达人 2.3 A47 (384)

daidarenUID: 2354215

TOPIC: ARGUMENT47 - Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
WORDS: 384
TIME: 00:30:00+
DATE: 2010-2-3 21:04:00

In this argument the author conclude that the cooling in mid-sixth century was probably caused by a volcanic eruption. To sustain the conclusion, he presented that either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with earth could lead to the earth cooling, and no historical recording was found to substantiate the former one but there is an evidence that a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption shows that the latter one may be correct. However, I found the argument problematic in several respects.

First and foremost, the prerequisite of the argument that the weather patterns in mid-sixth century is insufficient. As the author's saying that the recording of two places showed these weather patterns, the author could have no idea that the weather of all of the earth were changing. Moreover, the author presents no evidence but just quote what the so-called scientists studying, I could no longer concede it until further dates or evidences are presented.

Secondly, I cannot agree with the author's assumption that there is no meteorite collision just because there are no extant historical records of sudden flash of light, it is possible that there no people exist around the place where this collision took place, so that no one could record it or even see it, but it is unwarranted to conclude that no collision happened. And the author could not have the consequence that the cooling was caused by the volcanic eruption just because of the unwarranted reason of the loud boom that time since he could not ruling out that this loud boom is not from other accidents.

Last but not least, even though what the author presented were true, the conclusion is still uncertain. There is a possibility that the loud boom of historical recording is just after the weather pattern, thus the author's causal-relationship of them are of course incorrect. That means there may be other reasons causing the weather pattern but neither meteorite collision nor volcanic eruption, for example, cosmic rays or something like that is possible.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it warranted, the author should present more evidence for the historical recording of weather pattern and make the reasoning of volcanic eruption and meteorite collision more logical.