A 2016
publication in the peer-reviewed journal Science,
outlining “healing” of the ozone layer grabbed the attention of many popular media
sources.1 One of which was
the magazine Popular Science a layman’s
media source for entertainment and education.2 The Science
publication by Susan Solomon is first of it’s kind in that it claims the ozone
is healing as a result of human intervention. This is a groundbreaking claim and
demonstrates the work of scientist, politicians, and world leaders to undo
harmful damage cause by industrial use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Initial reliance on CFCs as aerosols resulted
in large quantities generated annually.
It was later discovered that CFCs deplete ozone (O3). Ozone is required to maintain the atmosphere
we enjoy on earth. After observations of
a growing ozone hole over the poles, action was taken on a global scale to stop
and reverse the process. This was called
the Montreal Protocol which was passes in 1987 and resulted in the minimization
of CFC use over the years that followed.
The 2016, Science paper is our first conclusive
look at the outcome of this global protocol.
The Popular
Science article is entitled “Something to celebrate: The ozone hole is
really healing” and demonstrates that they are convince things are on the mend.2 The article cites a number of facts from the
publication including the overall shrinkage of the ozone hole since 2000 (1.5
million square mile reduction). As well
as stating the results are from reduction in CFCs and changing weather
patterns. It goes on to say that the
hole may be completely healed by 2050. The article continues by focusing on the
personal and emotional side of the research. Solomon, the leader of the 2016, Science publication was also instrumentally involved in the
drafting of the Montreal Protocol 27 years earlier. It is clear Solomon herself is very invested
in the research and is excited about the power of policy and the changes it can
have. The article concludes by
mentioning that volcanos are the last player in the game leading to the ozone
hole. Volcanic eruptions can release
aerosols into the atmosphere which also deplete the ozone later. However, there is little scientists can do
about these and other natural disturbances.
The Science
publication does an excellent job of approaching a complex and challenging
question.1 How to track the
presence of ozone around the poles while factoring in natural and artificial changes.
Solomon does this by creating a number
of models for ozone levels factoring in data collection techniques and natural
weather and artificial chemical changes.
Some of these models include Vol-Clean and Chem-Only which eliminate
volcanic and chemical changes in the models respectively. It is worth noting Solomon omits data from
2002 dues to anomalies and much of the data ends before 2015 because of uncertainty
less than 90% accuracy. The publication
also mentions that a volcanic eruption in 2015 has resulted in the largest
ozone hole to date. The publication
concludes by saying the trends are increasing.
Ozone exists in higher numbers now as a result of the Montreal Protocol.
The Popular
Science article does a reasonable job relaying the conclusion of the Science publication without over
emphasizing anything.1,2 Many
of the key details of the publication are left out of the article including the
accuracy and control testing. The
article does not over step the scope of the publication and try to apply the
conclusion to some greater cause or meaning.
Lastly, the Popular Science
article does emphasize the individual and human impact Solomon has had in this
field, something that has little place in a publication but can be address in
an article. Overall I would give this
article a 7/10. It conveys the key
points about the “healing” ozone hole without jumping to any conclusions.
References:
1 Solomon et al., “Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer,” Science, 2016, 10.1126/science.aae0061 2 Griggs M. B., “Something to celebrate: The ozone hole is really healing,” Popular Science, 2016, online: http://www.popsci.com/something-to-celebrate-ozone-hole-is-really-healing
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNice post, Dan! You've appropriately highlighted the significance and important aspects of Solomon's article (if only the Huffington Post article had included your third paragraph!) You've also effectively summarized both the strengths and weaknesses of the Huffington Post article. The author presented the conclusions of the Solomon's article in a manner that is both appealing and comprehensible to the general public, without over-exaggerating its broader implications. However, as both you and Amie pointed out, the author failed to provide any authentic scientific results obtained by Solomon et al. Furthermore, much of the article is spent on discussing facts and figures that are not derived from the Sicence article itself. The author also asks his readers to take a leap of faith in trusting one scientist's perspective (cherry-picked quotes from Solomon) over the actual scientific data collected by Solomon and collaborators. Perhaps the author did not understand the details of the Science article well enough himself? It would have been extremely beneficial if the author could have used this article as not only broadcasting tool, but also a stepping stone for the general public to gain a greater appreciation for the significance of Solomon's research through understanding the science behind Solomon's findings (ex: through the use of figures that break down certain scientific jargon and summarize the research highlights from the Science paper).
ReplyDeleteI was happy to see that the author of the Popular Science paper gave some background information to what CFCs are and how they effect the ozone layer. This is definitely a step up from the Huffington Post article! However, you are right in the sense that they left out multiple key important details that could of strengthened the article. Also, on side note, I find it very interesting that the Popular Science article stated that the ozone layer will be completely healed by 2050 because the Huffington post article stated it would be healed by 2070. Too bad the Popular Science article did not state the source from where they received this information.
ReplyDeleteGreat summary! It's interesting to see the different analyses of the Science article between Popular Science and Huffington Post. Like Amie stated, the Popular Science article clearly provides more background and a more technical portrayal of CFCs and the historical ozone issues, while the Huffington Post article merely summarized the main takeaway of Solomon's work - that the things humans have "done have put the planet on a path to heal", without providing substantial evidence. I'm assuming this stark difference is due to the outlet itself - Huffington Post has articles spanning politics, business, entertainment, technology, environment, and more, while Popular Science focuses exclusively on new technology and science.
ReplyDeleteIt is reassuring to see proof that the ozone is on its way back to its pre-anthropocene condition. It's also a little unsettling to know that a volcanic eruption event can set back the ozone healing process significantly without any warning. As predictive and useful models can be, their drawback will always be that their realism only extends as far as their assumptions. This is suggested with the 2002 anomalies and the omitted data due to low confidence.
I agree with your 7/10 rating. The Popular Science article conveys the key points without overstepping its scope. It's done its job - to interpret science for the general audience.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat first post, Dan! I think you did a very nice job summarizing the the general topic of the ozone layer before going into detail about the scope of the Science paper and the report in Popular Science. It was good to point out that Science is a peer-reviewed journal and Popular Science is a magazine. Overall, I think you did a great job pointing out that the Popular Science did not overstep the original publication, but instead just didn't go into as much scientific detail, but did discuss the history of the research which I may not have been aware of if I had just read the Science publication. I was also not aware of the role volcanic eruptions (specifically) played in the depletion of the ozone layer and I am interested in the mechanism of this as well as how scientists might try to combat this problem if large volcanic eruptions become more frequent.
ReplyDeleteIt's good to know that finally, man intervention is helping in some way to gradually reverse environmental problems even in a long term. It was interesting to know that natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions are also causing ozone layer destruction . I consider they should talk a little more about the kind of volcanic particles that ascend to the atmosphere and cause ozone depletion because there are a lot of these that are currently active and consequently becomes an important key to continue with studies and the recovery of the ozone layer . Unfortunately, as you said scientists can't control this type of events because they are unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post! I remember as an undergrad taking classes in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, and feeling like the political/economic forces contributing to destruction of natural systems were too great to overcome and I saw very few examples of real reversals of these processes. This is great!
ReplyDeleteIt's always interesting to me to read about projections that are so far into the future - in this case 2050 for the complete "healing" of the ozone layer. It would be nice to know what assumptions are made that lead to this sort of conclusion, as they have to be pretty significant to extrapolate the data out for such a significant period of time. It hasn't yet been 30 years since the Montreal Protocol was passed and yet we're able to make predictions about the next ~35 years? Does that mean that we're halfway to "healing" the ozone layer, or do we anticipate the rate of "healing" to increase? Regardless, I thought you presented this information well Dan, though I am curious about the specific criteria for your rating system and how that resulted in a 7/10. Ultimately I do agree with your analysis.
ReplyDelete