30/07/2016

Spiral-Tastic: Climate Change In Three Animations

Climate Home - Megan Darby


How do you follow a viral hit?
Climate scientist Ed Hawkins broke the internet in May with a gif that showed global temperatures spiralling since pre-industrial times.
On Facebook, it got 3 million views just through the page “I fucking love science”. Hawkins’ own blog Climate Lab Book temporarily crashed under the weight of hits, which totalled around 100,000.
He’s no Kim Kardashian, but as sci comms goes, this was a runaway success.
It has inspired scientists from Potsdam, Germany and Melbourne, Australia to animate the inexorable rise of carbon dioxide concentrations in the air…

…and how the growing pace of greenhouse gas emissions is eating up the carbon budget to hold global warming below 2C or 1.5C.

Put together with the temperature spiral, they paint a pretty compelling picture.

The genius of the original was to show how the long term warming trend stood out from the noise of natural variation.
Sceptics might put the recent string of 14 record hot months down to El Nino. That weather phenomenon was certainly a factor, but doesn’t explain why the previous decade was so clearly warmer than in the 1850s.
When it comes to carbon dioxide in the air, the increase is more linear, with some seasonal fluctuation as vegetation levels vary.
Finally, the carbon budget graphic joins the dots with human behaviour. It shows how smoke from factories and car exhaust pipes is building up.
In Paris last December, 195 countries agreed to try and limit temperature rise from pre-industrial levels “well below” 2C and to 1.5C if possible.
That implies a ceiling on the volume of greenhouse gases that can be pumped into the air – the “carbon budget”.
There is some uncertainty about how sensitive the climate is to emissions; the budgets shown give a two thirds chance of staying within the threshold.
It may already be too late for 1.5C, as there is a time lag between emissions and their effect on the climate – and coal plants built today have decades to run.
Still, it remains an important marker for communities on the front line of sea level rise and extreme weather.
The more we can eke out the carbon budget, the better their odds become.

Links
at No comments:

Why ‘Sharknado 4’ Matters: Do Climate Disaster Movies Hurt The Climate Cause?

The Conversation -  | 

Disaster movies can raise environmental concerns but also seed misinformation. Disaster via www.shutterstock.com
Given that 2016 is expected to be the hottest year on record, with several months that not only surpassed old heat records but did so by increasingly large margins, it stands to reason climate change should be an issue we as a nation are rushing to address. But we're not, exactly. Instead, climate scientists are subject to political attacks and lawsuits, and debate over whether climate change even exists roils the United States Senate. A reasonable person could be left wondering how the hell we got here.
Social scientists have made great strides in determining what factors influence climate denier attitudes and what kinds of messages have the potential to combat denial. Indeed, a burgeoning movement of academics and communicators are taking on the problem of climate denial with gusto, working nonstop to produce empirically based strategies for getting the message out to the public.
Despite these efforts, researchers have paid less attention to how we're talking about climate change in a larger cultural sense.
Enter "Sharknado." On July 31, the fourth installment of the "Sharknado" film series airs on SyFy. The low-budget films are a surprise smash hit, breaking records in 2013 with the original "Sharknado." It's led to a series of movies and a variety of media spin-offs, including a video game and companion book.


If you've missed this cultural phenomenon, worry not: The film's title tells you most of what you need to know. Major American cities are suddenly beset with waterspouts flinging man-eating sharks – sharknados – through the air at 300 miles per hour, while characters attempt to survive. The plots are predictably ridiculous and the special effects – particularly in the first "Sharknado" – are about what you would expect from a B-movie.
At their heart, however, the "Sharknado" films are stories about climate change, albeit in a way that is scientifically flawed to a comical degree. It's a genre – climate disaster films – we decided to explore as an emerging mode of communication in society.

Fiction helps us understand reality
It's explained in the original "Sharknado" that climate change has created an unusually strong tropical cyclone approaching Southern California. The sequels backed away from that explanation, whether out of a desire to avoid courting political controversy or simply because the creators felt that sharknados needed no explanation, we can't be sure. But casting climate change as a catalyst for extreme, globally threatening natural disasters is a move characteristic of a small but growing genre of climate disaster films.
With a few notable exceptions ("The Day After Tomorrow" and "Snowpiercer" come to mind), climate disaster films tend to be low-budget, made-for-television creatures. Silly as they may seem, they represent the first drops in what is sure to be a storm of fictional depictions of climate change as the issue gains more traction in the public consciousness. In a very real sense, these films are the product of a society attempting to grapple with a massive social threat unlike anything we've seen before.
The Twilight Zone TV series featured episodes about the dangers of nuclear war, including the episode 'Third from the Sun' in 1960, which was based on a science fiction short story. Bureau of Industrial Service
Climate fiction films are important for their potential impact on the public. Climate change itself is difficult to observe for those not trained in environmental sciences; typically people don't notice small changes that happen over time, and carbon dioxide emissions are invisible to the naked eye. Meteorological and climatological records are regularly questioned by climate deniers, some of whom hold political office. Even personal experience may not sway opinions: Research suggests that a person's political leanings can even affect whether he or she perceives unusual weather patterns to be out of the ordinary.
Some scholars hypothesize that this is where fiction comes in. As researcher David Kirby puts it, fiction can serve as a "virtual witnessing tool" that lets us see the scientific process. Literary scholars tout science fiction's ability to show us futures that have not yet come to pass without having to live through them. Indeed, one of fiction's power is this ability to let us explore scenarios and situations in a safe way, without real risk to life or property.
Consider, for instance, the prevalence of fiction about nuclear war during the Cold War. These stories were widely credited with helping society envision the future after a nuclear exchange even as political leaders worked to prevent such an event. Books (and later film adaptations) like "Fail-Safe" and "On the Beach" shaped society's understanding of the consequences of nuclear war. Television shows like the "Twilight Zone" featured stories – and warnings – about nuclear weapons prominently in their plots. President Ronald Reagan even noted in his journal the television movie "The Day After Tomorrow" had a profound effect on him.

Medium for misinformation?
What does this mean for climate change? Like nuclear war, a future in which humanity has undertaken no effort to combat climate change is one we hope to never see. Can fiction play a role in shaping our attitudes and beliefs about climate change and encourage the public to take the threat seriously before it's too late?
A handful of studies were conducted around the release of "The Day After Tomorrow." Similar studies were also conducted on the docudrama "The Age of Stupid" and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." But these studies typically examine only blockbuster films and do not address disaster films as a whole.
The studies generally suggest that fictional depictions of climate change can have an effect on audiences – at least in the short term. Seeing clips of these films tends to raise levels of environmental concern and, in some cases, cause people to be more supportive of action to meet the climate threat.

'The Day After Tomorrow' depicts an out-of-control and damaging natural world.

To get a better sense of how fictional disaster films shape environmental attitudes, I (Lauren) conducted an in-depth analysis of 18 disaster films featuring climate change. The results of my research show that most of these films make only tenuous connections between climate change and natural disasters, which affects how people react to them.
Terminology related to climate change and extreme weather is often misused, and it's not uncommon to see films that use the term "climate change" or "global warming" to refer to completely different phenomena – some of which are physically impossible and could happen in no world. For example, one film uses climate change to discuss a buildup of methane gas in the atmosphere that is predicted to ignite, incinerating all life on Earth.
The results from focus groups I held with participants who watched one of three representative disaster films confirm that these scientifically dubious depictions of climate change dilute any perceived environmental message in climate disaster films. Most participants were unconvinced – often with good reason – that anything shown in the films could happen in the real world and did not see much of an environmental message.
More worrisome is the possibility for climate fiction films to distribute misinformation. Because many films draw on real terminology used by climatologists and atmospheric scientists to add a sense of realism to their films, audiences may find themselves confused where fiction ends and facts begin.

Here to stay
There is some precedence for these concerns. Research on historical fiction films suggests that people often remember misinformation presented in fictional narratives and then attribute these "facts" to authoritative sources like textbooks. This has been observed even when participants are warned ahead of time that they will be seeing a dramatization of a historical event that contains inaccuracies.
As society struggles to envision a future shaped by climate change, we will continue to produce works of fiction that depict these futures. Climate disaster films are only one facet of this phenomenon, and more are sure to come.
Follow-up studies examining the effects of "The Day After Tomorrow" on public attitudes toward climate change hint at possible changes.
In the short term, audiences were more concerned about climate change after viewing the film and were more willing to take some political action to combat the threat. Long term, the film seemed to clue audiences in to the problems of climate change, and provided something of a cultural script with which to discuss it.
It's worth noting, however, that "The Day After Tomorrow" was an exception within the larger climate disaster film genre, both in terms of its production value and its (relatively) detailed discussion of climate change. Low-budget films like "Sharknado," which stray very far afield from climate science, likely pose different possibilities for both misinformation and engagement with climate change. The question, then, is how to best tap into this potential while avoiding the pitfalls.

Links
at No comments:

Report Highlights Cosy Relationship Between Mining Industry And Political Parties

NEWS.com.au - Charis Chang
THE cosy and often secretive relationship between political parties and their donors in the mining industry has been highlighted in a report that looks at six controversial projects in Queensland including Adani's Carmichael mine. "All of these projects received extraordinary outcomes including policy changes, project approvals and even legislative changes," a statement from The Australia Institute says.
The Greasing the Wheels report, which was co-authored by the Australian Conservation Foundation, found there were "systematic" issues with how governments were dealing with mining approvals in Queensland.
Dr Belinda Edwards of the University of NSW, said the study demonstrated how political donations, specifically cash-for-access fundraising by political parties, corroded democracy.
"It demonstrates that money doesn't just buy access, it buys outcomes," Dr Edwards said in the report.
The report found mining companies seeking approval for six controversial mining projects in Queensland, gave more than $2 million in political donations to the Liberal and National parties at both state and federal levels.
"These mining projects all gained extraordinary access to government ministers and extraordinary outcomes," the report states.
They included Beach Energy's plans for unconventional gas in the Cooper Basin, Sibelco's sand mine on North Stradbroke Island, Karreman Quarries, the Acland Stage 3 coal mine, Adani's Carmichael mine and underground coal gasification trial projects in Chinchilla and Bloodwood Creek.
"These outcomes included legislative changes to remove environmental protections, federal and state government approval of projects despite serious environmental concerns, and even retrospective approval of illegal mining activities," the report stated.
But political donations are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Sibelco sand mine on Stradbroke Island. Source: Supplied Source:News Corp Australia
Freebies and gifts as mundane as chocolates and bottles of wine, to tickets to the ballet, opera or networking conferences, and access to a corporate box at the footy were also distributed.
There's no restriction on accepting gifts in Queensland, as long as those costing more than $150 are recorded.
But the report noted that the gifts created a "personal dimension" to working relationships and a potential feeling of obligation. The intimacy created at dinners or a football match may make it difficult to make impartial decisions.
"It is unrealistic to claim that such familiarity is not accompanied by a degree of confidence, support and favour," the report said.
In contrast to community groups, mining companies got access to all levels of government through sometimes "secret" meetings, informal events and political fundraisers.
It's hard to know the full extent of these meetings because in-house lobbyists and industry associations are not covered by Queensland's regulations on lobbyists, which means their meetings with public servants (except for ministers) are not made publicly available.
It's also unclear whether subscriptions to political fundraising forums where people can get access to government ministers are made public.
Another cause for concern was how many mining industry employees regularly job-swapped with others in government departments, without having to take a break between working for a mining company and working for government.
The report was critical of the "special treatment" the Newman Government gave to mining companies.
Queensland Premier Campbell Newman with Indian businessman Gautam Adani and Federal Minister for Trade Martin Ferguson on a visit to Mundra Port in Gujurat owned and operated by the Adani family. Picture: Graham Crouch Source:News Corp Australia
Of particular concern was the scale of the donations during the Newman era, including $1 million in 2010/11 from in-kind support, subscriptions and direct cash donations.
A further $3 million was donated to the Liberal Party of Australia.
These donations were received from companies that were pursuing highly controversial projects.
While the Labor Party in Queensland also accepted donations, it got much less — just $94,410 between 2011 and 2015, while its federal counterpart got $1.2 million.
But it also found there had been little change to the way most of the projects were being handled by the Palaszczuk Government.
The report noted that about $9 billion in Queensland taxpayers' money was spent on subsidies for the mining industry in the six years to 2014.
It said the six projects it examined would lead to poor outcomes for Queenslanders including drawdown in important groundwater aquifers, clearing of strategic cropping land, air pollution with fine particle pollution and negative impacts on other industries such as agriculture and tourism.

Beach Energy
Beach Energy has plans for unconventional gas in the Cooper Basin and contributed $193,300 in political donations over four years. It also enjoyed several high level meetings with ministers and the Queensland Premier.
After it was elected the Newman Government revoked Wild River Declarations in the Cooper Creek, Diamantina and Georgina Rivers basins, which would have limited unconventional gas mining in these areas.
This decision, along with the release of extra petroleum exploration areas will increase the risk of negative impacts on the Lake Eyre Basin and sustainable beef cattle industry.
Beach Energy's Cooper Basin oil and gas fields. Residue oil is separated from water in ponds, an initial separation after coming up through an oil well at Butlers. Source:News Limited
Sibelco
This company operates a large sand mine on North Stradbroke Island and is estimated to have spent more than $1 million on influencing political decision making, running a campaign to gain support for continuing its activities. Its official political donations in Queensland were $93,840 over two years.
Its lobbyist met with ministerial advisers and other government departments, and there was also a campaign of TV ads, cinema, print and online advertising and letterbox drop.
Sand mining on the island was due to be phased out by 2019 but the Newman Government extended this to 2035 and also increased the area available for mining by 300 per cent. The cut-off date was restored to 2019 by the Palaszczuk Government.

Karreman Quarries
Before 2014, Karreman had been extracting sand and gravel illegally from the Upper Brisbane River for many years, which caused erosion of properties upstream.
It donated $75,000 over two years up to 2011/12.
It was reportedly facing legal action from a state government department in 2014 but was saved at the "eleventh hour" by amendments to the laws that effectively approved its mining activities retrospectively. The founder of the company met with then Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney in December 2013 to discuss the Mining Act.
Then-Opposition leader Tony Abbott visiting Karreman Quarries at Mt Cotton in 2010. Picture: Tim Marsden Source:News Limited
New Hope
Three companies hold a potential interest in coal mines Acland Stage 3 and Colton Coal. They donated $1.3 million over four years, and had at least seven meetings with Newman Government ministers.
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, the LNP made strong commitments that the Acland Stage 3 coal mine would not proceed because of the impact it would have on farming land on the Darling Downs, but later approved a revised mine plan in 2014. This plan will destroy some 1300ha of Strategic Cropping Land, cause groundwater to drop by up to 50m and may impact 350 water bores.
The government also changed legislation in 2014 that removed the rights of community groups to challenge the project in the Queensland Land Court. Labor restored these rights but also approved an environmental amendment to the project in 2015.
New Hope also overturned a previously stalled approval process for Colton Coal mine near Aldershot.
New Hope's mine near the former town of Acland, near Oakey on the Darling Downs of Queensland. It has been cleared of most of its houses, due to the establishment of the Acland coal mine, an open-cut coalmine less than 2km from the town centre. Picture: Tran Jack Source:News Limited
Adani Mining
It donated $70,300 over three years and obtained 12 meetings with Newman Government ministers.
Despite the appalling environmental track record Adani has overseas, and the impacts its proposed Carmichael mine could have including damaging the Great Barrier Reef, the project moved easily through the assessment process.
There also appears to be inconsistencies over the ownership of the company Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd, that creates confusion over who would ultimately be responsible for ensuring environmental conditions are met.
Qld mines minister Anthony Lynham (left), Qld Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Adani CEO Jeyakumar Janakara to announce the go ahead of the Carmichael Mine. Picture: Tim Marsden Source:News Corp Australia
Linc Energy and Carbon Energy
They contributed $337,999 since 2010/11. Lobbyists have met with key department staff five times.
Linc Energy runs an underground coal gasification trial project known as the Chinchilla Demonstration Facility. The public raised serious concerns about the plant as early as 2011 but no action was taken. The Newman Government commissioned a report in 2013 that found no environmental issues in Chinchilla or at another Bloodwood Creek site. But UCG was banned this year in recognition of the environmental harm these trials caused.
A Supreme Court hearing found there had been ongoing toxic gas leaks into the air and groundwater since 2008.
Linc Energy entered into voluntary administration in April this year, leaving at least $29 million in clean-up costs unpaid.

Recommendations
The report has made five recommendations to prevent further erosion of public trust due to the undue influence of the mining industry on the Queensland Government.
  1. A Special Commission of Inquiry to investigate the influence of the mining industry on public decision-making in the state.
  2. Improve the regulation of lobbyists to include in-house lobbyists and industry associations, and to ensure that agendas, minutes and notes from meetings are placed on the public record.
  3. Stricter controls on post-separation employment and on the provision of gifts and benefits.
  4. Real time disclosure of political donations and contributions (which the Queensland Government announced this month it would introduce in 2017), a ban on donations from the mining industry, an end to 'cash for access' schemes, and a strict cap on all other donations.
  5. Expand the powers of the Crime and Corruption Commission to include official misconduct, the provision of advice on corruption prevention, and for public hearings.
Links
at No comments: