Thwaites Glacier misinformation

[Sorcery]

The BBC have done an extensive article on a research team's efforts to find out more about loss of ice from the Thwaites glacier here :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51097309

Pay particular attention to the section titled "How Thwaites glacier is melting".

So far so good you might be thinking. Must do our bit to save the planet. Yet here is another article about vulcanism beneath the Antarctic ice :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... antarctica

For Thwaites glacier in particular :
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=295861

I have to admit I am totally and utterly fed up with the BBC acting as gatekeeper on science.

[BrummieDave]

I have to admit I am totally and utterly fed up with the BBC acting as gatekeeper on science.

Increasingly on more or less a daily basis, you could remove the last five words from that sentence and it would reflect how I feel.

Won't quote examples as they are OT and your post deserves to be read and commented on for what it is.

[Sorcery]

I don't understand it all. Either the author of the article is ignorant of the vulcanism (but surely the research team weren't) or they are deliberately ignoring a major non climate change factor. Either way it's an awful look for the BBC.

I understand the BBC in their wisdom have decided that climate change is not going to get balanced reporting. However there is a great deal of interesting debate within the climate science field that is never reported on. The debate does not revolve around whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it's accepted that it is), more around how sensitive are temperatures are to it, and how large the natural variation in temperatures is.

Once the BBC goes from being a TV tax to a subscription model, it will likely implode.

[Alaric]

The debate does not revolve around whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it's accepted that it is), more around how sensitive are temperatures are to it, and how large the natural variation in temperatures is.

If you didn't employ the hypothesis that CO2 retains energy, you might notice that CO2 concentrations reduce in the summer, because of plant growth, and increase in winter because of burning.

[GoSeigen]

the BBC acting as gatekeeper on science.

What does this mean? Please explain (in scientific terms preferably, given the board topic).

GS

[UncleEbenezer]

Is there supposed to be a contradiction here?
We've known about the dynamics of volcanic activity and glaciers, including the antarctic, for a long time. Iceland (where I experienced it at first hand back in the late 1980s) has had some well-documented cases. I expect we know enough about it to distinguish its effects from that of climate change over any timescale longer than a year or two.

[GoSeigen]

I don't understand it all. Either the author of the article is ignorant of the vulcanism (but surely the research team weren't) or they are deliberately ignoring a major non climate change factor. Either way it's an awful look for the BBC.

I understand the BBC in their wisdom have decided that climate change is not going to get balanced reporting. However there is a great deal of interesting debate within the climate science field that is never reported on. The debate does not revolve around whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it's accepted that it is), more around how sensitive are temperatures are to it, and how large the natural variation in temperatures is.

Once the BBC goes from being a TV tax to a subscription model, it will likely implode.

I think the problem is more likely to be with the OP. How does he know the author is ignorant of volcanism?. Did he write and ask the author why he'd excluded volcanos from his article?

If the OP wishes us to believe it's a cover-up by the BBC then he might alert the article's author to the following which completely exposes his misinformation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297


Isn't this a poor choice of discussion boards on which to air half-cocked conspiracy theories?


GS

[tjh290633]

The debate does not revolve around whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it's accepted that it is), more around how sensitive are temperatures are to it, and how large the natural variation in temperatures is.

If you didn't employ the hypothesis that CO2 retains energy, you might notice that CO2 concentrations reduce in the summer, because of plant growth, and increase in winter because of burning.

That doesn't work on a global basis, because of the difference between hemispheres.

TJH

[Sorcery]

the BBC acting as gatekeeper on science.

What does this mean? Please explain (in scientific terms preferably, given the board topic).

GS

A gatekeeper is someone who allows only selected persons or selective information to pass.

[Sorcery]

I don't understand it all. Either the author of the article is ignorant of the vulcanism (but surely the research team weren't) or they are deliberately ignoring a major non climate change factor. Either way it's an awful look for the BBC.

I understand the BBC in their wisdom have decided that climate change is not going to get balanced reporting. However there is a great deal of interesting debate within the climate science field that is never reported on. The debate does not revolve around whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it's accepted that it is), more around how sensitive are temperatures are to it, and how large the natural variation in temperatures is.

Once the BBC goes from being a TV tax to a subscription model, it will likely implode.

I think the problem is more likely to be with the OP. How does he know the author is ignorant of volcanism?. Did he write and ask the author why he'd excluded volcanos from his article?

If the OP wishes us to believe it's a cover-up by the BBC then he might alert the article's author to the following which completely exposes his misinformation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297


Isn't this a poor choice of discussion boards on which to air half-cocked conspiracy theories?


GS

All that shows is that someone somewhere in the BBC understands about antarctic vulcanism. I would guess the reasearch team knew too, as you suggest vulcanism is widely known about. It''s not obvious why you are blaming me for the BBC author's omission. Omission is a fact not a half baked conspiracy theory.

[UncleIan]

A gatekeeper is someone who allows only selected persons or selective information to pass.

Surely then the BBC would only be a gatekeeper if only the BBC was writing about science, and not allowing anyone else to do so?

Is this not just Hanlon's Razor? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Sorcery]

A gatekeeper is someone who allows only selected persons or selective information to pass.

Surely then the BBC would only be a gatekeeper if only the BBC was writing about science, and not allowing anyone else to do so?

Is this not just Hanlon's Razor? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

The BBC has a vast UK audience who will in the main not look elsewhere for science news. So perhaps gatekeeping would be quite effective.
I think I have heard that Razor as "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be attributed to a cockup". Yes I agree with it.

I just find it odd that vulcanism didn't get a mention. If I were the Science Research Council, and sending a remote submersible to the Thwaites glacier, I would have made it high priority to look for evidence of vulcanism. This may be the case and the entire project aims have been misunderstood by the author. Others think it odd to, found this after the OP but was a little reluctant to link to it given the likely reception https://www.thegwpf.com/thwaites-glacie ... nderneath/

[dspp]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3

This is hardly 'hidden' .

Perhaps this thread should be called Denier-Mis-Information ?

regards, dspp

[Sorcery]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3

This is hardly 'hidden' .

Perhaps this thread should be called Denier-Mis-Information ?

regards, dspp

Nobody is saying it's hidden. It's front & centre. It's the BBC that needs to be asked why it omits it.

[Arborbridge]

Once the BBC goes from being a TV tax to a subscription model, it will likely implode.

If that ever happens it will be seriously worrying. It will be a great loss to society. We have enough commercialised TV, and know increasingly dominated by US corporations. We have to defend the BBC and speak up for it. You mention a TV tax, but you all pay for commercial TV in one way or another - it's just not so obvious.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

I just find it odd that vulcanism didn't get a mention. If I were the Science Research Council, and sending a remote submersible to the Thwaites glacier, I would have made it high priority to look for evidence of vulcanism. This may be the case and the entire project aims have been misunderstood by the author. Others think it odd to, found this after the OP but was a little reluctant to link to it given the likely reception https://www.thegwpf.com/thwaites-glacie ... nderneath/

I notice Lord Lawson is a board member, which should make alarm bells ring about the whole enterprise. It's rather akin to putting David Irvin on the board of a Holocaust research foundation.


Arb.

[Arborbridge]

If the OP wishes us to believe it's a cover-up by the BBC then he might alert the article's author to the following which completely exposes his misinformation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297


Isn't this a poor choice of discussion boards on which to air half-cocked conspiracy theories?


GS

To quote from that link:
This is the best map yet produced of the warmth coming up from the rocks underneath the Antarctic ice sheet.
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rock bed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters.

It's clear that the criticism of the BBC has little validity, and that they have published a whole section about the volcanic aspect. The BBC's problem is that it is so excellent, that people love knocking it - particular the Brits themselves who should be defending it. For some reason, we just hate our own excellence and prefer to pay Americans a hefty whack for their own self- promoting versions.

Arb.

[Sorcery]

If the OP wishes us to believe it's a cover-up by the BBC then he might alert the article's author to the following which completely exposes his misinformation:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41972297


Isn't this a poor choice of discussion boards on which to air half-cocked conspiracy theories?


GS

To quote from that link:
This is the best map yet produced of the warmth coming up from the rocks underneath the Antarctic ice sheet.
This "geothermal heat flux" is key data required by scientists in order to model how the White Continent is going to react to climate change.
If the rock bed's temperature is raised, it makes it easier for the ice above to move.
And if global warming is already forcing change on the ice sheet, a higher flux could accelerate matters.

It's clear that the criticism of the BBC has little validity, and that they have published a whole section about the volcanic aspect. The BBC's problem is that it is so excellent, that people love knocking it - particular the Brits themselves who should be defending it. For some reason, we just hate our own excellence and prefer to pay Americans a hefty whack for their own self- promoting versions.

Arb.

The original BBC article in the OP did not mention vulcanism at all, which is surely an omission given how many links posters have provided for other articles discussing Antarctic vulcanism and the Thwaites glacier and Pine Island in particular. As to why it was not mentioned (considering the research team took the trouble to bring a remotely controlled submarine with them) I offer either:
a) author ignorance
or
b) does not suit the narrative the author wants to present.
My guess would be b) and that makes the BBC website an unreliable news source in this field.
Additionally we know the BBC has virtually shut down climate debate & balanced reporting on TV because it doesn't want to give air-time to the "nutters".
I know the BBC is motherhood and apple pie to some, but the BBC article (from the OP) is clear evidence of reporting failure. This is a scientific issue.

[Arborbridge]

My guess would be b) and that makes the BBC website an unreliable news source in this field.
Additionally we know the BBC has virtually shut down climate debate & balanced reporting on TV because it doesn't want to give air-time to the "nutters".
I know the BBC is motherhood and apple pie to some, but the BBC article (from the OP) is clear evidence of reporting failure. This is a scientific issue.

Well, we have to admit nothing is perfect, and one would have to investigate rather more deeply to come to any conclusion here. One cannot just generalise from this particular example and conclude the BBC is a lousy reporter of these or other issues.

This debate rather reminds me of the idea that one must have "balance" when discussing Darwin's idea by giving equal air time to creationists. Unfortunately, the climate change deniers do have a healthy dose of fanatics in their midst rather than scientists, so one has to be wary of their like. I can't blame the BBC if it treads carefully.

Arb.

[GoSeigen]

I just find it odd that vulcanism didn't get a mention.

I find it odd that the OP thinks something so insignificant required a mention. What about the sun warming the glacier, the article didn't mention that. Perhaps the BBC doesn't want people to realise the sun warms the earth?


GS