Lightning Actually Strikes More Frequently In Skies That Have More Air Pollution
Izabella Antczak
News Article: https://www.chipchick.com/2024/09/lightning-actually-strikes-more-frequently-in-skies-that-have-more-air-pollution
Journal Article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809524001844
Thunderstorms and subsequent lightning can be predicted with
atmospheric variables such as moisture, temperature, and land cover. At different
pressure levels, these variables can then inform weather stability, which can
be quantified into factors such as convective available potential energy
(CAPE). CAPE combined with high concentrations of aerosols can influence the
convection of thunderstorms and increase the production of lightning.
The news article on ChipChick reports on a paper out of
James Madison University by Bentley et al. published in Atmospheric Research. This
paper conducted a covariance investigation to inform the relationship between the
severity of thunderstorms and aerosol concentrations across two different urban
environments, Washington DC, and Kansas City, MO.
Bentley et al. collected lightning data over a 12-year period
from the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), aerosol optical depth (AOD),
a measure of particle concentration, from AERONET data from the NASA Godard Space
Flight Center, and particulate matter measurements from the EPA. This study looked
at both PM10 and PM2.5, which are defined as particulate matter with a diameter
measuring 10 µm and smaller, and 2.5 µm and smaller, respectively. CAPE was then estimated using the ECMWF ERA5 forecasting
system at the initiation location of each recorded thunderstorm.
From this data Bentley et al. was able to establish a statistically
significant, positive correlation between CAPE and lightning flashes for both
regions studied. They also found that aerosol concentrations were a larger
contributing factor for lightning generation than particle size. Although they
were able to find that aerosol concentrations had an impact on the occurrence of
lightning, it requires a CAPE greater than the 75% quantile to see an increase
in higher lightning counts until aerosol concentrations reach the 90% quantile.
They found that when the aerosol concentrations were greater than the 90%
quantile, it caused a decrease in lightning flashes no matter the CAPE value,
which they speculate is due to the partitioning of sunlight.
The online news article written by Emily Chan on ChipChick,
a digital company focusing on creating content for female millennials, does an
okay job at simplifying the Bentley et al. paper. Although the article was able to touch upon
the major points of the pollution impacts of the paper, it has zero discussion
on how the group collected or analyzed the data. It also barely mentioned the
contribution of convective available potential energy (CAPE), which in the end
was the largest contributing factor for the amount of lighting strikes that
would occur during a thunderstorm. This news article was highly simplified, but
I think appropriate for a non-scientific audience. I do have an issue with the
website and how this article is on two pages, seemingly hiding the full article
and the link to the research article.
Overall, I would give this news article a 6 because although
I think it did a good job communicating the science to their audience, the article
barely discussed half of the conclusions of the Bentley et al. paper. It failed to discuss CAPE more thoroughly, and completely disregarding the differences
between the two cities studied, such as the temporal variations of
thunderstorms and the types of pollution experienced by DC and Kansas City.
I agree that Emily Chen did an okay job at simplifying the results from the Bentley et al. paper., but what the news article chose to focus on seemed odd to me.
ReplyDeleteThe cloud electrical charges quote from Bentley felt like a bit too much jargon for a general audience. I'm not sure where that quote was pulled from, but I don't think it was intended for the ChipChick readers.
The only comparisons between the two locations being about what days of the week were the most and least active seems silly, especially when in the paper Thursdays don't comprise an obscurely large portion.
The lightning photo is beautiful but I wish that they used images/figures that conveyed more information, either about the science itself or about health/climate statistics. Something to stick with the reader.
What information about CAPE were you hoping that they include?
Do you not think that getting into those kind of details would lose the reader?
Abby, I think you made some excellent points, and I agree with everything that you said. I also think that the first quote on cloud nuclei feels a bit out of place. I don't think that the addition of information was necessary considering there was very little science jargon in the whole news article. In regard to CAPE, I didn't think that the article was missing the specific term, but rather when you look at the scientific paper, one of the main conclusions is that if there is not enough potential energy, the pollution wouldn't affect the severity of the thunderstorm. I feel like that is an important enough factor that it should be included in this article and could be explained in terms simple enough for a general audience.
DeleteI think Emily Chan did a decent job of summarizing the multi-variable study. I appreciated that future work was discussed at the end. The paper in Atmospheric Research only studied two cities in the US, and it was my understanding that they were chosen for their different climates and terrains. Based on the findings, I would hope that other cities would be studied in a similar manner. I think my only complaint would have been the use of the words "pollution" and "aerosols" interchangeably. There are pollutants that aren't aerosols. You mentioned that you would have liked to read more about the CAPE measurement, but I'm not sure if an in-depth explanation of CAPE was necessary. Chan did write, "Additionally, when there was the most energy in the atmosphere influenced by factors like humidity and temperature, the levels of air pollution had the greatest impact on the number of lightning strikes." While it isn't the most technical explanation, I believe that may have been what she was referring to.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the context at the beginning of the article was a little ominous. While it may be true that on average 20 people die from lightning strikes in the United States, is that the most relevant statistic? I don't mean to diminish the impacts of lightning storms on human lives, but lightning also affects human life in terms of power losses and damage to property and nature. I think this is more relevant when talking about the correlation between increasing aerosols and lightning. The tone of the introduction was fear-mongering, like you could be struck by lightning the next time it storms. The increasing lightning strikes in areas polluted with aerosols is definitely important, but it doesn't mean that the chances of getting hit by lightning have increased by 50%.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Genevieve, I think you raise excellent points. I agree that there are a lot of opportunities for a larger analysis on this subject and that using the words "pollution" and "aerosols" interchangeably is misleading. Like I said to Abby, I wasn't hoping for an in-depth explanation of CAPE, but the lack of discussion on how the concentration of aerosols didn't have a significant impact on the amount of lightning strikes, if there wasn't enough potential energy in the storm, is a bit disappointing.
DeleteI think you are right about the beginning of this article and the fearmongering. I think this was Chan's attempt at engaging the reader, but it feels a bit out of place and a bit like overkill. A discussion of property damage or power loss would have probably been more appropriate and as easily referenceable as human death.
Izabella, I agree with you regarding your rating of Chan’s new article especially since Chan didn’t mention the large effect that convective available potential energy (CAPE) has on the increase of thunderstorm flash counts. I believe Chan didn’t include this information (CAPE) because reader’s might’ve not understood or cared about this aspect of the study; however, in my opinion, it weakened her argument. The extremely short length of the news article and the lack of methodological and supporting evidence of the scientific article makes me question the credibility of Chan and and whether or not they are qualified to report scientific findings/studies. The news article didn’t have a commanding or particularly strong voice which I believe are necessary for gender minority journalists and especially for digital companies aimed toward educating female audiences.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think? I was disappointed in the length and the lack of content in the news article and believe it perpetuated negative female stereotypes, do you think so?
I probably wouldn't say that Chan is perpetuating a negative female stereotype, but I do agree that this article is lacking a strong voice. I think that if this ChipChick is going to publish on scientific findings, they should invest more time in putting together a meaningful article that does the scientific paper justice. This article felt a bit disjointed especially when you move on to page two and Chan starts discussing that there are more lightning events on Thursdays and is lacking the further context of CAPE's effect on thunderstorm severity.
DeleteI think this article is a bit strange and does not deserve a very high rating. While it certainly simplifies the content in the research paper, I don't think it did a very good job communicating the science in the research paper. The article's main takeaway seemed to be that air pollution is dangerous because it's causing more lightning, when the actual research was focused on entangling the relationship between aerosols and lightning. With lines like "The odds of being struck by lightning have always been relatively low, but now, it seems that they’ve gotten a little higher," it feels like the author is trying to make the results of the study sound scarier than they are. While I imagine Chan was trying to give the reader a reason to care about the results of the study, to me, it felt like a misrepresentation of the researchers' work. Did you also feel this way?
ReplyDeleteBaker, I think you bring up an excellent point and I completely agree with you. I think the news article oversimplifies the scientific paper starting with the title. In fact, the title is actually inaccurate since Bentley et al. found that if the aerosol concentration is greater than the 90% quantile, the amount of lightning strikes decreased. I think a lot of issues with the news article stems from Chan not understanding the science. The article feels like a random bullet pointed summary of the scientific paper and did not encompass the findings of Bentley et al. in a well thought out manner.
DeleteHello Bella! I might even place it lower than 6! It massively understates the research actually being conducted and it really misses the main point that the potential energy is the most important factor for an increase in lightning. I think to your point about CAPE, and in other comments, there is definitely a balance to find in terms of talking about it without losing your audience in weeds. I think there is a key opening for that point at the end of the first page where "energy inside the storm" is mentioned; even if to just say that there needs to be energy available in the system (Potential energy) in order for lightning to occur. Given the brevity of the article, would you have considered this acceptable? Or would you have preferred a somewhat restructured articled where each result was more thoroughly explained with the risk of losing the reader? I am mainly curious about what you believe is more important, covering all topics of the paper leading to a longer paper that could lose the reader or ensuring that the reader is captivated with a short article that might lose some of the key topics?
ReplyDeleteHi Theo! Great suggestion! Honestly, I do think editing the article as you suggestion would suffice for the potential audience of this paper, but in general, the more I reread the news article, the more issues I find with it. I think the news article suffices for their target audience, I would just prefer a rewritten version that does more justice to the science and actual findings of the Bradley et al. paper.
DeleteBella, I think you did a good job on analyzing the paper and the ChipChick article. Overall, I would like to echo the sentiment the ChipChick article did not do a great job of presenting the information from the paper. Chan only took one finding and generally summarized it without giving maybe a brief background on aerosols and environmental conditions; overall this made Chan’s summary of the findings seem out of place within her own article. Especially in the introduction, I was confused at the information they chose to emphasize like death and the potential neurological damage caused by lightning. What do you think the purpose of the article was? It doesn’t seem like the article was trying to convince readers to care more about atmospheric pollution or climate change, but it also didn’t seem like the article was meant to share any important information about lightning strikes either.
ReplyDeleteI agree with comments such as Gigi's that express that the article seems to really detract from the quality of the article. I think the background that Chan provides is somewhat misleading of the content of the article, and hurts the content more than any omission of information could. This is one of the most blatant examples of overextending the claims and limitations of the research paper.
ReplyDelete