800,000 Years of CO2 - Beautiful and Sad

[iNow]

There will, of course, be people who blatantly lie or who simply don't understand the facts on this issue. There are also people who have had their critical thinking skills extinguished with campaigns of ignorance and ideology, but illustrations like the one in the video below help paint the picture in stark and indisputable terms that ought to be accessible to even most ignorant or blind among us.

 

It's both beautiful an sad.

 

 

 

What do you think? Also, do you know of any other similar illustrations that help to demonstrate the issue plainly and with clarity?

[studiot]

Unusual presentation.

 

Would this be an example of what MikeSmithCosmos called Art in Science?

[iNow]

IMO, no. That's rather unlikely. This is more about presenting information in an accessible way to even the most uneducated or misinformed than it is about the processes used by scientists to explore the cosmos (which is what I gather to be the point from Mike's posts).

Edited May 14, 2014 by iNow

[john5746]

It's both beautiful an sad.

Thanks for posting.

 

I'm pretty pessimistic, I don't think we evolved enough to handle an issue like this. Hopefully, I am wrong.

[studiot]

 

This is more about presenting information in an accessible way to even the most uneducated or misinformed

 

Well I found it really intriguing and thought provoking, once I got the hang of it, which was not until the first time through was nearly complete.

I thought the technique employed art well, if subtly.

I have a pre-computer age manual of such presentation techniques.

 

However I don't think the quoted target audience would have the patience to make that effort.

 

The one person I showed it to, has several degrees up to Msc and found it difficult to follow without explanation.

[CaptainPanic]

I don't think anyone disputes that the CO2 concentration goes up. Nobody disputes that it is at a historical high level (and still increasing). And I would think that is common knowledge (at least over here in the Netherlands most people know that CO2 increases, and that humans are the cause).

 

The whole debate is about whether that extra CO2 will cause the earth to heat up.

 

Still, it is a nice presentation. I don't think the dramatic music is necessary though. I would rather listen to a voice who explains or gives additional information.

[iNow]

See, now I found the background song to be part of the draw and underlying strength of the presentation.

 

It may be different in the Netherlands, but at least here in the US (and especially in my experience here in Texas) I suspect that most people who need to see this information the most likely would bail out and stop watching after the first 20 seconds if it were just a set of graphs and a narrator explaining them.

 

With the song, however, there is a reason for people who aren't otherwise scientifically curious to stay and watch (even if it's just because the song is beautiful and they want to hear it to the end). If they get a passive education about historical CO2 levels while enjoying the song, then that's just icing/gravy.

 

I'd argue, too, that the song also adds a reasonably strong emotional component to the data and will tend to carry the message more deeply into the viewers consciousness (more deeply, at least, than would a mere set of rational informative graphs and intellectual narration). YMMV, though.

 

 

I don't think we evolved enough to handle an issue like this. Hopefully, I am wrong.

An inflection point definitely appears to be on the horizon. How things look on the other side, I don't know.

 

I'm reminded of a quote in Carl Sagan's Contact:

Panel member: If you were to meet these Vegans [a presumed alien civilization in the story], and were permitted only one question to ask of them, what would it be?

 

Ellie Arroway: Well, I suppose it would be, how did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?

Edited May 15, 2014 by iNow

[Danijel Gorupec]

Sorry iNow, I didn't like your OP wording - too aggressive for my taste.

 

I watched the presentation a bit (not too long because my bandwidth is limited) - very beautiful form!...

 

Is it word of God? You see, this is activism - doesn't have much influence on me. I simply learned to be aware of any activism.

[iNow]

This is not a discussion about god or gods. I request participants to ignore that topic, or open a separate thread in the Religion forum if you wish to explore that path.

 

On the activism point, however, perhaps that's valid. I wonder, though, isn't that precisely what's needed here to save us from ourselves? Activism, engagement, and an informed public?

[Phi for All]

You see, this is activism - doesn't have much influence on me. I simply learned to be aware of any activism.

On the activism point, however, perhaps that's valid. I wonder, though, isn't that precisely what's needed here to save us from ourselves? Activism, engagement, and an informed public?

 

It's one thing to be aware, and another to ignore. That's really what's at the heart of this matter, right?

 

Global problems require global support, and activism is one way to make people aware. Aware people can act smartly, armed with facts and broad perspectives. Smart activism should influence us to take action. Why ignore that kind of activism?

 

Activism makes more sense than waiting for a government to take a stand, especially if it's heavily influenced by those who would lose a little profit to regulatory rigor.

 

I like the presentation. This problem needs more than just "preaching to the choir", we need ways to reach out to those who shy away from the normal presentation. I'm thinking this video should be recreated at the next Superbowl half-time, using several marching bands to show the graphs, while Scarlett Johansson sings and pole-dances through multiple wardrobe malfunctions.

 

Most FOX News types would switch from Bill O'Reilly to see that.

[Danijel Gorupec]

 

Aware people can act smartly, armed with facts and broad perspectives. Smart activism should influence us to take action. Why ignore that kind of activism?

Yes, but activism can also back-fire. I think this is what is happening to me - I somehow got sick of activist people that are constantly trying to scare me. I am not listening to them any more, I am just getting angry when I hear that the future is doomed and we will all die... An activist should be aware of this effect.

 

I do support activism, but only at an intellectual/rational level. As soon as it gets emotional, I am cooling off.... Yes, I know that if we only limit ourselves to a rational activism, then we will never reach wide audience -> but, you see, maybe it is dangerous to even try to reach for people that cannot be reached by rational means.

[Phi for All]

I somehow got sick of activist people that are constantly trying to scare me.

 

I think this may be your perspective. There are certainly groups out there that wield fear like a sword, but you can't compare them with messages like the OP shared, imo. The world won't end, but the environment we enjoy may be changed in ways we can't cope with. Asking people to care about that isn't fear-mongering, imo.

[Tim the plumber]

The CO2 in the air is increasing almost certainly due to human burning of fossil fuels.

 

Yep, so?

 

One of the lines in the video says "Keep calm and carry on".

 

Good advice.

 

Is this any sort of science? If so what is the point? What is the detail of the mechanism which is being discussed? What predictions are being made?

[John Cuthber]

Tim,

The increasing CO2 is, of itself, a philosophical problem. It is impolite of us to contaminate the world in this way.

However, whether you like it or not, that CO2 contributes to global warming which does cause real problems.

[Tim the plumber]

Tim,

The increasing CO2 is, of itself, a philosophical problem. It is impolite of us to contaminate the world in this way.

However, whether you like it or not, that CO2 contributes to global warming which does cause real problems.

 

Are such philosophical problems the sort of thing which has any place in a science forum?

 

In case you are not aware we change the world by all of our actions. So?

 

Since the increase in CO2 means that plants grow better is this not actually a good thing? I think that increasing the abundance of life on the planet is a good thing (since we are making value judgments).

 

These real problems of which you speak, without any detail as to what those are, are they worse than billions of people dying from lack of food due to not using fossil fuel for agriculture?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the plumber

 

I have already asked you in a modtip - quoted in full below - to modify your posting content. In short, and to repeat "Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are ...against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4"

 

If you continue to post without reference to scientific argument you risk yours posts being hidden, you will start to accrue warning points, and possibly even risk further sanction in terms of suspension. We insist, especially in the science fora, that the discussion is rational and evidence based - to re-iterate it is not acceptable to merely express disbelief, to soapbox without reference to counterargument, or to dismiss argument merely because you disagree with it.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I am posting this in all three of the ongoing Climate Change threads. Arguments from incredulity, ridicule, use of red herrings, ad hominem arguments, and false dilemmas are all logical fallacies; they are rhetorical devices that may seem on the surface to advance a case but in reality all they do is misdirect the debate and obscure the truth. The use of logical fallacies is against the rules of ScienceForums.net - Section 2 Posting: Rule 4

 

You have been cut a lot of slack so far in these debates as we wish to provide an non-partisan arena for discussion through which agreed scientific principles can be elucidated. However, we do insist on the use of a basic scientific methodology and this precludes the use of logical fallacies.

 

The dismissal of a serious scientific point backed up by peer-reviewed literature with ridicule or a simple denial of facts is just not acceptable.

 

Please do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel it was unjust.

 

 

 

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you feel it is unfair.

 

 

nb - modnote posted in two climate change threads.

[John Cuthber]

 

Are such philosophical problems the sort of thing which has any place in a science forum?

 

In case you are not aware we change the world by all of our actions. So?

 

Since the increase in CO2 means that plants grow better is this not actually a good thing? I think that increasing the abundance of life on the planet is a good thing (since we are making value judgments).

 

These real problems of which you speak, without any detail as to what those are, are they worse than billions of people dying from lack of food due to not using fossil fuel for agriculture?

"Are such philosophical problems the sort of thing which has any place in a science forum?"

Well, you introduced the question when you asked "Yep, so?"

 

"In case you are not aware we change the world by all of our actions. So?"

And it's better to be aware of the consequences of those actions- for example the damage to the environment brought about by fossil fuel use.

 

"Since the increase in CO2 means that plants grow better is this not actually a good thing?"

That's debatable.

In many of the places where we grow our food, the temperature rise, and the unpredictable weather changes will offset the increased growth due to higher CO2 so the net effect will be less food.

 

"These real problems of which you speak, without any detail as to what those are, are they worse than billions of people dying from lack of food due to not using fossil fuel for agriculture?"

If the only people using fossil fuels were in agriculture, then that argument would stand up.

They are not. It does not.

 

Odd as you may think this, I'm not advocating abandoning farming etc.

That's another of the strawmen for which you risk getting banned.

I'm suggesting that we find a less polluting energy supply.

[iNow]

I'm suggesting that we find a less polluting energy supply.

As you know probably better than most, we've already found several. Now, we just need to overcome the social inertia and special interests preventing/slowing it from taking hold and becoming our primary source... And we must do so without further delay.

[Wild Cobra]

As you know probably better than most, we've already found several. Now, we just need to overcome the social inertia and special interests preventing/slowing it from taking hold and becoming our primary source... And we must do so without further delay.

Are you suggesting special interest and social inertia are why we don't use more costly options?

 

Isn't cost a consideration?

[John Cuthber]

Are you suggesting special interest and social inertia are why we don't use more costly options?

 

Isn't cost a consideration?

Here's a hint; he didn't mention cost.

Risking the destruction of our ecosystem is a cost too: rather a high one.

 

Whatever the cash costs are, there is a lot of special interest and social inertia preventing the introduction of less polluting energy sources.

[Tim the plumber]

"Are such philosophical problems the sort of thing which has any place in a science forum?"

Well, you introduced the question when you asked "Yep, so?"

 

"In case you are not aware we change the world by all of our actions. So?"

And it's better to be aware of the consequences of those actions- for example the damage to the environment brought about by fossil fuel use.

 

"Since the increase in CO2 means that plants grow better is this not actually a good thing?"

That's debatable.

In many of the places where we grow our food, the temperature rise, and the unpredictable weather changes will offset the increased growth due to higher CO2 so the net effect will be less food.

 

Thanks for the "That's debatable". The effects of increased temperatures and increased CO2 upon agriculture would make a good thread. That would allow the subject to be looked at more clearly and in detail. It could be debated. It is after all debatable.

 

"These real problems of which you speak, without any detail as to what those are, are they worse than billions of people dying from lack of food due to not using fossil fuel for agriculture?"

 

If the only people using fossil fuels were in agriculture, then that argument would stand up.

 

They are not. It does not.

 

If fossil fuels are to be restricted then these restrictions will also happen to agriculture. If you wish to suggest some sort of clever way of making farming not have to pay any carbon tax or what ever please start a new thread where such things could be looked at.

 

Odd as you may think this, I'm not advocating abandoning farming etc.

 

That's another of the strawmen for which you risk getting banned.

 

I'm suggesting that we find a less polluting energy supply.

If you are advocating restricting the use of fossil fuel you will have to understand the full effects of that. It would meant that the ability to make chemical fertilizers, the ability to transport them, the ability to plant and harvest the crops and the ability to get these foods to the rest of us would be reduced.

 

If you have some sort of wonderful alternative energy source up your sleeve please, please, please tell the world. I would very much like to support some sort of research push for a better way of making electrical power than burning coal. Have a 10 billion dollar prize for it. But in the mean time please understand that the economic impacts of restricting the use of the best forms of fuel will have very serious consequences.

 

Please also note that whilst I try to avoid infringing the rules I cannot change my style when the exact point of Ah homm, or what ever else is never pointed out. Please tell me where I have done any such thing. And didn't this forum used to have a spellchecker?

[imatfaal]

...

Please also note that whilst I try to avoid infringing the rules I cannot change my style when the exact point of Ah homm, or what ever else is never pointed out. Please tell me where I have done any such thing. And didn't this forum used to have a spellchecker?

 

it's ad hom. or ad hominem or argumentum ad hominem. It translates as towards the person. It means that instead of attacking an argument one characterises the person making the argument and then states that a person with those characteristics cannot make a sound argument or that the argument is less sound purely due to those characteristics.

 

"No physicist can truly understand biochemistry - they cannot cope with the complexity - thus you are wrong about... "

"You cannot argue that point unless you are a Climate Scientist"

"You're a Geologist what do you know about rabies"

"You need to be a linguist to be able to offer a valid opinion on this paper"

"Republicans just cannot grasp the fundamentals of this concept"

"Democrats are to naive to understand this form of economics"

"Well you would say that..."

"You don't understand solar forcing therefore your argument on volcanoes is wrong"

 

They all boil down to the fallacy of avoiding the argument in front of you and concentrating your attack on the person making it - this is a fallacy as no characteristic of the person can make the slightest difference to any logical part of their argument.

 

nb

 

ad hom. is often misconstrued as making insulting references to your opponent - this is abuse not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking that insulting someone or stereotyping them detracts from their argument.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Thanks for the "That's debatable". The effects of increased temperatures and increased CO2 upon agriculture would make a good thread. That would allow the subject to be looked at more clearly and in detail. It could be debated. It is after all debatable.

 

If fossil fuels are to be restricted then these restrictions will also happen to agriculture. If you wish to suggest some sort of clever way of making farming not have to pay any carbon tax or what ever please start a new thread where such things could be looked at.

 

 

I agree that a thread looking at the true cost of farming would be a good idea, but I think I can answer the second point there with a single reference.

They do have different duty rates for agricultural fuels.

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

[iNow]

Are you suggesting special interest and social inertia are why we don't use more costly options?

 

Isn't cost a consideration?

Cost is certainly an important consideration, and this is why it would be such a good idea to reallocate the huge subsidies currently being received by the fossil fuel industry into renewables.

 

 

We should also note that any discussion about cost must include future cost of no action today and economic impact from the rapidly changing climate.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/31/business/cost-climate-change/

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/climate-costs-of-inaction.pdf

 

And tackling climate change won't cost as much as you probably think: http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2014/09/24/tackling-climate-change-will-cost-less-than-we-think/

[Tim the plumber]

 

it's ad hom. or ad hominem or argumentum ad hominem. It translates as towards the person. It means that instead of attacking an argument one characterises the person making the argument and then states that a person with those characteristics cannot make a sound argument or that the argument is less sound purely due to those characteristics.

 

"No physicist can truly understand biochemistry - they cannot cope with the complexity - thus you are wrong about... "

"You cannot argue that point unless you are a Climate Scientist"

"You're a Geologist what do you know about rabies"

"You need to be a linguist to be able to offer a valid opinion on this paper"

"Republicans just cannot grasp the fundamentals of this concept"

"Democrats are to naive to understand this form of economics"

"Well you would say that..."

"You don't understand solar forcing therefore your argument on volcanoes is wrong"

 

They all boil down to the fallacy of avoiding the argument in front of you and concentrating your attack on the person making it - this is a fallacy as no characteristic of the person can make the slightest difference to any logical part of their argument.

 

nb

 

ad hom. is often misconstrued as making insulting references to your opponent - this is abuse not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking that insulting someone or stereotyping them detracts from their argument.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Yes, where have I done any of that?

I agree that a thread looking at the true cost of farming would be a good idea, but I think I can answer the second point there with a single reference.

They do have different duty rates for agricultural fuels.

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

Well, OK if you don't want to open a new thread for this. Note to moderator; you may wish to split this off.

 

That is just one bit of the needed economic structure to allow chemical fertilizer to be used on farmland and to distribute the food to us all. If I have to repair a pump at a fertilizer factory I need to get there. The materials need to get there. The specialist chemical engineer needs to fly there. The old pump has to be sent to a lab in a different country for inspection often.

 

Red deisel is just one part of the issue. Also why do you think that farming should be exempted from the fossil fuel restrictions and health care not?