GeoLog

Geosciences Column

Geosciences Column: Flooded by jargon

Geosciences Column: Flooded by jargon

When hydrologists and people of the general public use simple water-related words, are they actually saying the same thing? While many don’t consider words like flood, river and groundwater to be very technical terms, also known as jargon, water scientists and the general public can actually have pretty different definitions. This is what a team of researchers have discovered in recent study, and their results were published in EGU’s open access journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. In this post, Rolf Hut, an assistant professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and co-author of the study, blogs about his team’s findings.

On the television a scientist is interviewed, in a room with a massive collection of books:

“Due to climate change, the once in two years flood now reaches up to…”

“Flood?” interrupts my dad “We haven’t had a flood in fifteen years; how can they talk about a once in two years flood?”

The return period of floods is an often used example to illustrate how statistically illiterate ‘the general public’ is supposed to be. But maybe we shouldn’t focus on the phrase ‘once in two years’, but rather on the term ‘flood’. Because: does my dad know what that scientist, a colleague of mine, means when she says “flood”?

In water-science the words that experts use are the same words that people use in daily life. Words like ‘flood’, ‘dam’ or ‘river’. Because we have been using these words for our entire lives, we may not stop and think that, because of our training as water scientists, we may have a different definition than what people outside our field may have. When together with experts on science communication, I was writing a review paper about geoscience on television[1] when we got into the discussion “what is jargon?”. We quickly found out that within geoscience this is an open question.

Together with a team of Netherlands-based scientists, including part-time journalist and scientist Gemma Venhuizen and professor of science communication Ionica Smeets and assistant professor on soils Cathelijne Stoof and professor of statistics Casper Albers we decided to look for an answer to this question. We conducted a survey where we asked people what they thought words like ‘flood’ meant. People could pick from different definitions. Those definitions were not wrong per se, just different. One might be from Wikipedia and another from a policy document from EU officials. We did not want to test if people were correct, but rather if there was a difference in meaning attached to words between water scientists and lay people. For completeness, we also added picture questions where people had to pick the picture that best matched a certain word.

The results are in. We recently published our findings in the EGU journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences[2] and will present them at the EGU General Assembly in April 2019 in Vienna. As it turns out: words like ‘groundwater’, ‘discharge’ and even ‘river’ have a large difference between the meaning lay-people have compared to water scientists. For the pictures however, people tend to agree more. The figure below shows the misfit distribution between lay people and water scientists: the bigger the misfit, the more people have different definitions. The numbers on the right are the Bayes factor: bigger than 10 indicates strong evidence that differences between lay people and water scientists are more likely than similarities. The words with an asterisk are the picture questions, showing that when communicating using pictures people are more likely to share the same definition.

Graph showing the posterior distribution of the misfit between laypeople and experts by using a Bayes factor (BF) for every term used in the survey. Pictorial questions are marked with an asterisk. A value of the BF <1∕10 is strong evidence towards H0: it is more likely that laypeople answer questions the same as experts than differently. A value of the BF >10 is strong evidence towards H1: differences are more likely than similarities. In addition to a Bayes factor for the significance of the difference, we also calculated the misfit: the strength of the difference. The misfit was calculated by a DIF score (differential item functioning), in which DIF =0 means perfect match, and DIF =1 means maximum difference. (Figure from https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-393-2019)

Maybe that scientist talking about floods on the television should have been filmed at a flood site, not in front of a pile of books.

Finally, the term ‘flood’ proved to be one of the words that we do tend to agree on, so maybe dad should take that class in basic statistics afterall…

By dr. ir. Rolf Hut, researcher at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands

[This article is cross-posted on Rolf Hut’s personal site]

References

[1] Hut, R., Land-Zandstra, A. M., Smeets, I., and Stoof, C. R.: Geoscience on television: a review of science communication literature in the context of geosciences, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2507-2518, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2507-2016, 2016.

[2] Venhuizen, G. J., Hut, R., Albers, C., Stoof, C. R., and Smeets, I.: Flooded by jargon: how the interpretation of water-related terms differs between hydrology experts and the general audience, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 393-403, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-393-2019, 2019.

Geosciences Column: Scientists pinpoint where seawater could be leaking into Antarctic ice shelves

Geosciences Column: Scientists pinpoint where seawater could be leaking into Antarctic ice shelves

Over the last few decades, Antarctic ice shelves have been disintegrating at a rapid rate, likely due to warming atmospheric and ocean temperatures, according to scientists. New research reveals that one type of threat to ice shelf stability might be more widespread that previously thought.

A study recently published in EGU’s open access journal The Cryosphere identified several regions in Antarctica were liquid seawater could be leaking into vulnerable layers of an ice shelf.

Scientists have known for some time now that seawater can seep into an ice shelf’s firn layer, the region of compacted snow that is on its way to becoming ice. This seawater infiltration presents an issue to the ice shelf’s stability, since as the seawater spreads throughout the firn layer, the water can create fractures and help expand crevasses already present in the frozen material. Past research has shown that the presence of liquid brine from seawater within an ice shelf is correlated to increased fracturing and calving.

While ice shelf collapse doesn’t directly contribute to sea level rise, since the ice is already floating, stable ice shelves often push back on land-based ice sheets and glaciers, slowing down ice flow into the ocean. Past research has suggested that once an ice shelf collapses, the rate of ice flow from unsupported glaciers can greatly accelerate.

To better understand Antarctic ice shelves’ risk of collapse, the researchers involved with this new study sought to identify where ice shelf firn layers are vulnerable to seawater infiltration. Using Antarctic geometry data, they mapped out the potential ‘brine zones’ within the continent’s ice shelves. These are regions of the ice shelf where the firn layer is both below the sea level and permeable enough to let seawater percolate through.

The results of their analysis revealed that almost all ice shelves in Antarctica have spots where seawater can potentially leak through their layers, with about 10-40 percent of the continent’s total ice shelf area possibly at risk of infiltration.

Map of potential brine zones areas around Antarctica. Map shows areas where permeable firn lies below sea level (the brine zone), with the threshold for firn permeability defined as 750 kg m−3 (red), 800 kg m−3 (yellow) and 830 kg m−3 (blue) calculated using Bedmap2 surface elevation. Bar charts show the mean percentage area of selected ice shelves covered by the brine zone. (Credit: S. Cook et al. 2018)

The researchers compared their estimated points to a map of previously confirmed brine zones, observed through ice cores or radar surveys. After reviewing these records, they identified only one record of brine presence that hadn’t been highlighted by their developed model.

The study found many areas in Antarctica where seawater infiltration could be possible, but has not been previously observed. The findings suggest that this firn layer vulnerability to seawater might be more widespread than previously believed.

The researchers suggest that the most likely new regions where brine from seawater may be present includes the Abbot Ice Shelf, Nickerson Ice Shelf, Sulzberger Ice Shelf, Rennick Ice Shelf, and slower-moving areas of Shackleton Ice Shelf. The regions all contain large swathes of permeable firn below sea level while also subject to relatively warm air temperatures and low flow speeds, the ideal conditions for maintaining liquid brine.

The study points out that there are still many uncertainties in this research, considering the unknowns still present in the data used for mapping and the factors that may influence seawater infiltration. For example, some areas that have large predicted brine zones have an unusually think layer of firn from heavy snowfall. This is the case for the Edward VIII Bay in eastern Antarctica. “Our results indicate the total ice shelf area where permeable firn lies below sea level, but this does not necessarily imply that the firn contains brine,” the authors of the study noted in their article.

Given their findings, the researchers involved recommend that this potentially widespread influence on ice shelves should be further examined and assessed by future studies.

By Olivia Trani, EGU Communications Officer

References

Cook, S., Galton-Fenzi, B. K., Ligtenberg, S. R. M. and Coleman, R.: Brief communication: widespread potential for seawater infiltration on Antarctic ice shelves, The Cryosphere, 12(12), 3853–3859, doi:10.5194/tc-12-3853-2018, 2018.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., D. Jacob, M. Taylor, M. Bindi, S. Brown, I. Camilloni, A. Diedhiou, R. Djalante, K.L. Ebi, F. Engelbrecht, J.Guiot, Y. Hijioka, S. Mehrotra, A. Payne, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Thomas, R. Warren, and G. Zhou, 2018: Impacts of 1.5ºC Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press

Scambos, T. A.: Glacier acceleration and thinning after ice shelf collapse in the Larsen B embayment, Antarctica, Geophysical Research Letters, 31(18), doi:10.1029/2004gl020670, 2004.

Scambos, T., Fricker, H. A., Liu, C.-C., Bohlander, J., Fastook, J., Sargent, A., Massom, R. and Wu, A.-M.: Ice shelf disintegration by plate bending and hydro-fracture: Satellite observations and model results of the 2008 Wilkins ice shelf break-ups, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 280(1–4), 51–60, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.12.027, 2009.

State of the Cryosphere: Ice Shelves. National Snow & Ice Data Center