Comments on: Visualising climate change

By: jerri husch

jerri husch — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:28:49 +0000

We are a small initiative working on climate change adaptation issues using a new process to help visualize the dynamic elements related to decision making. The process creates a standard so that data can be visualized. Currently we are working with UNDP and the African Adaptation Program(AAP) in Africa…see, http://www.inthum.org.

By: Nullius in Verba

Nullius in Verba — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:22:57 +0000

It depends as well on the extent to which the graphics are intended to persuade versus educate. Persuasive graphics work on some, but drive many others away if they recognise the attempted manipulation. Education, on the other hand, promotes the truth more subtly, by enabling people to reach it for themselves.

For example, the power station chimney you show suggested a few of related graphics to me. One would be a windfarm turbine with the number of birds and bats it had killed that year written down the mast. Making them write “116 Golden Eagles Splatted” would be an emotionally effective message. Why not, if it’s true?

We could also require that they show the numerical value of the temperature rise averted, and what this works out at as a cost per degree Celcius. That is, after all, what really matters, isn’t it?

The sea level ones I found interesting, and I do think this is an area where the general public could benefit from better educational graphics.

The one I’d start with is an explanation of how river deltas and coastal deposition/erosion worked — because it does seem to be a common belief that the land is static and unchanging. Archaological digs are useful in that regard, because you can directly see the layers of history, and that the surface is not static. The formation of river deltas is an easy physics experiment — pour sediment-laden water slowly into a shallow pool, see how the flow slows on reaching sea level, how the plain of sediment deposited comes to be so low and flat. Shows towns on cliffs falling into the sea, and fishing towns left stranded far from the coast by growing mud flats and sand dunes. Show Darwin’s theory on the formation of coral islands. Show how far seas have risen in the past 10,000 years, and all the flat land that has been created in that time frame.

And show what technology can do about it — show the land reclamation work, show the island building, show the sea defences and flood defences and drainage schemes and the pumps. That’s what Holland’s famous windmills were for. Show us the map of New York before people got there.

And yes, of course you should show us the costs and consequences of having to do so.

It’s interesting stuff anyway, and it gives people a background framework of scientific context with which to discuss things like sea level rise intelligently.

Educate first, then debate. Debating the uneducated is unsporting.

By: Barry Woods

Barry Woods — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:56:37 +0000

The problem is which ‘projection’ do you choose to show. The cynic would say only the worst case projections will be shown, however unlikely
Better to be open and show all projections, sea level as an example, from low to high, people can then use their own judgement, dependent on percieved risk.
Ie sea level. Some might take descidion to sell, or a business move away from a low lying house ir business property,others may choose to accept a’risk’ and benefit. Overtime, with minimal impact this would not be detrimental. No diiferent to ebbs and flows in rise and fall in properties in locations whose desireability varies over time.

But, As yet, for example, I do not see any celebrity champions of catastrophic climate change champions selling their beach front properties, nor abstaining from long hall,co2 emitting flights, to low lying exotic holiday destinations.
That may sound flippant or a cheap shot.But the public do notice if the most vocal, on any issue, appear not to practice whst they preach

Of course some one say, this shows we are all in ‘denial’ of future climate cstastrophy. I really do understand this hypothesis, but I don’t think it stsnd up to serious scrutiny.