‘Doomsday glacier’ that could cause catastrophic sea-level rise is more vulnerable than scientists thought: study
Samuel (Sam) Hopper
‘Doomsday glacier’ that could cause catastrophic sea-level rise is more vulnerable than scientists thought: studyNew York Post Article: https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/world-news/doomsday-glacier-is-more-vulnerable-than-scientists-thought-study/
PNAS Publication: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2404766121
Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have fueled the warming of the circumpolar deep water (3), salty waters that range from 1 ºC - 2 ºC in temperature, which is contributing to the melting of glacial ice in polar regions and therefore, the overall rise in sea levels globally. Sea level rises due to glacial melting has the potential to impact about 1 in 7 people across the globe (2). With this in mind, many glaciers, especially those that have the ability to cause significant sea level rises if they were to melt, have become the focus of climate change studies. One of those glaciers is the Thwaites Glacier, which if it were to melt it would contribute 65 cm (~2.1 ft) to global sea level rises (1).
In order to figure out the current melting status of a glacier, scientists determine where the grounding line, the boundary between where a glacial ice sheet is attached to bedrock and where it begins to float above the water (4), is located and measure changes in its position due to melting from circumpolar deep water intruding in the glacier. Previous modeling of the grounding line and glacial melting assumed that the grounding line was an abrupt boundary that had no ice melting at that location, but Rignot et al.’s paper Widespread seawater intrusions beneath the grounded ice of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used a newer method, double difference satellite radar interferometry (DInSAR), that showed this assumption is inaccurate. The team discovered that the grounding line is more of a gradual transition zone rather than the abrupt transition that previous models assumed. They were able to use DInSAR to detect vertical movement of the glacier due to seawater moving in and out of cavities within this area from tidal movements, which showed them the extent of the “grounding zone”. The DInSAR data revealed the zone to be between 2 km to 6 km wide for the Thwaites Glacier, which is much bigger than previously thought. These results indicated that current ice sheet models need to be improved upon in order to correctly model the current rapid sea level rise rates.
Just a day after the study was published, Nika Shakhnazarova wrote an article about it in the New York Post. In her short article, she reports on one of the results from the study – circumpolar deep water is intruding further into the glacier than previously thought. Shakhnazarova briefly expands on the implications of this result through the aid of quotes from a USA Today article and finishes off the article with a quick explanation of Thwaites Glacier’s size. One positive thing about this article was the inclusion of quotes from the original authors of the PNAS publication. Shakhnazarova used these quotes to aid her brief discussion of the climate change implications of the seawater intrusion extent. Beyond that, I felt that this article was extremely lacking and did a poor job with discussing the paper.
One of the biggest issues with the article is the lack of context and explanations provided with the results of the paper. The New York Post article fails to mention in detail how the seawater is able to flow underneath the glacier, what a grounding line/zone is and how it relates to seawater intrusion and glacial melting, and what these findings mean for future modeling. This is especially important when Shakhnazarova mentions terms specific to glaciology like “grounding line” without providing definitions. The average reader does not need to know the specifics of the methods used to figure out the extent of seawater intrusion in glaciers, but the article could have been improved immensely if there was more space dedicated to providing context to the results, especially if mentioned before the implications of the results. The lack of context causing confusion can even be seen within the comments under this article, with one commenter stating “So the ocean is warmer. Warm water evaporates into the atmosphere. Becomes rain that helps grow food”. The commenter doesn't know that this “warm water” is only 1 ºC - 2 ºC in temperature (and not typical temperatures associated with “warm”) nor that this water is deep below the surface where it is not experiencing evaporation because Shakhnazarova did not provide this critical context when reporting on this study. In addition, the New York Post article does provide a figure taken from the study itself, but also fails to provide any context to it. This is clearly seen with the lack of a descriptive caption for what the chosen figure is about and the absence of referencing it within the article. I feel it would have been beneficial to provide a more descriptive caption to the figure, or chosen a better figure from the paper that can be more easily understood to the average reader (an example shown below).
Fig. 1. Ocean grounding zone vs. ice grounding zone of an ice sheet/ice shelf system. CDW (circumpolar deep water) filling the ice cavity is color coded by temperature from blue (cold) to red (warm). The ocean grounding zone is always flooded with CDW. The ice grounding zone alternates between flooded and unflooded with changes in oceanic tide and atmospheric pressure. Seawater intrusion propagates beyond the ice grounding zone at irregular intervals. On grounded ice, the glacier bed is overlaid by a thin sheet (10 cm) of pressurized subglacial water, which facilitates intrusion and hydraulic jacking of seawater. The panel on the Top shows differential, interferometric fringes associated with ice flexing in the ocean and ice grounding zones at low (Top) and high sea surface height (SSH) (Below). Bull’s eye deformation fringes farther upstream reflect ice subsidence vs. uplift around a bed depression at low vs. high SSH. (Rignot 2024).
My other biggest critique for this article is the inaccuracies and misrepresentations that are present. More specifically, this can be seen clearly with the sentence “While the collapse of the glacier itself could take hundreds or thousands of years, the ice shelf could cause a retreat of the glacier which would be both unstable and possibly irreversible if it melts sooner”. Here, it seems as if Shakhnazarova is implying that the ice shelf itself is the cause for the retreating of the glacier, when, as this and other papers suggest, it's actually seawater and the disappearance of the ice shelf that is the cause for the retreating. In fact, ice shelves are key to slowing the acceleration of melting in glaciers and without them, we would see much more rapid melting rates (5). This inaccuracy reveals that Shakhnazarova did not fully understand the paper, which subsequently makes the readers unable to fully understand either. It is also somewhat strange that she also states the collapse could take “hundreds or thousands of years” when the additional studies she mentions along with a quote from Rignot in the USA Today article state that the collapse could be a matter of 5 years to “decades”. The conflicting information of her claim with no source to back it up against other sources further puts into question Shakhnazarova understanding of the paper and the credibility of the article.
The PNAS publication’s findings were incredibly intriguing and have the potential to be incredibly important for understanding and predicting the impacts of climate change when it comes to glacial melting. However, instead of making these results accessible to the average person, the New York Post article fails to inform the reader of the critical context and other key takeaways from the study. The article only focuses on one smaller aspect of the whole study in favor of sensationalizing the results to generate clicks. With everything taken into account, I would rate this article a 2 out of 10.
References:
(1) Rignot, E., Ciracì, E., Scheuchl, B., Tolpekin, V., Wollersheim, M., & Dow, C. (2024). Widespread seawater intrusions beneath the grounded ice of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(22), e2404766121.
(2) Climate Impact Lab. (2023). Sea Levels Rising as Much as 2 to 3 Feet Will Put 97 Million People at Risk of Expanding Floods this Century. EPIC University of Chicago. https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/sea-levels-rising-as-much-as-2-to-3-feet-will-put-97-million-people-at-risk-of-expanding-floods-this-century/
(3) Herraiz-Borreguero, L., & Naveira Garabato, A. C. (2022). Poleward shift of circumpolar deep water threatens the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Nature Climate Change, 12(8), 728-734.
(4) Friedl, P., Weiser, F., Fluhrer, A., & Braun, M. H. (2020). Remote sensing of glacier and ice sheet grounding lines: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 201, 102948.
(5) National Snow and Ice Data Center. (2024). Ice Shelves: Why they matter. NSIDC. https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/ice-shelves/why-ice-shelves-matter
I agree that the news article did not give the impression that the author understood the material presented in the journal article. As you said, there were many instances of inaccuracies or omitting the full picture, which at times felt like fearmongering. I also found the figure used to be confusing, whereas the figure you presented would have been much clearer. I also agree that the lack of context leads readers to extreme conclusions. The melting of glaciers is concerning, yes, but phrasing it as a "doomsday" glacier may cause unnecessary panic. The authors portray this as a term dubbed by scientists, but the only other mention of such phrase is another New York Post article, with a cited Nature article with no mention of "doomsday". General concern for the environment is good for societal awareness, but fearmongering and misrepresenting information harms all of us. I am tempted to recommend this article be rated 1/10, but the author did provide a link to the actual publication, which is rare nowadays, so I think your valuation at a 2/10 is perfectly reasonable.
ReplyDeleteSam, I think you did an awesome and thorough job analyzing the news article. I agree with you regarding the lack of context and explanations regarding “grounding line” and overall background information. I also agree with you regarding the presentation of contradicting information. I think a 2/10 is an accurate rating for this article.
ReplyDeleteIn the author’s background information page, it says Nika Shakhnazarova covers a lot of “big stories” in entertainment, politics, news, and sports. So this confirms your claim that Nika Shakhnazarova most likely did not understand the science completely and was unable to communicate effectively the finding of the science article to her audience.
A lot of journalists are given word count limits especially for articles that are not related/exciting the main focus of the news article.
Do you think Shakhnazarova was given a word count and therefore was unable to provide enough background information? Do you think that because the New York Post is more of a tabloid newspaper that covers more entertainment and celebrity topics, that is why the article is short and lacks depth? What do you think?
Hi Mia! I honestly don’t know if Shakhnazarova was given a word count, but I did find some other climate related articles written on the NYPost that have 100-200 more words than this one. Noticing that, I’m inclined to believe that there was not a super strict word requirement and rather, given her background in writing about Pop culture, chose to not elaborate since tabloid writing is more about being sensationalist to grab readers attention and exaggerate for clicks and views. In this case, spending more time describing the background and science could sway readers to click away since they were here to know about the “doomsday glacier” and not how scientific models used to calculate glaciers should be updated.
DeleteAs you noted, this New York Post article certainly screams "clickbait." I think your valuation is completely correct. After reading both the article and the PNAS paper, I also felt that the New York Post author seemed to latch onto one comment from the first couple paragraphs of the PNAS paper and expand on that point exactly 0% for the rest of the article. The use of terms specific to glaciology without any definition was at a minimum irresponsible. I think you format your argument about your score for the article very well; this is definitely one of the worst articles I've read so far this semester. I found this particularly disappointing given that they even used an image from the PNAS paper. On my initial scroll I was excited as we haven't seen that often (if at all) with other articles this semester, but the author's caption does nothing in terms of helping the reader understand the image. Do you think you would have increased your score of the article if the image had a more descriptive and informative caption? If so, by how much? Or would providing one descriptive caption not be enough to make up for any of the damage done earlier in the article?
ReplyDeleteHi Sarah! I completely agree with the idea that it seems like the author of the NYP article latched onto one comment in the abstract/significance section of the paper and almost repeats it in different wording throughout the article.
DeleteAs for your questions, I think if the author were to have wrote a more descriptive caption for the figure, it may have swayed me to rate this article 1 (maybe 2) point higher, but I think the damage in the other parts would not make up for it. If there was more context and background information provided, the figure with a descriptive caption would have added a lot to the article. Though, since the article has barely any information besides the results, I believe if she added a more descriptive caption to the article as is, I believe it would not help with clarifying and making up the lack of context needed to understand the paper and results.
Great analysis of this news article Sam! I agree on multiple points and all around this is a just a messy article to say the least. Looking at the comments is just a reminder of how important it is to explain science correctly and in a way that is understandable to a general audience. I think my first issue comes with the title of the article. This supposed 'doomsday' title that was given to the iceberg is very click-batey and I searched to try and find the origin of the title. It is not in the original research article that this news article was based on and clicking on the news article that was linked when mentioning 'doomsday' only leads to another research article that doesn't say anything about the nickname. The furthest I could go was an AP News article that mentions it being dubbed the 'doomsday' iceberg. I have no clue who originally dubbed it so, but it feels out of place in this news article and clearly is having the opposite effect of what was intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mia and you that the writer of the article does not have the proper science background to properly write this type of article. I'm starting to come to the opinion that if you don't know how to write about something you shouldn't. The comments on this article make me sad.
Really nice analysis, Sam! To further the point which several people have mentioned about Shakhnazarova not really being the most qualified to cover this topic, I looked a little more into what she has written recently. She seems to rapidly turn out mostly pop culture and celebrity focused articles, with a particular focus on the British royal family, and often has multiple bylines on these topics in a single day. I can't help but wonder why she is the one to do the reporting on this paper, even with a more tabloid style publication like the New York Post, you would think that someone has more of a background in science than her.
ReplyDeleteI also really like your argument that in this case, making use of a figure is actually more confusing to the reader. I can't even find this figure in either paper connected to the article, though perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. Either way, I am not sure a more confusing, more in need of context figure could have been chosen from these papers, and the fact that Shakhnazarova neither provides a helpful caption or attempts to explain where the figure came from only furthers the supposition that she was not able to fully understand the paper she was writing on.
I completely agree that this article maxes out at about 2/10 in rating. Mostly on the same point as Mia, I think the largest contributing factor for this article being so bad overall is that the author is unwilling to expand on a lot of information which might be due to a maximum number of words. Not that this is an excuse for providing a non-summary report of the journal article, but worth noting in my opinion. Overall though, the article cannot be used as a substitute for the paper, which I believe should be the scale that these are graded on in our class's context. A great article removes the need for an average reader to look at the scientific literature unless they are especially interested and allows them to leave with all the intended takeaways. This paper does the exact opposite which makes me agree with your rating.
ReplyDeleteSomething Kayleigh also pointed out was the comments section of the article which I generally think is hilarious, the idea of a news outlet having a comments section for their articles. I feel like it gives a similar impression to Youtube comments sections, in that, you're going to have people on both sides of the topic. Some people are going to be serious and say that this isn't actually a problem for any number of reasons and others will voice their unrest with global warming and the potential for sea levels to rise, but ultimately I just don't understand having a comments section for this type of article.
Your analysis of the news article was very thorough. The NYP article was very vague and inaccurate in their interpretation of the scientific article. Like what others have said, the article would use the word 'doomsday' and link it to another NYP article without explaining what they mean by 'doomsday' and without backing it up with any evidence from the paper. The author of the linked paper, Hobbs, is also someone who wasn't adequately equipped to write about a scientific topic as his niche is related to performing arts and theatre. It seems silly that Shakhnazarova based her article more on the NYP article written by a non-scientist, rather than the PNAS paper itself. It is also interesting that this NYP is one of the few news articles (aimed at a more general audience) we've encountered this semester that mentions methodology of the PNAS article. What do you think the mention on "high-resolution satellite radar data"? Do you think this mention is why she ended up picking such a confusing figure?
ReplyDeleteHi Gigi! I agree that it seems like Shakhnazarova was writing on other news articles about the study (USA Today article) or similar studies (Hobbs NYP article) rather than the actual PNAS article. As for the mentions of “high-resolution satellite radar data”, I think that a sentence or two more describing how they used satellite radar data (example being they used it to detect vertical movement of the glacier) would have strengthened the article a lot and tied the chosen figure (or at least a figure similar to the ones in the PNAS paper) more into the article. I do think that the mention of the type of data definitely contributed to the selection of the figure as it is grounding line positions derived from the satellite data. I also think another factor for choosing that specific figure might of been how colorful and eye-catching it is (as it seems to look a lot prettier and "cooler" to the average person than some of the other figures in the paper).
DeleteHi Sam, I thought you did a great job analyzing these articles, and I agree that the New York Post piece was quite sensationalized. The article gives the impression that the glacier is melting much more quickly, but from the research, I understood that the main finding was the underestimated extent of warm water intrusion. While the increased boundary of warm water in contact with the glacier could accelerate melting, the study itself did not present new evidence that the glacier is melting significantly faster than previously estimated. The use of the term "doomsday" and the overall tone of the article makes it sound like the glacier will disappear within the next decade, which is misleading. The research's real significance lies in its implications for improving models of glacier behavior rather than providing shocking news about the imminent collapse of the glacier
ReplyDeleteNice work explaining the research paper and analyzing the news article. I totally agree with you that the news article lacked depth and background information and unfairly focused on the most eye-catching result from the research. When I saw this article was from the New York Post, I was not shocked at all to find you gave it a low rating. To my knowledge, the New York Post is generally known as one of the least reliable major news outlets, even on the topics they are more known for reporting on. Do you think news outlets like the New York Post would be better off sticking to stories about topics they're better known for reporting on or is there still value in getting scientific articles to their audience, even if they are relatively poorly written?
ReplyDeleteHi Baker! I also believe that the New York Post is one of the more unreliable news source, and I know that is especially more true when it comes to climate change. If I recall correctly, I believe that the NYP actually leans towards climate change denial when it comes to climate change topics. So to see a climate based study like this article reported poorly does not surprise me unfortunately.
DeleteIn regards to your question, I feel that if a news source like the NYP was set on reporting on scientific papers, they should at least have someone on their staff with a more STEM oriented background write the article. Accessibility of information is important but that should not come at the cost of credibility and misleading people. In this case in particular, it seems that the lack of explanation of the science in the article is doing more harm then good (this can clearly be seen with the comments), which leads me to lean slightly towards saying that these news outlets should stick to what they mainly focus on.
I'm glad you included the comment! It's really interesting to see what the general readership thinks - looking through the rest of the comments section, there are at least five people saying it's not an issue because "a cup of water doesn't overflow when the ice melts" and many others talking about how the article is just government propaganda. I unfortunately believe that even if the article had been better-written, the response to it would be exactly the same, because these commenters simply do not care about the science. I'm sure it's cheaper and easier for the NYPost to push out poorly-written garbage then it is for them to hire someone with the appropriate science background to write about it. This article was super frustrating to read because it made me realize how little these publications care about reporting the science responsibly and accurately.
ReplyDeleteThe style of the NYP article definitely employed a lot of pretty manipulative journalistic tactics with regards to its reading of the PNAS paper. What stuck out to me the most was in its particularly selective method of citation, obscuring the exact sources of certain quotes to where it wasn't apparent where the quotes were coming from, which I can't help but assume was either intentional or a convenient mistake on the part of the reporter. Like you pointed out, the lack of basis provided on much of the terminology here not only leaves the average reader with little to go off of, but at times even goes so far as to directly contradict points brought up in the paper. It's difficult to parse, for sure, though perhaps fitting of NYP's sensationalistic style. I agree with your evaluations completely.
ReplyDeleteTitle aside, do you think there was some element of intentional fearmongering when Shakhnazarova wrote this article or does it only come across due to her lack of understanding? I would agree that she didn't fully grasp the content or the implications of the article; it appears that she usually covers entertainment or news about the British royal family so this type of article seems like an outlier compared to her usual content. I know the NYPost isn't the most reliable news source out there but I'm really curious as to why she would write an article given her usual stories.
ReplyDeleteHi Teresa! This article definitely seems to be an outlier for Shakhnazarova, as it probably is one of very few non-celebrity/popular culture related articles she has done for the NYP. I am also quite curious as to why she was assigned to write this article given her background. Looking through what she has written before, it seems that she is posting multiple articles a day which leads me to believe that part of the tone definitely comes from a lack of understanding. I can’t imagine she took or even had the time to research deeply into understanding the science when she was already writing 3 other articles to post for that day. I think the more fear-mongering tone most likely comes from trying to get views and potentially to get the audience riled up and discussing how blown out of proportion climate change is since the NYP does lean towards climate change denial. Considering there are other articles on the NYP , like one written by the editorial board called “The Post says: Climate change morons try to gag free speech”, I would not be surprised if the second point I brought up in the previous sentence was the case.
DeleteThis was a really interesting topic to learn about. I have to say I was immediately off put by the title of the news article. It just screams click me. I agree with your assessment that the article is lacking more data and explanation for the glacier melting. I would have appreciated a little more information and perhaps a better figure as you mentioned as well would help with understanding. I also really resonated with your statement about the average person not needing too much of the methods. I always find that the hardest part to read of a paper is the methods. It is always very technical and is helpful if you are trying to do something similar but otherwise is pretty irrelevant to overall understanding of the concepts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your rating and with the other commenters. The article clearly omitted and mis-referenced the journal paper and made a title intended to generate views and fear. The NYPost is known for sensationalizing and inaccurately portraying the news. I think this was a really good choice of article for you to have found because it demonstrates how research can be misconstrued and I think it is good for us to study and spend time looking at those articles in addition to the majority of the articles we have looked at so far in class, which were all "pretty good".
ReplyDeleteI agree that this was a pretty poorly written article. Referring to the Thwaites Glacier as a "Doomsday Glacier" both in the title and article itself, especially when they attribute this name to "scientists" with absolutely no source, is extremely misleading and straight up fear mongering. Shakhnazarova seems to only discuss the implications of the seawater intrusions melting the glacier with a focus on the timeline of this glacier melting very little explanation for what these seawater intrusions are and how they work (which fits the fear mongering tone). It would've been nice to see some more quantitative results from the PNAS study, such as the size of the ice grounding zones (& more discussion on this in general) or even the temperature of these intrusions.
ReplyDeleteI also really didn't like the NY Post's use of that final figure; not only was the caption unrelated and the image not explained anywhere in the article, but the image itself doesn't have a clear legend, units, or any indication of what the data is. It also seems like it's not from the PNAS paper (at leas the main body), nor was it from the Nature paper "linked" (through another NY Post article) directly above the image.To me, it seems like it was just thrown in there to have some technical content rather than to provide meaning to the article. I agree that Fig. 1 from the PNAS paper would be a great subsitution- it's clear, pretty-self explanatory without a scientific background, and does a better job at summarizing the PNAS study as a whole.
While I think there is definitely a poor understanding of the PNAS paper (the article was only published a few days after so not a ton of time to digest it), I feel like there is some intentional fear mongering as well.
I agree with you. The news article lacks depth. It feels like Post's author just skimmed the abstract of the journal article. I'm sure that authors at the Post work on very tight deadlines, but the readership is large enough that I think there is a responsibility on the part of the journalist to do their best to understand what they are reporting on, and to present it faithfully to the public. Rising sea levels are a major concern and the panicked tone, in my opinion, sensationalizes this valid concern to the point that it feels disingenuous. Science communication is a difficult skill and, unfortunately, I think Shakhnazarova still has some work to do.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your points about how the New York Post article misses some important context, especially when it comes to explaining key terms like the grounding line and how it connects to glacial melting. I found it frustrating too when articles oversimplify important findings just to grab attention. I also liked how you pointed out the confusion in the comment section. It's such a clear example of how leaving out crucial details can lead to misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I was thinking about while reading your post is how this issue of poor reporting can affect public perception of climate change. If people don’t get the full picture, they might not grasp the urgency of these findings. Do you think that articles like this could be doing more harm than good by over-sensationalizing the issue, or do you think the mere fact that they're drawing attention to the topic is still valuable, even if the reporting is incomplete?
Overall, I think your analysis was really insightful, and it definitely helped me see how important it is to break down these complex ideas for a broader audience.
I agree with your analysis of this article and paper 100%. When I first read this article I was somewhat confused and it was very click baity. I feel like the way the author of the article expresses the findings is very inaccurate of what the data actually says and is stated in a way to get a rise in emotion from the reader. It wasn't until after reading the actual paper did I understand what the previous author was trying to get across but couldn't. I believe additional information is needed in this article in terms of grounding lines and actual rates of melting. But I would rate this article about a 4/10.
ReplyDelete