Scientific and Media Communication Comparative

Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Instructions: I’ve attached three documents to this posting (One pertains to 7th Edition APA. One is the instructions for the assignment. One is a PDF document of the ‘original publication’ which I included, because one of the links in the instructions document dose not work. Please make sure to make this paper look professional. Journal 2 Instructions The student will compose a brief essay comparing and contrasting scientific communication, including the role science plays in contemporary society (DSL 200.1), distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, and identifying when science is misrepresented in the media (DSL 200.3). The scientific data must be from reputable source(s) and must be accurately interpreted and cited (DSL 200.4). Additional reliable sources may be referred to, as needed or required.University of Miami Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Essay The first source listed at the bottom is a news article discussing the primary study listed below it. Students should read both sources thoroughly to achieve a good understanding of what the primary source says, and then be able to evaluate how the information is communicated to the lay public in the news article. Students should look for any inaccuracies, omissions, or misrepresentations in the news article and point them out with specific evidence. Students may also comment on how well the news article communicates the information citing any specific examples as supporting evidence. Students should cover the background problems or observations investigated by the study in the introductory paragraph. Students should state the hypothesis according to the primary source (scientific study) and then explain how well that hypothesis is communicated by the news article. Students should further address how the news article describes key results, conclusions, and how the information should be applied in the larger context of the problems/observations previously stated.Scientific and Media Communication Comparative ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL NURSING PAPERS Wherever possible, students should use the concepts described in the Communications Module on how proper scientific reporting should be conducted. Try to focus on examples of good scientific reporting illustrated while pointing out any areas of poor scientific reporting that deserve appropriate criticism. Evaluation The journal includes the following processes and requirements: Start with an engaging attention getter, identifying the observation/problem addressed by the media communication and in the scientific communication; Identify the media communication as a media communication/secondary source and the scientific communication as a scientific communication/primary source Write a valid hypothesis statement which is addressed by the research in the scientific article and explain if the hypothesis is presented correctly in the media source; Identify additional parts to the scientific method including research methods, results, and research conclusions comparing what is stated in the media source and the scientific source; End the journal definitively; Use paraphrased information, examples, and evidence to support all points; Properly organize information within and between paragraphs; Format layout, citations, and references in correct 7th Edition APA style (Font: Calibri 11). Include in-text citation. journal_2__help_instructions_.docx student_apa_paper_template___word_17.docx emission_budge • • • • • Follow the instructions listed below (Highlighted in yellow) In addition to this document, two other documents have been included on the question posting (One concerning APA formatting, and the other is a PDF for the ‘original publication’). I’ve included the PDF to the ‘original publication’ because the link at the bottom of this document for the ‘original publication,’ dose not work. Use correct 7th Edition APA Please make the paper look professional. Do not write an abstract. Do not overly use intext citation. Do not create a lot of small paragraphs. Journal 2 Instructions The student will compose a brief essay comparing and contrasting scientific communication, including the role science plays in contemporary society (DSL 200.1), distinguishing between science and pseudoscience, and identifying when science is misrepresented in the media (DSL 200.3). The scientific data must be from reputable source(s) and must be accurately interpreted and cited (DSL 200.4). Additional reliable sources may be referred to, as needed or required. The first source listed at the bottom is a news article discussing the primary study listed below it. Students should read both sources thoroughly to achieve a good understanding of what the primary source says, and then be able to evaluate how the information is communicated to the lay public in the news article. Students should look for any inaccuracies, omissions, or misrepresentations in the news article and point them out with specific evidence. Students may also comment on how well the news article communicates the information citing any specific examples as supporting evidence. Students should cover the background problems or observations investigated by the study in the introductory paragraph. Students should state the hypothesis according to the primary source (scientific study) and then explain how well that hypothesis is communicated by the news article. Students should further address how the news article describes key results, conclusions, and how the information should be applied in the larger context of the problems/observations previously stated. Wherever possible, students should use the concepts described in the Communications Module on how proper scientific reporting should be conducted. Try to focus on examples of good scientific reporting illustrated while pointing out any areas of poor scientific reporting that deserve appropriate criticism. Evaluation The journal includes the following processes and requirements: • • • • • • • • Start with an engaging attention getter, identifying the observation/problem addressed by the media communication and in the scientific communication; Identify the media communication as a media communication/secondary source and the scientific communication as a scientific communication/primary source Write a valid hypothesis statement which is addressed by the research in the scientific article and explain if the hypothesis is presented correctly in the media source; Identify additional parts to the scientific method including research methods, results, and research conclusions comparing what is stated in the media source and the scientific source; End the journal definitively; Use paraphrased information, examples, and evidence to support all points; Properly organize information within and between paragraphs; Format layout, citations, and references in correct 7th Edition APA style (Font: Calibri 11). University of Miami Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Essay. Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Include in-text citation. *Please refer to the work by the author’s last name, rather than the publication or article number. Breitbart News: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’ (Links to an external site.) Original Publication (you may have to log into the library first): Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C 1 Title of Paper: Subtitle (if any) Name Department, University Name Course Number: Course Name Instructor Assignment Due Date 2 Title of Paper: Subtitle (if any) Even though it seems redundant, APA style formally wants you to add your title again as you start the body of your paper (see above). Generally, your paper should begin with an introduction. Note that everything should be double-spaced throughout the entire paper. Second, margins are 1-inch wide on all sides. The font should be Calibri 11 point. Every paragraph should be indented ½ inch. Remember to cite your sources throughout the body of the paper. Articles and books are cited the same way in the text, yet they appear different on the References page. For example, an article by Cronbach and Meehl (1955) and a book by Bandura (1986) are written with the authors’ names and the year of the publication in parentheses. However, if you look on the References page they look a little different. Remember that APA style does not use footnotes or anything like that for citations. Two other things about citations are important. When a citation is written inside parentheses: (Cronbach & Meehl, 1959), an ampersand (&) is used between authors’ names instead of the word “and.” Second, when citing an author’s work using quotations, be sure to include a page number. For example, Rogers (1961) once wrote that two important elements of a helping relationship are “genuineness and transparency” (p. 37). Notice that the page number is included here. References at the end of the paper should be in alphabetical order, double-spaced, with a hanging indent of ½”, as formatted below. 3 References Euromonitor International. (2008, May 27). Shopping for pleasure: The development of shopping as a leisure pursuit. https://euromonitor.com/ Johansson, J. K. (2009). Global marketing: Foreign entry, local marketing, and global management (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Neh, H. (2016, April). The aesthetics of survival [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/hari_nef_the_aesthetics_of_survival Polites, H. (2014, February 13). Australia’s economy is not all doom and gloom: Here are five surprising growth sectors. Business Spectator. Retrieved from http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/12/economy/australias-economy-not-alldoom-and-gloom-here-are-five-surprising-growth Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Houghton Mifflin. The World Bank. (2020). Projects in Mail – Project list. https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projectsoperations/projects-list?countrycode_exact=ML ARTICLES PUBLISHED ONLINE: 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO3031 Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 ?C Richard J. Millar1,2*, Jan S. Fuglestvedt3, Pierre Friedlingstein1, Joeri Rogelj4,5, Michael J. Grubb6, H. Damon Matthews7, Ragnhild B. Skeie3, Piers M. Forster8, David J. Frame9 and Myles R. Allen2,10 The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 ? C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 ? C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 ? C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 ? C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 ? C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 ? C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible. University of Miami Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Essay. Scientific and Media Communication Comparative T he aim of Paris Agreement is ‘holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 ? C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ? C’ (ref. 1). The Parties also undertook to achieve this goal by reducing net emissions ‘to achieve a balance between anthropogenic sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century’, and hence implicitly not by geo-engineering planetary albedo. Under what conditions is this goal geophysically feasible? Human-induced warming reached an estimated 0.93 ? C (±0.13 ? C; 5–95 percentile range) above mid-nineteenth-century conditions in 2015 and is currently increasing at almost 0.2 ? C per decade2 . Combined with the effects of El Niño and other sources of natural variability, total warming exceeded 1 ? C for the first time in 2015 and again in 20163 . Average temperatures for the 2010s are currently 0.87 ? C above 1861–80, which would rise to 0.93 ? C should they remain at 2015 levels for the remainder of the decade. With a few exceptions4,5 , mitigation pathways that could achieve peak or end-of-century warming of 1.5 ? C have thus far received little attention. Even the ‘Paris, increased ambition’ scenario of ref. 6 results in CO2 emissions still well above zero in 2100, and hence a low chance of limiting warming to 1.5 ? C. Long-term anthropogenic warming is determined primarily by cumulative emissions of CO2 (refs 7–10): the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC-AR5) found that cumulative CO2 emissions from 1870 had to remain below 615 GtC for total anthropogenic warming to remain below 1.5 ? C in more than 66% of members of the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) ensemble of Earth system models (ESMs)11 (see Fig. 1a). Accounting for the 545 GtC that had been emitted by the end of 201412 , this would indicate a remaining budget from 2015 of less than seven years of current emissions, while current commitments under the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) indicate 2030 emissions close to current levels13 . The scenarios and simulations on which these carbon budgets were based, however, were designed to assess futures in the absence of CO2 mitigation, not the very ambitious mitigation scenarios and correspondingly small amounts of additional warming above present that are here of interest. Furthermore, many mitigation scenarios begin reductions in 2010 and are already inconsistent with present-day emissions, complicating the comparison with pledges for 2030. Carbon budgets and scenarios for ambitious climate goals The black cross on Fig. 1a shows an estimate of human-induced warming, which excludes the impact of natural fluctuations such as El Niño, in 2015 (0.93 ± 0.13 ? C relative to 1861–80; 5–95 percentile range) and pre-2015 cumulative carbon emissions (545 ± 75 GtC since 1870; 1 s.d.). Although both quantities are individually consistent with the CMIP5 ensemble, in the mean CMIP5 response (coloured lines) cumulative emissions do not reach 545 GtC until after 2020, by which time the CMIP5 ensemble-mean humaninduced warming is over 0.3 ? C warmer than the central estimate for human-induced warming to 2015. In estimating the outstanding 1 College of Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, UK. 2 Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 3 Center for International Climate and Environmental Research—Oslo (CICERO), PO Box 1129, Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway. 4 Energy Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria. 5 Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8006 Zurich, Switzerland. 6 Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK. 7 Concordia University, Montreal, Québec H3G 1M8, Canada. 8 School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. 9 New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand. 10 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK. *e-mail: [email protected] NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 10 | OCTOBER 2017University of Miami Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Essay. Scientific and Media Communication Comparative | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. 741 NATURE GEOSCIENCE DOI: 10.1038/NGEO3031 ARTICLES Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 2015 (GtCO2) 4 3 2 RCP2.6 2090s RCP8.5 Total human-induced warming Baselines 720?1,000 RCP6.0 2090s 2090s 580?720 RCP4.5 CO2-induced warming 530?580 480?530 2090s 430?480 1 2000s 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1870 (GtC) Temperature change relative to 2010?2019 (°C) 5 0 b 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 4 ?1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 +0.6 °C TEB budget, 66% of models Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1870 (GtCO2) +1.5 °C TEB budget, 66% of models Temperature change relative to 1861?1880 (°C) a 3 2 1 Total human-induced warming 2090s 2090s CO2-induced warming 2090s 2090s 0 ?1 ?500 2010s 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 2015 (GtC) Figure 1 | Warming as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions in the CMIP5 ensemble. a, Cumulative emissions since 1870 and warming relative to the period 1861–80, adapted from figure 2.3 of ref. 11. The red and grey plumes show the 5–95% range of model response under the RCPs and 1% annual CO2 increase scenarios, respectively. Thick coloured lines show ensemble-mean response to the RCP forcing scenarios. Ellipses show cumulative emissions and warming in 2100 for different categories of future emissions scenario. Black cross shows uncertainty in 2015 human-induced warming and observed cumulative emissions. b, As for a, but with cumulative emissions given since January 2015 and warming relative to the period 2010–2019. Dashed vertical grey lines show the threshold-exceedance budgets (TEBs) below which over 66% of models have warmed less than 1.5 ? C above 1861–80 in a, and less than 0.6 ? C above 2010–19 in b. carbon budget for 1.5 ? C, this is an important discrepancy. IPCCAR5 also calculated the percentiles of the CMIP5 distribution that exceeded given thresholds of warming relative to the average of 1986–2005 (Table 12.3 of ref. 14), adding a further 0.61 ? C to express these relative to 1850–1900. However, this reference period and the GCM ensemble used in this table are not identical to the ESM ensemble used to derive estimates of the carbon budget, for which a volcano-free reference period is preferred, to focus on human-induced warming. Moreover, since the discrepancy in warming between ESMs and observations emerges only after 2000, expressing warming relative to the 1986–2005 reference period does not entirely resolve it and also does not address the small underestimation of cumulative emissions to date. Figure 1b shows an alternative analysis of the CMIP5 ensemble to assess the remaining carbon budget for an additional 0.6 ? C of warming beyond the current decade, a possible interpretation of ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ? C’ in light of estimated human-induced warming to date. The median response of the CMIP5 models indicates allowable future cumulative emissions (threshold-exceedance budget or TEB15 ) of 223 GtC for a further 0.6 ? C warming above the 2010–2019 average, and a 204 GtC remaining TEB from 2015 to keep warming likely below this value (meaning, by the time cumulative emissions from 2015 reach 204 GtC, 66% of CMIP5 models have warmed less than 0.6 ? C above the present decade, consistent with the methodology for assessing the 2 ? C carbon budget in IPCC-AR516 ). Given uncertainty in attributable human-induced warming to date, differences between observational products and true global surface air temperature17 , and the precise interpretation of the 1.5 ? C goal in the Paris Agreement (for example, the choice of pre-industrial reference period which temperatures are defined relative to18 ), budgets corresponding to a range of levels of future warming should also be considered—see Table 1 and the Supplementary Information.University of Miami Scientific and Media Communication Comparative Essay TEBs are useful because peak CO2 -induced warming is a function (shown by the grey plume in Fig. 1) of cumulative CO2 emissions and approximately independent of emission path, although threshold behaviour, such as sudden carbon release from thawing permafrost, might complicate this relationship19 . This does not apply to non-CO2 forcing, which is relatively more important for ambitious mitigation scenarios. The rapid warming from the 2000s to the 2030s in CMIP5 arises partly from strong increases in net non-CO2 forcing over this period in the driving RCP scenarios, due to simulated rapid reductions in cooling aerosol forcing. It remains unclear whether this increase in non-CO2 forcing will be observed if future reductions in aerosol emissions occur because present-day effective non-CO2 forcing is still highly uncertain20 . Table 2 shows budgets for thresholds of future warming in the CMIP5 ensemble under an RCP2.6 scenario, a stabilization scenario in which nonCO2 forcing across the rest of the century remains closer to the 2010–2019 average than in the RCP8.5 scenario. This allows more CO2 -induced warming for the same total, increasing the median TEB of the CMIP5 distribution for an additional 0.6 ? C to 303 GtC and the 66th percentile to 242 GtC. In many current ambitious mitigation scenarios (for example, RCP2.6 (ref. 21), dark blue lines in Fig. 2), substantial CO2 emission reductions begin in 2010, such that both emissions and forcing are already inconsistent with observed climate state and emission inventories to date. The thick dark green lines in Fig. 2 show an amended version of RCP2.6 that is more consistent with current emissions and estimated present-day climate forcing. This scenario, hereafter referred to as RCP2.6-2017, assumes the same proportional rates of change of both CO2 and other anthropogenic forcing components as in the standard RCP2.6 scenario from 2010, but with the mitigation start date delayed by seven years to 2017 (following the RCP8.5 scenario22 between 2010–2017). This is more representative of a possible mitigation pathway from today: many nations are already planning on policy action to reduce emissions over the 2015–2020 period, in anticipation of achieving their NDC commitments in the future. Total anthropogenic radiative forcing peaks in 2050 (at 3.41 W m?2 ) in RCP2.6-2017, as opposed to in 2043 (at 3.00 W m?2 ) under RCP2.6. The grey lines represent emissions pathways from the IPCC 430–480 ppm scenario category23,24 but with proportional decreases in radiative forcing also delayed by seven years to start in 2017. Figure 2c shows the implications of these scenarios for future warming, evaluated with a simple climate model that reproduces the response of the CMIP5 models to radiative forcing under ambitious mitigation scenarios (Supplementary Methods). Like other simple climate models, this lacks an explicit physical link between oceanic heat and carbon uptake. It allows a global feedback 742 NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 10 | OCTOBER 2017 | www.nature.com/naturegeoscience © 2017 Macmillan Publishers Limite … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

RECOMMENDED: Discussion: Analysis of Scientific Reporting in Media Communication