The Tonga Volcano Shook the World. It May Also Affect the Climate
Emily Hong
News Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html
Journal Article: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq2299
This journal article focused on the use of radiosondes attached to weather balloons to measure temperature, pressure, and humidity. Overall the global average stratospheric water vapor concentration was increased by over 5% due to this event. The balloons were measuring between roughly 19-30km above the earth’s surface, the stratosphere. The balloons burst when at higher water vapor mixing ratios at higher altitudes in the stratosphere. So no measurements were able to be made above 30 km. In Australia the highest concentrations of water vapor were 2900 ppmv whereas the normal background concentration is 5 ppmv. The water vapor concentrations were measured for over six weeks at stations around the globe. They found that the water vapor plume circled the globe over two times and it dispersed longitudinally and latitudinally. Volcanic aerosols usually decrease the heat in the stratosphere while decreasing surface temperature. However, water vapor in the stratosphere caused decreases in temperature in the stratosphere and increases in the surface temperature. There was also less sulfite that reached the stratosphere because of the sheer amounts of water vapor that reached the stratosphere. However the water vapor did accelerate the conversion of sulfite to sulfuric acid. They also theorized that the increased water vapor would cause increase in OH radicals through the reactions with water and O(1D) oxygen atoms causing the ozone concentrations to decrease in the stratosphere. They specified the need for more studies to determine the exact effect.
Overall the article did a good job of summarizing the findings of the journal article. There were a few things that could be improved to make the article more accurate. I think the article could have discussed more about the reason that the balloons could not measure above 30km above the earth’s surface. The stratosphere extends well above 30 km and this study was unable to see just how far upward the plume extends. I also think the article could have given some more concrete numbers about the increase in water vapor concentrations. A comparison between the ppmv peaks from the event and the background of 5ppmv was noteworthy. The figure shown above also does a good job of showing the locations the Radiosondes were released. One minor issue was the wording of one statement that said radiosondes simply cannot measure the changes in stratospheric water vapor was very misleading. Vogel goes on to say that it was a very big event and I guess therefore we were able to measure the change. This could have been phrased better explaining that the ability of the Radiosondes to pick up the data is in of itself a big deal.
Generally the news article agreed with the journal article and brought the implications of the findings to the forefront of the article. The article was accurate and highlighted the effects the general public may face. Overall I rate the news article 8/10.
References:
Fountain, H. (2022, September 22). The Tonga Volcano Shook the World. It May Also Affect the Climate. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html
Layers of the Atmosphere. (2024). Noaa.gov. https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/layers-of-atmosphere#:~:text=The%20stratosphere%20extends%20from%204
Volcanic Aerosol - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Www.sciencedirect.com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/volcanic-aerosol
Vömel, H., Evan, S., & Tully, M. (2022). Water vapor injection into the stratosphere by Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai. Science, 377(6613), 1444–1447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq2299
Emily, great job. I really liked your analysis. I would agree with all of your points but would even rank the article higher (9/10)! Firstly, I thought Fountain did a great job of concisely explaining background atmospheric and volcano information (For example, land-based volcanoes versus underground volcanoes and the presence of water vapor in the stratosphere). Fountain also wrote the background information with a confident voice which I think is crucial when writing about climate change/environment because many people still don’t believe in climate change or global warming.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I would rank the article even higher is because of the statement you commented on, “‘Any self-respecting scientist who knows stratospheric water vapor knows you cannot measure it with radiosondes,’ Dr. Vömel said. ‘Don't even think about it. However, this event was so unbelievably huge’. I didn’t think this line was misleading but rather fueled the excitement for volcanic studies. The first question that popped into my head was, ‘wait so what do they usually use to measure volcanic eruptions?’ and ‘this must’ve been a mega of an eruption, what do these radiosondes look like?’. I thought the inclusion created enticing and leading questions in the reader’s mind which makes Fountain such a great writer because he’s able to bring the reader’s attention to the environment and climate change. However, I also agree that Fountain could’ve added a small line clarify such as “so it was necessary to use radiosondes” but don’t think it was necessary because the ‘however’ helped relay his message.
I looked up Fountain and he’s a very good journalist that specializes in the science of climate change which is why this article was written so well.
What do you think? Do you think Fountains intention (wanting to bring attention to climate
Hi Mia! Thanks for your comment. I admit that I changed my rating of the article after reading Hailey's article. I definitely let the comparison of the two articles affect how I rated this article. I am glad that you didn't think the quote was misleading and was serving to explain the significance of using radiosondes. I'm not sure your full question got uploaded. But I do think that Fontain's intentions were in the right place. He definitely seems to just want to bring information to the public and he doesn't go overboard in his assertion that we could experience warming due to the eruption.
DeleteI think that this New York Times article is one of the better articles that we have discussed in class recently. I would agree with Mia and rank the article higher, closer to a 9/10 for two key reasons: 1. the title is very appropriate, and 2. it discusses methodology without completely getting lost in the scientific weeds. First, I think this is a completely appropriate title. It is engaging and pulls readers' attention without being misleading or misrepresenting the data. As we discuss more articles I am finding this to be a rarity so I wanted to point it out. This article was also unique in that it did discuss the methodology used in the two different studies. It describes how one study used data collected by NASA and the other used the radiosondes. Fountain also reports how the different methodologies led to different calculated values, which could potentially come across as confusing as the general public might imagine scientific data to be more black and white. However, I think the inclusion of the quote from Dr. Vomel really adds necessary context to this idea,
ReplyDelete"This is just scientific discourse,” he said of the difference between the two studies’ estimates. “At some point we’ll get a better understanding, once all the dust has settled.”
This quote really articulates how different studies that use different methods can yield somewhat different results but still arrive at the same conclusion. I think that this article sheds light on the entirety of the scientific process, unlike many others we have seen that simply report on scientific findings.
Hi Hannah! Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate you bringing up the two different studies. I do think it added a lot more credibility to Fontain's writing and showed he really went to the extra lengths to get data that was accurate and all encompassing. I like your point that it is hard to present data when the public wants it to be black and white. It is really hard to represent the data accurately but not oversimplify for the sake of a concrete answer. I also appreciate Fontain including Vogel's thoughtful response to the two studies.
DeleteEmily- I think your analysis of the NYT article and the research article is fantastic. I totally agree that the NYT article explains the complexities of the research in a simple way such that the average reader would be able to understand what is happening. I also liked how the research article was correctly linked in the NYT (which is relatively rare compared to other news articles we have looked at in this class). The only thing I did not necessarily agree with in the NYT article is the following quote from Dr. Vomel that they chose to include: "Any self-respecting scientist who knows stratospheric water vapor knows you cannot measure it with radiosondes,” Dr. Vömel said. “Don't even think about it. However, this event was so unbelievably huge.” I am still a bit confused on why radiosondes are not regularly used. The NYT article made it seem like the reason they used radiosondes was because of the regular launch times on Fiji, and the main deterrent for not using radiosondes regularly was just because of consistency in launch times. The word "cannot" implies that there is something wrong with the technology itself which is a bit misleading.
ReplyDeleteHi Allison! Thanks for your comment. I liked how you commented on the link to the journal articles. It was really easy to go directly to the source of the information and this accessibility I overlooked. In regards to your concerns with the quote. I agree that it seemed misleading. But I think the follow-up comment from Vomel about the magnitude of the water vapor slightly clears it up by showing that normally radiosondes don't pick up a difference in water vapor. Therefore normally other methods are needed to measure changes in the stratosphere. But I had similar concerns at first too and I still don't love the quote.
DeleteI think that this New York Times article does an overall great job summarizing the Science paper, and I agree with your evaluation of the article as a 9/10! The author provides an incredible amount of background information about atmospheric chemistry and how water vapor can play a role in both global warming and ozone destruction. Notably, the author gives more detail about the former process, detailing that infrared radiation being absorbed by this water vapor contributes to global warming; however, Fountain does not give as much detail about the latter, simply stating that more water vapor correlates with more ozone destruction. Do you think that a more detailed explanation of this phenomenon would have enhanced reader understanding, or do you think it would have been unnecessary and convoluted in this case?
ReplyDeleteI feel the author sufficiently hints at the methods of this paper, describing radiosondes and how they are carried into the stratosphere by balloons. Additionally, I agree that the statement about radiosondes was a bit confusing, indicating that radiosondes cannot be used at all under normal conditions (which draws into question the legitimacy of using this technique to quantify atmospheric water vapor); however, I do feel that this quote has some purpose, conveying that the magnitude of this water vapor injection event was so large that it could be detected using this technique. I agree this could have been worded better.
Finally, the author does a great job making the findings understanding to the reader, converting the "50 teragrams of water vapor" reported in the paper into a more widely understandable 55 tons (at least in the United States). This helps make the sheer scale of this event much more conceivable to readers.
Hi Matthew! Thanks for your comment. You bring up a great point about the cause of surface warming explanation. I do think a more detailed explanation of the cause of surface warming would have been helpful. I think it is important to note that Vomel found decreases in temperature in the stratosphere that contributed to global warming. So both the decreased temperature and the ozone depletion had roles in the surface warming. However, the journal article only slightly touches on the phenomenon so another source or adding a simple sentence about the reasoning could help readers.
DeleteI think the article did a slightly better job than you are giving credit for. That 500x water vapor increase is a very sneaky number and only was at a nearby location during the day of the eruption. It shows the restraint of the NYT writers that despite there being an enticing number to cherry pick from the study, they refused to do that because it might cause the spread of misinformation by someone skimming the article. They did mention that the overall amount of water in the stratosphere went up by about 5%, though they could have mentioned that in nearby areas even after 3 weeks the content was still 7x higher than normal, which would have medium term impacts on those areas. I also feel the quote about radiosondes not being able to measure water vapor concentrations wasn't really the NYT's fault as this was a direct quote from the scientist of the paper.
ReplyDeleteHi Leo! Thanks for your comment. I agree after reading everyone's comments I do think I didn't give Fountain enough credit. I actually wrote the 500x water vapor increase and it was not in the article. So that was my mistake in wording the statement like that. I should have said up to 500x. It makes me realize when writing these summaries how hard it is to simplify data without oversimplifying. It is a tough job. I don't envy these journalists. You bring up a good point about the importance of the longevity of the plume. But I'm not sure how much that really brings to the article since the news article is more focused on the impacts of the water vapor.
DeleteHi Emily! First off, I really enjoyed this article—probably one of the better ones I've read this semester. I appreciated how Fountain interpreted the findings, particularly in addressing the discrepancy in the estimated water vapor amounts from the second study (three times what Vomel found) by taking it directly to Vomel for clarification. That added an interesting layer.
ReplyDeleteI was also struck by Vomel's statement: "Any self-respecting scientist who knows stratospheric water vapor knows you cannot measure it with radiosondes." I completely agree with others on this, and after a quick search, I found that the limitations of radiosondes—particularly temperature constraints and contamination issues with clouds and frost—are well-documented. I think Fountain did a great job explaining the differences in methods (radiosondes vs. satellites) without overwhelming the reader with technical details, but the article could have gone a step further by including Vomel’s justification for using radiosondes despite being aware of these limitations.
One thing I’m curious about is your take on whether this discrepancy in estimations (55 million vs. 160 million tons of water vapor) would impact climate projections. Initially, Vomel suggests that 55 million tons would notably affect climate. But when Fountain cites Millán et al.’s 160 million ton estimate, it’s implied that the difference might not matter as much. This inconsistency seems a bit fishy to me.
While this critique is more about Vomel than Fountain, I do think Fountain’s attention to the discrepancy is commendable, as reproducibility is so crucial in science. Comparing studies like this is a key part of that process.
What a cool article to choose! It was honestly an enjoyable read - and I feel like I learned quite a bit from the NYT article as a standalone. I aggree with many of the previous comments - It does seem as though the article tries to stay true to the science paper. My one critique is that they seem to cite a second paper by Susan Solomon, that is not linked in the same manner as the science paper. While her perspective was valuable, it added some confusion which facts came from where. I also really enjoyed the shockwave graphic that was injected in the middle of the paper. While it did add a pause to my reading of the article, the figure added a more tangible and accessable understanding of the gravity of the eruption.
ReplyDeleteCool articles! I agree with a lot of the comments above, I felt like the NYT article did a great job of giving ample background information and even some details on the methods without getting too jargony or unreadable for a general audience. I somewhat agree that Vomel's statement was a bit convoluted for the first read-through, but I think that after glancing back at the quote I realized that the author was just highlighting that this eruption was much larger than normal.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I really appreciated from the NYT article was the way they avoided any catchy or clickbaity claims. The article itself, and even the title (which don't always seem to give the same message, as we've seen in previous articles), both avoided sensationalizing the results of the study, which I think is really respectable.
Very interesting study and article! I agree with your assessment, I don't think any major points were lost in the NYT article, and that they included some of the reasonings behind the global warming effects of water vapors & CO2 (I feel like a lot of articles we've seen didn't include this connection). It would've been nice to see this explanation extended to SO2 and O3, which the article mentions briefly, to avoid confusion about heating v.s. cooling effects, but I can see that detail possibly just adding convolution.
ReplyDeleteI also found his statement on radiosondes to be jarring at first; it seemed like he was discrediting the data he literally just presented. Despite his wording (which he could've done differently), I liked his follow-up statement clarifying that the size of the eruption made the use of radiosondes viable and touched on the scientific discourse between measurement methods. I always think it's really important that the general public understands the limitations of scientific techniques, and the range of approaches available. Adding onto that, when he mentioned that Vomel's estimates were conservative, it would be nice to include Vomel's assumptions that led to those conclusions instead of the higher estimates.
I also agree that this article is well-written. The author shows efforts to make the study digestible for the public. The background information is provided, and the methodology is well-covered without too many scientific details. And the title is also appropriate, not clickbaity. I agree the article is worth 9/10. I like this article and your summary. Great work!
ReplyDeleteNice work. I agree with your assessment and many of the previous comments. I think this article was very well written and provided a good mix of detail from the journal (like some methods description and defining key terms) and also with quotes from prominent scientists in the field (which I think always helps to make articles feel more personal). I also agree that likely the "self-respecting scientist" quote is likely said in jest and is there to make the findings sound more cool and new. I guess a general question I have is how many facts/figures/statistics should be included in popular media publications before they become burdensome to the average reader?
ReplyDelete