Brad Marko
Ms. Mudd
English 151
23 November 2010
The Future of Solar Energy
The world is dependent on electricity and as long as there are people on Earth we will need electricity. However there are multiple problems that coincide with how we generate our electricity. Some of these problems include that power grid formations can only stretch so far; approximately one-third of the world does not receive electricity. Also, only so many resources are available to produce it and it is inevitable that these resources, such as coal, will eventually run out, probably sooner than later. There is one resource that is abundant, can be used anywhere and literally will not run out as long humans remain on Earth. This renewable resource is the Sun. Solar energy is the only abundant enough resource that can save the world from its fossil fuel dependency. This will only be possible with technological advances and if the United Sates government will invest in going green.
The Sun is the most plentiful resource available to produce energy and rid us of our fossil fuel dependency. It is so plentiful because it is a renewable resource that will not run out as long as the sun is shining. Currently the world’s main source of power is fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and petroleum which are large emitters of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide that are quickly filling our atmosphere. Increases in carbon dioxide levels lead to temperature increases and world catastrophe such as global warming. Since around the beginning of coal fired electricity EcoWorld has shown the precedent effects in which, “Earth has warmed by approximately .8 degrees Celsius over the last century.” Something needs to be done to reverse this trend, which is not going to stop on its own. If we stay fossil fuel dependent through the next half century our carbon dioxide levels are only going to worsen due to increase of population and increase in energy use. As Robert Samuelson of The Washington Post exclaims, “With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.” Obviously we need to reverse this trend of rising greenhouse emissions. The only way to keep these gas levels constant would be by making energy more efficient or we will have to invest in a different energy source than coal (Samuelson). Zweibel, the author of The Terawatt Challenge for Thin Film Photovoltaics explains that solar energy is probably the only alternative due to the size of the resource (427).
Solar energy is harnessed two main ways. By solar water heating and the use of thin film photovoltaic solar cells. Atul Sharma and C.R. Chen enlighten that solar water heating specifically has been used for over sixty years. However, thin film photovoltaic solar cells are what will save the world. The solar panels consist of photovoltaic solar cells that are usually made of cadmium telluride or silicon. Mary Cooper of Renewable Energy explains the photovoltaic systems are, “usually arrayed in modules of several cells . . . made more powerful by incorporating lenses or mirrors to concentrate the sunlight.” The sunlight is what generates the power. The question that critics of solar energy ask is, “can thin film PV meet the Terawatt challenge?” (Zweibel 427). The answer to this question is yes indeed, it can. The terawatt challenge is the estimated usage of electricity by the year 2050, which is a whopping thirty terawatts total worldwide (Zweibel 428). A terawatt is equal to one trillion watts and currently the world uses about ten terawatts and the United States is accountable for three of them. It is predicted that if we want to just stabilize, not reverse, carbon emissions that, “the world will need about 20TW of non CO2 energy to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere by mid century” (Zweibel 428). This is obviously a big task at hand and it has been found out that other renewable resources such as biomass, wind and hydroelectric simply do not amount up to enough potential energy to meet the challenge. On the other hand sun rays emit approximately 125,000 TW which is more than enough potential energy to help power the world (Zweibel 428). It is apparent that long term transmission of solar energy is harder than it sounds and will not be attainable over night. Photovoltaic solar cells have a fairly steep price and are still under-developed as far as efficiency goes. The future of solar energy looks promising though with always advancing photovoltaic technology and as Mary Cooper elucidated, market demand is also increasing: “Sales of photovoltaic cells and modules have grown by some 10 percent over the past decade.” Scientists such as Nader Barsoum and Pandian Vasant have proposed ideas by which solar energy technology can improve for future use and efficiency.
Solar energy can only make advances in worldwide usage if technology develops to increase efficiency and lower costs. The current problem Nader Barsoum and Pandian Vasant of Simplified Solar Tracking Prototype is that a lot of solar panels are in fixed positioning which limits the potential of photovoltaic solar panel output. The idea proposed by Nader Barsoum and Pandian Vasant is that in order for solar panels to maximize efficiency they need to constantly be angled at a perpendicular angle of incidence to the sun’s rays. By maintaining a perpendicular angle of incidence this will increase total potential energy output in thin film photovolataic solar panels. Single axis freedom for solar panel movement increases efficiency by approximately twenty percent but double axis freedom of movement for solar panels is believed to be able to increase efficiency by forty percent (Barsoum and Vasant). The double axis freedom of solar panels would help maintain the sought after perpendicular angle of incidence for the sun’s rays.
In order to obtain the double axis movement of solar panels there is a system that must be created. Requirements for the solar panel to move about in such fashion are shared by Barsoum and Vasant in which, “two separate but identical circuits will be utilized for both axes.” The challenge in this theory is the creation of the two circuits that will but used for the solar tracking technology. In the creation of a circuit there will be two light dependent resistors made with cadmium sulfide. Light dependent resistors are more or less photocells that are sensitive to illumination from the sun. These two light dependent resistors will be connected to a PIC microcontroller which with the development of certain software will be able to read and react to the illumination of the two photocells (Barsoum and Vasant). As illumination readings from the sun, this is measured in lux, increases and decreases the resistance of the light dependent resistors acts inversely. When the resistances of the two light dependent resistors differ the PIC microcontroller will in turn activate the motor to angle the solar panel in the direction to where the resistances of the photocells are in equilibrium (Barsoum and Vasant). By doing so this will ensure that maximum input from the sun is achieved to therefore maximize efficiency of the photovoltaic solar panels. Maximizing efficiency will make solar panels more worthwhile for consumers hence making the product more popular on the market.
Solar energy will likely only be able to experience market growth under one condition: if the United States government will endorse the use of it. The primary consumer of energy in the United States is the government themselves. We learn this in The Big Green Buy by Christian Parenti when he explains. “The federal government is the world’s largest consumer of energy and vehicles, and the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.” Through logic I deduct that if the government will endorse in clean energy that the rest will come. The main problem with solar energy is that it is simply too expensive for the average household to invest in. Price is the major hold back because when it comes to solar energy, “it is too expensive, while fossil fuels are far too cheap” (Parenti). The only way as of now that solar energy prices would be able to compete with coal prices is if coal plants perfected and began using sequestration which would most likely raise costs of electricity fifty to one-hundred and fifty percent (Zweibel 429). Sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide while it is burning and storing it in underground aquifers (Zweibel 429). Only in the event which sequestration was practiced could the high cost of renewable resources compete with the price of fossil fuels.
Instead of making all energy expensive I find it easier to just make solar energy costs go down. The government is responsible for thirty-eight percent of the country’s GDP or gross domestic product. It is projected for the government to spend 3.6 trillion dollars just this year. This means that the government spends so much money that if they would re-route to the usage of solar energy that it would assist the growth of a green economy by lowering costs (Parenti). This type of cost reduction would open up clean energy to the private sector because it would be more affordable. This theory of government supplementation is backed up by examples such as the microprocessor that is quoted by Parenti in the article:
Gates explained to the Washington Post that much of what is touted as free-market economy was born of government subsidies: ‘The internet and the microprocessor, which were very fundamental to Microsoft being able to take the magic of software and having the PC explode, were among many of the elements that came through government research and development.’”
The government has the spending capabilities to drive down costs. The amount of buildings for solar panel installation is plentiful as well considering the United States government “owns or leases more than 430,000 buildings (mostly large office buildings)” (Parenti). Thankfully President Obama is trying to make progress towards going green and being cleaner when he signed Executive Order 13514. Executive Order 13514, “directs all federal agencies to ‘increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. . . design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance sustainable buildings in sustainable locations’” (Parenti). Green products, which solar energy is included in that category, will also be obligatory to be purchased through the government according to the executive order: “The executive order also stipulates that federal agencies immediately start purchasing 95 percent through green certified programs and achieve a 28 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2020” (Parenti). These numbers may look promising but if we want to rid ourselves of our carbon dioxide saturated atmosphere then we will need greater collaboration from the government. Alan Zarembo anticipates stabilizing the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere would require a seventy to eighty percent drop in carbon emissions. Without fully fledged government support solar energy will take much longer to evolve.
I describe solar energy as a win-win situation. With the enhancement and use of solar energy we can power the whole world while lowering carbon dioxide emissions. There would be clean air and we will not have the worry of running out of the sun as a resource as we do with coal. Solar energy still needs to make advancements in technology in order to optimize efficiency which would also spur greater usage of solar panels. The double axis of freedom concept is a great way of making solar panels more efficient. Even after technological breakthrough we still have to rely on the government to get with the program and buy the idea. This would provoke lower costs for the usage of solar energy making it more affordable to all.
Works Cited
Barsoum, Nader, and Pandian Vasant. "SIMPLIFIED SOLAR TRACKING PROTOTYPE." Global Journal of Technology & Optimization 1.(2010): 38-45. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.
Cooper, Mary H. "Renewable Energy." CQ Researcher 7.41 (1997): 961-984. CQ Researcher. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.
“Global Warming Skeptics Are Deconstructing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.” Ecoworld.com. 15 Nov. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Parenti, Christian. "The Big Green Buy." Nation 291.5/6 (2010): 15-20. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.
Samuelson, Robert J. “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” WashingtonPostc.com. The Washington Post 5 Jul. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Sharma, Atul, and C. R. Chen. "Solar Water Heating System with Phase Change Materials." International Review of Chemical Engineering - Rapid Communications 1.4 (2009): 297-307. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.
Zarembo, Alan. “Game Over on Global Warming?” truth-out.org. Los Angeles Times 5 Feb. 2007. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Zweibel, Ken. “The Terawatt Challenge for Thin Film Photovoltaics.” Wiley Series in Materials for Electronic and Optoelectronic Applications. Ed. Jef Poortmans and Vladimir Arkhipov. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2006. 427-462. Print.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
rhetorical analysis
Brad Marko
Miss Mudd
English 151
25 October 2010
Argument Essay
Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth is a 100 minute documentary structured around Carbon-dioxide emissions and how it is warming the climate. According to Ecoworld, the temperature on Earth has been rising .17 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1970s. When a small correlation was discovered between carbon-dioxide increase in the atmosphere and temperature increase, there became people who were the global warming believers and also, on the contrary, the skeptics. Al Gore astounds the audience with global warming by using bad examples and simple data and then falsely promises them that it can be reversed and fixed in a feasible amount of time, all in a plea to get elected President someday.
Al Gore uses a great amount of bad examples with simple and already known statistical data to startle the audience into believing global warming. Gore uses a lot of general information that scientists and educated people already know and has actually been reported before (Hall). He uses a lot of charts which makes his assumptions at least appear logical. It also shows where he gets his information which makes him seem more credible. What he presents however is very vague and simple with not much explanation as Kevin Carr of 7mpictures.com elaborates, “He never gives any real science behind his theories. Rather, he says it’s too complicated and then throws a graph on screen and calls it gospel truth.” He goes on a tangent while using pathos by showing damage after hurricane Katrina, which he blamed on extreme hurricanes caused by increased ocean temperature. Nonetheless, Katrina was a big storm, but the photos he uses in the film show the mass amounts of flooding and homes that actually the breaking of the levees was held accountable for, making Gore’s argument not as valid (Carr). EcoWorld explains the actual main reason for stronger hurricanes is because of the naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is warm water from the Caribbean shifting up and down the Atlantic. More intense hurricane activity has been in correlation with the shift of the AMO since the mid nineteenth century.
Greenland’s rapidly melting glaciers and ice flow is used as a big tool to show the effects of global warming. The ice may be melting but this can be credited to the warmer waters brought from the AMO which is also balancing out the melting ice:
While it’s true that ice cleaving and ice flow rates at the coast have increased in recent years, these shifts are due to the AMO – and will abate once the AMO oscillates southward. What the global warming theorists fail to mention in their findings is that the increased ice and snow pack on Greenland is balancing out the coastal melting. And what’s creating the increased ice and snow pack? Warmer sea surface temperatures: The increased temperatures create moisture, which in turn causes additional snowfall (EcoWorld).
By fact checking The Inconvenient Truth you can learn how bias the film really is. Temperatures are not rising strictly because of increased CO2 emissions; there has been a steady rise in temperature per decade since the 1970s without exponentially rising CO2 levels which would be required for CO2 to cause temperature to rise linearly (EcoWorld). Gore goes on a limb about two family tragedies with snippets that you would’ve thought were in a political campaign to make him look like a sensitive and understanding candidate. Both clips are completely impertinent to the whole ideology behind the movie and the moment I watched those two scenes I believed Al Gore was going for his own self image.
After scaring you from talk of the end of the world, such as mass flooding of countries and states due to rising sea levels, Al Gore promises that everything will be okay if we act now and take initiative. Al Gore wants you to join him in his journey to help save the world and he is going to be the leader. Al Gore loses credibility from me for the fact that he makes himself seem like the world savior: “The film makes him out to be a bigger martyr and better savior than Jesus Christ, himself” (Carr). In actuality he couldn’t be farther from that. Phil Hall of filmthreat.com explains, when in office, Gore consistently voted on the non-environmentally friendly side of many big issues. On another issue, stabilization of CO2 might flat out be unobtainable.
Alan Zarembo of truth-out.org shares, that in order to just stabilize the CO2 levels in the atmosphere you would need a 70-80 percent drop in carbon emissions and a drop like that would mean producing 20 billion tons less of carbon emissions per year. We would have to practically stop use of all oil and coal burning products in order to meet these requirements which I do not believe is economically a good idea or possible. Gore defended global warming as a moral issue but if the technology isn’t available we’ll clearly never get out this problem. Only through great advancement in technology can we ever reduce our CO2 levels: “The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only solution is new technology” (Samuelson). Global warming is practically irreversible as Zarembo tells us of, “A landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . . warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other green house gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.” If CO2 did not take so long to dissipate then the reversal of global warming would not be as challenging. What is even more unlikely than reversing the effects of CO2 emissions is the idea that we will reduce production at all. Samuelson says greenhouse emissions are going to rise because “The IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today."
Al Gore really hoped this movie would gain him political attention. Even though he tries to act distant from the current government and even refers to himself as the “former next president of the United States,” I think that was just a tool of reverse psychology to get your guard down. Obviously you think no, this movie is about Al Gore caring about the world but when Al Gore made this movie he had a 10,000 square foot house. A 10,000 square foot house is going to consume way more energy than the average person’s home, who he preaches to for 100 minutes to be energy conscious. I believe that is hypocrisy at its finest and it just shreds his credibility. Seeing how he clearly doesn’t believe his own idea enough to take it into practice, this has to be a political plea where he tricks his audience into the idea explained by Carr: “The message is clear: If we don’t get Al Gore in the White House soon, the polar ice caps are going to melt, global air and water currents will change and the world will literally start to fall apart." The ending credits are also tainted with the message to persuade voters to choose environmentally friendly candidates (Carr). The more political the movie gets, the more credibility it loses I believe because as the movie gets more political, the audience will become more partisan. For someone that assured us his political career is over he is awfully tantalizing the idea to vote for people that so seemingly appear just like him. Is this coincidence? I don’t think so.
Al Gore did a great job of tricking many of his viewers. He presented them with the terrible “catastrophe” called “global warming” by reiterating information that was already available and exposed to the public, although at a lesser degree. In actuality, however real global warming is which I’m not suggesting it’s not; it is something that we aren’t capable of stopping in the near future. We will need major technological advances in order to askew away from carbon dioxide emitting fuels. Al Gore making the audience think that his bright ideas can help save us all and that he’s the only one who can do so is just to help his political image for next time he runs for office.
Works Cited
Carr, Kevin. ‘“An Inconvenient Truth’ Movie Review.” 7mpictures.com. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
“Global Warming Skeptics Are Deconstructing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.” Ecoworld.com. 15 Nov. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Hall, Phil. “An Inconvenient Truth.” Filmthreat.com. 15 May 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Samuelson, Robert J. “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” WashingtonPostc.com. The Washington Post 5 Jul. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Zarembo, Alan. “Game Over on Global Warming?” truth-out.org. Los Angeles Times 5 Feb. 2007. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Miss Mudd
English 151
25 October 2010
Argument Essay
Al Gore’s The Inconvenient Truth is a 100 minute documentary structured around Carbon-dioxide emissions and how it is warming the climate. According to Ecoworld, the temperature on Earth has been rising .17 degrees Celsius per decade since the 1970s. When a small correlation was discovered between carbon-dioxide increase in the atmosphere and temperature increase, there became people who were the global warming believers and also, on the contrary, the skeptics. Al Gore astounds the audience with global warming by using bad examples and simple data and then falsely promises them that it can be reversed and fixed in a feasible amount of time, all in a plea to get elected President someday.
Al Gore uses a great amount of bad examples with simple and already known statistical data to startle the audience into believing global warming. Gore uses a lot of general information that scientists and educated people already know and has actually been reported before (Hall). He uses a lot of charts which makes his assumptions at least appear logical. It also shows where he gets his information which makes him seem more credible. What he presents however is very vague and simple with not much explanation as Kevin Carr of 7mpictures.com elaborates, “He never gives any real science behind his theories. Rather, he says it’s too complicated and then throws a graph on screen and calls it gospel truth.” He goes on a tangent while using pathos by showing damage after hurricane Katrina, which he blamed on extreme hurricanes caused by increased ocean temperature. Nonetheless, Katrina was a big storm, but the photos he uses in the film show the mass amounts of flooding and homes that actually the breaking of the levees was held accountable for, making Gore’s argument not as valid (Carr). EcoWorld explains the actual main reason for stronger hurricanes is because of the naturally occurring Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is warm water from the Caribbean shifting up and down the Atlantic. More intense hurricane activity has been in correlation with the shift of the AMO since the mid nineteenth century.
Greenland’s rapidly melting glaciers and ice flow is used as a big tool to show the effects of global warming. The ice may be melting but this can be credited to the warmer waters brought from the AMO which is also balancing out the melting ice:
While it’s true that ice cleaving and ice flow rates at the coast have increased in recent years, these shifts are due to the AMO – and will abate once the AMO oscillates southward. What the global warming theorists fail to mention in their findings is that the increased ice and snow pack on Greenland is balancing out the coastal melting. And what’s creating the increased ice and snow pack? Warmer sea surface temperatures: The increased temperatures create moisture, which in turn causes additional snowfall (EcoWorld).
By fact checking The Inconvenient Truth you can learn how bias the film really is. Temperatures are not rising strictly because of increased CO2 emissions; there has been a steady rise in temperature per decade since the 1970s without exponentially rising CO2 levels which would be required for CO2 to cause temperature to rise linearly (EcoWorld). Gore goes on a limb about two family tragedies with snippets that you would’ve thought were in a political campaign to make him look like a sensitive and understanding candidate. Both clips are completely impertinent to the whole ideology behind the movie and the moment I watched those two scenes I believed Al Gore was going for his own self image.
After scaring you from talk of the end of the world, such as mass flooding of countries and states due to rising sea levels, Al Gore promises that everything will be okay if we act now and take initiative. Al Gore wants you to join him in his journey to help save the world and he is going to be the leader. Al Gore loses credibility from me for the fact that he makes himself seem like the world savior: “The film makes him out to be a bigger martyr and better savior than Jesus Christ, himself” (Carr). In actuality he couldn’t be farther from that. Phil Hall of filmthreat.com explains, when in office, Gore consistently voted on the non-environmentally friendly side of many big issues. On another issue, stabilization of CO2 might flat out be unobtainable.
Alan Zarembo of truth-out.org shares, that in order to just stabilize the CO2 levels in the atmosphere you would need a 70-80 percent drop in carbon emissions and a drop like that would mean producing 20 billion tons less of carbon emissions per year. We would have to practically stop use of all oil and coal burning products in order to meet these requirements which I do not believe is economically a good idea or possible. Gore defended global warming as a moral issue but if the technology isn’t available we’ll clearly never get out this problem. Only through great advancement in technology can we ever reduce our CO2 levels: “The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only solution is new technology” (Samuelson). Global warming is practically irreversible as Zarembo tells us of, “A landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . . warns that there is so much carbon dioxide and other green house gases in the atmosphere that even if concentrations held at current levels, the effects of global warming would continue for centuries.” If CO2 did not take so long to dissipate then the reversal of global warming would not be as challenging. What is even more unlikely than reversing the effects of CO2 emissions is the idea that we will reduce production at all. Samuelson says greenhouse emissions are going to rise because “The IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today."
Al Gore really hoped this movie would gain him political attention. Even though he tries to act distant from the current government and even refers to himself as the “former next president of the United States,” I think that was just a tool of reverse psychology to get your guard down. Obviously you think no, this movie is about Al Gore caring about the world but when Al Gore made this movie he had a 10,000 square foot house. A 10,000 square foot house is going to consume way more energy than the average person’s home, who he preaches to for 100 minutes to be energy conscious. I believe that is hypocrisy at its finest and it just shreds his credibility. Seeing how he clearly doesn’t believe his own idea enough to take it into practice, this has to be a political plea where he tricks his audience into the idea explained by Carr: “The message is clear: If we don’t get Al Gore in the White House soon, the polar ice caps are going to melt, global air and water currents will change and the world will literally start to fall apart." The ending credits are also tainted with the message to persuade voters to choose environmentally friendly candidates (Carr). The more political the movie gets, the more credibility it loses I believe because as the movie gets more political, the audience will become more partisan. For someone that assured us his political career is over he is awfully tantalizing the idea to vote for people that so seemingly appear just like him. Is this coincidence? I don’t think so.
Al Gore did a great job of tricking many of his viewers. He presented them with the terrible “catastrophe” called “global warming” by reiterating information that was already available and exposed to the public, although at a lesser degree. In actuality, however real global warming is which I’m not suggesting it’s not; it is something that we aren’t capable of stopping in the near future. We will need major technological advances in order to askew away from carbon dioxide emitting fuels. Al Gore making the audience think that his bright ideas can help save us all and that he’s the only one who can do so is just to help his political image for next time he runs for office.
Works Cited
Carr, Kevin. ‘“An Inconvenient Truth’ Movie Review.” 7mpictures.com. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
“Global Warming Skeptics Are Deconstructing Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.” Ecoworld.com. 15 Nov. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Hall, Phil. “An Inconvenient Truth.” Filmthreat.com. 15 May 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Samuelson, Robert J. “Global Warming’s Real Inconvenient Truth.” WashingtonPostc.com. The Washington Post 5 Jul. 2006. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Zarembo, Alan. “Game Over on Global Warming?” truth-out.org. Los Angeles Times 5 Feb. 2007. 23 Oct. 2010 web.
Monday, October 18, 2010
formal response
Formal Response
An Inconvenient Truth is a persuasive documentary about Earth and global warming. In this film Al Gore shares data and facts which are angled to prove global warming. He really brings attention to the issue and wants people to realize how we are affecting the planet in a negative way. He describes global warming as a “moral issue” that can only be fixed through the power of our decisions.
His thesis is exposing global warming, showing it as a problem and to persuading people to take initiative against it. Al Gore appears fairly credible but I really thought he did a good job of providing a logical argument. He uses a great amount of different numbers, charts and graphs. A graph I found interesting was the one that showed the CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the last tens of thousands of years. It showed a great rise in C02 levels in just the last 40 years which was jaw dropping. His college professor was apparently the first person to suggest measuring these levels in the atmosphere back in the 1970’s. The pictures he uses of the ice caps and glaciers melting more dynamically each and every year are very surreal. It really grabs at your emotions, and even more so when he talks about polar bears drowning. This isn’t something that directly affects any of us directly but it is sad and depressing to hear of these creatures struggling to survive. Throughout the majority of the film he comes in and out of emotional draw, pathos, and logic, logos. The main purpose of his pathos is to make us feel bad about our environmental ignorance.
I found it very interesting when he shared his stories of his son’s accident and the whole tobacco story. I suppose the ideology behind it kind of made sense in the way that we take things for granted. Like Earth, and how ignorance of something such as tobacco can lead to losses that you don’t wish for. I didn’t really like the way he used his son’s near death experience and his sister’s death to get us to side with him on an emotional level. It’s not something that I’d see myself ever doing and I found it to be pretty random. He does a good job of making himself credible, ethos, in how he doesn’t consider himself a part of the government and how his passion of this issue was brought about. The government’s economic weight against fixing global warming and reducing CO2 emissions makes them not seem like they don’t have our best intentions at hand. So for him to exclude himself from that group helped him I believe. When he brought up president Bush and the 2000 election, I didn’t really like that because that made global warming appear as a political party issue and that contradicts his statement of global warming being a “moral issue.”
An Inconvenient Truth is a persuasive documentary about Earth and global warming. In this film Al Gore shares data and facts which are angled to prove global warming. He really brings attention to the issue and wants people to realize how we are affecting the planet in a negative way. He describes global warming as a “moral issue” that can only be fixed through the power of our decisions.
His thesis is exposing global warming, showing it as a problem and to persuading people to take initiative against it. Al Gore appears fairly credible but I really thought he did a good job of providing a logical argument. He uses a great amount of different numbers, charts and graphs. A graph I found interesting was the one that showed the CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the last tens of thousands of years. It showed a great rise in C02 levels in just the last 40 years which was jaw dropping. His college professor was apparently the first person to suggest measuring these levels in the atmosphere back in the 1970’s. The pictures he uses of the ice caps and glaciers melting more dynamically each and every year are very surreal. It really grabs at your emotions, and even more so when he talks about polar bears drowning. This isn’t something that directly affects any of us directly but it is sad and depressing to hear of these creatures struggling to survive. Throughout the majority of the film he comes in and out of emotional draw, pathos, and logic, logos. The main purpose of his pathos is to make us feel bad about our environmental ignorance.
I found it very interesting when he shared his stories of his son’s accident and the whole tobacco story. I suppose the ideology behind it kind of made sense in the way that we take things for granted. Like Earth, and how ignorance of something such as tobacco can lead to losses that you don’t wish for. I didn’t really like the way he used his son’s near death experience and his sister’s death to get us to side with him on an emotional level. It’s not something that I’d see myself ever doing and I found it to be pretty random. He does a good job of making himself credible, ethos, in how he doesn’t consider himself a part of the government and how his passion of this issue was brought about. The government’s economic weight against fixing global warming and reducing CO2 emissions makes them not seem like they don’t have our best intentions at hand. So for him to exclude himself from that group helped him I believe. When he brought up president Bush and the 2000 election, I didn’t really like that because that made global warming appear as a political party issue and that contradicts his statement of global warming being a “moral issue.”
Thursday, October 7, 2010
project 2
Brochure Rhetoric
Vernon R. Alden Library is the tallest standing structure on Athens’ campus. It’s in the top 100 largest libraries in the country and it took a long way to get it there. To portray the library I used a schematic color scheme, while showing evolving pictures with plenty of robust information.
I used a fair amount of green in my brochure about the Alden Library to try to appeal to fellow Bobcat students such as myself. I wanted to use color in my brochure because it makes it look more artsy and that much nicer. I used the green tastefully, mostly to try and headline information to make it stick out so that readers would see what they need to read. I also used green in various parts of the brochure, such as the green canopy design that sits over top of my brochure title and main information on the inside. I used red on the back panel though because the 40 year anniversary sign was red and seeing how the complimentary color to green is red I found this move acceptable. Using green is more of an emotional appeal then logic and credibility because all it really shows of my knowledge is that I know the school’s colors. Using green was a logical choice to me because I believe that a student would be more enticed to read a brochure with colors of their school versus any other color because in my opinion it deals with school pride which is very common here.
Seeing how the theme of my brochure is about how the library started, how it was and how it is now, I found it smart to use pictures to reflect my theme. On the front page of my brochure I have the statements, “from then…” and “to now…” In correlation to these statements I have one picture underneath each of them. One picture being an architectural drawing which shows the library when it was still just an idea, sitting isolated with no real surroundings to it. This makes the library have a strong presence in the picture but still reminisces to a more simple time for the library. Then underneath my second statement I have a picture of the library from an elongated view after all the remodeling and additions have been completed. Not as an architectural drawing, but how the library is portrayed today. With the additions intact and the elongated view it makes the library appear bigger than its actual size. This hypes the actual massiveness of the Alden Library to the brochure reader. On the inside panel where I talk about the initial construction of the library I have a picture to match that as well. The picture shows the building when it was well underway but still nowhere close to being done with construction. On the main inside I have a picture on the left panel and on the right panel. Both of these pictures are just simple pictures of the library in use by patrons. The photo on the left being from the early 70’s and the photo on the right being from more recent, probably the 90’s. These pictures draw towards my credibility because not only do I defend my theme with words but I have pictures to express my text as well. When I show the up-close elongated picture of the library on the front page and then later tell the reader that it’s one of the largest libraries in the country, it defends my statement visually, hence, making me more credible.
Throughout my brochure I use a good amount of short and to the point facts. I use comparison of before and after the library’s 1972 remodeling to demonstrate the growth that the library has gone through. Going from holding 800,000 volumes to 2 million volumes is quite a change. I use chronological order throughout the three inside panels of the brochure to make it easier to follow for the reader. I also have separated headings so that if the reader wants to know something specific they can look straight to it, given that I have the data. I have the information separated into bullet points so it’s easier to read versus having the information in paragraph form. Short statements seem more coherent when reading through an informational brochure, such as this one. My facts are in order and use logic to reflect the growth of the library and how it has changed and why it’s such an important part of Ohio University.
I find my brochure to be helpful to someone looking for a little bit of history on the Alden Library. I used proper display of colors, photos and short and sweet information to create appeal for the reader. My brochure defends its theme and if I were you I’d go read it!
Vernon R. Alden Library is the tallest standing structure on Athens’ campus. It’s in the top 100 largest libraries in the country and it took a long way to get it there. To portray the library I used a schematic color scheme, while showing evolving pictures with plenty of robust information.
I used a fair amount of green in my brochure about the Alden Library to try to appeal to fellow Bobcat students such as myself. I wanted to use color in my brochure because it makes it look more artsy and that much nicer. I used the green tastefully, mostly to try and headline information to make it stick out so that readers would see what they need to read. I also used green in various parts of the brochure, such as the green canopy design that sits over top of my brochure title and main information on the inside. I used red on the back panel though because the 40 year anniversary sign was red and seeing how the complimentary color to green is red I found this move acceptable. Using green is more of an emotional appeal then logic and credibility because all it really shows of my knowledge is that I know the school’s colors. Using green was a logical choice to me because I believe that a student would be more enticed to read a brochure with colors of their school versus any other color because in my opinion it deals with school pride which is very common here.
Seeing how the theme of my brochure is about how the library started, how it was and how it is now, I found it smart to use pictures to reflect my theme. On the front page of my brochure I have the statements, “from then…” and “to now…” In correlation to these statements I have one picture underneath each of them. One picture being an architectural drawing which shows the library when it was still just an idea, sitting isolated with no real surroundings to it. This makes the library have a strong presence in the picture but still reminisces to a more simple time for the library. Then underneath my second statement I have a picture of the library from an elongated view after all the remodeling and additions have been completed. Not as an architectural drawing, but how the library is portrayed today. With the additions intact and the elongated view it makes the library appear bigger than its actual size. This hypes the actual massiveness of the Alden Library to the brochure reader. On the inside panel where I talk about the initial construction of the library I have a picture to match that as well. The picture shows the building when it was well underway but still nowhere close to being done with construction. On the main inside I have a picture on the left panel and on the right panel. Both of these pictures are just simple pictures of the library in use by patrons. The photo on the left being from the early 70’s and the photo on the right being from more recent, probably the 90’s. These pictures draw towards my credibility because not only do I defend my theme with words but I have pictures to express my text as well. When I show the up-close elongated picture of the library on the front page and then later tell the reader that it’s one of the largest libraries in the country, it defends my statement visually, hence, making me more credible.
Throughout my brochure I use a good amount of short and to the point facts. I use comparison of before and after the library’s 1972 remodeling to demonstrate the growth that the library has gone through. Going from holding 800,000 volumes to 2 million volumes is quite a change. I use chronological order throughout the three inside panels of the brochure to make it easier to follow for the reader. I also have separated headings so that if the reader wants to know something specific they can look straight to it, given that I have the data. I have the information separated into bullet points so it’s easier to read versus having the information in paragraph form. Short statements seem more coherent when reading through an informational brochure, such as this one. My facts are in order and use logic to reflect the growth of the library and how it has changed and why it’s such an important part of Ohio University.
I find my brochure to be helpful to someone looking for a little bit of history on the Alden Library. I used proper display of colors, photos and short and sweet information to create appeal for the reader. My brochure defends its theme and if I were you I’d go read it!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Introducing Place
Introducing Place: Northfield
Northfield, Ohio is a small area but part of a big district. Located virtually between Akron and Cleveland, route 82 gets you anywhere you need to be. The town really seems to be a force to be reckoned with. Northfield is a rapidly growing area to the point that it’s confusing, with some small town pride.
Northfield is expanding at unprecedented rates. As I learned from Garry, Northfield used to be considered a small farm town with not much to it. However, in the past five years it has been growing in population and size like never seen before. With diversity at approximately a 70/30 split of Caucasian to other, it is rising with a direct correlation to the population. Super highways with bow-tie ramps and overhead passings are becoming a common thing in this once small farm town. As the town has grown along with the surrounding ones which are: Northfield Center, Macedonia and Northfield Village, the school system has as well. All four of these towns share the same High School which has recently moved up from Division II to Division I in athletics, which shows growth in the school district.
Northfield’s relation to its three neighboring cities makes it hard to understand the area. With the expansion of the cities coming so close together to one another it’s hard to tell which area you are even in. Constant construction makes it hard to drive around with detours everywhere. The community as a whole isn’t too fond of this because it makes driving tedious, which really doesn’t help when it snows and it snows a lot. The only place to escape the confusion is if you leave to just outside the city to one of the many surrounding metro parks, which are used by many.
In Northfield, pride is one of the easiest things to find. There is a great sense of community pride, being part of a school district with excellent ratings for the past five years. Having installed one of the best stadiums in the area last year for their rather good football team gives them something to boast about as well. You will always find a crowd at Farinaccis Pizza, one of the best places to eat in town. All of these great amenities of the community really help you picture a great big-little town. I’d imagine this as a great place to move back to later in life, especially with all the growth. Business opportunity is probably soaring, I wouldn’t mind living at a place like this myself.
Northfield’s unprecedented growth, leading to hectic commuting, all while keeping a small town sense makes you wish you could’ve been there from the beginning. Northfield sounds just like a place I came from. To watch a small town turn into a large suburban area really is something unimaginable, especially in just five years.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Connection
I have a connection with Tippecanoe High School. I made and lost dozens of friends in during arguably the best four years of my life, so far. The most memorable part of my high school experience isn't so much about how good of a time I had, but how much I learned. I was close with all of my teachers and I truly believe they did their best to make sure I was as prepared for college as possible. Our school was psychologically designed for education. Front blood red walls in every class room designed to keep us on focus versus using dull white walls. I know for a fact that if i went back to that school, they would be waiting to help me with whatever I need. I won't ever forget the feeling of any of the sporting events that occurred. Most memorably beating Dayton Dunbar in the regular season our freshman year and making the front page of the Dayton Daily News for it. It's milestones like that which are why I feel so connected to there even though I'm so far away now. I truly feel like I'm 100% prepared for college and I owe it to the tedious preparation of the teachers I once had such a strong bond with at that school. That is why I am connected to Tippecanoe High School.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)