By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Climate Change - my presentation for class

highwaystar101 on 01 May 2011
SamuelRSmith said:
highwaystar101 said:

That sounds extremely dangerous to me.

First off, wouldn't messing with the temperature of the ocean in such a way be tampering with the thermohalene circulation of the oceans too much? (The circulation of salt water driven by heat). Thermohalene circulation is essential to life. If you planted one of these tubes and it interrupted the circulation of salt water causing a "shut down", then it would ravage life in the ocean, and, subsequently, us. A shutdown would happen if you made the water either too hot or too cold. It wouldn't matter if the surface temperatures were more moderate at the surface or not if this were to happen, life would die.

For completeness sake on this point it is probably worth mentioning that thermohalene circulation shutdown is also a postulated effect of global warming too, and if this were to become a serious threat, then yes, your idea might need to be implemented then to try and counteract it. But a real, real threat would need to be be posed before we even consider doing this.

Second, when CO2 dissolves in the surface water it can become carbonic acid, and this has already lead to a 0.1PH increase in ocean acidity since the indstrial revolution just from the CO2 emissions we've released into the atmosphere being absorbed by the ocean. If the ocean becomes too acidic, again it would kill life. This is what's already killing the corals. There is a natural absorbtion rate for CO2 in the ocean, and yes this does mitigate some of the supposed effects of climate change, but doing this on too large a scale could also harm ocean life on a massive scale. Going out of our way to actually make the ocean absorb more CO2 at the surface than it presently does, like you said, seems a little silly to me to say the least.


BALLOW!

Like I said (well, I didn't... but I should of), I'm nowhere near an expert on these matters... I just thought this idea seemed awesome. I've never heard of all this "thermohalene circulation" lark... but words that long are seldom not important.

Well maybe they're not that important, they're just the name given to the effect. I put a brief explanation of the term in simple english in my post so whenever you see those words you could just replace them with my explanation as you read, I guess.

Even so, I'm not an expert either. My University recently began research into geo-engineering (They do something about growing algae to absorb CO2) and I've learned a bit from talking to them at socials and stuff, but mostly it's from what I've read on the Internet, magazines and the like. So I'm really just a laymen in this area too. I mean, maybe there are some good rebuttals to the arguments I made against the tube idea that I've overlooked.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 01 May 2011
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


Which part's the lie?

I know you think you're being sceptical, but you're not. You're just nay-saying automatically.

I think that there are so many different aspects to consider with man made climate change that it is impossible to just have a universal answer of "yes" or "no" for the whole thing. Calling it by such an absolute term like "lie" is not right as far as I'm concerned.

I like to think I approach climate change sensibly (although I'm sure you'll disagree). There are lots of different phenomenon that come under the banner of climate change, some may be happening, some may not.

I don't buy into many of the climate changes that people say will happen as a result of man made emissions, I don't think it will "burn us alive" or anything like that. I do however, accept that some things are happening as a result of human emissions. Like I mentioned earlier, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This is due to CO2 emissions being absorbed by the ocean forming carbonic acid. The acidity has been rising since the industrial revolution, there is anatural absoption rate, but the rate has increased since we've been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't particularly have any reasonable doubt that climate change penomenon ocean acidification is happening, unlike some of the other phenomenon people claim, in which I do have doubt that they are happening.



non-gravity on 01 May 2011
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


Which part's the lie?

I know you think you're being sceptical, but you're not. You're just nay-saying automatically.

I think that there are so many different aspects to consider with man made climate change that it is impossible to just have a universal answer of "yes" or "no" for the whole thing. Calling it by such an absolute term like "lie" is not right as far as I'm concerned.

I like to think I approach climate change sensibly (although I'm sure you'll disagree). There are lots of different phenomenon that come under the banner of climate change, some may be happening, some may not.

I don't buy into many of the climate changes that people say will happen as a result of man made emissions, I don't think it will "burn us alive" or anything like that. I do however, accept that some things are happening as a result of human emissions. Like I mentioned earlier, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This is due to CO2 emissions being absorbed by the ocean forming carbonic acid. The acidity has been rising since the industrial revolution, there is anatural absoption rate, but the rate has increased since we've been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't particularly have any reasonable doubt that climate change penomenon ocean acidification is happening, unlike some of the other phenomenon people claim, in which I do have doubt that they are happening.

I doubt any "skeptic" or "nay-sayer" would deny the ocean is getting more acidic.

Where it says climate change you should read anthropogenic global warming. I think at some point the term climate change grew more popular than global warming. Possibly because climate change never ends and always needs a big pile of cash thrown against it to get "fixed".



ManusJustus on 01 May 2011
ssj12 said:
im_sneaky said:

What are you studying? What class is this for, an elective?

Business Communications

Good presentation.

I had to take Oral Communications, probably a similar class though they assigned us presentations and I wound up with "Relationships in My Big Fat Greek Wedding."  Horrendous.



highwaystar101 on 01 May 2011
non-gravity said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


<Snip>

I doubt any "skeptic" or "nay-sayer" would deny the ocean is getting more acidic.

Where it says climate change you should read anthropogenic global warming. I think at some point the term climate change grew more popular than global warming. Possibly because climate change never ends and always needs a big pile of cash thrown against it to get "fixed".

I don't know, even though the term climate change can include anthrpogenic global warming, I don't think it should ever be used to exclusively mean that. I take climate change as a term that refers to more than anthropogenic global warming.

Although, if Slimebeast just meant Anthropgenic global warming, then I withdraw my criticism (although not completely because anthropogenic climate change still has so many factors that a "yes" or "no" answer can not everything).

And you'd be surprised, I have come across people who deny anthropogenic ocean acidification before, luckily not that often though.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 02 May 2011
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


Which part's the lie?

I know you think you're being sceptical, but you're not. You're just nay-saying automatically.

I think that there are so many different aspects to consider with man made climate change that it is impossible to just have a universal answer of "yes" or "no" for the whole thing. Calling it by such an absolute term like "lie" is not right as far as I'm concerned.

I like to think I approach climate change sensibly (although I'm sure you'll disagree). There are lots of different phenomenon that come under the banner of climate change, some may be happening, some may not.

I don't buy into many of the climate changes that people say will happen as a result of man made emissions, I don't think it will "burn us alive" or anything like that. I do however, accept that some things are happening as a result of human emissions. Like I mentioned earlier, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This is due to CO2 emissions being absorbed by the ocean forming carbonic acid. The acidity has been rising since the industrial revolution, there is anatural absoption rate, but the rate has increased since we've been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't particularly have any reasonable doubt that climate change penomenon ocean acidification is happening, unlike some of the other phenomenon people claim, in which I do have doubt that they are happening.

Thanks for that (bold text).

I'm not talking irrelevant things like acidification of oceans (really, an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 450 ppm, or whatever, will not acidify oceans in any major way. You will only read about it because someone measured it and tries to manipulate you with it, or at worst because a few fish and corals died in some remote reef).

I'm talking about the supposed threats and catastrophies caused by global temperatures and sea levels rising, violent storms increasing, tsunamis, droughts and forest fires etc - stuff that affects masses of people negatively, stuff that needs radical changes to our societies and lifestyles now. This threat called "climate change" (we all know why it changed name from "global warming") that all our Western societies are so concerned about. The myth that is sold to us by the IPCC, media and politicians.



Baalzamon on 02 May 2011
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


Which part's the lie?

I know you think you're being sceptical, but you're not. You're just nay-saying automatically.

I think that there are so many different aspects to consider with man made climate change that it is impossible to just have a universal answer of "yes" or "no" for the whole thing. Calling it by such an absolute term like "lie" is not right as far as I'm concerned.

I like to think I approach climate change sensibly (although I'm sure you'll disagree). There are lots of different phenomenon that come under the banner of climate change, some may be happening, some may not.

I don't buy into many of the climate changes that people say will happen as a result of man made emissions, I don't think it will "burn us alive" or anything like that. I do however, accept that some things are happening as a result of human emissions. Like I mentioned earlier, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This is due to CO2 emissions being absorbed by the ocean forming carbonic acid. The acidity has been rising since the industrial revolution, there is anatural absoption rate, but the rate has increased since we've been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't particularly have any reasonable doubt that climate change penomenon ocean acidification is happening, unlike some of the other phenomenon people claim, in which I do have doubt that they are happening.

Thanks for that (bold text).

I'm not talking irrelevant things like acidification of oceans (really, an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 450 ppm, or whatever, will not acidify oceans in any major way. You will only read about it because someone measured it and tries to manipulate you with it, or at worst because a few fish and corals died in some remote reef).

I'm talking about the supposed threats and catastrophies caused by global temperatures and sea levels rising, violent storms increasing, tsunamis, droughts and forest fires etc - stuff that affects masses of people negatively, stuff that needs radical changes to our societies and lifestyles now. This threat called "climate change" (we all know why it changed name from "global warming") that all our Western societies are so concerned about. The myth that is sold to us by the IPCC, media and politicians.

I'm not sure if I do know.  Why did it change to climate change versus global warming?



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Slimebeast on 02 May 2011
Baalzamon said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:

You're promoting the man-made climate change lie lol.


Which part's the lie?

I know you think you're being sceptical, but you're not. You're just nay-saying automatically.

I think that there are so many different aspects to consider with man made climate change that it is impossible to just have a universal answer of "yes" or "no" for the whole thing. Calling it by such an absolute term like "lie" is not right as far as I'm concerned.

I like to think I approach climate change sensibly (although I'm sure you'll disagree). There are lots of different phenomenon that come under the banner of climate change, some may be happening, some may not.

I don't buy into many of the climate changes that people say will happen as a result of man made emissions, I don't think it will "burn us alive" or anything like that. I do however, accept that some things are happening as a result of human emissions. Like I mentioned earlier, the oceans are becoming more acidic. This is due to CO2 emissions being absorbed by the ocean forming carbonic acid. The acidity has been rising since the industrial revolution, there is anatural absoption rate, but the rate has increased since we've been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't particularly have any reasonable doubt that climate change penomenon ocean acidification is happening, unlike some of the other phenomenon people claim, in which I do have doubt that they are happening.

Thanks for that (bold text).

I'm not talking irrelevant things like acidification of oceans (really, an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 450 ppm, or whatever, will not acidify oceans in any major way. You will only read about it because someone measured it and tries to manipulate you with it, or at worst because a few fish and corals died in some remote reef).

I'm talking about the supposed threats and catastrophies caused by global temperatures and sea levels rising, violent storms increasing, tsunamis, droughts and forest fires etc - stuff that affects masses of people negatively, stuff that needs radical changes to our societies and lifestyles now. This threat called "climate change" (we all know why it changed name from "global warming") that all our Western societies are so concerned about. The myth that is sold to us by the IPCC, media and politicians.

I'm not sure if I do know.  Why did it change to climate change versus global warming?

In simple terms: because the earth hasn't been warming lately so it became hard to talk about a global warming. In the last decade or so there's been no global average temperature increase.

When people found out that the earth hasn't been warming lately (and it became harder for the fanatics to prove human caused increase in earth's temperature for a number of other reasons - for example it became clear there were severe methodological errors in temperature meazures on the globe, the expert metheorologist's temperature models and simulations sucked etc etc) the term needed to be change into a very unclear one so they could keep selling the myth.



Baalzamon on 02 May 2011
Slimebeast said:
Baalzamon said:

I'm not sure if I do know.  Why did it change to climate change versus global warming?

In simple terms: because the earth hasn't been warming lately so it became hard to talk about a global warming. In the last decade or so there's been no global average temperature increase.

When people found out that the earth hasn't been warming lately (and it became harder for the fanatics to prove human caused increase in earth's temperature for a number of other reasons - for example it became clear there were severe methodological errors in temperature meazures on the globe, the expert metheorologist's temperature models and simulations sucked etc etc) the term needed to be change into a very unclear one so they could keep selling the myth.

Ok, that's what I figuered, I just wasn't certain what you were going to say.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.