My name is
Digna Colon and on this 2nd blog, I will be responding on an assignment
from my ENG 101 class composition. Our
class is working on Climate Change and we are reading the book of “The Global
Warming Reader by Bill McKibben”. We were assigned to read the chapters “The
Anthropocene” by Paul J. Crutzen and Eugene F. Stoermer, 2000 and “The
Scientific Consensus On Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, 2004. My goal on this
blog is to explain the science of climate change to the best of my understanding
based on the stated readings above.
The
Anthropocene, chapter discuss how mankind’s activities have significantly grew and
how these activities recognized by Sir Charles Lyell in 1833, and adopted by Geological
Congress and a numbers of scientists have played a huge impact on climate
change. A Russian geologist, Vernadsky recognized the increased power of
mankind. He claims that mankind has expanded in such an amazing way that the Earth
resources are being exploited. For example the population has increased
tenfold, urbanization has also increased tenfold having as consequence burn out
of the fossil fuel. This global change means more than normal release of SO2
per year to this atmosphere and the oil burning causing the rising of
temperature on Earth. According to Crutzen and Stoermer, we learned that “thirty
to fifty percent of the land has been transformed by human action”, which
clearly means that us human has oversea the natural reproduction of the Earth
to impose our own methods. For example, “human activities has increased the
species extinction rate by one-thousand to ten-thousand-fold in the tropical
rain forest and several greenhouse gases have substantially increased in the atmosphere”.
Having said this, I believed that human
activities on Earth have a major direct impact on climate change. These
examples clearly illustrate how the climate deterioration has taken place because
of our irresponsible actions.
On the other
hand, the chapter “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change “which is the
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate (IPCC) change talks about how
the media and policy makers believes that climate is highly unpredictable. Based
on this observation, policy makers and the media have used this as an excuse to
prevent any one and anything from taking stronger measure to stop the
greenhouse gas emissions. IPCC unambiguously that climate is being affected by
human activities and that is modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents.
They also conclude that the warming of the last fifty years is due to the
increased of greenhouse gas concentration.
Hi Digna, how are you? My name is Michael Gomez and reading and evaluating your blog entry concerning the science of climate change.
ReplyDeleteLet’s review the different parts of your blog that you had to address.
1) A brief introduction on yourself and the main ideas from your readings.
2) Explaining your assignment
On your introduction you followed your assignment very well, therefore, your introduction paragraph was very well written as I understood your goal and your thesis perfectly.
Moreover, although your second paragraph wasn’t bad, it needs more information and less “fluff”. Remember, less is more sometimes. Below I will bring up some issues you had, and ideas on how you can fix them.
Example 1:
“The Anthropocene, chapter discuss how mankind’s activities have significantly grew and how these activities recognized by Sir Charles Lyell in 1833, and adopted by Geological Congress and a numbers of scientists have played a huge impact on climate change. A Russian geologist, Vernadsky recognized the increased power of mankind. He claims that mankind has expanded in such an amazing way that the Earth resources are being exploited. For example the population has increased tenfold, urbanization has also increased tenfold having as consequence burn out of the fossil fuel.”
Here you mentioned a chapter in the Anthropocene by bringing up mankind’s activities. In your second sentence, however, you mentioned a Russian geologist and his discoveries. The two sentences are conflicting. I would recommend elaborating the information you presented in a previous sentence rather than changing your subject. For example, you could have started elaborating on mankind’s negative activities right after your topic sentence. You did a good when you wrote “mankind has expanded in such an amazing way that the Earth resources are being exploited. For example the population has increased tenfold, urbanization has also increased tenfold having as consequence burn out of the fossil fuel.” But, remember, this could have been your second sentence.
Example 2:
“This global change means more than normal release of SO2 per year to this atmosphere and the oil burning causing the rising of temperature on Earth.”
Keep in mind that you’re writing to an “outside reader who knows nothing about the topic”. With that in mind; what is SO2?
Example 3: “Having said this, I believed that human activities on Earth have a major direct impact on climate change. These examples clearly illustrate how the climate deterioration has taken place because of our irresponsible actions.”
Keep in mind that organization is key. In your second paragraph, you’ve brought up a lot of facts from your reading. Moreover, your personal opinions could be much more suitable in your conclusion. Again, you wrote a lot of facts without constructing key points and elaborating on those facts. Less is more, next time, you could mention fewer facts and write more about the meaning and importance of the facts you presented.
You did a fairly well job on your third paragraph as you stayed on one topic. In other words your facts where organized and the importance of these facts where brought to light.
Laslty: It seems as though you don’t have a conclusion. A conclusion is necessary as it tells the reader that the paper is coming to a close and it gives you the opportunity to summarize as summarizing is part of your assignment.