5 ms·

How much confirmation bias is happening here? If things happen more than expected, would they get reported? The non-disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier

by jp57 5y ago

How much confirmation bias is happening here? If things happen more than expected, would they get reported? The non-disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier National Park[1] is one example I can think of. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-202... -- In 2020, Glacier National Park in Montana had to remove signs saying that the Glaciers would be gone by 2020, since the glaciers were still there.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
If only the glaciers could read, then maybe they would have listened.
- irrational 5y ago
  It’s like the lady wanting to know how the deer know how to read the deer crossing signs so they know where to cross.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Also like the 115 yo who has been drinking and smoking heavily for most of their life managing to live a long life because when they were young nobody knew those things were bad for you.
tejohnso 5y ago
> Instead, the new signs will say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking." Predicting a specific date limit for a specific area was probably not a great idea. Maybe someone wanted a photo-op. Disappointing. The point remains: faster-than-expected is going to depend on whose expectations you're talking about and at what time. But things are accelerating, and in the wrong direction. Also, some of the dozens of tipping points have likely already been triggered. According to the latest Global Glacier Change Bulletin[1] compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service: "The percentage of positive annual mass balances decreased from 28% in the 1980s to 9% (2017/18–2018/19), and there have been no more years with a positive mean balance for more than four decades. The melt rate and cumulative loss in glacier thickness continues to be extraordinary. Furthermore, the analysis of mean AAR values shows that the glaciers are in strong and increasing imbalance with the climate and hence will continue to lose mass even if climate remained stable (Mernild et al., 2013)." Another infamous too-early prediction is Maslowski's 2007 projection of an ice free arctic by 2016 +- 3yrs. There will always be too-early predictions out there. But whether we're EOL in 2 years, 20 years, or sometime within a millenial's lifetime, I think is the wrong thing to be focusing on. [1]: https://wgms.ch/ggcb/ https://wgms.ch/ggcb/
- jp57 5y ago
  So you're saying, yes. There is confirmation bias, and earlier-than-expected things will be reported more, while later-than-expected things are "the wrong thing to be focusing on."
  - tejohnso 5y ago
    Confirmation bias goes both ways, I'm not saying anything about how it might be affecting perceived report frequency. I'm saying a prediction about a specific timeline in years or decades is not important. Whether you're right that it was a few years or decades sooner than expected, or right that it was a few years or decades later than expected, doesn't really matter to me.

by jp57 5y ago

mensetmanusman 5y ago

If only the glaciers could read, then maybe they would have listened.

irrational 5y ago
It’s like the lady wanting to know how the deer know how to read the deer crossing signs so they know where to cross.
- webmaven 5y ago
  Also like the 115 yo who has been drinking and smoking heavily for most of their life managing to live a long life because when they were young nobody knew those things were bad for you.

tejohnso 5y ago

> Instead, the new signs will say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking." Predicting a specific date limit for a specific area was probably not a great idea. Maybe someone wanted a photo-op. Disappointing. The point remains: faster-than-expected is going to depend on whose expectations you're talking about and at what time. But things are accelerating, and in the wrong direction. Also, some of the dozens of tipping points have likely already been triggered. According to the latest Global Glacier Change Bulletin[1] compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service: "The percentage of positive annual mass balances decreased from 28% in the 1980s to 9% (2017/18–2018/19), and there have been no more years with a positive mean balance for more than four decades. The melt rate and cumulative loss in glacier thickness continues to be extraordinary. Furthermore, the analysis of mean AAR values shows that the glaciers are in strong and increasing imbalance with the climate and hence will continue to lose mass even if climate remained stable (Mernild et al., 2013)." Another infamous too-early prediction is Maslowski's 2007 projection of an ice free arctic by 2016 +- 3yrs. There will always be too-early predictions out there. But whether we're EOL in 2 years, 20 years, or sometime within a millenial's lifetime, I think is the wrong thing to be focusing on. [1]: https://wgms.ch/ggcb/ https://wgms.ch/ggcb/

jp57 5y ago
So you're saying, yes. There is confirmation bias, and earlier-than-expected things will be reported more, while later-than-expected things are "the wrong thing to be focusing on."
- tejohnso 5y ago
  Confirmation bias goes both ways, I'm not saying anything about how it might be affecting perceived report frequency. I'm saying a prediction about a specific timeline in years or decades is not important. Whether you're right that it was a few years or decades sooner than expected, or right that it was a few years or decades later than expected, doesn't really matter to me.