Analysis Post Part 1

Introduction/Define issue:

1)Info from site:
• Tougher action needed
• Argument shift: are the changes severe enough to warrant the cost of developing cleaner energy technologies.
• Warmed due to the rise of carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere.
• Evidence: Drop in the number of glaciers, Increase in temperature of ocean water which causes the sea levels to rise.
• Fear that limiting energy use will destroy economy.
• Cannot predict future weather so it is hard to come up with a solution.
• Hard/impossible to regulate each person’s emissions.
• Tax on Carbon: simple and effective, will produce money
• “Technology got us into this mess, it can get us out.”
• Solutions: develop clean ways to burn coal, increase energy efficiency, and consume less fuel.

This is a wonderful site because it uses quotes, graphs, and tables. It also has an extensive bibliography. The only issue with this site is it is dated January 27, 2006. I think it defines the problem: climate change. Not every piece of information is valid and fits into my argument, but I was able to pick out pieces that struck me. I love the idea that “Technology got us into this mess, it can get us out.” I never thought about it like this. Although humans are to blame, technology is the hidden problem. We invented technology that had so many benefits we did not think about the consequences.

2)Info from site:
• Without greenhouse gases, average temperatures on Earth would be -18°C (0°F).
• Carbon dioxide is responsible for about 70% of man-made global warming.
• Most scientists say that global warming of more than 2°C would be disastrous.
• Emissions reductions of more than 80% by 2050 are necessary to limit warming to 2°C.
• Global temperatures have increased by a little less than 1°C during the last 100 years.
• Since 1750 methane levels have increased by about 150%.
• Methane locked in permafrost soils could trigger unstoppable climate change if released.
• Methane's warming potential is 25 times higher than that of CO2 over a 100 year period.
• Over a similar period, nitrous oxide is about 300 times stronger than CO2.
• Carbon dioxide, once emitted, has a warming effect over several hundred years.
• Skeptics: People who deny climate change, people who accept global warming, but deny that humans are responsible for it, and people who accept human caused global warming, but do not think it is harmful.
• People are not aware of what they can do on a daily base to reduce emissions.
• Renewable energy is hard to plan for (there might not be enough wind or sun) so a smart grid is being proposed. This would allow several different types of energy sources to link up and produce electricity.
• This cite lists many solutions (including lots of geo-engineering)

What makes this site educational is that there are many links to pick and choose from. Instead of reading a long article this site allows you to choose the links that are important to you. To the side there are quick facts that give evidence of climate change and global warming. Several of the links are set up in a question and answer way. At the bottom of each article there are related links. Overall this site directly answers lots of questions and can point you in the right direction.

3)Info from site:
• “Many scientists believe the temperature changes are more dependent on the sun than carbon dioxide.”
• We know that Earth’s temperature and carbon dioxide rise and fall together, but it is not proven that carbon dioxide is the main cause for the rise in temperature.
• Carbon dioxide emissions will decline as fossil fuel sources decline.
• Climate Forecast: rise of ocean acidity which means that hurricanes may be less frequent, but more destructive, heat waves, heavy precipitation.
• Ways to tell bias. Look for a balanced report.
• Polar Bears have survived warmer weather.
• Make changes that make sense for your life style

This site is different than what I have seen so far. I thought emissions were solely to blame. Maybe the rise in temperature is natural. Even if we lower emissions the earth might still warm. This site also has a lot of charts. What comforts me is that this site pledges to reveal the “true science of climate change.”

4)Info from site:
• Scientists are sure the increase in carbon levels is due to human activity.
• “EPA plays a significant role in helping the Federal government reduce greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas intensity.”
• What you can do section: includes at home, at school, at the office, and on the road.
• Energy use is directly linked to the climate change. For instance if the temperature increases than people will not heat their homes as much during the winter, but they coll more in the summer.
• Energy use will vary by region and season.
• The change in weather patterns means that precipitation will vary depending on regions. Hydropower needs water. If there is not enough rain there will not be enough electricity produced.
• Power plants can be affected by heat waves.
• Future weather is unpredictable, but could compromise eco-friendly technology. For instance if the weather becomes cloudy then solar panels are useless.

The first I noticed about this site is EPA. The EPA is credible. The site is very user friendly. The main page has lots of different links so you can find exactly what you are looking for. The site also claims that they use a lot of different models and tools so that the information formed is more accurate. What are important to me is the flaws in eco-friendly technology. That flaw is the climate change. As changes happen, the technology might not be able to work because we do not have the natural resources needed like wind, sun, or water.

5)Info from site:
• The rate of warming is increasing.
• The Arctic is the most affected. Animals suffering from loss of sea ice.
• Coral Reefs are highly affected: die due to stress of warmer ocean water.
• Climate change and amount of destructive weather events are directly linked.
• Too much carbon dioxide. The plants cannot absorb it.
• Would not immediately stop global warming because these gases are naturally in the atmosphere.
• “Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.”
• Makes many predictions: severe weather (droughts, hurricanes, or wildfire and other natural disasters), melting glaciers, and sea level rising even more.
• Warming could become uncontrollable.

I assume that since this is National Geographic it is credible. The site is organized by fast facts which are short and to the point facts. Basically you get what you need to know. My only issue with this site is the weather predictions. Other sites say that future climate change is unpredictable. We have no way of figuring out what will happen with the weather. I am looking at these facts as possible future predictions. Sometimes placing fear into people can achieve your goal. By looking at the possible negative consequences, people might become afraid and make changes.

6)
Info from site
• Global warming not due to human activity (addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere)
• We are wasting time and money. And putting fear into people for no reason.
• Earth has warmed naturally and due to the sun.

This site did not back up the claims with facts. Dr Tim Ball talked about what he thinks and uses his education (doctorate in climatology) to win the reader over. He also uses personal experience to make the reader feel sympathy for him. At the end of the article he discredits politicians by claiming they do not understand science. The other information I have collected claims that human activity and the sun are both to blame for the increase in temperature.

7) Info from site:
• Greenhouse gas emissions come primarily from burning fossil fuels.
• U.S. emissions come from electricity, transportation, commercial and agricultural activity.
• U.S., European Union, China, Russia, Japan, India, and Canada are the biggest carbon dioxide emitters.
• In developing countries emissions are rising.
• Agricultural production could be a stake.
• Diseases will spread. Overall human health is at stake due to change in climate.

This site repeated most of the information I have already found, but I thought that some of the info above was interesting. Developing countries are a sticky situation. Every country wants to industrialize. The U.S. industrialized and polluted before humans knew the side effects. Now that we know the harmful effects, we should be able to come up with a way to develop a country in a clean manner. This site is simple to use and confirmed much of the information I already found.

Skeptics:

8) Info from site
• Skeptics now agree that global warming is occurring, but do not believe that humans are the cause.
• The rise in temperature is due to natural cycles.
• Others believe that if it is just natural cycles than something has triggered it.
• Scientists cannot prove that a natural cycle is occurring. They can however prove that emissions are dangerous to the environment.

This site is straight forward. Being skeptical is a good thing. It forces you to search for answers. Scientists cannot prove anything. All they can do is find evidence to support a claim or theory. I think there is plenty of evidence to prove that human have impacted the Earth. Maybe it is not just our activity. This site claimed that humans may have triggered a natural cycle. While this may be true I have not seen evidence to support it.

9) Info from site:
• Claims we have not studied the arctic long enough.
• Scientists are quick to blame carbon dioxide emissions.
• Plants love carbon dioxide and can handle the amount of carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels.
• Amount of carbon dioxide has been rising since before the industrial revolution.
• The sun is to blame for the rising temperature.
• Models only predict what will happen and they do not look at what is happening.

This site shows a skeptics claim. Some of these issues seem fair. Humans did not know we should be studying the arctic. When there are not any specific changes, humans do not look at what is happening around them. Of course carbon levels have increased. Our technology produces carbon. Science is not perfect, but scientists are busy studying the environment to discover what is going on. We may never know.

10) Info from site:

Claims:
a) No evidence
b) One hundred years is not enough
c) Some regions show cooling.
d) Global warming is a hoax.
e) We cannot predict the weather.
f) The increase in temperature is due to a natural cycle.
g) No proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.

Answers:
a) There are plenty of observations. The Earth’s surface temperature shows an increasing trend.
b) It is true that one year is not enough time, but one hundred years is enough to take observations and look for trends.
c) Global warming is just that: global. You cannot look at one site or region and draw conclusions. Climate is complex and varies among different places all over the world.
d) Every major science institution dealing with climate agrees that the temperature is increasing due to carbon dioxide emissions.
e) Weather and climate are different. So different that predictability varies. Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time (usually thirty years). By averaging we are “smoothing out” the unpredictable nature of weather. By doing so our predictions of climate are pretty reliable. It is certainly not easy to predict weather or climate.
f) There is no evidence to prove that warming is solely due to a natural cycle. Plus there is a theory that states that the temperature will rise as the level of greenhouse gases rise.
g) In science there is evidence, which leads to claims. There is a lot of evidence that points to carbon dioxide such as climate models.

This sit is helpful because it takes a skeptic’s claim and disproves it. It also talks about the different kind of skeptics: “Uninformed, Misinformed, Cherry Picking.” Being skeptical is not a bad thing. Curiosity is in our nature. When you cannot support you theory or claim then it becomes invalid. This site makes me wonder if skeptics have any evidence whatsoever. So far I have not found any.