In the study, Sustainable Water Deliveries from the Colorado River in a Changing Climate (Barnett, T. & D. Pierce, 2009), Tim Barnett and David Pierce consider the future of water availability from the Colorado River. This waterway is a valuable resource and this paper discusses ways in which we can ensure its sustainability for the future.
It is very obvious that the statements presented in the primary source are much more reliable and sound than those from the secondary source. The general purpose of a primary source is to have the results accepted by the scientific community, while a secondary source is meant to get the public interested in the topic. To account for this difference, primary articles include lots of detail involving how the experiment was conducted as well as the uncertainties that may affect their results. The discussion would include interpreting the results and how they would be useful. They are restricted to discussing this experiment only. The secondary article includes how the results will affect today’s society and link it to other important topics. Some information from the primary source is not included in the secondary source because the audience must be convinced of the conclusion presented. Any material that doesn’t fully support it, will most likely be left out. There are several of these points that can been seen while comparing and contrasting these two articles.
The secondary article, Climate Change Means Shortfalls in Colorado River Water Deliveries (University of California, 2009), provided by the University of California presents the results of the study to a broader audience. The evidence suggests that reductions in the runoff that feeds the Colorado River mean that there could be half a billion cubic meters less water per year by 2025. However, this article fails to mention that the climate models used to conduct this data had inconsistent precipitation results. Some models predict no change in precipitation, while some predict reductions of at least ten percent. This may lead to some inaccuracy of the results presented in this paper. It was not mentioned in the secondary source to make the argument more sound and concise. The purpose of a secondary source is to engage the audience and present to them a ‘wow’ factor to catch their attention.
In the secondary source, the author makes reference to a study conducted in 2008 by the same authors. They concluded that Lake Mead (the reservoir on the Colorado River created by the Hoover Dam) had a fifty percent chance of going dry in the next twenty years. In the primary source it is mentioned that this model was heavily criticized and therefore makes this reference seem less credible and therefore has little merit in contributing to the argument presented in the secondary article. The details of this reference we not included in the secondary article in order for the study to seem more convincing to the reader. A generalization of results is presented.
There are several other pieces of information that the author of the secondary source has not included in their article. In the primary source, the authors state that uncertainties could alter their results by plus or minus 5 years. The authors are admitting that there is some uncertainty involved but this is not mentioned in the secondary article because readers would begin to doubt the merit of the study. People accustomed to reading primary articles will realize that there is almost always some element of uncertainty but readers of the secondary article may not realize this. Each type of source is intended for a particular audience and is written differently to accommodate for the difference.
From the results of this study, the authors concluded that the long term sustainable deliveries from the Colorado River will be between 14-17 bcm/yr (billion cubic meters per year), which is a reduction of twenty percent of current levels. In the secondary article it is said that scheduled deliveries will be missed 60-90 percent of the time by the middle of the century. The change of wording is due to the fact that the secondary source must be concise and easy for readers to interpret. It is the same data but presented in a completely different way. The results presented in the primary source seem more credible because there is evidence provided. In the secondary source you are left to wonder what they compared the results to in order to get the percentages and timeline.
There is also information left out of the secondary source that could add credibility to the argument. In the secondary article, the author left out the probability that the results will be correct, which were very high. In the primary source, the author can convey how correct their data is, which creates a more convincing argument. In this primary source, the authors also stated that they accounted for extreme water levels and how that will affect their data, creating an even better argument. But information must be revealed in detail in a primary source while in a secondary source, the major findings are reported.
In conclusion, the presentation of results depends on who will be reading the paper and what the purpose of the article is. A primary source is meant to convey the reliability of an experiment, stating the methods, collected data and explaining results and uncertainties. A secondary source is mean to present the information concluded in the primary article in a way that is easy to understand and provides a quick summary. There is possibility to convince a reader of something from a secondary article by not mentioning certain pieces of information. This is why we must all be careful while taking information from secondary sources.
References
Barnett, T. & D. Pierce (2009, April 20). Sustainable water deliveries from the Colorado River in a changing climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://aquafornia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sustainable-water-deliveries-from-the-colorado-river-in-a-changing-climate.pdf
University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm
Good work! Your discussion of the limitations of the model based upon the primary and secondary articles was interesting. You also touched upon a number of other key points: audience, methods, detail of sources. However, I believe that the information left out of the secondary source that you mentioned "could add credibility to the argument" was left out for precisely the purpose you previously stated, to satisfy the audience and attract attention with a quick, simple story.
ReplyDelete