Life of John Steinbeck - 974 Words

There are many authors, poetry writers, and novelists around this world, but what make them into a famous author or writer? One of the famous American writer was John Steinbeck. He earned a Nobel prize of literature from his American classic novels that he had written in the past. The Nobel prize was not the only award that he had earned for his literature, he earned different awards for his writings also (John Stein..). John Steinbeck is a man who had overcome different obstacles and being successful in life. Everyone has a life history, John Steinbeck also has a history of his own. His life story began on February 27, 1902, in the farming town known as Salinas from California (Schillinglaw). He had four siblings, but he was the only boy in the four. Olive Hamilton Steinbeck was his mother and she was a former teacher in that time period. The town where he grew up at, was a farming town and still a farming town, it has rich green fields and surrounded by landscapes of broad yellow valleys. He and his family had lived a comfortable life as a middle class family during his childhood (Shmoop). When Steinbeck was done with high school, he worked for many places and different kinds of jobs which were a laborer for a sugar factory in Salinas, a laborer in mills, and a ranch hand (Reuben) .John Steinbeck went to Stanford University and majored his English there, but he had never receive any degree (Reuben). In 1925, after he had worked hard in studying, John decided to leaveShow MoreRelated Life Of John Steinbeck Essays1314 Words   |  6 Pages John Steinbeck was a writer who used naturalism in his works to to bring awareness about problems in society that he dealt with in his own life. He frequently dealt with the economic and social problems of migrant workers in California and how they dealt with everyday life. He wrote through his fiction about what he knew and what affected him personally. Specifically, he wrote a novella entitled, Of Mice and Men, about two California migrant workers, George Milton and Lennie Small, who are tryingRead MoreThe Life and Writings of John Steinbeck Essay1107 Words   |  5 Pagesearth.† John Steinbeck said this of all humankind. He thought highly of us as a species, just as Dr. Stockmann did in Henrik Ibsen’s play Enemy of the People. Both men had problems in their societies, Stockmann in his town and Steinbeck in America, and both believed that humans were capable of seeing the problem and fixing it. The rest of the population did not see this as the case. They believed he was an enemy of the people and a threat to their way of life. Because of how Steinbeck expressedRead MoreEssay about The Life Journey of John Steinbeck 1264 Words   |  6 PagesThe Life Journey of John Steinbeck Every great writer had their own influences, John Steinbeck was no exception. Steinbeck’s influences cam from family, friends, and his environment to write detailed descriptions to involve or influence the reader. Whenever someone reads one of John Steinbeck’s works they are in immersed in the scene he is describing, he makes you feel as if you are right there experiencing everything there first hand. Steinbeck had a relatively normal childhood growing upRead MoreThe Portrayals Of Life in The Pearl by John Steinbeck Essay919 Words   |  4 PagesIn the novella â€Å"The Pearl† by John Steinbeck, an improvised pearl diver finds a humungous pearl which is described as a â€Å" sea-gull egg. It was the greatest pearl in the world†(26), which he hopes to buy tranquility and happiness for his family. Instead, he learns that the valuable pearl cannot buy happiness but only destroy his simple life. Throughout this novella there is a constant theme woven through the characters and settings which encompasses the struggle among social classes to become successfulRead More John Steinbeck Essay1735 Words   |  7 Pages John Steinbeck was born on February 27, 1902 in Salinas, California, a farming community with of about 2500 people. He was the third of four children and the only son of John Ernst and Olive Hamiton Steinbeck. His sisters Beth and Esther were much older than John and he felt closest to Mary, the youngest. He spent his childhood and adolescence in the Salinas Valley, which he later called â€Å"the salad bowl of the nation.† John’s mother, Olive, was the daughter of Irish immigrants. She left her parents’Read MoreAnalysis Of John Steinbeck s The Grapes Of Wrath And Of Mice And Men 1433 Words   |  6 PagesJustina Recchia Mrs. Genthe HAL-Period 8 10 March 2015 â€Å"What is life, what is death, and what do they mean?† The answers to this question are â€Å"Life is a process, death is part of life, neither life nor death means anything-they simply are; and the important things in life are love and beauty, which bring joy to the process of living. These answers are the philosophy of John Steinbeck † (Benson 555). John Steinbeck was a major American writer who has written many books, which have come to be knownRead MoreAmerica Is Home To Many Great Writers Whom Come Different1709 Words   |  7 Pagesdifferent backgrounds. American authors like John Steinbeck who add biographical elements into their pieces of writing. John Steinbeck, one of the most honorable authors of time, is known for receiving Nobel Prize, California commonwealth club medal, Pulitzer Prize, and other great accomplishments towards publishing sixteen novels. Steinbeck’s realist style of writing and life experiences impacting his life show the reade r he’s been through a lot in his life and adds plenty of meaning into his storiesRead MoreSymbolism in The Chrysanthemums by John Steinbeck Essay1547 Words   |  7 PagesSymbolism in The Chrysanthemums by John Steinbeck The Chrysanthemums, one of John Steinbecks masterpieces, describes a lonely farmers wife, Elisa Allen. Elisa Allens physical appearance is very mannish yet still allows a hint of a feminine side to peek through. John Steinbeck brings symbolism into play to represent Elisa Allens frustrations and hidden passions. Isolation is another representation through symbolism found in The Chrysanthemums. Elisas failing detached marriage is representedRead More John Steinbeck was born to middle-lower class family in the farming1689 Words   |  7 PagesJohn Steinbeck was born to middle-lower class family in the farming community of Salinas, California. John’s Steinbeck Imagine†¦ your town is suddenly stricken with poverty. Your family business goes under because the economy of your local community can no longer support it. Herds of your closest friends continually move out of the town you grew up in due to a severe shortage of work. The basic necessities of life are so scarce that everyone around you reverts to their animalistic urgesRead MoreAnalysis Of The Grapes Of Wrath By John Steinbeck1464 Words   |  6 Pagesliterature such as The Grapes of Wrath. John Steinbeck witnessed an injustice towards farmers during the Great Depression, and this inspired Steinbeck to present his perspective of the maltreatment to the open through The Grapes of Wrath. The fictional novel describes how unfortunate conditions, during the Great Depression, force an Oklahoma farmer family to travel to California in search for an easy life, job opportunities, and a bright future. John Steinbeck represented and connected his tones through

A History of the Eiffel Tower

The Eiffel Tower is the most visually famous structure in France, perhaps in Europe, and has seen over 200 million visitors. Yet it wasn’t supposed to be permanent and the fact it still stands is down to a willingness to accept new technology which was how the thing came to be built in the first place. Origins of the Eiffel Tower In 1889 France held the Universal Exhibition, a celebration of modern achievement timed to coincide with the first centenary of the French Revolution. The French government held a competition to design an â€Å"iron tower† to be erected at the entrance to the exhibition on the Champ-de-Mars, partly to create an impressive experience for visitors. One hundred and seven plans were submitted, and the winner was one by engineer and entrepreneur Gustav Eiffel, aided by architect Stephen Sauvestre and engineers Maurice Koechlin and Emile Nouguier. They won because they were willing to innovate and create a true statement of intent for France. The Eiffel Tower Eiffel’s tower was to be unlike anything yet built: 300 meters tall, at that time the highest man-made structure on earth, and built of a latticework of wrought iron, a material whose large scale production is now synonymous with the industrial revolution. But the design and nature of the material, making use of metal arches and trusses, meant the tower could be light and â€Å"see-through†, rather than a solid block, and retain still its strength. Its construction, which began on January 26th 1887, was swift, relatively cheap and achieved with a small workforce. There were 18,038 pieces and over two million rivets. The Tower is based on four large pillars, which form a square 125 meters along each side, before rising up and joining into a central tower. The curving nature of the pillars meant the elevators, which were themselves a relatively recent invention, had to be carefully designed. There are viewing platforms at several levels, and people can travel to the top. Parts of the great curves are actually purely aesthetic. The structure is painted (and re-painted regularly). Opposition and Skepticism The Tower is now considered a historical milestone in design and construction, a masterpiece for its day, the start of a new revolution in building. At the time, however, there was opposition, not least from people horrified at the aesthetic implications of such a large structure on the Champ-de-Mars. On February 14th 1887, while construction was ongoing, a statement of complaint was issued by â€Å"personalities from the world of arts and letters†. Other people were skeptical that the project would work: this was a new approach, and that always brings problems. Eiffel had to fight his corner but was successful and the tower went ahead. Everything would rest on whether the structure actually worked... The Opening of the Eiffel Tower On March 31st, 1889 Eiffel climbed to the top of the tower and hoisted a French flag at the top, opening the structure; various notables followed him up. It remained the highest building in the world until the Chrysler building was finished in New York in 1929, and is still the tallest structure in Paris. The building and planning was a success, with the tower impressing. Lasting Impact The Eiffel Tower was originally designed to stand for twenty years but has lasted over a century, thanks partly to Eiffel’s willingness to use the tower in experiments and innovations in wireless telegraphy, allowing the mounting of antennas. Indeed, the Tower was at one point due to be torn down but remained after it began broadcasting signals. In 2005 this tradition was continued when Paris’ first digital television signals were broadcast from the Tower. However, since its construction the Tower has achieved a lasting cultural impact, first as a symbol of modernity and innovation, then as of Paris and France. Media of all sorts has used the Tower. Its almost inconceivable that anyone would try to knock down the tower now, as its one of the most famous structures in the world and an easy marker for films and television to use.

Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming Free Essays

Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? A REVIEW OF THE FACTS APRIL 2007 AUTHORS James Wang, Ph. D. Bill Chameides, Ph. We will write a custom essay sample on Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? or any similar topic only for you Order Now D. Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts: †¢ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. †¢ Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice. †¢ Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique â€Å"fingerprint. † †¢ Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0. 7? C, with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades. The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The U. S. National Academy of Sciences—the independent organization of the country’s most renowned scientists established by Congress to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues—has concluded: â€Å"The scienti fic understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Some argue that the recent global warming is due to natural fluctuations and not to human activities. This argument and its fallacies are discussed below. Argument 1: CO2 is not coming from human activities CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale? The Facts Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique â€Å"fingerprint† that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. Argument 2: No one really knows why the climate varies The global climate has fluctuated considerably over the Earth’s history, either for unknown reasons or because of â€Å"internal variability† in the climate system. We do not know enough about the climate system to attribute the present global warming to any specific cause. The Facts It is true that the Earth’s climate has exhibited wide swings over geologic time due to natural processes. However, scientists have reasonable qualitative explanations for most of the significant variations in 2 limate over geologic time;1 they can be largely attributed to specific processes, not to unknown internal oscillations. Many of the major climatic changes can be traced to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). Others can be linked to specific events (such as the impact of a comet or meteorite or the assembly or breakup of supercontinents) that led to large changes in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. For more recent times (the past millennium), scientists have been able to quantitatively attribute the major temperature fluctuations to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. These natural processes can not explain the current warming. Argument 3: The Medieval Warm Period disproves global warming The current warming trend is analogous to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Since the MWP was obviously a natural event, the current warming is also likely caused by natural processes. The Facts The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) refers to a relatively warm period lasting from about the 10th to the 14th century. 2 However, the initial evidence for the MWP was largely based on data3 gathered from Europe, and more recent analyses indicate that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. A number of reconstructions of millennium-scale global temperatures have indicated that the maximum globally averaged temperature during the MWP was not as extreme as present-day temperatures and that the warming was regional rather than global. Perhaps the most well-known of these is that of Michael Mann and colleagues (Nature, 392, 1998, pg. 779). Their reconstruction produced the so-called â€Å"hockey stick† graphic that contributed to this conclusion in the 2001 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: â€Å"The†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Medieval Warm Period’ appear(s) to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. † The accuracy of the â€Å"hockey stick† graphic was widely discussed in the press when the Mann et al. methodology was criticized by McIntyre and McKitrick (Geophys. Res. Lettr, 32, 2005, pg. L03710). Less attention was given to subsequent studies, such as that of Moberg and colleagues (Nature, 433, 2005, pg. 13) and Osborn and Briffa (Science, 311, 2006, pg. 841) that were based on different, independent methodologies but reached conclusions similar to Mann. Observations of melting high altitude glaciers are perhaps even more telling. Andean glaciers that have been intact for more than 5,000 years are now rap idly melting (Thompson et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 103, 2006, pg. 10536). If the MWP was truly global, these glaciers would not have survived. More generally, it is a logical fallacy to argue that because the climate has changed in the past due to natural causes, the current warming trend must also be due to natural causes. The debate over the magnitude and causes of earlier climate change such as the MWP is of scientific interest, but it does not invalidate the considerable direct scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases have been causing the Earth to warm recently. Argument 4: Recent predictions of a new ice age disprove global warming In the 1970s climate scientists were saying an ice age was imminent. Now they say the Earth is warming. They don’t know what they are talking about. The Facts The Earth’s climate for the past 2 million years has been characterized by ice ages lasting close to 100,000 years, punctuated by relatively short (10,000- to 30,000-year) warm periods or â€Å"interglacials. † The swing from glacial to interglacial is caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun amplified by natural feedbacks involving greenhouse gases (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). The Earth entered the present interglacial about 10,000 years ago. All things being equal (i. e. , in the absence of a large human-produced source of CO2) it is highly likely that the Earth will swing back into a glacial period or ice age. But this will not occur for thousands of years. 3 As early as the 19th century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming on time scales of decades to centuries—much shorter than the fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to increase and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some scientists to become concerned about global cooling and, in turn, to headlines in the popular press about an imminent ice age. What the skeptics fail to admit is that within the scientific literature—as opposed to the popular press—global warming remained a serious concern. Many scientists of the time argued that whatever the cause of the cooling, natural or otherwise, it would be eventually overshadowed by the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by 1. 5 to 4. oC (Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, NAS Press, 1979) and shortly thereafter a resumption of the upward trend in temperatures was detected. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified, and programs on an international scale have been organized. More and more data are included in computer models that are capable of recre ating past trends and more precisely predicting future scenarios. We now know that the mid-20th century pause in global warming was caused by pollution from burning coal, which produced tiny particles or aerosols that blocked the energy from the sun. As aerosol emissions were controlled but greenhouse gas pollution continued to increase, the cooling effect of the aerosols was overwhelmed by the greenhouse gases, and global warming resumed. Argument 5: Scientists cannot â€Å"prove† current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference. The Facts It is of course true that, in a complex system like climate, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative; i. e. that natural processes are not causing the current warming. What we can do is eliminate every possible natural explanation that can be posited. Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased abs orption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or â€Å"albedo†; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere. Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Change in solar output from 1980 to 2005. Figure 1 shows the relative change in solar output determined from two of satellite measurements over a two-decade period. The data show variability in solar output corresponding to the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no secular trend. Source: After Lean and Froelich, 2006. 4 Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since. 4 The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2). This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 308, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases. Figure 2. Change in heat content of ocean 1955 to 2005 Source: After Levitus et al. 2005. FIGURE 2 SHOWS THE RELATIVE CHANGE IN THE HEAT COTENT OF THE OCEAN FROM 1955 TO 2005 BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OCEAN TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. THE DATA SHOW SHORT TERM VARIABILITY BUT A CLEAR UPWARD TREND ON DECADAL TIME-SCALES. Conclusion †¢ The Medieval Warm Period does not represent an analogy to the warming of the late 20th century, for which scientists have independent evidence of human causation, and the evidence strongly suggests that the MWP was a regional, rather than a global phenomenon. Our understanding of the climate system is sufficient to provide qualitative models for most global or hemispheric climatic variations over geologic history and quantitative models for variations over the past millennium. †¢ The Earth’s climate may return to ice age conditions in thousands of years, but this does not preclude devastating effects from global warming over the next few c enturies. 5 †¢ All known natural explanations for the current global warming trend have been eliminated by direct observations. The human-intensified greenhouse effect provides the only quantitative explanation for the current warming trend. About the authors Dr. Wang received his doctorate from Harvard University and works as a climate scientist at Environmental Defense. He has published several peer-reviewed papers on the global methane budget and was the author of â€Å"The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming,† which was read into the congressional record by Senator John McCain in 2005. The report is available at http://www. undoit. org/pdfs/mythsvfacts. pdf. Dr. Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, is a member of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences and has been named a National Associate of the National Academies. He is also an American Geophysical Union Fellow, and has received the American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Award. Dr. Chameides has served as editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and is the author or coauthor of more than 120 scientific publications and five books. He received his doctorate from Yale University. The explanations are qualitative instead of quantitative because we do not have quantitative data from these events in the distant past to construct their exact histories. It has been suggested based on temperature reconstructions and model simulations that the MWP may have been caused by increased solar activity or a dearth of volcanic activity. 3 th Because worldwide temperature measurements do not exist before the 19 century, temperature records before th the 19 century are based on reconstructions of the temperature from the variations in temperature-sensit ive proxies (e. g. , tree rings, isotopes in ice cores). 4 These variations are possibly due to changes in the concentrations of atmospheric aerosols produced from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. 1 6 How to cite Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming?, Papers Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming Free Essays Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? A REVIEW OF THE FACTS APRIL 2007 AUTHORS James Wang, Ph. D. Bill Chameides, Ph. We will write a custom essay sample on Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? or any similar topic only for you Order Now D. Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming? The case for attributing the recent global warming to human activities rests on the following undisputed scientific facts: †¢ Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere. †¢ Since pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm. Current concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, based on records from gas bubbles trapped in polar ice. †¢ Independent measurements demonstrate that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels and forests. The isotopic composition of carbon from these sources contains a unique â€Å"fingerprint. † †¢ Since pre-industrial times, global average temperatures have increased by about 0. 7? C, with about half of the warming occurring over the past few decades. The only quantitative and internally consistent explanation for the recent global warming includes the intensified greenhouse effect caused by the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The U. S. National Academy of Sciences—the independent organization of the country’s most renowned scientists established by Congress to advise the nation on scientific and technical issues—has concluded: â€Å"The scienti fic understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. Some argue that the recent global warming is due to natural fluctuations and not to human activities. This argument and its fallacies are discussed below. Argument 1: CO2 is not coming from human activities CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale? The Facts Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique â€Å"fingerprint† that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels. Argument 2: No one really knows why the climate varies The global climate has fluctuated considerably over the Earth’s history, either for unknown reasons or because of â€Å"internal variability† in the climate system. We do not know enough about the climate system to attribute the present global warming to any specific cause. The Facts It is true that the Earth’s climate has exhibited wide swings over geologic time due to natural processes. However, scientists have reasonable qualitative explanations for most of the significant variations in 2 limate over geologic time;1 they can be largely attributed to specific processes, not to unknown internal oscillations. Many of the major climatic changes can be traced to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). Others can be linked to specific events (such as the impact of a comet or meteorite or the assembly or breakup of supercontinents) that led to large changes in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. For more recent times (the past millennium), scientists have been able to quantitatively attribute the major temperature fluctuations to changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and human-produced greenhouse gases and particulate pollution. These natural processes can not explain the current warming. Argument 3: The Medieval Warm Period disproves global warming The current warming trend is analogous to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP). Since the MWP was obviously a natural event, the current warming is also likely caused by natural processes. The Facts The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) refers to a relatively warm period lasting from about the 10th to the 14th century. 2 However, the initial evidence for the MWP was largely based on data3 gathered from Europe, and more recent analyses indicate that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. A number of reconstructions of millennium-scale global temperatures have indicated that the maximum globally averaged temperature during the MWP was not as extreme as present-day temperatures and that the warming was regional rather than global. Perhaps the most well-known of these is that of Michael Mann and colleagues (Nature, 392, 1998, pg. 779). Their reconstruction produced the so-called â€Å"hockey stick† graphic that contributed to this conclusion in the 2001 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: â€Å"The†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Medieval Warm Period’ appear(s) to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries. † The accuracy of the â€Å"hockey stick† graphic was widely discussed in the press when the Mann et al. methodology was criticized by McIntyre and McKitrick (Geophys. Res. Lettr, 32, 2005, pg. L03710). Less attention was given to subsequent studies, such as that of Moberg and colleagues (Nature, 433, 2005, pg. 13) and Osborn and Briffa (Science, 311, 2006, pg. 841) that were based on different, independent methodologies but reached conclusions similar to Mann. Observations of melting high altitude glaciers are perhaps even more telling. Andean glaciers that have been intact for more than 5,000 years are now rap idly melting (Thompson et al. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. , 103, 2006, pg. 10536). If the MWP was truly global, these glaciers would not have survived. More generally, it is a logical fallacy to argue that because the climate has changed in the past due to natural causes, the current warming trend must also be due to natural causes. The debate over the magnitude and causes of earlier climate change such as the MWP is of scientific interest, but it does not invalidate the considerable direct scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases have been causing the Earth to warm recently. Argument 4: Recent predictions of a new ice age disprove global warming In the 1970s climate scientists were saying an ice age was imminent. Now they say the Earth is warming. They don’t know what they are talking about. The Facts The Earth’s climate for the past 2 million years has been characterized by ice ages lasting close to 100,000 years, punctuated by relatively short (10,000- to 30,000-year) warm periods or â€Å"interglacials. † The swing from glacial to interglacial is caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun amplified by natural feedbacks involving greenhouse gases (Hays et al. Science, 194, 1976, pg. 1121). The Earth entered the present interglacial about 10,000 years ago. All things being equal (i. e. , in the absence of a large human-produced source of CO2) it is highly likely that the Earth will swing back into a glacial period or ice age. But this will not occur for thousands of years. 3 As early as the 19th century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming on time scales of decades to centuries—much shorter than the fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to increase and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some scientists to become concerned about global cooling and, in turn, to headlines in the popular press about an imminent ice age. What the skeptics fail to admit is that within the scientific literature—as opposed to the popular press—global warming remained a serious concern. Many scientists of the time argued that whatever the cause of the cooling, natural or otherwise, it would be eventually overshadowed by the warming effect of carbon dioxide. In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures by 1. 5 to 4. oC (Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, NAS Press, 1979) and shortly thereafter a resumption of the upward trend in temperatures was detected. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified, and programs on an international scale have been organized. More and more data are included in computer models that are capable of recre ating past trends and more precisely predicting future scenarios. We now know that the mid-20th century pause in global warming was caused by pollution from burning coal, which produced tiny particles or aerosols that blocked the energy from the sun. As aerosol emissions were controlled but greenhouse gas pollution continued to increase, the cooling effect of the aerosols was overwhelmed by the greenhouse gases, and global warming resumed. Argument 5: Scientists cannot â€Å"prove† current warming is not natural Climate scientists can not prove that the current warming is not due to natural processes and therefore can not claim with certainty that the warming is due to human interference. The Facts It is of course true that, in a complex system like climate, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative; i. e. that natural processes are not causing the current warming. What we can do is eliminate every possible natural explanation that can be posited. Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased abs orption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or â€Å"albedo†; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere. Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Change in solar output from 1980 to 2005. Figure 1 shows the relative change in solar output determined from two of satellite measurements over a two-decade period. The data show variability in solar output corresponding to the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no secular trend. Source: After Lean and Froelich, 2006. 4 Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since. 4 The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2). This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 308, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases. Figure 2. Change in heat content of ocean 1955 to 2005 Source: After Levitus et al. 2005. FIGURE 2 SHOWS THE RELATIVE CHANGE IN THE HEAT COTENT OF THE OCEAN FROM 1955 TO 2005 BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OCEAN TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS. THE DATA SHOW SHORT TERM VARIABILITY BUT A CLEAR UPWARD TREND ON DECADAL TIME-SCALES. Conclusion †¢ The Medieval Warm Period does not represent an analogy to the warming of the late 20th century, for which scientists have independent evidence of human causation, and the evidence strongly suggests that the MWP was a regional, rather than a global phenomenon. Our understanding of the climate system is sufficient to provide qualitative models for most global or hemispheric climatic variations over geologic history and quantitative models for variations over the past millennium. †¢ The Earth’s climate may return to ice age conditions in thousands of years, but this does not preclude devastating effects from global warming over the next few c enturies. 5 †¢ All known natural explanations for the current global warming trend have been eliminated by direct observations. The human-intensified greenhouse effect provides the only quantitative explanation for the current warming trend. About the authors Dr. Wang received his doctorate from Harvard University and works as a climate scientist at Environmental Defense. He has published several peer-reviewed papers on the global methane budget and was the author of â€Å"The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming,† which was read into the congressional record by Senator John McCain in 2005. The report is available at http://www. undoit. org/pdfs/mythsvfacts. pdf. Dr. Chameides, chief scientist at Environmental Defense, is a member of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences and has been named a National Associate of the National Academies. He is also an American Geophysical Union Fellow, and has received the American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Award. Dr. Chameides has served as editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and is the author or coauthor of more than 120 scientific publications and five books. He received his doctorate from Yale University. The explanations are qualitative instead of quantitative because we do not have quantitative data from these events in the distant past to construct their exact histories. It has been suggested based on temperature reconstructions and model simulations that the MWP may have been caused by increased solar activity or a dearth of volcanic activity. 3 th Because worldwide temperature measurements do not exist before the 19 century, temperature records before th the 19 century are based on reconstructions of the temperature from the variations in temperature-sensit ive proxies (e. g. , tree rings, isotopes in ice cores). 4 These variations are possibly due to changes in the concentrations of atmospheric aerosols produced from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. 1 6 How to cite Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming?, Essay examples

Pride And Prejudice Point Of View Essay Example For Students

Pride And Prejudice Point Of View Essay Marry For LoveThe point of view of a novel usually decides which characters we sympathize with. In the novel Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, Elizabeth Bennett is the focal character, which causes the reader to feel closest to her. The reader can relate more easily to her feelings and actions, and given that all of Elizabeths opinions on large issues are known and understood, the reader tends to side with her. By making the story from the point of view of Elizabeth, Austen is able to take advantage of the closeness between reader and character to make a political statement about the institution of marriage, and thus shows her own feeling that it is a mistake to marry for any other reason besides love. ;#9;One way that she shows her feelings on matrimony is by using Elizabeths voice as her own to approve of some characters decisions about marriage. Elizabeths approval of certain characters shows Austens approval, and in this case, Elizabeth approves of the marriage between Jane and Bingley. Jane and Bingley show throughout the novel their genuine affection for one another, and Elizabeth observes about Bingleys affection for Jane, ;quot;I never saw a more promising inclination. He was growing quite inattentive to other people, and wholly engrossed by her Is not general incivility the very essence of love?;quot; (106). Mrs. Bennett approves of the match mostly on a monetary basis, and exclaims, ;quot;Why, he has four or five thousand a year, and very likely more. Oh my dear Jane, I am so happy!;quot; (260). Elizabeth, however, looks down on her mother for this, and approves of the marriage because she can tell that the two are truly in love with one another. Austen also makes those i n love the happiest of all the characters. Jane and Bingley are truly in love, consequently, they are two of the happiest characters in the novel. Jane announces that, ;quot;Tis too much! By far too much. I do not deserve it. Oh! why is not everybody as happy?quot; (259) and, quot;I am certainly the most fortunate creature that ever existed!quot; (262). Jane and Bingleys happiness shows the authors approval of their marriage. Austen uses Elizabeths voice as her own to make the statement that love is the only acceptable reason to marry. Another way that Austen uses Elizabeth to show her feelings on the issue of matrimony is by the opinions that Elizabeth herself expresses about the issue of marriage. Elizabeth will not marry others for money, even when she is encouraged by others to do so. She turns down offers of marriage from both Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy. Her mother becomes very concerned after she turns down Mr. Collins and exclaims, ;quot;if you take it into your head to go on refusing every offer of marriage in this way, you will never get a husband at all;quot; (86). She also does not want to worry about money when it comes to falling in love. Before she knows the truth about Wickhams character, she does not rule out the possibility of ending up with him as her husband because she thinks that he is quot;the most agreeable man I ever sawquot; (108). She disregards the fact that he has very little to offer her, and looks solely into his disposition and character to decide whether or not he would be a suitable husband; she lets her heart guide her. Even when her aunt warns her against marrying a man with no finances, she answers back, quot;I should be very sorry to be the means of making any of you unhappy; but since we see everyday that where there is affection, young people are seldom withheld by immediate want of fortune from entering into engagements with each other, how can I promise to be wiser than so many of my fellow creatures if I am tempted, or how am I even to know that it would be wisdom to resist?quot; (108). Austen uses Elizabeth as the focal character so that attention will be drawn to her opinions, and thus Austen shows her own feelings about marriage. Elizabeth states throughout the novel that she wants to marry for love, and she ends up doing so to Mr. Darcy. Her extreme happiness at the end of the novel as a result of this connection shows that Austen approves of this marriage. The fact that the focal character ends up in such an enviable position is not chance; Austen takes advantage of the closeness between reader and character to display her feeling that marriage should be based on love. Elizabeth is rewarded, (not only in terms of happiness, but also monetarily) for persevering and marrying for the right reasons, and therefore she encourages others to follow her example. .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .postImageUrl , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:hover , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:visited , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:active { border:0!important; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:active , .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uf629416eac576ecfc6ddcb8bc5efe98f:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Was the USA justified in dropping the atomic bomb Essay#9;Austen uses Elizabeth as the focal character to show her unconventional feeling that marriage should be for love instead of money or practicality. Elizabeths condemnation of certain matches demonstrates Austens disapproval. Austen uses Elizabeth as her own voice, which is a result of point of view. Elizabeth disapproves of the marriage between Charlotte Lucas and Mr. Collins because she knows that they are not in love with one another. quot;It was a long time before she Elizabeth became at all reconciled to the idea of so unsuitable a matchquot; (96). As a result of this, Elizabeth believes that her friend has sacri ficed all chances of happiness because one cannot be happy in marriage without love. She believes that it is quot;impossible for that friend Charlotte to be tolerably happy in the lot she had chosenquot; (96). Elizabeth shows that she looks down on marrying for money when she states, quot;she Elizabeth could not have supposed it possible that when called into action, she Charlotte would sacrifice every better feeling to worldly advantagequot; (96). This quote is a result of the information that she has just received about the engagement of Charlotte and Mr. Collins. Elizabeths point of view expresses Austens belief that it is unwise to marry for any reason besides love. #9;Although Elizabeth disapproves of the marriage between Charlotte and Mr. Collins, an even more inferior marriage is that between Lydia and Wickham. Although they do end up marrying (which is better than what may have happened), their marriage is based not on love, but on lust and then necessity. Wickham has no int ention of marrying Lydia until Darcy offers him a great deal of money. quot;he Darcy was reduced to meet, frequently meet, reason with, persuade, and finally bribe, the man Wickham whom he always most wished to avoidquot; (241). To Elizabeth and Austen, this marriage is definitely worst of all of the poor marriages in the novel, which is shown by the fact that they are given the least happiness of all of the couples. Their affection for each other soon quot;sunk into indifferencequot; (291), and despite the money that was given to Wickham by Darcy, they are the ones in the worst financial situation. quot;They were always moving from place to place in quest of a cheap situation, and always spending more than they oughtquot; (290-291). By using Elizabeth as the character from whose point of view we see the other characters, we are shown by Austen how to feel about each specific situation. In the case of Lydia and Wickham, we are to agree with Elizabeth (and thus Austen) that they have gotten what they deserve for jumping into marriage for the wrong reasons. Therefore, Austens voice comes through Elizabeth to make the statement that it is foolish to marry for any reason besides love. ;#9;Jane Austen uses Elizabeth as the focal character in the novel Pride and Prejudice to relay a message to the reader. Her own voice comes through Elizabeth to make the political statement that it is unwise to marry for any reason other than love. Elizabeth (and thus Austen) feels that true happiness cannot be achieved in a marriage unless there is a great deal of love between the partners, and so explains her pursuit for true love, and her disapproval of marriage between those she knows are not in love.