Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Good short video material needed for policy makers  (Read 10644 times)

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Good short video material needed for policy makers
« on: May 07, 2013, 07:12:32 PM »
I've found good short videos effective in explaining climate change and climate policy issues.

Here are links to two I've found recently, which I will use to send to policy makers. I would be grateful for others.

1. We need to talk about consumption. (Says we've been told a lie on the UK's carbon emissions) http://carbonomissions.org.uk/

2. The Story of Cap & Trade . (Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme) http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/] [url]http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/[/url]
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2013, 11:09:52 AM »
Correction link above to <i>The story of stuff</i>:
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-cap-trade/

<i>Extreme Weather from Australia Broadcasting</i> - found through climate crocks:


The <i>"No Warming in 16 Years" Crock</i> seems to have received some flak but is a nice story:


<i>AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Richard Alley</i> is great but too long to show to politicians   ... but I will try:
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Anne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 525
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2013, 11:21:38 AM »
Yale Climate Forum has some good material, eg this:

Jim Hunt

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4051
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2013, 01:45:46 PM »
Assuming it's UK policy makers you have in mind Geoff, here's my article on the recent Met Office workshop on our recent "unusual seasons":

http://econnexus.org/met-office-says-noone-in-the-world-can-explain-weird-weather/

According to Dr. James Screen from the University of Exeter:

Quote
We do understand that these unusual seasons were ultimately caused by the jet stream being in an unusual location.

We understand that there are a number of drivers that influence the position of the jet stream.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2013, 04:44:20 PM »
Thanks Anne and Jim that was helpful.

In the Met Office press conference did you notice that Brian Hoskins was one of the organisers. From what members of the Committee on CLimate Change have told me he is the "climate scientist" on the committee.

The CCC members are appointed by DECC.

It seems the line spun in the press conference was "No-one in the world can answer these questions [on the unusual weather]. "

I think the hidden message is "we don't understand it so we can't promote any policy solutions".
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2013, 09:39:10 AM »
I'd like views on <i>Guy McPherson - Part 1 "Our Environment - By the Numbers"</i>. Is it suitable for politicians? It's not particularly about Methane.

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Laurent

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2013, 10:52:47 AM »
Ouaou that's quite a punch !!!
I know perfectly well what is saying (I try to prepare since 2010 (not for survival but to live simply living) but still it's amazing  when climate science meet economic !
Does someone has read his book ?
What do you think ?

(I notice afterward that there is a part 2 :
Guy McPherson - Part 2 "The Durable Life" Building a Durable Life)
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 11:07:15 AM by Laurent »

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2013, 04:19:13 PM »
Is it suitable for politicians? It's not particularly about Methane.

I'd consider McPherson for an interested party willing and able to separate fact from fiction, but certainly not politicians. The clip you included (which I have not watched at this point) has a picture appearing to reference Malcolm Light's forecast for methane driven near future destruction of all life on earth - even AMEG distanced themselves from that.

More on the McPherson outlook here: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,443.0.html

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2013, 12:12:03 AM »
CCG

Thanks for pointing me to the thread on the forum on McPherson that you started. My comment "It's not particularly about Methane" was so that the video wasn't immediately ignored. He mentioned the methane bomb stuff but McPherson used it only as an aside from his main argument and didn't endorse it.

Given the skepticism surrounding the methane clathrate issue, the title page amounted to "Do not watch this video. It's unreliable." Pity.

If you find the time do look, I would like to know whether his argument in this particular piece holds together and whether he quotes his sources correctly and in a reasonable context.

I sort of agree with Sidd's comment on your thread

Quote
why hypothesize when we can measure ?

Major feedbacks already operant:
1)ice albedo
2)tundra peat fossil carbon release (as methane and CO2)

submarine clathrate gun doesnt scare me as those two

another one that keeps me awake is so far secondary, but it is the destabilization of WAIS

There are other feedbacks such as the increase in wildfires that we might worry about. Because of these, we should not trust the climate models being used for the coming AR5 round of the IPCC.  These CMIP5 models are lagging behind the real world and they not properly model several feedbacks.

See:
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/can-you-believe-the-european-commissionand-the-ipcc/
and
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/do-you-belive-the-european-commission-on-climate-change/
and of course
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/models-are-improving-but-can-they-catch-up.html

Do note John Mitchell's comment in the second piece.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2013, 05:09:48 AM »
Given the skepticism surrounding the methane clathrate issue, the title page amounted to "Do not watch this video. It's unreliable." Pity.

Not skepticism per se about methane clathrates - I think those pose very serious risks - the skepticism is the precise reference to a prediction of human extinction by the middle of this century by Malcolm light due to a global firestorm. AMEG distanced themselves from what he said (http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html)

I quote Malcom Light (wrongly associated with AMEG) from the previous link:
Quote
Figure 8 shows a different method of interpreting the extinction fields defined by the (12 +-3) + 6% year long lifetime of methane (IPCC, 1992) assumed to have been instantaneously injected into the Arctic atmosphere in 2010 and the lifetime of the globally spreading methane atmospheric veil at different methane global warming potentials. The start of extinction begins between 2020 and 2026.9 and extinction will be complete in the northern hemisphere by 2057. Extinction will begin around 2024 in the southern hemisphere and will be completed by 2087. Extinction in the southern hemisphere, in particular in Antarctica will be delayed by some 30 years.  This makes property on the Transantarctic mountains of premium value for those people wish to survive the coming methane firestorm for a few decades longer.

Nonsense, in my opinion. Utter nonsense, but represented as fact by McPherson (hence my strongly negative response on seeing it as the preview image by Youtube).

I've watched the first 9 minutes of that video clip and checked the information provided - it doesn't check very well, I'm afraid to say (I suspect the figures are being misquoted in order to twist them to suit his narrative). Here is what I noted:


By minute 9 - then stopped bothering to check properly:

Disagreement points

Reference to nature bats last - information there not totally reliable

Claims IPCC said 1C by 2100 in 2007, this is wrong:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-spm-5.html

Also wrong about Hadley Centre predictions (the 2C by 2100 figure ONLY applies if early and significant action is taken, business as usual is quoted at 7C warming by century end)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

At 6c warming he claims the largest mammal that can thermoregulate is the size of a shrew. I think that's nonsense - the polar regions should still be survivable for larger mammals if nothing else.

Claims without plankton 50% of the oxygen is lost from earth, this is not the case, you would lose capacity for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen, not the oxygen itself.

He refers to the KT extinction event for comparison, this seems seriously flawed as this extinction is thought to have been driven by large extra terrestial impact - the PETM or end Permian are surely better analog mass extinctions.

UNEP in 2009 is also misquoted, they said 1.4-4.3C by 2100:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903062g

International Energy Agency 3.5C by 2035, no, this is a myth floating around due to someone misreading the original paper talking about expectations by 2100 for certain actions to 2035. This is accordingly excessively alarmist without a firm foundation upon which to base it.

UNEP, 5C by 2050, IEA 6C by 2035 - similarly misquoted - this link fact checks these and a bunch of other stuff:
http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/McPherson_121102_notes.html

Responding to question about re-forestation, he fails to note that there are a host of benefits to this other than just sequesting a little carbon dioxide (trees help regular local climate and prevent erosion).

NCAR 16C by 2100, incorrect, they said that warming in some regions might ultimately reach those levels (not by 2100, just that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by 2100 would be sufficient for that to occur as an equilibrium state):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/


Agreement points

1C is potentially very serious, the basis for 2C is poor (I believe he is correct in that it was an economic who started this dangerous idea of 2C as a safe limit - there is some excellent material out there by Corey Morningstar exploring this area):
http://theartofannihilation.com/part-1-expose-the-2%C2%BA-death-dance-the-1%C2%BA-cover-up/

Hadley 2009, 4C by 2060 - seems valid (though presumably a range still applies to a forecast):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming

Global Carbon project, 2009 (but note the Hadley centre was misquoted and had already identified 6C by 2100 in their range):
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

Conclusions

He appears to cherry pick the warming predictions to suit his narrative, without mentioning that ranges of values were predicted for different emission scenarios - this is important.

There are too many holes and misrepresentations to use this for politicians or policy makers as it is easy to demonstrate multiple key claims are invalid and have no supporting evidence.

Quote
If you find the time do look, I would like to know whether his argument in this particular piece holds together and whether he quotes his sources correctly and in a reasonable context.

I have to say, no, I don't think the sources are quoted correctly in a reasonable context - see notes above. I think there are better ways to more factually and accurately present the direness of our situation to policymakers while also quoting the sources more accurately.

There are other feedbacks such as the increase in wildfires that we might worry about. Because of these, we should not trust the climate models being used for the coming AR5 round of the IPCC.  These CMIP5 models are lagging behind the real world and they not properly model several feedbacks.

I can't remember why I think this, but I think losing the Amazon is good for around +100ppm carbon dioxide - potentially very serious - and yet tiny compared to what could theoretically come out from other sources. The IPCC stuff is at least usually honest about what they are not including and the limitations of their predictions - unfortunately a lot of that is lost in translation and people start claiming that the IPCC said X or Y (and that is the mainstream science and anyone saying anything else is talking rubbish) when in reality the IPCC said X or Y if and only if the assumptions made to predict X or Y remain valid.

Accordingly the IPCC could be very wrong, people too often forget the IPCC itself acknowledges that by stating their assumptions and limitations.

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2013, 05:13:30 AM »
Yale Climate Forum has some good material, eg this:

I'd second this - some of the stuff they've done I've found impressive and very well done (and the rest I probably haven't watched yet).

http://www.youtube.com/user/yaleclimateforum?feature=watch

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2013, 11:29:40 AM »
CCG

Thanks for a very informative post. From what you say, I think it would be unwise to use McPherson's video although I might quibble a tiny bit on a couple of your points.

1) If we loose 50% of the capacity to reduce CO2 to oxygen won't the equilibrium concentration of oxygen fall considerably?

2) The tree topic is controversial e.g. Plant a tree and save the Earth? https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/NR-06-12-02.html

It's a pity that McPherson's arguments have the problems you point out because his performance is superb.  We don't see climate and economy linked often enough.

You are being to kind to the IPCC in saying

Quote
The IPCC stuff is at least usually honest about what they are not including and the limitations of their predictions

Where have they said that the climate models they use are missing important feedbacks and lag the real world - considerably in the case of Arctic sea ice?  If they have actually said this it was too quiet for me to hear.

The Yale Climate Forum is excellent. Thanks, I hadn't looked recently. I like the latest Kenneth Trenberth vs. Jennifer Francis video. This is a debate that should be pursued. My earlier comment about the recent Hadley Centre "wierd weather" conference was

Quote
It seems the line spun in the press conference was "No-one in the world can answer these questions [on the unusual weather]. "

I think they meant "Don't listen to Jennifer Francis!" (because the policy consequences are too great?)

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2013, 08:26:08 PM »
1) If we loose 50% of the capacity to reduce CO2 to oxygen won't the equilibrium concentration of oxygen fall considerably?

Put simply, why? There is vastly more oxygen than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Losing the capacity to convert carbon dioxide back to oxygen - yes - I think one would expect a gradual (and proportionately rapid) build up of carbon dioxide - but the reduction in oxygen would be proportionately far smaller and slower.

Try doing the maths sometime - and work out just how much carbon must be oxidised to deplete atmospheric oxygen substantially? The figure is ... impressive. I think it's safe to take a ratio of approximately 3 (but it varies by fuel source) for the rate at which oxygen is depleted for combusting fossil fuels (or any other comparable natural processes). It's around 3 for oil and gas because 2 oxygens are consumed by each carbon atom - and some oxygen also tends to be consumed by combusting hydrogen into water. I believe coal is nearer to 2. Bearing in mind oxygen comes in two atom molecules (O2) this link explores the maths a bit:

http://blogcritics.org/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/faq

Despite the reference suggesting 19.5% atmospheric oxygen would be a concern, I don't think the lower tolerance range for human survival is clearly defined - especially not if a change is occurring over the timescales implied by the scale of combustion required to significantly shift atmospheric oxygen. Consider that people live at high altitudes and indeed have even climbed mount Everest without an oxygen supply - surviving on just a fraction of the oxygen available at sea level.

In short, while fossil fuels do consume oxygen and killing large amounts of photosynthesisers would no doubt reduce the replenishment of oxygen in the atmosphere it requires staggeringly immense events to appreciably shift the balance of oxygen in the atmosphere - and the human tolerance range seems reasonably generous.

Over geological time the oxygen content of the atmosphere has varied significantly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen

Note that it has at one time been far higher than present (too high and fire tends to break out far more often).

2) The tree topic is controversial e.g. Plant a tree and save the Earth? https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/NR-06-12-02.html

Trees are somewhat controversional. I am discounting any ability they might have to sequester carbon dioxide - and emphasising their benefits to the local environment in which they grow. Preventing erosion and moderating temperatures and weather (setting aside their impact on the global heat budget) are very valuable attributes if you happen to be living nearby.

It's a pity that McPherson's arguments have the problems you point out because his performance is superb.  We don't see climate and economy linked often enough.

His presentation style is pretty direct and effective - it's unfortunate that very few people:
a) try to join up all the dots into presentations aimed at the average person or politician
b) are willing to engage with the more pessimistic end of the spectrum, which may well turn out to be the more realistic end

Choices are hence very limited, notwithstanding that it really isn't that hard to reference properly and find scientific evidence to support a pretty gloomy long term outlook.

Where have they said that the climate models they use are missing important feedbacks and lag the real world - considerably in the case of Arctic sea ice?  If they have actually said this it was too quiet for me to hear.

I am myself very skeptical of the IPCC - and somewhat negative about how I perceive them. I think many valid criticisms are levelled at them - but I think the majority of fault does not lie with them. Consider a few things:

Despite the very large amount of material they have produced (and how many of us have even read it all - I haven't), look at how few errors have been found and jumped on by the denying forces?

I am going to argue that if you read closely what the IPCC write, they are actually presenting a very open ended and ambiguous answer. Horrific amounts of detail is discarded in the communication and translation of what they say when it is presented to the public and to policy makers.

They come in for especial criticism for relying upon incomplete and inaccurate models, so I would like to highlight a few select quotes from this link from their literature:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html#10-5-1

The quotes I find especially apt are:

Quote
Uncertainty in predictions of anthropogenic climate change arises at all stages of the modelling process
Quote
The specification of future emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and their precursors is uncertain
Quote
At each step, uncertainty in the true signal of climate change is introduced both by errors in the representation of Earth system processes in models (e.g., Palmer et al., 2005) and by internal climate variability (e.g., Selten et al., 2004)
Quote
However, some processes may be missing from the set of available models, and alternative parametrizations of other processes may share common systematic biases.

And finally - the most damning admission of all (I appreciate I quoted heavily from the first paragraph, but I would argue each of those statements stands alone in admitting uncertainty):

Quote
For fundamental physical reasons as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range.

Let's pause a moment. The IPCC is saying they cannot exclude values substantially higher than 4.5°C for values of climate equilibrium sensitivity.

So what is the media reporting? What is the message policy makers are concentrating on? Are they focusing on the fact that the IPCC still cannot rule out substantially worse outcomes than the ones predicted by the models (declared to be uncertain for a number of reasons above)? Or are they just saying "the IPCC says 2-4.5C"?

Since the models drive almost every forecast they make - this applies to almost everything they publish. While I have no read that much of the stuff the IPCC produce, it is my general feeling that they are very careful and precise in attempting to enumerate the limitations of their approach and the uncertainties and caveats.

They also tend to be careful to avoid stating solid conclusions unless extremely sure. So for example, on the chances of abrupt AMOC shutdown this century:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-15-atlantic-ocean.html

Quote
It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century.

If memory serves, very unlikely means it is thought to be < 10%. Well, there are quite a few things that the IPCC thinks are very unlikely - so I suggest one should consider, based purely on statistics - that at least some of them are going to happen, despite being thought very unlikely.

Yet - we regularly see people arguing against them as points of concern on the basis that they aren't expected to happen - and not admitting that statistically at least some of these very unlikely things should be expected to happen. I've even seen that on this forum, though not as much as most other places.

I think they meant "Don't listen to Jennifer Francis!" (because the policy consequences are too great?)

Of one thing I am quite sure - nobody really wants to believe abrupt climate change (and all that implies) is starting here and now. It's more comfortable to perceive it as a future problem, or one that will affect only others.

I often speak to scientists who do not think climate change is as serious as many here. I think often they are highly specialised experts in one narrow field of study and don't step back to look at the bigger picture in detail.

Scientists and reporting groups are also human beings. It takes time for information to propagate, for ideas to be accepted, and so on. They may represent the most heavily weighted quality of information we have - but they aren't a definitive and final statement.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2013, 02:39:31 AM »
CCG

Thanks for the numbers and references on the oxygen depletion issue. It does seem a non-issue.

... and I warm to your
Quote
Choices are hence very limited, notwithstanding that it really isn't that hard to reference properly and find scientific evidence to support a pretty gloomy long term outlook.

I think you are too soft on the IPCC. Where do they say the models they use for their reports are lagging the real world and have important feedbacks missing or inadequately represented?  Again, as an example, see Kevin Schaefer's and John Mitchell's comments  found here:
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/do-you-belive-the-european-commission-on-climate-change/

I have found that some scientist seem to say "We don't understand it so it doesn't exist". e.g. From the UK Committee on Climate Change in 2009:
Quote
Geoff

Thank you for your email. On the subject of methane and climate feedback; we do not assign
probabilities to methane release because we do not yet know enough about these processes
to include them in our models projections. We do however draw attention to this in our
'Building a Low Carbon Economy' Report - December 2008.

We do discuss the opportunities to reduce UK methane emissions in chapter 9 of the same report.

Kind regards

I think that is "We don't understand it so it doesn't exist".
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2013, 05:40:38 AM »
I think you are too soft on the IPCC. Where do they say the models they use for their reports are lagging the real world and have important feedbacks missing or inadequately represented? 

I put a reply on another topic (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,451.msg10316.html#msg10316) as I do think the issues with the IPCC and the question of where we take our science from and the quality of sources are important discussion topics - but don't want to totally undermine this thread from it's original purpose.

Glenn Tamblyn

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2013, 12:13:20 PM »
Geoff
"I think that is "We don't understand it so it doesn't exist"."

I think that might be mischaracterizing it a bit. Perhaps say rather "We don't understand it so we can't say officially that is exists".

The bind in all of this is that these are official communications from governments, or instruments like the IPCC that are tasked with acting like governments. And in this sort of communication, speculation, free-wheeling conversation, anything that isn't 'official' is anathema. That is part of being 'responsible'. The problems then is that the communications from the 'authorities' aren't able to convey the full range of opinion and possibilities; they can't carry on a broad but perhaps speculative conversation with the general public because that isn't 'responsible'.

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2013, 02:51:25 PM »
This video



Found from the Yale Climate Media Forum:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/02/video-on-frozen-dirt-and-methane-we-cannot-go-there/

n.b Nature comment, Vast costs of Arctic change: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf

Good to see Peter Wadhams in Nature - with added econmists.
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

ivica

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 921
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2013, 09:14:23 PM »
One more from Dr. Jennifer Francis where she provides five compelling reasons why we should all (and our policy makers specially) be quite concerned about human caused global warming:

   1. CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been in probably 2.5 million years.
   2. The northern polar sea ice has lost more than 3/4 (80% ) of its volume since 1979.
   3. The pace of sea level rise is accelerating.
   4. The Arctic has warmed 2-3 times faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.
   5. Climate misleaders deliberately ignore and misconstrue the science.

Credit: ClimateState, Jennifer Francis Senate Testimony 2013-07-18



GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2013, 09:18:03 PM »
Found on the blog. Posted by TenneyNaumer.
Methane releases in the East Siberian Arctic Sea:
Shakhova (with Semiletov in the background) by Nick Breeze:



(Didn't work on the preview but copying the URL to the address bar did)
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2013, 09:22:34 PM »
Try putting the following into the address bar and deleting the underscore

http://vimeo.com/_71177231


Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

prokaryotes

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
    • ClimateState.com
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2013, 09:43:44 PM »
U.S. Will Warm Dramatically By 2084, NASA Model Shows 

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence
The National Research Council is pleased to present this video that explains how scientists have arrived at the current state of knowledge about recent climate change and its causes.
http://climatestate.com/2013/06/24/climate-change-lines-of-evidence/

How Hot will it Get?
A special Earth Day edition of Science at the Theater —”How Hot Will It Get?” — Featuring presentations by Lab climate scientists Bill Collins, Margaret Torn, Michael Wehner, and Jeff Chambers, as well as UC Berkeley economist Max Aufhammer, the evening was punctuated with the latest projections about the extent of planetary warming and the dire consequences of our growing carbon imbalance.

Speakers/topics:

Bill Collins and the balance of energy: What do computer models predict about the future of the earth’s climate?

Jeff Chambers and the rainforest: How much carbon do our forests absorb and what if this rate changes?

Margaret Torn and the Arctic permafrost: What happens to the Earth’s climate when the permafrost thaws?

Michael Wehner and extreme weather: What does high-performance computing tell us about heat waves, floods, droughts and hurricanes?

Maximilian Auffhammer and climate policy: How does a changing climate shape potential policy and proposed solutions? http://climatestate.com/2013/06/12/how-hot-will-it-get/


Impacts of Climate Change
In this Climate Change lecture Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf deals with the impacts (with a focus on extreme events and Sea-Level Rise) and the possibilities for holding Global Warming below 2°C.  http://climatestate.com/2013/05/02/climate-science-lecture-impacts-of-climate-change/

The Basics of Global Warming
Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf explains the basics of Climate Science. Basic data sets and findings about Global Warming, including some comments on historic land marks of the Science.  http://climatestate.com/2013/05/02/climate-science-lecture-the-basics-of-global-warming/
« Last Edit: July 29, 2013, 09:55:38 PM by prokaryotes »
CLIMATE STATE WEBSITE | YOUTUBE | USCREEN

GeoffBeacon

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Good short video material needed for policy makers
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2013, 12:05:30 PM »
From the Sea Ice Blog.  Thanks to Allen W. McDonnell:

Long lecture by Jennifer Francis Phd. at the climate summit 2012


and this year 2013
Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association