Ancient findings support climate change predictions

Cool article about new findings!

New findings about ancient times suggest that the recent predictions made by the IPCC about climate change in relation to rising carbon emissions are correct. Scientists from the UK and Australia have used climate records and ancient carbon samples trapped in ice to construct a model of how climate responded to changes in carbon levels. These findings were in line with the IPCC’s predictions, suggesting that the rising levels of carbon emissions will greatly affect our climate.

While these findings are extremely interesting and exciting, (which is why I clicked into the article in the first place), I found it difficult to follow and not very “new-sy” from a journalistic standpoint. The lede was not very interesting and seemed to me to be the nut graph. Having just discussed scientists vs. journalists last week, I felt that this article lacked what we discussed journalism needed. It had too much science and was not relatable. It merely stated (compelling) facts and did not discuss its larger implications for society. It definitely had the potential to be a bigger story, but it was lacking in my opinion.

What do you all think? Did you like the story? What changes would you make to it if you were writing the story yourself? Any general comments on the article are welcome too!



4 Responses to “Ancient findings support climate change predictions”

  1. I completely agree, Kristen, this was far too dry to make for good journalism. I also don’t think it’s that great of news: another report saying that the science about climate change is correct? When have I heard that in the last week/year/decade? I think that opening with the possibility that the models fail to account for positive feedback loops, ultimately leading to even more warming than expected, would be a step in the right direction for this article, but, being an environmental science major, I have heard that before so I don’t know if it would make for a new story or just add to the same white noise.

  2. I agree with Kristen & John. This article was a bit dry. It might be better suited for a science journal. The journalist could have tried to break down the scientific terms a little better. The news however is note worthy. Essentially what they’re saying is there was a new type of “proof” that climate change is happening. Unfortunately, I felt the article did not have a strong new angle, which happens to the majority of climate change articles nowadays. The introduction to the story was somewhat engaging. I would describe the first sentence as a hook/lede/nutgraph all in one. The story was highly informational, and full of credible sources, however not very engaging.

  3. I agree as well, overall very dry – but I feel it begins with a sentence that shouldn’t serve as an introduction to any sort of discussion. Structure does feel crammed. The information within the article is interesting, just not presented in a manner that allows it to be digested easily – not so much because of the terminology as much as lack of any attempt to engage the reader as a thinking, feeling entity as opposed to some sort of data storage unit.

  4. I remember visually being exposed to an example of this work with rods of extracted ice in the opening scene of the Day After Tomorrow. As a younger person watching the film, I was not given a great idea of how this carbon sampling connected with the rising sea level. The dramatic tone, which that movie lent to climate change, had a large impact upon how urgent this global issue was to me. While global warming news and information cannot usually be transmitted well in a Hollywood feature, it made the information relatable through the story.
    We ask in class what the news is in a given article, and there is obviously some in this one. However, if it doesn’t stick with me, is it worth reading and am I right in saying ‘so what?’ The Day After Tomorrow may not have as much scientific basis as the BBC article, but it sure opened my eyes much more widely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s