Best content in IB Geography @ ISB

Japanese whaling fleet using tsunami funds: activist group | WORLD News - 0 views

tvnz.co.nz/...i-funds-activist-group-4610562

Oceans

shared by Richard Harvey on 07 Dec 11 - No Cached

Sanford fishing boat detained in American Samoa - Business - NZ Herald News - 0 views

www.nzherald.co.nz/...article.cfm

Oceans

shared by Richard Harvey on 07 Dec 11 - No Cached

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher - 14 views

www.sciencedaily.com/...010615071248.htm

shared by Amanda Okazaki on 20 Nov 11 - Cached

- Richard Harvey on 21 Nov 11
  
  This is the article I want year 2 to comment on by the 23rd November.
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">This is the article I want year 2 to comment on by the 23rd November.</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel
- Carrie Burke on 22 Nov 11
  
  I agree with what Essenhigh is saying here. A lot of people ignore the fact that H2O is a greenhouse gas just because its "natural" and is needed for human survival. But if we ignore certain causes of the Earth's climate change, we won't get the same answers or predictions. Just like what we've been talking about in class, we need to look at both the natural and human causes of climate change to make accurate predictions.
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I agree with what Essenhigh is saying here. A lot of people ignore the fact that H2O is a greenhouse gas just because its "natural" and is needed for human survival. But if we ignore certain causes of the Earth's climate change, we won't get the same answers or predictions. Just like what we've been talking about in class, we need to look at both the natural and human causes of climate change to make accurate predictions.</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel
- Amanda Okazaki on 22 Nov 11
  
  Evaporated H2O otherwise known as water vapor is a know greenhouse gas, but like the article states we do not think of it as a "key" greenhouse gas. What most people fail to account for is the fact that water vapor absorbs and then re-admits infrared radiation, which warms up the temperatures, especially those of the oceans, as the cover the majority of the earths surface. There have been indications that the small changes in temperature, starting from all the combined effects of greenhouses gases put more water vapor into the atmosphere. which rises the surface temperature even more. "As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" a continues cycle.
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Evaporated H2O otherwise known as water vapor is a know greenhouse gas, but like the article states we do not think of it as a "key" greenhouse gas. What most people fail to account for is the fact that water vapor absorbs and then re-admits infrared radiation, which warms up the temperatures, especially those of the oceans, as the cover the majority of the earths surface. There have been indications that the small changes in temperature, starting from all the combined effects of greenhouses gases put more water vapor into the atmosphere. which rises the surface temperature even more. "As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" a continues cycle. </div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel

anonymous on 22 Nov 11

I think it may be possible that within 10 to 20 years the temperatures if the Earth may decrease (not increase due to global warming) because according to historical trends (I've read from somewhere) the Earth is predicted to "cool down" after this period of hot environments. Even though the article says people only blame global warming on human influences, but the carbon cycle itself would produce only a certain amount (possibly around the same every year). Now if we blame the carbon cycle for the increasing global temperatures, it may be because of having less trees (higher carbon emissions) which is caused by humans. What Essenhigh is claiming is quite interesting, especially how he linked global warming and carbon within the atmosphere. However, he himself along with other scientists may have selected/ignored certain aspects to this issue, according to their hypothesis (tok term confirmation bias).

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think it may be possible that within 10 to 20 years the temperatures if the Earth may decrease (not increase due to global warming) because according to historical trends (I've read from somewhere) the Earth is predicted to "cool down" after this period of hot environments. Even though the article says people only blame global warming on human influences, but the carbon cycle itself would produce only a certain amount (possibly around the same every year). Now if we blame the carbon cycle for the increasing global temperatures, it may be because of having less trees (higher carbon emissions) which is caused by humans. What Essenhigh is claiming is quite interesting, especially how he linked global warming and carbon within the atmosphere. However, he himself along with other scientists may have selected/ignored certain aspects to this issue, according to their hypothesis (tok term confirmation bias).</div>

...

Cancel
...1 more comment...
Richard Harvey on 23 Nov 11

Excellent feedback girls, i appreciate you have read this article and now have some good ideas to consider if you get a question relating to the different viewpoints regarding causes of climate change- Level 5 and above require the ability to look and evaluate things critically. This article enables you to do this.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Excellent feedback girls, i appreciate you have read this article and now have some good ideas to consider if you get a question relating to the different viewpoints regarding causes of climate change- Level 5 and above require the ability to look and evaluate things critically. This article enables you to do this.</div>

...

Cancel
Nicolas Parent on 23 Nov 11

Sorry about the late comment, but what Essenhigh has to say is quite interesting. His hypothesis that humans only account for 5% of atmospheric carbon dioxide surprised me and should be brought up more often. I think that people should get an understanding that the current situation in regards to the environment may be natural and could regulate itself. However, Essenhigh's argument that these problems will return to their natural state then come back seems to me like he wants to placate the people who cry for action. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if this is just to calm the masses?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Sorry about the late comment, but what Essenhigh has to say is quite interesting. His hypothesis that humans only account for 5% of atmospheric carbon dioxide surprised me and should be brought up more often. I think that people should get an understanding that the current situation in regards to the environment may be natural and could regulate itself. However, Essenhigh's argument that these problems will return to their natural state then come back seems to me like he wants to placate the people who cry for action. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but what if this is just to calm the masses?</div>

...

Cancel
Alexander Marshall on 24 Nov 11

Climate Change has always been a contentious issue. Until recently, I have never really adhered to any specific doctrine on the reason for why Climate Change exists and what the worst case scenario of the effects of Climate Change. Essenhigh's thesis is quite interesting,although, I think that it is overtly anthropocentric. In the past, I probably would have agreed with Essenhigh, mainly because there is evidence of a global and warming period cycle (e.g. ice ages). However, I now know that human impacts on that cycle have aggravated the 'normal' environmental impacts on the Earth that would have occurred if humans did not adversely contribute gases to the Earth's atmosphere. Said aggravation can, theoretically, gravely affect humans socially, economically, and, of course, environmentally. Therefore, I do not agree with Essenhigh's hypothesis that states that Climate Change could stop in 10 to 20 years.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Climate Change has always been a contentious issue. Until recently, I have never really adhered to any specific doctrine on the reason for why Climate Change exists and what the worst case scenario of the effects of Climate Change. Essenhigh's thesis is quite interesting,although, I think that it is overtly anthropocentric. In the past, I probably would have agreed with Essenhigh, mainly because there is evidence of a global and warming period cycle (e.g. ice ages). However, I now know that human impacts on that cycle have aggravated the 'normal' environmental impacts on the Earth that would have occurred if humans did not adversely contribute gases to the Earth's atmosphere. Said aggravation can, theoretically, gravely affect humans socially, economically, and, of course, environmentally. Therefore, I do not agree with Essenhigh's hypothesis that states that Climate Change could stop in 10 to 20 years.</div>

...

Cancel