My source for this assignment is an article from LBC's data base, ECO, titled Global Warming: A Consequence of Human Activities Rivaling Earth's Biogeochemical Processes by Jerald L Schnoor from the journal "Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 11, no. 6 (2005): 1105-1110".
I believe my source is credible because the author is a recognized expert in the field of climate change and the article appeared in a pear-reviewed journal. Furthermore the author did give a number of sources that support his article. On the other hand, it is a bit of a red flag that AEHS, The Association for Environmental Health and Science, the publisher of the journal, basically has a mission statement that implies the existence of man-caused global warming. On the other hand, it's hard anyone who isn't strongly opinionated on this issue, so it is impossible to discard every source for bias. It would also be nice if the article was a little more recent, but it is one of the most recent informative articles I have found, so I can't really complain.
This source is useful because it shows the other side of the argument from were I stand and helps give my research some semblance of balance. Unfortunately, it does not respond to the positions of the authors I have been sighting in the past, but it does at least provide an example of the beliefs of those on the other side of the issue. Although the article does not give detailed evidence for many of its claims, it does give a good sampling of the arguments that those who support evidence use, which at least helps one think about how one might respond or agree in advance, so that you aren't caught off guard. Despite some minor short comings, I believe this article could be useful for someone who wants to be able to defend his or her opinion.
Dr. Schnoor began by explaining that Global Warming will have an affect on the future entire world and is therefore important for everyone on earth to address. Dr. Schnoor then explained that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide must be due to human activities because the flux began with the industrial revolution, when humans first began using fossil fuels and that the dynamics of Carbon Dioxides distribution can only be explained by human activities. Dr. Schnoor also related that the earth is warmer than it has been for the last 1000 years and that the warmest years have also been the most recent. He also pointed out that damages from natural disasters have been increasing recently, which would be one of the expected affects of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor further states that the ice caps have been rapidly melting, which would be an obvious result of Global Warming. Dr. Schnoor continued by saying that the detrimental affects of Global Warming that have already been documented include increasing heat stroke in humans and the alteration of the behavior of Mexican Jays. Dr. Schnoor concluded that the entire source of power for our economy needed to be changed and that large cuts in green house gas emissions are obligatory but that if this requirement was met world would be OK.
I disagree with Dr. Schnoor's statement that Global Warming has been caused by man because I believe that a lot of his "evidence" is flawed. His main argument for the fact that humans are responsible for Global Warming is that humans burn fossil fuels. By that reasoning there should be huge amounts of Carbon Dioxid ein the atmosphere, while the data shows that the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is significantly less that the amount released by the combustion of fossil fuels. If not all of the Carbon Dioxide released makes a difference, how can one know that the fossil fuels are actually driving the change. They certainly have an affect, but Dr. Schnoor cannot prove that they are driving the increase. Furthermore, as my source from Phase 5 pointed out, ice core data, which is our only method of determining ancient concentrations of atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide, is flawed and due to drilling techniques will read a lower concentrations of Carbon Dioxide that was actually trapped in the ice. I would suspect that the rise in Carbon Dioxide is more due to the fact that the earth is warming than that the earth is warming because of a rise in Carbon Dioxide, as I read in one of the sources I decided not to use. Because the solubility of Carbon Dioxide decreases as temperature increases, less Carbon Dioxide will dissolve in the ocean as the earth warms. As for the fact that the earth is warming, of course it is! If it isn't cooling, then it's warming. I'm not sure where he found out that it's warmer than it has been for 1000 years, because I found another source that claimed that were are actually below the temperatures from the medieval period. The Mexican Jays have been adjusting to the environment since God created and I wouldn't worry about them changing the behavior a little bit. (Isn't that what this whole evolution thing is about?) As for the increasingly fat Americans that are dying from heat stroke, I'm sorry for them, but people don't live forever and just because Americans are not as physically fit as they used to be does not mean that we need to ban the use of fossil fuels right away.
Josh, it was smart of your to look at the mission statement of the organization managing the journal in which your article was published. You also did a great job recognizing that while this source did present an opposing viewpoint, it (unfortunately) did not respond directly to the arguments made in other sources you have found for the blog.
ReplyDeleteI like how your response links what you learned in this source with what you learned in other sources. I can see you striving to be the independent researcher who sorts through the claims of all of your sources and makes your own decisions about the accuracy of their claims.
You should be a little careful about not jumping too far in your own response conclusions. For example, you fight the heat stroke claim with a counterargument that obesity is instead causing the heat related deaths. If you have evidence, that can be a valid claim, but if you don't, it might be better to offer up the obesity factors as a potential hypothesis for the heat related deaths rather than offering the factor up as a certainty.
Sorry, I tend to get carried away. I'll work on that.
ReplyDelete