Disruption - a video about climate change

[Hazel]

Another reality check us to ponder... this video is exceptionally well put together, with the aim of rallying support for the Climate Change Summit which commenced at the UN in Copenhagen: 23.09.14.
The video runs for 56 mins, but in my opinion... well worth viewing until the end.


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/disruption/

Disruption opens with a serene archival footage, from Apollo 8 lunar mission, of the Earth rising over the horizon of the Moon before jumping sharply to modern images of extreme storms and the devastation faced in their aftermath. Cities lie in ruin, streets flooded and buildings aflame. "The world hasn't ended," title cards bleakly read. "But the world as we know it has."
Shot during the 100 days prior to the September 21, 2014 People's Climate March in New York City, the film serves as a cautionary countdown intended to motivate viewers to take action on the issue of climate change. The audience is taken inside the People's Climate Mobilization Hub, a New York office space where organizers and activists strive to set in motion the largest climate rally in history. Their primary objective is to capture the consideration of world leaders prior to a major UN climate meeting in order to draw worldwide attention to the existing and future threats of changing weather patterns.
Citing historical movements such as women's liberation and civil rights as major influences in the decision to facilitate a march, organizers share a unified belief in the power of people coming together in the interest of a common cause, even in the digital age. Experts on climate change, from authors and academics to scientists and community organizers, give viewers a history lesson on the topic at hand and make it clear that weather patterns are an issue of global concern. Interview subjects push to disempower big corporations such as oil companies and other resource-damaging operations, warning that the preservation of our natural resources is a long-term investment more valuable than any monetary sum.
At the end, the filmmakers issue a final call to action, encouraging those with environmental concerns to join their movement at a time when "the whole world will be watching." Featuring impressive cinematography paired with stock footage and impassioned testimonials, Disruption is both an eye-opening look at a grim future, as well as a motivational piece on how to improve that future.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktgEzXZDtmc

[indigopete]

I watched 30 minutes of this vid and I must say I think it's a good example of how this whole sector is more hysteria than science.

In my opinion, climate "science" (it's not a science because the scientific method has never been and currently cannot be conclusively applied to the question of CO2 based atmospheric warming) is around where astronomy was during the time of Copernicus - i.e. we've got some idea that we might not be at the centre of the universe but Gaileo isn't even born yet.

The "greenhouse effect" is real - you can measure it in a jam jar - but the idea that it's some kind of "thermostat": "hey ! it's a bit too hot, lets turn down that CO2 to get the right temperature" is bonkers. James Hansen has a hammer (the study of Venus who's atmosphere is 96% CO2) and to him every problem looks like a nail.

As the documentary says, CO2 has already increased massively - getting on for 70%-100% since measurements began. Yet what do we see ? This documentary cites typhoons and hurricanes as anecdotal (not scientific) evidence of CO2 forced climate change but I doubt there's any more than there ever was. Glacial melting has been going on for 10,000 years.

Despite that massive C02 change, take a look at the global sea ice anomaly - hasn't moved a jot in 25 years:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

...it's exactly where it was in 1979, not 1 sq km more not 1 sq km less. That data is a good example of how the climate change movement "makes it up as they go along" - they're happy to use arctic sea ice depletion as a stick to further their case when it suits them (as it did in 2012-2013 when it dipped) but not when it doesn't (as the global sea ice anomoly doesn't or the Arctic recovery of 2014 doesn't).

They say that sea ice measurements are not a good "indicator" of climate change because so much of the heat is "locked up in the oceans". Well, I'm sorry, but to me it is. People have a right to attempt to reconcile the claims of powerful lobby's - be they scientific, political or technological - with their own observations otherwise we'll end up living in a scientific dictatorship. Sea ice is a good indicator because it goes through one entire dissipation / accumulation cycle every year and therefore doesn't only have to maintain its level but actually has to recover it every 12 months.

As I've said on these forums before, the bottom line is that people need to make a distinction between the scientific method and science as an institution: "One's a useful tool for making objective measurements of the world around us, the other's about as objective as the nearest politician".

Neither do I think my opinion represents apathy or lack of concern for the environment - I hate the idea of deforestation, polluting gases and contaminated water. But I also believe in truth and "real science". "Real science" does not work in the way that the climate lobby say it does. Real science is open minded, does not work by "majority rule" and understands that each wave of discovery is merely a staging post to the next one.

Yes, CO2 forced warming is today's consensus. But the fact that it's merely a consensus and not a conclusion means that it's not likely to be tomorrow's consensus.

[meat suit]

I watched 30 minutes of this vid and I must say I think it's a good example of how this whole sector is more hysteria than science.

In my opinion, climate "science" (it's not a science because the scientific method has never been and currently cannot be conclusively applied to the question of CO2 based atmospheric warming) is around where astronomy was during the time of Copernicus - i.e. we've got some idea that we're not the centre of the universe but Gaileo isn't even born yet.

The "greenhouse effect" is real - you can measure it in a jam jar - but the idea that it's some kind of "thermostat": "hey ! it's a bit too hot, lets turn down that CO2 to get the right temperature" is bonkers. James Hansen has a hammer (the study of venus who's atmosphere is 96% CO2) and to him every problem looks like a nail.

As the documentary says, CO2 has already increased massively - getting on for 70%-100% increase since measurements began. Yet what do we see ? This documentary cites typhoons and hurricanes as anecdotal (not scientific) evidence of CO2 forced climate change but I doubt there's any more than there ever was. Glacial melting has been going on for 10,000 years.

Despite that massive C02 change, take a look at the global sea ice anomaly - hasn't moved a jot in 25 years:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

...it's exactly where it was in 1979, not 1 sq km more not 1 sq km less. That data is a good example of how the climate change movement "makes it up as they go along" - they're happy to use arctic sea ice depletion as a stick to further their case when it suits them (as it did in 2012-2013 when it dipped) but not when it doesn't (as the global sea ice anomoly doesn't or the Arctic recovery of 2014 doesn't).

They say that sea ice measurements are not a good "indicator" of climate change because so much of the heat is "locked up in the oceans". Well, I'm sorry, but to me it is. People have a right to attempt to reconcile the claims of powerful lobby's - be they scientific, political or technological - with their own observations otherwise we'll end up living in a scientific dictatorship. Sea ice is a good indicator because it goes through one entire dissipation / accumulation cycle every year and therefore doesn't only have to maintain its level but actually recover it each year.

As I've said on these forums before, the bottom line is that people need to make a distinction between the scientific method and science as an institution: "One's a useful tool for making objective measurements of the world around us, the other's about as objective as the nearest politician".

Neither do I think my opinion represents apathy or lack of concern for the environment - I hate the idea of deforestation, polluting gases and contaminated water. But I also believe in truth and "real science". "Real science" does not work in the way that the climate lobby say it does. Real science is open minded, does not work by "majority rule" and understands that each wave of discovery is merely a staging post to the next one.

Yes, CO2 forced warming is today's consensus. But the fact that it's merely a consensus and not a conclusion means that it's not likely to be tomorrow's consensus.

excellent post IndigoPete!
also, what people keep forgetting is the immense thermal mass of the oceans, that helps keeping the atmospheric temperatures constant...

[wnlight]

Watch for the mini ice age coming. This is not a joke. I am serious. Large numbers of people will be migrating from the USA to Mexico and South.

[exponentialist]

Indigopete, you don't know me, but I hope you will allow me to respectfully challenge you here. While you argue, very articulately, about what "science" is, and how it can or can not measure climate change, our planet dies. Our fundamental elements: earth, air, fire, and water, are becoming toxic to life. Not just human life - all life.

What keeps you holding on to the old paradigm? Do you support corporate license to destroy the planet for short-term gain? Yes, our entire local solar system is heating up, but Koch Industries, oil companies, Monsanto, ADM, etc, etc, own the US government, are polluting our planet and will destroy it if we don't stop them.

I'd like to see a day where we collectively dismantle corporate hold and evolve to a point where we don't have to watch ourselves go extinct. And balance the power of the whole against the power of the few who will plunder.

[meat suit]

Indigopete, you don't know me, but I hope you will allow me to respectfully challenge you here. While you argue, very articulately, about what "science" is, and how it can or can not measure climate change, our planet dies. Our fundamental elements: earth, air, fire, and water, are becoming toxic to life. Not just human life - all life.

What keeps you holding on to the old paradigm? Do you support corporate license to destroy the planet for short-term gain? Yes, our entire local solar system is heating up, but Koch Industries, oil companies, Monsanto, ADM, etc, etc, own the US government, are polluting our planet and will destroy it if we don't stop them.

I'd like to see a day where we collectively dismantle corporate hold and evolve to a point where we don't have to watch ourselves go extinct. And balance the power of the whole against the power of the few who will plunder.

its a complex story, if you allow me to chime in here...
one one level the whole 'global warming' thing that now changed its name to 'climate change' is a useful vehicle for encouraging the cleaning up of our activities on this planet... a bit like telling a kid that father christmas wont bring you any presents if you dont tidy up your room.
but the danger with something that is probably fiction, like carbon induced 'global warming' is that the polluters will take it as an excuse to keep polluting when the house of cards comes down..... which is probably why they invented it in the first place.

the good news is that renewables, like wind and solar have got 4 times more efficiant in the last 20 years and thats how we can make a difference...

[wnlight]

exponentialist, I respectfully disagree with you on one point. I agree that we could (and are) polluting our world enough to make this planet uninhabitable for humans. but i expect the planet Earth to continue on just fine with or without us. After we are gone, Earth will rejuvenate and become beautiful again, but humans would not survive to see that. I am more optimistic. I expect that people will learn to be more responsible for our environment.

I suspect that only a few hundred greedy bastards need be thrown in jail to turn this problem around. There are even lists of their names - the members of TPTB. They have caused the Patriot Act that allows them to throw anyone into jail for life without a trial, a lawyer, or any recourse. So why not do the same to them?

[conk]

No one ever addresses the fact that the entire Solar System, including the Sun, goes through changes in cycles. Many other planets are currently undergoing changes akin to those of the Earth. Carbon taxes won't fix anything.

I do agree that corporations should stop polluting with chemicals, plastics, heavy metals, and petro-whatevers. This will go far, but will do nothing about temperature changes.