Ingezonden persbericht


Over de presentatie van 'wetenschappelijk nieuws'

Ruurlo, 31 maart 2008 - Het gerucht gaat dat wetenschapsjournalisten langzamerhand klimaatverandering ervaren als een 'gaap-onderwerp'. Zulke informatie is moeilijk te verifiëren. Mocht er iets van waar zijn, dan gaat het om een verontrustend verschijnsel. De meeste journalisten die over wetenschappelijke ontwikkelingen schrijven, hebben immers tot nu toe geen kritische aandacht geschonken aan de gangbare, ongeremd alarmerende verhalen over klimaatverandering. Zij hebben met name verzuimd, het op de AGW-hypothese steunende consensus-denken en het daaraan opgehangen 'klimaatbeleid' aan een kritische analyse te onderwerpen.

Misschien zijn onze wetenschapsjournalisten nu toch even wakker geschrokken. Als zoveelste voorbode van de aarde bedreigend onheil verspreidden hun nieuwsredacties afgelopen week een bericht over de verdere afbrokkeling van de Wilkins Shelf op een schiereiland van Antarctica. Betrokken Britse onderzoekers - stellig ook belanghebbend - hadden het maar weer eens ingestoken. Zulk 'nieuws' verdient toch - zou men denken - vooral ook enige kritische aandacht van wetenschapsjournalisten. Zij immers zien het als bij uitstek hun taak, te (helpen) waken over een afgewogen, objectiverende weergave van waarnemingen van - soms nogal vooringenomen interpreterende - wetenschappelijke onderzoekers.

Het is hoog tijd dat de redacties van dag- en weekbladen zich diepgaand herbezinnen op hun taak als 'waakhond van de democratie', in het bijzonder ook met het oog op de overdracht van 'wetenschappelijk nieuws'. Te zeer wordt de inhoud daarvan bepaald door onderzoekers, onderzoeksinstellingen en - niet te vergeten - voorlichters, wier belang bij publiciteit veelal mede is gelegen in een impliciete claim op voortgezette financiering van hun activiteiten. Juist intelligente wetenschapsjournalisten kunnen - en moeten - door zulk 'nieuws' heen prikken, om te beginnen door achterliggende hypotheses aan een kritisch wetenschappelijke analyse te (laten) onderwerpen. In meerderheid hebben zij het tot nu toe helaas laten afweten met betrekking tot de broeikashypothese, de smalspoortheorie die nu al enkele decennia achtereen de klimatologie beheerst. En dat terwijl het brengen van goed nieuws toch ook heel spannend zou kunnen zijn voor lezers van dag- en weekbladen die hun geest graag verder willen scherpen. Hoe lang zullen we nog moeten wachten op dat feitelijk niet eens erg schokkende openingsartikel op de voorpagina waarin die al meer dan honderd jaar geleden gefalsificeerde hypothese van Arrhenius definitief als een mythe wordt afgeschreven?

Over Antarctica is er in ieder geval heel ander nieuws dan wat dezer dagen weer eens werd voorgeschoteld aan een omvangrijk lezers- en kijkerspubliek - opgeklopt en opgewarmd, zonder enige reflectie. Graag attenderen wij u hierbij op meer betrouwbare en in context geplaatste documentatie, contra-expertise waaraan geen wetenschapsjournalist voorbij zou mogen gaan. In de eerste plaats gaat het daarbij om twee interessante links:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

http://www.icecap.us/

Van belang zijn eveneens twee artikelen, van Roger Pielke Sr. respectievelijk Joe D'Aleo en Anthony Watts, waarop Benny Peiser onze aandacht vestigde (zie onder). Van Ernst Beck, een Duitse onderzoeker, ontvingen wij daarmee sporende wetenschappelijke documentatie (zie iceshelfs.pdf of iceshelfs.doc in bijlage).

Met vriendelijke groet,

Attenderingsservice
Klanderman Communicatie / Research

http://www.platteland-in-perspectief.nl

REALITY CHECK ON ANTARCTIC SEA ICE

Climate Science, 27 March 2008
http://climatesci.org/2008/03/27/reality-check-on-antarctic-sea-ice/

Roger Pielke Sr

The news reports on the breaking off of a portion of floating ice in Antarctica have received wide distribution (i.e. do a google search under news for Antarctic sea ice and hundreds of reports appear on this event). These news reports claim that this breaking is due to global warming. As just one example of the statements in the news, The Guardian wrote

"The collapsing shelf suggests that climate change could be forcing change much more quickly than scientists had predicted.

"The ice shelf is hanging by a thread," said Professor David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). "We'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

The Wilkins shelf covers an area of 5,600 square miles (14,500 sq km). It is now protected by just a thin thread of ice between two islands.

Vaughan was a member of the team that predicted in 1993 that global warming could cause the Wilkins shelf to collapse within 30 years."

This media reporting has become typical of the bias that many journalists have. Not reported in the media (but well reported on ICECAP by Joe D'Aleo) the media has ignored in their reporting the increase in Antarctic sea ice cover in recent years, with, at present, a coverage that is well 1 million square kilometers above average (see)!

In fact, over the globe, since the Arctic sea ice cover is not far below its average and the Antarctic sea ice coverage is well above average for this time of the year, the global coverage of sea ice is actually above average after being below last year (see). There is no way to know if this is just a short term perturbation, but at the very least the news media should have been honest and balanced in their coverage.

Unfortunately, it appears that most journalists just parrot the perspective of the first news release on these climate issues, without doing any further investigation. If this is inadvertent, they need to be educated in climate science. If deliberate bias, they are clearly advocates and the reporters should be clearly and publically identified as having such a bias. In either case, the public is being misinformed!

==============
ANTARCTIC ICE: A RESPONSE TO JONATHAN SHANKLIN

Joe D'Aleo (JDaleo6331@aol.com)

Dear Benny,

Mr. Shanklin responded back (CCNet, 27 March 2008) to a story I posted about the Antarctic ice on http://icecap.us. Yes I am aware of the difference between floating shelf ice and pack ice and how pack ice is more susceptible to yearly coming and going. My main point is that Mr. Shanklin and associates are ignoring the fact that the total extent is growing not shrinking even as localized warming on the peninsula is causing ice losses or changes. And please note the warming and melting has been focused on the Antarctic peninsula and not the vast continent which has been cooling (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257)

I have no doubt the recent warming trend in the Antarctic peninsula area has led to greater amounts of melt "ponding" on the ice shelves, weakening them. Meltwater at the surface acts to increase the extent of fracturing in the ice making the ice more susceptible to ocean waves. This is a natural on-going process. Something we have only recently paid great attention to because of the unwarranted focus on the recent natural cyclical warming that may be coming to an end.

Most of Wilkins is said to be 400 years old which meant 400 years ago it was open water or pack ice and developed with a push from the Little Ice Age. This coming and going thus is not new.

And the link to the Cryosphere today image Mr. Shanklin pointed to (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg) please note how the total southern hemisphere ice extent is 60% ahead of what is was last year at this time when it went on to set a new record for the satellite era.

As for the volcanism comment "I would however be interested to know which volcanoes are currently active to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula. As far as I know the last eruption from Deception was in the 1960s, so this cannot be used to explain the current Peninsula warming of some 3 deg C in 60 years.' , see: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/.

Anthony Watts has added the following in response to your note:

See this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm. Note this is from (BAS, Mr. Shanklin's British Antarctic Survey)

"The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active. The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.

Here is a map of the ice sheets: http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/

See this satellite image of Wilkins ice shelf, note hole in ice shelf at lower part of image in middle of the shelf. That doesn't happen from wind/wave/sea action. Only a heat plume could do that. http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/wilkins.html. Using Google Earth to locate it http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=70%C2%B0+15'+00.0%22+S+73%C2%B0+00'+00.0%22+W&ie=UTF8&ll=-70.259452,-73.037109&spn=17.503542,95.800781&t=h&z=4&iwloc=addr

Apparently Mr. Shanklin has a problem trying to understand that when you have an ice shelf sitting over an active plate boundary, where the crust is disrupted, and volcancoes abound near it, that there would be submarine heat in the region. He's apparently unfamiliar with submarine vents near such areas that expel superheated water, or unwilling to consider the possibility.

And this NASA GISS map shows a clear hotspot:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=09&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=1212&year1=1951&year2=2004&base1=1951&base2=2006&radius=1200&pol=pol

In the case of the NASA GISS model output, that hotspot is centered directly over the Wilkins ice shelf. What is notable about the NASA GISS model output is the complete absence of any other hotspots in Antarctica.

Regards
Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts