As much as I enjoyed this reseach, I think I'm glad the blog assignment is coming to a close. 8 really is the perfect number. Way to go Weleski!
I think that I learned what I hoped to if not more. I saw very clearly that although there are many scientists who advocate Global Warming, most brush away the critics as stupid and refuse to answer their questions, which is what I expected to find. I also verified some arguments I'd heard against Global Warming and found out some new ones, which was basically what I hoped for. In hind sight, maybe I should have picked a topic I knew a little bit less about, but I have definitely stayed interested, so I think it has turned out just fine so far.
I liked that we addressed the topic in phases. I like using a step by step approach. It was good to be able to get feed back on how I did in one area before I moved on so that I could fix any mistakes that turned up. I certainly didn't have anything against it.
I think that when I am researching for assignments I will definitely go at it differently (not that I have much precedent to work on). I will certainly worry more about credibility and have a few more tricks of my sleeve for finding useful information.
I don't really think that this assignment has made me more confident in my ability to discuss topics with others. I think that I was pretty confident before (maybe overly so) and that researching Global Warming hasn't made much of a difference. I suppose I might be more confident discussing Global Warming, but even there I don't think that I needed any help in this area and that I have already used other oportunities to strengthen my confidence in this area. In fact, if anything, this assignment brought my confidence back to a somewhat more reasonable level.
I think that the most valueable thing I learned about research in this assignment was how to evaluat credibility. Evaluating credibility was something that I hadn't really thought about and is obviously a key part of research. I think that summarizing was a close second, though. I can remember a number times when I tried to summarize but really botched it up because I didn't have a clue how to do it.
P.S. I was glad to see a gramarical error in the directions for phase 8. It's good to know that even english professors make them from time to time.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Phase 7
My source for this phase is an online article titled Are Cold Winters in Europe Associated with Low Solar Activity? that I found at IOPscience. It can be found here or, if you want, you can go strait to the pdf file with this link.
This source is credible because it is written by a group of scientists who work in the fields that are related to the topic and site other sources throughout their article that could be used to check their information. Another plus is that it is a pretty recent article, which is important because of the topic, having been sent to the publisher in March of 2010. Although the sight doesn't advance more that one viewpoint, it does respond to the opposing viewpoint, which is all that can be expected from a scientific journal.
This may be one of my least relevant sources for my topic, but although it is certainly a stretch, I think that it is acceptable with due explanation. Although this source does not deal with Carbon Dioxide at all, it does demonstrate a factor that has a more powerful affect that Carbon Dioxide over at least some part of the world. And really, even though it doesn't mention Carbon Dioxide or even claim that solar activity does have a greater affect, I believe that it is clearly inferred that this, like water vapor, is a factor that has a powerful affect on temperature and is not affected by fossil fuels. Therefore, although it does not specifically discuss Carbon Dioxide, it does provide relevant information to someone who is curious about whether Carbon Dioxide is the driving factor of worldwide temperatures.
The introduction explains a little bit of the history the Mini Ice Age, known to astro-physicists as the Maunder Minimum because of the extremely low solar activity, in which the the Thames froze over in London a number of times. The introduction also explains that we are now in the middle of making solar history since we have been experiencing the in the last few years the lowest solar activity of the space age. The article continues, introducing it's methodology and defending it with a graph that demonstrates its accuracy. It further notes that Fs shows strong negative correlation with cosmic GCRs and correlates with TSI with a one year lag. The article then explains some graphs showing that although there is extreme variability in the Tsub(DJF) there is a noticeable rise in the mean temperatures since the Maunder Minimum. The article further explained some more graphs that showed even more clearly the correlation between Fs and Tsub(DJF). [Which I admit that I do not understand.] The article concludes by explaining some possible reasons for the correlations noted in the article and predicting that Britain is probably in for some very cold winters up ahead.
That article was pretty hard to understand.
I basically agree with the article that the sun can and will affect temperatures on earth, but I do not agree with their statement that the affects of solar activity on temperature are restricted to England. For instance, during the Maunder Minimum, New England got significant amounts of snow in July and experienced massive crop failure for a few years. Although there were certainly other factors that affected the Mini Ice age, it makes no sense to me that some areas would be affected by variations in the sun and others would not. I could certainly believe that the affect is somehow magnified in England, but it seems like if there is more energy coming from the sun to places all over the globe it should be warmer all over the globe. I know that my understanding of this issue is limited, but I have heard of many other scientists saying that the affect is experienced world wide and I suspect that the opinion in this article could demonstrate a desperate clinging on to empty anti-Carbon Dioxide rhetoric rather that scientific evidence and reasoning.
This source is credible because it is written by a group of scientists who work in the fields that are related to the topic and site other sources throughout their article that could be used to check their information. Another plus is that it is a pretty recent article, which is important because of the topic, having been sent to the publisher in March of 2010. Although the sight doesn't advance more that one viewpoint, it does respond to the opposing viewpoint, which is all that can be expected from a scientific journal.
This may be one of my least relevant sources for my topic, but although it is certainly a stretch, I think that it is acceptable with due explanation. Although this source does not deal with Carbon Dioxide at all, it does demonstrate a factor that has a more powerful affect that Carbon Dioxide over at least some part of the world. And really, even though it doesn't mention Carbon Dioxide or even claim that solar activity does have a greater affect, I believe that it is clearly inferred that this, like water vapor, is a factor that has a powerful affect on temperature and is not affected by fossil fuels. Therefore, although it does not specifically discuss Carbon Dioxide, it does provide relevant information to someone who is curious about whether Carbon Dioxide is the driving factor of worldwide temperatures.
The introduction explains a little bit of the history the Mini Ice Age, known to astro-physicists as the Maunder Minimum because of the extremely low solar activity, in which the the Thames froze over in London a number of times. The introduction also explains that we are now in the middle of making solar history since we have been experiencing the in the last few years the lowest solar activity of the space age. The article continues, introducing it's methodology and defending it with a graph that demonstrates its accuracy. It further notes that Fs shows strong negative correlation with cosmic GCRs and correlates with TSI with a one year lag. The article then explains some graphs showing that although there is extreme variability in the Tsub(DJF) there is a noticeable rise in the mean temperatures since the Maunder Minimum. The article further explained some more graphs that showed even more clearly the correlation between Fs and Tsub(DJF). [Which I admit that I do not understand.] The article concludes by explaining some possible reasons for the correlations noted in the article and predicting that Britain is probably in for some very cold winters up ahead.
That article was pretty hard to understand.
I basically agree with the article that the sun can and will affect temperatures on earth, but I do not agree with their statement that the affects of solar activity on temperature are restricted to England. For instance, during the Maunder Minimum, New England got significant amounts of snow in July and experienced massive crop failure for a few years. Although there were certainly other factors that affected the Mini Ice age, it makes no sense to me that some areas would be affected by variations in the sun and others would not. I could certainly believe that the affect is somehow magnified in England, but it seems like if there is more energy coming from the sun to places all over the globe it should be warmer all over the globe. I know that my understanding of this issue is limited, but I have heard of many other scientists saying that the affect is experienced world wide and I suspect that the opinion in this article could demonstrate a desperate clinging on to empty anti-Carbon Dioxide rhetoric rather that scientific evidence and reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)