The article “Water Crisis Looms Unless We Understand Freshwater Cycles” discusses a study that shows the importance of not only knowing the amount of freshwater on the planet, but also finding out how it is ‘renewed.’ Taikan Oki and Shinjiro Kanae are the authors of the study. They believe that in order to preserve freshwater resources, we must follow water through the entire water cycle.
Toward the end of the article, there are a couple of quotes that seem to contradict each other at first glance. Further explanation of the first quote is needed in order for the article to make sense. The first quote was:
“The anticipated global warming will accelerate the water cycle. Precipitation will increase and therefore runoff and river discharge will be increased, thus available freshwater resources will be increased on a macro scale (COSMOS).”
This is true, seeing as water that was previously ice will melt and contribute to higher water levels. There have been other studies done which conclude that precipitation patterns will be more erratic in the future. Areas will most likely receive an extreme version of the precipitation that they have now. Whether this results in flooding or drought depends entirely on the area. This leads to the second quote:
“However, the more intense and intermittent precipitation characteristics anticipated in the future under global warming may not allow us to be optimistic… (COSMOS)”
While the first quote can lead the reader to believe that we are not on the verge of exhausting our freshwater resources, the second quote clearly eliminates that idea.
The first quote is the problem, because there are no explicit details as to how this will affect our freshwater resources in the long run. They use a generalization that hurts their cause more than it helps it. More intense precipitation could lead the reader to believe that there will be more water available for consumption. But as water levels rise in the ocean due to melting ice, the salt water will flow into the freshwater aquifers. This will result in water that is not fit to drink because of the increased saline level. Desalination of contaminated ground water would be just as costly and harmful to the environment as the desalination of ocean water.
This misunderstanding would be quite easy to make. The author of the article could include a bit more background to avoid any confusion for the reader.
Sources:
"Water crisis looms unless we understand freshwater cycles | COSMOS magazine." COSMOS magazine | The science of everything. Web. 26 Oct. 2009.
Taken out of context, the first quote you mentioned definitely contradicts the message given by most freshwater articles I have read. Good job explaining what the author didn’t: that increased precipitation in one area will decrease precipitation in others, and that rising ocean levels will contaminate ground water.
ReplyDeleteThrough the two quotes you showed that the article in general was ambiguous or at least contradictory. As you said general statements often have that effect. They simplify too much, losing the real meaning of the argument.
- Amy Adair
Jesse the two quotes that you used in your article were really affective in proving your point to the reader. I will have to agree with Amy's comment above that you did a good job explaining what the author did wrong and how they can improve. Also agree with amy about how the author is simplifying the context to much, which is intern losing the real truth behind the point.
ReplyDeleteKendra Bester
I never thought global warming could have positive effects, but after reading the first quote my opinion was definitely changed. It seemed to all make sense, until the second quote was read. I agree with you, more explanation would really be helpful, as what is mentionned in the article is just some surface information on the two ideas and the reader is left confused as to what to believe.
ReplyDelete