Would Better PR Be Beneficial In Getting The Message Across To The General Public

[stewfox]

Oceanic heat content is increasing, so I don't see the issue there. So is it just solar that makes you question things?

 

What do you consider valid evidence, SI? I'd appreciate an answer, because its difficult to discuss things with you, given that you tend to dismiss conventional lines of evidence and scientific data.

 

I thought the thread was about good PR ?

 

Would agree at least some of the short term alarmist comments put in the media (many are there to sell papers) in the last 20 years have not always been helpful ?.

 

The question then surely is how do you get the message across to the Public as many seem to have switched off.

 

Arguing with your fellow forumites on here  isn't going to constitute good PR ? 

 

ie implication of summer artic melt.

Edited May 6, 2013 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

I thought the thread was about good PR ?

 

Yep, but what good is PR if people won't believe even basic, accepted physics and completely dismiss every single piece of evidence that they don't like?

 

Would agree at least some of the short term alarmist comments put in the media (many are there to sell papers) in the last 20 years have not always been helpful ?.

 

They certainly haven't been helpful, completely agree. 

 

 

The question then surely is how do you get the message across to the Public as many seem to have switched off.

 

If we come up with an easy answer for this, we'll be rich!

 

Arguing with your fellow forumites on here  isn't going to constitute good PR ?

 

ie implication of summer artic melt.

 

I do my best to remain calm and rational. But it can get a bit frustrating dealing with the same myths over and over, especially when there from the same people, i.e., it's only a trace gas, it used to be called "global warming", its all about green taxes, they predicted an ice age in the 70s, etc, etc.

[knocker]

Seems to be even worse in Canada.

 

When science goes silent

 

With the muzzling of scientists, Harper’s obsession with controlling the message verges on the Orwellian

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/03/when-science-goes-silent/

Edited May 6, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

A certain amount of sense in this article and a good example of bad PR.

 

An Earth Scientist Explores the Biggest Climate Threat: Fear

 

Here’s a “Your Dot†contribution pushing back against apocalyptic depictions of the collision between humans and the climate system — written by Peter B. Kelemen, the Arthur D. Storke Professor and vice chair in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Kelemen has done a lot of interesting work on possible ways to capture carbon dioxide from air (none being easy or cheap):

 

Fear Itself

 

“We already know it is too late to reverse the planet’s transformation, and we know what is going to happen next – superstorms, super-droughts, super-pandemics, massive population displacement, water scarcity, desertification and all the rest. Massive destruction, displacement and despair. Our worst fears are already upon us. The reality is far worse than anyone has imagined.â€

 

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/an-earth-scientist-explores-the-biggest-climate-threat-fear/

Edited May 6, 2013 by knocker

[stewfox]

What amuses me is that the media are getting the blame for incorrect reporting of 'facts'. I don't see any corrections or apologies being printed for these media errors. Why would that be?

 

 

Why should they be to blame they are going on what they are told. Lets take comments on here 'the oceans are warming'. If I was a Joe Public I would assume a 2/3c increase over the last 50 yrs maybe more. Its alarmist  comment, the facts.

 

The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade. Further north, abyssal ocean waters are also warming, but at a rate of about one tenth of what we see in the deep Southern Ocean or 0.003c per decade.

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/28248-deep-ocean-warming.html

 

Doesn't have the same 'punch' , ocean warming yes but .... 'read all about it' ocean warm by 0.003c per decade

Edited May 6, 2013 by stewfox

[Methuselah]

Why should they be to blame they are going on what they are told. Lets take comments on here 'the oceans are warming'. If I was a Joe Public I would assume a 2/3c increase over the last 50 yrs maybe more. Its alarmist  comment, the facts.

 

The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade. Further north, abyssal ocean waters are also warming, but at a rate of about one tenth of what we see in the deep Southern Ocean 0r 0.003c per decade.

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/28248-deep-ocean-warming.html

 

Doesn't have the same 'punch' , ocean warming yes buy...

Why would you assume a rise of 2, 3 or even 50C? Surely, anyone who was genuinely sceptical would go and find out for themselves?

[4wd]

Why would you assume a rise of 2, 3 or even 50C? Surely, anyone who was genuinely sceptical would go and find out for themselves?

“…it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…†(

)

[knocker]

But water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere.

[4wd]

Careful, you don't want to criticise Hansen surely?

[stewfox]

“…it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…†(

)

 

I assume that's a direct quote from Al Gore but I cant find the link ??

 

 

 

Why would you assume a rise of 2, 3 or even 50C? Surely, anyone who was genuinely sceptical would go and find out for themselves?

 

Well they (Joe Public] don't hence the need for good PR. Scepticism has grown largely because of poor PR and alarmist misleading headline comments in press and in scientific reviews'.  

 

So surface ocean temps look like rising 0.03c per decade is more factual it is of course more 'boring' then 'record ocean warming quite extreme' sounds better.

 

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/05/02/record-ocean-warming/

Edited May 6, 2013 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

I assume that's a direct quote from Al Gore but I cant find the link ??

 

 

 

 

Well they (Joe Public] don't hence the need for good PR. Scepticism has grown largely because of poor PR and alarmist misleading headline comments in press and in scientific reviews'.  

 

So surface ocean temps look like rising 0.03c per decade is more factual it is of course more 'boring' then 'record ocean warming quite extreme' sounds better.

 

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/05/02/record-ocean-warming/

 

That low rate of warming is just for the abyssal waters Stew, not the entire water column.

[knocker]

Careful, you don't want to criticise Hansen surely?

 

No but I will question your comparison with Venus because you seem to show a lack of understanding on the subject..The atmospheric evolution of the two planets took drastically different paths at some point in their evolution. leading to Earth's mild nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and Venus's dense, carbon dioxide atmosphere. There are many possible explanations for these differences. For example, like Venus, Earth also evolved a large quantity of carbon dioxide. Most of the latter is in limestone and other rocky deposits, formed primarily from precipitation from sea water. If all of the carbon dioxide presently contained in rocks on Earth were released, Earth as a planet might also be enveloped in a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere. Moreover, it is likely that surface temperature would rise through the greenhouse effect, just as they are thought to have risen on Venus.

 

Thus , part of the difference between Earth and Venus is linked to the development of oceans on Earth.

 

Still we are doing our best to rectify that.

Edited May 6, 2013 by knocker

[4wd]

It's all a quote of Hansen, so your criticism of the content is in fact directed at the PR disaster that he has been - with his activism impinging on any credibility he ever had.

[knocker]

It's all a quote of Hansen, so your criticism of the content is in fact directed at the PR disaster that he has been - with his activism impinging on any credibility he ever had.

 

Irrespective I stick by my post but a link to the quote might shed some light. I actually don't necessarily agree with every pro AGW post I read if I think some of the statements are wrong. Hansen recently went  a tad over the top in Canada but I don't have the dispute to hand.

 

EDIT.

Sorry didn't watch the video

Edited May 6, 2013 by knocker

[UV-RAY]

Why should they be to blame they are going on what they are told. Lets take comments on here 'the oceans are warming'. If I was a Joe Public I would assume a 2/3c increase over the last 50 yrs maybe more. Its alarmist comment, the facts.

The strongest warming is occurring in the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, at a rate of approximately 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade. Further north, abyssal ocean waters are also warming, but at a rate of about one tenth of what we see in the deep Southern Ocean or 0.003c per decade.

http://www.livescience.com/28248-deep-ocean-warming.html

Doesn't have the same 'punch' , ocean warming yes but .... 'read all about it' ocean warm by 0.003c per decade

There lies the problem, is 0.003c not in the realms of natural variability and much of that can be accounted by the last thirty years of a positive PDO I would say. Also least we forget just how important a role the NAO plays in all this, this remains positive and has been for the last 30 years plus, so unti we see this trend negative warm waters will continue to enter the arctic basin and Greenland.

Edit; I meant the AMO, all these bleeding abbreviations get the better of me sometimes.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

If stew would bear in mind that those 'small increases' took a huge amount of energy to warm such a huge body by that amount he might be a little happier that the oceans take most of this 'available energy' and not the atmosphere? Sadly once the 'warming' has started the rises in temp amass pretty fast and so , once the water appears back at the surface, this huge amount of energy is no longer needed to raise the cold up-welling to ambient temps and so is available to work on the atmosphere.

 

These 'cold sinks' do not last for ever. We have seen the 'cold sink' that was Arctic Sea Ice dwindle away to near nothing over summer and so freeing up energy, once spent on melting ice all summer, to other climate tasks (permafrost melt/general warming). I shudder to think what will happen when the Oceans change from 'heat sink' to warm driver!!! For one it'll not be able to be the CO2 sink it currently is and that isn't going to help things!!

 

I do think it selfish/short sighted to look at what the energy imbalance is doing to our world only to dismiss it as it does not yet impact your life? Would folk be the same around a burning fuse or would they be mindful of the bomb at the end of the fuse??

[BornFromTheVoid]

There lies the problem, is 0.003c not in the realms of natural variability and much of that can be accounted by the last thirty years of a positive PDO I would say. Also least we forget just how important a role the NAO plays in all this, this remains positive and has been for the last 30 years plus, so unti we see this trend negative warm waters will continue to enter the arctic basin and Greenland.

Edit; I meant the AMO, all these bleeding abbreviations get the better of me sometimes.

 

The NAO has been on a -ve trend since the early 90s, and has averaged negative over the last 20 odd years. How does this fit in with your theory?

[4wd]

 bear in mind that those 'small increases' took a huge amount of energy to warm such a huge body 

0.003 C is so small a change that the measuring equipment cannot have that resolution in the real world.

[UV-RAY]

The NAO has been on a -ve trend since the early 90s, and has averaged negative over the last 20 odd years. How does this fit in with your theory?

I was referring to the AMO which hasn't.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I was referring to the AMO which hasn't.

 

In that case, the AMO has only been positive for less than 20 years.

 

How do you suppose a +ve PDO (which ended in 2007) contributes to abyssal water warming?

 

EDIT. cooling to warming

Edited May 7, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

0.003 C is so small a change that the measuring equipment cannot have that resolution in the real world.

But if it was due to random inaccuracy the number of increases would be offset by a roughly equal number of decreases. And the result would have no statistical significance...

[UV-RAY]

In that case, the AMO has only been positive for less than 20 years.

How do you suppose a +ve PDO (which ended in 2007) contributes to abyssal water warming?

EDIT. cooling to warming

Easy really, how long do you think it takes for warm/ cold waters to be flushed out of the system?

We also have to remember the amount of heat content entering the arctic basin from the strongly positive AMO still.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Easy really, how long do you think it takes for warm/ cold waters to be flushed out of the system?

 

What's the mechanism you suggest, that allow a +ve PDO to cause abyssal waters to warm?

 

You're question is a bit vague. Where is the cold/warm water? What do you mean by "flushed out"?

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe if folk looked at the ocean as a battery (well, it's becoming acid enough...LOL) that stores the warming until we get to a point where it can be released (El Nino etc) folk might understand things better? The last number of Nina's have pulled a lot of heat into the equatorial waters so we need wonder how large a Nino all that warmed water could bring us? and what on the Energy that goes into the PDO-ve (warming the 'horse shoe') what becomes of all that energy once PDO flips back positive?

 

It's alright looking at atmospheric temps in isolation but when you look at the big picture, and see where this surplus of energy is being spent, you haveto wonder what will occur when phases flip and that energy is free to enter the atmosphere instead???

[UV-RAY]

What's the mechanism you suggest, that allow a +ve PDO to cause abyssal waters to warm?

 

You're question is a bit vague. Where is the cold/warm water? What do you mean by "flushed out"?

Simple really, a way of looking at it is that nina acts as a recharge whereas niño acts as a discharge.