Dan Miller's presentation focuses on why the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports are actually best case scenarios. For example, IPCC climate models do not include the effect of melting permafrost releasing greenhouse gases, even though the permafrost is melting now and it holds more greenhouse gases than all that mankind has ever released.
Another example is that IPCC predictions of sea level rise only take into account thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers; the largest factor, disintegration of glaciers, was not included because it is hard to model. The result is that sea level rise will likely be substantially higher this century than the IPCC predicts.
Miller discusses several other potential catastrophes that are not included in IPCC predictions and also discusses tipping points that could put climate change solutions out of our reach in years or decades, the psychology of climate change, and why it is difficult for people to respond to the threat posed by a warming earth.
His talk concludes with a discussion of ways to address climate change and the risks and opportunities that companies face due to the climate crisis.
Dan Miller is Managing Director of the Roda Group. He is the former president of Ask Jeeves, Inc., a Roda Group affiliate company. He is currently working with a number of Roda Group affiliated companies to assist them with their business development efforts. Mr. Miller sits on the Board of several Roda Group companies.
At the end of 1994, Mr. Miller retired from his position as Executive Vice President of TCSI Corporation (Nasdaq: TCSI), a company he co-founded with his Roda Group partner, Roger Strauch. Mr. Miller retired from the Board of Directors of TCSI in June of 1997. TCSI is a leading provider of integrated software products and services for the global telecommunications industry.
Prior to TCSI, Mr. Miller was a systems engineer at Hughes Aircraft's Space and Communications Group where he was responsible for designing communications payloads for commercial communications satellites.
Dan Miller, trained by Al Gore to give the Inconvenient Truth presentation, displays images of arctic ice melting trends at the North Pole. He explains how an light once reflected off the surface of the melting ice is now absorbed by water, priming a feedback loop that continuously accelerates the melting process.
Dan Miller, trained by Al Gore to give the Inconvenient Truth presentation, discusses the environmental threat from methane gas contained within melting permafrost. Miller claims the melting permafrost contains twice as much CO2 as Earth's entire atmosphere.
Dan Miller, trained by Al Gore to give the Inconvenient Truth presentation, lists some promising ideas for combating climate change with geoengineering. Though most methods seem far-fetched, research shows they could be effective. He stresses geoengineering will do no good without also drastically reducing carbon emissions.
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average surface temperatures would increase 3.27.2 °F (1.84.0 °C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that most of the warming observed over the previous half century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and transportation). Many scientists predict that such an increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting food production in certain regions. Other scientists maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992 Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national economic agendas and disputes between developed and developing nations over the cost and consequences of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
How does this talk fit with one from a couple of months ago which basically said the exact opposite? Not sure the title, but it was by an IPCC member.
The basic gist was that the world has simply jumped on the climate change bandwagon and the facts are not so dire.
It stated that previous climate models didn't account for 3rd world development on the scale there has been, and despite that, the actual outcomes thus far have been below the given estimates. And that all this information is freely available had anyone in the media actually bothered to check up on it, rather than spreading propaganda.
Now you are saying the models are a gross underestimate, something doesn't add up.
Both talks come from people either involved in the industry or with ties to it, and both were posted on the same site so credibility should be equal. I see no reason for a climate expert to lie and say it's not as bad as you were told. I do however see the possibility that a businessman linked to a renewable energy company would want to exaggerate the problem.
Therefore, I'm leaning towards the box in the matrix that says climate change isn't a crisis, but we should still act. I don't view energy independence, clean air and new technology to be a "waste" of money. It is an investment regardless of whether or not climate change is a reality.
The passing comment about biochar was interesting. Suppose people bought barbeque charcoal briquets and burried them in the yard. Could they buy enough to make a difference? How much would every household have to get every year to make a difference?
The subject of bio-engineering concerns me. We engineered our way into this mess to a chorus of "don't worry, we know what we're doing", and now we might be considering engineering our way out? I can certainly see why the corporate/political elites would want it. Perhaps they should simply drop the pretense of trying to convince the rest of us, build the stuff and siphon off our money through taxes to pay for it. You know, the usual stuff.
Dan, Thanks for the talk.
I agree 100% with everything you said. It seems to me the only reason we are not acting immediately is oil executives are brainwashing the gullible to fight AGAINST slowing global warming. Do these oil executives really think they can ammass enough more money that they and their children can survive well in a +6 degree world?
Is there a way to convince these oil executives that they already have enough money, and they need to use some of it to brainwash the gullible into fighting FOR slowing global warming?