"As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/urgent-action-needed-as-arctic/
This was jumped on by climate change skeptics, especially after a debate started within the scientific community about whether pressure groups such as Greenpeace should 'emotionalize' the science in order to win the public over. Skeptics argued that an ice-free Arctic would be impossible as ice on land, such as the Greenland ice-sheet, has been around for 'hundreds of thousands of years' (the quotation marks are important in order to constrain
evidence-poor information) and has endured 'warmer periods than the current one'. Here are the errors evident on both sides:
evidence-poor information) and has endured 'warmer periods than the current one'. Here are the errors evident on both sides:
Greenpeace
In their article, the writers for Greenpeace seemed to have confused sea-ice and glacier ice on land, which they term the 'ice cap'. Either that, or it's just badly written. For example, here's the whole paragraph from which the quotation above was taken:
"Ice free Arctic
Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it's getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030."
In fact, the 'NASA study' (press release here) they refer to speaks only of thinning sea ice between 2004 and 2008, but is referenced as 'show[ing] that the ice cap is not only getting smaller' etc etc. The term 'ice cap' is usually used to refer to large areas on ice on land (even though the OED doesn't include the 'on land' aspect). Reading through the article, it becomes clear that it is unclear and non-specific throughout and they make no attempt to clearly separate the two types of ice. This culminates in this first quotation which causes a lot of confusion.
Those at Greenpeace clearly don't want to incorporate masses of detail about scientific uncertainty in a public press release, including uncertainty of model predictions and ice extent observations. So instead they choose to sum up the work of hundreds of researchers the statement: 'we are be looking at an ice-free Arctic by 2030'. That makes it sound like a very reasonable possibility. In fact, when you look at actual september sea-ice extent data (see graph below), it is at the very least extremely pessimistic to claim 2030 as a year for an 'Ice-free Arctic' (discussion of the disparity between models and observational data is coming soon). Additionally, they do not specify whether they mean summer ice, but I hope that's what they meant!
Those at Greenpeace clearly don't want to incorporate masses of detail about scientific uncertainty in a public press release, including uncertainty of model predictions and ice extent observations. So instead they choose to sum up the work of hundreds of researchers the statement: 'we are be looking at an ice-free Arctic by 2030'. That makes it sound like a very reasonable possibility. In fact, when you look at actual september sea-ice extent data (see graph below), it is at the very least extremely pessimistic to claim 2030 as a year for an 'Ice-free Arctic' (discussion of the disparity between models and observational data is coming soon). Additionally, they do not specify whether they mean summer ice, but I hope that's what they meant!
 |
| Sea ice extent as predicted by 13 IPCC Global climate models and actual observations (in red). Direct from Stroeve et al 2007. |
'Climate Change Skeptics'
Apologies (especially if you are one) for lumping all skeptics into one group here, but I see no other way. This 'inaccuracy' was put to the former head of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold on the BBC News program 'Hard talk' it became something a lot bigger. Here's the clip:
A short warning: I advise for the good of your health against reading comments below either the youtube video, or linked blogs. As an example, though, here's one of my favourites: "There is no such thing as sea ice. Ice is ice." Well, you're half right.
This was picked up throughout the blogosphere, and spawned many posts from the skeptic camp. Many of them proved it claimed the 'exaggeration of scientific reports' and 'scaremongering of the greens' etc etc. What they fail to realise, or possible only fail to report, is the very large difference between pressure groups and 'science'. The fact that a pressure group such as Greenpeace got some things wrong, and mis-referenced a report on sea-ice proves nothing about the issue of man-made global warming. All it shows to me is that well-known environmental groups should be more careful when writing press-releases!
Interestingly, the video above also shows 'if I say it then it must be true' tactics from the interviewer. During one section of the interview, he states that the Greenland Ice Sheet 'has been there for hundreds of thousands of years'. He then adds that 'it has survived previous warming periods much warmer than we see today or will see tomorrow. There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear'. It appears that these claims are made on the basis of a trip he made to Greenland, where he clearly found that the ice sheet is pretty big. Clearly, throwing out these sentences is ridiculous in a serious debate, and you can almost see Leipold holding back a smirk from 0:46 onwards. Unfortunately, his answer has been cut by the 'skeptic' who posted the video so we can't see how he replied to this. It's important to remember, though, that the confusion between land and sea ice started with the badly written Greenpeace press release.
In my opinion, the deliberate emotionalising of issues surrounding climate change by groups such as Greenpeace is not helping in showing the public the significant set of observations upon which the hypothesis of man-made climate change is based. The previous leader of Greenpeace in the interview above claimed that they 'must' emotionalize the issue, something which they were not ashamed of. To me this is wrong way of doing things. What is needed is an objective presentation of the facts, including an honest reporting of uncertainties and gaps in understanding. After all, climate scientists don't go into research 'emotionally', so why should it be reported that way? I think if reporting of climate change were to be more 'science-like' by such pressure groups, the public reaction may be surprisingly positive.
What do you think of this 'debate'? Should climate science be 'emotionalized' to win the public over? If not, what's the solution?
Catch 22 ALERT!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this debate is that dirty tricks are used by everyone. The whole reason we have emphatic 'eco-warriors' is because the sceptic lobby began to win everyone around not with science but emotion and empathy to what the people want to hear: "No, no... It’s not your car or lifestyle that's causing all this mess (or going to); it's not real!" or "It's natural!" or "It's better for the planet!" or "China will blow us all up even before the polar bears die!”
The real question is what are the real reasons (or motives) that people do not accept climate science; inherently stubborn? Honest disbelief? Hidden agendas? The amount or conspiracy theories around global warming whipped up by sceptics could just be a red-herring for their own real conspiracies eh?
The public relate to emotion as not everyone relates to science. It is all PR; coupled with the fact that everyone is now an expert... I cite people, you cite people... even though we are not experts (well I may be, but you not...LOL jk!!!) it does not mean what we say won't be taken as gospel.
In the debating chamber it is clear which side has won; but reality and in the eyes of the public, it is a totally different ball game and it seems the gloves are off.
The solution? It depends who pays the most, and in the end everything is ultimately decided by governments (even though elected by the public, we can never trust they won't renege on their words). Whoever makes the most persuasive (violent revolt, eloquent argument, largest bribe) case will win.
Happy New Year! Even though I sound relatively pessimistic about it lol! OMG it’s 5.20... What am I doing commenting on a blog? Why am I writing this? And this? And this?? lols pterodactyl!
Hi Dan! Thanks for the comment, and I agree, I am certainly not an expert!
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are right, but maybe I should have been more specific by what I was thinking by 'emotionalizing the issue'. I think reporting forecasts for future climate change, even by using potentially extreme predictions, is necessary. What I don't think helps is exaggeration and mis-use of references. It may get a shock reaction, but if it's not based on something solid others who disagree will pick it up and exaggerate it. As said above, this can be seen in this Greenpeace case, in my opinion.
It's a question of whether you resort to the same tactics. Amusingly at times, some skeptics complain that reports on climate change are sensationalist, and perhaps they are right, but their argument is only valid if they are not doing the same. So, surely it works the other way?
Removing the 'over-emotion' coming from some groups has the potential to limit the 'bad-press' caused by it, something which may have greater benefits than are lost.
It's a difficult thing though, and you raise some great points, especially about experts. It's worrying how groups on both sides can simply make statements with no foundation, which are then treated as 'fact', especially if it comes from a trusted source. We should all be more suspicious and distrusting about what we read, although I dread to think what would happen if the British became even more cynical!
(PS 5:20? Go to bed! Also, great blog btw)
Oh no!! I hope I'm not too late in joining this late night debate!
ReplyDeleteI think that this AGW debate needs to have some extent of sensationalism from the scientists(shock shock horror horror). We need to grab people's attention and the skeptics aren't below using shock tactics (i.e. climategate) to do that so why shouldn't we do the same? So yes, while I cringe at the idea of having images of polar bears clinging onto a popsicle rolled out repeatedly, to some degree, I actually agree with their method of portrayal of global warming.
Saying that, I don't agree with throwing out random dates and quotes of pessimism (especially if they're incorrect) to keep people on their toes and having climate change always on their minds. But here's a video of Dan Miller (though I'm not entirely sure what conference he's speaking at) using IPCC modelling. And he's saying that the Arctic sea ice will actually melt by 2020 instead of 2100 as predicted. He goes on to say that the change is visible from the moon. Fact? Seems like it to me.
And on the point of experts, I disagree with Dan. I don't think any rational person on the street would think of themselves as an expert. At worst, they'll think of themselves as well-read (from the articles in the Guardian, Times, National Geographic etc etc). (Rational being open-minded and logical) Rather than saying the general public is cynical about scientific statements about climate change, can't we put it as an attitude of questioning? It's undeniable that science is political so shouldn't the public be allowed to have a doubtful attitude towards scientific claims of climate change?
Hi Wei thanks for the comment! It was really interesting and I apologise if I go on for a bit…
ReplyDeleteI have seen the video by Dan Miller as I was going to use another of his videos about melting permafrost. Is this the one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjO8rwB-GI
From what I can tell, he is an environmentalist (albeit with an MSc) as well as a businessman who invests in green technology and is a board member of a biofuels company. To me it means that his objectivity is in question, especially considering the amount he has to gain from sensationalising the impacts of climate change. http://www.rodagroup.com/principals.html#dan
Looking at the video, in my view, it's not reasonable to simply extrapolate from a graph of observed data in a straight line and say that's a good prediction. Models are necessary as things respond in complex patterns. It’s possible to say the models aren't working well, and you would be right in a sense, but then to say that extrapolating from a line graph is somehow better seems wrong. To disagree with models is one thing, but then to disagree to such an extreme (by 80 years) is something else, especially when he cannot exactly define (only offer possibilities) on what is missing from the models that could cause such a rapid change.
Even if you think it is right to use these figures as a ‘shock’ tactic, I don’t think you can say that what is presented in the video is ‘fact’. It is merely a possibility, and in my opinion a faint one.
OK I did go on for a bit, so apologies! Anyway, thanks for commenting, I hoped the post would cause some debate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi back!! I like long replies so it's fine haha.
ReplyDeleteI think I didn't clarify myself properly on the Dan Miller stand. Like you, I do think that he's making bogus claims. I was actually using the video to prove my point. Wording problems (how apt!)And to be honest, his statements did actually seem pretty convincing. I had to watch this video multiple times before I realised what was bothering me (I blame the late hours at which I work on the blog).
However, even scientists have admitted that there is still alot of uncertainties in the ocean-atmosphere-sea ice dynamics. Do you think that that's reason enough to extrapolate that line? I have to admit that while I don't agree with Dan Miller and his extra long thick black line, I actually do not fault him for doing it. Uncertainties mean that while scientists have a much better idea of what's going on at the poles, they still don't know everything. And there's as much a possibility that Dan Miller is right as he is wrong. What's your opinion on this? Sorry if the question is going to make you have to repeat everything you said in the previous comment haha.
Anyway, you seem to be entirely against sensationalising climate issues. I'm talking about using pictures of dead, starving, struggling to crawl little seal/polar bear/arctic wolf cubs to grab people's attention. Not sensationalising in the sense of falsifying/exaggerating dates and facts. While it does 'cheapen' (for lack of better term) the global warming debate, it still grabs people's attention (bad publicity is still publicity. In a hypothetical world, where you have media power, what do you think you'll do to persuade people? Just curious.
If you think that using dying animals is ok, then don't bother answering. (Sorry for the long post!)
And also, the times on the comments are off. It's past midnight on the 9th!! I'll see you in uni!!!
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Wei because she disagrees with me... the nerve! Although i see your point and you should therefore watch this video...
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't use dead animals but a rather different animal process...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQIPNURA6CU
Watch with discretion...
It was in the film/documentary Meat the Truth, an inconvenient truth style film about agriculture and climate change, it really is (the film not really the video lol) good so check it out!!!
Wow. Definitely do not watch the above video if you are planning on eating in the next couple of hours! Thanks, Dan!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree Wei that models have big issues, and that they haven’t been performing all that well judging by observational data. That being said, they're still miles better than extrapolating from a graph. This is especially so in this case when the line he uses is extended from a particularly extreme but short section. I don't think this shows anything of the meaningful long-term potential trends. We need to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction to the sea-ice levels in the past few years. Of course it’s a possibility that c.2020 could be the year when sea-ice almost completely disappears (although in my opinion it’s a very small possibility) but you’d need a pretty good reason for saying so.
I guess my biggest problem is the certainty with which he says it all, such as “it’s all going to be gone in the next 5 or 10 years” (0:33). He then uses images of reconstructed sea ice as ‘proof’. He’s not being rational about it. If he was, he’d say: “this is just a possibility, but we should all be concerned. Even if the models are right a complete melt by 2100 is still a pretty big problem!” (OK, such low speech writing standards wouldn’t have got him to where he is now, but you get the picture).
On the subject of publicising the impacts of climate change, I don’t think using such pictures does anything. I’m not trying to be funny, but during times of ideal conditions for these animals, individuals still die of starvation etc, so it doesn’t show anything, and I think people realise that (If they don’t, the sceptics will and will tell them!). All it does is increase the perception that there is a lack of data to back up the theory of man-made climate change.
What should be happening is a clear and objective look at the data by those reporting the issues surrounding climate change, including by journalists and pressure groups. Climate science needs to maintain credibility in the public eye, and this is only possible when those who report it have an attitude of sobriety and objectivity. It’s my honest opinion that if ‘thought out’ predictions (eg model forecasts) are reported well then many will listen. It’s not like the actual forecasts aren’t scary enough! Keeping an atmosphere of rationality around reporting will, in my opinion, add to the impact when climate change impacts and forecasts are reported. I don’t think it’s necessary to lower the science to the same level as that being used by the sceptics. The argument for man-made climate change has rationality and empirical data on its side, and those are two things that are pretty powerful.
On an unrelated note, the comment timings explain why I can’t remember having a ‘late night debate’! There I was thinking it was my terrible memory…