On
September 16, 1987, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer agreed to ban the use of industrial chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), which at the time was used in refrigerators and aerosols.1-3
Then, the ban was enforced on January 1, 1989 in hopes to prevent the Antarctic
ozone hole from growing and to protect the ozone layer.1-3 The
reasoning behind the ban placed on the production of CFCs was the impact they
had on the environment, specifically, the Antarctic ozone layer.1-5 When
CFCs are released into the atmosphere, chlorine is generated.2-5 The
chlorine generated can become reactive, which leads to the depletion of the ozone
layer.2-5 Susan Solomon and her group at MIT have acquired data to
prove that the ban placed on the production of CFCs by the Montreal Protocol has
helped in the healing process of the Antarctic ozone hole.5
A
recent article published by The
Huffington Post restates that the efforts taken by the Montreal Protocol to
ban the production of CFCs is now being acknowledged towards the help in
healing the Antarctic ozone hole. The author discusses that prior to the article
published by Solomon in Science,
there was very little acknowledgement towards human effort in the help of
protecting the ozone layer. Since the release of the Science article, there is now evidence that humans can help toward
the improvement of the ozone layer. The article shared multiple quotes from Solomon
stating that the outcome from the ban placed on the production of CFCs should
give people confidence that we have had a positive impact on our environment. Based
on this outcome, similar approaches could be applied to other environmental
problems.
Looking
further into the Science paper,
Solomon goes into great detail to describe her data and simulations that are responsible
for providing the proof that the Montreal Protocol is in fact helping the
Antarctic ozone hole heal. Solomon discusses the healing of the ozone hole
based off the acquired balloon ozone data and satellite ozone data. Then, she
discusses the impact that CFCs, dynamics, temperature and volcanic aerosol have
on the ozone layer using model simulations. The model simulations specifically
used were Chem-Dyn-Vol, Vol-Clean and Chem-Only. Additionally, this article goes
into detail explaining why the ozone hole in October of 2015 set a record size
of 25.3 million km2. The result of this record was due to the volcanic
eruption of Calbuco, which counterbalanced the efforts of banning the use of
industrial CFCs. Although we saw a record high in the size of the ozone hole in
October of 2015, this does not explain the trend observed during the month of September
from 2000 to 2015. According to Solomon, the ozone hole has shrunk 4.5 +/- 4.1
million km2 during the month of September from 2000 to 2015. She
linked this shrinkage to the ban placed on the production of CFCs based upon
her data from the models.
The
most important issue that I have in regards to The Huffington Post
article was that the author gave no proof. The title of The Huffington Post article was “Here’s Proof We Can Solve Global
Environmental Problems If We Try.” The title suggests that the article is going
to provide proof that we are indeed helping the Antarctic ozone hole heal.
However, the author does not describe any of the data or simulations,
specifically the information in the previous paragraph, that Solomon acquired to
lead her to the conclusion that the ban placed on the production of CFCs
contributed to this shrinkage of the ozone hole. In my opinion, without the
data, the author of the Huffington Post article has no proof. The author merely
glossed over the data and instead oversold the fact that we did something to
help the environment. Although he is not wrong by simply stating this fact, he oversimplifies
the issue and does not take the many other factors that are involved into
consideration. In my overall opinion, there was an agreement between The Huffington Post article and Science article, but this was because The Huffington Post author only stated
the key point made my Solomon, which was that we are helping the Antarctic
ozone hole heal. I give the Huffington Post article an overall score of 5 due
to the lack of proof.
References
1. The
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Ozone Secretariat. UNEP.
2. Chu, J. Scientists observe first signs of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. MIT News. June 30, 2016.
3. Gronewold, N. Montreal Protocol Eyed as Weapon in Fight Against Climate Change. The New York Times. July 21, 2009.
The
Huffington Post
Article
4. Grenoble, R. Here’s Proof We Can Solve Global Environmental Problems If We Try. The Huffington Post. July 1, 2016.
4. Grenoble, R. Here’s Proof We Can Solve Global Environmental Problems If We Try. The Huffington Post. July 1, 2016.
The Science
Article
5. Solomon, S.; Ivy, D. J.; Kinnison, D.; Mills, M. J.; Neely III, R. R.; Schmidt, A. Science, 2016. http://science.sciencemag.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/sci/early/2016/06/30/science.aae0061.full.pdf
5. Solomon, S.; Ivy, D. J.; Kinnison, D.; Mills, M. J.; Neely III, R. R.; Schmidt, A. Science, 2016. http://science.sciencemag.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/content/sci/early/2016/06/30/science.aae0061.full.pdf
I appreciate your use of outside sources in your introductory paragraph. This initial overview of the topic at hand is very helpful. Not only that, but also, your detailed description of Solomon's observations shows us exactly what the Huffington Post's article was missing. Nice work!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Amie. It is interesting how popular media requires no proof in the text. Simply citing a journal like Science give enough evidence to the general public that the study was conducted correctly. The general public is also trusting popular media to not interject its own thoughts or views on the topic because again there is no evidence from the study itself. This can be concerning but in this case I agree, the Huffington Post article does stay inside the lines of the Science publication so it is ok
ReplyDeleteThis post was extremely well-written and organized, Amie! Your background and summary of the Science article itself as well as the Huffington Post article were concise and provided all of the information that the reader would need to draw their own conclusions about the differences between what the research actually showed and how the media conveyed it.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, you did a great job calling out the Huffington Post article for failing to do the one thing it said it would do in the title: provide proof! Even in obvious cases like this where there is absolutely no proof given (just a citation), it's good to be on top of whether articles (especially online) deliver what they say they will. Strongly-worded clickbait titles often shape the public's view of issues they're not well-versed in. A title like this HuffPo one clearly primes the readers to believe what they're selling in the content of the article, whether they back it up or not.
Your post was easy to read and understand, and I feel like I have a good handle on the Antarctic ozone hole, its history, and how it is understood by both scientists and laypeople. Great job!
Your post was very informative, and your analysis of the publication is well thought out! I agree with your discussion on the Huffington Post’s lack of evidence, and how unfortunate this is. Your blog post does a great job introducing the ozone hole, the Montreal Protocol, and findings covered in the Science article better than the Huffington Post does. When addressing such complicated and important issues, articles should better inform readers on the topic at hand, before such broad and impactful statements are set forth. Sometimes scientific data is left out as it is seen to be too complicated and unappealing to the general public, but some level of background must be given to readers in order for people develop informed opinions. This is especially pertinent with the upcoming election. Further, while the data and model systems presented in Solomon’s publication are very complicated, this does not justify complete lack of evidence for the author’s claims. We must learn to look at all media with a critical eye. Additionally, if humans really do have such a large impact on the healing of the ozone hole, as the article states, we should work to become more informed on the topic, so that we can make sure restoration of the ozone layer continues. Finally, while it is good to give a more positive outlook on the environmental problems we face, it is also important to remind the reader that there are still many environmental concerns that cannot be ignored. This is another downfall of the article. Overall great post, Amie!
ReplyDeleteOne should certainly consider the author when reading stories from news outlets reporting on scientific findings. For example, the author of the Huffington Post article is Ryan Grenoble. As depicted on his LinkedIn account he studied business in college as well as political science. Certainly it would be challenging for a non-atmospheric chemist to read the Science article- let alone for a non-atmospheric scientist to read and explain/ write about it for other people. The general public should be conscience of who is delivering the news and ask - are they actually qualified to talk about it?
ReplyDeleteThe HP article, as Amie points out, seems to be drawing a very exaggerated conclusions based on one paper. Yes, the findings in Science suggest we are making substantial progress in the area of global temperature / ozone change. But there are certainly even more issues that we must address to fix the issue of climate change. While it is appropriate to acknowledge the advances we have made in rescuing the ozone layer, we need to acknowledge and address the rising sea levels, the disappearing ice caps, the water purity in underdeveloped nations, city air pollution in developed countries and so on.
ReplyDeleteAmie, your post is well-written and you attach appropriate references for the reader. Thanks. The HP tends to have decent and entertaining articles...I just don't ever really enjoy many of their science related articles unfortunately.
I really enjoyed reading your post, Amie! I thought the background you provided regarding the development of the hole in the ozone layer was really helpful when trying to understand the measures that have been taken to solve this problem. I also agree that is concerning that the author of the Huffington Post article fails to discuss the data proving that the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking. This is especially frustrating considering the amount of time that went into collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data that supports this claim. As readers from scientific backgrounds, it is very apparent to us when something is said to be proven but the supporting data is not discussed. However, readers from non-scientific or non-academic backgrounds may not search for this sort of discussion or data analysis. I believe this is often where the public's perception of science and the scientific community's perception of itself begin to conflict. Therefore, I think it is crucial that audiences of all backgrounds learn to read with a critical eye and demand evidentiary support for any claim made in an article, as you demonstrated so well in your post Amie!
ReplyDeleteThis was a really great post, Amie! Use of background in the introductory paragraph was really nice, and provided a setting for how the Ozone hole is being explored in a scientific sense, as well as providing data from different studies. I agree with your assessment of the article that is is poor journalism to relay these facts of the Ozone hole being reduced in size without providing any quantifiable data to support the claims. Although many laypeople wouldn't do the background reading required for fact checking on the HP article, the news-runners themselves should at least provide some form of data to support their claims, or provide other articles for future reading. Makes you think how many reputable news sources don't always provide all of the facts for their audiences.
ReplyDelete