The Link Between Anthropogenic Aerosols Distribution and Tropical Cyclone Frequency
CHEM 474 – Blog Post Assignment:
Siri Yarlagadda
Science Paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn9493
I chose a news article published by the New York Times in May of 2022 titled “Air Pollution Can Mean More, or Fewer, Hurricanes. It Depends Where You Live” – this paper covered the link between increased particulate air pollution and the frequency of global tropical cyclones in particular regions. The NYT article primarily referenced a paper published in the journal Science Advances titled “Substantial global influence of anthropogenic aerosols on tropical cyclones over the past 40 years.” This paper was published earlier this year as well and relied on climate simulation data to show how spatial tropical cyclone differences are a result of shifting global emissions of aerosols.
The scientific paper was published by Hiroyuki Murakami, a physical scientist at the NOAA, and uses data from the “International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship” which was inputted into a premade computer model nicknamed SPEAR. The author then ran four climate simulations each with various spatial patterns of aerosols, to determine how tropical cyclone distributions and frequency could be altered. Murakami found that a reduction in atmospheric aerosols in Europe and United States (North Atlantic region) in recent decades has caused atmospheric heating in the northern hemisphere–relative to the southern hemisphere—resulting in a particular state of atmospheric circulation that led to fewer tropical cyclones generated in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, Murakami also found that in India and China, a cooling of the air over Asia, due to increased atmospheric aerosols, resulted in fewer tropical cyclones.
After my initial read-through of the news article, I was impressed with the author’s presentation of the information in a credible manner through the inclusion of quotes from climate experts and mentioning several other reputable studies/information. The title of the article definitely served its function of drawing attention; however, it accurately presented the overall findings of the scientific study. As I continued to dissect the article in comparison to the study it referenced, though, there were several informational discrepancies which detracted from its credibility. In my opinion, the article did not provide nearly enough background information to provide context for the results of the study and failed to identify the potential faults during data collection.
To begin, though the news article noted that the results were derived from climate simulation data, it failed to provide detailed information as to how the initial data was collected and the subsequent results from the trials. I understand that the author likely chose to leave this information out to increase the article’s digestibility to the larger public. However, the absence of this information leaves the reader unable to understand the faults of the simulation results—which were in fact mentioned by the paper’s original author. For example, Murakami acknowledges that the SPEAR model “systematically underestimates intense TCs…[and so] there might be uncertainty in the model results for which category 3–5 TCs are missing.” In fact, the news article actually does mention this: “The new study looked at the numbers, not the strength, of these kinds of storms” but without a larger contextual understanding of how the simulation data was collected, the reader is effectively left unable to decipher the overall significance of the information relative to the data’s deficiencies.
All in all, I would rate the NYT article an 8/10. Not only does it do a fantastic job of providing additional credible sources of information to support the information disseminated in the paper, but also does not exaggerate or misrepresent its findings. The reason I deducted points, though, is that I felt that it could have included more information concerning the paper’s drawbacks and how the simulation model data was collected. Had the author included more detailed information, the article’s readers could have better understood the detrimental effect of the mechanisms at play when anthropogenic aerosols interact with atmospheric circulation patterns.
Hi Siri! Thanks for sharing. I think this scientific paper did a really good job at exemplifying just how regional emissions affect not only regional populations, but also the entire world's population. I thought the most clear example of this was when the authors state that the additional heating in the mid-latitudes in the NH indirectly reduced the frequency of TCs over the SH. I think findings like these are really relevant especially to those who politicize the regulation of anthropogenic aerosol emissions and global emissions in general.
ReplyDeleteHi Sabrina, this is a really good point! I was thinking something similar to this as well when I initially read the article - I feel that in the mainstream media, the perspective on emissions are very North American/European centric and often gloss over the significance of other countries/regions.
DeleteThis was a super interesting topic to cover... I have always wondered about some of the specific causes of increased frequency of tropical storms (we've always heard that they would increase, but I think to the general public it's not well-known what specifically will affect them). I think it's good that the NYT did a sufficient job reporting this paper, because the frequency of tropical storms affects millions of people around the world, and getting some clarity on the science behind that is important in my mind. Do you think an article like this should take a more call to action standpoint, like warning coastal residents of the dangers of increased tropical storm frequency?
ReplyDeleteHi Nathan. Thanks for your comment. I don't necessarily think that this article in particular needed to add information warning coastal residents. Sure it is important information to publicate, but I don't believe it would have been very relevant for this particular article. If anything, I think a secondary article could be published on the implication of the changing distribution/frequency of tropical storms. I thought that besides explaining the findings of the paper, the article really lacks any sort of "so what" or discussion of the potential implications.
DeleteHi, Siri! Great discussion. You noted that the NYT article left out the detailed information on how the data was initially collected, resulting in the audience unable to identify the limitations of the model itself. I know you mentioned this as being more of a bad thing on the NYT author, but do you think this also may be beneficial? For example, if the author included the data's deficiencies, many people who are already leery of the science community may completely dismiss the whole paper just by seeing a mention of the short comings of the data being collected. Sometimes although this gives a more specific picture of what is going on, things like this may be better left out when being communicated to the general public. What do you think? Great thoughts!!
ReplyDeleteHi Sofia. Great comment, I did not think of your perspective. I believe that as long as the article's author was able to clearly explain the faults of the data collection they would be able to sidestep this issue. I would think that individuals who are leery of the scientific community would not even be inclined to read a science article published by the NYT!
DeleteHi Siri, thanks for posting! This seems to be a generally more positive review than a lot that we've seen thus far, which is nice to see an article that has done a good job of conveying the important scientific findings. I think this is an important paper, as it clears up some of the misconceptions regarding the impact of climate change on weather trends. I also think it's interesting that the author comments on the struggle that governments in Asia will face in the effort to cut pollution, since it will likely lead to an increased number of storms - how do you propose that we deal with a situation like this, where mitigating pollution becomes a double-edged sword?
ReplyDeleteHi Emily. I think when strategizing a plan to mitigate pollution, we need to ultimately look at overall impact and see which method or course of action would result in the least amount of damage to society/environment.
DeleteHi Siri,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the analysis. After attempting to click on the NY Times article to read it for myself I was notified that I had reached my limit for free articles. What do you think about news publications locking news about recent scientific findings behind paywalls? I feel that it is particularly egregious for science news compared to other kinds of articles, since it is more difficult for most people to access the sources themselves.
Hey Siri,
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis and a very well-written post! The NY Times article was unfortunately locked behind a paywall for me, but I was able to access the Science article. I think these authors did a phenomenal job conveying their logic for proceeding with these models and made some really beautiful figures conveying the results. In your post, you mention that you would like to have seen The NY Times article acknowledge some of the limitations of this paper and these models: what limitations do you think would be most important to emphasize in an article written to the public? Personally, I think the biggest limitation is holding the ozone and greenhouse gas levels constant, which the authors acknowledge previous studies have linked their significance to tropical cyclone activity. However, I completely understand why these factors were held constant, as the authors only wanted to investigate the dynamic anthropogenic aerosol levels affecting tropical cyclone activity, thus holding confounding variables content. Still, it is important to acknowledge that there is a very complex system at play when determining the frequency of tropical cyclone activity in different parts of the world, which I believe the Science article did a great job of acknowledging, but I cannot speak for The NY Times article since it was behind a paywall.
Thank you for sharing this article! I think this is super interesting that I have never thought of aerosols can possibly affects the frequency of cyclone. I think the author did a good job on explaining the experimental steps and result. I also agree with you on how though background information can sometimes be difficult to read, leaving out most of the information can be even harder for readers to comprehend. Overall, I think you did a good job on analyzing and evaluating this article, so good job!
ReplyDeleteHi Siri! I agree that the NYT article does a very good job of backing up its claims with credible scientists and studies. It does a very good job, in my opinion, of breaking down the complex study done by Murakami for a more general audience. However, one thing I thought about is how some of the points made by both the NYT article and Murakami give a different perspective on how we generally assume anthropogenic sources impact the climate (how pollution reduction in some areas is leading to changes in hurricane activity). Especially the last line of the NYT article made me think, "Dr. Murakami said his work points up the difficulties that those governments will face as they move to cut pollution, since that will quite likely lead to an increased number of storms." What impact do you think this would have to readers that may already be hesitant to some of the actions being taken to reduce pollutants?
ReplyDeleteHi Veronica. Great comment! I think that this last sentence may have been a bit of a "call to action" or "clickbait" that was included by the author. Even though there is a correlation between reduced pollutants and increased tropical storms, the atmosphere is a very complex system so I don't believe that just reducing pollutants in the atmosphere would have a very large/direct affect on the frequency of tropical storms. I would need some more papers corroborating this link but I am also curious on the relative strength of the relationship and if there would even be a large enough implication.
DeleteGreat commentary, Siri!
ReplyDeleteI recently read about the changes in anthropogenic aerosols over the last decade or two, so I found this really engaging. 2019-2020 was an outlier in terms of aerosol trends (at least in the US), where we emitted much fewer aerosols than normal due to quarantine and reduced pollution. Would you expect a year-long lull such as this to have a noticeable impact on hurricane patterns?
Great work Siri! I agree with your thoughts in the NYT article. I think that it could have been more beneficial to the readers of NYT if the initial data collection had been included. Maybe this is the scientist in me, but I find it hard to understand the results and conclusions made without understanding where the data came from.
ReplyDelete