Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Assessment brief

Module code & title   SOEE2160 Climate Change: Science and Impacts

Assignment title   Written report

Assignment type   Coursework

Learning outcomes assessed

Rationale

The aim of this coursework is to rebut (argue against) the points made in a letter that has been submitted to a newspaper. You will demonstrate skills in understanding climate science, synthesizing and summarizing multiple sources of information, writing concisely, and presenting coherent and logical arguments. The style of the report is similar to what you might write in industry or policy.

Word/time limit and guidance

The main text of the report must be 800 words or less. You can include any number of extra words for the bibliography (reference list).

Use of GenAI in this assessment

AMBER: AI tools can be used in an assistive role. You are permitted to use AI tools for specific defined processes within the assessment. See https://generative-ai.leeds.ac.uk/ai-and-assessments/categories-of- assessments/.

You can use AI tools to assist in finding and helping you to understand the content of published research articles and other sources of information that are relevant to your work.

You must not use AI tools to generate text for your assessed work.

Weighting   60%

Deadline or date of assessment   2pm, 8 May 2025.

Submission method   Turnitin

Feedback provision   Written comments

Module manager   Prof Ken Carslaw

You are required to produce a concise bulleted ‘executive summary’-style report, clearly laying out the most relevant scientific evidence and principles behind the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic emissions. An executive summary uses a bulleted style. Such summaries are found in many scientific reports. As an example, you can follow the IPCC Working Group 1 Executive

Summary at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf).

Instructions:

•    Identify statements that are incorrect, inappropriate, irrelevant or misleading.

•    Use one bullet to address one point that you are rebutting. Do not break it down into further sub-bullets. Each bullet should be a single, coherent paragraph of text. As a guide, there are around 8-10 depending on how you interpret and group them.

•   Order your bullets in the order in which the points appeared in the letter - do not group them into some other order that you think is more logical.

•    Under each bullet, make clear which point you are rebutting, explain the current scientific understanding of the issue, and provide evidence from peer-reviewed literature to support your arguments. You should use an appropriate means to clearly define the point that you are rebutting. For example, you could paraphrase the text of the letter such as " The author stated that climate change is not occurring in all regions … This is incorrect. Evidence from global thermometer data shows..." Such short excerpts (here in bold) from the letter will not be classed as plagiarism as long as you make it clear (e.g., with bold or quotation marks).   Such exerts will, however, count towards your total word count, so it's best to keep them brief.

•    Figures and tables are not allowed.

•    Don’t include any preamble text like “Dear editor, I would like to address …” Assessment criteria and process

The criteria for assessment will be as follows:

• Identification of incorrect, inappropriate, irrelevant or misleading points from the letter (20%). Marks will be awarded for each of the points identified from the letter. This will not be a simple count; if you choose to group some points into a single argument, then marks will still be awarded so long it is clear that you identified the key points.

• Scientific quality (40%). Marks will be awarded based on the scientific validity, accuracy, clarity and strength of your arguments, including the extent to which your points are supported by quantitative and verifiable information where appropriate. Validity means your counterargument is along the right lines, logical and appropriate; accuracy means you provided correct information; clarity means you explained your argument well; and strength means you made the most complete and effective arguments.

• Appropriate use of literature (20%). Use peer-reviewed literature (journal articles and book chapters) or specific chapters from IPCC reports (http://www.ipcc.ch/) to support the arguments you make. Marks will be awarded according to the number and quality of sources (appropriateness and recentness in cases where older studies have been superseded). There is no target number of references, but you should aim to include citations for all but the most basic factual information. You can use references given to you on the lecture slides, but the highest marks in this category will demonstrate some background reading.

• Writing quality and style (20%). You will be awarded marks for presenting your rebuttal in a clear and appropriate scientific style. This includes the structure of your rebuttal, clarity of expression, choice of wording, logical flow, appropriate use of technical terms, and presentation of quantitative information. Lecture material is not an appropriate reference.

Word limit: The word count excludes the title and reference list (bibliography) but all other text is included. In-line citations to literature (e.g., “Smith et al. (1990) showed” are included in the word count. You are required to provide an accurate word count at the end of your assignment. Word counts will be checked randomly on electronic copies of submitted work, and misrepresentation of word length by a student is treated as a form of academic malpractice.

According to the Faculty of Environment Code of Practice on Assessments (COPA), the following penalties will be applied:

•    Up to 9.99% exceedance = 5 mark deduction

•    10.00 to 19.99% exceedance = 10 mark deduction

•   20.00 to 29.9% exceedance = 15 mark deduction

•   etc.

•    If the word count exceeds the word limit by 50% or more, the mark awarded for the work will be zero.