Luke Redman
Mr.Ippolito
Current Event #4
October 11th, 2017
Hall, Shannon. “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
For my review, I selected Shannon Hall’s article for the New York Times titled, “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” Underneath the surface of Yellowstone National Park there is a massive super volcano, with the ability to spew out 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash at once, which would blanket the majority of the United States in a thick layer of ash and plunge the Earth into volcanic winter. For comparison, it would expel 2,500 times more material than Mount St. Helens did in 1980, which killed 57 people. In the article, Hall talks about finding out how soon the next eruption will occur, and how a graduate student at Arizona State University, Hannah Shamloo, might have found some new evidence. By analyzing trace crystals in the volcanic leftovers from the last eruption, she was able to pin down changes before the supervolcano’s eruption. “As the crystals grew outward, layer upon layer, they recorded changes in temperature, pressure and water content beneath the volcano, much like a set of tree rings.” The conclusions that the group found were surprising. ““We expected that there might be processes happening over thousands of years preceding the eruption,” said Christy Till, a geologist at Arizona State, and Ms. Shamloo’s dissertation adviser. Instead, the outer rims of the crystals revealed a clear uptick in temperature and a change in composition that occurred on a rapid time scale. That could mean the supereruption transpired only decades after an injection of fresh magma beneath the volcano.” This is extremely short by geological standards, and opens up even more questions for scientists to answer.
While these findings don’t have much relevance now, in terms of the supervolcano, these finding help scientists our planet, and the constantly shifting atmosphere below our feet. By raising these questions of how the magma can activate in such a short amount of time, scientists can predict other eruptions and forecast them, giving time for communities to prepare, lowering the mortality rates of volcanic eruptions.
The article itself was extremely well written, giving the reader background on the Yellowstone Supervolcano, and providing specific details on the effect of the eruption. Hall also did a great job of including how the researchers were able to find the conclusions, and how that effects the scientific community and our own communities. Something I think that the article could improve is possibly another research project that found similar conclusions, or a research team that found an opposing view. That would have made the article more interesting. Overall however, the article was a pleasure to read.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
Current Event #4
October 12, 2017
Hall, Shannon. “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
This week I chose to comment on Luke Redman’s review of “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” I found that Luke did a good job in numerous parts of his review. First of all, Luke provided the audience with a great summary on the article. He cited that “Underneath the surface of Yellowstone National Park there is a massive super volcano, with the ability to spew out 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash at once, which would blanket the majority of the United States in a thick layer of ash and plunge the Earth into volcanic winter.” After he provided a summary, he provided facts to the reader about the eruption that would take place, “For comparison, it would expel 2,500 times more material than Mount St. Helens did in 1980, which killed 57 people.” This provides fluidity in his writing to flow into the next sentence about when the eruption will occur. In addition to doing these things, Luke directly cites quotes from the article to support his writing and support the point he wants to make. “We expected that there might be processes happening over thousands of years preceding the eruption,” said Christy Till, a geologist at Arizona State, and Ms. Shamloo’s dissertation adviser. Instead, the outer rims of the crystals revealed a clear uptick in temperature and a change in composition that occurred on a rapid time scale. That could mean the super eruption transpired only decades after an injection of fresh magma beneath the volcano.”
Even though Luke did a great job overall, there were some things he could have improved on on. For example, quotes inside of a quoted source should have not four quotations (““) but rather only three (“‘). One other thing that Luke could have improved on is something very technical when he says, “Something I think that the article could improve is possibly another research project that found similar conclusions, or a research team that found an opposing view.” Instead he should have said the author should have done is… because the article itself, can not improve.
This reading made a big impression on me. This put a little bit of scare in me obviously because I live in the U.S. and the volcano can erupt and kill many people in the U.S.. This was also interesting because I learned more about the prediction of these eruptions while reading. I chose this article because I saw that this was about a future eruption at the world famous park Yellowstone which is so well-known in the U.S.. This changed my perception on life because I have realised that even the biggest things/places like Yellowstone are not permanent and we should appreciate everything we know and have while it lasts.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
11 October, 2017
Current Event #4
Hall, Shannon. “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017 www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
This week, I read Luke’s review of the article “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone” by Shannon Hall from The New York Times. Towards the beginning of his response, Luke makes a good comparison between this volcano and another eruption from the past, which helps his audience understand Hall’s argument more easily. Luke also includes quotes from the original article to further his points and to establish credibility within his review and within Hall’s article. These quotes are used as evidence to back up claims made in Luke’s response, as well. Finally, Luke provided his readers with an analytical, in-depth critique of Hall and her article, which allows us to be more informed before reading “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.”
Although Luke’s review was well-written and understandable for his readers, he could have done a couple more things to improve his response. Firstly, Luke could have done a better job helping his audience understand the changes in crystals that will occur before an eruption, as described by the scientists in Hall’s original article. Despite including quotes from the article to explain this phenomenon, Luke could have expanded on these ideas and made this topic easier to comprehend. This would have allowed for a more fluid and less complex review. Secondly, Luke could have discussed more about the original article’s importance and its effect on Hall’s audience. In doing so, this would have provided Luke’s readers with a better context and understanding of the topic at hand.
Regarding volcanic eruption and crystal change, this concept is very important for all Americans to learn about and understand. Since this could potentially affect all of us at some point, it is crucial that we take action to be prepared in case of an eruption. Luke’s review and Hall’s article help us understand the changes that scientists must look for in order to be informed about the next volcanic strike. Before reading Luke’s response, I was unaware that there is an active volcano beneath Yellowstone, but now feel more aware and knowledgeable.
Peyton Knon
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event Comment #4
10/11/17
Citation:
Hall, Shannon. “A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017
Hyperlink:
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0.
Luke’s current event on recent findings about the Yellowstone Supervolcano did a very good job at describing what would happen if the volcano erupts. He says that the damage would “spew out 1000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash at once,” which would be “2500 times more material than Mount St. Helens” and would cover most of the US in a thick layer of ash. This states in a very easy to understand way just what would happen if the volcano were to erupt today. By relating the possible supereruption to the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the 80s, it really gives you an idea of just how devastating this eruption could possibly be. His explanation of why the article is relevant is also well written. He states that the findings of the researchers could possibly be used in a way to reduce mortality rates by predicting when possible eruptions of other volcanoes occur. I personally never would have thought of this and I thought it was a very creative interpretation of the findings. He also does a good job at describing the findings of the scientists. He states that the scientists discovered that the supervolcano last erupted merely decades after fresh magma was injected under it. He states that this is unusual because scientists never thought that this eruption cycle could happen so fast. He describes this very well and does not use any confusing scientific language, which makes the scientists conclusions very easy to understand.
Luke’s current event, while nicely written, does have some areas for improvement. In the last sentence, “Overall however, the article was a pleasure to read,”Luke includes the word “however” after the word “overall.” One of these words should not have been used in this sentence and because it was used, it makes the sentence clunky and redundant. Also, Luke should have developed his analysis of the article more. His analysis is very brief and sentences like “...it was a pleasure to read,” and “... opens up even more questions for scientists to answer,” leave me wanting more detail. I would like to know what about was pleasurable to read and what the new questions are.
I learned a lot about what will happen when the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts and possible new ways to detect volcanic eruptions. I chose this article because I thought that it sounded interesting. Also, the fact that there is a giant volcano under the US is pretty cool. This probably won’t change my life that much, but if I am ever a volcanologist, then I will know what to look out for in volcanic eruptions.
Charlie Gay
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippollito
10/19/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/science/yellowstone-volcano-eruption.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science%C2%AEion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Hall, Shannon. "A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2017. Web.
Current Events 5
I really enjoyed reading Luke Redman’s review on the article "A Surprise From the Supervolcano Under Yellowstone." I really enjoyed how Luke included specific stats from the article, rather than just telling us the damage that this volcano could cause a lot of damage. For example, he wrote it can “spew out 1,000 cubic kilometers of rock and ash at once.” Luke also did a great job of putting these stats into perspective. For example, he wrote “it would expel 2,500 times more material than Mount St. Helens did in 1980, which killed 57 people.” By not just including the stats but also putting them into perspective, it allows the reader to really understand how much damage this volcano can cause. Lastly, I also liked how Luke included the credentials of the people in the article before he quoted them. For example, he wrote that “Christy Till was a geologist at Arizona State University.” Including the credentials of the scientists adds to the credibility of Luke’s review.
Although Luke’s review was very well done, there were still some areas that he could improve upon for next time. One thing that I think that Luke could have done better is that he could have proofread his work. I felt like there were some areas that were choppy and hard to read, which could have been fixed if he had proof read his work a couple of times. Another area that Luke could improve upon is that he could go beyond just summarizing the article and he could have analyzed it. I would have been very interested to know what Luke’s opinion was on what the next steps that need to be taken are and what he thinks should be done.
I really enjoyed Luke’s review. I chose his review because I have visited Yellowstone National Park and had no idea that this “supervolcano” existed. I was amazed to learn that this volcano had the ability to spew ash over the majority of the United States. I had no idea that a Volcanic eruption could effect that wide a range of people. I would really like to know what the chances are that this volcano could erupt and what the next steps are for precautionary reasons.