2682

The first article is about research over seven years old, the second is largely talking about differences between voice only and face to face, and only vaguely references things which may not apply to video conferences.

The reality is, while people assume there is some difference between video conferencing and face to face meetings, there will be a difference merely by virtue of their assumption that the medium is inferior, and due to them being unfamiliar with it. But that will change over time.

2683

I was selling Polycom, Tandberg/Cisco VC gear 5-7 years ago, sometimes in full telepresence suites. The tech was pretty mature back then - full HD video and audio, custom rooms with huge panels, etc. Not the crappy in comparison Skype over the internet stuff of the day. The stuff I sat in at Cisco’s office in Hong Kong circa 2010/11 was exceptional. So I would not discount that first article for its age.

Two weeks ago I took a trip out to a customer to sit at the table with him while he signed a contract and shake his hand. No reason at all that could not have been done electronically. But people do business with people - I want to make sure that customer has a personal relationship with me so we can continue to do additional business in the coming years.

VC is awesomesauce and far more prevalent today than it was in 2010. It will continue to flourish and revolutionise many sectors - education, medicine, etc. it will play significant role in more meaningful collaboration between disparate teams all over the world. But I doubt it will be replacing face to face meetings, particularly stuff like these global leader summits where relationships between whole countries hinge on these representatives sizing each other up in person.

2684

The is a lot more to communication than just a face and a voice, and when something happens on the world stage, you want to make sure you can read all the communications in the room, including body language. Not just of the delegate, but the delegates assistant, or staff.

I am sorry, but VC gets you 90%, but when you represent a nation, 90% doesn’t cut it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

2685

I also spend under a minute looking for things.

I don’t see how what is stated there really changes anyway. People are animals, they don’t fundamentally change in a couple of years. And if anything trying to teleconference 20+ nations with different languages would be even harder.

2686

I totally agree that you can’t just rewire humans. But I’m suggesting that modern videoconferencing actually eliminates the need for such rewiring. If you are able to perceive the nuanced facial expressions and body language, then that satisfies the requirement. There’s not a lot of actual scientific evidence suggesting otherwise beyond folks who aren’t used to the technology saying that it can’t be the same because of reasons.

2687

Timex, you haven’t provided any scientific evidence for your position, either. You’re just asserting your position and demanding that others prove you wrong. It sounds like you’ve found that modern VC is an effective substitute for you, and that’s really cool. Others have different experiences and thus feel differently about it. That’s fine, too. What’s not reasonable is to project your personal experience onto everyone else and just assert that if they disagree then they’re obviously just doing it wrong, are Luddites, have insufficient experience, etc… If we’re all to take your personal experience at face value, please do us the same courtesy. There’s a really interesting discussion in there about why the experiences differ, but it’s getting lost in the “no, you’re wrong!” stuff.

For the record, I use VC very regularly (multiple times per week) and find it invaluable. It does not, however, replace face-to-face discussion. Would I feel differently if I were using more advanced tech? Maybe. I’d be curious to find out.

What the VC stuff won’t replace anytime soon, for me, is the impromptu stuff that often surrounds these meetings. The quick five minute hallway conversations before and after the official meeting. For myself, that’s where the majority of my real business gets done.

2688

Timex, you haven’t provided any scientific evidence for your position, either. You’re just asserting your position and demanding that others prove you wrong.

This is exactly what I’m doing. I’m rejecting the assertion that videoconferencing is automatically inferior to face to face meetings in a significant way for professional interactions, because there doesn’t seem to be any tangible rationale for why it is inferior. That belief seems to be largely based on preconceptions that people have about how face to face meetings are necessary, because back when the only alternative was phones, it had a tangible difference. That comparison seems to have just transferred over to videoconferencing, without recognition that the chief issues no longer apply.

What the VC stuff won’t replace anytime soon, for me, is the impromptu stuff that often surrounds these meetings. The quick five minute hallway conversations before and after the official meeting. For myself, that’s where the majority of my real business gets done.

Well, this brings up two questions.
Why have the meetings if the purpose is just to get people into a general proximity so that they can hold impromptu meetings?
Why wait for the meeting to have the 5 minute discussion with the person you are doing the real business with?

Again, I think that this is largely just due to our habits. Most folks I know aren’t generally comfortable using video chat all the time. But it could totally facilitate exactly what you are talking about, without necessitating a bunch of people getting together for a pointless meeting. You could just video chat with that one guy you want to discuss business with for five minutes. You don’t need to wait to bump into him outside of the meeting.

Most of what prevents us from doing this is just the fact that it isn’t in our normal mode of operation yet. We didn’t used to be able to have a face to face conversation at the drop off the hat with anyone, and so now we don’t necessarily think of doing it, even though it’s possible.

The same kind of thing used to be the case with other communications. Prior to cell phones, we didn’t generally even try to communicate with people as much as we do now. It took a little while for us to adapt to the existence of that technology, and start using it to communicate with people constantly. And largely it was younger people who really embraced it, and as a result developed a different set of expectations in terms of social interactions.

Ultimately, with the topic at hand here, we are taking about mountains of money and fuel being used to ferry a handful of politicians around the earth to meet somewhere to talk about conservation, and its silly.

2689

You’re the one asking for change. The onus is therefore on you to explain, with evidence, why that’s a good thing. All you’ve done is forward a hypothesis. That’s great, but it’s just the beginning. Now back it up

Well, this brings up two questions.
Why have the meetings if the purpose is just to get people into a general proximity so that they can hold impromptu meetings?
Why wait for the meeting to have the 5 minute discussion with the person you are doing the real business with?

Many times it’s the core of the meeting that brings up the topic that I need to talk to folks about, but it’s secondary to the actual meeting agenda and not of interest to most in the room. Thus I wait 'til after the meeting and chat about it. It’s a quick and easy thing. With VC, it requires more effort to set up a follow-up chat with that person(s). The point is its unplanned and is a natural follow-on from happening to be at the same place at the same time. There’s also lots of the “Oh, hey, seeing you reminded me I had a question for you,” type stuff. There are many of these sorts of interactions that are part of many of our normal day to day work that would be very hard to replace. In particular, the spontaneity involved is hard to replicate in a VC sort of set-up.

Again, I think that this is largely just due to our habits. Most folks I know aren’t generally comfortable using video chat all the time. But it could totally facilitate exactly what you are talking about, without necessitating a bunch of people getting together for a pointless meeting. You could just video chat with that one guy you want to discuss business with for five minutes. You don’t need to wait to bump into him outside of the meeting.

Most of what prevents us from doing this is just the fact that it isn’t in our normal mode of operation yet. We didn’t used to be able to have a face to face conversation at the drop off the hat with anyone, and so now we don’t necessarily think of doing it, even though it’s possible.

The same kind of thing used to be the case with other communications. Prior to cell phones, we didn’t generally even try to communicate with people as much as we do now. It took a little while for us to adapt to the existence of that technology, and start using it to communicate with people constantly. And largely it was younger people who really embraced it, and as a result developed a different set of expectations in terms of social interactions.

There is some truth to a lot of this, certainly (in my personal experience). I do a lot more of my business via quick text messages and such, for example, than ever before, and it’s great. However, I’ve found those interactions to add to my efficacy in face-to-face meetings rather than replacing them. What it is replacing is voice phone calls. I very, very rarely do that anymore and I used to do so all the time.

The thing is, current tech shouldn’t be replacing face to face interactions one-for-one, but rather enhancing it and giving us entirely new ways to interact and collaborate. This isn’t an either/or sort of thing. As the technology improves, I’ll agree with your premise more and more. Just not there yet. Not for me, anyway. And that’s my point. You’re pushing very hard that those of us for whom it’s not there are just doing it wrong.

Is it possible that a lot of the climate summit type stuff could be done remotely? Almost certainly. All of it? I have my doubts. Yet. I bet we’d be surprised how much of it actually is for a lot of the behind the scenes stuff, though. The down and dirty work by the professional diplomats.

edit: And to be clear, I want the tech to be there. I want to not care if I’m in the same physical place as those I’m working with. That will be amazing. It’s now, however, there for me yet. The good news is I get to work every day on making communications and interactions between people better. Pretty fun stuff.

2690

Timex, have you ever met someone with a powerful personal presence? Someone who really effects others nearby, and automatically conveys authority or charisma? I’m not talking about really good looking people or celebrities. “Presence” is a natural leadership trait.

It does not translate over video chats. Nor do the myriad sorts of body language that you can make people more comfortable with each other or facilitate bonding. All of that is so muted over pixels, it almost disappears.

Again, we’re still animals.

2691

I once attended a speech and Q&A with general David Petraus, and he was attending virtually since he was in Afghanistan at the time. His presence most definitely did translate over video chat. Why would it not?

Hell, there are a multitude of famous people who constantly project presence through video. Virtually every politician in modern times on the national level does this.

2692

So… no :)

2693

It’s a totally different thing, though, to watch video vs. be in the same room with someone.

I remember the first time I was in the same room as Bill Clinton. It was absolutely electrifying – and this from someone who didn’t (and doesn’t) particularly like the guy. He has an incredible rare gift of presence that is (I think) the basis for his success in politics. When he shook my hand, I would have sworn to you that he actually gave a shit about my problems and concerns. It wasn’t until later that I realized just how weird that was – and how dangerous such charisma could be in the hands of a sociopathic demagogue (e.g. Hitler).

If/when VC becomes true VR, you’ll have a better argument, but we’re a long way away from that – and even then, I’m not sure. VR would truly need to trick your brain and convey to you all the minutiae of express, posture, place, etc. I use VC for distance learning related applications on a regular basis, and it’s still crazy hard to read a room even in the best telepresence suites if you’ve got more than just a few end points.

2694

The problem with any form of electronic communication is that it is ‘on the record’. In my experience, every difficult negotiation requires at least some moments talking off the record, not being recorded or watched in any way by outside observers. I’ve dealt with several significant contract disputes and it is the same every time. Private discussions are not just important, they are key. It’s obvious in the first ten seconds… when the president, or President for that matter, opens with an ice breaker that gets everyone to chuckle… or asks his or her adversary about his daughter… it is impossible to replicate that personal touch electronically, and impossible to guarantee that a video conference isn’t being recorded. My .02.

2695

‘Insurers paid out $27bn for natural disaster claims in 2015’:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/04/insurers-paid-out-26-billion-dollars-natural-disaster-claims-

Around $27bn (£18bn) was paid out by insurers for natural disaster claims last year, with weather causing 94% of incidents, according to data from reinsurer Munich Re.

While the climate phenomenon known as El Niño reduced the development of hurricanes in the north Atlantic, storms and floods still caused billions of dollars worth of damage in Europe and North America, the world’s largest reinsurer said in an annual review.

Munich Re said floods in the UK and Scandinavia caused by Storm Desmond last month may cause about €700m (£515m) in claims. It added that flooding from Storm Eva may cause overall damage of more than €1bn. Climate change may have played a role in the floods, according to the insurer.

Two tornadoes and flooding also hit the US last month but Munich Re said damage estimates were not yet available.

The insurance industry lobbied governments to take action to curb climate change in the run-up to the UN climate summit in Paris last year. It cited rising payouts in heavily insured rich country markets and a lack of affordable insurance in developing countries, where it is most needed.

2696

Kind of a click-bait headline, since $27bn is such a huge number, but the latter part of the article kind of softens the blow:

The $27bn in insured damage last year was lower than the $31bn registered in 2014 and also below the 10-year average of $56bn, Munich Re said.

Overall damage, including that not covered by insurance, was $90bn last year, the lowest level since 2009.

2697

I guess it is early days for the Insurance industry in terms of climate change, and also one could say things like earthquakes are not related to that. But it is interesting data to keep an eye on, especially in relation to AGW.

‘Climate change could dry up global power production, study warns’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/05/climate-change-could-dry-up-global-power-production-study-warns

Thousands of power plants around the world may face severe reductions in their ability to generate electricity by mid-century due to water shortages, according to new research.

Hydro- and thermo-electric (nuclear, fossil-fuelled, biomass-fuelled) power plants are vulnerable to dwindling rivers and reservoirs as the planet warms, a study published in Nature on Monday said.

These technologies, which provide 98% of global electricity supply, depend on abundant water to cool generators and pump power at dams.

Lower river levels and warmer water temperatures could reduce generating capacity by as much as 86% in thermo-electric- and 74% in hydro plants, according to researchers at Wageningen University and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

It comes as water demand for power generation is set to double within the next 40 years, the report said. Drought-stricken hydro producers have reverted to dirtier energy sources in the past to shore up tottering grids.

Global warming is set to boost river levels in Canada, India and central Africa as global weather patterns shift. Yet most hydroplants are in regions forecast to see shortages, like South America, which generates almost two-thirds of its electricity from hydro.

If those plants became 10% more efficient in producing electricity that could offset the constraints, the study said.

2698

This is more of the “we are screwed” than the “climate” end of things but my wife and I saw an incredible segment on the news last night; it’s related to fracking.

Oklahoma used to get one earthquake a year. Now, however, they experience 3 a day. There’s more earthquakes in Oklahoma now than there are in California! Geologists say it’s due to the injection of salt water into underground wells as a byproduct of fracking. The fracking industry says there’s no proof. So I suppose “drill baby drill” rules the day.

The CBS segment is here. I would say it’s mind-boggling what we’re doing to the planet, but sadly, it’s not mind-boggling. It’s just more of the same.

2699

I guess it is early days for the Insurance industry in terms of climate change, and also one could say things like earthquakes are not related to that.

It’s early days in terms of direct impacts, but the industry (especially reinsurers like Munich Re) has been modelling and pricing risk from climate change for decades. Here’s what Munich Re says

In the financial and insurance sector, Munich Re is a pioneer in analysing the consequences of climate change. In the 1970s, as part of geo risk research activities within the company, Munich Re began to investigate the causes behind increasingly costly losses from weather-related natural catastrophes, and to record the associated losses. Over the years, the complexity of the issues involved became increasingly clear as scientific advances were made

Swiss Re:

Scientists have combined Swiss Re’s loss model with climate and storm surge models to quantify the impact of climate change on Northern European coastal flood damage. Assuming the IPCC scenario A2 with a predicted sea level rise of 0.37 m, losses are forecast to increase in all countries towards the end of this century. The study confirms what many have suspected, namely:

an increase in peak surge height of between 36% and 55% compared to today’s levels
a disproportionate increase in annual expected losses of between 100% and 900%, depending on the country (at today’s values)
a water level seen once in a 1000 years occurring – on average – more often than every 30 years

Hannover Re:

In view of more frequent and fierce wind, hail and flood events (re)-insurers have already changed their pricing models. Other lines of business will follow. The time-frame is yet not fully understood.
So far all forecasted changes have taken place faster than predicted. For the future it can be assumed that climate change will not only affect property business but will also have an impact on liability covers and possibly on life and health policies.
Several cases are already seeking damages from various defendants for alleged injury and nuisance arising out of greenhouse gas emissions and related climate change. At least one of these cases expressly alleges that events like Hurricane Katrina were more severe and caused more damage than they otherwise would have because of atmospheric change wrought by relatively-recent industrial emissions. In an analysis from August 2012 dealing with insurance issues of climate change the Insurance Information Institute refers to a similar trend: “The potential increase in property losses may be relatively small in comparison to what could happen on the liability side. Liability suits could be filed based on legal concepts yet untested as well as existing ones tailored to “sustainability” cases. Sustainability is broadly defined by the U.S. Green Building Council as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Awards could be substantial because, by their very nature, activities that result in harm to the environment and future generations can impact large numbers of people. Even where lawsuits are not successful, and there is no court award against the defendants, insurers can incur substantial legal costs.”

2700

@ Ginger Yellow, thanks for those.

And in the usa you do have space, it really is crazy that the Conservatives have such a hard-on for fracking in the uk! It is going to make large area’s of land unusable, and with climate change and increased flooding/rising tides the uk is going to need all the space it has. Fracking is like the perfect example of short-term greed led decision making that plagues our modern democratic system, it’s the perfect poster child for most of what is wrong with the direction we are letting our societies go in. ------------------------------ ‘What does the Paris agreement mean for the world’s other 8 million species?’: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2016/jan/06/-paris-agreement-biodiversity-coral-reefs-forests

The word “biodiversity” is employed once in the Paris agreement’s 32 pages. “Forests” appears a few times, but “oceans”, like biodiversity, scores just a single appearance. There is no mention of extinction. Wildlife, coral reefs, birds, frogs, orchids, polar bears and pikas never show up anywhere in the document. This is hardly surprising: the landmark agreement in Paris – the boldest yet to tackle climate change (which is saying something, but not nearly enough) – was contrived by one species for the benefit of one species. It was never meant to directly address the undeniable impacts of global warming on the world’s eight million or so other species – most of them still unnamed. But many experts say this doesn’t mean biodiversity won’t benefit from the agreement – especially if the 196 participants actually follow through on their plegdes and up their ambition quickly. “[The agreement] is critical for people and it is critical for biodiversity,” said Edward Perry, Birdlife’s climate change policy coordinator, who dubbed the passage of the Paris agreement in December “monumental.” Most biodiversity experts concurred that the Paris agreement was an important step forward, but none thought it would be enough to counter the vast risks posed to biodiversity by global warming. Indeed a recent study in Science found that more than 5% of the world’s species will likely go extinct even if we manage to keep temperatures from rising more than 2C, the uppermost target outlined in Paris. “[The Paris agreement] doesn’t go far enough, but that really misses the point,” said Nancy Knowlton, a coral reef expert with the Smithsonian Institution. “It moves us in the right direction, finally, and future efforts can be even more ambitious. To paraphrase Voltaire, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Scientists have identified thousands of species that have already been hit by global warming or will likely be in the near-future. For example, Edward Perry pointed to a recent scientific review by his organisation that found a quarter of the world’s most-researched birds have already been negatively impacted by climate impacts. “According to climate projections, there will be more than twice as many losers than winners under climate change [for birds],” said Perry, who noted that, to date, scientist have pointed to 2,300 birds with traits that makes them “highly vulnerable” to global warming. Already, climate change has disrupted some bird’s food sources, messed with the timing of fledgling and migrations, and shrunk the range of cold-loving species. Birds are a good example of how climate change is already impacting wildlife because they are the best studied group on the planet. Yet, they aren’t the only ones feeling the heat. Climate change is also likely playing a role in the current amphibian crisis, which has seen around 200 amphibians vanish for good in recent decades. Robin Moore, co-founder of the Amphibian Survival Alliance and author of In Search of Lost Frogs, said there is good evidence that climate change may have exacerbated the spread of the frog-killing disease, chytridiomycosis, with research has showing that warmer temperatures probably helped the disease spread across both Costa Rica and Australia. Moreover, the disease is likely able to adapt quicker to climatic changes than its victims. “Pathogens are always smaller than their hosts, with faster metabolisms, and should therefore be able to acclimate more quickly to temperature shifts,” explained Moore. “This is a phenomenon that will not just affect amphibians!” Currently, habitat destruction remains the biggest threat to amphibians, making species more vulnerable to even slight climatic changes, according to Moore. “Amphibians have survived four mass extinctions associated with major climate disturbances. What is pushing them over the edge now, I believe, is a perfect storm of lethal conditions that we have created.” Still, no one knows for certain how climate change will impact the majority of the world’s individual species, just as we don’t even know how many species share our planet (pegged at anywhere from 3 to 100 million, though a study in 2011 came up with an estimate of 8.7 million). But we can broaden our view. Just as there are some human communities living on the front lines of climate change – such as low-lying island states or drought-prone countries – there are also particular environments that scientists view as super vulnerable to climate change.
Lots more detail in the rest of that article.

2701

Would the 2014 numbers include the east coast hurricane?