In brief
- The media often uses dramatic language like “extreme” and “unprecedented” in climate change reporting, which can skew public perception by focusing on worst-case scenarios.
- Reports on the North Atlantic’s temperature trends illustrate inconsistencies and complexities of climate science, with record highs followed by unexplained rapid cooling.
- Discrepancies in climate data may arise from the methods used for data collection as well as the inherent uncertainties in climate models.
The media skews public perception in trying to make headlines
The media’s portrayal of climate change often uses terms like “extreme,” “unprecedented,” and “astounding,” but these narratives may create a skewed perception of the situation.
For example, recent contrasting reports on the Atlantic’s temperature trends suggest a tendency to lean towards alarmism.
For over a year, the North Atlantic Ocean was described as “running a fever,” with sea surface temperatures hitting record highs. Reports from June 2024 depicted a marine heatwave with reports this would mean devastating stress to tropical reefs and premonitioning an exceptionally active hurricane season.
As an aside, the predicted reef damage is contra indicated by Australia’s Great Barrier Reef which is experiencing years of record growth despite temperatures reportedly at four century highs.
Returning to the Atlantic, by mid-August 2024, temperatures had dropped at a “record” rate by 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit to 1 degree below normal for this time of year. No clear explanation has emerged for the rapid cooling after a prolonged period of warmth.
A similar phenomenon has been reported regarding the Pacific ‘Cold tongue’ where equatorial waters have been inexplicably cooling for decades.
While the initial reports of the Atlantic’s extreme warming were framed in a way that highlighted worst-case scenarios, the subsequent cooling, however, upends this narrative. This illustrates that climate science is far from straightforward and often involves unexpected twists.
This isn’t to suggest that concerns about global warming are unfounded. However, while alarming headlines are effective in drawing attention to climate issues, when later contradicted by new data, they may fuel public scepticism.
Complexity of climate science
At the heart of these contradictory narratives is the inherent complexity of climate science filtered through sensationalist media looking to grab attention.
The concept of a global average temperature increase, for example, is derived from a complicated mix of data points from various regions and depths.
Regions such as the Arctic, Europe, the Mediterranean, and even New Zealand are all reported to be warming at rates far above the global average, leading to a sense of “climate crisis”.
When multiple regions are reported to be warming (or cooling) faster than this average, it raises questions about whether the global average is set correctly or if there are inconsistencies in how temperature data is collected and interpreted.
Ocean temperatures are influenced by numerous variables, including seasonal changes, ocean currents, and atmospheric conditions. Short-term anomalies, such as those caused by El Niño or La Niña events, can also skew temperature data.
Reliability and calculation issues
Climate models, commonplace in predicting future temperature trends, also have their limitations. These models rely on numerous assumptions and are inherently subject to uncertainties. For instance, the rapid warming observed in the Arctic has been shown to be an extremely rare event in climate model simulations.
Statistician William Briggs notes that nearly every region on Earth is reported to be warming faster than the global average. Simple maths tells us this is impossible. His findings, drawn from a review of government and news sources since 2020, illustrate how pervasive alarmism can be in climate reporting.
