Roots Camp turned out to be pretty fun; I enjoyed talking to people about the causes and effects of climate change, and showing them how to defend the science when dealing with denialists. (A link to the presentation can be found at the end of this post.) Over a dozen people showed up in the brightly lit chapel room at the Unitarian Church to hear me speak and to discuss climate science. The big stained glass window on one end of the room was absolutely gorgeous, but sort of drowned out my presentation, projected on the opposite wall. Nonetheless, my slides were mostly visible and the audience seemed quite interested.
One person who decided to stay for my talk at the last minute later told me I had helped them to understand global warming, where Al Gore’s movie hadn’t been that much help. I can’t really claim to be that good... but it was great to hear I helped someone understand the science.
If you’d like to check out my presentation (and are willing to suffer a painfully long loading time) you can check out my notes and slides here. Honestly, since that room was so dim, and since I’m not the world’s greatest public speaker--I can’t amplify my voice very well--this is probably the best way to see it!
What was it about? As mentioned above, it touched on the causes and effects of climate change, in terms of defense against denialism. I focused a bit on how we know excess CO2 is to blame for recent warming rather than sun, as well as how models achieve their accuracy. I emphasized the use of historical records in modeling--I argued if we can model the conditions of the past, judging accuracy by comparison with historical records, and can understand present conditions, then we can predict the future with some degree of confidence. So, as an example of this, I talked a bit about CO2 spikes and their effects in the past before going into projections of future conditions, both globally and locally in Colorado. Then, to summarize, I suggested approaches to blogging about climate change, again focusing on the validity of predictions and their sources.
Like I said, fun stuff! Again, you can see the full thing, along with cool charts and pretty pictures, here. (Warning: Large file!)
- Log in to post comments
On my blog,
Regarding denialism, I have said that whether you agree that it is us or nature, in a way it doesn't matter. The big question is what can we do about it. I have never run into anyone who looks at photos of the ice caps over time and doesn't agree they are shrinking.
I have a post on my blog called, Plug in hybrid vehicles, they can save the planet! I know it sounds like hyperbole, but the recent statistics in the post show they could make a radical improvement.
Even if there are people who don't care about CO2, I think we can all agree that you would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree that there are way too many places going into the category of you can See the air you breathe!
The vehicle tailpipes not only emit CO2 but carcinogens and other stuff that is bad children and other living things!
You have a very nice blog here!
Dave Briggs :~)
I was there. You did a nice job. Cool blog--and cool fractals. I'll check back later.
Dave, I wouldn't call your stance denialism. In this case, denialists are scientists who have seen solid evidence that mass carbon dioxide release will lead to temperature rise, and try to cover up or distort the information. That isn't skepticism, it is an attempt to prolong attempts to regulate emissions. I'd call your attitude more along the lines of skepticism. In fact, it is pretty similar to the stand I took before looking at the science.
Thanks, shane! I'm glad you enjoyed the presentation enough to drop by.
Hey Karmen,
I guess maybe I wasn't clear enough, and now I am in a rush, but thanks for your response! Actually I don't think I personally am skeptical. I was musing on others attitudes and what to say about them. YOU are doing a fantastic job! Keep up the great work!
Dave Briggs:~)
I realise that the discussion here is about proving that CO2 emissions does indeed influence warming, so this may be a bit way ahead, but it does seem to interfere seriously in any effort to predict things. Some science fiction stories in the past, some hints from Naomi Klein's recent presentation of her Shock Doctrine bring out a question: Is it possible to examine in Climate Science the influence on climate exerted by those who would profit from a huge ecological disaster? Could this possibly be isolated as a factor or expressed as a parameter? Or is it exclusively a question of politics?