Argument47 DADA' OF PLAYING

DIDOROSEUID: 2183292

Argument47Scientists 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.
研究历史上气候变化的学者发现在六世纪中叶，地球突然变冷了很多。尽管那个时期很少有历史记录被保存下来，一些在亚洲和欧洲所发现的记录提到了太阳变暗和极度的寒冷。要么是，要么是。然而，大型小行星的撞击可能产生突然的强闪光，而现存的那时的历史记录中没有提到过这样的闪光。然而那时遗留下来的一些。因此，那时的温度下降多半是火山喷发导致的。

六世纪中叶亚洲欧洲纪录太阳变暗极度寒冷------2个地区不代表全球
为什么地球会在那时侯变冷？——只给了2个选择其他的呢
1．           撞击地球的大型小行星导致地球大气形成一大片尘埃云层，这阻止了一定的阳光导致全球温度显著下降
2．           巨大的火山喷发
推理：没有强闪光的纪录——没有碰撞
碰撞一定要产生强光吗？——没有纪录不代表没发生
      亚洲历史纪录提到过与一次火山喷发相一致的巨大隆隆声
相一致并不就是---很可能也是相撞产生的只是距离不同听起来效果不一样
就算是火山爆发也不一定是规模大到可以改变气候的
→2成立false dilemma

The author concluded that a volcanic eruption has taken place on earth in the mid-sixth century, brought about an extremely cold temperatures. However, this claim suffers several critical fallacies which render it unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, this assertion lies on an assumption that the earth has indeed become significantly cooler. However, the evidences found in Asia and Europe record suggesting a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures is insufficient to bolter the assumption. Lacking enough information, it is quite possible that the deceasing temperature only happened in those two areas instead of the whole world. If so, the author's conclusion would be seriously determined.

Granted that the earth undergone a extraordinary cold period during the mid-sixth century, the assertion is still doubtful. The author commits a false dilemma by ignoring other factors that might cause the change. Perhaps the problem lies in the cycle of the sun or the earth itself. Maybe a declination in carbon dioxide in world is just the case. Without ruling out alternative explanations, the author could continue his reasoning justifiably.

Even if we accept that there are only two explanations extant, the conclusion is still unwarranted. The author offered no reason to support that the collision of large meteorite might create sudden bright flash, either did he described how the flash would be like. Without such information, it is entire possible that the collision could happen without causing a sudden flash, or the flash could not be notice in day-light. In addition, the fact that no extant historical records mentioned such a flash does not necessarily mean there was no such incidence. It is likely that the records about the flash was missing or destroyed, just as the author said, it failed to "survive from that time." Lacking more specific information, the author's assertion that the collision has not happened in the mid-sixth century remaining to be unfounded.

Finally, the historical records mentioning a loud boom in Asia provided no justification for the conclusion. The author just simply equates a loud boom with a huge volcanic which could created a large dust cloud throughout the world. Absent other evidence, the big boom might be a sound created by an ordinary volcanic eruption happening adjacent the recorder's region. It is equally possible that this sound is created by other unknown reasons, even by a collision from meteorite which sounds familiar to a volcanic eruption. Accordingly, we cannot accept the conclusion unless the author provides enough information to substantiate the conclusion.

In final analysis, the author made a presumptuous conclusion based on inefficient evidence. To bolster the assertion, the arguer should provide more information about the cooling happened centuries ago. Further investigation and analysis are needed to work out all possible causes of the cooling. To better evaluate the claim, I need more detail and reliable record about the loud boom documented in Asia,

[ 本帖最后由 DIDOROSE 于 2007-1-23 17:55 编辑 ]