Communicating Climate Change (and other issues)

[donsutherland1]

As the topic arose in the Arctic sea ice extent thread, I thought I would start a separate thread on that topic. There was a piece published in Nature that dealt with that topic, highlighting a potentially major barrier to broad public consensus.

Excerpts:

Social-science research indicates that people with different cultural values — individualists compared with egalitarians, for example — disagree sharply about how serious a threat climate change is. People with different values draw different inferences from the same evidence. Present them with a PhD scientist who is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, for example, and they will disagree on whether he really is an ‘expert’, depending on whether his view matches the dominant view of their cultural group...

For members of the public, being right or wrong about climate- change science will have no impact. Nothing they do as individual consumers or as individual voters will meaningfully affect the risks posed by climate change. Yet the impact of taking a position that conflicts with their cultural group could be disastrous...

People acquire their scientific knowledge by consulting others who share their values and whom they therefore trust and understand. Usually, this strategy works just fine. We live in a science-communication environment richly stocked with accessible, consequential facts. As a result, groups with different values routinely converge on the best evidence for, say, the value of adding fluoride to water, or the harmlessness of mobile-phone radiation. The trouble starts when this communication environment fills up with toxic partisan meanings — ones that effectively announce that ‘if you are one of us, believe this; otherwise, we’ll know you are one of them’.

http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166

[donsutherland1]

Another piece that likely provides insight was published in the March 2003 edition of Harvard Business Review. Some excerpts:

Extensive research has shown that the way we process information is subject to a slew of flaws--scholars call them cognitive biases, that can lead us to ignore or underestimate approaching disasters. Here are a few of the most common:

- We tend to harbor illusions that things are better than they really are...

- We give great weight to evidence that supports our preconceptions and discount evidence that calls those preconceptions into question...

- We are creatures of the present. We try to maintain the status quo while downplaying the importance of the future, which undermines our motivation and courage to act now to prevent some distant disaster. We'd rather avoid a little pain today than a lot of pain tomorrow.

- Most of us don't feel compelled to prevent a problem that we have not personally experienced or that has not been made real to us through pictures or other vivid information...

All of these biases share something in common: They are self-serving. We tend to see the world as we'd like to rather than as it truly is.

Source: Michael D. Watkins and Max H. Bazerman, "Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming," Harvard Business Review, March 2003, p.73.

Stepping back from climate change, if one examines other big issues from recent years, ranging from the long-term fiscal challenges confronting the U.S. to perceptions concerning the state of affairs in Afghanistan across two Administrations, one finds these cognitive biases at work.

It should be noted that a tendency to see things as worse than they are exists among a smaller group. That outlook typically plays out in exaggerated pessimism and sometimes fatalism. Unfortunately, the climate change debate has not been immune from that aspect. For example, one scientist forecast nearly ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2012 from extrapolating an accelerated rate of summer ice extent decline based on the 2007 melt.

That failed prediction is now relentlessly exploited by the other side to attack the credibility of climate science, even as the basic foundation is strong albeit with some uncertainties, and ironically even as Arctic sea ice extent and area are likely to set new record lows. What does the public, which has typically not followed climate-related issues all that closely come away with? The prediction was badly incorrect. The implicit assumption is a lack of confidence in aspects of AGW where the level of scientific understanding is high. All of this, of course feeds back into the political realm, where policy makers must balance interests and in a democratic society where policy can only be sustainable for the long-term if there is a sufficiently broad consensus.

[donsutherland1]

In recent days, the last records concerning minimum Arctic ice extent and area fell. JAXA saw extent fall below 4.1 million square kilometers by 8/26. NSIDC reported its first figure just below 4.0 million square kilometers. CT reported a record low area of 2.643 million square kilometers. All major data sources indicated a record low minimum area and extent had been established.

Any objective analysis based on the data would then conclude that 2012 had the lowest Arctic ice minimum on record since regular record keeping began. Moreover, assuming the reconstructions are accurate, there would be a possibility that 2012 had the lowest figures since near or during the Holocene Climate Optimum (the Thermal Maximum years).

Not exactly. When it comes to Arctic ice, given the connection that climate scientists have made between AGW and Arctic Amplification, objectivity has been cast aside. At least one blogger has attempted to construct an alternate reality. In that illusory melt season, the ice is still there. In fact, in that alternate reality, ice extent is still 28% above the 2007 minimum (which would put it close to 5.5 million square kilometers).

In order to close the gap between the data and alternate reality, some kind of explanation that can at least be perceived as having merit must be provided. As the general public lacks expertise when it comes to the detailed mechanisms by which ice estimates are obtained, the invented scenario is based on an attack on the data. This time, because visible evidence is available via satellite pictures, simple claims that the data are "manipulated" that one sees with respect to the temperature record won't suffice. Hence, the blogger takes a creative approach. He claims that the ice is still there, but that the recent Arctic storm rendered it invisible to the satellites.

Excerpts:

Passive microwave measurements are missing vast areas of ice, because an early winter storm broke the ice up into chunks which the satellites are unable to detect.

If one goes to NSIDC's website, a more balanced explanation of the limitations of the passive microwave system is provided and there are both risks of overstating and understating the ice, but the year-to-year record is reliable. Some excerpts:

One reason that ice extent images may have errors is that the satellite derived images in our Daily Image Update are near-real time and have not yet undergone rigorous quality control to correct for conflicting information that is especially likely along coastlines. Areas near land may show some ice coverage where there is not any because the sensor’s resolution is not fine enough to distinguish ice from land when a pixel overlaps the coast. Sometimes, the data we receive have errors in the geolocation data, caused by problems with the instrument, which could affect where ice appears. Near-real-time data may also have areas of missing data, displayed on the daily map as gray wedges, speckles, or spider web patterns. In addition, satellite sensors occasionally have problems and outages, which can affect the near-real-time data. We correct these problems in the final sea ice products, which replace the near-real-time data in about six months to a year...

Another reason for apparent errors in ice extent is that the data are averaged over an area of 25 kilometers by 25 kilometers (16 by 16 miles). This means that the ice edge could be off by as much as 25 to 50 kilometers (16 to 31 miles) in passive-microwave data, compared to higher-resolution satellite systems. In addition, we define ice extent as any 25 by 25 kilometer grid cell with with an average of at least 15 percent ice. Ice-free areas may nevertheless exist within an area that is defined by our algorithms as ice covered...

Passive microwave data may show ice where none actually exists due to signal variation between land and water along coastlines, or because of atmospheric interference from rain or high winds over the ice-free ocean.

Reasons that passive microwave data may not detect ice include the presence of thin, newly formed ice; the shift in albedo of actively melting ice; and atmospheric interference. Thin, newly formed ice is consistently underestimated by these data. Centers such as the U.S. National Ice Center and the Canadian Ice Service that publish sea ice data for navigation employ higher spatial resolution data that is better able to detect such thin ice. Despite the limitations in passive microwave data, they still yield good large-scale estimates for the overall extent pattern and values of the ice. Plus, the limitations are consistent, affecting the data this year in the same way they have affected it in previous years. So when comparing from year to year, these types of errors do not affect the comparison.

Attacks on the credibility of data are a common approach that has been utilized to evade the conclusions that would normally flow from the data. Hence, effective communication of the message on Arctic sea ice should be accompanied with a brief explanation of the strenghts and weaknesses of the passive microwave system, as well as the reason the system is, overall, reliable in providing reasonable estimates. The language underlined from above is particularly useful and should be disseminated to the public and media. Failure to do so can create an opportunity for revisionists to construct alternate realities that exploit the lack of public understanding of the overall reliability of the measurements.

[dabize]

Sometimes a picture is worth a lot of words

to me, this just doesn't seem like a lot of ice.........

[FloridaJohn]

As the general public lacks expertise when it comes to the detailed mechanisms by which ice estimates are obtained

I think the greater problem is that the general public lacks a basic science education that allows them to be easily manipulated by things that "sound right."

[Msalgado]

I think the greater problem is that the general public lacks a basic science education that allows them to be easily manipulated by things that "sound right."

I don't think a basic science education is going to help the public understand a complex climate system in detail. I do think that people are easily manipulated, but I don't think that has to do with a basic science education as the people I see with far more complex educations still have a hard time getting a full grasp on what is going on with climate change outside of the earth exhibiting a greater energy budget in general.

In fact, I would argue that attempts to over simplify the issue work against others understanding it. For example, the picture in the post above yours. An image out of context is a gross over simplification and is one way that those who are arguing against climate change make their point. I could easily post a picture of an extremely snowy day in an effort to say that climate change is not causing the Earth to warm and to a layman how would they know not to believe it?

Arguments need to be rational and placed into the proper context. They should be devoid of emotional rhetoric for sure. They should only predict what we known is likely to occur and not make too many statements about situations we feel are plausible but not necessarily well understood. We often make things worse by overreaching on what we can prove and when that is done the public loses valuable confidence in the ability of scientists to accurately project climate change.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't think a basic science education is going to help the public understand a complex climate system in detail. I do think that people are easily manipulated, but I don't think that has to do with a basic science education as the people I see with far more complex educations still have a hard time getting a full grasp on what is going on with climate change outside of the earth exhibiting a greater energy budget in general.

In fact, I would argue that attempts to over simplify the issue work against others understanding it. For example, the picture in the post above yours. An image out of context is a gross over simplification and is one way that those who are arguing against climate change make their point. I could easily post a picture of an extremely snowy day in an effort to say that climate change is not causing the Earth to warm and to a layman how would they know not to believe it?

Arguments need to be rational and placed into the proper context. They should be devoid of emotional rhetoric for sure. They should only predict what we known is likely to occur and not make too many statements about situations we feel are plausible but not necessarily well understood. We often make things worse by overreaching on what we can prove and when that is done the public loses valuable confidence in the ability of scientists to accurately project climate change.

National and foreign policy are going to be influenced by climate change, and unfortunately, that means that politics by default are wrapped into the debate. Those aiming for the most radical changes compared to the status quo are likely to paint a radical picture when discussing climate change. Those wanting the least radical change are more likely to paint a much less drastic picture of climate change.

Thus, we can see two very distinct interpretations of the same data...even in peer reviewed literature. Its very hard to not be biased in some way. But unfortunately, I think the biases are probably going to be amplified more than normal because of this unique relationship that climate change has developed with politics.

There's an inherent level of uncertainty in climate change in the peer reviewed literature that covers a wide range of outcomes from very managable to quite dire.

[rygar]

One thing is clear, the public shouldn't rely on general internet forum's to learn about the science and debate the causes! This place has degraded into childish name calling every other post. Thank goodness for the ignore feature, it makes it readable at least. Here (and everywhere else too) the good discussion is overshadowed by nonsense and extreme positions by both sides.

Will - any blog features that aren't turned on for this board? Would love to see a series of good discussions with the cool-headed posters such as yourself and Don (and a handful of others) that can't be cluttered up by the masses.

[TerryM]

A new study from Australia may identify part of the problem.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Take away message. -Conspiracy aficionados don't believe in AGW.

"This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to

the rejection of science"

Terry

[donsutherland1]

Thanks for sharing the paper, Terry. It is an interesting study and some of its findings related to the embrace of conspiracy theories can be seen in abundance on some of the blogs that dispute climate change. Particularly relevant is the following text from the study:

Conspiracist ideation is, by definition, difficult to correct because any evidence contrary to the conspiracy is itself considered evidence of its existence... Thus, increasing global temperatures are reinterpreted as being the result of "government agencies" selectively removing thermometers that show a cooling trend and retaining only those that show the "desired" warming trend.

If one looks at some of the blogs that regularly and loudly dispute the existence of climate change one finds such arguments and distrust of science/government time and again. Examples include arguments that:

1. The temperature record cannot be relied upon because the readings have been "manipulated" [to suit the AGW agenda]; raw data containing substantial errors related to time of observation, among others, is used as "proof" that the temperature record that shows the warming is unreliable and that it has been manipulated to show just that outcome.

2. There is no energy imbalance (which would lead to heating under the fundamental laws of physics), even as the data show rising OHC.

3. Arctic sea ice is much greater than the reports and data show and that the JAXA and NSIDC data, among other sources, are "missing" a lot of ice.

4. Isaac was a "non-hurricane" and made landfall as a tropical storm with 45 mph maximum sustained winds contrary to NHC advisories [NOAA and its entities cannot be relied upon for accurate information].

5. 'There's nothing new under the sun,' a paradigm under which it is postulated that because natural causes led to a certain outcome in the past, only natural causes can lead to a similar outcome at present or in the future. That high CO2 was connected to warmth in the geological past and the only the mechanism responsible for the contemporary imbalance differs from the past (human activities have led to emissions exceeding absorption) is ignored, because the paradigm will only allow a natural mechanism that predates humanity to create the imbalance.

6. CO2 makes up such a small concentration of the atmosphere that it has no meaningful impact [despite its properties in trapping heat].

Perhaps not coincidentally, one can also find commentary related to the "Birther" conspiracy theory on a number of such blogs, including Steven Goddard's "Real Science" blog and another blog called "Climate Ponderings." Another blog contains an elaborate conspiracy theory that purports to "tie" the so-called climategate matter to a totalitarian plot of world leaders.

Because conspiracy theories require a suspension of logic and rely largely on belief not evidence and, worse as the paper noted, evidence to the contrary is perceived as evidence of existence, they are difficult to counter. A communications strategy targeted at those who subscribe to conspiracy theories is not likely to realize high marginal returns. A better approach might entail trying to innoculate the general public against conspiracy theories to increase the prospects that the climate issue (and other societal or economic issues) can be analyzed in a reasonably objective, evidence-based fashion.

Finally, the study also provides linkage between an embrace of laissez faire economics and rejection of the climate science (due largely to the fear of regulation). Most economists believe that market-based economies provide the best mechanism for growth, prosperity, and increased living standards (albeit a market-oriented, but not pure laissez faire approach). That consensus can be leveraged in framing the climate change message in familiar economic concepts as pricing, opportunity costs, externalities, innovation, and the possible role markets can play in the design and implementation of solutions. Communication that dispels the myth that climate science and market economics are mutually exclusive could probably be eroded, as the field of economics is not rooted mainly/largely in belief in defiance of the empirical evidence. To be sure, there will very likely be a smaller segment of the population for whom belief trumps evidence when it comes to economic perceptions (one candidate group would be those who hold sinister views of the Fed's deliberately engineering economic crises, a conspiracy theory in and of itself).

In sum, an effective communication strategy should be focused on the broad segment of the population where the marginal returns would be highest. That would entail innoculation against popular conspiracy theories used to push back against climate science. It would also entail undermining the myth that climate science/climate solutions and market economies are incompatible.

[ben4vols]

In sum, an effective communication strategy should be focused on the broad segment of the population where the marginal returns would be highest. That would entail innoculation against popular conspiracy theories used to push back against climate science. It would also entail undermining the myth that climate science/climate solutions and market economies are incompatible.

Quite honestly the deck is stacked in your favor and your side still can't effectively communicate? It may be time to look at the message and not how and to whom it is being delivered.

[TerryM]

Don

I've spent most of my life trying to understand what motivates most people, with little success. I like the analytical side and can bombard the opposition with facts, but motivating someone to change a long held belief usually eludes me. It's nice to be proven right, but I'd protested the Vietnam war saying it couldn't be won, protested both attacks against Saddam and watched the carnage that ensued. More recently I campaigned against the Neo-Cons that have taken over in Canada, to little avail.

It sounds as though we're up against the same people and I have little expectation of success.

Terry

[TerryM]

Don

I've spent most of my life trying to understand what motivates most people, with little success. I like the analytical side and can bombard the opposition with facts, but motivating someone to change a long held belief usually eludes me. It's nice to be proven right, but I'd protested the Vietnam war saying it couldn't be won, protested both attacks against Saddam and watched the carnage that ensued. More recently I campaigned against the Neo-Cons that have taken over in Canada, to little avail.

It sounds as though we're up against the same people and I have little expectation of success.

Terry

[WeatherRusty]

Quite honestly the deck is stacked in your favor and your side still can't effectively communicate? It may be time to look at the message and not how and to whom it is being delivered.

Just because people wired to think the way you do can deny or comfortably ignore the science is no reason to expect others to do the same. The scientific message is clear and the threat is real. Realist can not arbitrarily "look at the message" just because we don't like what it says, or that addressing it may be inconvenient.

For you and folks like you, the message is a fraud to be easily dismissed.

Mitt Romney, last night in his speech, took the opportunity to throw a punch at science and those concerned with environmental degradation when he essentially said the creation of jobs trumps the effort to "slow sea level rise and save the planet". He ridiculed President Obama and others by suggesting our effort is trivial and foolish in these supposed hard economic times where the only thing of importance should be job creation.

Addressing climate change is in no way incompatible with a vigorous economy. However, certain entities would like us all to believe such is the case and they have an entire political party pitting the economy versus the environment. We can and must strive to have both a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

The economic model which demands endless growth fueled largely by fossil fuels is incomparable with the environment and ecological principles. If we don't advance and change the way we pursue prosperity to one of sustainability, nature stands ready to impose an impenetrable road block. The sad thing is we are taking the much of the biosphere down with us.

[dabize]

Don

I've spent most of my life trying to understand what motivates most people, with little success. I like the analytical side and can bombard the opposition with facts, but motivating someone to change a long held belief usually eludes me. It's nice to be proven right, but I'd protested the Vietnam war saying it couldn't be won, protested both attacks against Saddam and watched the carnage that ensued. More recently I campaigned against the Neo-Cons that have taken over in Canada, to little avail.

It sounds as though we're up against the same people and I have little expectation of success.

Terry

Terry and Don,

We are all fighting the mental circuitry that permits us to follow a leader blindly, rejecting new data unless it has been vetted by trusted authority.

This worked great in the Pleistocene (depending on the leader, of course). Now, not so much.

It takes monumentally bad leadership and visible carnage to shake loose of this, but it happens.

After 3 years of the generalship of Joffre, Haig and Mangin (le Boucher), members of the French army started bleating (literally) at the generals who sent them over the top to certain death and mutinied in the late spring of 1917. This was hushed up so the Brits could serve as cannon fodder at Passchendaele, but they too became unwilling to fight. If it weren't for Foch, the tank, the Australians under Monash (and the Canadians), plus the 1918 flu and the threat of the Americans, its hard to know how all of that would have ended.

And of course, there is Vietnam...........

The people will stop following these (*&^&()*s when they start really getting hurt by AGW.

We must constantly document the link between the FF economy and the new climate.

That is really all we can do.

[ben4vols]

Just because people wired to think the way you do can deny or comfortably ignore the science is no reason to expect others to do the same. The scientific message is clear and the threat is real. Realist can not arbitrarily "look at the message" just because we don't like what it says, or that addressing it may be inconvenient.

For you and folks like you, the message is a fraud to be easily dismissed.

The science itself, in general, isn't a fraud but it also isn't "clear" and the threat isn't as "real" as you make it out to be. I think it is used fraudulently at times by those in more powerful positions. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Is it not true that the science of AGW has been used fraudulently at times by those who support and push it? For you and folks who think like you, the scientific message is not as clear as you want to believe. If it were it would not be so hard to get the message out, with the deck stacked largely in your favor.

[dabize]

The science itself, in general, isn't a fraud but it also isn't "clear" and the threat isn't as "real" as you make it out to be. I think it is used fraudulently at times by those in more powerful positions. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Is it not true that the science of AGW has been used fraudulently at times by those who support and push it? For you and folks who think like you, the scientific message is not as clear as you want to believe. If it were it would not be so hard to get the message out, with the deck stacked largely in your favor.

This is a relentlessly biased take of the situation. Particularly the bolded statement. The science of AGW has been remarkably free of this, mainly because there is no money to be had for doing it, but also because of the professionalism of the scientists involved. The IPCC reports are consensus reports and have been wrong about AGW - but in the opposite direction - largely due to the fear of political MauMau-ing. Their conservatism was unwise - it didn't protect them (they got MauMaued anyway) and it allowed people who are bent on NOT seeing the facts say what you just said.

Take home: the science of AGW is about as clear as science ever gets on the key issues, which are the scope and urgency of the problem. The details are still hard to resolve, but this is always true for a problem as complex as climate and they don't matter.

How would you like it if your doctor took a biopsy from your abnormal growth and pronounced:

Yes, there is abnormal cell growth that could be indicative of cancer. But it could just be in the cells we took out. We'll just have to wait until the liver lungs and brain show signs of this before we can be sure. See you next year!

[ben4vols]

This is a relentlessly biased take of the situation. Particularly the bolded statement. The science of AGW has been remarkably free of this, mainly because there is no money to be had for doing it, but also because of the professionalism of the scientists involved.

Sorry, I started laughing after the "there is no money to be had for doing it". Yet my take was biased? I think you need to come back to reality.

[WeatherRusty]

The science itself, in general, isn't a fraud but it also isn't "clear" and the threat isn't as "real" as you make it out to be. I think it is used fraudulently at times by those in more powerful positions. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? Is it not true that the science of AGW has been used fraudulently at times by those who support and push it? For you and folks who think like you, the scientific message is not as clear as you want to believe. If it were it would not be so hard to get the message out, with the deck stacked largely in your favor.

What is clear and real, based on the science that you just said is not a fraud, is that the climate is warming and mankind's activities assure us that the warming will continue. Where this ultimately takes us is subject to uncertainty, with the scientifically supported potential for serious global consequence strongly evident in the paleoclimate record. A world 3C warmer than the past century will be one well outside the environment adapted to by the current biosphere and human condition.

Adding that to overpopulation and resource depletion, we have a recipe for disaster over the coming decades and centuries. People who think GOD or destiny will save us from ecologically induced suicide are denying or are ignorant of the ways life works on this planet.

Now call me crazy.

[dabize]

Sorry, I started laughing after the "there is no money to be had for doing it". Yet my take was biased? I think you need to come back to reality.

Reminds me of what a 1920s preacher once wrote in the margin of their sermon:

Argument weak: .....SHOUT!

[TerryM]

I remember a lady chasing a reporter (Peter Arnett?) down a nice suburban avenue in Bagdad, screaming that the US couldn't do this, that "We are not Indians" as the bombs were beginning to fall in '91.

People get used to the idea that they will die from old age and have trouble grappling with a new reality that says most will die from bombing, urban violence, volcanic explosions, plague, or the effects of global warming.

I think I envy their inability to look forward realistically. I'd rather have been worrying about the kids homework assignments in Hiroshima, or the market for fine porcelain in Dresden than considering what was to come.

Terry

[rygar]

This is only indirectly related, but another communication issue can be found in the general media. I read a BBC article this weekend (on my phone so don't have the link) about the hantavirus outbreak in Yosemite. The article ended with, and I am paraphrasing, "with humans attacking the earth through global warming, it is humbling to know the earth can attack back at any time."

It's preposterous of course, but the real damage is falsely linking AGW to so many other stories. It turns people off and they tune out.

[Msalgado]

I remember a lady chasing a reporter (Peter Arnett?) down a nice suburban avenue in Bagdad, screaming that the US couldn't do this, that "We are not Indians" as the bombs were beginning to fall in '91.

People get used to the idea that they will die from old age and have trouble grappling with a new reality that says most will die from bombing, urban violence, volcanic explosions, plague, or the effects of global warming.

I think I envy their inability to look forward realistically. I'd rather have been worrying about the kids homework assignments in Hiroshima, or the market for fine porcelain in Dresden than considering what was to come.

Terry

I hope while you typed this you had your arm draped over your face dramatically. Would add so much to the effective communication you have mastered.

Introspection is highly needed in this thread.

[Msalgado]

I'll give you the perfect example of how much climate change communication is an utter and complete failure.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-dot-s-dot-belief-in-climate-change-to-70-percent

The level of acceptance of climate change is directly related to the amount of extreme weather in the news. Although I am unable to find any polls to back this up; I highly suspect that if you asked the general public what to expect out of climate change regarding sea level rise then a great deal of them would paint a picture of cities like NYC underwater. How many do you think would actually say "1m over the next 100 years"? Very few would be able to give you an accurate portrayal because the accurate prediction is not what has been communicated. For better or for worse, proper expectations have not been set and this will only serve to undermine.

[donsutherland1]

Another communication issue concerns combatting the selective use of outlying data to represent a situation e.g., the state of the Arctic sea ice extent.

For example, even as Arctic sea ice extent reached a new record low on 9/5 (JAXA), Joe Bastardi tweeted:

"rapid rebound in sea ice confirms theory that low amount was because of storm causing abnormal min #dramatic-1 week!"

He cited maps from DMI to make his case. However, those maps are an outlier. The consensus in data is that the ice has fallen notably since 8/27. Some examples:

Cryosphere Today (ice area): -206,030 square kilometers (through 9/4)

JAXA (ice extent): -385,625 square kilometers

MASIE (ice extent): -802,637 square kilometers *** combines multiple instruments & human analysis ***

NSIDC (ice extent): -343,110 square kilometers

All four measures were at record lows on their date of last reading. It is improbable that any of those instruments had such a large rebound on 9/6 or 9/5-6 to wipe out their decline since 8/27. The kind of rebound that would be required would be unprecedented for those instruments for those dates.

[dabize]

Another communication issue concerns combatting the selective use of outlying data to represent a situation e.g., the state of the Arctic sea ice extent.

For example, even as Arctic sea ice extent reached a new record low on 9/5 (JAXA), Joe Bastardi tweeted:

"rapid rebound in sea ice confirms theory that low amount was because of storm causing abnormal min #dramatic-1 week!"

He cited maps from DMI to make his case. However, those maps are an outlier. The consensus in data is that the ice has fallen notably since 8/27. Some examples:

Cryosphere Today (ice area): 206,030 square kilometers (through 9/4)

JAXA (ice extent): -385,625 square kilometers

MASIE (ice extent): -715,154 square kilometers (through 9/4) *** combines multiple instruments & human analysis ***

NSIDC (ice extent): -290,080 square kilometers (through 9/4)

All four measures were at record lows on their date of last reading. It is improbable that any of those instruments had such a large rebound on 9/6 or 9/5-6 to wipe out their decline since 8/27. The kind of rebound that would be required would be unprecedented for those instruments for those dates.

Both Stalin and Godwin (not to mention Karl Rove) proved last century that the Big Lie works. The Denialisti know this too. As you show here, usually they benefit from the natural existence of outlier values that attend measurements of complex variables, such as SIE/A, and can also count on the scientific illiteracy of their audiences. That said, Joe Bastardi would have found a way to get/create such numbers had DMI not kindly provided them.

[donsutherland1]

That said, Joe Bastardi would have found a way to get/create such numbers had DMI not kindly provided them.

Dabize,

Sadly, the above point appears to show what may have happened:

1. The maps linked to JB's tweet are not ice extent or area maps.

2. They are SST maps (http://ocean.dmi.dk/...te/index.uk.php).

3. They appear only to have relevance to ice, because JB cropped off the SST key at the bottom of the maps.

4. DMI's ice concentration maps are consistent with maps produced by other agencies and do not match the white on the SST maps: http://ocean.dmi.dk/...im/index.uk.php

In short, JB extrapolated Arctic sea ice extent using the the wrong DMI product.

[TerryM]

Is it possible that we should unleash, if not the dogs of war, at least the rhetoric that seems to precede every campaign.

Prior to all the wars that I'm familiar with was an overly hyped assessment of the danger of doing nothing, from dominoes falling in South East Asia to Saddam being the next Hitler, bent on overthrowing the world. These campaigns, however odious they seem in hindsight were effective at stirring the public's imagination. None could stand any scrutiny at all, but all became believed widely enough that politicians had no qualms about facing the electorate after voting to engage in actions that would be at the minimum vastly expensive, and that couldn't possibly have any direct benefit for anyone not involved in the arms industry.

The dangers we face are real, not imagined, but if we restrict ourselves to talking only about scenarios that are withing 95% confidence levels, we will lose the propaganda war. That these claims will be ridiculed as alarmist, not mainstream science, or simply false is OK because these terms are already being applied to the reality based observations.

I suppose what I'm proposing is that since we've already got the name, why not play the game.

Terry

[dabize]

Is it possible that we should unleash, if not the dogs of war, at least the rhetoric that seems to precede every campaign.

Prior to all the wars that I'm familiar with was an overly hyped assessment of the danger of doing nothing, from dominoes falling in South East Asia to Saddam being the next Hitler, bent on overthrowing the world. These campaigns, however odious they seem in hindsight were effective at stirring the public's imagination. None could stand any scrutiny at all, but all became believed widely enough that politicians had no qualms about facing the electorate after voting to engage in actions that would be at the minimum vastly expensive, and that couldn't possibly have any direct benefit for anyone not involved in the arms industry.

The dangers we face are real, not imagined, but if we restrict ourselves to talking only about scenarios that are withing 95% confidence levels, we will lose the propaganda war. That these claims will be ridiculed as alarmist, not mainstream science, or simply false is OK because these terms are already being applied to the reality based observations.

I suppose what I'm proposing is that since we've already got the name, why not play the game.

Terry

Terry, when I was a kid, I actually bought the "Domino Theory" for a while before I read up on Vietnam enough to learn that it was not Korea.

Ironic, really, being in the position of selling the "dominoes are dangerous" side of a (politically very similar) argument.

So i know how well fear works with these things, even when it is not selling truth. Combine it with support from increasingly nasty local weather, and it can sell truth too................

[dabize]

Dabize,

Sadly, the above point appears to show what may have happened:

1. The maps linked to JB's tweet are not ice extent or area maps.

2. They are SST maps (http://ocean.dmi.dk/...te/index.uk.php).

3. They appear only to have relevance to ice, because JB cropped off the SST key at the bottom of the maps.

4. DMI's ice concentration maps are consistent with maps produced by other agencies and do not match the white on the SST maps: http://ocean.dmi.dk/...im/index.uk.php

In short, JB extrapolated Arctic sea ice extent using the the wrong DMI product.

Don - thanks for the info.

Just goes to show that there are some people for whom you CAN safely assume the worst. Bastardi is apparently one of them.