Paper and other tree-oriented companies are usually seen as culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. So it comes as no surprise that these companies make it a top priority to change this image of themselves, and be considered instead as an environmentally-friendly industry. The industry’s attempts at “greening” their image is covered in the article “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?” by Anne Mulkern.
The paper and forest industries present several points in their argument. For example, one of their claims is that the products made from trees - for example, paper, lumber, and furniture - store carbon (Mulkern, 2009). Of course, such claims are made for self-beneficiary purposes, in their attempts to avoid the policy that would cap their greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the following statement by Mulkern:
“The forest industry wants to be included on the list of what Congress considers as ‘green offsets’ the credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions…” (Mulkern, 2009).
Mulkern defines green offsets as “credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions”, but does not clarify as to what exactly those green offset credits achieve. Green offsets can be loosely defined as a way of having both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore by buying credits, the companies would be paying others to take actions in offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, so that the net impact on the environment in terms of emissions is zero.
If the paper and forest companies did succeed in buying green offset credits, it would appear that the total carbon emissions is zero and would change the industry image to an environmentally friendly one. But green offsets have not been applied to forest industries before because lawmakers offer credits in favour of more permanent trees. Commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted, in turn, cyclically capturing and releasing carbon. Permanent forests have more to offer: not only do they capture carbon, but are also important for air, water, and habitat reasons. Until there is a better understanding of how much carbon the forest industry is producing - which includes the energy used for transporting and processing - compared to how much carbon commercial forests absorb, the concept of green offsets cannot properly be applied to the industry.
It is important not to misinterpret terms such as ‘green offsets’. It can effectively give the illusion of an environmentally-friendly company. If the paper and forest industry were to receive green offset credits, it would go toward their commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted; therefore, carbon emissions still remain in the atmosphere. The credits are better off given to permanent forests, which are more beneficial to the environment. Of course the paper and forest industry would rather resort to green offsets than a carbon cap - a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released - but the environment would benefit more from the latter.
References
Mulkern, A. “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?”. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trees-in-climate-change-laws. 11 May 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Straightening Biological Terms
Diana Six’s article explains one of the major potential effects on the world which would result from climate change. This effect, is the delicate balance of mutualism. Throughout this article Six makes many strong, valid points regarding the importance of mutualism to various organisms and ecosystems, however, the article does not seem to contain a clear or outright explanation of the author’s meaning of the concept.
Mutualism is, as the author means it, any kind of interaction (ie. biological) between two or more organisms in nature which is resultantly beneficial for all parties. Examples of this process are noticeable everywhere in nature, even in such primary processes as a bee pollinating a flower. The bee collects pollen from a flower to make honey (beneficial for the bee,) and consequently carries pollen from one flower to the next resulting in cross pollination (beneficial for the flowers.)
This definition would make sense, as it fits with what the Six says in her article, like when she makes the statement: “In particular, mutualisms are important drivers of ecosystem structure and function.” (Jrank 2009.) Applying the above definition of mutualism to Six’s statement, the statement seems valid.
Without the proper background information on the concept of mutualism, the term could be easily misconstrued by the reader, and the article would become much more complex and difficult to read. The reader could easily misinterpret the term mutualism to mean any number of things, likely thinking that it would mean something along the lines of a single external process which effects a number of organisms equally, the article’s point could become warped and difficult to read.
Errors like this are all too easy to make as a reader, sometimes a term will seem familiar or self-explainitory, but it may mean something different than it appears. For this reason it is the obligation or the reader to always make sure all terms in the article are fully understood before reading, just as it is the responsibility of the author to make sure all terms are clearly outlined and understandable to the reader.
References:
Six, Diana. Climate Change and Mutualism. www.nature.com October, 2009. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v7/n10/full/nrmicro2232.html
Jrank. Mutualism. www.jrank.org 2009, http://science.jrank.org/pages/4535/Mutualism.html
Mutualism is, as the author means it, any kind of interaction (ie. biological) between two or more organisms in nature which is resultantly beneficial for all parties. Examples of this process are noticeable everywhere in nature, even in such primary processes as a bee pollinating a flower. The bee collects pollen from a flower to make honey (beneficial for the bee,) and consequently carries pollen from one flower to the next resulting in cross pollination (beneficial for the flowers.)
This definition would make sense, as it fits with what the Six says in her article, like when she makes the statement: “In particular, mutualisms are important drivers of ecosystem structure and function.” (Jrank 2009.) Applying the above definition of mutualism to Six’s statement, the statement seems valid.
Without the proper background information on the concept of mutualism, the term could be easily misconstrued by the reader, and the article would become much more complex and difficult to read. The reader could easily misinterpret the term mutualism to mean any number of things, likely thinking that it would mean something along the lines of a single external process which effects a number of organisms equally, the article’s point could become warped and difficult to read.
Errors like this are all too easy to make as a reader, sometimes a term will seem familiar or self-explainitory, but it may mean something different than it appears. For this reason it is the obligation or the reader to always make sure all terms in the article are fully understood before reading, just as it is the responsibility of the author to make sure all terms are clearly outlined and understandable to the reader.
References:
Six, Diana. Climate Change and Mutualism. www.nature.com October, 2009. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v7/n10/full/nrmicro2232.html
Jrank. Mutualism. www.jrank.org 2009, http://science.jrank.org/pages/4535/Mutualism.html
The Tipping Point
In the article titled “Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at Copenhagen” the author, Bill Henderson, uses the term “tipping point” when speaking about climate change. Henderson uses the term in a misrepresentative manner, which can lead to confusion and leave room for ambiguity.
The author uses “tipping point” in his article when he says “what action do we have to take globally at Copenhagen so as to not go over the tipping point of a melting Arctic ice cap or methane-producing melting permafrost or a drying Amazon?” It is evident that he is confused over the definition of the tipping point. Henderson lists positive feedback loops when using the term, which are a result of rising global temperatures and may cause the effect of a tipping point but that is not the meaning of the term.
Cambridge Dictionaries online defines tipping point as the time at which a change or an effect cannot be stopped. When using this term regarding climate change it can refer to a point in time where climate change will be irreversible. It becomes irreversible due to the fact that so many positive feedback loops will have taken effect that theoretically, it would be impossible to reduce carbon emissions efficiently enough to lessen climate change. The author uses the term to describe the triggering of positive feedback loops, which are reversible. If global temperatures decline the ice will form again, the permafrost will stay frozen, and the Amazon will continue to thrive, while if we cross this tipping point global temperatures will rise continually and at a greater rate due to these positive feedback loops. Henderson had the right idea when describing the tipping point as an irreversible event however his interpretation of tipping points was as the effects of feedback loops when in reality they are the causes.
I believe that the point the author is trying to make when using the term tipping point is that strong action against climate change is imperative. If we allow global temperatures to rise then the tipping point will be triggered causing an irreversible effect. We have a small window of opportunity and once that window is shut there is no going back.
The term tipping point used by Henderson could have caused some misunderstanding although his point that action on climate change should be immediate was still clear. The author’s use of the term implied that the tipping point causes positive feedback loops when in reality the positive feedback loops are the causes of the tipping point and not the effects.
References:
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
Henderson, Bill. "Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at
Copenhagen | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com." Homepage | Straight.com. 23 Oct.
2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
change-needed-now-bc-and-copenhagen>.
Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting
A new national poll by Pew Research Center for People and the Press showed that the percentage of people who believed the planet to be warming, dropped from 71% to 57% since last year. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research team, said "the economy most likely plays a large role in the drop." This explanation of the drop in support of global warming, while perhaps valid, carries the potential for confusion and misinformation as it does not provide any specifics. Kohut's statement requires conceptual analysis for clarification.
Kohut's statement has one thing which really requires conceptual analysis to even begin to understand. Kohut claims that the "economy" plays a large role in peoples perception of climate change, as he says is shown by the study. However, in Kohut's statement, the "economy" is not defined. This means that the reader cannot truly get a proper sense of what Kohut might be referring to. The word economy by definition means a multitude of vastly different things. While the reader might be able to assume what definition Kohut refers to, it clearly still needs analysis to understand how the economy could affect people's perception of global warming. Kohut does not specify why nor does he give any examples of how the "economy" could alter public perception and the term economy could refer to many different things and aspects of the economy. Kohut does not explain whether the economy refers to how much money the general public spent or whether it refers to the country's economic wealth and prosperity. This means the reader is allowed to and must make their own deductions about what "the economy" means. This lack of clarity may lead to a false and varied perception for each reader, which may not reflect Kohut's intentions.
Kohut's statement has one thing which really requires conceptual analysis to even begin to understand. Kohut claims that the "economy" plays a large role in peoples perception of climate change, as he says is shown by the study. However, in Kohut's statement, the "economy" is not defined. This means that the reader cannot truly get a proper sense of what Kohut might be referring to. The word economy by definition means a multitude of vastly different things. While the reader might be able to assume what definition Kohut refers to, it clearly still needs analysis to understand how the economy could affect people's perception of global warming. Kohut does not specify why nor does he give any examples of how the "economy" could alter public perception and the term economy could refer to many different things and aspects of the economy. Kohut does not explain whether the economy refers to how much money the general public spent or whether it refers to the country's economic wealth and prosperity. This means the reader is allowed to and must make their own deductions about what "the economy" means. This lack of clarity may lead to a false and varied perception for each reader, which may not reflect Kohut's intentions.
The statement Kohut makes, aside from being rather vague and hard to define, requires the reader to use some sort of deduction of how much the economy might really affect the perception of the public. Kohut uses the words, "most likely". This means that even Kohut himself cannot make a clear cut statement that the economy will have an effect on the public perception. This suggests the reader has to try and determine how much the economy might actually affect perceptions.
The use of the word economy in Kohut's statement, while perhaps reflecting his true opinion, does not provide the reader with enough background knowledge to truly get a sense of what is implied by economy. Conceptual analysis is needed to try and shed some light on Kohut's true meaning and even still cannot clearly decipher Kohut's meaning.
References
"Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting. Is Yours?". blogs.kqed.org October 28, 2009. Accessed October 28, 2009. http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/10/28/attitudes-about-climate-change-are-shifting-is-yours/
The use of the word economy in Kohut's statement, while perhaps reflecting his true opinion, does not provide the reader with enough background knowledge to truly get a sense of what is implied by economy. Conceptual analysis is needed to try and shed some light on Kohut's true meaning and even still cannot clearly decipher Kohut's meaning.
References
"Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting. Is Yours?". blogs.kqed.org October 28, 2009. Accessed October 28, 2009. http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/10/28/attitudes-about-climate-change-are-shifting-is-yours/
Can engineers 'build' glaciers and stop global warming?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6449982/Indian-engineer-builds-new-glaciers-to-stop-global-warming.html
A recent article on Telegrpah.co.uk by Dean Nelson describes that an engineer has found a way to build glaciers in spite of global warming. The headline states ‘Indian engineer 'builds' new glaciers to stop global warming’. This headline, however, can easily be misunderstood by the reader due to ambiguity. Using conceptual analysis, these possible misunderstandings can be clarified.
First of all, there is a possible misunderstanding of what it is meant by ‘building a glacier’. In the article, the author means that building a glacier is done by building a dam and then letting the water freeze, in turn creating a glacier of sorts (Nelson, 2009). Taken literally, however, one might think that the engineer is building a glacier like they would with a building. Although it is explained later on in the article what glacier building is, the headline still offers the room for the possibility that a reader could misunderstand the meaning.
Next, there is the ambiguity associated with the phrase ‘stop global warming’. There is more than one possible meaning to this phrase. I believe that when saying this, the author implies that by ‘building’ the new glaciers, this is reversing the melting process on the pre-existing glaciers. While global warming is melting the glaciers, the engineer is adding glaciers so the process cancels itself out and, in a sense, the engineer is stopping global warming. The ambiguity and possible misunderstanding of this statement is that some readers may believe that the creation of these new glaciers will completely stop global warming and all of its current and future effects. This is, however, a highly unlikely result of the new glaciers, but there is the possibility that some readers may understand it this way.
Finally, there is the issue of misunderstanding the difference between global warming and climate change because there is, in fact, a difference between these two terms. Global warming means that the entire planet is being influenced by a heating trend and all areas are, in turn, increasing in temperature. On the other hand, climate change means that the climates of the earth are under a change. This change could be: heating, cooling, increasing rainfall, decreasing rainfall, change in wind patterns, etc. The article states that the new glaciers will ‘halt’ global warming, but it is likely meant that the glaciers will ‘halt’ climate change. The result of climate change in the area could be a heating trend, which, in turn, melts the glaciers. The terms global warming and climate change are not the same although many people think that they are, so there is plenty of misunderstanding possibilities when it comes to this part of the headline.
Although headlines are used to grab the attention of a prospective reader, the authors must be cautious when it comes to ambiguity and possible misunderstanding of what is being said. By clarifying ambiguous statements, an author can avoid being quoted out of context and having words put into their mouths, so to speak.
Reference
Nelson, D. (2009, October 28). Indian engineer 'builds' new glaciers to stop global warming. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6449982/Indian-engineer-builds-new-glaciers-to-stop-global-warming.html
An Underwhelming Announcement: China at the New York Climate Summit
This September, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon convened a special conference in New York City. Its purpose was to strengthen international agreement over climate change in light of the climate summit to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark this coming December. One of the conference’s highlights was China’s announcement of a new national campaign of action on climate change. According to a report from the British Broadcasting Corporation (22 September 2009), Chinese president Hu Jintao pledged that the People’s Republic of China would “curb its...carbon intensity by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level” (BBC News, 22 September 2009). It comes as joyful news that China, the world’s top producer of greenhouse gases, has finally begun to consider climate change a serious issue. However, President Hu’s statement was vague and unclear in its meaning, and it requires conceptual analysis for a fuller understanding, lest his words be misinterpreted.
The phrase of greatest concern in Hu’s announcement is his commitment to reduce China’s carbon intensity by a “notable margin” by 2020 from 2005 levels. In this instance, a proper conceptual analysis would require specific figures to give the audience an indication of what Hu means when he says “notable margin”. Without figures, the idea of a notable margin is left open to interpretation. What the Chinese government considers a notable decrease in carbon intensity may be very different from what the United Nations or the European Union considers a notable decrease. Without a specific goal, China’s efforts to combat climate change will be less concentrated, and it will be less able to work together with other countries and their clear-cut emissions targets.
Another source of confusion in Hu’s pledge is the very concept of carbon intensity. Carbon intensity, as defined by BBC News, is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide produced within a country per unit of that country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The fact that carbon intensity is measured as a quotient means that as a nation’s GDP increases, overall carbon intensity will decrease. Thus, while reducing carbon emissions will of course reduce carbon intensity, carbon intensity may also be reduced by simply allowing the economy to grow. To give his statement more weight, Hu should have made it clear how carbon intensity would be decreased, to avoid misunderstanding and, perhaps, accusations of simply appeasing the UN while allowing the Chinese economy to grow unrestricted.
As the Copenhagen summit approaches, it is inspiring to see nations like China – those not under the governance of the Kyoto protocol – taking the initiative against climate change. However, if progress is to be made, vague statements like that recently given by Hu Jintao will not suffice. The key to international cooperation and success lies in clear and effective communication.
REFERENCES
"China vows action on climate change". BBC News Online: Science and Environment. 22 September 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8268077.stm. Accessed 26 October 2009.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Precautionary Carbon Back Catcher
In Gorrie’s article “Climate change ‘solution’ a fossil-fuel enabler”, Gorrie critiques the groundbreaking “carbon capture” technology. This technology, which was first used recently in a Mountaineer generating station in West Virginia, essentially captures and liquefies around 91,000 tonnes of emitted carbon dioxide gas and berries it underground in a layer of limestone.
Gorrie expresses that he does not endorse this technology, explaining that it greatly reduces the power plant’s efficiency and increases its cost. In addition to this, as written in Gorrie’s article, the amount of emissions captured by this technology is only 1.5 per cent of the greenhouse gasses emitted by the station on an annual basis. While this is true there are still some environment groups which believe this technology is to be followed through with and developed as a sort of reserve for if climate change were to pick up in pace.
While this technology may be deemed as inefficient, it is also a good example of our world’s effort to comply with the precautionary principle with reference to climate change. The precautionary principle essentially dictates that it is our responsibility to take action in the way of diminishing morally unacceptable harm which may be associated with human activity. Climate change is certainly one of the most predominant examples of morally unacceptable harm associated with human activity which we see today. Although the carbon capture system may be proven to not be the most efficient or effective means of reducing our carbon footprint, it represents desire to move forward and implement precautions for cleaner future. This goes to show that with a problem as large as climate change, the solution comes in steps, and the first one is to follow the precautionary principle and take action against the negative impacts of our actions.
References:
Gorrie, Peter. Climate change ‘solution’ a fossil-fuel enabler. www.thestar.com 17 October, 2009. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/704036
Gorrie expresses that he does not endorse this technology, explaining that it greatly reduces the power plant’s efficiency and increases its cost. In addition to this, as written in Gorrie’s article, the amount of emissions captured by this technology is only 1.5 per cent of the greenhouse gasses emitted by the station on an annual basis. While this is true there are still some environment groups which believe this technology is to be followed through with and developed as a sort of reserve for if climate change were to pick up in pace.
While this technology may be deemed as inefficient, it is also a good example of our world’s effort to comply with the precautionary principle with reference to climate change. The precautionary principle essentially dictates that it is our responsibility to take action in the way of diminishing morally unacceptable harm which may be associated with human activity. Climate change is certainly one of the most predominant examples of morally unacceptable harm associated with human activity which we see today. Although the carbon capture system may be proven to not be the most efficient or effective means of reducing our carbon footprint, it represents desire to move forward and implement precautions for cleaner future. This goes to show that with a problem as large as climate change, the solution comes in steps, and the first one is to follow the precautionary principle and take action against the negative impacts of our actions.
References:
Gorrie, Peter. Climate change ‘solution’ a fossil-fuel enabler. www.thestar.com 17 October, 2009. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/704036
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Climate, Politicians, and the Precautionary Principle
In the blog post “B.C.’s zombie politicians must wake up to climate change danger”, the author Bill Henderson addresses the issue of politicians and their lack of action concerning climate change. He quotes Premier Gordon Campbell and forest minister Pat Bell, showing that they argue climate change requires immediate action, yet has done little about it in favour of the forestry and oil industries.
Using the precautionary principle in his defence, Henderson presents his solution: to cancel the Olympics to draw necessary attention to climate change as the highest of priorities. Throughout the article, Henderson presents evidence to back his concern, but both his reason and solutions to the problem are hasty and unsupported. Henderson’s reason behind his precautionary thinking is the “rising probability of human extinction”, saying how we would be “guilty of murder/manslaughter by clear-cutting forests” (Henderson 2009) due to the emission of greenhouse gases. Making a large claim like the extinction of humankind is not effective in making an argument without more evidence. His solutions are also rash. He states that Premier Campbell must cancel Olympics, but does not make it clear as to how cancelling the Olympics would achieve the result he anticipates. Henderson also suggests that “Minister Bell should declare an immediate moratorium on all logging in the province” (Henderson 2009). Of course the forestry industry contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. However, Henderson should present more evidence to support his solution, considering it is an extreme action for Minister Bell to take.
Henderson proves in his blog that there is cause for concern, presenting the future consequences of climate change, and how evidently little the politicians are doing about it. However, for the significant actions he asks from the politicians, Henderson must present more evidence and sounder reason in his argument.
References
Henderson, B. (2009). B.C.’s zombie politicians must wake up to climate change danger. Straight.com, 15 October 2009. http://www.straight.com/article-264676/bcs-zombie-politicians-must-wake-climate-change-danger. Retrieved 20 October 2009.
Using the precautionary principle in his defence, Henderson presents his solution: to cancel the Olympics to draw necessary attention to climate change as the highest of priorities. Throughout the article, Henderson presents evidence to back his concern, but both his reason and solutions to the problem are hasty and unsupported. Henderson’s reason behind his precautionary thinking is the “rising probability of human extinction”, saying how we would be “guilty of murder/manslaughter by clear-cutting forests” (Henderson 2009) due to the emission of greenhouse gases. Making a large claim like the extinction of humankind is not effective in making an argument without more evidence. His solutions are also rash. He states that Premier Campbell must cancel Olympics, but does not make it clear as to how cancelling the Olympics would achieve the result he anticipates. Henderson also suggests that “Minister Bell should declare an immediate moratorium on all logging in the province” (Henderson 2009). Of course the forestry industry contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. However, Henderson should present more evidence to support his solution, considering it is an extreme action for Minister Bell to take.
Henderson proves in his blog that there is cause for concern, presenting the future consequences of climate change, and how evidently little the politicians are doing about it. However, for the significant actions he asks from the politicians, Henderson must present more evidence and sounder reason in his argument.
References
Henderson, B. (2009). B.C.’s zombie politicians must wake up to climate change danger. Straight.com, 15 October 2009. http://www.straight.com/article-264676/bcs-zombie-politicians-must-wake-climate-change-danger. Retrieved 20 October 2009.
The Cost of Climate Change
In a blog post on Grist.org titled “What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation?” the author, David Roberts, talks about the cost-benefit analysis of acting on climate change loosely using the Precautionary principle approach. Roberts puts society’s well being as the most imperative factor, he looks at who the costs will fall onto, and what sorts of alternatives there are to fighting global warming.
Roberts states that the total social cost ought to be the most important factor even considering that, in his own opinion, it is seemingly impossible to have a precise cost-benefit analysis to society. This closely follows the precautionary principle except Roberts does not conclude that the costs are insignificant knowing that there will be detrimental effects to human health thus going against the principle.
The author also examines the distribution of cost and benefits on certain parties and not just the sum total. He realizes that even when the overall costs will be low different regions, countries, and groups of people could potentially have higher costs and receive fewer benefits. Examining the effects on all parties is a key part of the principle but what Roberts fails to do is to clearly examine the alternatives. He briefly mentions that different alternatives should be considered but does not go into any further detail.
The precautionary principle is somewhat evident in Robert’s blog. He recognizes the effects on society are of most importance, even when the magnitude of the effects on society is not fully clear, and that individual parties will be affected differently. Although Roberts fails to conclude that if human harm is plausible then action should be immediate, and he does not examine specific alternatives to the problem, which are essential components of the Precautionary principle.
Referances:
Roberts, David. "What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation? | Grist." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary, Advice. 05 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.
The Precautionary Principle: Successful Use By the UN
The most important document in the ongoing international action on climate change is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Introduced in 1992, the UNFCCC serves as the basis for many subsequent environmental treaties, including the Kyoto protocol. It is an excellent example of a successful implementation of the precautionary principle.
Article 3, section 3 of the convention states:
”The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective. ... ” (UNFCCC, 1992)
When the UNFCCC was introduced nearly twenty years ago, the scientific evidence supporting human-induced climate change was much weaker than it is currently. How fortunate it is that the United Nations chose not to wait for more evidence before making decisions about climate change. It is now understood that global warming is occurring, and though the current situation appears bleak, it could have been far worse had the world waited until now to begin acting on climate change.
The UNFCCC also acknowledges a common objection to fighting climate change: the economic cost. Some parties feel that the price associated with efforts to reduce the effects of climate change are not worth the perceived benefits, especially as there is still a small chance that disastrous global warming may be averted. By limiting solutions to only those considered cost-effective, the UNFCCC refutes the financial argument by ensuring that any measures taken will be done so as cheaply as possible.
Although the global political will to act on climate change is still underwhelming, notable advances continue to be made. Due to the UNFCCC and the precautionary principle, the state of the world is far more positive than it might have been.
References
United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio de Janeiro: 1992.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2009.
Reducing CO2 Emissions; Wind Power or Nuclear Power?
http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668
In the article “Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven” from the Cambridge Network, the author believes that in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should turn to nuclear power rather than wind power. I believe that this is proper use of precautionary thinking.
The article states that using wind power as a precautionary measure is unreliable because wind power is erratic and unpredictable because it can change between days, hours, and minutes. As well, during high wind events, the turbines sometimes need to be closed to prevent damage ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
The article continues to explain why wind power, in Denmark, for instance, is not an appropriate alternative when it comes to creating energy with low carbon dioxide emissions. The author explains that since wind is so unpredictable, it cannot be relied on to provide energy for a large amount of a country’s population ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Instead, the author suggests that an appropriate precautionary measure to the need of creating energy without emissions is nuclear power, using Sweden as an example. The author states that even though there is an issue of nuclear waste, current nuclear power plants generate low amounts of waste ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009). This is important because nuclear power gives off no emissions and is more reliable than wind power.
In comparing the two options, the author also makes a valid point when saying that in the lifetime of one nuclear reactor, a wind turbine might need to be replaced three times and this maintenance is not only expensive, but dangerous when it comes to offshore turbines. As well, David McKay, the UK government’s chief climate change and energy advisor is quoted saying the wind power only makes a small contribution to a country’s energy production ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Overall, the author of the article provides with suitable precautionary thinking for a very important issue.
Reference
(2009, October 08). Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668
In the article “Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven” from the Cambridge Network, the author believes that in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should turn to nuclear power rather than wind power. I believe that this is proper use of precautionary thinking.
The article states that using wind power as a precautionary measure is unreliable because wind power is erratic and unpredictable because it can change between days, hours, and minutes. As well, during high wind events, the turbines sometimes need to be closed to prevent damage ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
The article continues to explain why wind power, in Denmark, for instance, is not an appropriate alternative when it comes to creating energy with low carbon dioxide emissions. The author explains that since wind is so unpredictable, it cannot be relied on to provide energy for a large amount of a country’s population ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Instead, the author suggests that an appropriate precautionary measure to the need of creating energy without emissions is nuclear power, using Sweden as an example. The author states that even though there is an issue of nuclear waste, current nuclear power plants generate low amounts of waste ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009). This is important because nuclear power gives off no emissions and is more reliable than wind power.
In comparing the two options, the author also makes a valid point when saying that in the lifetime of one nuclear reactor, a wind turbine might need to be replaced three times and this maintenance is not only expensive, but dangerous when it comes to offshore turbines. As well, David McKay, the UK government’s chief climate change and energy advisor is quoted saying the wind power only makes a small contribution to a country’s energy production ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).
Overall, the author of the article provides with suitable precautionary thinking for a very important issue.
Reference
(2009, October 08). Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668
Melting Composts Heaps And The Permafrost Precautionary Principle
In a recent blog post by Christian Hunt, on climatesafety.org, the effects of the melting of permafrost were discussed and the precautionary principle was suggested as being a critical part of the solution.
The permafrost located in the Arctic is under increasing threat of melting due to global warming. Huge amounts of dead organisms and waste such as dead vegetation are contained in the permafrost. The permafrost therefore plays the role of a huge composting bin, a compost which covers almost one fifth of the earth’s surface. Since the permafrost is threatened by global warming, there is a chance huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas could be released into the atmosphere. The blog suggests that information on large scale emissions, is hard to obtain but that unless steps are taken to ebb the warming of permafrost, there will be large amounts of harmful emissions created from the melting of permafrost.
In his blog Hunt uses facts on a small scale to provide reasons for considering permafrost as a potential component for global warming. Hunt states that while it is unknown how much carbon dioxide and methane gas will be released or how fast the emissions will increase, the affect of permafrost melting will be added to the IPCC’s scenarios and has, undoubtedly, a huge potential for harm. Hunt says that using the precautionary principle means we cannot ignore the permafrost any longer since ignorance could have catastrophic results.
Hunt’s use of the precautionary principle seems to me to be extremely valid. While there is no large scale testing done on the permafrost, the results from point by point measurements seem to suggest an overall increase in the amount of permafrost melting. If this is the case then certainly the precautionary principle demands that we take action to try and prevent anymore melting. While we don’t have huge amounts of information, the information provided “suggests a bit of a doomsday scenario” which demands, using the precautionary principle, that we act immediately.
References
Hunt, C. (October, 11th, 2009) "Melting compost heaps and the permafrost precautionary principle." climatesafety.org. Retrieved from http://climatesafety.org/melting-compost-heaps-and-the-permafrost-precautionary-principle/ (19 October 2009).
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Are we making a less meat-friendly environment?
In our society today, the repercussions of climate change are becoming more and more apparent, however, until its too late, we will never really know just how many aspects of our lives will be affected. Studies are helping scientists get a better picture of some of the effects we could be facing if this global threat is not stopped.
A recent study conducted by Neville Gregory, an animal physiologist of London’s Royal Veterinary College, proved that climate change is something that affects us in so many ways that we wouldn’t even think of.
In Gregory’s article, published in science direct, Gregory explains how climate change could affect our diet, specifically the meat we eat. Gregory explains that as the climate changes such that animals are being exposed to greater amounts of heat, the quality of the meat being produced by these animals will lessen.
This decline in quality is due to implications brought on by increased temperatures such as an increase in mortality rate and other organ and tissue related complications due to heat stress. These complications carry on after slaughter, leading to compromise of the meat produced by these animals, not only in its quality, but in its risk of contamination by E. coli and salmonella.
While this isn’t the most hard-hitting affect climate change would have on our world, small things like this tend to build up. There are greater and more pressing risks associated with climate change, but this shows how it could change our way of life in more ways than we would think.
References
Gregory, N. G. How climatic changes could affect meat quality. Food Research International (2009), Food Res. Int. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.05.018 (2009)
Armstrong, Anna. (2009) Meat-eater’s Malady. Nature Reports. www.nature.com 12 october 2009. http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.101.html
A recent study conducted by Neville Gregory, an animal physiologist of London’s Royal Veterinary College, proved that climate change is something that affects us in so many ways that we wouldn’t even think of.
In Gregory’s article, published in science direct, Gregory explains how climate change could affect our diet, specifically the meat we eat. Gregory explains that as the climate changes such that animals are being exposed to greater amounts of heat, the quality of the meat being produced by these animals will lessen.
This decline in quality is due to implications brought on by increased temperatures such as an increase in mortality rate and other organ and tissue related complications due to heat stress. These complications carry on after slaughter, leading to compromise of the meat produced by these animals, not only in its quality, but in its risk of contamination by E. coli and salmonella.
While this isn’t the most hard-hitting affect climate change would have on our world, small things like this tend to build up. There are greater and more pressing risks associated with climate change, but this shows how it could change our way of life in more ways than we would think.
References
Gregory, N. G. How climatic changes could affect meat quality. Food Research International (2009), Food Res. Int. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.05.018 (2009)
Armstrong, Anna. (2009) Meat-eater’s Malady. Nature Reports. www.nature.com 12 october 2009. http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.101.html
Climate change affecting the Arabain Sea's natural cycles
There has been a disturbance in the Arabian Sea’s surface temperatures natural decadal cycle since 1995 and climate change may be to blame. A paper titled “Response of the Arabian Sea to global warming and associated regional climate shift” published in the journal ScienceDirect explores the effects of climate change on sea surface temperatures (SST), as well as other climate shifts.
The SST has been rising since 1904 to 1994 (approximately 0.5 °C) with a natural decadal cycle, but since 1995, it has increased steadily with no cycle. The natural decadal cycle is related to the solar irradiance cycle but since 2000 solar activity has declined yet SST continued to rise. This led the authors to suspect that the rise in SST is due to global warming. When examining the correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and SST, there was an evident relationship between 1960 and 2006.
Other changes around the Arabian Sea are believed to be a result of rising temperatures. The intensity and number of cyclones has risen in the past twelve years (from 1995 to 2007). Also, air temperatures over India, during February, have rapidly increased an additional 1.5 °C since 1995. This is resulting in a decrease in wheat yield, since it is a winter crop. There has been a 4.5% decline in kernel weight for every 1 °C increase in temperature.
An obvious question remains; why is the Arabian Sea just showing the effects of climate change since 1995? This is due to the fact that a strong wind-driven upwelling brings cooler water to the surface, for example, the temperatures of the upwelling water near Somalia ranges from 17 to 22 °C. This upwelling has maintained the natural decade cycle, but since 1995 and 2006, carbon dioxide drive radiative forcing has increased 20% causing temperature’s to rise. Upwelling-driven cooling can no longer compensate this increase in temperature. This resulted in a steady increase in SST.
Rising temperatures due to climate change evidently caused the disruption of the natural decadal cycle in the Arabian Sea. The reason for the cycle not being affected until 1995 is due to the wind-driven upwelling masking the effects. The affecting SST rising temperatures have caused other changes as well, such as an increase in cyclone intensity and occurrences along with affecting crop yield. Many of the effects of rising SST are new and other further effects are unknown. Further study should be done on the food security within the region, since temperatures are expected to rise.
References:
Kumar, Prasanna, Raj Roshin, Jayu Narvekar, Dinesh Kumar, and E. Vivekanandan. "ScienceDirect - Marine Environmental Research : Response of the Arabian Sea to global warming and associated regional climate shift." ScienceDirect - Home. 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2009.
Increase in Hurricane Activity Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures
It has been acknowledged that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased a significant amount since 1995, but the question of course is: why? Thanks to Mark Saunders and Adam Lea of the Department of Space and Climate physics at the University College London, the answer is closer than before.
It is absolutely certain that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased since the 1980s. Based on the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE), the proportion of years with activity above the 1950-2000 mean has increased from 16% for the period of 1970-1994 to 82% for the period 1995-2005 (Saunders et al, 2008). This sudden rise in hurricane activity has two possible factors: sea surface temperature and an atmospheric wind field.
The purpose of Saunders and Lea’s study was to determine the contribution of sea surface temperatures alone. They collected several data: wind speed data, sea surface temperature (SST) data, monthly wind records, hurricane and tropical cyclone records, hurricane frequency models, and statistical models of sea warming. Through vigorous analysis, calculations, and interpretation, they removed the influence of atmospheric wind field and determined the following:
“Our results indicate that the sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to August–September sea surface temperature over the period we consider is such that a 0.5 °C increase in sea surface temperature is associated with a 40% increase in hurricane frequency and activity. The results also indicate that local sea surface warming was responsible for 40% of the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950–2000 average between 1996 and 2005.” (Saunders et al, 2008)
According to Saunders and Lea’s results, indeed warming sea surface temperatures are a significant contributing factor in increased hurricane activity; the results go further to prove that, in fact, even a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature can result in an alarming increase of 40% in hurricane activity.
However, the Atlantic hurricane activity has been interpreted as the result of two possible factors, one being rising sea surface temperatures linked to global warming trends, and the other, the return to the positive phase conditions of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (a naturally occurring oscillation of the North Atlantic Ocean). If indeed it is caused by only a natural occurrence, it is expected that hurricane activity levels will drop back down to normal within approximately 20 years. However, if linked to rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming, hurricane activity is expected to continue increasing through the twenty-first century (Saunders et al, 2008). Saunders addressing this, stating the following:
“Our analysis does not identify whether warming induced by greenhouse gases contributed to the increase in hurricane activity, but the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed relationship between hurricanes and sea surface temperature will serve as a useful means of assessing whether they are likely to provide reliable projections of future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity.” (Saunders et al, 2008)
Clearly, it is important to recognize that Atlantic hurricane activity levels are increasing significantly, and whether or not one wishes to address the issues of global warming, rising ocean temperatures should be a cause for alarm.
References
Saunders, M, et al. “Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity.” Nature. January 2008, 451, 557-560. doi:10.1038/nature06422.
It is absolutely certain that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased since the 1980s. Based on the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE), the proportion of years with activity above the 1950-2000 mean has increased from 16% for the period of 1970-1994 to 82% for the period 1995-2005 (Saunders et al, 2008). This sudden rise in hurricane activity has two possible factors: sea surface temperature and an atmospheric wind field.
The purpose of Saunders and Lea’s study was to determine the contribution of sea surface temperatures alone. They collected several data: wind speed data, sea surface temperature (SST) data, monthly wind records, hurricane and tropical cyclone records, hurricane frequency models, and statistical models of sea warming. Through vigorous analysis, calculations, and interpretation, they removed the influence of atmospheric wind field and determined the following:
“Our results indicate that the sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to August–September sea surface temperature over the period we consider is such that a 0.5 °C increase in sea surface temperature is associated with a 40% increase in hurricane frequency and activity. The results also indicate that local sea surface warming was responsible for 40% of the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950–2000 average between 1996 and 2005.” (Saunders et al, 2008)
According to Saunders and Lea’s results, indeed warming sea surface temperatures are a significant contributing factor in increased hurricane activity; the results go further to prove that, in fact, even a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature can result in an alarming increase of 40% in hurricane activity.
However, the Atlantic hurricane activity has been interpreted as the result of two possible factors, one being rising sea surface temperatures linked to global warming trends, and the other, the return to the positive phase conditions of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (a naturally occurring oscillation of the North Atlantic Ocean). If indeed it is caused by only a natural occurrence, it is expected that hurricane activity levels will drop back down to normal within approximately 20 years. However, if linked to rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming, hurricane activity is expected to continue increasing through the twenty-first century (Saunders et al, 2008). Saunders addressing this, stating the following:
“Our analysis does not identify whether warming induced by greenhouse gases contributed to the increase in hurricane activity, but the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed relationship between hurricanes and sea surface temperature will serve as a useful means of assessing whether they are likely to provide reliable projections of future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity.” (Saunders et al, 2008)
Clearly, it is important to recognize that Atlantic hurricane activity levels are increasing significantly, and whether or not one wishes to address the issues of global warming, rising ocean temperatures should be a cause for alarm.
References
Saunders, M, et al. “Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity.” Nature. January 2008, 451, 557-560. doi:10.1038/nature06422.
Climate Change Destroying Eastern Eurasian Forests And Ecosystems
Changes in the climate could cause massive changes in the population and dynamic of eastern eurasian forests. The results climate change simulation were published in the August edition of the journal Climate Change and the results predict a grim future for Eurasian forests.
The study was performed by Ningning Zhang, H.H. Shugart and Xiaodong Yan to determine the effects of climate change on a forest system covering 6 million km squared bordering on the south side of Russia and the north end of China and Mongolia. Since many of the trees in the forest system exist only within a very sensitive climate range a change of one degree can be fatal and catastrophic, as the study shows.
The study used something called the "FAREAST Model" to accurately simulate the effect of two climate change scenarios on the vast tree system, using values from the IPCC. The model simulated the dynamic of the forest and also incorporated, using trends based on IPCC information, variations such as temperature change and its side effects on soil composition and natural fertilizers. Since the trees in the forest system seem to be highly sensitive towards climate change both a "cold" and "hot" model of climate change were used.
The results of the study showed that the forest system is in extreme danger. The study says that many of the trees, living within such tentative temperature limits, would perish almost instantly after a few degrees change in temperature. This carries more weight than just the obvious extinction of a species of tree. The study says that the conifers in the forest system such as Larix and Picea would have a drastic decrease in population due to the small range of temperature change they are able to live in. The loss of one type of tree in a forest also implies complications such as a loss of biodiversity, a loss of a valuable ecosystem and it also changes the forest dynamic. While the study does suggest that some trees may adapt to the change in temperature, such as the broad leaved deciduous trees: Fraxinus, Quercus and Tili, the distribution of the trees would have to change wildly, whether moving to a warmer or cooler part of the system or growing only in very sparse clusters. The change in the forest system, while not only affecting the population of trees and the amount of biodiversity also destroys many valuable habitats for many animals. The study predicts almost a complete destruction of an ecosystem.
Climate change, even a change of only one degree has a huge effect on the earth. The study, while not only showing an imminent loss of Eurasian forests, also perhaps paints a picture for a worldwide future of loss and destruction.
References
Zhang, N. et al. "Simulating the effects of climate changes on Eastern Eurasia forests". Climate Change. August 2009, vol. 95, pp. 341-361, doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9568-4.
The study was performed by Ningning Zhang, H.H. Shugart and Xiaodong Yan to determine the effects of climate change on a forest system covering 6 million km squared bordering on the south side of Russia and the north end of China and Mongolia. Since many of the trees in the forest system exist only within a very sensitive climate range a change of one degree can be fatal and catastrophic, as the study shows.
The study used something called the "FAREAST Model" to accurately simulate the effect of two climate change scenarios on the vast tree system, using values from the IPCC. The model simulated the dynamic of the forest and also incorporated, using trends based on IPCC information, variations such as temperature change and its side effects on soil composition and natural fertilizers. Since the trees in the forest system seem to be highly sensitive towards climate change both a "cold" and "hot" model of climate change were used.
The results of the study showed that the forest system is in extreme danger. The study says that many of the trees, living within such tentative temperature limits, would perish almost instantly after a few degrees change in temperature. This carries more weight than just the obvious extinction of a species of tree. The study says that the conifers in the forest system such as Larix and Picea would have a drastic decrease in population due to the small range of temperature change they are able to live in. The loss of one type of tree in a forest also implies complications such as a loss of biodiversity, a loss of a valuable ecosystem and it also changes the forest dynamic. While the study does suggest that some trees may adapt to the change in temperature, such as the broad leaved deciduous trees: Fraxinus, Quercus and Tili, the distribution of the trees would have to change wildly, whether moving to a warmer or cooler part of the system or growing only in very sparse clusters. The change in the forest system, while not only affecting the population of trees and the amount of biodiversity also destroys many valuable habitats for many animals. The study predicts almost a complete destruction of an ecosystem.
Climate change, even a change of only one degree has a huge effect on the earth. The study, while not only showing an imminent loss of Eurasian forests, also perhaps paints a picture for a worldwide future of loss and destruction.
References
Zhang, N. et al. "Simulating the effects of climate changes on Eastern Eurasia forests". Climate Change. August 2009, vol. 95, pp. 341-361, doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9568-4.
As World Warms, Europe May Cool - Ecosystems at Risk
Despite global warming, the future may see a cooler Europe, and that could wreak havoc upon the continent’s biological and social stability. So says a new study into the ecological and social effects of an ancient climatic event published in this month’s issue of the journal Geology (doi: 10.1130/G25739A.1).
It has been well-established that there was an abrupt period of cooling in the northern hemisphere at the end of the last ice age about 8200 years ago. Previous studies have linked this cooling with the sudden drainage of glacial lakes in northern Canada (Barber et al, 1999). When the surge of fresh water entered the Atlantic, it disrupted ocean currents, leading to relatively rapid cooling in Europe and eastern North America.
J. Pross of Frankfurt University and colleagues set out to learn about the effects of this so-called “8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event” around the eastern Mediterranean. They collected samples of ancient pollen from a site in northern Greece. By determining the plant species to which each sample belonged, the team was able to reconstruct the ancient ecosystem of the area, and thereby infer local temperature and precipitation trends.
The results were startling. Of the pollen examined from before the climatic event, 87% belonged to broad-leaf species, implying that the area was heavily forested. After the climatic event had occurred, the proportion of broad-leaf species fell to only 53% of the total. Many species disappeared completely. This disturbance in the local ecosystem took centuries to recover, and was almost certainly due to the climatic changes calculated by Pross’s team: average temperatures fell by 4°C, and annual precipitation was about 200 mm less than usual.
The researchers also turned to archaeological evidence to determine the effects of the climatic event on people living in the area at the time. They found indicators of massive social upheaval, as villages were abandoned and populations began migrating across southern Europe. The paper also acknowledges other studies which cite the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event as a major contributing factor in the collapse of the Akkad and Uruk cultures in the Middle East (Weiss et al, 2001).
Of course, Pross and his team admit that their conclusion may not apply across the whole region. The site of their pollen studies sits in a valley, and so is subject to a different climate than other nearby sites. However, the team’s data fit well with existing models, so there is good reason to believe that the effects described by the paper occurred over a wide area.
At any rate, the implications of the study are clear. The 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event was a brief period of cooling during an era of overall warming. If the Greenland ice cap continues to melt, the northern hemisphere may soon experience a similar period of cooling. By determining the ecological and social effects of the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event, Pross and his team have delivered an important warning to the residents of Europe: take action against global warming, or face a chilly – and less biodiverse – future.
REFERENCES
Barber, D.C. et al. “Forcing of the cold event of 8,200 years ago by catastrophic drainage of Laurentide lakes”. Nature. 1999, vol. 400, pp. 344-348. doi: 10.1038/22504.
Pross, J. et al. “Massive perturbation in terrestrial ecosystems of the Eastern Mediterranean region associated with the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event”. Geology. October 2009, vol. 37, no. 10. pp. 887-890. doi: 10.1130/G25739A.1
Weiss, H., and Bradley, R.S. “What drives societal collapse?”. Science. 2001, vol. 291, pp. 609-610, doi:10.1126/science.1058775.
Global Warming Will Change Wind: Study
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0910/2009GL037500/2009GL037500.pdf
A recent American study now suggests that climate change will affect circumstances of extreme wind across the globe.
Researchers from the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida conducted a study that shows extreme wind events will increase in some areas and decrease in others due to global warming. Europe is hit hard every year with windstorms and the recent sandstorms in Austrailia were caused by high winds. The study is called “Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming”.
“Extreme weather events impact a wide range of social, economic and environmental systems. This study examines the changes in the frequency of extreme wind storm events in response to [global warming].” (Gastineau & Soden, 2009)
Issues involved with extreme winds include: structural damage, broken telephone and light poles, and downed trees. Airlines also are heavily affected by strong winds because it easily disrupts take-off and landing of aircrafts.
“The frequency of extreme near-surface wind speed decreases in the tropics but increases in the extratropics in response to global warming” (Gastineau & et al., 2009), says the study conducted by G. Gastineau and B. J. Soden.
The study goes on to say,
“The frequency of the strongest wind events decreases between 40°N and 40°S, with the exception of the central Pacific Ocean. However, the strongest wind events are more frequent in the storm-track regions, around the 60° latitudes of both hemispheres” (Gastineau et al., 2009).
The full study appears in the Geophysical Research Letters.
References
Gastineau, G., & Soden, B. J. (2009). Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 36. Retrieved from http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0910/2009GL037500/2009GL037500.pdf doi: 10.1029/2009GL037500
A recent American study now suggests that climate change will affect circumstances of extreme wind across the globe.
Researchers from the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida conducted a study that shows extreme wind events will increase in some areas and decrease in others due to global warming. Europe is hit hard every year with windstorms and the recent sandstorms in Austrailia were caused by high winds. The study is called “Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming”.
“Extreme weather events impact a wide range of social, economic and environmental systems. This study examines the changes in the frequency of extreme wind storm events in response to [global warming].” (Gastineau & Soden, 2009)
Issues involved with extreme winds include: structural damage, broken telephone and light poles, and downed trees. Airlines also are heavily affected by strong winds because it easily disrupts take-off and landing of aircrafts.
“The frequency of extreme near-surface wind speed decreases in the tropics but increases in the extratropics in response to global warming” (Gastineau & et al., 2009), says the study conducted by G. Gastineau and B. J. Soden.
The study goes on to say,
“The frequency of the strongest wind events decreases between 40°N and 40°S, with the exception of the central Pacific Ocean. However, the strongest wind events are more frequent in the storm-track regions, around the 60° latitudes of both hemispheres” (Gastineau et al., 2009).
The full study appears in the Geophysical Research Letters.
References
Gastineau, G., & Soden, B. J. (2009). Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 36. Retrieved from http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0910/2009GL037500/2009GL037500.pdf doi: 10.1029/2009GL037500
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Animal induced ocean mixing: primary vs. secondary
In “Sea Animals Change Climate Via Flutters and Flaps?”, National Geographic’s Brian Handwerk debates the impact of animal induced ocean circulation based on Kakani Katija and John O. Dabiri’s research paper “A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing”, published in the July 30 2009 issue of Nature. Though Handwerk wrote his review article as a presentation of Katija’s research, differences between the two papers are immediately distinguishable. There are three main reasons for these differences: (1) Katija was directly involved in the research and based her article on the results of her research, whereas Handwerk based his article on the results of Katija’s research. (2) Handwerk and Katija wrote their papers according to different target audiences, which is (3) the reason behind the differing claims or objectives in their articles.
Katija herself, along with colleagues, is responsible for the research behind her peer reviewed article. As the one who designed the experiment, did the calculations, and derived conclusions based on the empirical and numerical results, Katija wrote her research paper in great detail, including: the basis of the research; the exact procedures of the experiment; the materials and equipment used; a complete method summary; and complex calculations, graphs, and charts. When presenting Katija’s research in his article, Handwerk excludes the details of the research and covers only the simplified basics of Katija’s research, answering in simple explanations the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of Katija’s research.
The difference in the format and presentation of Katija and Handwerk’s articles is directly related to their different target audiences. Katija had to write her article in great detail of the research, since her target audience is the scientific community, with the knowledge that the scientific community would understand the complexity of the concepts and calculations. For example, in the article she refers to the limit of Stokes flow, the flux Richardson number, and the calculation of the Reynolds number without explanation. This is because it is fully expected that her audience understands these concepts already. Handwerk, on the other hand, had to simplify Katija’s research results. Handwerk’s audience is the public who are interested in nature and science, as the article is published in National Geographic. But they do not understand the complexities behind scientific research, and Handwerk adjusts accordingly.
Beyond the components and the format, the claims of the articles are also considerably different. Again, this is due to the difference in target audiences. In the original peer reviewed primary source article, Katija presents her research, data, and findings to support this presented claim:
“On the basis of calculations of a broad range of aquatic animal species,… biogenic mixing via Darwin’s mechanism can be a significant contributor to ocean mixing and nutrient transport…Therefore, neglect of the contribution of induced drift in theoretical models of the mixing efficiency…would result in an order-of-magnitude underestimate.” (Katija 2009).
Biologically generated turbulence has been largely ignored as a contributor to global ocean circulation due to the Ozmidov buoyancy length scale, which, simplified, concludes that the turbulence caused by animals is too small, and lost as heat before it can affect ocean mixing. But Katija, through her research results, claims that the other mechanism of fluid mixing - first presented by Charles Darwin and neglected by the scientific community - overcomes the Ozmidov scale due to induced fluid drift, the turbulent wake caused by the vertical motion of a solid body through high and low density fluids of the ocean, and is effective enough to rival the effects of winds and tides. She argues, therefore, that biogenic ocean mixing must be considered in theoretical models and in ocean circulations. While Katija focuses on the mechanism of fluid mixing, Handwerk writes to appeal to the audience and focuses on the significance of animal induced ocean mixing as a whole. He includes quotes from both supporters and critics, and stresses the importance of how this could affect global warming models, since ocean circulation is important in its contribution to climate. In this way, Handwerk’s claim becomes focused on the popular and widely debated issue of global warming, which he uses to attract a larger public audience.
By comparing Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is evident that there is a significant difference between the secondary source and the primary. Unfortunately, this illustrates how distorted information can become, even unintentionally. By not focusing on the mechanism as Katija did, Handwerk appears to be stating that according to research, any movement in the ocean will affect ocean circulation. From the example of Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is clear that when wanting to gain reliable information or form a solid opinion, one must make it one’s responsibility to search beyond the secondary source for the truthful facts, untouched by the media.
References
Handwerk, B. (2009). Sea animals change climate via flutters and flaps?. National Geographic, 30 July 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090729-jellyfish-ocean-global-warming_2.html. Retrieved 6 October 2009.
Katija K, Dabiri JO (2009). "A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing." Nature, vol. 460, pp. 624-626.
(http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kakani/Katija_Dabiri_Nature_2009.pdf)
Katija herself, along with colleagues, is responsible for the research behind her peer reviewed article. As the one who designed the experiment, did the calculations, and derived conclusions based on the empirical and numerical results, Katija wrote her research paper in great detail, including: the basis of the research; the exact procedures of the experiment; the materials and equipment used; a complete method summary; and complex calculations, graphs, and charts. When presenting Katija’s research in his article, Handwerk excludes the details of the research and covers only the simplified basics of Katija’s research, answering in simple explanations the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of Katija’s research.
The difference in the format and presentation of Katija and Handwerk’s articles is directly related to their different target audiences. Katija had to write her article in great detail of the research, since her target audience is the scientific community, with the knowledge that the scientific community would understand the complexity of the concepts and calculations. For example, in the article she refers to the limit of Stokes flow, the flux Richardson number, and the calculation of the Reynolds number without explanation. This is because it is fully expected that her audience understands these concepts already. Handwerk, on the other hand, had to simplify Katija’s research results. Handwerk’s audience is the public who are interested in nature and science, as the article is published in National Geographic. But they do not understand the complexities behind scientific research, and Handwerk adjusts accordingly.
Beyond the components and the format, the claims of the articles are also considerably different. Again, this is due to the difference in target audiences. In the original peer reviewed primary source article, Katija presents her research, data, and findings to support this presented claim:
“On the basis of calculations of a broad range of aquatic animal species,… biogenic mixing via Darwin’s mechanism can be a significant contributor to ocean mixing and nutrient transport…Therefore, neglect of the contribution of induced drift in theoretical models of the mixing efficiency…would result in an order-of-magnitude underestimate.” (Katija 2009).
Biologically generated turbulence has been largely ignored as a contributor to global ocean circulation due to the Ozmidov buoyancy length scale, which, simplified, concludes that the turbulence caused by animals is too small, and lost as heat before it can affect ocean mixing. But Katija, through her research results, claims that the other mechanism of fluid mixing - first presented by Charles Darwin and neglected by the scientific community - overcomes the Ozmidov scale due to induced fluid drift, the turbulent wake caused by the vertical motion of a solid body through high and low density fluids of the ocean, and is effective enough to rival the effects of winds and tides. She argues, therefore, that biogenic ocean mixing must be considered in theoretical models and in ocean circulations. While Katija focuses on the mechanism of fluid mixing, Handwerk writes to appeal to the audience and focuses on the significance of animal induced ocean mixing as a whole. He includes quotes from both supporters and critics, and stresses the importance of how this could affect global warming models, since ocean circulation is important in its contribution to climate. In this way, Handwerk’s claim becomes focused on the popular and widely debated issue of global warming, which he uses to attract a larger public audience.
By comparing Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is evident that there is a significant difference between the secondary source and the primary. Unfortunately, this illustrates how distorted information can become, even unintentionally. By not focusing on the mechanism as Katija did, Handwerk appears to be stating that according to research, any movement in the ocean will affect ocean circulation. From the example of Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is clear that when wanting to gain reliable information or form a solid opinion, one must make it one’s responsibility to search beyond the secondary source for the truthful facts, untouched by the media.
References
Handwerk, B. (2009). Sea animals change climate via flutters and flaps?. National Geographic, 30 July 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090729-jellyfish-ocean-global-warming_2.html. Retrieved 6 October 2009.
Katija K, Dabiri JO (2009). "A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing." Nature, vol. 460, pp. 624-626.
(http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kakani/Katija_Dabiri_Nature_2009.pdf)
The Economy's Effect on the Atmosphere
In Marlowe Hood’s article, “Global economic crisis to slash carbon emissions: IEA”, Hood addresses a positive aspect which has arisen from the economic crisis which the world has faced over the past year. Hood explains that in a press conference by Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Birol announced that until recently the annual global carbon dioxide emissions rates have been rising by three percent each year, until the hit of the economic crisis which effected a five percent decrease by 2020.
While these statistics are definitely uplifting, they do not appear to be backed up by any clear evidence of correlation between the economical crisis and the drop in carbon dioxide emissions, as far as we are able to tell from Hood’s article, the relationship between the two could be completely coincidental.
Hood’s article goes on to explain the IEA’s statements about how much the countries of the world would have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions in order to keep from crossing the climate changing threshold that would be breached if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded 450 parts per million
The data Hood used in this article comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization is an extension of the United Nations (UN) which gains the statistics upon which Hood’s article is based a great deal of credibility. However, upon further investigation, it is revealed that the data used in this article is based on a study which the IPCC performed in 2007. While the information is still reliable based on the source, the fact that it is based on statistics gathered two years ago means that it is based on not current data, but a projection based on trends from two years ago, causes the data to lose some credibility, and since this data ultimately forms a large foundation upon which this article sits, this must be taken into account when reading.
Finally, in this article Hood addresses the issue that the poorer countries feel that “Rich nations created the problem and should bear the brunt of the responsibility to fix it” (Hood, 2009.)
The argument presented by the poorer countries seems valid but this is a very controversial topic because, since we are in a state of economic crisis, even the richer countries have to make budgeting cuts and unfortunately that includes the budgets set aside for such things as funding operations which cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is an aspect which might have been overlooked by Hood, as it contradicts what was said earlier in the article about an economic crisis helping slash carbon emissions.
References:
Hood, Marlowe (2009). Global economic crisis to slash carbon emissions: IEA. www.earth-stream.com, 06 October 2009. http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=208429. Accessed 06 October 2009.
International Energy Agency (IEA)
http://www.iea.org/ Accessed 06 October 2009.
Höhne, Niklas and den Elzin, Michel (2007). Emission Reduction Trade-offs for Meeting Concentration Targets. www.ipcc.ch, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2008-06/emission-reduction-trade-offs.pdf . Accessed 06 October 2009.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ Accessed 06 October 2009.
While these statistics are definitely uplifting, they do not appear to be backed up by any clear evidence of correlation between the economical crisis and the drop in carbon dioxide emissions, as far as we are able to tell from Hood’s article, the relationship between the two could be completely coincidental.
Hood’s article goes on to explain the IEA’s statements about how much the countries of the world would have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions in order to keep from crossing the climate changing threshold that would be breached if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded 450 parts per million
The data Hood used in this article comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization is an extension of the United Nations (UN) which gains the statistics upon which Hood’s article is based a great deal of credibility. However, upon further investigation, it is revealed that the data used in this article is based on a study which the IPCC performed in 2007. While the information is still reliable based on the source, the fact that it is based on statistics gathered two years ago means that it is based on not current data, but a projection based on trends from two years ago, causes the data to lose some credibility, and since this data ultimately forms a large foundation upon which this article sits, this must be taken into account when reading.
Finally, in this article Hood addresses the issue that the poorer countries feel that “Rich nations created the problem and should bear the brunt of the responsibility to fix it” (Hood, 2009.)
The argument presented by the poorer countries seems valid but this is a very controversial topic because, since we are in a state of economic crisis, even the richer countries have to make budgeting cuts and unfortunately that includes the budgets set aside for such things as funding operations which cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is an aspect which might have been overlooked by Hood, as it contradicts what was said earlier in the article about an economic crisis helping slash carbon emissions.
References:
Hood, Marlowe (2009). Global economic crisis to slash carbon emissions: IEA. www.earth-stream.com, 06 October 2009. http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=208429. Accessed 06 October 2009.
International Energy Agency (IEA)
http://www.iea.org/ Accessed 06 October 2009.
Höhne, Niklas and den Elzin, Michel (2007). Emission Reduction Trade-offs for Meeting Concentration Targets. www.ipcc.ch, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2008-06/emission-reduction-trade-offs.pdf . Accessed 06 October 2009.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ Accessed 06 October 2009.
Negative Feedback loop in Antarctica
In a article by Roberta Kwok in Conservation Magazine Kwok reviews a article titled Negative feedback in the cold: ice retreat produces new carbon sinks in Antarctica published in the Journal Global Change Biology. The secondary article states the articles findings, certain statistics that where calculated, and the articles conclusion while within the article itself the authors go into great detail as to how they gathered their data and which certain data was included in calculating their statistics. As well as any errors they may have had and how they where dealt with.
One example of how the secondary article simplifies the peer reviewed article is with the statistic that was concluded in the primary article which states that 910,000 tons of carbon that is contained within the new formations of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and seabed animals in the arctic. In the primary article the authors spoke about each ice shelf, bay, and area of ice that had melted and which is now home to new life. Then it was shown for each area of ice that had melted the calculated amount of carbon stored within that particular area. As well as the calculations for how much carbon was stored in each of the phytoplankton and seabed animals was included individually. It was not until the end in their conclusion when they had that particular statistic calculated. Kwok does not provide an explanation or proof of the statistic just states it in her article while in the peer reviewed article it shows step by step how they concluded that statistic and what data was used.
At the beginning of the secondary article Kwok gives two example of positive feedback loops which where the melting of polar ice caps and the loss of forest area due to climate change. There is no explanation in her article as to why melting sea ice will increase the effects of climate change and why warming temperatures will effect forestry leading to another positive feedback loop. In the primary article the authors provide thorough explanations. Ice reflects approximately 70% of the light that strikes it and therefore reduces heat by approximately 90 watts per meter squared compared to water. As with the case of reducing forest area this is due to spreading desert zones and a decrease in moisture. In the secondary article this is not explained at all and Kwok only gives the results of climate change and positive feedback loops and not the causes.
Kwok speaks about the total area of ice that has been lost this century within the arctic, a total of 23,900 square kilometers. In the peer reviewed article each region of ice that has melted was calculated then added up as well it breaks down the area of ice melted within certain time period of that century. The authors also explain how they dealt with errors such as when there was missing data for a coastline within a specific date then the data of the next closest date was used. Kwok does not speak about these certain details and possible errors within the data, just states the final conclusion itself in the article. The primary article provides detailed explanations of what areas and during what time periods they included within their data.
The secondary article summarized the peer-reviewed article’s points and conclusions in order to give a general idea of what the article was investigating. In the actual primary article it gave very detailed explanations of how they carried out their experiments or calculations and included how they collected data and if there where any errors how they dealt with them. The statistic and claims made in a primary article seem much stronger and reliable since they give a thorough explanation as to how they came to that conclusion while in a secondary article it simply references the information to the primary article with no other explanations. This undermines the evidence since you are not able to see how the evidence was constructed making it difficult to judge whether the evidence is reliable until you read the primary article from which it came from.
References:
Kwok, Roberta. "Southern Exposure : Retreat of Antarctic ice opens new waters for carbon sinks." Journal Watch Online. 29 Sept. 2009. Web. 06 Oct. 2009.
Pecz, L. S., D. K. Barnes, A. J. Cook, A. H. Fleming, and A. Clarke. "Negative feedback in the cold: ice retreat produces new carbon sinks in Antarctica." Global CHange Biolagy (2009). Wiley InterScience. 15 Sept. 2009. Web. 6 Oct. 2009.
How and why do primary and secondary sources differ?
In the September 2009 issue of the journal Geology, a team of British scientists led by one Timothy Daley published an article describing their analysis of oxygen isotopes in fossilised Newfoundland mosses (Daley et al, 2009). Their research indicated that at the end of the last ice age, there was a period of severe cooling in eastern North America likely caused by an influx of glacier melt water into the Atlantic Ocean. The study came to the attention of the National Geographic Society, and it became the topic of a news article written by Kate Ravilious for the National Geographic News website (Ravilious, 2009). A comparison of the original scientific study and its subsequent report clearly demonstrates that primary and secondary sources vary greatly in their presentation of the same information.
The most obvious difference between the original study and the article summarizing it is the difference in format and style. See their respective titles: Daley’s study is called “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B. P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”, which appears dull and uninspired compared to Ravilious’s attention-grabbing headline “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. Ravilious is a journalist, and so the intention of her title, like any news title, is to attract an audience for her story. Daley’s title is not meant to serve the same purpose; rather, it is straight-forward so that other researchers will understand exactly what his paper is about, and be able to judge its relevance to their own research (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 248). As a scientific paper, Daley’s article adheres to a strict format: there is an abstract followed by an introduction, a description of the methods used in the study, a presentation of the data, interpretation of the data, and finally a conclusion, all of it separated and well-formatted. This is the standard form of a scientific research paper, and by following the proper form, one can more easily earn the respect of the scientific community (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 14). Ravilious, on the other hand, is more concerned with conveying the story to the general public. She can therefore follow a less strict format. A final stylistic comparison pertains to the word choice of each article. Like most scientific papers, Daley’s report is filled with technical terms and symbols unfamiliar to the layman. It should be remembered, however, that the layman is not Daley’s target audience; rather, he is writing to his fellow scientists, who already understand the terminology being used. On the other hand, Ravilious’s news report is directed at a general audience, and so more familiar words and phrases are used. Although both papers are reporting the same information, the manners in which they present it are very different in approach.
Another major difference between the two articles is the amount of detail that each provides with regards to the research that was conducted. Daley’s journal article is about four pages in length, while Ravilious condenses the same material into about five hundred words. The reason for this is clear: primary sources must go into far more depth than secondary sources. In his article, Daley gives thorough explanation of the methods used during his research and the reasons for using his methods. This is so that other researchers can trust that Daley’s findings are accurate. The general public is not as concerned about the precise methodology of scientific research, but more as to what the results were and why they are significant. Ravilious can therefore afford to give a much briefer description of the study and concentrate more upon applications of the new information. This focus on the implications of the research leads into the last major example of how primary and secondary sources differ.
A final, crucially important consideration is how each article interprets and presents the results of the research. Recognition should be given to Ravilious for avoiding a common problem found in secondary sources: the exaggeration of claims. In science, hypotheses can never be proven, and results are never certain. The popular press, however, often interprets scientific research as having made fully established findings. It is reassuring, therefore, to find Ravilious’s article devoid of any “certains”. Rather, use is made of words like “could”, “might”, and “possible”. This mirrors the language used in Daley’s report, which avoids absolute certainty. Daley also acknowledges that many aspects of the topic “remain to be explained” and this is made clear by Ravilious. Such inclusions are noteworthy, for limitations of the research are often not emphasized in secondary sources. Many authors, including Ravilious, also make inferences that were not expressed in the primary sources. The main focus of Ravilious’s article, as stated in the title, is that Daley’s work suggests that the melting Greenland ice caps could trigger a period of cooling in North America similar to that which occurred 8200 years ago. This view is not explicitly endorsed by Daley’s article, which makes only one reference to the parallel between the Greenland ice cap and that which existed previously in North America. In some instances, secondary reports may entirely misinterpret the findings of the original article, or else apply the findings to ways they were not intended, either of which can have damaging effects. It is for this reason that interpretation and understanding of scientific findings is often the most important difference between primary and secondary sources.
This comparison of Foley’s scientific study and Ravilious’s popular account has demonstrated that primary and secondary sources often differ substantially in their presentation of information. The style and format are often very different, as is the amount of detail presented in each article. Perhaps most importantly, secondary sources often make stronger claims than the original research, and often the limitations discussed in the primary literature are downplayed in popular accounts. Secondary sources may often add their own inferences and conclusions to those made in primary sources. When all of these issues are considered, the underlying message becomes clear: an understanding of the differences between primary and secondary sources is an essential requirement for research of any kind.
REFERENCES
Booth, Wayne C. et al. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Daley, Timothy J. et al, “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B.P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”. Geology. September 2009, v. 37, no. 9. pp. 831-834. doi: 10.1130/G30043A.
Ravilious, Kate. “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. September 14 2009. Accessed October 5 2009.
Dryer Winters Result In Fewer Tornadoes
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024012/erl9_2_024012.pdf?request-id=f4e95a60-45f4-494e-86e2-577efddeca3b
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/
The news article “Climate change affects tornado activity” touches upon the research done by Marshall Shepherd, Dev Niyogi, and Thomas Mote. The evidence in this article is based on the article written by Shepherd, Niyogi, and Mote in the Environmental Research letters called “A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States”. In comparing and contrasting these two articles, the difference between primary literature and secondary literature can be seen.
First of all, the two articles differ in their titles. The news article has a very simple headline while the journal article is more complex and descriptive. The title of the journal article gives the reader more of an understanding of the contents of the article than the new article’s title does.
Another stark difference between the two articles is the length of each article. The news article is approximately half of a page. The journal article, on the other hand, is 7 pages long. This indicates that there is much more information included in the journal article. The news article gives the reader a brief summary of the evidence found in the study, while the journal article has approximately a page of results.
There are, however, instances when the two articles make the same statement, just slightly differently
"A U.S. study suggests that climate change effect of dry autumns and winters may lead to fewer tornadoes developing during the spring season.” ("Climate change affects," 2009)
“Our results suggest that there is a statistically significant reduction in tornado activity during the tornado season following meteorological drought in the preceding fall or winter. (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
The two articles even make identical statements, especially when the news article is directly quoting one of the scientists or the journal article itself.
The news article, as a secondary literature resource, provides the reader with a fine summary of the article. However, if the intention of the reader is to learn more about the study that was done, the primary literature (journal article) would be a more appropriate resource to consult.
The journal article contains the motivation for the experiment and the objective of the research being conducted. This information gives the reader a background before discussing the actually experiment that was preformed. The journal article also explains that they will be using tornado data from March to June and the antecedent time period is the previous 6 months. As well, the article mentions the study area of the experiment, in this case, the state of Georgia and what is considered a drought period for the experiment. The news article fails to address these aspects of the experiment.
“We primarily focused on tornado activity in the Mar-Jun time frame because it is the most active period for tornadoes in north Georgia, and it minimizes likely influences from tropical cyclone-spawned tornadoes.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
The journal article also lists a detailed methodology to the experiment and how they collected their data. As well, they present very comprehensive results to the experiment and several diagrams and graphs to convey these findings. For instance, I found the following important to the results of the experiment:
“On average, antecedent non-drought years had nearly twice as many tornado days in the study area as antecedent drought years. Antecedent non-drought years were also five to six time more likely to have multiple tornado days than in antecedent drought years.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
On the contrary, the news article makes very few comments on the findings of the research.
The news article makes a very broad claim that fewer tornadoes are the result of dry previous months without providing the evidence needed to back up such a claim. The journal, on the other hand, makes the same claim, but runs through the experiment and gives the evidence to support the claim.
As well, the news article is limited due to the fact that it is likely not written by a scientist who would understand and be able to interpret all of the findings of the study. The news article is solely meant to report the findings so that others who are interested can look further into the subject. This particular journal article also has limitations, as it states:
“There is a paucity of literature documenting how drought conditions feedback to the frequency or intensity of tornadic activity.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
This demonstrates that this research is one of the first of this kind and it is limited by this fact. It is also limited in the way that the study was only conducted for tornadoes in Georgia so other areas do not apply for this study. However, other studies are currently underway for other areas of the United States (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009).
Overall, it can be seen that the primary literature is far more in-depth than the secondary literature. The news article acts a sufficient study, but if more information is needed, the primary literature should definitely be consulted.
References
(2009, July 01). Climate change affects tornado activity. Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/
Shepherd, M., Niyogi, D., & Mote, T. L. (2009). A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024012/erl9_2_024012.pdf?request-id=136360dc-d462-4b39-b4fc-1a6c34f45fd1 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024012
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/
The news article “Climate change affects tornado activity” touches upon the research done by Marshall Shepherd, Dev Niyogi, and Thomas Mote. The evidence in this article is based on the article written by Shepherd, Niyogi, and Mote in the Environmental Research letters called “A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States”. In comparing and contrasting these two articles, the difference between primary literature and secondary literature can be seen.
First of all, the two articles differ in their titles. The news article has a very simple headline while the journal article is more complex and descriptive. The title of the journal article gives the reader more of an understanding of the contents of the article than the new article’s title does.
Another stark difference between the two articles is the length of each article. The news article is approximately half of a page. The journal article, on the other hand, is 7 pages long. This indicates that there is much more information included in the journal article. The news article gives the reader a brief summary of the evidence found in the study, while the journal article has approximately a page of results.
There are, however, instances when the two articles make the same statement, just slightly differently
"A U.S. study suggests that climate change effect of dry autumns and winters may lead to fewer tornadoes developing during the spring season.” ("Climate change affects," 2009)
“Our results suggest that there is a statistically significant reduction in tornado activity during the tornado season following meteorological drought in the preceding fall or winter. (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
The two articles even make identical statements, especially when the news article is directly quoting one of the scientists or the journal article itself.
The news article, as a secondary literature resource, provides the reader with a fine summary of the article. However, if the intention of the reader is to learn more about the study that was done, the primary literature (journal article) would be a more appropriate resource to consult.
The journal article contains the motivation for the experiment and the objective of the research being conducted. This information gives the reader a background before discussing the actually experiment that was preformed. The journal article also explains that they will be using tornado data from March to June and the antecedent time period is the previous 6 months. As well, the article mentions the study area of the experiment, in this case, the state of Georgia and what is considered a drought period for the experiment. The news article fails to address these aspects of the experiment.
“We primarily focused on tornado activity in the Mar-Jun time frame because it is the most active period for tornadoes in north Georgia, and it minimizes likely influences from tropical cyclone-spawned tornadoes.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
The journal article also lists a detailed methodology to the experiment and how they collected their data. As well, they present very comprehensive results to the experiment and several diagrams and graphs to convey these findings. For instance, I found the following important to the results of the experiment:
“On average, antecedent non-drought years had nearly twice as many tornado days in the study area as antecedent drought years. Antecedent non-drought years were also five to six time more likely to have multiple tornado days than in antecedent drought years.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
On the contrary, the news article makes very few comments on the findings of the research.
The news article makes a very broad claim that fewer tornadoes are the result of dry previous months without providing the evidence needed to back up such a claim. The journal, on the other hand, makes the same claim, but runs through the experiment and gives the evidence to support the claim.
As well, the news article is limited due to the fact that it is likely not written by a scientist who would understand and be able to interpret all of the findings of the study. The news article is solely meant to report the findings so that others who are interested can look further into the subject. This particular journal article also has limitations, as it states:
“There is a paucity of literature documenting how drought conditions feedback to the frequency or intensity of tornadic activity.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)
This demonstrates that this research is one of the first of this kind and it is limited by this fact. It is also limited in the way that the study was only conducted for tornadoes in Georgia so other areas do not apply for this study. However, other studies are currently underway for other areas of the United States (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009).
Overall, it can be seen that the primary literature is far more in-depth than the secondary literature. The news article acts a sufficient study, but if more information is needed, the primary literature should definitely be consulted.
References
(2009, July 01). Climate change affects tornado activity. Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/
Shepherd, M., Niyogi, D., & Mote, T. L. (2009). A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024012/erl9_2_024012.pdf?request-id=136360dc-d462-4b39-b4fc-1a6c34f45fd1 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)