Part 1:
Buis, A. (2020, January 09). Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
*Cited in APA Format*
Part 2:
The beginning of the article starts off with an old saying that can measure the quality of something once put to the test. There are climate models which are mathematical computer simulations to interact with Earth’s climate. It’s been wonder for people on how climate models can make future climate conditions. The benchmark to good science is the ability to make predictions that can be testable. Climate models have been predicted since the 1970’s and it’s all a matter of how reliable it is to the climate conditions now. A research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. the team compared 17 model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 to 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with real time changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The results are 10 model projections closely matched observations. Scientists using climate models to better understand how Earth’s climate changed in the past, how it’s changing now, and what future global trends will look like.
Part 3:
I agree with this text and how past scientific research has been made relevant for the climate change going on right now. How is the research we have right now (present) going to affect research coming later? Surely enough, technology will advance and life goes on, but is everyone going to be prepared for another earthquake or hurricane if we don’t change the climate right now. This seems like brainwashing a little bit because I don’t know if the research now will be important later to prevent a hurricane or earthquake. It is a what-if scenario because not all things are seen until they are seen. To better understand this article I would need to scientific research of the past and read data to grasp conclusive findings. This document tells me about my research question that YES, scientific research is indicative to the reality of climate change.
Part 4:
“To successfully match new observational data, climate model projections have to encapsulate the physics of the climate and also make accurate predictions about future carbon dioxide emission levels and other factors that affect climate, such as solar variability, volcanoes, other human-produced and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols.”
“This study’s accounting for differences between the projected and actual emissions and other factors allowed a more focused evaluation of the models’ representation of Earth’s climate system.”
Zainab, nice work! And I think you’ve given yourself some good clues as to where to look for your next sources. Some tips for where you might improve in this and further source entries: First of all, for an issue like this, it can be very helpful in section 2 to think about: a: what is the article’s MAIN point, and also b: what are the article’s MOST IMPORTANT points. These aren’t always the same thing. By most important, this can mean what is most important to you and your research question.
Remember that section 3 should be your longest section. You have some great stuff in here! Really! But especially for an issue like Climate Change, where you’re trying to figure out who is the expert, it will be important for you to think about the author’s credentials, writing style, awareness of audience and purpose (reason for writing), and choice of genre affect the meaning and credibility of the document.
What I’m saying is, it’s worth considering if you should listen to THIS article and why! Probably the fact that it’s from NASA, for example, makes it more credible than if it were just from some guy’s blog. That’s worth mentioning here! Anyway, nice work– you’re off to a great start. And I think it’s worth looking for past predictions (even from NASA) and seeing if they have or have not come true, as you mention here.