Our ethics professor just handed us an extra credit assignment. But it is one of the hardest research I ever seen. We got into this big argument about global warming in the class, apparently my professor is one of those people who thinks man made global warming is bunch bull crap, so he made up this extra credit project to prove his point. I have been searching all over the net trying find something that fits his requirement, but to no avail. So I'm looking for helps on this one from the only place I know I can get it. He ask us to find ONE and ONLY ONE source to address ALL of following criticisms of man made global warming: 1. What brought on the Medieval Warm Period and why should the fact of the MWP be disallowed in the current debate? 2. Research by Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling and his team (among other research teams) show that the interior of Antarctica is in fact cooling, and that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is in fact growing. This runs contrary to the thesis. How is this accounted for in your source? 3. What is the effect of the sunspot cycle and cosmic rays on the earth’s warming and cooling cycle and how are these not related to the current trend? 4. Greenland’s recent glacier melt has been offered as “proof” of man-made global warming, yet the glacial melt has now returned to normal levels—how is this fact accounted for in your source? 5. During the active and violent hurricane season of 2005, many scientists argued that this was due to global warming, and that due to man-made global warming, the 2006 hurricane season would be even worse, yet it was one of the mildest on record—how does your source address this? 6. During the 1970s, the scientific community warned the humanity of the oncoming ice age; what was the change in science that has led to the current opposite conclusion? Again, all these criticism points must be addressed in a single document. Because my professor argues that all the contend the man-made warming thesis seems to conveniently leave out one or more of the following criticisms. And on top of that, we CANNOT use “popular” media to make our case. We CANNOT use articles from traditional or popular print, broadcast or internet media; these are sources such as CNN, The New York Times, Newsweek, Fox News etc. Nor can us use literature distributed by interest groups such as EarthFirst! Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, etc., and nor can us use obscure internet sites such as Theskyisfalling.org or Iamalemming.net, etc. And of course, we may not cite Wikipedia. He said we are to use scientific and academic sources, or we may use publicly released policy position papers (which MUST be from a widely and generally recognized authority such as a legitimate government or national/international institution like the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its IPCC report). Any help will be appreciated.
I didn't see CF.net D & D in that list of sources you can't use so you might as well use that. IM (Humble)O Your professor is being an @ss. He is deliberatly looking for one single scientific document that addresses all of those points when those points cross a few different areas of research. Given the specific area of researchs involved in something as complex as Global Warming there isn't going to be one single scientific document that addresses all of those. For that matter on any complex theory there isn't going to be a single scientific document that addresses every argument against though. Ask him this? Does he support the theory of Evolution or the theory of the Big Bang? Can he find a single scientific research paper that addresses every criticism of those? What he is asking you to do is look for something that is non-existant but also something that isn't relevant to the discussion. The formation and proof of any major theory is a product of a lot of work and usually by many different groups of scientist. The value of the theory though isn't from one single document but from correlations between several different pieces of research.
Just find the longest possible report on global warming and turn it in. Make your professor read through it and find if any of those points are missing. An ethics professor that demands a paper on global warming that addresses a series of points that are completely different and then restricts you to a small fraction of literature out there. That's just ****ed up.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg1TARtechsum.pdf That has everything except the 2005 hurricanes. You're welcome.
I was thinking the IPCC report too but I'm guessing that the professor must be familiar with it which is why he made such a specific list knowing full well that it might not address everything he listed.
A good start is the research done through ice coring -- this shows very solid evidence of the amounts of CO2 back (I believe) at least 500,000 years. There are big spikes due to volcanic eruptions, but they quickly return to a stable pattern. As man begins pumping out the CO2 emissions the spike does not decrease.
Oh, oh, pick me, pick me. I have data on my harddrive at home that shows statistically at a 95% conf int that our warming trends are the greatest in the cycles over the last 150,000 years. Also, your professor is an idiot
Here's the website. http://www.ipcc.ch/ It just says the full report will published later in the year.
Your professor is a complete tool for the reasons already mentioned. Also, did many scientists really attribute the severity of the 2005 hurricane season to global warming and predict a severe 2006 season? I know some lay people took these positions, but did scientists?. And if reputable scientists never took these positions, they aren't going to be addressed in any scientific papers, thereby making the assignment impossible.
You professor is a dick since finding this from one source is almost impossible. But I'm bored this morning so let's go down the list. Sunspot cycles brought on both the warming period and the ice age; first an increase, then a decease, Evidence for higher levels of sunspot activity and higher solar radiation during the Holocene Maximum and other warmer times is provided by lower levels of radiocarbon in tree rings and other organic materials. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age occurred during the Maunder Sunspot Minimum, the period from 1645-1715 AD in which minimal sunspot activity was observed. And that's silly anyhow since research indicates that the earth is now warmer than during the medevial period and has been warming at a highly anomalous rate since the 1970s. Your ethics professor should not be dabbling in science, as he is obviously incapable of grasping the idea that complex nonlinear systems are not well attuned to following a preconceived notion of "trending". Many of the effects of global warming will be "cold". Because people who are actually *gasp* scientists and not ethics professors have shown it to be not related. Shocking. Again - non linear systems. I mean ****, why is he not bringing up the heat waves in Europe some years ago, or the loss of the Larson-B ice shelf? Oh yeah, because he is a twit who selects only the data which supports his viewpoint. Freaking idiotic. No climate scientist or meteorologist ever made a direct connection between the two - it is WAY to complex a system to make such a statement. But, as the air temperature has increased, so has the water temperature. Warmer waters will increase the strength of hurricanes (link). This is physics - but proof is rather difficult to gather when you look at all the uncontrollable variables involved. Again, you are talking about a highly non-linear system! Tell him to try reading. It was a theory. since proven to be inaccurate. Whoooo. It is impossible to find these all adequately addressed in a single source. Ask him to produce a single source that rectifies all the problematic issues of current ethical theory.
