http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case
It was hard for me to objectively pick which article I thought was more convincing, because I don’t need any convincing. It’s not that I don’t believe in global warming, it’s just that I don’t really care. Don’t get me wrong, I love the environment. I love the outdoors, the ocean, the forest, and the mountains. I take out my garbage and I recycle, but that’s about as far as it goes. I don’t really care if you drive a Toyota Prius or an F-350. In terms of just reading an article and picking which one I like best; I would say that I like Lindzen’s article. Biello wrote a lot random theories down on one page and there really wasn’t any cohesiveness to what he was saying. At one point he even said that we were going to have major droughts, and then followed that up by saying we were going to have major rains. So which one is it?
Lindzen’s comment on the general support of the 1.5 degree raise was interesting. He said that there was general consensus on that fact, but also said the data was poor. This is quite believable considering that amount of technology we have available now compared to that of the mid-19th century. Not only that, we have the ability to share our results almost instantaneously with other scientists around the globe. There was no such chance 200 years ago. I also likes how he smashes the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit by observing how they use a single number (1.5 degrees) to blame climate catastrophes, which are everyday occurrences.
Lindzen finalizes his article by saying that basically the IPCC are 500 year old Vikings that are using weather occurrences, that really aren’t that bad in the scope of how old the earth is, to tell of our impending doom. The one disparity I found between the two articles was that Biello used 1.5 degrees Celsius to describe global warming, while Lindzen used Fahrenheit. So for instance:
5*C = 41*F +1.5*C 6.5*C = 43.7*F ……….. (2.7*F?????)
So as you can see the numbers don’t add up. So you are left to further investigation on your own because there is no way to tell who is right about the temperature at this point. Sadly that leads me to discount Lindzen a little bit due to the fact that the IPCC report was most likely written in Celsius.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dan McEuin
ReplyDeleteLSTD 1243
Professor Megan G. Tyler
02 December, 2011
Unit Four Response Blog
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
In response to Chris means blog entitled 2 perspectives on Global warming. He commented on the two viewpoints on global warming. Chris discussed the differences between the two arguments. One being for the global warming argument and the other against it he used instances from both arguments. It was especially interesting that he brought out the differences between using the Fahrenheit scale and the use of Celsius. Comparing the two is a very clever tool. The data points out the accuracy of the Celsius over the Fahrenheit scale and how that might make a greater difference on calculations.
Chris chose to remain neutral and not really pick a side, was interesting. Especially because he like most Americans do not realize that siding with the UN’s IPCC will take away our sovereignty and put them in control of a huge part of our dwindling manufacturing. It will raise already high energy costs to a breaking point for most Americans. Yet he said he does not care. I think that was a cop out on reality but respect his opinion none the less.
Chris it is comforting to know that someone feels the way I do about global warming. Although, if I had concrete facts that the changes our planet is going through was due to humans I would care. But I have always believed that our earth is going through changes just like our bodies do. History, has told us that our planet is constantly changing. So, why is it now our fault? I will all I can to contribute to the green movement but refuse to stop living because we think humans are the cause to the global warming our planet is going through.
ReplyDelete