US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Solving the climate crisis: How to ...

UPDATE: A complete list of climate series pieces is available here:
The Climate series: a reference post.
________

This post is entirely devoted to one prong of our five-pronged approach to a climate solution ? "unconfuse" the people.

It introduces two concepts ? "set-points" and "clear, consistent characterization." Then it presents a template for data-sets needed to message the consequences of different set-point futures.

It's also written as a request.

Clearly presenting global warming consequences

If part of our five-pronged plan is to "unconfuse the people," then we need messaging that is clear and easy to grasp, yet accurate enough not to be too broad-brush. We also need to de-jargon the science. This means that good clear writing and speaking is crucial.

But clarity is not enough. Messaging must also be consistent in presentation.

This means that all of the data generated by our great climate scientists, if assembled, must be presented in an apples-to-apples way. Obviously, if data is presented in inconsistent ways, no amount of good writing can make it clear or make it make sense to the mass of people.

For example, projected drought data for the U.S. circa 2030 for the 2?C scenario should be presented in the same form as drought data for the Ukraine circa 2070 in the 3?C scenario. If presented together, the charts need to make "eyeball" sense; the numbers need to be consistent with each other; the same terminology needs to be used; and so on.

How hard would it be to "sell" this data if some charts used different baselines, some used temperature deltas and others used standard deviations, etc.? The clearest writer on the planet could not use these charts to make one point.

It's true that data like this always comes from a number of studies by a number of teams who "do their own thing" and present data in their own ways. That's not a vice.

Nevertheless, when those studies are completed and assembled, ordinary people need:

• To understand what they're looking at.
• To be able to make side-by-side comparisons.

This task is not only not trivial, it's vital. Which means it has to be funded ? a combined project (or projects) that combines good scientists with good writers to create data-sets that can be used to tell stories that make sense.

What "data-sets"? I have my own suggestions below.

What is meant by "global warming set-points"?

"Global warming set-points" is a term that describes the global temperature-change point at which the system stabilizes. It's my own term, but it's not an uncommon use of this language.

Consider global warming in general. At some point, temperatures will stop increasing and the planetary climate system will stabilize. That part is inevitable.

How will the planetary climate system stabilize? In only one of two ways:

• Man will stop putting carbon into the air before post-industrial society collapses.
• Post-industrial society will collapse in much of the world, large percentages of the population will die, and the remaining consumer market for carbon will no longer add to warming.

In other words, we'll stop the process or it will stop itself. One of those two things will occur.

Yes, kids; very stark. But I'm not here to lie. This is what we're facing. This is why the issue is urgent (and why I'm spending so much time on it).

Why does the "set-point" concept matter? Because it's the primary consequence of our carbon-dumping (I call it the "first-order consequence" below) that allows us to characterize the choices people are facing.

"Characterizing choices" means simply painting pictures of various outcomes. We've been using set-points all along without naming them as such. For example, from this post:

• If we Stop Now, we still get 1.5?C (3?F) global warming. Half has already occurred; half is in the pipeline. ...
• Elite consensus says warming above 2?C (3??F) is a problem we can't afford.
• At 3?C (5??F) there's a mass extinction scenario for 20?50% of species...
• We're on track for up to 7?C (12??F). That's what delay ? serving the [Koched-up] rich ? will get us.

In effect, this identifies four set-points at which the system could stabilize. Labeled A through D, they are:

• +1??C (3?F) ? the current Stop Now set-point
• +2?C (3??F) ? the preferred elite set-point
• +3?C (5??F) ? Hansen's mass extinction set-point
• +6??7?C (11?12??F) ? the "do nothing" set-point

(Notice, by the way, that the Stop Now set-point (currently 1??C) is a moving target. The longer we wait, the higher that number becomes.)

Obviously if we let the process run to the end ("do nothing"), we will pass through each of the lesser scenarios to the last one.

But for messaging, we have to characterize the consequences of each set-point. After all, we're offering people a clear set of choices

Where do you want us to stop ? at A, B, C or D?

To make that choice, people need to see what the stop points are ? and what they mean.

Identifying a set of set-points is the first step. Painting the picture of life at each set-point is the second.

Life at each set-point ? creating a "consequences" template

As a writer, if I had the data described below in a form I could use, I could write for less than a year and produce one heck of a "here are your choices" global warming handbook. I would love to do such a project; many writers would.

The information described here would allow us to paint a clear, accurate and compelling picture of human life at each set-point. How valuable would that be in our "unconfuse the people" project?

Does this sound like a request for this data? You're absolutely right. It absolutely is.

Here's a template for the data I'd like. It's a four-by-five grid ? four set-points and four levels of secondary consequences for each set-point. Obviously this is a virtual grid; the data for each unfilled boxes is easily a chapter.

First-order consequence ? the overall global number. The primary (first-order) consequence of dumping carbon into the air is the generalized number for overall global warming.

My goal is to explain, for each global set-point ? what the consequences are for human life. So I start with the set-points. If we pick the four above, the grid looks like this so far:

Global set-point	+1??C (3?F)	+2?C (3??F)	+3?C (5??F)	+6??7?C (11?12??F)
?
?
?
?

This isn't useful, though, unless I know what this means for humans. That's why we need to derive secondary consequences for each set-point.

Secondary consequences cascade from each other. That is, within the global data is regional temperature data. Regional data allows us to derive drought and famine information. That allows us to derive regional droughts and famines, the effect on regional economies, what happens as populations migrate, and so on.

So to make the projected explanation easier, I've identified structured second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-order consequences.

If we had this information, we would never hurt for strong messaging. Here's the data I'd like to see assembled ? the data I think we desperately need for messaging. The structuring is my own, but I think it's both useful and complete.

Second-order consequence ? Regional temperature changes. Within the global temperature data is regional data.

For example, here's one map from one source illustrating one region's warming pattern at one set-point, the most drastic one. You've seen this map before:

This map shows regional U.S. temperatures for the 6??7?C set-point. Once you translate weeks-per-year to months-per-year, you're done. (People instantly "get" that four months per year above 100?F in the central valley of California means no summer crops. If you say it in weeks, it has less immediate effect.)

This is excellent information, but it's limited. To fill all of the second-order consequences boxes in our virtual table, we will need similar charts ? apples-to-apples in form and substance relative to each other ? showing all regions at all set-points.

Doable, since much of it exists, but not in one place or in one form. So, a project that needs funding, but also needs doing.

See where this is headed? Here's our table so far.

Global set-point	+1??C (3?F)	+2?C (3??F)	+3?C (5??F)	+6??7?C (11?12??F)
Regional maps	To-do?	To-do?	To-do?	Done for U.S. (See above)
?
?
?

By the way, second-order consequences include other natural phenomena such as Arctic ice melt, changes in the jet stream and ocean currents and sea level rise.

I'm not including those, however, because (1) they are already being well-studied, and (2) these consequences will be built into the next set of consequences, changes to the lives of humans.

Third-order consequences ? Drought, famine, disease, economy. Once you have these regional maps and other second-order (natural world) data, you can model the next level of consequence ? what happens to the aspects of the world that humans depend on?

Again, we need this data on a region-by-region basis. Why? Because each region will react differently to the temperature changes, especially at the lower (and more desirable) set-points. At 1??C, for example, some regions will cool, while at the current warming of about .8?C, parts of Africa are already frying.

I would include the following as the most important second-order consequences. If warming in a given region reaches the predicted level for each set-point, what are the consequences for:

• Water supply (level of drought?)
• Food and agriculture (famine?)
• Disease (epidemics?)
• Regional economies (how does that region still make money?)

You could expand that list, but for me, that's all I would want. From that, you could probably derive the next order of consequence. The level of data granularity (detail) in the regional charts would allow similar degrees of detail in this analysis.

Fourth-order consequences ? Population migration. Regions that experience degrees of drought, famine, deaths and economic changes are regions that people will leave. En masse.

Here's what mass migration looked like for one region (Europe) for one very active period (100?500 AD):

These were not invasions, but migrations. They're called invasions because they were resisted, but in most cases, it wasn't moving armies ? it was whole populations, many without armies per se.

We could talk about what caused this (and that would be fun; it's not global warming). But not now.

I bring this to your attention for another reason. Most of the global warming set-points are predicted for 2100. That is, if we follow the do-nothing scenario, we'll "level off" at 7?C (ish) by that time. It's just the path we're on.

Folks, 2100 is just 90 years away. Imagine the mass migration scenario above, played out region by region across the globe, compressed into 90 years.

To message effectively, we need to paint that picture.

I personally would like that data for each set-point. (I'll bet the Pentagon does too.)

And if we had good third-order data (famines, etc.), we could predict many of these population movements.

In a later post, I'll walk through a scenario involving one set-point and one border (U.S.?Canada), just to get you started. But I'd like enough data to extrapolate each region at each set-point, if I could get it.

Is anyone but the military studying this? I hope so. If not, this looks like an academic opportunity to me; just needs funding.

Fifth-order consequences ? Governmental change and collapse. It's absolutely certain that at the higher set-points, regional and national governments will change or collapse. And many changes will occur at the intermediate set-points as well.

Some national governments will disappear. Some regions ? the worst hit at any set-point ? will have no local government even if nearby national governments survive.

Many regions (towns, counties, enclaves) will be ruled by local strongmen dedicated to keeping outsiders out (and looting the last remaining resources for themselves and their allies).

Some whole nations, though, could stay relatively intact. At the 3?C set-point, for example, Canada could remain a nation for quite some time, with something like a national/regional army guarding its borders.

Would the U.S. be so lucky? How much actual land would the "U.S. government" control at the 3?C ("game over") set-point?

There are a lot of governments in the world, and at different set-points different outcomes are more likely or less so. It would make an interesting probability study. If we had good third- and fourth-order data (temperature data; data on famines, etc; and predictions of population shifts), we could extrapolate some pretty good guesses for much of the world.

This is science-fiction territory, but I guarantee the Pentagon is modeling all of this stuff, especially governmental changes. After all, protecting (and changing) governments is their business.

Personally I would love to have ? and use for messaging ? fifth-order (government collapse) data for three set-points:

• 1??C ? Stop Now scenario, the path we can't escape
• 3?C ? Hansen's "game over" scenario
• 7?C ? Stop Never, the path we're currently on

Will we ever get that data? I have no idea, but it would be fascinating to have it.

Bottom line

Our goal in this piece is to design a messaging plan for one prong of our five-prong solution ? "unconfuse the people."

To do that we need to present clearly the data represented by the template discussed (or something similar) in a way that's apples-to-apples consistent from data-set to data-set, that's easy to grasp, and relatively complete.

For me, "relatively complete" means filling in the boxes in the following virtual data plan:

Global set-point	+1??C (3?F)	+2?C (3??F)	+3?C (5??F)	+6??7?C (11?12??F)
Regional maps	To-do?	To-do?	To-do?	Done for U.S. (See above)
Droughts, famines, disease, economic change	To-do	To-do	To-do	To-do
Population migration	To-do	To-do	To-do	To-do
Government collapse and restructuring	To-do	To-do	To-do	To-do

Stop for a second and consider ? if we really had the information represented by those boxes, would we not have one hell of a data pool for clear, consistent, stark messaging? If I had that data today, I could start writing tomorrow. So could many of you.

This is what I mean ? this messaging, this picture-painting ? when I say "talk past the deniers" and the right-wing rubes.

Talk to the people. The message:

The data is in.
These are the choices.
Pick one.

The beauty ? the terrible beauty ? of this messaging project is that as the planet deteriorates, convincing people to act becomes easier. The planet itself, year by burning year, makes the case for us.

And if I haven't yet been clear, I offer this post in the form of a request.

Thanks,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
?

Source: http://www.americablog.com/2012/08/solving-climate-crisis-how-to-paint.html

tim thomas oral roberts les paul fred thompson fred thompson red hook romney tax return