Historical emissions caused the climate crisis. But it’s what we do today that will make or break it, study shows
Link to Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01372-y
Link to Article: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/world/climate-warming-emissions-study-intl/index.html
Since the industrial revolution, humanity has been emitting gasses and other materials into Earth's atmosphere. Two important emissions are green house gas (GHG) emission and short-lived aerosols. The green house gasses absorb heat from the sun giving a net warming effect on the atmosphere. On the contrary, short-lived aerosols produce a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. These two emissions can be combined, with other minor factors, to predict the global temperature increase in the future. Both the paper and the article focus on a global temperature increase of 1.5 °C to 2 °C. These numbers are important because in 2015 at the UN Climate Change Conference an overall goal of keeping global temperature increase well under 2 °C was establish(1). This goal is a legally binding international treaty know as the Paris Agreement and was signed by a vast majority of the world's countries. The 1.5 °C is important because the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change theorized that warming above 1.5 °C would result in severe climate change impacts: severe rainfall, drought and heatwaves(1).
An articled from CNN by Rachel Ramirez on June 6, 2022, discussed a paper recently published in the Nature that estimates global temperature increases based on multiple emission scenarios. The article first discusses cutting emissions to zero, but then explains that zero emissions is not a feasible scenario. Presenting this improbable scenario showed that past emissions have not yet guaranteed a continued global temperature increase of 1.5 °C. In fact, the article predicted an eventual slow net cooling of Earth's atmosphere. This information is then used to suggest the climate crisis is still solvable if we greatly reduce emissions, which highlights a call to action in the article. Ramirez utilizes quotes from the author of the paper that agreed with the interpretation of the data (I would assume the quotes were attained during an interview, but it is not stated and these quotes are not in the paper). These quotes help support the call to action of reducing global emissions. The article itself was easily understandable and agreed with the basic principles of the paper.
However, there were many shortcomings to the article, mostly due to over simplifications. The article mentions a peak of warming after cession of emission, but never explains this prediction is due to the decrease in short-lived aerosols. On top of this, the article used a direct quote from the paper that was a conclusion based on previously published scientific studies. This conclusion is made without taking into account the effects of short-lived aerosols which is a large portion of the study. In the final paragraph, there is a link to the "latest scientific evidence" from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the link leads to another CNN article. There is eventually a link to peer reviewed information, however I find using oneself (CNN) as a source misleading.
The paper itself was very dense. I found myself rereading multiple passages to even get an idea. Basically, they utilized a statistical called FaIR to simulate Earth's atmospheric temperature from 2016–2100. This model does not take into account change in land use, because it has been shown to be produce an overestimation using FaIR. The paper goes into very specific detail of the equations that govern the mathematical model. Overall, the paper focuses very heavily on the creation, specification, and limitations of the FaIR model. They even include a link to download the code, which highlights the significant difference in intended audience between the paper and the article. This model is then used to simulate emission scenarios from zero emission to an increase in emissions. The paper focuses on the warming at its peak and at the simulated time 2100. These two values are the same for the larger emission scenarios, whereas the lower emission scenarios eventual decrease their global temperature increase.
The article and the paper agree on the overall conversation of global temperature increase. They both show that global temperatures are increasing, but there is still time to reverse this global temperature increase. I would give the article an 8.5 out of 10. It does a very good job at addressing the most important issue: global climate change. However, the article is heavily biased to increase the impact of the call to action to reduce global emissions. On the other hand, the paper is very different because it presents all the information for the reader to interpret. Therefore, the reader can understand the shortcomings of the study, whereas the article is simply an interpretation of the paper.
1.) https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwxNW2BhAkEiwA24Cm9Lr3wJrm8EgjImkXxrcNpIWWuuE__6Uu3gbpeMnOeS-xqrjLEUcJpBoCcv8QAvD_BwE
Though the factors of changing global temperatures are multifaceted, I do agree that the article may not have been as in depth in its explanations, leading to some broad claims. I would rather cut CNN some slack with needing to be that detailed though, since I would assume the majority of the population would not even understand what an aerosol is. Perhaps this may divert the attention of the public to more obvious factors of global warming such as fossil fuels and fracking, instead of grasping the idea of how global warming can also come from more subtle circumstances, which shrinks the significance of global warming and narrows our visions in aims to reduce it. As you have mentioned, it is quite humorous for CNN to reference their own article in regards to the recent UN scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteContrary to some parts of your blog, I think CNN did try to reference how the prediction stems from the decrease of aerosols by claiming: "Armour said solutions need to also take into account short-lived “climate forcers,” such as the greenhouse gas methane and aerosols." But once again it is viable how one can argue that this brief claim shrinks the climate change narrative by not adding more emphasis on how and why aerosols are important.
I agree that aerosols as a word was mentioned, however I was mostly concerned with the fact that it discusses the effect of the aerosols without attributing that effect to them.
DeleteI think your evaluation on the news article is valid. The CNN article does a pretty good job of detangling some of the scientific jargon and putting the information from the Nature article into a societal context. This allows for a more general audience to understand why reducing emissions are important, approaches the issue of climate change with hope and urgency, which then pushes for a call to action. The CNN article does mention the cooling effect that aerosols have in masking warming and how this actually means that we are committing to higher temperature levels years before we actually reach those levels. I appreciate how the CNN article actually interviews and quotes one of the authors from the Nature paper as it means that the information presented by the CNN aligns with the study described in the Nature paper.
ReplyDeleteThe CNN article does lack some depth in explaining how these predictions are made. While providing a thorough explanation of the methods is not suitable to the general audience, maybe mentioning briefly that the model used is SSP2 (which generally means that current socioeconomic trends continue) and what assumptions this makes may be helpful for some readers. For me at least, the CNN article actually helped with better understanding the Nature article as the latter is very dense.
I wish the CNN article specified a bit more about the conditions used when considering what their interpretations mean. It's definitely an over simplification by simply stating "if the world cut emissions to zero today, there would still be a 42% chance of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming" and leaving out the fact that the numbers are from a "medium emissions trajectory" (SSP2-4.5) I don't assume that the general public would know or take much interest in the math used to generate the model but mentioning parameters like N2O and CH4 levels as background emissions could provide a more complete, qualitative picture.
ReplyDeleteI agree that mentioning the IPCC but referencing another CNN article is misleading and honestly poor journalism. Mentioning the IPCC report but then referring back to the study and how the scientists used "climate modeling" makes the reader feel as if they're not sure if CNN is referring to the IPCC report or back to the study.
I think the idea of mentioning the background conditions is a very good idea. It could be a simple sentence that shows that the model is man made and not perfect. Also, this would help show the plethora of factors that go into global temperature increase.
DeleteI agree with your assessment, the article successfully explains a dense Nature paper so that the broader community can understand the severity of acting now on reaching net-zero emissions. Something that I appreciated in the CNN article was how they connected the climate pathways presented in the Nature paper with the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity. I feel that when people hear "warming of +1.5 ºC" they brush that off thinking that level of warming will not meaningfully change their lives. The CNN article succeeds in connecting the warming to a loss of 18% of all land species and rising sea levels. Maybe it's not fair to expect a Nature paper to go out of its way to spell out issues with climate change, but I believe connecting back to how our world will change because of the warming is important.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the Nature paper was published in 2022, I wonder how the Canadian, Hawaii, and Australian wildfires have impacted aerosol concentrations. Do climate models account for higher aerosol emissions due to wildfires in an increasingly hotter world? Is it relevant for an average audience to know that more aerosols can lead to a slight cooling effect? I do not believe the scientific paper mentions this in their model assessment, so I am interested in others' takes. You mention that the model does not account for land use change due to overestimations. If the land is changed significantly due to fires, would it still be permissible to ignore land use as a variable?
I think this CNN article does a good job of interpreting the Nature paper, and a great job of communicating the results in an accessible way. The CNN article generally portrays the main idea of the Nature paper correctly, and upholds the Nature paper's conclusion that future GHG emissions, rather than historical GHG emissions, are what will shape future warming.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the details that the CNN article cites can be misleading to those who haven't read the Nature paper. For example, the CNN article says that "even if the world cut emissions to zero today, there would still be a 42% chance of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming." This does not agree with the Nature paper's findings, which are that there is a 42% chance of 1.5 degrees Celsius warming with "low- to moderate" emissions scenarios rather than a complete cut to emissions. While the CNN article is almost correct, it is slightly inconsistent with the paper's claims.
Despite this inconsistency, the paper does a good job of relaying the general idea correctly and in a way that's understandable for most. I agree with your rating, because it interprets the Nature paper almost correctly and does a great job of portraying the results of a very dense paper in a way that can be understood by a very general audience. I would even bump up the rating to a 9/10, since the CNN article focuses not only on the results of the paper, but also calls people to action and encourages their audience to work towards cutting GHG emissions as quickly as possible to lower the probability of warming above either 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius.
I really enjoyed your insight on the inconsistencies. I personally believe that presenting fact correctly is more important than the call to action. However, I have a scientific background, so I can see that presenting the facts in a slightly misleading way can be more powerful. Overall I rated and 8.5 because of the bias and discrepancies of the article. To me, a 9/10 would have no true discrepancies, like you described, and it may have some over simplification. I think that I have not been exposed to a plethora of news articles and therefore I am not as familiar with the ranges of proper representation of the data.
DeleteWe had talked about temperature changes in class on 8/27 and the graphic that was shown from IPCC 2010 had shown that even with mitigations on emissions we would still have at least an increase of 2 degrees Celsius. That was 14 years ago, so I'm curious if the projections have changed, and how much temperature has increased from then. The article states that a 1.5 degree increase would result in significant weather changes, but I wish they would have cited how past increases in temperature has already significantly changed Earth's weather.
ReplyDeleteI agree that citing your own article is not the best way to create reliable references to back up your claims. But it is an article written directly from an IPCC report. It definitely would have been better to just directly site the report and then mention the article, but we can't completely dismiss this claim/evidence since they do site reliable reports/articles in their own article that they link to.
That is a very good connection to in class material Kayleigh. To my understanding, the weather is affected by the compounding of temperature increase. Basically, overtime it gets worse and worse and a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees does not allow the Earth's atmosphere enough time to react.
DeleteI also agree that we should not dismiss the claims made at the end of the article. I simply wanted to point out that they are trying to get the reader to continue to interact with their articles/website as apposed to giving them direct access to the factual information.
While I generally agree with your points about this article, I would argue that the paper can be forgiven some of the shortcomings you mention. It does misrepresent the 42% chance of 1.5 degree Celsius warming as coming from a zero emissions scenario rather than the SSP2-4.5 scenario, the graphic you show at the top illustrates that even a zero-emissions scenario has the possibility of hitting a peak at or above 1.5 degrees Celsius above the historical average. While the misunderstanding is somewhat egregious given that the fact that a 42% chance of reaching the emissions threshold comes from a mid-emissions scenario is stated in the paper's abstract, I can see where the mistake may have stemmed from.
ReplyDeleteAs for your point about not addressing the impact of aerosols, while I do agree that Ramirez does not directly connect temperature rise after a stop to emissions with a decrease in short-lived aerosol concentration, I would argue the connection is implied. She includes a quote from one of the paper's authors near the end of the article where he states that "we are committed to a few tenths of a degree more warming as we lose our aerosols, those aerosols are currently masking that warming," which seems to me to get the point about aerosols across.
Because of these points, I would likely bump the rating of this article to at least a 9/10, but overall you have done a lovely job of synthesizing the information from both the article and what sounds like quite a complicated paper.
I agree with your points and believe the CNN article highlighted the main/key point of the article, especially since the scientific article was incredibly dense and full of jargon that many non-chemist/environmental scientist readers wouldn’t understand. I also agree with you regarding the heavy bias and inflated global climate change conditions and predictions. We can see this is the CNN article with bolded words and long sentences filled with many statistics: “But it also sends a hopeful message: that there is still a good chance of keeping the climate crisis in check if deep, sustained cuts to emissions are made. And the sooner the better,” & “…which says that even if the world cut emissions to zero today, there would still be a 42% chance of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels within a decade. That probability rises to 66% if the world waits until 2029 to reach zero emissions”.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the CNN article communicates a more urgent message towards climate change is because they do not adequately or effectively communicate the methodology nor the model utilized in the article. However, I believe this could be seen as a strength on CNN’s part because many politicians and voters do not care about the environment unless the consequences are presently harming them. CNN’s decision to emit a lot of information about aerosols and focusing solely on GHGs was also a smart decision because GHGs is what grabs readers attention. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the complex nature aerosols play in our environment, so the CNN article would not have received as much attention.
There were a lot of shortcomings to the CNN article, but I believe it communicated the article to it’s best ability especially if CNN’s goal was just to increase awareness regarding global climate change.
That is very nice insight Mia. I totally agree that the omission of information was used as a weapon. Often, it was the information that was not as strong or as striking that was omitted. However, I believe that some of the omissions were done to simplify the article. I agree that due to confusion many people would choose not to even interact with the article. This is the balance: simplify the information so everyone can understand, correctly representing the data from the study.
DeleteI agree with your assessment that the CNN article at times seems to oversimplify or skew some of the results and conclusions of the nature paper. In particular, making claims such as "even if the world cut emissions to zero today, there would still be a 42% chance of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels" is a misrepresentation of the paper, as the Nature paper notes that this would be the case if a medium-emissions trajectory is followed, rather than a cessation of emissions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you stated, overall the CNN article does a good job of agreeing with and simplifying the Nature paper, which utilizes language that may be inaccessible to the general public and provides details about a complicated mathematical model. The article helps readers understand the consequences of temperature rises beyond the 1.5ºC and 2ºC benchmarks by conveying that such increases are associated with long-term effects such as ecosystem loss, rising sea levels, and the conversion of carbon sinks into emitters. Moreover, while the CNN article may be biased toward a call-to-action approach rather than providing all of the details from the paper, I believe this may be beneficial in mobilizing a wider audience without overwhelming them with overly scientific language. In addition, the CNN article does seem to explain that the peak in warming is due to a decrease in aerosol emissions, as demonstrated by the following quote: "Because we are committed to a few tenths of a degree more warming as we lose our aerosols, those aerosols are currently masking that warming..." However, I agree that this fact could be stated more explicitly and expanded upon so the general public has a better understanding of this phenomenon.
Finally, I find it promising that the Nature paper provides a link for readers to download the FaIR code, as this allows for the scientific community to check this model and assess the validity of its claims.
I don't know how I feel about describing the CNN article as "heavily biased to increase the impact of the call to action to reduce global emissions". The goal of a major news article is not only to give general explanations of science for a general audience, but also to contextualize it and let them know why they should care. In my opinion, the majority of their statements they were able to back up.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "climate modeling" is not even close to a good enough descriptor of what the authors of the Nature article were doing with FaIR. Complex systems being analyzed by focusing on select parameters is essential but it does come with it's pitfalls, and those should be clearly stated to the reader so that they don't just assume a "black box" approach which is then often met with skepticism.
I'm glad that the article tried to contextualize what an increase in 1.5 deg C means by relating it to weather changes and extinction, because those are topics people understand. Also, the second chart in the CNN article depicting different emission scenarios and how temperature would then change over time is something that I think a general audience would find useful despite being overly simplified. The 1.5 deg C rise is often talked about as an all or nothing scenario, but that can make it seem like we might as well give up if we can't meet that goal.
I appreciate the thoughtful criticism Abby. The reason I said the article was bias was not due to representing misinformation or unbacked claims. I thought most of the bias came from the omission of information. For example, there was no talk about the pitfalls of FaIR. Specifically, in the research paper they explain that the model they are using does not take into account changes in land use. This was due to the fact that in previous FaIR models, the model overemphasized the changes in land use causing the model to be misrepresentative.
DeleteI think this article was rather successful at making the findings of the paper accessible for a wider audience. The stakes presented in the CNN article of species extinction and water scarcity may help the non-scientist reader understand the impact of global warning much better than the percentages and acronyms presented in the Nature paper.
ReplyDeleteI liked the structure of the article, as it first established the stakes of global warming, then explained the gap between the public and scientific perception of what needs to be done to decrease the rate of global warning, namely considering "Short lived climate forcers", such as greenhouse gases and aerosols, rather than just CO2. I found the article's description of how aerosols "mask" global warming particularly compelling. The Nature paper explains the same thing, but the phrasing in the CNN article is much friendlier to non-scientific audiences.
Finally, the time taken by Ramirez to interview Armour, the paper's co-author, shows a commitment to representing the science correctly. As the paper is very dense and acronym-filled, it is very easy to misunderstand, and speaking with the author before publishing a summary is responsible journalism. This effort increases my rating of the article to a 9/10.
I agree that the CNN article did a very nice job of simplifying the dense article. The article utilizes the acronym GHG but does not ever define it. From my knowledge and studies, it was easy to me to figure out that GHG stands for Green House Gasses. However, I was confused at first and would expect many people to not make that connection.
DeleteI did really enjoy that the article was able to quote the author, however I am not fully sure if this is an interview that the CNN article author did themselves. The article forces us to make the assumption that the author interview the author of the research paper themselves. For this reason and the other factual discrepancies I was unable to give the article a 9/10.
I generally agree with your premise that the CNN article successfully simplifies the concepts and findings of the paper published in Nature to convey those ideas to a wider audience. There is an inevitable cost-benefit analysis to be weighed between accurately communicating information with specificity and precision, and making ideas accessible to the general public, while sacrificing some degree of accuracy. I find it interesting how this dynamic plays hand in hand with the opportunity for authors and journalists to incorporate their own ideas and opinions into their work. You briefly touched on this point when you described how the purpose of the publication in Nature was primarily to evaluate the efficacy of FaIR as a statistical model for simulating Earth's atmospheric temperature whereas the central aim of the CNN piece was to act as a call to action for the general public using the findings in the Nature paper as a key piece of evidence. This goal is clearly articulated in the title, "But it’s what we do today that will make or break it..." Personally, I have a vendetta against vague calls to respond to the climate crisis when they are addressed to the general public. When contrasted with the impacts of corporations, the average consumer cannot be reasonably asked to take action that will, alone, result in a meaningful impact in something as absolutely massive as the trends in global temperature. The CNN article, itself, points out that global cooperation between nations is the only hope to manage future temperature increases. It states, "that there is still a good chance of keeping the climate crisis in check if deep, sustained cuts to emissions are made," assuming the aforementioned cuts are regulated by national and international governing bodies. Although this article does effectively convey the main concepts from the Nature paper, I have to assume that the framing leaves readers overwhelmed with a sense of existential hopelessness by the lack of specific actions they, as an individual, might be able to carry out. I am by no means asserting that there is an easy answer to this dilemma. However, if a journalist truly cares about environmental issues, then it seems irresponsible to publish articles that will scare people into shoving their heads back into the sand. The tone and framing with which we discuss these issues is critical to calling action.
ReplyDeleteDespite this, there are many things the article does well. The way it simplifies and highlights the critical importance of the 1.5ºC and 2.0ºC changes as and contextualizes these as turning points previously discussed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Relating these otherwise abstract numbers to specific consequences like water scarcity and rising sea levels is critical for consumers to be able have basic climate literacy. I also think that it is important that this is described as a "5 minute read" towards the top of the article. Being able to convert recent and relevant scientific publications into easily digestible reads for the general public is vital for education.
I somewhat agree with your rating of the article. It does tend to simplify the points made in the paper, but I think it does so in a way that makes the content accessible to people without a science background. I also think that the article does a good job of explaining how aerosols have a slightly cooling effect and mask the warming from greenhouse gasses. You do a good job of catching the areas where the article is slightly misleading, which I think is important for people consuming the article to know.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the paper does a good job of accounting for the various contributors to global warming? If not, what is left out and would it make a difference to their estimations? An article in the New York Times called “How close are the planet’s climate tipping points?” talks about how if the planet warms beyond a certain level there could be changes to the natural world that would be extremely hard to reverse, such as coral bleaching and arctic permafrost thaw. Especially with arctic permafrost thaw, warming beyond a certain temperature would create a positive feedback loop where decreasing global warming and its effects would become increasingly difficult. I think it would have been interesting if the CNN article had mentioned something about this, in addition to mentioning that the calculations from the paper may become underestimates with increased global temperatures (mentioned on pg. 551 of the paper). However, I understand that the author of the article wanted to keep a relatively positive tone to the piece.
I agree with many of your observations. I think the Nature publication states the facts of their study whereas CNN takes a hard-line stance based on these facts. I believe this is expected and acceptable as current news media often blends personal conclusions with facts; however, citing another CNN source was certainly a poor choice on their part. On the other hand, you could argue that the CNN article drawing conclusions on the climate crisis from the facts of the Nature publication is not a problem at all given the reality we are currently experiencing with global climate changes. I was reminded of the video from class with Bill Nye and John Oliver talking about how irrelevant an "opinion" climate change really is. With the current body of research on climate change and over 97% of scientists being in agreement, the stance CNN takes could really just be considered and extension of the facts, although these facts were not super explicitly stated in the Nature publication nor were they cited well in the CNN article.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that interested me with the Nature publication was the model they chose for their research (FaIR) and how they came to the decision to use it. They seem to describe their thought process well, and they say at the end of the paper where the model and data sets can be obtained through various online sources. Looking into it further, FaIR is referred to as a "simple" emissions-based climate model according to citation 21 in the Nature publication. This reference was published in 2018. I was wondering if you ran into any other models for climate-change research that were developed more recently during your work on this blog post? Especially with the rise of AI, I wonder if a more complex model could be made. I would be curious to see how much the probabilities of reaching the 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C warming points within the century would change.
I agree with the article to a certain extent but its hard for me see how media outlets take such a strong stance with such little supporting information. The Nature publication has clear data and shows how the rate of warming has need to be controlled. I think it is intresting the parts of the paper they choose to put in the article and which they choose to leave out. The part with the arisols cooling is a nice addition in my opinion. I agree with your understanding of the article and how it is easy to interpret but some things are needed to be clarified with the peak of emissions part.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the article picked out very specific parts of the paper. In fact, the only quote from the research paper used in the article is a conclusion based off of previous studies. I found it to be almost lazy to include this conclusion made from previous study.
DeleteGreat observations, I agree that this is a good and decently informative article! I agree that CNN doesn't touch on all of the conclusions made by Dvorak et al, but I don't see this as a major issue because the article is trying to make these findings more digestable to the general public. While CNN simplifies some aspects of this Nature paper, it also expands on the ideas in a way that captures audiences and helps them realize the scope of the climate crisis. The article ties the research to things we understand and care about, and after grabbing our attention outlines how we can take action to combat the crisis. Like we've said in class, scientific research is important, but what makes research truly successful is its ability to be interpreted by the public--which the CNN article does not perfectly, but decently.
ReplyDeleteSome people in the comments section say that the CNN article was biased and inflated the situation we are in with the climate crisis, but personally, I don't think they inflated things too much. Yes, they heavily pushed for people to be climate-concerned and support climate action, but considering the fact that if we keep business as usual we will soon be entering a climate crisis that will impact almost all species (including out own), I don't think this "agenda" of altering people to climate change should be considered terribly biased. And while they may have inflated some claims a bit above what the Nature paper published, I don't think they made any terrible grievances and generally gave a good picture of what things will look like if we continue business as normal. What do you think?
I agree with your assessment that the CNN article was effective at addressing the central conclusion of the Nature paper, though it mainly did so by summarizing the paper's abstract in more accessible language to a non-scientific reader. While I agree that it severely glosses over the methods and nuances used in the FaIR model (doesn't even mention the model's name) I think a news article is an inappropriate medium to include this detail, which would dilute the overall takeaway. However one paragraph in the article described the importance of both cutting CO2 emissions and the presence of methane and aerosols, and continues to state the masking effect of aerosols on warming. Considering the paper included a discussion on ZEC(CO2), it would be interesting for the article to include a slightly more quantitative discussion on the effects of CO2 emissions alone v.s. with aerosols, though keeping this at a high level appropriate for a general audience.
ReplyDeleteI also like how the article described the effects of a global temperature increase on ecosystems and a continued cycle of climate change. Doing so contextualizes this study and helps make "global warming" and the "1.5C or 2C" values less of buzzwords that can easily be repeated and misunderstood, and thus contribute to denial or apathy about climate change.
I agree with your major analysis of the article- there definitely were some places that should have double checked which sources were sited. I think that it definitely simplifies the article down to a point that isn't the exact truth; however, I don't necessarily think that is the news source trying to mask any information, but rather a lack of understanding of what the science is actually saying. Simplification is definitely necessary to make this nature research article accessible information to the rest of the public.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the bias goes for the CNN article, I also don't think that is necessarily an issue. If the news is something that is negative, the news source needs to report it as such in order to get people to care. One of the major issues with how news is reported is the fact that many news sources try to find the "other side", reporting the correlation of global warming and carbon emissions as an opinion rather than a fact.
I think you make good points in that some of the data in the article is very simplified, and that the "latest scientific evidence" being another CNN article does hinder its credibility from the eyes of a scientist. Given that the source article was not only mentioned, but included colloquial quotes from one of the co-authors, I feel that the authors did at least some research. I think if evaluating all the facts from a chemistry perspective is necessary to believe/understand the conclusions brought forth, as most of us are inclined, then reading the source article would be beneficial. However, I think it is also valuable to note the discrepancy in education access across America, and in some cases giving a more broad overview of topics that may overwhelm the less chemistry-inclined readers is beneficial in the effort to further propagate this sort of knowledge and awareness. Similarly, linking another CNN article and presenting it as "latest scientific evidence" may seem misleading, but linking directly to a publication may further overwhelm some readers. Likewise, individuals who have even a broad understanding of the information being presented to them could be more likely to be more environmentally conscious in the future, and possibly feeling more confident in voting for environmental policies at the ballot due to less feelings of uncertainty.
ReplyDelete(Sorry that I did send my comment out on Wednesday, but I don't know why it did not appear. I don't know whether this is too late. But I am sending it out anyway.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your evaluation of the article; it did a great job using the paper's conclusion about GHS (Green House Gas) to communicate with the public. When the public readers saw that "the temperature would increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius," they would not understand the impact of that temperature change. In addition, the article addressed how ordinary people can address the global temperature crisis.
You mentioned that the article did not cover too much about the aerosols and also over-simplified the reason given in the paper about why the cession of all emissions would result in a temperature peak--that due to aerosols' cooling effect.
But overall, considering the target audience of the article, I think it did a great job in explaining concepts in paper and making them digestible for the public. I agree with your 8.5/10 grading.