Global heating is turning white Alps green, study finds
News article (The Guardian): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/02/global-heating-is-turning-white-alps-green-study-finds
Scientific article (Science): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn6697
The news and scientific articles I chose to evaluate for this post revolve around increasing vegetation and decreasing snow cover in the European Alps. The Guardian article was published in June of this year, following the publication of the Science article led by Professor Sabine Rumpf of the University of Basel, Switzerland. The Science article is titled “From white to green: Snow cover loss and increased vegetation productivity in the European Alps”. Motivated by documented changes in snow cover and vegetation associated with the Arctic, the authors of this journal article used satellite images of the European Alps to evaluate variations in these parameters over the course of 38 consecutive years.
The authors of the Science article found that, in terms of vegetation, greening occurred in 77% of the European Alps above the tree line, whereas browning (decreased vegetation) occurred in only 1% of the monitored area. Further, the results of the study indicated that snow cover declined significantly in less than 10% of the European Alps. The article also examined summer snow duration and noted a decrease in this parameter as well. These results are summarized in the Figure 1 of the Science article, seen below.
The authors noted that the decline in snow cover is substantial due to the magnitude of the change, even though it is a weaker trend than the increased greening. Explanations for these trends, including a clarification on how the variables cannot be directly compared and how changes in temperature, precipitation, warming, and elevation contribute to greening and snow cover, were provided to account for these claims. While Figure 1 summarizes the key takeaway of the article, the secondary findings of the article relate to the correlation between the aforementioned variables. For instance, the authors found that greening was primarily driven by changes in climate and peaked in warmer areas (less elevated) and that snow cover loss was predominant in colder regions (higher elevation) and was driven by changes in precipitation. The authors lastly touch on consequences of these changes and the continuous driving of a feedback loop caused by increased vegetation in the European Alps that will accelerate future snow melt.
Moving
to The Guardian article, I found that there was primarily agreement between the
Science paper and the information relayed in the news. In contrast to some of
the media portrayals we have seen previously, this article lacked glaring inaccuracies
and sensationalized language. Indeed, the article relayed the primary findings
of the article with quotes from the lead and corresponding authors in
approachable terms, including links to additional articles on phrases that may
be unfamiliar, such as “thawing permafrost” and “albedo effect”. The news article
also links the Science paper in its discussion for the curious reader to
investigate independently and relays the major consequences of the findings,
including an explanation of the feedback loop phenomenon described in the Science
article.
While my overall reaction to The Guardian’s article is positive, I did note a few shortcomings in their relaying the scientific information. For instance, the article alludes to the caveat that snow cover is a binary variable in the Science paper’s methods but does not explain that this renders the direct comparison to greening (a continuous productivity measurement) misleading. For example, The Guardian article relays that the change in snow cover is “modest” in comparison to the greening, but important because it was the first record of this change using satellite data, which is not wholly representative of the caveats and consequences of the finding. Further, The Guardian article did not mention the secondary “driving force” finding in their representation of the Science article. In essence, leaving this information out relays the major finding of reduced snow cover and increased vegetation in the European Alps without an explanation of the cause of these trends.
Overall, I rate this article’s representation of the scientific findings to a broader audience with a score of 8.5/10. I subtracted points from this score due to The Guardian article’s weakness in not delineating the direct comparison of snow cover and greening changes as described in the Science article. Additionally, the scientific finding of the driving force of these variations are not mentioned in the news article, effectively relaying the “what” of the results without the “why”. Key strengths of the article include the communication of the primary finding, explanation of the feedback loop and consequences of the changes observed in the Alps, and the approachable portrayal of these findings. In total, I feel that the major takeaways, which are free from misrepresentation, are likely sufficient for the average reader and appreciate that the Science article is linked for the reader who would prefer a more thorough understanding of why these trends are observed and the complexity that accompanies the major results of the study.
Thank you for the post and your thoughts on these articles! My comment is in regards to your statement that the Guardian article didn’t mention the secondary “driving force” and left out an explanation of why it’s happening. What secondary driving forces are you saying they left out? Is this the connection to rainfall and temperatures?
ReplyDeleteHi Monica,
DeleteYes, exactly. In the third paragraph of my post, I mention that the Science article authors describe how changes in temperature, precipitation, warming, and elevation contribute to the greening and snow cover changes observed in the European Alps. The Guardian's article did not mention how these factors drive the changes observed, which I view as a shortcoming of the article.
In the news article they highlight that the authors of the science paper claim that alpine biodiversity is at risk due to the increased greening in the Alps and less snow coverage. Obviously biodiversity is advantageous on several fronts and a decrease poses several concerns, but I am curious if you think the news article should have discussed why a decrease in biodiversity is problematic to be more comprehensive. If so, how would you go about addressing this topic? Especially with a skeptic who tries to make the claim that "survival of the fittest is at play and that it is natural for species to rise and fall in population?"
ReplyDeleteHey Maddie! One thing that I like about the news article is that it discusses the trend in biodiversity that is connected to the greening of the alps. This trend might seem counterintuitive to the average reader, since one might think that being "greener" would mean more plant life, and thus an increase in biodiversity. I like that the article took the time to explain why this isn't the case, since plants that have evolved to survive in harsher temperatures aren't necessarily the most competitive in milder conditions. In this type of article, I think explaining these concepts is of huge importance.
ReplyDeleteHi Emily,
DeleteI completely agree. Because I had read the Science article before really deep-diving into The Guardian's post, I did not think too much about the use of the word "greening", as I was primed by the explanation in the scientific article. I think you make a great point that this word can have positive connotations in many other uses, which makes me more appreciative of the explanation provided by the news article- that this greening actually has more negative implications than positive!
I really enjoyed reading this article and paper! I agree that it did a really good job summarizing the findings of the paper and reporting it in a reasonable way for the general public to understand. However, I also agree with your comment about their discussion of snow cover and the comparison to greening. What do you think would've been a better way to incorporate the information provided on snow cover?
ReplyDeleteHi Veronica,
DeleteI think a note on how the measurements were made, including a brief explanation of how snow can only be recorded as present or absent whereas vegetation is measured continuously, would be a great way for The Guardian article to better represent the findings.
Hey maddie, thanks for sharing! When I first read the guardian title, I thought about how some might read it and actually think of "greening" as a good thing, especially because some of the largest environmental movements have been about prioritizing/saving/growing native flora of deforested areas to create carbon sinks. I was happy that the article mentioned that although greening could increase carbon sequestration, it isn't that simple. Unrelated: Reading the science paper made me question how the day-to-day data processing from the satellite images takes place, like how are measurements made from a google earth image, you know?
ReplyDeleteHi Sabrina,
DeleteThat is a good point, the word "greening" may have different connotations to different readers, and I am glad that The Guardian article mentions the threat to Alpine biodiversity that this increased vegetation may cause.
In regards to your question about the satellite image processing, I saw in the SI that the authors used the recorded Landsat sensor bandwidths to categorize the reflective wavelengths of light recorded in the satellite images, and then used those categories to inform their calculations.
Hi Madeline, in the fifths paragraph you mention that the Guardian's explanation of the change in snow cover is not representative of the caveats and consequences. I assume that the consequences you are referring to are that the magnitude of the change that we are seeing in the snow cover is alarming, but could you explain further what the caveats that you mention are?
ReplyDeleteHi Tarun,
DeleteI feel that The Guardian article did not explain how the variables of snow cover and greening cannot be directly compared without examining the different nature of the variables, which I mention the authors discussed in the third paragraph of my post. I think this quote from the Science paper best explains the nature of this comparison as it relates to snow cover and greening: "One explanation is the different nature of the three variables. Satellites cannot measure snow depth, and snow can thus only be recorded as present or absent. Year-round snow is an annual binary variable, but the duration of summer snow can vary in magnitude, and NDVI is a continuous measure of productivity". I feel that The Guardian article glossed over this caveat of the comparison in calling the change in snow cover "modest".
Hi Maddie, great post! You did a really thorough analysis of the Guardian article. I was interested in the weak correlation you mention that the Science article notes between the greening and decreased snow cover. It makes sense when you consider that areas with decreased snow cover may have had a thinner layer of snow to begin with. Do you think we would see a stronger correlation between greening and snowmelt if they had a continuous variable of depth rather than the binary variable used?
ReplyDeleteHey Madeline,
ReplyDeleteGreat review, I thought these were interesting articles! Just a general comment, but I would be very curious to see model predictions for the future of this system. At the end of the Science article they mention the roles that the snow & vegetation play in resisting global warming: on one hand, the increasing vegetation means more CO2 capture and oxygen output (photosynthesis), but this is at the cost of the snow which has a high albedo to reflect sunlight back into space. Which effect outweighs the other? Do you think this system will reach an equilibrium at some point?
Hello Madeline,
ReplyDeleteGreat review! I agree the author did an excellent job of explaining all the details from the scientific article, but it does need to explain the motivation better. I am just wondering, since there are more "green" areas, would that contribute to slowing down global warming since plantation deducts the greenhouse gases?
Hi Madeline, thank you for sharing this article and paper. When I first read the research paper I thought the increase in vegetation might be a good thing, only to realize through the online article that it had unintended consequences. I was wondering if you also thought this was something that the research paper should've emphasized more, and also as a general question, if scientists are seeing similar trends in other mountain ranges in the world, such as the rocky mountains?
ReplyDeleteGreat write-up! I think this topic is super interesting. One thing that I found a bit intriguing was the portion of the Guardian article where they mention permafrost melt & albedo. You mention that these may be unfamiliar terms to many members of the general public - and I agree. However, at first I was pleased to see that they had hyperlinks on each of those things, thinking that they would link to a definition of sorts, but really they led to previous Guardian articles just talking about each of those topics. To me this highlights the true goal of these news websites, as good as they may be for reporting scientific info. All they seem to care about is the amount of clicks they're getting, not necessarily if their audience digests the information in the way the scientific community intended them to.
ReplyDeleteHi Nathan,
DeleteI noticed this as well. Although they do define the terms within these articles, the reader does need to parse through another Guardian article to find these definitions. I think there is a balance at play, The Guardian is attempting to reach two goals at once- personal gain and accurate representation of scientific topics. Overall, I think their attempt to reach these simultaneous goals may be less egregious than some of the other articles we have noted in class, where there is a clear agenda at play.
Awesome job, Madeline. I completely agree with your point about the Guardian not perfectly showing the whole picture of what is really at play by leaving out one of the 2 key findings in the article, but I do have a devil's advocate standpoint just to consider! While in our scientific eyes we find this disappointing and non-representative of the findings I also think that when the general public reads a scientific article like the one above, if there is too much information that kind of goes all over the place and also mildly in depth, it's very easy to lose the reader. This is not good because you want the public to be informed about these important matters and you don't want the public to start perceiving scientific reports as frustrating to navigate. I think this can be a tough part of being a scientific journalist because you definitely want your audience to have the facts, but you also need to make sure they are retaining what's most important by not getting too nitty gritty. What do you think? Just some thoughts!
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteThis was a great write up to read! After reading a lot of news articles which describe findings from journal articles this semester, it seems that a great deal of authors often do not describe certain phrases and instead brush over key findings. What do you think is the reason for this? I would hypothesize that either the author is on a tight deadline or hasn't really taken the time to digest and understand the information in the journal.