Rant: Expedition Alaska

[Fat Strat]

Anyone see this last night on the Discovery Channel? It was a pretty good idea, but there were parts of it that were downright ridiculous in trying to tie everything that's happening in Alaska to global climate change and global warming while mixing in some adventure, danger, and basic science.

That in itself would not be a problem at all if they were just a little more descriptive in their research and presentation or a little more reserved in their conclusions. At one point they were motoring across a bay or something talking about how there would usually be ice covering the whole thing. Then they mention that it's the middle of summer and it's been a particularly hot year. Then they have one of their lead professors rant about how global warming is causing all this ice to melt and how the sea ice is like the world's refrigerator and if it melts permanently you'll see temperatures worldwide skyrocket... Again, I don't have a big problem with that. A little over the top and much more sensationalism than actual science, but it's just a TV show. Here's the kicker for me. After they find the ice and finish the scene, the narrator casually mentions that in the winter months the whole ocean will freeze up again.

If it's just going to freeze again, then what's to say that next year won't be so freakin' hot in Alaska and the sea ice might be back to it's old levels in that particular spot?

You can't just take little details from one little area of the world and use it to prove climate change on a global scale. And if you are, at least take the time to actually explain what's going on in detail, how much the temperatures are varying, and for christ's sake at least tell your audience what normal conditions are supposed to be in that area for that time period at that temperature... as well as how rare that temperature cycle is. After all, two or three warm months that melts a lot of ice is a lot different than a consistently documented warming that's steadily eroding sea ice and glaciers.

I'm not even saying that those aren't happening. I am saying that that show didn't bother to tell us any of that, which makes it hard for me to believe their ranting just because they're on TV or have PhD next to their name.

Anyway, it's no big deal. I was just expecting a nice documentary about Alaska and how it's climate is changing rather than an in-your-face diatribe about how the world is rapidly ending, Alaska is seething cauldron of destruction, and almost no actual science to support it.



*Edit: They did have some really good stuff to go along with it. I liked the pictures of the glaciers retreating. They compared photos 100 years apart taken at the same place. That's good casual science. They also didn't try to draw conclusions from explorations that didn't reveal problems. They visited some salmon spawing grounds that looked healthy and didn't try to make them into problems.

[Simbagal23]

I watched parts of it, so I can't comment on the entire episode....but what I did see caused me some concern, however, not near the level they were attempting to make it. I freaked out when the guy was trying to climb down into the glacier hole (I forget the technical term) with the melting water gushing down all around him.....there is absolutely no freaking way I would do that!

[Arthur Dent]

I'm not sure I understand. The vast majority of the time scientific topics come up on TV, they are not fully explained. It's certainly not just global warming. Consider, for example, reports about medical research. You can say it's a problem, but really it's mostly a property of the way TV is made.

I didn't see the show, but I'm guessing that most people will come away with some kind of vague impression that there is less ice in Alaska due to global warming and that there are serious dangers associated with this. That's basically true.

[Fat Strat]

I'm not sure I understand. The vast majority of the time scientific topics come up on TV, they are not fully explained. It's certainly not just global warming. Consider, for example, reports about medical research. You can say it's a problem, but really it's mostly a property of the way TV is made.

I didn't see the show, but I'm guessing that most people will come away with some kind of vague impression that there is less ice in Alaska due to global warming and that there are serious dangers associated with this. That's basically true.

You're right, but this was over the top. It's one thing to not fully explain something. It's another to put make impassioned speeches about global destruction based on one hole you dug in the permafrost or one motorboat trip into the Artic Cirle in August.

It's annoying that TV is made that way and rant worthy. It was interesting enough of a topic that they could have reached reasonable conclusions and drawn extremely convincing arguments based on their simple research without the over-the-top sensationalism and global destruction implications. Instead it just comes off as poorly conceived and bad science.