Peer Review on Jay's WA-2

Jay’s essay has the required structure of an argumentative essay. There was an introductory paragraph followed by the supporting paragraphs and finally in the end there was a conclusion paragraph. In the introductory paragraph, the thesis statement was clearly mentioned that declared Jay’s stance on the issue, however, about the background information, I felt that although the content was relevant, it should have to be more precise and focused, and all of it should be summed up into one paragraph only.

In the first supporting paragraph, where you have mentioned about the harmful effects of presence of Sulphur particles in the air, it would have been more convincing if you could give some scientific evidences or some relevant examples to support you claim. In addition to that, in the same paragraph when you mentioned “the sulfates would also delay the expected recovery of the ozone hole over the Antarctic by about 30 to 70 years....” i was necessary to cite the source to make your claim sound authentic. Also try to put all the similar pieces of arguments in the same paragraph, which means try to link the next two small paragraphs together with this one.

In the other supporting paragraph where you have mentioned about the various other techniques of geo-engineering, there was a need to introduce some logical expressions and some transitions markers to link the details with the main thesis, otherwise, that paragraph seems to stand out irrelevant. And same goes for the last supporting paragraph. Try to add some sentences that could help linking those paragraphs with the main thesis.
Your analogy given in the concluding paragraph was very impressive but you need to include that in any of the previous paragraphs and try to summarize all your supporting arguments in the concluding paragraph instead.

Finally, about the language, apart from some sentence structure problems and spelling errors it was quite fine.

-HAIDER HAYEE

Springboard readings summary:

Article:
"Research on global sun block needed now"


To combat the rising global temperature a new method of cooling the earth has been proposed by geoengineers in the form of Solar-Radiation Management (SRM). This method asks for the injection of sulphur particles in the stratosphere, which in turn cools the earth by reflecting back fraction of radiations from the sun, preventing them from warming the earth. The main characteristics which make this method a good replacement of CO2 emission cut are its cheap cost and the ability to cool the earth much more effectively. But the implication of this technique has been restrained by some of the drawbacks associated with it which encompass minor environmental hazards, like acid rain and decrease in precipitation; lack of relevant research and the governance difficulty of it globally. Thus to bring this technique to service, solutions to the above problems have to be found. The very first step needed to be taken is to enhance the research by conducting more field tests so as to find most effective way of executing this project and to bring the harmful effects of it down to minimum. Governance of it can be handled by building an international cooperation where international leaders discuss on risk assessment and regulations of the task, based on the researches done by the independent teams. Once sufficient data is collected from the various researches only then any final conclusion can be drawn about the application of this technique.

-HAIDER HAYEE

WA1 by Liu Yufeng

Combating global warming with ecosystems

In the passage, the authors mentioned that, nowadays, governments have recognized that natural ecosystems are playing very important roles to control the greenhouse gases emission. Treating climate change as a problem for both nature and humans is a way to fight global warming. People can make use of natural ecosystems to solve the global warming problem rather than destroy the nature (Turner, Oppenheimer, Wilcove, 2009). As what the authors mentioned in the article, people need to harness the natural services to conserve the biodiversity to decelerate the climate change and increase the ability of humans’ adaption. So it is obvious that natural ecosystems are the important and efficient roles to solve the climate change problems. Hence, the authors stated two arguments to explain why people can use natural ecosystems to solve the climate change problems (Turner, Oppenheimer, Wilcove, 2009):

Firstly, natural ecosystems such as ocean, forest, peat land are efficient devices to control the carbon and other global biogeochemical cycles (Turner, Oppenheimer, Wilcove, 2009). For example, ocean can store 2 gigatonnes of carbon a year; reducing deforestation and forest degradation can store at most 1 gigatonnes of carbon a year; natural habitats can also store 0.65 gigatonnes of carbon a year. So, natural ecosystems are the important roles to control the global biogeochemical cycles.

Secondly, natural ecosystems are the cheapest, safest and easiest solution to solve the global warming problem. It is because natural ecosystems have already existed. There is no need to develop other technologies to solve the problem. In addition, the natural ecosystems can also promote the adaption to unavoidable climate changes (Turner, Oppenheimer, Wilcove, 2009). For example, grassland, shrub lands and Mediterranean habitats can promote the water regulation and purification. Desert and tundra can reduce the emission of carbon from soil. (Turner, Oppenheimer, Wilcove, 2009). So we can treat climate change as a problem for nature and make use of nature ecosystem to solve the problem.

According to the authors, one more benefit of maintaining the nature ecosystems is that natural ecosystems can protect lives. For example, mangroves can protect the coastal countries from the cyclone and hurricanes. People cannot compromise with the climate change which will cause more loss of forest and ecosystems that can accelerate the climate change. So human beings have to corporate with natures and protect the natural ecosystems to fight against climate change.

In conclusion, climate change is a problem for both people and nature. Human beings should acknowledge the important role of natural ecosystems on climate change. To protect and harness ecosystems are both important methods for saving lives and combating the climate change. It will be wise to corporate with natural ecosystems rather than fighting against natures because natural ecosystems are efficient to control the global biogeochemical cycles and making use of the natural ecosystems is the cheapest, safest and easiest solution to solve the climate change problems.

Reference
Turner, W.R., Oppenheimer M. &Wilcove D.S. (2009) A force to fight global warming. Nature 462, P.N 19.

Liu Yufeng

Springboard reading summary

The article “Research on Global Sun Block Needed Now” discussed about a new way to combat climate change. The approach is named SRM (solar-radiation management), and the main idea is to cool down the earth by reducing Earth’s absorption of solar energy. This method has three characteristics: cheap, fast and imperfect. The authors focused on the high leverage, dearth of data and global governance of this method. Advantages and disadvantages are clearly presented to readers. At last, the authors advocated researching on the approach in accordance with the title of the article.-----By Huang Xin

Peer Review of Liu Yufeng’s WA2

Generally speaking, your assignment 2 is quite clear. The organization is Beginning-Counterargument-Argument-Conclusion which is easy for the readers to follow. However, two paragraphs in the middle are very long, so that readers might get lost after reading such long paragraphs. Maybe you can separate to more paragraphs. In terms of the content, I think the thesis statement seems not answering essay question, so maybe you need a stronger claim. Writing argumentative essay need not have a ambiguous stance. And I think it is better to give more explanations for unfamiliar scientific terms, such as radioactive forcing, because not all readers know about these terms. Lastly, I think language is simple but accurate. There are not many grammar mistakes and choice of word is ok. -------by Huang Xin

summary of "Research on global sun block needed now"

In this passage, the authors introduce a new idea called Solar-radiation management (SRM) to combat climate changes. The authors state that SRM is recommended because this method is cheap and efficient. SRM is at least 100 times cheaper than carbon emission cuts, and also it can solve the climate change problems within months. However, although it seems that SRM is the cheapest and fastest way to combat climate changes, the authors talk about some opposite points that rebut using SRM. First, SRM may cause some other environmental problems such as less precipitation and less evaporation. Second, the dearth of data is a problem. There are no field tests except the recent small Russian test. Third, international governance problems should be solved. The main problem of governance problems is establishing legal collective control over an activity that some may do by themselves. At present, the main argument against SRM according to the authors is SRM will reduce the will of emission cuts. The authors think SRM can be researched on. If SRM is unworkable, the sooner we know, the less harm it poses; if it is workable, we have a useful tool to combat climate change.
Liu Yufeng

peer review of Huang Xin's WA2

I think some of your expressions are not quite idiomatic. For example in the first paragraph, you said:” An article “Research on global sun block needed now”, Keith, Parson, & Morgan (2010), discussed….” In my opinion the correct expression should be “In the article named”…”, Keith, Parson, and Morgan discussed….” There are also some grammar errors such as “turn out to be” instead of “turn out be”, “at the same time” instead of “at same time”. The organization is quite clear. First, you state the background of the issue and your thesis. Second, you give three reasons to further explain why you do not support focus on sulfur particles as the way to combat climate change. Third, you rebut the opposite opinions. At last, you summarize your opinion and state the reasons again. However, I think you should give more data, figures and facts to support your opinion. For example, you can list some facts that sulfur particles truly bring the side effects such as acid rain, and also when you rebut that cost of solving the side effects is much, you can also give some data which is more convincible.
Liu Yufeng