Analysis on Reports Surrounding Climate Change

Simon Au

The City College of New York

ENGL 21007: Writing for Engineering

Professor C. Rodwell

March 9, 2020

 

 

 

        With global warming being apparent, there have been an increase in the studies regarding climate change and new effects on the inhabitants, the environment, and society. Scientists with the goal to explore these effects conducted various experiments throughout the year to present information to the public. Taking a look at three of these types of lab reports, the effectiveness of each paper will be assessed such as their similarities and differences on approach, methods, and their format. Each lab report will be referenced as “Report 1”, “Report 2”, and “Report 3” to describe “Potential impact of climate change on plant invasion in the Republic of Korea” (Journal of Ecology and Environment, Pradeep Adhikari), “Plant genetic effects on soils under climate change” (Plant and Soil Vol 379, D.G. Fischer), and “The effect of climate change on cholera disease: The road ahead using artificial neural network” (PLoS ONE, Zahra Asadgol) respectively. Finally, using the rhetorical analysis, this paper will assess each lab report to determine the effectiveness of their delivery, format, and fulfillment of their intended purpose.

        In Report 1, the research team essentially conducts a study, testing the terrestrial growth of fourteen different invasive species. Broken down into five sections, which consist of an abstract (background), a method, results, discussion, and a conclusion, the authors attempt to format the report as clearly as possible. The title of Report 1 also did an effective job presenting what the paper is about by keeping it concise. The abstract of the report presented all the necessary information for their intended audience, scientist and those knowledgeable with what invasive species does, as well as inform the readers about equipment they plan on using and past reports they plan to refer to. Examples such as the use of ecological niche modeling (ENM) or maximum entropy model (MaxEnt) were mentioned and included a thorough explanation of the function and accuracy of these types of equipment. As for the method section, the authors were effective as they listed how they were going to conduct this study. The authors of Report 1 listed various data and different variables that affected the experiment while providing details on what they were looking for during the study. The results section, on the other hand, was ineffective in the presentation of the study’s findings. In the results, the authors essentially listed the graphs they compiled but failed to provide the graphs within the report. The audience would have to personally look up Report 1‘s experiment name to find their graphs and data. Since this is a scientific report and the use of graphs and math are critical in presenting information, the authors were flawed on the idea of only including a few numbers deemed important for the results.

        Finally, there are the discussions and the conclusion section. The conclusion effectively wrapped up the report and summarized the entire study’s findings. The discussion also delivered insight on the researcher’s thoughts on the results and pointed out a few flaws within this experiment. One flaw, such as the mistake of not including the landscape such as urban vs rural as a variable in this experiment could potentially cause inaccurate readings on their models. Since their purpose was to present an accurate study on the effects of increased temperature due to climate change on the growth of invasive plants, flaws like forgetting many variables that could influence the results such as topography or landscape could mean that the study was for naught. Essentially, Report 1 as a whole was a decent report because they were semi-effectively in presenting information but left out key information such as graphs and data tables and failed to conduct an effective study on the matter since not all variables were covered.

        In Report 2, researchers conducted two separate case studies for the purpose of finding out whether climate change had any influence soils. This report’s structure and choice of vocabulary such as “rhizosphere mutualism” or “genotypes and taxa” heavily implies that this report has an intended audience of scientist, other researchers, those specialized in this field. This is a slight disadvantage because the vocabulary used often require research to understanding what it means. Like Report 1, Report 2’s title is effective in presenting what the report will be about. The abstract for Report 2 also is effective when summarizing what the report consists of and what they plan on experimenting on. What is different about Report 2 is the structure, which only includes an abstract, introduction, the two case studies, and finally a conclusion. Report 2’s introduction presents the audience with detail on the history of change in soil communities. It explains influences on soil such as plants, animals, water cycle, carbon cycle, and nitrogen cycle as well as going in depth in explaining how soil is manipulated by different influences. The unique part of Report 2 is the inclusion of the researcher’s hypothesis on what they believe to be four main relationship between soil and plant growth and how they believe climate change which increases the global temperature as a part in the change in soil. This entire section may be effective in presenting information for the audience, but the introduction is intended to briefly present context, not have a full-on essay about the researched topic. Report 2 could exclude certain information such as examples on fungi which doesn’t play a big role in this lab study to shorten their introduction and more effectively present their purpose.

        As for the case studies, they explain the two long term studies conducted to see the effects if variation on the genetic of plant species on the relationship of soil and the plant, which again goes into detail on each study, results, and what each finding could mean. Like Report 1, Report 2 failed to show any graphs on the results and instead opted to explain what their results were. The conclusion section of the report was effective as it consisted of a summary on the study’s findings, new theories based on the data collected, and explained how more experiments are needed to better understand this topic. Overall, Report 2 when compared to Report 1, had a lot more explanation of the topic rather than explanation of experiment and results. Report 2 may be more effective in presenting background information to those who are more knowledgeable such as PhD or researchers, but the overall format was not as effective compared to Report 1. When comparing both by sections, understandability for the general public and effectiveness on delivering results and meaning of the experiment on their topic suits Report 1 more than Report 2. Therefore, for Report 2 to be more effective, there needed to be inclusion of data tables and charts as well as to shorten the background information within the introduction.

        In Report 3, researchers are creating a simulation to model a potential real world spread of the disease known as cholera. The researcher’s purpose of creating this experiment was to learn more about the spread of cholera thanks to the increase in temperature due to climate change. The first thing that must be mentioned would have to be the title and the fact that it is not really all that effective and could be shortened. By keeping the first part of the title, which is “The effect of climate change on cholera disease”, it effectively presents the purpose of the lab report to anyone who stumbles upon it. As for the structure of this lab report, there is seven sections consisting of an abstract, an introduction, method, simulation, results, discussion, and conclusion. The abstract of this report when compared to the other two seems to be the best one. Report 3’s abstract was condensed yet informative. The abstract provided adequate amount of information for their audience, which could be researchers or just anyone interested in this topic, to understand without much difficulty. Unlike Report 1 which doesn’t have an introduction and Report 2, which included too much background information inside the introduction, Report 3 balanced what the other two failed to do by focusing primarily to explain a bit of background into cholera and what they plan on doing in this study/simulation. The authors also added general information on equipment such as the general circulation models (GCMs) and explained where their simulations will take place. As for the methods, the authors go into details to explain the study area which is Iran as well as different sources and variables to be listed within these simulations. This style of listing variables is very similar to that of Report 1 and is effective in presenting large quantity of information as it is broken down into groups for easier understandability. As for the simulation section, the report explained clearly what the researchers did and was unique to this report as Report 1 and Report 2 did case studies and not simulations. As for the results, Report 3 once again provided the most effective format in presenting their data. The authors went straight for the numbers and results along with images of the figures mentioned inside a PDF. Report 3, unlike the other two reports presented images in a PDF for people to see a visual instead just reading what they believed were important numbers. There were also many factors and calculations which are included in Report 3 to further show authenticity and seriousness in the simulation of Iran and cholera risk. Finally, there is the discussion and conclusion, which were also effective in their delivery. The conclusion wrapped up their report and their discussion used their results and explained what it meant. Overall, Report 3 was the most effective report out of the three reports. The report provided enough information for everyone to understand but not too much that it sounded like it was only for researchers as well as to create an understanding on what their purpose was.

        To conclude, Report 1, Report 2, and Report 3 all approached a problem that was created by climate change in their own way and provided enough information to push their point across. However, Report 3’s format and usage of vocabulary and data was the most effective in pushing their point and purpose across. Report 1 had certain aspects such as introduction, discussion, and conclusion that were effective, but lacked in several areas such as results. Report 2 was the least effective and also lacked in results when it came to providing datasets and provided too much information throughout its report for the general public to understand. To combat these problems, Report 1 and Report 2 should attempt to follow some of Report 3’s format such as adding images, cutting down on wording, and to effectively translate the information and results for easier understanding for those who have little to no knowledge about the topics. Therefore, “The effect of climate change on cholera disease: The road ahead using artificial neural network” was the most effective report done out of the three reports analyzed.

References

Asadgol, Z., Mohammadi, H., Kermani, M., Badirzadeh, A., & Gholami, M. (2019). The effect of climate change on cholera disease: The road ahead using artificial neural network. PLoS ONE, e0224813. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A604977546/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=60b8e257

 

Adhikari, P., Jeon, J.-Y., Kim, H. W., Shin, M.-S., Adhikari, P., & Seo, C. (2019). Potential impact of climate change on plant invasion in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 43(1), NA. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A607405741/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=1cce7920

 

Fischer, D. G., Chapman, S. K., Classen, A. T., Gehring, C. A., Grady, K. C., Schweitzer, J. A., & Whitham, T. G. (2014). Plant genetic effects on soils under climate change. Plant and Soil, 379(1-2), 1. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A372253132/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=fcc37b8b