Both.news
Donate
Story AnalysisScienceNews report

Senegal-sized Antarctic glacier melting faster than thought: Why it matters

Thwaites glacier has been losing ice for decades. Now there are concerns of rapidly accelerating loss.

Al JazeeraPublished Analyzed on October 17, 2026

This page is Both News's AI analysis of the article, not the article itself. Read the full story on the publisher's site.

Our verdict

Political lean

Center
◀ Left 10Center10 Right ▶

0 = center. The further from 0, the stronger the lean (max 10).

Reporting balance

61
Mostly balanced
61 / 100

How complete and even-handed the reporting is — separate from which side it leans.

This is a science news explainer with no political lean (0). It reports a new study on Thwaites Glacier accurately and with plain, attributed language, and its headline fits the body. Its main weakness is that the scientific voices come almost entirely from the study team and affiliated agencies, and several key numbers are unsourced or lack uncertainty ranges. Readers should look for independent expert reaction to the 30mm projection before treating it as settled.

Why this lean
The article has no left/right political angle. It covers climate science, which is not partisan in its framing here, and it presents human-caused warming as the established driver without political labels. The sources are scientists, not political actors. Score is 0.
Framing
The story is told from the standpoint of climate science, treating the new study's sea-level projection as the central question and the glacier's accelerating loss as established.

Key Findings

  1. 1Strength: the article ties its main claim to a specific publication and author ('published in the journal Nature Communications', 'lead author Mattia Poinelli'), so readers can check it directly.
  2. 2Strength: the BAS study is included as a second, independent scientific view, and the article notes that 'experts say more studies are needed to accurately predict the volume of Thwaites' ice loss', which signals uncertainty.
  3. 3Weakness: the scientific voices are almost all from the study team or from agencies tied to it. No outside glaciologist is quoted to assess the new 'grounding zone' model, so the reader cannot see how the result compares with the wider community's view.
  4. 4Weakness: the key percentages and tonnages are unattributed ('Studies have calculated', 'around four percent'), and the ESA line ('Rising temperatures have caused glaciers to lose about five percent of their ice since 2000') does not say which glaciers it covers.
  5. 5Weakness: the 30mm projection is presented as a headline figure with no stated uncertainty range or explanation of what 'double the current estimates' refers to, which makes the 'faster than thought' claim harder to weigh.
  6. 6Balance in language: the mechanism (warm water, tidal pumping) and the 'human-induced' cause of ocean warming are explained in plain terms without political labelling.

Who gets a voice

  • Mattia Poinelli
    Lead author of the new study, project scientist at UCLA
    Study authors / glaciology research teamMain voice
  • Unnamed study team
    Authors of the Nature Communications study, cited for findings
    Study authors / glaciology research teamMain voice
  • NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    Collaborator on the new study and source of a 2019 cavity discovery
    Government science agencyMinor voice
  • European Space Agency
    Source of the ice-loss percentage figure
    Government science agencyMinor voice
  • British Antarctic Survey scientists
    Authors of a separate simulation study in Geophysical Research Letters
    Independent-institution glaciology researchMinor voice
  • 'Experts'
    Unnamed; said more studies are needed to predict ice loss volume
    Unspecified scientific cautionMinor voice

Loaded language

“Doomsday Glacier”→ Thwaites Glacier, sometimes called the 'Doomsday Glacier' in media coverage

The informal nickname signals a catastrophe framing that the scientific projection (30mm by 2100, with a long timescale) does not itself state.

“catastrophic amount”→ a large amount, with a quantified range if available

The adjective implies disaster but no figure is given for the collapse scenario, so the claim is not checkable from the text.

Dimension Breakdown

Source Diversity5/10

Almost all substantive claims come from the study's own team or from institutions tied to the research (UCLA, NASA JPL, ESA, BAS). The one independent-sounding voice, 'experts say more studies are needed', is unnamed.

Language Neutrality8/10

Language is mostly plain and attributed ('lead author Mattia Poinelli... told media'). The nickname 'Doomsday Glacier' and the phrase 'catastrophic amount' add some dramatic colour without quantifying the harm.

Data Balance6/10

Many figures are given with units and comparisons (30mm, 4% of sea-level rise, 1,000 billion tonnes, 60% chance). Several lack named sources or uncertainty ranges, and the 'five percent' ESA line is unclear about scope.

Perspective Completeness5/10

The study's own researchers dominate, with only a brief BAS paragraph as a second scientific view. No outside glaciologist is quoted to test the new 'grounding zone' model or the 30mm projection.

Headline Accuracy8/10

The headline 'melting faster than thought' matches the body. The lede's 'twice as much' is hedged in the body to 'could add' and 'double the current estimates', which is a fair reflection of the study.

Context Sufficiency7/10

The piece explains what Thwaites is, why its loss matters, and the mechanism (warm water and tidal pumping). It gives little on model uncertainty or how the 30mm figure compares with the wider range of sea-level projections.

Missing Perspectives

  • Independent glaciologists not involved in the study, who could assess the new grounding-zone model and the 60% unpinning estimate.
  • The study's stated uncertainty range or the alternative sea-level projections used by other research groups, to show how the 30mm figure fits the wider range.
  • Context on the relative scale of sea-level contributors (for example, other ice sheets or thermal expansion), which would help readers judge the 'four percent' and '30mm' figures.

Highlighted Passages

“experts say more studies are needed to accurately predict the volume of Thwaites’ ice loss”
The 'experts' are unnamed and the point is not developed, so readers cannot tell who holds this view or how strongly.
“Studies have calculated that the glacier has lost more than 1,000 billion tonnes of ice since 2000”
The studies behind a major figure are not identified, and no uncertainty is given.
“Rising temperatures have caused glaciers to lose about five percent of their ice since 2000, according to the European Space Agency.”
It is unclear whether 'glaciers' means Thwaites or all glaciers, which makes the figure hard to interpret in context.
“Nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier””
The nickname adds a dramatic frame without saying who uses it, and the body's evidence describes a slow, multi-century process.

Key Facts

  • According to the new study (Nature Communications), Thwaites could add about 1.2 inches (30mm) to sea levels by 2100, even without additional global warming, double current estimates.
  • According to the study's lead author Mattia Poinelli (UCLA), warm water reaches deep under the ice through 'tidal pumping' in a 'grounding zone', causing melting.
  • According to the study, there is a 60 percent chance Thwaites could unpin from the Mouginot Ridge by the end of the century.
  • The article states Thwaites covers about 192,000 sq km, roughly the size of Senegal and larger than Florida; the source of this figure is not named.
  • The article states Thwaites contributes around four percent of global sea-level rise and has lost more than 1,000 billion tonnes of ice since 2000 (source not named).
  • According to the British Antarctic Survey scientists' study in Geophysical Research Letters, Thwaites will keep losing ice for at least 150 years, even under extreme ocean cooling.
  • In a 2019 study, NASA JPL found a giant underwater cavity beneath Thwaites, spanning two-thirds the size of Manhattan.
Read the original articleAl Jazeera · aljazeera.com
← All headlines
Read the original articleAl Jazeera · aljazeera.com