the ice shelf

Going to Antarctica in February 2011 made me fall in love with the kind of "frontier" we might lose if we do nothing about climate change.

[iceshelf]

How news images color our mental universe: a case in point

An exceptionally insightful article over at Robert Krulwich's blog. In the 1990s in Manitoba, a nature photographer took incredible pictures of a polar bear regularly engaging in playful fun with a bunch of husky dogs. The reaction of the public was visceral: people hated the images because they were convinced that this "play" could not be real - the polar bear was then perceived as a ferocious predator. Recently, twenty years later, the same images have been circulated to the public and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive: in other words, "awwww!". The images were interpreted as cute and adorable.

Why? Krulwich speculates that the reason is the overwhelming circulation of images of polar bears stranded on ever smaller ice floats, of polar bears as victims, in the last few years. It has transformed the attributes of a polar bear in our minds from predator to cute, endangered victim. And this is why we are much more liable to give credence to the good-natured play visible in the pictures. As Krulwich concludes:

(...) polar bears hadn't changed, but our sense of them had. By 2007, most people had seen scenes of weak, starving bears struggling to stay on shrinking hunks of melting ice. The earth was warming and polar bears had no place to go. Suddenly, they were vulnerable, heading to extinction. Animals, says Mooallem are "free-roaming Rorschachs." We see them through the heavy filter of our own feelings, our own needs. And our filter for polar bears had flipped.

[iceshelf]

responding to mental images

This NPR story is fascinating. From Joshua Greene’s website:

“My goal as a scientist, then, is to reveal our moral thinking for what it is: a complex hodgepodge of emotional responses and rational (re)constructions, shaped by both genetic and cultural influences, that do some things well and other things extremely poorly. My hope is that by understanding how we think, we can teach ourselves to think better, i.e. in ways that better serve the needs of humanity as a whole.”

A journal article published by Joshua Greene and his colleague can be found here.

[iceshelf]

TIME conveying the threat of climate change, 1987-2008

Let’s look at these covers one by one, from the top clockwise. The first cover, published on October 19, 1987, uses a photo illustration of the earth sphere, outlined by an ominous red and orange coat of gases, contained within a transparent greenhouse and floating on luscious heavenly clouds. Apart from being slightly contradictory (those clouds and that globe are vastly disproportionate), the visual aspect of this cover does not really convey the urgency or danger of the situation. Actually, it appears rather peaceful, the clouds providing a sort of “cushion” for our planet while the greenhouse seems to be “sheltering” it, like a modern temple. It is much less effective, at first glance, than the April 9, 2001 cover, assuming the goal is to attract attention and activate those fears of risk in the minds or readers which would compel them to buy the magazine in order to find out “what can be done” to avoid said risk. This cover uses the word “heat” as a Pavlovian bell, and it relies more on the semantic power of this word than on any part of the illustration. Indeed, the word “heat” itself, especially in the expression “The Heat is On”, conveys an image not only of strictly defined “high(er) temperature” but also, and perhaps more importantly, as defined in Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, of “pathological excessive bodily temperature” (conveying images of sickness), “the height or stress of an action or condition” (like the heat of battle), and, more remotely, “the intensification of law-enforcement activity or investigation” (as in Miami Heat). Besides the title, there are also two subtitles:

How the Earth’s Climate is Changing

Why The Ozone Hole is Growing

This issue of the magazine came out as an immediate follow-up to the opening for signature of the Montreal Protocol, one of the most heavily praised pieces of international environmental legislation, which effectively stopped the production of CFC’s and reduced the danger of a widening ozone hole.

The second cover is from TIME Magazine published on April 9, 2001. It displays the Earth as a sizzling egg yolk, presumably the egg white representing its “changing” atmosphere, and the skillet being…the universe, or, the cumulative effect of pollution which we have put out into the universe, now taking its revenge? Besides the title, “GLOBAL WARMING”, several subtitle alert-type messages are included:

Climbing temperatures.

Melting glaciers. Rising seas.

All over the earth we’re feeling the heat.

Why isn’t Washington?

It is worth noting that the overall cover also has a gradient going from bright red on the top down to yellow on the bottom, providing an “alert” and “danger” backdrop to the whole illustration. Interestingly, although this happens often with photos and illustration on TIME covers, the magazine title “TIME” is almost entirely obstructed by the illustration, so that if one didn’t know or hadn’t heard of this publication before, one wouldn’t necessarily be able to decipher the title. Perhaps this was intended as a subliminal message to those who are paying attention: When it comes to global warming, there is no “time” left for idle talk. This message is also reinforced by the subtitles mentioned above, which exude a sense of urgency and impatience towards government inaction.

In both this cover and the 1987 one where the earth sphere is represented, it is turned so that North and South America are the only visible continents. The authors of the photo illustrations may have assumed that this will bring the point closer to home. It is the humble opinion of this researcher that such subtleties no longer make a difference in drawing attention, as everybody has more or less accepted that we live in a “global village”.

The third cover, published on April 3, 2006, seems a bit desperate compared to the bold and clever visual statement of 2001. A cliche picture of a polar bear struggling to stay afloat amongst melting ice fragments is used as the visual “attractor”. Although polar bears are generally considered to be beautiful and majestic, if not cute, not many of us have actually seen one in real life, especially not in their own habitat, so the whole existence of this wild animal is quite remote from our day-to-day struggles and preoccupations. In addition, this image has been used to the point of saturation, triggering what Susan Moeller termed “compassion fatigue”, as it is both very depressing and completely stifling (what could one possibly do to help this polar bear in this picture? better not even think about it.) As if realizing that the visual element in this cover wasn’t going to make the cut, the editors peppered the cover with words. First, a warning in all caps: “Be worried. Be very worried.”, reminiscent of a summer thriller preview. Next, an entire plea-like paragraph begging readers for attention, almost disarming in its candor:

Climate change isn’t some vague future problem-it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well

Finally, as if these two varying strategies weren’t enough, a third series of alarming titles, referring to specific pieces within the magazine, are listed in all caps:

EARTH AT THE TIPPING POINT

HOW IT THREATENS YOUR HEALTH

HOW CHINA AND INDIA CAN HELP SAVE THE WORLD-OR DESTROY IT

THE CLIMATE CRUSADERS

Safe to say, this cover is as desperate as it is inefficient at conveying any concrete message. The first and foremost failure is a combination of visual and verbal cues which go in completely divergent directions (the polar bear’s struggle inspiring a sense of guilt towards the planet, while the phrases on the left are turned purely towards human self-interest?). Perhaps this was intended as a way of “covering the spectrum” of what might possibly appeal to reader’s emotions. Perhaps.

Lastly, the April 28, 2008 cover plays on the famously iconic photograph of raising the flag at Iwo Jima in 1945, by Joe Rosenthal.

It is also an image with particular resonance in the post 9/11 world, thanks to the icono-clone photograph by Thomas E. Franklin taken on 9/11, depicting NYFD firefighters attempting to raise a fallen US Flag among debris of the WTC. This time, for a special environmental issue, TIME magazine decided to turn its border and its title green, with the Iwo-Jima altered photograph on a plain white background, along with the title: “How to Win the War on Global Warming”. In the classic photo, the American flag has been replaced by a full-color pine tree, making the switch ever more conspicuous because of the clash of black-and-white and color, reminiscent of Pleasantville. The title evokes “war”, which is echoed by the picture, inextinguishably tied in the American psyche to war: first to World War II, then to the war on “terror” triggered by the disaster of 9/11. Now the editors want to imply that the danger represented by global warming is comparable to threats to US sovereignty such as the Axis powers in 1940-1945 or Al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist cells in present times. This amalgamation is en vogue considering the process of “securitization” of climate change, whereby the discourse of security and threats to international peace is interwoven with climate concerns, for example through the channel of energy policy. However, the key element here is the substitution of a flag, national symbol of unity and pride, with a tree – something belonging to nature, and therefore, to all the world’s peoples, in an equal measure. This substitution is both striking and challenging as it implies a kind of “global” patriotism, the fighting symbol of which would be a tree, which is called for in the face of climate change.

And in the seventies…

Let’s not forget this cover, from 1977, which warned readers of a looming “ice age” along with a list of “51 things” one could do, presumably, to warm up the earth (sic!). Whenever we puzzle at the reasons why audiences are so obtuse and unaffected by striking photo illustrations and ominous captions or titles, we should recall that visual memory is constructed and consolidated over decades, and the responses to visual cues are also. If we are told one thing in one decade, basically implying we will all soon be living like penguins, and the complete opposite the next, there is no wonder that apathy ensues and the response to visual stimuli of “cold” and “hot” is numbed.

Cover notes:

Greenhouse Effect – Time Cover October 19, 1987 – US Edition. Author unknown (help me out!)

Global Warming. – Time Cover April 9, 2001 – US Edition. Author unknown (help me out!)

Global Warming. Be worried, Be Very Worried. – Time Cover April 3, 2006 – US Edition. Photo by ARCTICNET-NCE

How to Win the War on Global Warming – Time Cover April 28, 2008 – US Edition. Illustration by Arthur Hochstein

[iceshelf]

Images and climate change salience & self-efficacy

This article on The Guardian website sums up a new research paper (attached) by researchers from the US, UK and Australia, entitled “On the use of imagery for climate change engagement”, which studies how images of climate change impacts, possible energy futures, and celebrities or politicians engaged in raising climate change awareness actually impact viewers’ levels of confidence in the notion that “something can be done”. It’s a great read! Here are some key take-aways and ideas about where to go on from now, following this much needed research on the effects of visual climate change communication.

The method used by this study is very interesting – called Q methodology. I had never heard of it before. The researchers established 40 images related to climate change based on a content analysis of news articles published in 2010 in US, UK and Australian newspapers. They then asked participants to sort the pictures on a physical grid in both the “salience” and “self-efficacy” categories. They also interviewed the participants about their reasoning behind the sort. Sounds like a great way to study people’s reaction to images! However, one must wonder whether presenting the pictures all in the same size (postcard format) on a grid without the accompanying headlines or captions, and without the context of publication (was the image a 2 col buried on page A13 or did it take up the entire front page?) does not skew how people would actually react to news images.

Results

images of climate change impacts increase the salience response (people who see images of polar bears or cracked earth agree that climate change is “important” but make people feel helpless in the face of it

images of high-profile actors tied in one way to another to climate change make the audience feel it is not a salient issue

images representing alternative energy futures and sustainable housing increased people’s feelings of self-efficacy, but pictures of lifestyle changes (such as not eating red meat or flying less) increased these feelings to a lesser degree

Most importantly, the researchers found that while images can be used to promote the importance of climate change or to make people feel like they can do something about it, they can rarely do both at the same time.

[iceshelf]

The World Bank makes an infographic

What do you think about the effectiveness of this infographic? To me, it appears that many of the elements on this graphic suffer from a typical flaw when wordsmiths try to represent something visually: words are placed on a two-dimensional space, such as a map, without in any way enhancing our understanding. For example, the crop symbol placed in the middle of the Atlantic ocean with the title “There would be larger impacts on agriculture and ecosystems.” is not visual in the sense that it presents information in such a way that it can be visually processed by the brain, ie. not by that part which simply reads linear texts and interprets them. The same observation goes for the other round symbol with a thermometer, warning that “Sea level rise is likely to be 15-20% higher in the tropics than the global mean.” Overall, the use of symbols and pictograms in this infographic is clumsy at best. Wouldn’t you agree?

Click image to see full size.

[iceshelf]

World Press Photo honored a picture directly tied to climate change

This American photographer, honored by World Press Photo 2012 with a first prize in the Nature singles category for her photograph of a polar bear trying to feed on seabird eggs, is particularly concerned about climate change.

I found this statement of hers especially interesting:

I’m particularly concerned about global climate change, and specifically the transformation of the Arctic that’s occurring as a result of the rapidly rising temperatures. There’s an enormous gap between what is known about climate change scientifically and what is understood by this tremendously important, really crucial issue by the public and by policymakers.In my work, I’m trying to bridge that gap.

One of the jury members, Joel Sartore, observed that this photograph was not only beautiful but also showed “new behavior, driven by climate change, that, as far as we know, had not been photographed before”.

Ross is also known for horrific images of a polar bear eating another polar bear (type in Jenny Ross polar bear into Google Images and you’ll see what I mean), pictures for which her credibility and that of media organizations publicizing her work have come under harsh criticism, for example from this Telegraph reporter.

[iceshelf]

Facepalm, anyone?

Volume of searches on "Miley Cyrus" in the US compared to searches for "Climate Change". With all the news stories on the IPCC's latest ground breaking report, let us not forget what the public really cares about.

[iceshelf]

Visit Original Link

NPR story about why the ice age retreated. Also, which came first in the Antarctic, warming or CO2? Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150000446/shake-it-off-earth-s-wobble-may-have-ended-ice-age

[iceshelf]

A recent paper where I discuss the moral implications of going to Antarctica for no other reason than to see it.

[iceshelf]

This USGS site lets you download your own selected area of Antarctica.

[iceshelf]

I remember my own Antarctic cruise in February of last year, and indeed we were asked to abide by the IAATO rules (wearing protective pants and a parka, as well as overshoes). However, whenever we would disembark to visit an island or a small area of land (such as Neko Harbor), inevitably somebody would drop a tissue or leave something behind. The point of this is that even people with the best intentions are going to do damage to this place by going to visit it.

[iceshelf]

Please take thirty seconds to sign the petition which will help preserve the amazing biodiversity of the Ross Sea.

Photograph by John Weller.

[iceshelf]

NASA | Flying Through the Rift (by NASAexplorer)

[iceshelf]

The Land of Beyond

Nothing is the same after having seen this place. No petty thing in the small-scaled human world could possibly be of major importance in the eyes of someone who has set foot in Neko Harbor on the Antarctic continent and looked over that vast expanse of seemingly limited yet still uncountable different colors. Antarctica is not white. It is green and red from the lykens in the snow. It is whatever the sun chooses to color it with when it rises and sets. It is all shades of gray in the rock and mountainside, and sometimes it is black from volcanic ash. And above anything, it is blue – blue in the most dense of the icebergs. When we think of Antarctica as a place covered in ice (over 98% of its surface is), we try to imagine what that looks like: images of alpine glaciers and deep snow come to mind. Yet those images are left at the doors of this place like shoes at the entrance of a mosque: they are not only unnecessary and inaccurate, but most inappropriate and disrespectful, and must be done away with.