What is your reaction to this Newsroom climate change video?

[crandles]

Newsroom Climate change


has previously been posted. However there just seemed just such a huge range of possible reactions to it, it seemed hard to know what others thought.

For example, there appeared to be some stunned shock, but was this from climate message being given or that the expert would say such things?

First statement by 'expert' that had shock effect was

A person has already been born who will die due to catastrophic failure of the planet.

Feel free to elaborate more than the choices I have suggested in the poll which are probably poor and are unlikely to give a full enough range of reactions. Distinguish between your reaction to video and your own beliefs if you wish.

[Laurent]

We are way more than 25 meter in line. The CO2 eq is 480 ppm not 400 ppm and I suspect it is wrongly calculated on a 100 year basis. The immediate figures for all the green house gazes should be taken into account.
Of course we have plenty of things to do, deciding what is the ecological foot print for each county and try to adjust the population according to that (allowing imigration would be wise). Banning oil, gaz, coal within  5 to 10 years, in the mean time reduce our needs by reorganizing the societies (dismantling cities above 10.000 people eventually keep some bigger that should to be decided on a nation basis). For each selled product (particularily "ecological stuff") it should be displayed the amount of CO2 needed to make it, ship it, sell it, the stuff that is in the higher ranged of the similar product banned, etc ... (do not forget negawatts)
Plenty of hope, it is not the end of the world...we are just entering tough time. Welcome aboard this space ship !

[wili]

Lots of people have already died and are dying from effects of climate change already. Catastrophic failure of local systems to handle the new range of effects is already happening. It is merely the scale and the permanence of the devastation to systems  which will change, moving inexorably toward essentially universal catastrophic failure of all global civilization.

The is a conservatively predicted consequence of hitting 4 degrees C, which again conservatively has been predicted to come about some time in the second half of this century.

So, again, by relatively conservative estimates, most people below the age of 40 who are living today (and of course those yet to be born) will die from effects of universal catastrophic collapse brought on by GW (if economic, military, or other universal or near universal breakdowns don't do them in first) imvho.

[ccgwebmaster]

So, again, by relatively conservative estimates, most people below the age of 40 who are living today (and of course those yet to be born) will die from effects of universal catastrophic collapse brought on by GW (if economic, military, or other universal or near universal breakdowns don't do them in first) imvho.

Yeah, I can't say I find it at all contentious.

The bigger question is why it should take so damn long for the penny to drop - of course - all that is also wasted time in the end.

Just as one can say "we ought to have solved emissions 20 years ago" one can also say "we ought to have prepared meaningful contingency planning for collapse" 20 years ago.

[Laurent]

'We're Running Out of Time'
Leading atmospheric scientist unveils latest numbers on climate change

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/were-running-out-of-time/Content?oid=3364447

[Laurent]

This tied into paleoclimate research presented by Aaron Goldner. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at similar levels to today’s (400 parts per million) 15 million years ago during the mid-Miocene period. However, the Earth’s climate was very different. Geologic records give us estimations that sea levels were 25–40 meters higher than today, global mean temperatures 3­–6°C hotter, and there was very little sea ice relative to today.

Scientists connect the dots from identifying to preventing dangerous climate risks
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/23/scientists-connect-dots-identifying-preventing-dangerous-climate-risks

[TerryM]

It was a well done piece aimed at an unsuspecting audience.
Assume it has started more than one debate with both sides Googling to bolster their claims. More education can not be bad.
Terry

[viddaloo]

Just as one can say "we ought to have solved emissions 20 years ago" one can also say "we ought to have prepared meaningful contingency planning for collapse" 20 years ago.

Looking at all of this from Norway, from the Norwegian political so–called 'reality', we have these facts:

• 1989: Before the election politicians told us we had 10 years (basically the 1990s) to turn this sh@t around.
• 2014: Before changing his job description from 'UN climate expert' to 'NATO Secretary General', mr Stoltenberg told us we had 15 years to turn this sh@t around.

Call me skeptic, but one of those statements has to be wrong. Knowing quite a bit about Stoltenberg's tactics, I'd say the latter statement was wrong, at the very least.

[AbruptSLR]

Just as one can say "we ought to have solved emissions 20 years ago" one can also say "we ought to have prepared meaningful contingency planning for collapse" 20 years ago.

Looking at all of this from Norway, from the Norwegian political so–called 'reality', we have these facts:

• 1989: Before the election politicians told us we had 10 years (basically the 1990s) to turn this sh@t around.
• 2014: Before changing his job description from 'UN climate expert' to 'NATO Secretary General', mr Stoltenberg told us we had 15 years to turn this sh@t around.

Call me skeptic, but one of those statements has to be wrong. Knowing quite a bit about Stoltenberg's tactics, I'd say the latter statement was wrong, at the very least.

I think that Stoltenberg's first statement meant that global society had until 1999 to implement a sustainable plan to remain below a 2 C surface temperature rise; while I think that the second statements means that politicians have until 2029 until the general public see that they have been duped (i.e. the "we" refers to different groups).

[Gray-Wolf]

I've spent too many years trying to put counter points ( bringing in the science) to laptop deniers only to realise now that the majority of the public warm to 'good news' than they do to bad news. I always kinda knew that I never stood a chance of 'educating' the misleaders and bring them online but I did think that a few of the 'on the fencers' would be persuaded by the unfolding science and certainty of forced change. I now doubt this.

The majority of folk will need to see horrible things ,close to home, before they accept a need for them to plead for us to alter our ways and all of that too late.

Humans are hard wired to not perceive anything but immediate personal danger and are loathe to accept enforced change, that's just the way it is?

Do we seriously expect us to stop burning ancient bits of past carbon cycles and allowing them to inflate our current one?

Again I'm of the opinion that only clear and present danger will drive the change needed to mitigate the worst of it and not the promise that clear and present danger could be manifesting right in front of us!