You’re right to point out that global warming actually promotes greater volatility in the climate system. But the notion that we’ll end up back in an ice age is not supported by the majority of climate models. We’ll end up with climatic turbulence (in the form of shifting weather patterns and a significant increase in severe weather events) but the chances of returning to patterns from the past are quite low. We’ve entered uncharted waters.

The big “wild card” is cloud feedbacks. Scientists have a very difficult time figuring out how many clouds will emerge at different altitudes, which makes it hard to know how the climate system will respond to the serious disruptions we’re causing.

One theory that is gaining some traction was put forth by William Ruddiman. He has studied paleoclimate (the deep history of the earth’s climate) and observed that – according to the orbital parameter theory of ice ages – the planet should have returned to an ice age starting around 5,000 years ago. What kept this from happening? His theory is that the spread of agriculture and the deforestation that accompanies it caused a kind of “slow global warming” that kept the earth from shifting back into an ice age.

If he’s correct, we’re very unlikely to have another ice age for tens of thousands more years.

Side Note: I did my graduate work in the atmospheric sciences and I studied cloud feedbacks in climate models before going on to study human cognition.

It seems that people have forgotten (or overlooked) that climate change will most likely lead to the next ice-age:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jan/climate.htm

This ad is effective because males as a demographic are more opposed to climate change bills than females. On the other hand, if it tries to be too sexy it triggers a defensive reaction; whoa, aren’t we being manipulated?

I’m trying to imagine what a counterad would be like. I’ve seen one parody with the message, “are you going to agree with some goal merely because I’ve hinted at disrobing once a certain number has been reached?” The good thing is that the industry can’t really make a smart counterad– the coal ads tend to be bland and idyllic and focused on a vague feeling instead of a decisive goal.

Metaphorically it works too (although it certainly treads over a line–that’s a REALLY long ad!) So you feel more heat if you retreat to a lower number which means less heat-trapping gases? It’s a contradiction. It is taking the “less is more” meme and glamorizing it. While it probably won’t persuade a denialist, at least it introduces the idea that it is possible to reduce the world’s ppm level (which is still a far-fetched idea even to many in the climate change reform community). Also, I think the goal of the ad is even more limited: to raise awareness of the PPM number and the need to keep it from increasing.

The problem, based on my limited scientific understanding, is that reducing ppm’s would require a massive sea change; it’s not something like going on a diet and weighing yourself and seeing the gradual improvements. A 350 ppm target would require lots of planning and reengineering (and I say this as a climate change activist). Most climate change scientists would be satisfied just to prevent future increases in the carbon level. The problem with the ad is that it makes a very-hard-task seem relatively easy. Is it helpful for the climate change movement if reducing the PPMs is portrayed as “easy?”

I think glacier’s earth/woman metaphor is right on. Men are the ones with tools and industry and rationality; women are the ones who are supposed to be pretty and in touch with their emotional side. In this ad, the woman are the ones taking action; they are also striving (not the men). Men are serious; they have to work hard; they have to get their hands dirty. Women are focused on aesthetics and keeping things clean. The question becomes, which version of reality do you prefer: the aesthetic or the rational one?

finally, I expect this ad to be parodied a lot; will that make people forget the point of the original ad?

I’ve heard others react strongly to how skinny the girls are too, but only some viewers have this response. As Robin Chase said earlier in this thread, responses vary considerably because there is so much potential for evoking strong emotions in viewers – and those responses are highly individualized.

The same comment can be made about your use of the word “silly.” This video may come off as not serious and therefore, merely fooling around, and I’d agree if we’re referring to its tone. But the creative work that went into creating it was very serious indeed. And the innovative notion that serious creativity might lead to a playful theme in the art that is created is one of the most interesting elements for me in this video.

Best,

Joe

- This is silly
- The models are having more fun as it gets hotter
- Damn, if you’re skinny, you can wear a lot of layers without looking like you are

The problems for the message:

- Those who claim concern with climate change is silly
- Those who claim that we’ll enjoy a warmer world more, if it comes about
- Those who claim that the many layers of evidence (tree rings, ice cores) don’t add up to a real effect

Also, while at first there was the background question of whether the models would get naked, by the final layers they’d reached the point where it wasn’t such an issue, because the models used are so boyishly skinny that they aren’t what research shows the majority of men find most attractive when naked. It’s only with enough clothes on them that they have generally attractive proportions, since the clothes take the place of the lacking flesh.

This raises another message problem:

- Are those who want action against global warming proposing that we all, in cutting back the things we enjoy, become anorexic?

Really, if you look at this ad in terms of image schemas, frames, metaphors, cognitive blends, it’s a bit if a disaster. Of course, so is global warming. Not sure that helps though.

Very interesting phenomenal account of your experience while viewing the video. It could be one of the conceptual models I described at work, although I wouldn’t be able to say based on what you said (more rigorous methods are preferable when making such an assessment).

Your observation about the metaphor The Earth is a Woman is very important. Humanizing the issue of climate change (and giving it a bodily presence we can empathize wiith) is vital for getting people to feel visceral connections at a personal level.

Best,

Joe

Just a few very non-technical observations here.

Hard to explain, but I felt physically hot watching the video. Funny how these things work – or maybe I’m very impressionable. So I felt literal relief as they progressively took all those layers off. Why they looked happier at the end made intuitive sense.

I don’t know if that makes people more aware of global warming issues, but it does seem to get under the (or at least some) viewers’ skins. So it does do something. Very intriguing.

The sentence “it feels good to use less” really grabbed my attention, and somehow got mixed with the feeling of relief from the heat in a way that felt, viscerally, like “using less brings relief”.

Another metaphor that nobody mentioned yet here, maybe perhaps because it is too obvious: the Earth is a woman. And right now she’s really, really uncomfortably hot.

Regards,

Luis.

Cheers,
Adrian