Wow! Last night I downloaded the new release of Al Gore’s Our Choice as an iPod/iPad app. As a presenter for The Climate Project and media technologist at a university I have to take a moment to express my overwhelming gratitude and marvel at what is represented in this product. This implementation of technology is elegant, intuitive, functional, and beautiful. Further, the ramifications on this work in communicating climate science solutions, and more broadly, toward using media to educate are something I recognize as completely game-changing.
I’ve had Our Choice for over a year as an audio book and while it is informative I’ve found audio books fall short when conveying large volumes of technical information. It is difficult to go back and reference things. A point that brings me to my one criticism of the new app. It would be in credibly valuable if the reader could make bookmarks or virtual “clippings” of passages and store them in a user chapter for easier access. As yet I do not see a way to do this. But that’s the great thing about Apps – they can be updated. Are you listening Pop Press and Mulcher Media?
Here is a demonstration of the book by one of the developers at Pop Press:
Or if you have the inclination you can follow this link to get a copy of the app yourself:
– Homepage for the app with guided tour from Mr. Gore.
In our work giving climate change presentations we’ve noticed an encouraging trend from our audiences. More and more audiences are asking for less explanation about climate science, less time spent on recounting the terrible environmental degradation that is occurring as a result of climate change, and instead asking for more information about solutions and what they can take part in personally.
This strikes us as a really positive thing. It says to me that people want less convincing and are tired of waiting for solutions to be implemented by someone else. Enough of the bad news, let’s get on to making it better.
This lead to me trying to craft a more positive message in my presentations. As I looked for inspiration (and information) I came across this presentation from Drew Jones at TEDx, Asheville – 8/30/09. I love it because he uses models and charts to help people visualize how we can reach the reduction targets we need. If you want hope, and inspiration please check it out.
Today we continue the discussion we started last week (part 1) with Dr. Henry Pollack. He was a contributing author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 4th Assessment Report which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with along with former Vice President Al Gore. His expertise on long-term geologic evidence of temperature has lead him to testify before the Senate as well as garnering him an invitation to the White House to consult on Climate Change. He has been a professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan for more than forty years, travels regularly to Antarctica, and has conducted scientific research on all seven continents. He joins us today to talk about the science of Climate Change and his latest book “A World Without Ice”.
Our guest today worked on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 report which you may recall shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore. His expertise has lead him to testify before the Senate as well as garnering him an invitation to the White House to consult on Climate Change. He has been a professor of geophysics at the University of Michigan for more than forty years, travels regularly to Antarctica, and has conducted scientific research on all seven continents. He is the author of “Uncertain Science . . . Uncertain World”, and he joins us today to talk about the science of Climate Change and his latest book “A World Without Ice”. Dr. Henry Pollack.
Ikea to stop selling incandescents
2039 is looking hot
Whole Foods wants organic proof
“Cove” documentary screens in Japan
House of the future made of meat?
Ken Mankoff is a PhD. student at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He is studying the cryosphere, focusing on ice and ocean interactions nearby and underneath the Pine Island Glacier Ice Shelf, Antarctica, using observational fieldwork, remote sensing, and modeling.
In the past he has worked with climate models at the Columbia University NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Earth and Mars observing spacecraft at the University of Colorado Boulder Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and competed in the astronaut selection process.
He speaks publicly about climate change and has been an invited speaker on all seven continents. Audiences have included scientists at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, business leaders at the United Nations, and students in New York City.
Ken helped develop the Educational Climate Modeling program for schools. High School and Undergraduate students can work with climate models to help develop a better understanding of Climate Science.
Ken has gone to Antarctica 3 times and had three different projects. The first project drilled into the sediments under the ice to study the climate back in time 40 million years. Second they deployed ocean sensors to study how the ocean next to the continent is changing in terms of temperature and salinity, and therefore how this ocean might melt the ice. Third time they studied the CO2 content of the water to try to find out if it is saturated… Is the ocean still uptaking atmospheric CO2, or is that sponge ‘full’? No answers yet on the third one, but some preliminary results on the first two.
Perhaps we can relate the Gulf spill back to clean energy choices. Below is a copy of Mr. Gore’s recent op-ed on the spill if you haven’t had a chance to read it.
The continuing undersea gusher of oil 50 miles off the shores of Louisiana is not the only source of dangerous uncontrolled pollution spewing into the environment. Worldwide, the amount of man-made CO2 being spilled every three seconds into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding the planet equals the highest current estimate of the amount of oil spilling from the Macondo well every day. Indeed, the average American coal-fired power generating plant gushes more than three times as much global-warming pollution into the atmosphere each day—and there are over 1,400 of them.
Just as the oil companies told us that deep-water drilling was safe, they tell us that it’s perfectly all right to dump 90 million tons of CO2 into the air of the world every 24 hours. Even as the oil spill continues to grow—even as BP warns that the flow could increase multi-fold, to 60,000 barrels per day, and that it may continue for months—the head of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack Gerard, says, “Nothing has changed. When we get back to the politics of energy, oil and natural gas are essential to the economy and our way of life.” His reaction reminds me of the day Elvis Presley died. Upon hearing the tragic news, Presley’s manager, Colonel Tom Parker, said, “This changes nothing.”
-Al Gore, The New Republic, May 21st, 2010
[part 4 of 4] Does Cold Weather Disprove Climate Change?
Show Summary
A new addition to the Newlygreens show!
For the last couple years our friend Peter Sinclair has been busting myths about climate change on his YouTube channel. We found his videos so informative and entertaining we thought they would make a great addition to Newlygreens. In this edition Peter explains how the fact that we have cold weather does not disprove global warming, and that severe snow storms are actually something we would expect to see with climate change, not something that runs counter to CC as has been claimed by some disinformation campaigns in the blogosphere.
Peter has dozens of other Crocks episodes on his channel, and we’ll be including several in upcoming episodes of Newlygreens.
Our guest today is an award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator who runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI. He has recently applied his talents to the gargantuan task of rebutting climate change skeptics with his YouTube series, the Climate Denial Crock of the Week. His videos are extremely entertaining and informative while addressing some of the many confusing questions we often encounter when it comes to the science of climate change.
The Headlines:
India Uses the Power of the Sun for Cell Phones
New Hybrid Car in the Works
Climate Change Causing Flowers to Lose their Scent
Used Cooking Oil Finds New Use
A Loss for France, Gains for Colorado, and a Thumbs Up for L.A.
It’s a re-post from last winter but in light of the developing nations walking out of the Copenhagen talks today it seemed appropriate.
Let’s get back to the table and iron out some legally binding commitments for carbon reduction!
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Congressman Pascrell about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:
Dear Congressman Pascrell,
I’m thrilled to have the first real carbon legislation back in the House for a vote this Friday. I presented the The Climate Project last night at Bloomfield College and had occasion to discuss the ACESA with the 28 people who attended the event. I would like to share the many criticisms of the bill that were expressed. Ultimately, if we can strengthen the bill in a few key areas I feel the bill still deserves a “Yes” vote. Here is what my audience expressed they would like to see strengthened (and I agree) in order of priority:
1) The EPA’s authority to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act must not be rescinded. This was a major ruling it gives any environmental policy teeth. The provision removing this authority must be removed from ACESA.
2) The amount of money committed to Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) development. Coal is dirty even without carbon emissions. One need only look at the toxic coal sludge spill in Tennessee last year or the fact that dozens of coal ash sites have been classified to protect them from terrorist attacks to illustrate this well-known fact. The CCS approach most energy companies are pursuing:
a) require energy
b) are expensive
c) are unproven
d) are just another form of toxic dumping
By contrast renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal are well-proven and comparatively non toxic as compared to coal (geothermal). More development capital should be directed to these technologies. Renewables pose no terroristic threat. In fact the distributed nature makes them a unappealing target for terrorism.
3) It is my position and the position of many environmental groups that the current provisions for scientific review and assessment once every 4 years leave too much time before adjustments can be made. With such a sweeping act of legislation and so much at stake we would like to see the review term shortened to once every two years. Our justification is that the negative impacts of climate change have been unfolding at the highest extreme of scientific projections for over a decade. Our scientific understanding of the causes and effects of climate change expands greatly every year. Additionally there remains much uncertainty about what the realized reductions will actually be from ACESA as it stands. If the bill proves to need modification, action must be taken quickly to address oversights, abuses or shortcomings so we achieve tangible carbon reductions. For this reason we need to shorten the scientific review term from 4 to 2 years.
4) Allowances. I understand the political justifications, not wanting to overly burden energy companies or financially burden consumers. We need a bill that changes the way we produce energy. The allowances as they are exert little pressure to change in the next 10 years. Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates we need to be more aggressive.
5) Offsets. We come dangerously close to allowing this bill to become a numbers game in absence of real change. No trickery of carbon accounting is going to solve the climate crisis. I have serious concerns about the ability of the USA to legislate here something that requires us to monitor reforestation campaigns in a far of country. Offsets are better incorporated through our involvement in the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty. By working together with other nations we have a better chance of crafting a World policy on Offsets. Reforestation is vital as we can yield up to a 20% reduction in global carbon levels though careful forest management. My concern is that the Offset provision of ACESA will be abused because we lack the capacity for appropriate oversight.
Please. We need to get this right. We do not have time for half measures. Every moment we delay equates to increased financial burdens in the form of the costs of climate change adaptation and squandered opportunities in reaching a cleaner, safer, more economically beneficial, renewable-energy-powered future. I’m happy to discuss this in greater detail if you want any further clarification.
Thank you for your service to our community and Nation.
