Years of Living Dangerously

[Msalgado]

The first episode of the new Showtime series on climate change is up on youtube prior to its premiere this weekend.

 

I feel it is very well done.  Not sure it will do more than preach to the choir, but its seems well done none the less.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Inspirational and down to earth in the highest possible way. I'm convinced this show would help the masses become less oblivious. Tho, being a showtime exclusive it may not receive much exposure.

[ORH_wxman]

I watched it, and the best thing I can say about it is that they do a good job of creating lots of drama and hype. Good entertainment.

 

 

But I'd stick to the peer reviewed literature for the actual science.

[Jonger]

The cover shot appears to be Sandy. So, hurricanes are WAY down in the Atlantic, but are used as the poster for the movie as some new growing fear.

 

hmm.

[Msalgado]

I watched it, and the best thing I can say about it is that they do a good job of creating lots of drama and hype. Good entertainment.

 

 

But I'd stick to the peer reviewed literature for the actual science.

 

I don't disagree with peer reviewed lit being where its at but for the average person that isn't really an option for multiple reasons.  This is a way to communicate climate change to the layman and make it accessible.

[nflwxman]

I don't disagree with peer reviewed lit being where its at but for the average person that isn't really an option for multiple reasons.  This is a way to communicate climate change to the layman and make it accessible.

+1.  There are competent scientists on this board who don't even understand the peer reviewed literature.  

[ORH_wxman]

I don't disagree with peer reviewed lit being where its at but for the average person that isn't really an option for multiple reasons.  This is a way to communicate climate change to the layman and make it accessible.

 

 

If the sole reason is only to communicate the worst case scenarios and only focus on the negatives....even if many of the claims are extremely uncertain....then I agree.

 

It's essentially a hype-filled docudrama. Good entertainment, but not exactly communicating an objective message about climate change.

[Msalgado]

If the sole reason is only to communicate the worst case scenarios and only focus on the negatives....even if many of the claims are extremely uncertain....then I agree.

 

It's essentially a hype-filled docudrama. Good entertainment, but not exactly communicating an objective message about climate change.

 

Did you really feel there was all that much hype in that episode?  Which parts?  Its obviously not objective in the sense that it has a very clear agenda.  That being said, I didn't see anything in the first episode that wasn't factual.  

 

The portion I paid attention to the most was the drought in Texas.  I thought they did a good job of explaining how climate change has and will continue to make droughts worse.  I'll concede here that the average viewer might leave feeling as though climate change caused the drought but I think they made a good point of showing droughts have occurred in the past and will simply be made worse.

 

I'd honestly be willing to hear what you feel was over hyped, though.

[ORH_wxman]

Did you really feel there was all that much hype in that episode?  Which parts?  Its obviously not objective in the sense that it has a very clear agenda.  That being said, I didn't see anything in the first episode that wasn't factual.  

 

The portion I paid attention to the most was the drought in Texas.  I thought they did a good job of explaining how climate change has and will continue to make droughts worse.  I'll concede here that the average viewer might leave feeling as though climate change caused the drought but I think they made a good point of showing droughts have occurred in the past and will simply be made worse.

 

I'd honestly be willing to hear what you feel was over hyped, though.

 

 

I think this is what struck me the most...they did "mention" that droughts have occurred in the past...but the angle in the show was really skewed toward making the viewer think that climate change was the main contributor to the drought. At least that is what I took away from it.

 

If they wanted to be a bit more objective about the drought attribution, its certainly fine to mention model studies showing droughts potentially getting worse due to global warming, but they should also mention that thus far, no trend in global drought has been detected according to IPCC's SREX Report (and North American drought has actually decreased in our short 100-130 years of record).

 

You are right in that they didn't explicitly say anything that was non-factual, but sometimes it is what you fail to say that can stick out. (i.e. only telling parts of the story)

 

 

Apparently they have future episodes that deal with things like tornadoes...which will be interesting to see since those types of events have even more uncertain attribution.

[wxinVA]

 

 

It's essentially a hype-filled docudrama. Good entertainment, but not exactly communicating an objective message about climate change.

 

Could you (or anyone else) suggest a good source of objective information on climate change that is also easy to understand for an average person? I would really, really appreciate it.

 

I like reading this forum for info, but a lot of the conversation here goes over my head.

[TerryM]

The first episode was good, though not as good as some of the hype.

To me the most powerful segment was the juxtapositioning of the religious and the secular regarding the Texas drought. Perhaps decades spent in Nevada watching and reacting to Lake Mead's water levels have made me more acutely aware of projections showing declining mountain snowpack and increasing ground temperatures leading to desertification of much of the southwest.

If the El-Nino postulated for this year or next does not pan out Californian agriculture will take a huge hit & food prices at least in the U.S. will spike. 

The segment linking the Syrian drought to civil unrest was good and may connect the dots for many who have not followed the situation as closely as most on this board have. When you combine poor governance with crop failure the resulting conflagrations may not stop at national boundaries & can be costly to contain.

The Palm oil section was probably the most expensive to shoot & I considered it to be the weakest of the three stories. Perhaps it represents the lowest hanging fruit that can be dealt with. It's much easier to imagine restricting palm oil interests than to fighting Big Oil and King Coal. I don't actually expect to see us winning this battle, but even the Christian Right might join us in eschewing palm oil in their cosmetics & as filler in their foodstuff.

Rather than preaching to the choir this show is apparently aimed at those with little knowledge of or interest in AGW. Success at raising awareness in that rather large demographic is important if we are interested in mitigating or adapting to the future that almost all informed scientists believe lies ahead.

Terry

[AvantHiatus]

I don't disagree with peer reviewed lit being where its at but for the average person that isn't really an option for multiple reasons.  This is a way to communicate climate change to the layman and make it accessible.

More or less years of living in a fantasy Corporatocracy.

[Jonger]

More or less years of living in a fantasy Corporatocracy.

 

Your lifespan, computer and everything you see and touch in your home only exists because of fossil fuels. 

 

If there were no hydrocarbons in the ground, we would still be in the dark ages, with slavery, plague and constant wars.

 

Fossil fuel utilization is the greatest invention in human history, number 2 on the list is so far back that its not even worth an "also ran" category.

[nflwxman]

Your lifespan, computer and everything you see and touch in your home only exists because of fossil fuels. 

 

If there were no hydrocarbons in the ground, we would still be in the dark ages, with slavery, plague and constant wars.

 

Fossil fuel utilization is the greatest invention in human history, number 2 on the list is so far back that its not even worth an "also ran" category.

I agree with this. Fossil fuels are the reason why we have so many of our technologies.  The energy yield from them is incredible.  Unfortunately, we are now paying a price for it.

[Msalgado]

The first episode was good, though not as good as some of the hype.

To me the most powerful segment was the juxtapositioning of the religious and the secular regarding the Texas drought. Perhaps decades spent in Nevada watching and reacting to Lake Mead's water levels have made me more acutely aware of projections showing declining mountain snowpack and increasing ground temperatures leading to desertification of much of the southwest.

If the El-Nino postulated for this year or next does not pan out Californian agriculture will take a huge hit & food prices at least in the U.S. will spike. 

The segment linking the Syrian drought to civil unrest was good and may connect the dots for many who have not followed the situation as closely as most on this board have. When you combine poor governance with crop failure the resulting conflagrations may not stop at national boundaries & can be costly to contain.

The Palm oil section was probably the most expensive to shoot & I considered it to be the weakest of the three stories. Perhaps it represents the lowest hanging fruit that can be dealt with. It's much easier to imagine restricting palm oil interests than to fighting Big Oil and King Coal. I don't actually expect to see us winning this battle, but even the Christian Right might join us in eschewing palm oil in their cosmetics & as filler in their foodstuff.

Rather than preaching to the choir this show is apparently aimed at those with little knowledge of or interest in AGW. Success at raising awareness in that rather large demographic is important if we are interested in mitigating or adapting to the future that almost all informed scientists believe lies ahead.

Terry

 

I think that is definitely the aim but I question how successful they will be because its on Showtime.  I would have liked to have seen a show like this run in the same model as Cosmos has on Fox.  On Network TV and not a very limited audience.  

 

But in the end we'll see. 

[AvantHiatus]

I agree with this. Fossil fuels are the reason why we have so many of our technologies.  The energy yield from them is incredible.  Unfortunately, we are now paying a price for it.

We have the resources and cause to move on to greater energy sources. That seems to not be the issue. It would of been more or less an issue of incentive and of people only looking out for their short-term personal interests. Additionally, I think some people want society to collapse in order to solve what they believe is an overpopulation problem.

[skierinvermont]

I watched the first 20-30 minutes this morning and agree with ORH that it's not exactly factual and in some ways a bit misleading in its attribution statements and presentation of worst case scenarios (I'm pretty sure Fargo's climate = Phoenix only in the worst case scenario of high emissions and high sensitivity). 

 

Could you (or anyone else) suggest a good source of objective information on climate change that is also easy to understand for an average person? I would really, really appreciate it.

 

I like reading this forum for info, but a lot of the conversation here goes over my head.

Skeptical science provides good literature-based posts on specific topics. You can search for anything you're interested in learning more about and select the "basic" "intermediate" or "advanced" explanation.
 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

 

The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for Working Group 1 (WG1) is a good summary of the literature for current and future climate change. It's a little long and dense but is in fairly simple terms and deals only with the broadest most significant aspects of the science. It should give you a fairly complete general understanding.

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

The SPM for WG2 deals with the impacts of climate change and possible adaptation strategies.

 

And the SPM for WG3 deals with possible mitigation strategies.

[Jonger]

I watched the first 20-30 minutes this morning and agree with ORH that it's not exactly factual and in some ways a bit misleading in its attribution statements and presentation of worst case scenarios (I'm pretty sure Fargo's climate = Phoenix only in the worst case scenario of high emissions and high sensitivity). 

 

Skeptical science provides good literature-based posts on specific topics. You can search for anything you're interested in learning more about and select the "basic" "intermediate" or "advanced" explanation.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

 

The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for Working Group 1 (WG1) is a good summary of the literature for current and future climate change. It's a little long and dense but is in fairly simple terms and deals only with the broadest most significant aspects of the science. It should give you a fairly complete general understanding.

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

The SPM for WG2 deals with the impacts of climate change and possible adaptation strategies.

 

And the SPM for WG3 deals with possible mitigation strategies.

 

I skipped around, but I did catch this line.

 

If even a 5th of that warming occured, I would hope we would be advanced enough to geoengineer a solution. That sounds like twice the worst case scenarios I have heard.

[skierinvermont]

Your lifespan, computer and everything you see and touch in your home only exists because of fossil fuels. 

 

If there were no hydrocarbons in the ground, we would still be in the dark ages, with slavery, plague and constant wars.

 

Fossil fuel utilization is the greatest invention in human history, number 2 on the list is so far back that its not even worth an "also ran" category.

 

No doubt fossil fuels have been great for the material wealth of people in developed nations. And they will be necessary for that material wealth for some time to come in making things like plastics. 

 

But the intensity of fossil fuels required for material wealth is no where near as much as we use today. The sectors of transportation and energy, which consume most of the fossil fuel resources on the planet, no longer need rely nearly so heavily on fossil fuels. Alternatives to fossil fuels are quickly becoming cost-effective or near cost-effective. Even without subsidies some of these alternatives are growing quickly. Given the risks of climate change and the slow rate at which infrastructure changes, moderate subsidies to hasten these transitions is prudent and economical. 

[Derecho!]

The first episode was good, though not as good as some of the hype.

To me the most powerful segment was the juxtapositioning of the religious and the secular regarding the Texas drought. Perhaps decades spent in Nevada watching and reacting to Lake Mead's water levels have made me more acutely aware of projections showing declining mountain snowpack and increasing ground temperatures leading to desertification of much of the southwest.

The segment linking the Syrian drought to civil unrest was good and may connect the dots for many who have not followed the situation as closely as most on this board have. When you combine poor governance with crop failure the resulting conflagrations may .

Terry

Given the Southwest IS a desert, pretty much, I'm a bit hazy on how much of it can undergo desertification. And we know from paleoclimatology it's generally been far more of a desert in the past (long before AGW, of course) with an unfortunate flukey wet period corresponding to its recent settlement by Europeans. The Southwest was going to have a water crisis with or without AGW.

As to AGW and war, there has both been a long term marked trend throughout the history of civilization of a steady decline in per population deaths in political violence, and a shorter term similar trend since WWII, with smaller scale year to year fluctuations, of course.

rather than ask why Syria is so violent, the better question is to ask how the world is so astoundingly peaceful, other than Syria and Central Africa.

Examining the long term, worldwide warfare and deaths has a stronger correlation with unusually cool periods, not warm periods. The amazingly bloody 17th century, from Europe to China, is a good example.

[Msalgado]

Given the Southwest IS a desert, pretty much, I'm a bit hazy on how much of it can undergo desertification. And we know from paleoclimatology it's generally been far more of a desert in the past (long before AGW, of course) with an unfortunate flukey wet period corresponding to its recent settlement by Europeans. The Southwest was going to have a water crisis with or without AGW.

As to AGW and war, there has both been a long term marked trend throughout the history of civilization of a steady decline in per population deaths in political violence, and a shorter term similar trend since WWII, with smaller scale year to year fluctuations, of course.

rather than ask why Syria is so violent, the better question is to ask how the world is so astoundingly peaceful, other than Syria and Central Africa.

Examining the long term, worldwide warfare and deaths has a stronger correlation with unusually cool periods, not warm periods. The amazingly bloody 17th century, from Europe to China, is a good example.

 

Much of the mountain Southwest is transitioning away from the forest ecosystems into more desert ecosystems.  The forests of the four corners states are substantial portions of each state and they are going to dramatically change - if not disappear - in the next century.  

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/29/0914211107.abstract

 

 

As for your second point, there's a definite link with warmer temperatures and an increase in violent human behavior.  I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist, but early in my UG years I worked a bit with a professor studying human responses to increased heat waves and I remember reading a quite substantial bit of literature showing the increase in violence and health risks associated with heat waves.  

 

I think the main point about Syria is how the drought provided an unstable region with more instability.  Its pretty hard to argue this isn't the case and the US military has actively planned for this occurring in many places in the future as a direct result of climate change.  

 

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/06/us-military-says-climate-change-could-increase-wars-conflict/

[StudentOfClimatology]

Regarding the droughts, there is a consensus in the paleoclimate community on the existence of frequent mega-droughts during the early and middle Holocene in the SW US, which tend to coincide with warm periods.

The last mega-drought took place about 1000yrs ago: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207000882

However, paleoclimatic records indicate that the region is also prone to much longer droughts, including a prolonged episode of generally arid conditions and severe droughts extending from the 9th through 14th centuries.

It figures that AGW would probably lead to a similar scenario in the future unless something is done.

[chubbs]

No doubt fossil fuels have been great for the material wealth of people in developed nations. And they will be necessary for that material wealth for some time to come in making things like plastics. 

 

But the intensity of fossil fuels required for material wealth is no where near as much as we use today. The sectors of transportation and energy, which consume most of the fossil fuel resources on the planet, no longer need rely nearly so heavily on fossil fuels. Alternatives to fossil fuels are quickly becoming cost-effective or near cost-effective. Even without subsidies some of these alternatives are growing quickly. Given the risks of climate change and the slow rate at which infrastructure changes, moderate subsidies to hasten these transitions is prudent and economical. 

This. Also fossil fuels are finite and non-renewable.. Already oil the most valuable fossil fuel is much more difficult to obtain. The transition to non-fossil fuels is inevitable and will be less painful if started while fossil fuels are still relatively abundant. 

[wxinVA]

 

Skeptical science provides good literature-based posts on specific topics. You can search for anything you're interested in learning more about and select the "basic" "intermediate" or "advanced" explanation.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

 

The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for Working Group 1 (WG1) is a good summary of the literature for current and future climate change. It's a little long and dense but is in fairly simple terms and deals only with the broadest most significant aspects of the science. It should give you a fairly complete general understanding.

 

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

The SPM for WG2 deals with the impacts of climate change and possible adaptation strategies.

 

And the SPM for WG3 deals with possible mitigation strategies.

 

Much appreciated.

[Derecho!]

Regarding the droughts, there is a consensus in the paleoclimate community on the existence of frequent mega-droughts during the early and middle Holocene in the SW US, which tend to coincide with warm periods.

The last mega-drought took place about 1000yrs ago: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207000882

It figures that AGW would probably lead to a similar scenario in the future unless something is done.

 

So if you any of the innumerable Eurekalert press releases, or actual papers, that variously deal with evidence of pre-industrial rapid and severe climate changes, horrific droughts, and severe weather events, such as the evidence of much higher hurricane landfall rates in some locations in studies ranging back millenia, almost all of these articles have what is in many cases a non-sequitur paragraph shoe-horned in at the end sermonizing that this study shows how dangerous AGW will be. It almost seems to be out of embarassment that the study might be used to counter  "attribution abuse."

 

So yes, there's a valid point in discovering that climate shifts can happen rapidly and that there clearly may be very sharp and fine climatic tipping points, but you're also discovering that there can be wild shifts in temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, etc. that can't possibly be linked to human CO2 emissions.

 

And regardless of one's stance I think we can all admit that in terms of messaging to the public there's a certain degree of "attribution abuse" going on out of the recognition that the only way to scare people into action is to link AGW to specific meterological disasters. In doing so you have to build on the implied fiction that meteorological "normal" is some sort of steady, benign, peaceful climate which we all know doesn't exist.   I don't think there's a central secret cabal of warmists cackling with glee sending out propaganda marching orders to do this, but I think it is going on with a "wink and nod" and a sense of the "ends justify the means." The same is going on with the shouting down of anyone that makes the obvious point that certain regions are likely going to benefit agriculturally or economically from global warming. 

 

My problem is the rhetoric and messaging is beginning to mirror the rhetoric and messaging of religious apocalpytikook "End Times" nutters, that seize on things like perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity to try to convince people that it's "abnormal" and that they are sign of the imminent End Times or  "punishment" for specific things like gay rights, abortion, being Muslim, etc., with the ultimate goal being the selling of their crappy books and novels.  Of course, perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity as seen from a geologic time frame  includes earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes that kill hundreds of thousands of people. People desperately want some sort of anthrocentric agency or deeper meaning to these disasters to combat their fear of the uncaring randomness of the Earth; it makes them feel better to think it's a specific punishment, or a sign of Christ's coming, not as a sign that the Earth wasn't designed for humans and geologically mostly doesn't give a crap that we are here.

 

At some point if the perfectly normal (Southwest mega-droughts; heck, there was a horrific East coast mega-drought ongoing when John Smith arrived at Jamestown) is always presented as "abnormal" and evidence of the negative effects of AGW, you're going to lose credibility. I think this is already happening.

 

In terms PURELY of attribution (I'm not talking about global temperature averages) AGW is already reaching the point of being unfalsifiable - there's now a corpus of studies linking absolutely every weather event or any change above and below a long-term average of any secondary weather parameter anywhere in the world to AGW.

[Msalgado]

So if you any of the innumerable Eurekalert press releases, or actual papers, that variously deal with evidence of pre-industrial rapid and severe climate changes, horrific droughts, and severe weather events, such as the evidence of much higher hurricane landfall rates in some locations in studies ranging back millenia, almost all of these articles have what is in many cases a non-sequitur paragraph shoe-horned in at the end sermonizing that this study shows how dangerous AGW will be. It almost seems to be out of embarassment that the study might be used to counter  "attribution abuse."

 

So yes, there's a valid point in discovering that climate shifts can happen rapidly and that there clearly may be very sharp and fine climatic tipping points, but you're also discovering that there can be wild shifts in temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, etc. that can't possibly be linked to human CO2 emissions.

 

And regardless of one's stance I think we can all admit that in terms of messaging to the public there's a certain degree of "attribution abuse" going on out of the recognition that the only way to scare people into action is to link AGW to specific meterological disasters. In doing so you have to build on the implied fiction that meteorological "normal" is some sort of steady, benign, peaceful climate which we all know doesn't exist.   I don't think there's a central secret cabal of warmists cackling with glee sending out propaganda marching orders to do this, but I think it is going on with a "wink and nod" and a sense of the "ends justify the means." The same is going on with the shouting down of anyone that makes the obvious point that certain regions are likely going to benefit agriculturally or economically from global warming. 

 

My problem is the rhetoric and messaging is beginning to mirror the rhetoric and messaging of religious apocalpytikook "End Times" nutters, that seize on things like perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity to try to convince people that it's "abnormal" and that they are sign of the imminent End Times or  "punishment" for specific things like gay rights, abortion, being Muslim, etc., with the ultimate goal being the selling of their crappy books and novels.  Of course, perfectly normal earthquake and volcanic activity as seen from a geologic time frame  includes earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes that kill hundreds of thousands of people. People desperately want some sort of anthrocentric agency or deeper meaning to these disasters to combat their fear of the uncaring randomness of the Earth; it makes them feel better to think it's a specific punishment, or a sign of Christ's coming, not as a sign that the Earth wasn't designed for humans and geologically mostly doesn't give a crap that we are here.

 

At some point if the perfectly normal (Southwest mega-droughts; heck, there was a horrific East coast mega-drought ongoing when John Smith arrived at Jamestown) is always presented as "abnormal" and evidence of the negative effects of AGW, you're going to lose credibility. I think this is already happening.

 

In terms PURELY of attribution (I'm not talking about global temperature averages) AGW is already reaching the point of being unfalsifiable - there's now a corpus of studies linking absolutely every weather event or any change above and below a long-term average of any secondary weather parameter anywhere in the world to AGW.

 

I strongly disagree with this.  For example, when you say that Megadroughts are being presented as abnormal I must ask by who?  Most of the research I've read points out they are a regular occurance in the past but that due to the drying out caused by AGW they will be more common.  Additionally, by the end of the 21st century is is quite possible that the normal conditions in the SW will be those of megagroughts.  It isn't about abnormal or normal but about how AGW is shifting the paradigm.  

 

If you have specific problems with pieces of literature on these subjects then I suggest posting links.  Otherwise, its far too easy to speak in general terms about exaggeration and poor attribution that may or may not be occurring.  I certainly am not saying no one is taking things out of context, but most of the press I've seen - around droughts especially - hasn't clearly stated the transition to a more arid regime as opposed to "OMG DROUGHTS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE".

[Derecho!]

 

 

As for your second point, there's a definite link with warmer temperatures and an increase in violent human behavior.  I'm not an anthropologist or sociologist, but early in my UG years I worked a bit with a professor studying human responses to increased heat waves and I remember reading a quite substantial bit of literature showing the increase in violence and health risks associated with heat waves.  

 

I think the main point about Syria is how the drought provided an unstable region with more instability.  Its pretty hard to argue this isn't the case and the US military has actively planned for this occurring in many places in the future as a direct result of climate change.  

 

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/03/06/us-military-says-climate-change-could-increase-wars-conflict/

 

There's a difference between the rise in crime rates with temperature (which on a broad level is the obvious result of people being far more likely to be on the streets at 3AM on a Friday night in Chicago in August than they are in January) and looking at organized political violence.

 

I'm a military operations analyst, but a political scientist by training with a lot of history thrown in and the whole issue of of the causes of conflict (be it external or civil wars, genocides, tribal conflict etc) is an enormously complex one that has been beaten to death for years, and many of the standard assumptions that people make often aren't true, such resource scarcity causing conflict. In some cases it actually seems to REDUCE conflict (people are too busy trying to stay alive to go wandering off attacking the tribe next door and stealing their women).

 

You really need to look at the literature before the issue started being politicized, which was about 2005. Since then there's now a plethora of institutes, journals, etc. which by name and mission are pretty much explicitly set up to generate studies showing AGW causing conflict and disorder. You're also beginning to have meteorologists and climatologists parachuting into the field with limited political sci/history background saying things that are too simplistic and far too sweeping.

 

As to the US military and AGW, a lot of that has to do with top-down political pressure, and also military strategic thinking is subject to the "fad of the moment."   There are also elements of force structure justification for some services. History proves that we have been horrifically bad at anticipating where in the world the next war we have will be, and what will cause it. People became infatuated with the fad that nation states don't matter, that everything will be counter-terrorism or COIN, but now our most important potential conflicts are with China and Russia.

 

I can assure you there's much eye-rolling at the mid-levels among both uniformed and civilian personnel in DoD over a lot of the AGW emphasis.

[Msalgado]

There's a difference between the rise in crime rates with temperature (which on a broad level is the obvious result of people being far more likely to be on the streets at 3AM on a Friday night in Chicago in August than they are in January) and looking at organized political violence.

 

I'm a military operations analyst, but a political scientist by training with a lot of history thrown in and the whole issue of of the causes of conflict (be it external or civil wars, genocides, tribal conflict etc) is an enormously complex one that has been beaten to death for years, and many of the standard assumptions that people make often aren't true, such resource scarcity causing conflict. In some cases it actually seems to REDUCE conflict (people are too busy trying to stay alive to go wandering off attacking the tribe next door and stealing their women).

 

You really need to look at the literature before the issue started being politicized, which was about 2005. Since then there's now a plethora of institutes, journals, etc. which by name and mission are pretty much explicitly set up to generate studies showing AGW causing conflict and disorder. You're also beginning to have meteorologists and climatologists parachuting into the field with limited political sci/history background saying things that are too simplistic and far too sweeping.

 

As to the US military and AGW, a lot of that has to do with top-down political pressure, and also military strategic thinking is subject to the "fad of the moment."   There are also elements of force structure justification for some services. History proves that we have been horrifically bad at anticipating where in the world the next war we have will be, and what will cause it. People became infatuated with the fad that nation states don't matter, that everything will be counter-terrorism or COIN, but now our most important potential conflicts are with China and Russia.

 

I can assure you there's much eye-rolling at the mid-levels among both uniformed and civilian personnel in DoD over a lot of the AGW emphasis.

 

Fair enough!

[bluewave]

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/oneill_2009.pdf

 

 

“Fear Won’t Do It”

Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representation

 

 

Fear-inducing representations of climate change are widely employed in the public domain. However, there is a lack of clarity in the literature about the impacts that fearful messages in climate change communications have on people’s senses of engagement with the issue and associated implications for public engagement strategies. Some literature suggests that using fearful representations of climate change may be counterproductive. The authors explore this assertion in the context of two empirical studies that investigated the role of visual, and iconic, representations of climate change for public engagement respectively. Results demonstrate that although such representations have much potential for attracting people’s attention to climate change, fear is generally an ineffective tool for motivating genuine personal engagement. Nonthreatening imagery and icons that link to individuals’ everyday emotions and concerns in the context of this macro-environmental issue tend to be the most engaging. Recommendations for constructively engaging individuals with climate change are given.

 

 

Discussion

This research has shown that dramatic, sensational, fearful, shocking, and other climate change representations of a similar ilk can successfully capture people’s attention to the issue of climate change and drive a general sense of the importance of the issue. However, they are also likely to distance or dis- engage individuals from climate change, tending to render them feeling helpless and overwhelmed when they try to comprehend their own relation- ship with the issue. These types of representations have a common presence in the mass media and wider public domain. In light of the results presented in this article, this is a worrying finding, particularly if voluntary reductions in GHG emissions through individual and household behavior change are crit- ical if Western nations are to reach their decarbonization targets.

Although shocking, catastrophic, and large-scale representations of the impacts of climate change may well act as an initial hook for people’s atten- tion and concern, they clearly do not motivate a sense of personal engage- ment with the issue and indeed may act to trigger barriers to engagement such as denial and others described by Lorenzoni et al. (2007). The results demonstrate that communications approaches that take account of individu- als’ personal points of reference (e.g., based on an understanding and appre- ciation of their values, attitudes, beliefs, local environment, and experiences) are more likely to meaningfully engage individuals with climate change. This was tested here in relation to nonexpert icons and locally relevant cli- mate change imagery. More broadly, communication strategies must be in touch with the other concerns and pressures on everyday life that people experience. Such approaches can act to decrease barriers to engagement; for example, because the icons selected by nonexperts are often local or regional places that individuals care about and empathize with, such approaches are less likely to induce feelings of invulnerability than, say, a fear eaturing a distant location (for a discussion of the role of affect-influencing engagement with spatially distant icons, see O’Neill, 2008). These are not necessarily new suggestions (e.g., Farr, 1993; Futerra, 2005; Myers & Macnaghten, 1998), but this study provides empirical evidence as to why fear may be an inappropriate tool for climate change communication.

These findings echo those of other researchers (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Moser & Dilling, 2004) who have touched on this issue of whether the use of fear or shock-provoking messages are likely to engage people with climate change. The results presented here certainly demonstrate that on a stand- alone basis fear, shock, or sensationalism may promote verbal expressions and general feelings of concern but that they overwhelmingly have a “neg- ative” impact on active engagement with climate change. That is, unless they are set in a context within which individuals are situated and to which individuals can relate, they tend to disempower and distance people from climate change. This is akin to the assertion made by Myers and Macnaghten (1998) that depicting crisis does not sit comfortably with the suggestion of individual action. The findings presented suggest that dra- matic representations must be partnered with those that enable a person to establish a sense of connection with the causes and consequences of climate change in a positive manner—so that they can see the relevance of climate change for their locality and life and see that there are ways in which they (and others) can positively respond.

This begs the question, should sensational messages and appeals to fear be used to try and engage members of the public with climate change? They certainly have a place, given their power to hook audiences and their atten- tion. However, they must at least be used selectively, with caution, and in combination with other kinds of representations in order to avoid causing denial, apathy, avoidance, and negative associations that may come as a result of coping with any unpleasant feelings evoked (Nicholson-Cole, 2005). DEFRA (2007b) highlights this point in relation to behavioral change, arguing that it is not worth scaring people into taking action, par- ticularly if they do not know that their actions can make a difference. If fear appeals are to be used, the viewers must have feasible coping responses (e.g., high self-efficacy and the ability to respond behaviorally) in order that barriers to engagement are not encountered.

At present, although the objectives and intentions of various communi- cation examples that appear to have the aim of bolstering public engagement with climate change may be genuine, many risk resulting in generating rather tokenistic and general concern that operates at arm’s length from the individual. Future research attention in this field must concentrate on how

[ORH_wxman]

So if you any of the innumerable Eurekalert press releases, or actual papers, that variously deal with evidence of pre-industrial rapid and severe climate changes, horrific droughts, and severe weather events, such as the evidence of much higher hurricane landfall rates in some locations in studies ranging back millenia, almost all of these articles have what is in many cases a non-sequitur paragraph shoe-horned in at the end sermonizing that this study shows how dangerous AGW will be. It almost seems to be out of embarassment that the study might be used to counter  "attribution abuse."

 

So yes, there's a valid point in discovering that climate shifts can happen rapidly and that there clearly may be very sharp and fine climatic tipping points, but you're also discovering that there can be wild shifts in temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, etc. that can't possibly be linked to human CO2 emissions.

 

And regardless of one's stance I think we can all admit that in terms of messaging to the public there's a certain degree of "attribution abuse" going on out of the recognition that the only way to scare people into action is to link AGW to specific meterological disasters. In doing so you have to build on the implied fiction that meteorological "normal" is some sort of steady, benign, peaceful climate which we all know doesn't exist.   I don't think there's a central secret cabal of warmists cackling with glee sending out propaganda marching orders to do this, but I think it is going on with a "wink and nod" and a sense of the "ends justify the means." The same is going on with the shouting down of anyone that makes the obvious point that certain regions are likely going to benefit agriculturally or economically from global warming. 

 

 

At some point if the perfectly normal (Southwest mega-droughts; heck, there was a horrific East coast mega-drought ongoing when John Smith arrived at Jamestown) is always presented as "abnormal" and evidence of the negative effects of AGW, you're going to lose credibility. I think this is already happening.

 

In terms PURELY of attribution (I'm not talking about global temperature averages) AGW is already reaching the point of being unfalsifiable - there's now a corpus of studies linking absolutely every weather event or any change above and below a long-term average of any secondary weather parameter anywhere in the world to AGW.

 

Taking out the paragraph about religious nutjobs...much of what you say I believe has some kernal of truth, but I don't agree with all of it.

 

 

Climate change requires some sort of action...but there is obviously debate on exactly what that is (this is a whole seperate debate not really applicable to this thread). I think "the ends justify the means" certainly applies to more alarmist groups. However, I do believe a significant portion of that group is not doing the "eye wink"....I think many of them actually believe most of the worst case scenarios.

 

Much of lay-person's exposure to climate science is only what they read in media print or sensationalized filmography like Al Gore's "Inconveneint Truth" and now this new piece of Hollywood's take on climate science...so it is very easy to actually believe the worst case scenarios if that is the focal point of every source of your information. Most people do not start follwing climate change by picking up a piece of peer reviewed literature...unfortunately, this makes most people who start following climate change already saddled with preconceived notions, often politically influenced.

 

 

There's often a disconnect between "future projections" and past weather trends...especially when it comes to extreme weather. A good example is the drought attribution and another poster child is hurricanes/TCs. Future model projections show drought may worsen and become more widespread....however, to date, that has not happened or at least cannot be detected. Tropical cyclones aren't even expected to increase (though you will hear otherwise from unscientific sources), but may become marginally stronger in a future warmer world. Almost the entire increase in TC frequency in the Atlantic basin is due to observation improvement and not because there actually has been an increase over the period of record. I believe many become confused by the difference in the two.

 

 

 

I do think the extreme weather attribution actually hurts the ability to take action against climate change more than it helps it. You eventually start desensitizing people when every single weather event starts getting blamed on climate change. You hear things such as climate change being responsible for the warm winter of 2011-2012, but then the public gets confused when a 2013-2014 winter happens. Climate science needs to be communicated to people in a more honest manner if we're ever going to get most of the public behind any type of mitigation policies. Blaming a hurricane on climate change....or telling people that Fargo, ND is might have a Phoenix climate right after they had a top 5 coldest winter on record is probably not the way to convince the public to get behind reducing fossil fuel consumption.