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
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
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
Climate Change Speeding Toward Irreversible Tipping Points
In a recent posting on sundancechannel.com a review was made of the United Nations Environment Programme latest report on climate change called “Science Report: Climate Change Speeding Towards Irreversible Tipping Points”. In reading both the primary and secondary sources of information many differences and similarities are apparent.
The primary article reports only the facts and is completely unbiased as it provides only the results of many tests done on various aspects of climate change. While each test has a conclusion and perhaps rather inductive conclusions are made, there is no sense of personal opinion in the primary article. One example of this is when the primary article explicitly rejects one of their hypotheses as the data proves it wrong. This means that the primary source did not necessarily reflect the title of the secondary article nor the claims it seems to make.
The secondary article, written by someone in the eco-friendly world of science who potentially brings bias to the table, does show bias in certain aspects. The data the secondary source uses is very accurate in the sense that they don’t try and extrapolate on what the primary source says and they directly quote the primary source in their data. However, the information the secondary source chooses to use is the information supporting climate change and not the negative results which are presented in the primary article. This shows bias in a sense and a sort of misinformation of the primary article since the reader gets a false sense of what the results of the study actually were. For example the secondary article says, “The report underlines concern by scientists that the planet is now committed to damaging and irreversible impacts as a result of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.” And while this may be true what the secondary article doesn’t tell us is that this was actually a quote placed in the foreword to the article. This leads to a false sense of the article because the reader would be lead to assume that studies and test had lead scientists to believe that the planet was committed to irreversible damage. The statement is not credible as it is a quote by someone based purely on opinion not the evidence.
One of the biggest differences between the primary and secondary source is that the secondary source reports not only the facts but also they assume what the results lead the scientists to conclude and believe. The secondary article uses such statements as “It shows that researchers have become increasingly concerned about ocean acidification due to the absorption of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in seawater and its impact on shellfish and coral reefs.” to try and prove that there is merit to their argument when really they are making assumptions based on conclusions the primary article makes which use phrases such as “could be a factor” and “might be a cause of global warming”. The conclusions from the primary article do not reflect the opinions of the scientists conducting the research.
The primary article, while reflecting accurate data, does not provide the reader with a complete overview of the results of the studies nor the processes which were used to obtain the results. The primary article is a brief overview of the journal article which offers only a biased view of many conflicting results.
References
Sundance Channel. "science report: climate change speeding toward irreversible tipping points" http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2009/09/science-report-climate-change-speeding-toward-irreversible-tipping-points/. September 27th, 2009. Accessed October 5th, 2009.
Various Authors. "climate change science compendium 2009". http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/Compendium2009_fullreport.pdf . September 2009. Accessed October 5th, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)