF our understanding of the science was so uncertain, or that I didn't think our understanding of the science was so uncertain that we shouldn't be claiming there is a big problem. Unlike you, I actually meant it when I said I disagreed with your statement, so it must be for one of the two reasons above. Specifically, it's the latter--the science is not as uncertain as you make it out to be, and is definitely certain enough that we SHOULD be claiming there is a big problem.

[ORH_wxman]

ORH

"This is purely your opinion. Glad you are so well informed compared to a total dolt like myself."

This I suppose you don't consider an ad hominem? I simply chose ignorance over dolt which you seem to prefer.

In a chaotic system, which weather is acknowledged to be, adding energy adds chaos (think extreme weather). It's known that AGW adds energy to the atmosphere, by what rational would you not expect more extreme weather to result?

Ad verecundiam is understood to apply when the authority is commenting outside his specialty. Otherwise relying on a lawyers advise in a legal matter would considered a logical fallacy.

I suppose you'd rather blather on about specific hurricanes or specific tornadoes, but this is inconsequential. All the weather in the NH this fall is going to be influenced by the fact that the Arctic is no where near what it was a mere decade ago.

On reading your last comment, I concur that your time would be more profitably be spent elsewhere. Semantics does not appear to be your strong suit. (that was an ad hominem)

Terry

You seem to have a woeful misunderstanding of what probabilistic forecasting is, even in a climate sense. If you choose to believe that most extreme weather events are tied to AGW, then continue to believe that. That type of thinking certainly won't help change the public perception of climate change which should be a goal of everyone who believe that public support will help bring about more changes.

[ORH_wxman]

Alright, let's compare...

You're either saying that it's not irresponsible to do nothing IF the potential consequences are significant, or that the potential consequences aren't significant. The rest of that post, you argued in favor of the idea that POTENTIAL consequences might be significant (even if they're low probability). Which leads me to believe the former of the two possibilities: that you think we should do nothing. Otherwise, you wouldn't have disagreed with my statement. In other words, what you're telling me now is that you actually AGREE with my statement (that we shouldn't do nothing). But earlier you said you disagreed. So it's not my fault you didn't say what you meant.

On the other hand, I also said I disagreed with your post. That could either mean that I didn't think it was irresponsible to claim there was a big problem IF our understanding of the science was so uncertain, or that I didn't think our understanding of the science was so uncertain that we shouldn't be claiming there is a big problem. Unlike you, I actually meant it when I said I disagreed with your statement, so it must be for one of the two reasons above. Specifically, it's the latter--the science is not as uncertain as you make it out to be, and is definitely certain enough that we SHOULD be claiming there is a big problem.

Ok, we will agree to disagree that we should definitely claim AGW is a "big problem". We might define what a "big problem" is differently, so that is purely a subjective argument.

[Mallow]

In a chaotic system, which weather is acknowledged to be, adding energy adds chaos (think extreme weather). It's known that AGW adds energy to the atmosphere, by what rational would you not expect more extreme weather to result?

...

Terry

Adding heat to a system does not necessarily "add chaos". It depends on the distribution of that heat. Indeed, there are relatively simplistic arguments one could make that could show less "chaos" in a warmer system (by decreasing temperature gradients, say).

So no, this does not logically follow.

[Mallow]

Ok, we will agree to disagree that we should definitely claim AGW is a "big problem". We might define what a "big problem" is differently, so that is purely a subjective argument.

Agreed.

[ORH_wxman]

Agreed.

Probably adding in actual values to certain parameters and their probability would create less subjectivity.

I.E.: I think there's a pretty good chance we see a foot of sea level rise by the end of the century. I think that's slow enough to be managable in our society. Some may not think that is slow enough. So one may think that is a "big problem", the other might not.

But given the number of parameters, its difficult to compile a whole list in this writing format.

[TerryM]

You seem to have a woeful misunderstanding of what probabilistic forecasting is, even in a climate sense. If you choose to believe that most extreme weather events are tied to AGW, then continue to believe that. That type of thinking certainly won't help change the public perception of climate change which should be a goal of everyone who believe that public support will help bring about more changes.

I chose to believe that most extreme weather events are tied to AGW because:

Chaos theory proves this to be true.

Climate scientists (which neither of us are) in peer reviewed works have shown the connection. (Hansen et al)

It's logically consistent and agrees with facts on the ground.

What reasons do you have to doubt this?

Terry

BTW

Semantics - the study of meaning in language - should be considered essential in a thread devoted to conveying the importance of climate change.

[Mallow]

Probably adding in actual values to certain parameters and their probability would create less subjectivity.

I.E.: I think there's a pretty good chance we see a foot of sea level rise by the end of the century. I think that's slow enough to be managable in our society. Some may not think that is slow enough. So one may think that is a "big problem", the other might not.

But given the number of parameters, its difficult to compile a whole list in this writing format.

The other issue is that there are some things where magnitude doesn't even matter, and it's just opinion as to whether it's a "problem" or not. For example, I see the (additional) extinction of unknown numbers of species and subsequent decrease in biodiversity as a "big problem". Others might say we're perfectly fine with only the animals we "need", and the ones that die out clearly aren't evolutionarily adept enough at adapting.

[ORH_wxman]

The other issue is that there are some things where magnitude doesn't even matter, and it's just opinion as to whether it's a "problem" or not. For example, I see the (additional) extinction of unknown numbers of species and subsequent decrease in biodiversity as a "big problem". Others might say we're perfectly fine with only the animals we "need", and the ones that die out clearly aren't evolutionarily adept enough at adapting.

I would agree strongly with you on this front...though I think that land use and over population is the larger threat to our biodiversity than climate change...though the two are unfortunately not mutually exclusive.

[Mallow]

I chose to believe that most extreme weather events are tied to AGW because:

Chaos theory proves this to be true.

Climate scientists (which neither of us are) in peer reviewed works have shown the connection. (Hansen et al)

It's logically consistent and agrees with facts on the ground.

What reasons do you have to doubt this?

Terry

BTW

Semantics - the study of meaning in language - should be considered essential in a thread devoted to conveying the importance of climate change.

Again, the bolded is wrong. Although I agree with the premise that AGW may lead to more (of certain types of) extreme weather events, it's not because of chaos theory.

[Mallow]

I would agree strongly with you on this front...though I think that land use and over population is the larger threat to our biodiversity than climate change...though the two are unfortunately not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

[ORH_wxman]

I chose to believe that most extreme weather events are tied to AGW because:

Chaos theory proves this to be true.

Climate scientists (which neither of us are) in peer reviewed works have shown the connection. (Hansen et al)

It's logically consistent and agrees with facts on the ground.

What reasons do you have to doubt this?

Terry

BTW

Semantics - the study of meaning in language - should be considered essential in a thread devoted to conveying the importance of climate change.

Are you referring to the Hansen et al piece in PNAS titled "The Perception of Climate Change"? All that showed was a strong correlation to warmer summers now versus the 1951-1980 time period and that the warmer world now made them much more likely.

A warmer world should produce warmer temperatures. A warmer world will also favor more rainfall in general which would increase the chance of heavy rainfall events and flooding. It is still debatable whether more drought would ensue. While some areas have been simulated to increase drought frequency, other areas have been shown to decrease the frequency in a warmer world.

Tornadoes and hurricanes are not expected to change significantly as we warm. Extreme cold would be favored to become less frequent and less intense in a warmer world.

Jet streams being pushed further north due to polar amplification would argue for weaker mid-latitude cyclones.

There remains to be a lot of research done on a warming world in how it relates to the overall extremity of the weather.

[nflwxman]

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are also falsely assuming I think there is "no problem" or we should do absolutely nothing or that I think AGW doesn't exist.

These types of debates always seem to fall into this mindset that someone who doesn't think impending disaster is likely means they are some sort of "denier".

90+% of climate scientists believe that we are causing significant anthropogenic climate change. I agree with those scientists. What I disagree with is the scare mongering, disinformation that only focuses on "worst case scenarios", and a push to take hard economic action when our understanding of the consequences of AGW is not anything close to precise...particularly from a rate change basis and even a sensitivity standpoint.

When we are talking an 80% chance of a blizzard in NYC, that is far different than saying there's an outside shot at 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, so its time to take major economic/societal action.

I have never said we shouldn't take action. That is something people have come up with on their own. I believe in converting our society to green and efficient energy, but doing so in a responsible manner, and not an irresponsible knee-jerk reaction to scare mongering from climate change. I think the scare mongering and disinformation is bad because it inhibits our ability to responsibly change the public's thinking. We should be slowly getting ourselves off of fossil fuels, but its difficult to present that argument without climate change coming up which results in a whole mess because of the mud slinging.

I'm not assuming you are not concerned about this issue at all. In fact, I agree with with your calls to temper alarmism. You are level headed on this and appear to not be looking at this through a political lens (which is great in so many ways). I'm also in agreement that we need slow and consistant change to deal with this issue (as there are several things at stake). However, many countries are doing nothing to address the issue at all. We sit here and discuss what should be the policy action while some governments are still denying that climate change is real and tangible!

[TerryM]

Mallow

I haven't kept abreast of the evolution of chaos theory since my initial interest in the early 80's, but at that time is was considered axiomatic that an increase in energy increased the amplitude of chaos until another stable state (attractor) became dominant. Your example seems reasonable, is it possible that a less thermally imbalanced atmosphere may be the stable state we're headed toward? Very hot, with very little variability?

The old water behind the rock example is most chaotic before the rock is totally immersed, then decreases as more water is added to the stream.

It sounds as though you have been keeping up, so I'll bow to your expertise.

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

I'm not assuming you are not concerned about this issue at all. In fact, I agree with with your calls to temper alarmism. You are level headed on this and appear to not be looking at this through a political lens (which is great in so many ways). I'm also in agreement that we need slow and consistant change to deal with this issue (as there are several things at stake). However, many countries are doing nothing to address the issue at all. We sit here and discuss what should be the policy action while some governments are still denying that climate change is real and tangible!

I certainly agree with you on this front...and thanks for the kind words on level-headedness.

I think tempering the alarmism doesn't mean that we don't have issues WRT climate change. I would hope most think it is important to learn more about what the specific dangers are and their liklihood of occurring in a defined timeframe before making any major policy changes.

In the meantime, it is never a bad thing to keep the steady progress of finding alternate sources of energy.

[Mallow]

Mallow

I haven't kept abreast of the evolution of chaos theory since my initial interest in the early 80's, but at that time is was considered axiomatic that an increase in energy increased the amplitude of chaos until another stable state (attractor) became dominant. Your example seems reasonable, is it possible that a less thermally imbalanced atmosphere may be the stable state we're headed toward? Very hot, with very little variability?

The old water behind the rock example is most chaotic before the rock is totally immersed, then decreases as more water is added to the stream.

It sounds as though you have been keeping up, so I'll bow to your expertise.

Terry

I don't think it's well known at this point. The fact that the climate models like to warm the poles much faster than the tropics would tend to argue the point that temperature gradients, at least, could lessen. However, there are alternative arguments I've heard like a warming Arctic could mean a semi-permanent -AO, which, while making the weather far less extreme in the polar regions, would actually increase extreme weather in the midlatitudes by allowing for more blocking and more meandering of the jet. And mesoscale vertical (gravitational) instabilities could definitely become stronger with the surface warming more than the upper atmosphere, so there's that aspect as well.

The changes in the various atmospheric instabilities as they relate to changing gradients brought about by AGW are the driving forces in determining how exactly the weather will change. I think the consensus thought is that weather will become "more extreme" in a sense in many places while becoming "less extreme" in a few others, but I don't know that there's a consensus opinion on the overall extremity of weather on Earth.

[Vergent]

I'm not assuming you are not concerned about this issue at all. In fact, I agree with with your calls to temper alarmism. You are level headed on this and appear to not be looking at this through a political lens (which is great in so many ways). I'm also in agreement that we need slow and consistant change to deal with this issue (as there are several things at stake). However, many countries are doing nothing to address the issue at all. We sit here and discuss what should be the policy action while some governments are still denying that climate change is real and tangible!

Afghanistan was the only country, other than the US, that did not ratify the kyoto protocol(Canada later dropped out). China has spent over a trillion $ on clean energy and transportation. How much have we spent? We have wasted trillions on a useless war in Iraq.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Afghanistan was the only country, other than the US, that did not ratify the kyoto protocol(Canada later dropped out). China has spent over a trillion $ on clean energy and transportation. How much have we spent? We have wasted trillions on a useless war in Iraq.

Two heat waves in between 2003 and 2010 that killed 150,000 Humans. That is insane and wasn't alarming enough to have any major intervention of this problem.

Heat waves in the United States now days are well prepared for so that death tolls won't be like 1988, 1995 or 1980.

Look at last summer, the death toll was great, the last I saw was 72 people, but we torched like we never torched before in modern times.

That creates a huge mirage.

If 70K Americans kicked the bucket, **** would hit the fan.

Maybe another heat wave killing 100K humans will do it. Without pure intervention of information to the masses death and destruction will only cause stern reaction.

When the NH warms another 1, 2, 3C it's going to be so much worse. It's clear to me now that we will react to death and not be proactive to prevent it.