Primary articles are pieces of literature that contain original documentation by scientists and authors who conducted the research or study. These sources are not external authors’ account of the research conducted, but merely the first article introducing a study in a specific field of work. These primary sources are often journal articles that are peer-reviewed. From these primary sources, secondary sources are born. Secondary sources are peer-reviewed articles of the primary literature. They are second accounts of generally the same topic, but not written by the original author. Secondary source authors will often critique the accuracy, clarity and importance of the article and sometimes expose their own opinion about the topic. The secondary source A New View on Sea Level Rise: Has the IPCC Underestimated the Risk of Sea Level Rise? is a peer-reviewed article that summarizes important data and research that has been conducted pertaining to sea level rise. One of this article’s primary source, Climate Change Experts Clash over Sea Rise ‘Apocalypse’, targets the method of establishing sea level rise in the future. These articles are similar in that they both cover the main topic of increasing sea level rise, however they differ in target audience, presentation, limitations, statistical data and strength of evidence.
Both articles display the gradual panic that is setting in due to global sea level rise and both also give estimations of this rise in future years. They cover the social and political ramification linked to such a controversial topic, while also basing most claims on scientific grounds. Both articles also explain the methods used to estimate sea level rise, such as the semi-empirical approach. The main difference between these articles is that the secondary article focuses more on comparing the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) estimations versus other scientist’s accounts of sea level rise. Whereas the primary source is presented in a way that the actual statistical data seems less important than the political and social controversies that are connected to the effects of global warming on sea level rise.
The secondary article was found on Nature Reports: Climate Change, which is an online news database that carries articles and reports specific to climate change. As of now, this is an online database but in April 2011, it will be sold in print as a science magazine. It was written by Stefan Rahmstorf and published on April 6th, 2010. Rahmstorf uses more than one primary source to explain that the IPCC’s projections on sea level rise (18 to 59 centimetres from 1990 to the 2090’s) is a gross underestimation in comparison with other scientist’s research. Rahmstorf exposes that the physical climate models used by the IPCC fail to include the melting of Greenland’s and the Antarctic ice sheets and their contribution to sea level rise. He then goes on to explain that using the semi-empirical approach is more accurate since it is based on the idea that the rate of sea level rise is proportionate to the amount of global warming. Rahmstorf is successful at remaining unbiased by explaining the limitations of both methods of estimating sea level rise. He is capable to assess both methods and describe the positive and negative outcomes to each. Although this secondary sources topic strays from the primary articles, it is a very effective and informative piece of literature.
The primary article that has undergone peer-reviews covers the controversy in calculating sea level rise. It is laid out in such a way that it gives the studies results first, then continues to be examined and explained by scientists. This primary article focuses on the controversy that is predicted to unravel due to the results of the experiment. The article is also slightly more specific in its scientific findings but tends to leave out other methods in which to calculate global sea level rise.
In the primary article, a specific example of what was researched states: “Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced. Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.” This article only presents Rahmstorf’s findings and continues to exploit the controversy involved with it. The secondary article uses more than one finding to show the unstrength in claims of the primary article. A specific example of this is stated: “Over the course of the twentieth century, the rate of sea level rise has roughly tripled in response to 0.8 °C global warming2. Since the beginning of satellite measurements, sea level has risen about 80 per cent faster, at 3.4 millimetres per year3, than the average IPCC model projection of 1.9 millimetres per year. The difference between the semi-empirical estimates and the model-based estimates of the IPCC can be attributed largely to the response of continental ice to greenhouse warming.” This secondary article does a great job in exposing multiple methods of determining sea level rise. This chart found in the secondary article displays the estimates for twenty-first century sea level rise from semi-empirical models.
In conclusion, both the secondary and primary articles explore the topic of sea level rise and the effects that it has. Both are informative articles but have different target audiences, presentation, limitations, statistical data and strength of evidence to prove their theses. The secondary article is significantly longer than the primary article due to the fact that it compares various methods of determining sea level rise. The primary article can be found at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece and the secondary article can be found at http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html.
Bibliography:
Rahmstorf, S. (6 April 2010). A New View on Sea Level Rise: Has the IPCC Underestimated the Risk of Sea Level Rise? Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html on September 23, 2010.
Leake, J. (10 January 2010). Climate Change Experts Clash over Sea Rise ‘Apocalypse’. Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece on September 23, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment