Analysis of Climate Science Reports

Matthew Acuna

City College

Abstract                                                                                               1

            Comparison of the differences and similarities between three different climate sciences reports. An assessment is to be made based on certain attributes that are included in each lab and if each lab conveys their information in a coherent and cohesive manner. These key differences and similarities will help determine what makes a good report.

Summary                                                                                             2

 An assessment of oil palm plantation aboveground biomass stocks on tropical peat using destructive and non-destructive methods by Kennedy Lewis, elisa Rumpang, Lip Khoon Kho, Jon Mccalmont, Yit Arn teh, Angela Gallego-Sala & timothy charles is about the the the relation of the bio-mass of the oil palms in plantations and it relations to peatland distortion and carbon emissions. They examine different Biomasses of different oil palms

 Quantifying the Effect of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Calcifying Plankton by Lyndsey fox, Stephen Stukins  , Thomas Hill,  & C. Giles Miller is about the effect of the calcification of plankton and how climate change it attributed to it. Examples of different kinds of plankton are taken observed to view the calcification of different types of plankton.

 Projecting consequences of global warming for the functional diversity of fleshy‐fruited plants and frugivorous birds along a tropical elevational gradient by Larissa Nowak   W. Daniel Kissling, Irene M. A. Bender, D. Matthias Dehling, Till Töpfer, Katrin Böhning‐Gaese, Matthias Schleuning talks about the populations and certain types of birds and plants in a tropical environment & how the development of global warming can disturb these populations.

When writing reports for experiments there are certain criteria that report has to follow. These criteria changes based on the topic and the experiment itself however there are fundamentals that make a report clear and concise. An abstract that is not necessary, but it can provide inside and a good overview and usually contains an aim, a brief discussion of results and possibly methodologies. The introductions should contain and background information necessary to read this report. This consists of any terms that need to be defined or known and graphs or

                                                                                                                                                      3

tables. The purpose or aim can also be included to the introduction if not in a separate section. The intro should also provide any possible information regarding the how they are going to go about doing the experiment. For the Methodology it must talk about how the particular analysis of the experiment will be conducted. This sections also includes any relevant diagrams and images to explain the set up of the experiment. The results should have what ever is needed to describe the results, this includes graphs and raw data collected and perhaps equations, along with calculations and error. The discussion which talks about the data and whether it was looked over and explained. Lastly are the conclusion and the references which contain a short summary of what had occurred in the lab and where the information was gathered and from where it was taken from.

             The three reports provide a clear and concise introduction that give relative details that to what the lab is about and what the report will revolve around. The lab by Lewis et.al explains that oil palm plantations a are large reason for large carbon emissions and provide keys terms that identify the parts of the oil palm. A diagram is displayed that shows a depiction of an oil palm with labels and a flow chart. There is also a graph which displays bio-mass of the different part of the oil palm and a table of that displays equations however the tables placement is odd because there is no context/information to place into the equations that lead to those specific weights, so the order the order of that piece of information was initially confusing until the graph of bio-masses is shown. Compared to the Lab report by fox et.al which has a fluent introduction that contains useful background information and a picture of a map that identifies concentrations of calcification. The report by Nowak et.al is clear, however it contains a graph that is out of

                                                                                                                                                         3

order and hard to follow. This some one the criteria that will be looked after when comparing the three lab reports.

            For comparing the results of the of the labs each lab provides a clear depiction of its results except for the one by Lewis et.al. The lab by fox et.al provides graphs, pictures, and captions for each graph. For example, for each depiction of the plank there are clear labels describing the type of calcify plankton followed by a graphs that accurately correlate to each type of plankton. The report by Nowak et.al provide clearly labeled and captioning to explain multiple graphs and appropriate scales are given to make understanding easier. When these result sections are compared to the one by Lewis et.al it is lacking in the facts it has a table that is not clearly labeled and had a caption that lacks necessary information to fully understand what the table is, also some of the data collected is in different sections of the report.

            In terms of discussion all three lab gave similar discussions all provided clearly labeled graphs and the content had thoroughly explained the results that had been collected.

            The methodology section of each report was also done. The report by Fox et.al explains what they had used to capture the data where the data was captured. The report by Lewis et.al explains where they are going to obtain the data and where they will get. And the report by Nowak et.al. explains where the birds and plants they will examine be, they also explain the different ranges and locations they were conducting research. All the reports have a well-rounded conclusion that is short and concise, however the report by Fox et.al lacks a solid conclusion report is different.

            The order of the information of the reports by Lewis et.al and Fox et.al are unique because it the cohesion of the report was present for the most part. The report by Nowak which followed a traditional format was more useful was well presented made sense but so did the way the other reports did. Lewis et.al followed a format of introduction, abstract, results, discussion, limitations, conclusion and methodology. Whereas the other one followed a format of introduction, abstract, results, discussion, methodology with no real conclusion sections.

For me the report by Lewis et.al was the most confusing and the one by Nowak was the best because it was easy to follow whereas the other report lack cohesion and made it hard to understand as a whole.