Antarctic trip – Part one – Chile

Charlotte Harper said :

I watched that whole video, dungfungus, and then did some research into Prager University (which is not a university at all but a web platform for video lectures set up by neoconservative US radio host and climate change skeptic Dennis Prager) and Patrick Moore. The below sums Moore up quite nicely (from a Guardian article about how he is working with the Indonesian logging industry):

So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies. He is a clever rhetorician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.

He has described clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”, as the fish can eat the larvae. He has justified gold-mining operations that have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”. But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.

I think it’s important to view the words of (and platforms promoting) such advocates in context, whatever you think of their message.

That that apply to Tim Flannery and his wild predictions?

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

I forgot to include “extreme weather events” all of which are natural occurrences that have happened before.

dungfungus said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

If I was commissioned to express my common sense views about “climate change” this is what I would say:
http://prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.Vc4sj_lViko
(Note the absence of sinister music)

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth.

Many times, yes, but not once since London, Sydney or New York were built by the sea.

Check this out:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

CO2 levels have not been this high for at least 800,000 years, which is 794,000 years further back than human civilisation has existed.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it.

Scientific research shows as that changes of about 100ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (which is what we have done over the past 150 years) are usually accompanied by changes of about 30 metres in sea level.

Please explain to us how the 47% of Bangladeshis that live within 10m of current sea level are going to just shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s no tragedy”.
Where will they go?
Will Exxon, Peabody, BP and Shell pay to relocate them? or will they hop on boats and risk their lives creating a human tsunami of refugees that will descend on us to deal with?

You are just plain wrong – rising sea levels similar to rises that have happened prior to human occupation of this planet will have devastating consequences for many millions of people.
This is not an acceptable side-effect of our subsidising the fossil-fuel industry for the benefit of a tiny minority of extremely rich people.

wildturkeycanoe said :

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

If I was commissioned to express my common sense views about “climate change” this is what I would say:
http://prageruniversity.com/Environmental-Science/What-They-Havent-Told-You-about-Climate-Change.html#.Vc4sj_lViko
(Note the absence of sinister music)

HenryBG said :

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

And this link proves what exactly? A graph of CO2 levels from the last 50 years in isolation to the rest of thousands of years of history means absolutely nothing. It is like showing me a canine tooth and expecting me to believe it is from a dog without having seen the rest of the animal. Yes, CO2 levels are rising but they have been just as high many times in the history of the Earth. I still do not understand why this recurring event is such a tragedy when it is a part of the Earth’s cycle, has happened before and may well be happening again but we are just un/fortunate enough to be around to witness it. Bleating about how we need to change our ways to save the planet is ridiculous when other issues are going to have more severe consequences such as over-population, religious wars, starvation and disease. What are we doing to prevent these? How little in comparison are we spending as a species to prevent self destruction from more immediate threats? If the same money that is raised in preventing global warming was spent instead on eliminating genocide, on the abolition of nuclear weapons, on producing larger food supplies and curing terminal diseases, we may live long enough to see the results of this supposed global atmospheric phenomenon.

It can’t be a very accurate science when, as mentioned by dungfungus, it has been renamed quite a few times because it hasn’t done what their theory said it would.

wildturkeycanoe said :

So, scientists are claiming that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates thanks to man. Looking into this and not knowing how they measure such data, I discovered something contrary.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-do-you-measure-a-seas-level-anyway

Don’t rely on a pair of data points from a random blog on the internet. There are scientists (not bloggers) who actually study this stuff in depth and publish their results.
These people are *well* aware of isostatic rebound.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

wildturkeycanoe said :

Also, scientists are comparing data of sea levels and Co2 levels, extrapolating that rising Co2 levels are causing the oceans to rise.

No they aren’t. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is an irrefutable fact, and isotopic analysis gives us the similarly irrefutable evidence as to where the CO2 is being emitted from.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Historically there has been warming and cooling of the globe. Did man cause this every time?

That’s like saying, “historically, I’ve been late to work many times. Did a broken down bus cause it every time? No? therefore it is impossible that this broken down bus caused it this time”.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Why is man to blame for the current trend? .

I suggest you get reading so that you can successfully answer that one for yourself.
Hint: the answer involves fossil fuels, CO2, and basic radiative physics.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

JessP said :

Can we just enjoy the trip and forget about the science discussion?

YES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wildturkeycanoe said :

JC said :

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

So, scientists are claiming that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates thanks to man. Looking inot his and not knowing how they measure such data, I discovered something contrary.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-do-you-measure-a-seas-level-anyway

This page shows sea levels from two different countries, one where it is rising and one where it is actually falling thanks to the uplifting of the land due to tectonic reasons. In both graphs, there is no sharp or sudden increase in levels, just a straight line as the ocean does it’s thing. Reason to panic? I don’t think so.
Also, scientists are comparing data of sea levels and Co2 levels, extrapolating that rising Co2 levels are causing the oceans to rise. Could it not be said also that rising sea levels are causing the
Co2 levels to increase? It’s the chicken or the egg theory. Perhaps the increase of water into our oceans is decreasing the volume of air in the atmosphere and causing the existing Co2 to be compressed into a higher concentration as the rest of the gases are absorbed into the outer atmosphere or back into the ocean? Release of all that Co2 from the ice back into the air can be another factor. There could be so many other reasons that may or may not be satisfactorily proven.
Historically there has been warming and cooling of the globe. Did man cause this every time? Why is man to blame for the current trend? There are many theories about how global warming happens, but nothing proven by the scientific community. If external influences such as solar output have anything to do with it, there is no way to predict the future of the Earth’s temperature let alone what kind of influence our carbon footprint has on it all.
To sensationalize it all with graphs and “predictions” when there is evidence contrary, tells me that it is purely a stunt by some controlling body in the world to try and get control over the entire population for whatever end they are pursuing. Just look at how much revenue is being made from carbon dollars around the world. Who is profiting from it all? Simply a tax in disguise, that we are being told MUST be paid in order for us to survive.
If you think I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist to believe this, I’d tell you that it is just as crazy to believe what the government funded scientists are telling you too.

It’s all part of the plan.
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/austral/inst.htm

JC said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

A quick response. I do think that anyone who denies the existence of mankind’s acceleration of climate change needs counselling.

Referral to my ” election issues” of 2008 is drawing a really long bow. I have held my views before I entered parliament, when I was there, and after I left. I haven’t changed a thing. I have however, seen first hand, the effect of the acceleration of climate change in glaciers in Europe and elsewhere.

My aim in the post was to put the challenge out there and see what came out. Welcome back!

You actually saw the glaciers before and after the alleged acceleration of climate change?
Please supply a précis of your observations and studies with sketches before and photographs after.

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

I do.
And John claims he has – that is why I asked for his photographs.

JessP said :

Can we just enjoy the trip and forget about the science discussion?

The trip description was good until the correspondent commented about his “first hand observations” of the impact of climate change.
Remember that the correspondent travelled to South America on a carbon emission belching jet airliner so forgive me if I sound a bit cynical in suggesting there is some hypocrisy somewhere in this discussion.

JC said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Does anyone actually know if the last ice age has finished or are we still witnessing the final stages of the big melt? Knowing that there are fossilized remains all over the earth well above the current sea level and ancient forests/cities below beachside waters, there is evidence that the oceans have been above and below current levels. These changes have been happening for thousands of years but now science claims we are causing it? Historical records aren’t accurate or extensive enough to prove without a doubt that we aren’t simply watching a natural cycle drawing near its peak. That isn’t irrational fantasizing, but simply logical thinking.

The science doesn’t say we are causing climate change. What it quite clearly says is the way we live and pollute is accelerating it. This they can and have proven.

I am glad you made that comment because is epitomises the latest shift in warmist group-think.
Remember how you all started with “global warming”?
Then is was “climate change”.
Then is was “climate variability”.
Now it is “accelerated climate change”.
This would appear to be an acknowledgement from warmists that climate changes naturally but with the qualification that man made emissions are accelerating it.
So, at the end of the day, the “science” is actually computer modelling using cherry-picked data.
And you expect us to belive that?

JC said :

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

So, scientists are claiming that sea levels are rising at accelerated rates thanks to man. Looking inot his and not knowing how they measure such data, I discovered something contrary.
http://earthsky.org/earth/how-do-you-measure-a-seas-level-anyway

This page shows sea levels from two different countries, one where it is rising and one where it is actually falling thanks to the uplifting of the land due to tectonic reasons. In both graphs, there is no sharp or sudden increase in levels, just a straight line as the ocean does it’s thing. Reason to panic? I don’t think so.
Also, scientists are comparing data of sea levels and Co2 levels, extrapolating that rising Co2 levels are causing the oceans to rise. Could it not be said also that rising sea levels are causing the
Co2 levels to increase? It’s the chicken or the egg theory. Perhaps the increase of water into our oceans is decreasing the volume of air in the atmosphere and causing the existing Co2 to be compressed into a higher concentration as the rest of the gases are absorbed into the outer atmosphere or back into the ocean? Release of all that Co2 from the ice back into the air can be another factor. There could be so many other reasons that may or may not be satisfactorily proven.
Historically there has been warming and cooling of the globe. Did man cause this every time? Why is man to blame for the current trend? There are many theories about how global warming happens, but nothing proven by the scientific community. If external influences such as solar output have anything to do with it, there is no way to predict the future of the Earth’s temperature let alone what kind of influence our carbon footprint has on it all.
To sensationalize it all with graphs and “predictions” when there is evidence contrary, tells me that it is purely a stunt by some controlling body in the world to try and get control over the entire population for whatever end they are pursuing. Just look at how much revenue is being made from carbon dollars around the world. Who is profiting from it all? Simply a tax in disguise, that we are being told MUST be paid in order for us to survive.
If you think I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist to believe this, I’d tell you that it is just as crazy to believe what the government funded scientists are telling you too.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

A quick response. I do think that anyone who denies the existence of mankind’s acceleration of climate change needs counselling.

Referral to my ” election issues” of 2008 is drawing a really long bow. I have held my views before I entered parliament, when I was there, and after I left. I haven’t changed a thing. I have however, seen first hand, the effect of the acceleration of climate change in glaciers in Europe and elsewhere.

My aim in the post was to put the challenge out there and see what came out. Welcome back!

You actually saw the glaciers before and after the alleged acceleration of climate change?
Please supply a précis of your observations and studies with sketches before and photographs after.

Alleged acceleration? bzzt the scientists can and have quite easily proven this you don’t need to see before and after to prove it b

wildturkeycanoe said :

Does anyone actually know if the last ice age has finished or are we still witnessing the final stages of the big melt? Knowing that there are fossilized remains all over the earth well above the current sea level and ancient forests/cities below beachside waters, there is evidence that the oceans have been above and below current levels. These changes have been happening for thousands of years but now science claims we are causing it? Historical records aren’t accurate or extensive enough to prove without a doubt that we aren’t simply watching a natural cycle drawing near its peak. That isn’t irrational fantasizing, but simply logical thinking.

The science doesn’t say we are causing climate change. What it quite clearly says is the way we live and pollute is accelerating it. This they can and have proven.

Can we just enjoy the trip and forget about the science discussion?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Does anyone actually know if the last ice age has finished or are we still witnessing the final stages of the big melt? Knowing that there are fossilized remains all over the earth well above the current sea level and ancient forests/cities below beachside waters, there is evidence that the oceans have been above and below current levels. These changes have been happening for thousands of years but now science claims we are causing it? Historical records aren’t accurate or extensive enough to prove without a doubt that we aren’t simply watching a natural cycle drawing near its peak. That isn’t irrational fantasizing, but simply logical thinking.

We are currently in an ‘interglacial’ or warm period which began about 12,000 years ago.

Historical records ‘aren’t accurate enough to prove beyond doubt that we aren’t watching a natural cycle’? It would certainly be difficult to ‘prove beyond doubt’ what future weather patterns will be.

I’m not a climate scientist, but if all but the extreme fringe of climate scientists are saying the same thing, I’ll go along with them.
I make my own mind up about many things, but when it comes to science….well, I trust the relevant science more than my own ‘gut’ feelings.

I sincerely hope they are all proved wrong, but I doubt it.

Does anyone actually know if the last ice age has finished or are we still witnessing the final stages of the big melt? Knowing that there are fossilized remains all over the earth well above the current sea level and ancient forests/cities below beachside waters, there is evidence that the oceans have been above and below current levels. These changes have been happening for thousands of years but now science claims we are causing it? Historical records aren’t accurate or extensive enough to prove without a doubt that we aren’t simply watching a natural cycle drawing near its peak. That isn’t irrational fantasizing, but simply logical thinking.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

A quick response. I do think that anyone who denies the existence of mankind’s acceleration of climate change needs counselling.

Referral to my ” election issues” of 2008 is drawing a really long bow. I have held my views before I entered parliament, when I was there, and after I left. I haven’t changed a thing. I have however, seen first hand, the effect of the acceleration of climate change in glaciers in Europe and elsewhere.

My aim in the post was to put the challenge out there and see what came out. Welcome back!

You actually saw the glaciers before and after the alleged acceleration of climate change?
Please supply a précis of your observations and studies with sketches before and photographs after.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

Climate deniers are not “thinning out……”

By God, you’re right Dungers. According to Pew research, climate change denial is actually on the increase.

Now that IS depressing.

I don’t know who Pew is and I don’t care if they agree with me or not.
I might be intellectually challenged but I am smart enough to draw my own conclusions from my own research and observations. Part of this is reading a lot of old books on physical geography.
These books were written before the concept made made climate change was invented.
Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

And I bet they had pictures in them. Were they borrowed from the George Bush Library?

The books I am referring to were published over 100 years ago (with engraved diagrams that even an intellectually challenged person like me can understand).
And what the hell has George Bush got to do with this?

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

HenryBG said :

It is depressing that there remain those who choose to reject the facts and cling to their own irrational beliefs about climate change. Dawkins noted that despite religion’s purpose being replaced by the far superior scientific method, religion as an idea has for some bizarre reason persisted very strongly – his conclusion was that humans thrive on irrational beliefs.

Nailed it well Henry. Not so much ‘depressing’ as intriguing, though.

My theory is that almost everyone has a ‘window’ of irrationality. The best science lecturer I ever knew is a full-on ‘happy clapper’ on weekends.
And I have a very savvy friend who regularly mocks climate deniers and conspiracy theory nutters, but he is also a 9/11 ‘truther’.

I think pretty much anyone will hold at least one or two irrational beliefs, if you dig hard enough. Happily, I think the climate deniers are slowly thinning out in the face of all the evidence.

Anyway, good luck on your trip John, and keep the excellent photos coming.

Dawkins was a climate scientist? No wonder all his concepts made no sense.
A good example of something irrational is all the “climate scientists” predicting huge rises in sea levels and more cyclones. None of these events have happened yet the self-appointed “intellectually vain” are still lapping it up.
Climate deniers are not “thinning out”, they are moving on to real life-threatening issues like ISIS jihadists trying to murder us.

I attended a parliamentary meeting of Pacific Islander nations in 1998 and the issue which concerned all of them was the rising sea level. the guys in Kiribati were just plain frightened and called on the big powers who were making things worse to come with a solution to the drowning of their islands.

Now they should be listened to.

If the sea level was rising as quick as some alarmists predicted in 1998 the Kiribati Islands would have been submerged by now.
In fact, satellite surveillance shows the island group has increased in area since then.
Why should we be listening to their leaders now? Did we have anything to do with them choosing to live there?
The biggest threat to those islands is the islanders themselves through their coral reef mining activities.

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

Climate deniers are not “thinning out……”

By God, you’re right Dungers. According to Pew research, climate change denial is actually on the increase.

Now that IS depressing.

I don’t know who Pew is and I don’t care if they agree with me or not.
I might be intellectually challenged but I am smart enough to draw my own conclusions from my own research and observations. Part of this is reading a lot of old books on physical geography.
These books were written before the concept made made climate change was invented.
Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

And I bet they had pictures in them. Were they borrowed from the George Bush Library?

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

HenryBG said :

It is depressing that there remain those who choose to reject the facts and cling to their own irrational beliefs about climate change. Dawkins noted that despite religion’s purpose being replaced by the far superior scientific method, religion as an idea has for some bizarre reason persisted very strongly – his conclusion was that humans thrive on irrational beliefs.

Nailed it well Henry. Not so much ‘depressing’ as intriguing, though.

My theory is that almost everyone has a ‘window’ of irrationality. The best science lecturer I ever knew is a full-on ‘happy clapper’ on weekends.
And I have a very savvy friend who regularly mocks climate deniers and conspiracy theory nutters, but he is also a 9/11 ‘truther’.

I think pretty much anyone will hold at least one or two irrational beliefs, if you dig hard enough. Happily, I think the climate deniers are slowly thinning out in the face of all the evidence.

Anyway, good luck on your trip John, and keep the excellent photos coming.

Dawkins was a climate scientist? No wonder all his concepts made no sense.
A good example of something irrational is all the “climate scientists” predicting huge rises in sea levels and more cyclones. None of these events have happened yet the self-appointed “intellectually vain” are still lapping it up.
Climate deniers are not “thinning out”, they are moving on to real life-threatening issues like ISIS jihadists trying to murder us.

I attended a parliamentary meeting of Pacific Islander nations in 1998 and the issue which concerned all of them was the rising sea level. the guys in Kiribati were just plain frightened and called on the big powers who were making things worse to come with a solution to the drowning of their islands.

Now they should be listened to.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

A quick response. I do think that anyone who denies the existence of mankind’s acceleration of climate change needs counselling.

Referral to my ” election issues” of 2008 is drawing a really long bow. I have held my views before I entered parliament, when I was there, and after I left. I haven’t changed a thing. I have however, seen first hand, the effect of the acceleration of climate change in glaciers in Europe and elsewhere.

My aim in the post was to put the challenge out there and see what came out. Welcome back!

Acton said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

My brother’s back from Florida and rising sea level is already causing flooding there.

Shall we go down the long list of 1st world cities and nations that are going to get it next?

Not just the poor, easily ignored third world victims. Tuggeranong is fine, so long as you keep cranking up the air conditioning. Don’t worry about anybody else. Not that you were going to.

Tell your brother to blame it on the moon.
“What triggers the flooding is this: The moon draws close to Earth during high tides, increasing the gravitational pull and piling water at the shoreline. It’s commonly called a “spring tide” because it forces water to “spring” up, not because of the season.

The problem is exacerbated in September, October and November because the moon comes closest to Earth during those months.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/miami-flooding_n_4118528.html?ir=Australia

The problem with that logic is that sea levels are actually rising.
Unless the moon is getting bigger, or betting lcoser, then you can’t blame FLorida’s problems with sea level rise on the moon.

http://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/nature/images/Stabenau-SLR-GraphWeb_1.jpg

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/vk_annual2.png

http://lh4.ggpht.com/-pr6Nz0_3y3E/TlaA_Jk1ldI/AAAAAAAAEe4/QhoEQdNV2qU/image6.png?imgmax=800

As you can see from the last image, sea level rise is a widespread phenomenon in the area.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

My brother’s back from Florida and rising sea level is already causing flooding there.

Shall we go down the long list of 1st world cities and nations that are going to get it next?

Not just the poor, easily ignored third world victims. Tuggeranong is fine, so long as you keep cranking up the air conditioning. Don’t worry about anybody else. Not that you were going to.

Tell your brother to blame it on the moon.
“What triggers the flooding is this: The moon draws close to Earth during high tides, increasing the gravitational pull and piling water at the shoreline. It’s commonly called a “spring tide” because it forces water to “spring” up, not because of the season.

The problem is exacerbated in September, October and November because the moon comes closest to Earth during those months.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/miami-flooding_n_4118528.html?ir=Australia

dungfungus said :

Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

My brother’s back from Florida and rising sea level is already causing flooding there.

Shall we go down the long list of 1st world cities and nations that are going to get it next?

Not just the poor, easily ignored third world victims. Tuggeranong is fine, so long as you keep cranking up the air conditioning. Don’t worry about anybody else. Not that you were going to.

dungfungus said :

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

Climate deniers are not “thinning out……”

By God, you’re right Dungers. According to Pew research, climate change denial is actually on the increase.

Now that IS depressing.

I don’t know who Pew is and I don’t care if they agree with me or not.
I might be intellectually challenged but I am smart enough to draw my own conclusions from my own research and observations. Part of this is reading a lot of old books on physical geography.
These books were written before the concept made made climate change was invented.
Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

“Pew Research Center”. How very appropriate.

justin heywood said :

dungfungus said :

Climate deniers are not “thinning out……”

By God, you’re right Dungers. According to Pew research, climate change denial is actually on the increase.

Now that IS depressing.

I don’t know who Pew is and I don’t care if they agree with me or not.
I might be intellectually challenged but I am smart enough to draw my own conclusions from my own research and observations. Part of this is reading a lot of old books on physical geography.
These books were written before the concept made made climate change was invented.
Are you more depressed to learn that the number of climate change deniers is increasing or that the catastrophic outcomes predicted by the climate science carpetbaggers probably won’t happen after all?.

dungfungus said :

Climate deniers are not “thinning out……”

By God, you’re right Dungers. According to Pew research, climate change denial is actually on the increase.

Now that IS depressing.

justin heywood said :

HenryBG said :

It is depressing that there remain those who choose to reject the facts and cling to their own irrational beliefs about climate change. Dawkins noted that despite religion’s purpose being replaced by the far superior scientific method, religion as an idea has for some bizarre reason persisted very strongly – his conclusion was that humans thrive on irrational beliefs.

Nailed it well Henry. Not so much ‘depressing’ as intriguing, though.

My theory is that almost everyone has a ‘window’ of irrationality. The best science lecturer I ever knew is a full-on ‘happy clapper’ on weekends.
And I have a very savvy friend who regularly mocks climate deniers and conspiracy theory nutters, but he is also a 9/11 ‘truther’.

I think pretty much anyone will hold at least one or two irrational beliefs, if you dig hard enough. Happily, I think the climate deniers are slowly thinning out in the face of all the evidence.

Anyway, good luck on your trip John, and keep the excellent photos coming.

Dawkins was a climate scientist? No wonder all his concepts made no sense.
A good example of something irrational is all the “climate scientists” predicting huge rises in sea levels and more cyclones. None of these events have happened yet the self-appointed “intellectually vain” are still lapping it up.
Climate deniers are not “thinning out”, they are moving on to real life-threatening issues like ISIS jihadists trying to murder us.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

John, you state that this is your first trip to the Antarctic region and then you say “I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.”
When was “before”?
Also, are you trying to reach a new low in referring to people like myself who oppose the alarmist narrative by grouping us as “intellectually challenged”?
If this is the case then I think we are the majority and most of us don’t really care about what you are relating to us from your eminent mates. I don’t recall climate change as one of your election issues either but that was of course before you saw an iceberg.

HenryBG said :

It is depressing that there remain those who choose to reject the facts and cling to their own irrational beliefs about climate change. Dawkins noted that despite religion’s purpose being replaced by the far superior scientific method, religion as an idea has for some bizarre reason persisted very strongly – his conclusion was that humans thrive on irrational beliefs.

Nailed it well Henry. Not so much ‘depressing’ as intriguing, though.

My theory is that almost everyone has a ‘window’ of irrationality. The best science lecturer I ever knew is a full-on ‘happy clapper’ on weekends.
And I have a very savvy friend who regularly mocks climate deniers and conspiracy theory nutters, but he is also a 9/11 ‘truther’.

I think pretty much anyone will hold at least one or two irrational beliefs, if you dig hard enough. Happily, I think the climate deniers are slowly thinning out in the face of all the evidence.

Anyway, good luck on your trip John, and keep the excellent photos coming.

John Hargreaves said :

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.
.

Natural climate change right now would be a very, very slight warming trend due to solar forcing ever so slightly outweighing volcanic forcing.
Human activity causes aerosol pollution, which is a forcing that causes cooling.
On the other hand, human activity depleting the ozone layer creates a forcing that causes warming.
Human activity adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a forcing that causes a lot of warming – the extent of the forcing caused by human-emitted CO2 is an order of magnitude greater than the forcings caused by aerosols and ozone depletion or the current natural forcings.

Here is a simplified graph that illustrates this:
https://plot.ly/~MattSundquist/6939.png

On Antarctic warming, here is a graphic which shows how the part of Antarctica that is most vulnerable to warming has lost a dramatic amount of ice over the last 30 years:
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/026/108/i02/larsen-ice-shelf-ed.jpg?1333647262

For those who are open to gaining knowledge in this area, here are three basic concepts you should study in order to understand how the current warming is occurring:

1. Carbon cycle, contrasts the natural fluxes with those causes by human activity:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif

2. Energy balance – we get the vast majority of our energy from the Sun, this shows how that energy “sticks” when it gets here, and how it leaves:
http://hamann-ulrich.de/images/Energy_balance.jpg

3. CO2 absorption spectrum.
The Sun’s energy arrives across a range of wavelengths ranging from X-rays, ultraviolet, through the visible spectrum, down to infra-red spectrums. The bulk of the Sun’s energy arrives as wavelengths that are in our visible spectrum (not a co-incidence, that, but that’s a Biology tangent), or just below the red end of it.
The CO2 molecule doesn’t catch much radiation at these wavelengths.
After being reflected, or absorbed and re-emitted, outgoing radiation has lost energy and therefore has longer wavelengths than it came in as. These longer wavelengths *are* much more readily caught by the CO2 molecule.

NASA have a good write-up of the general ideas here:
http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php

It is depressing that there remain those who choose to reject the facts and cling to their own irrational beliefs about climate change. Dawkins noted that despite religion’s purpose being replaced by the far superior scientific method, religion as an idea has for some bizarre reason persisted very strongly – his conclusion was that humans thrive on irrational beliefs. So we shouldn’t be surprised that just as 35 years ago there many (scientists and engineers) who vehemently denied the theory of plate tectonics, so too are those today who deny the last 150 years of science that explains why humans are causing climate change.

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

I am now starting my next article on Antarctica but need to share with you the comment from one of the scientists (eminently qualified researchers who were part of the expedition team studying whales, penguins and seals) that climate change is a natural phenomenon but the rate of that change has been accelerated by man and it is this which we can do something about.

The rate is accelerating unsustainably and I saw evidence of it in the number of icebergs which have “calved” off the main ice sheet. Greater numbers than ever before.

the sea ice does not increase the sea levels and it is merely existing sea water which freezes. the glaciers put snow into the sea which is essentially fresh water at an alarming rate because of the increased size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic and because of the overall global warming.

This is a reality clearly visible even to the intellectually challenged who deny the acceleration rate of climate change.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

As long as there are people being paid to generate “very detailed scientifically analysed” information that doesn’t stack up in reality I can’t take it seriously.
If global warming does indeed happen (as it has many times before) it won’t be because of the reasons that are part of the current narrative.
That screams for flippancy.

watto23 said :

Oh yes John, you might be able to help with the reciprocity fee. Apparently they charge us what we charge Chilean residents for a visa. So feel free to talk to your politician friends and remove this. As a frequent south american visitor, avoiding Santiago on the way over is difficult from Australia so it would be most welcome by myself and other travellers!
Your visit will probably show that while Chile has its issues its a very affluent society now, probably the most in South america. Certainly cost me more for beer and steak in Chile than neighbouring Argentina or Bolivia! so I’m sure if we removed our fees for Chileans, they’d remove theirs for Australians.

There is a way to avoid the fee and that is make Uruguay your first destination in South America.
As there are no direct flights to Montevideo one simply transits at Santiago (without leaving the airport) and enters South America at Montevideo where no fees are payable (or they were not last time I went there).
From there catch the ferry to Argentina but try and stay a few days in Uruguay as it has a lot to offer (avoid Punta del Este in December and January though).

Oh yes John, you might be able to help with the reciprocity fee. Apparently they charge us what we charge Chilean residents for a visa. So feel free to talk to your politician friends and remove this. As a frequent south american visitor, avoiding Santiago on the way over is difficult from Australia so it would be most welcome by myself and other travellers!
Your visit will probably show that while Chile has its issues its a very affluent society now, probably the most in South america. Certainly cost me more for beer and steak in Chile than neighbouring Argentina or Bolivia! so I’m sure if we removed our fees for Chileans, they’d remove theirs for Australians.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

seriously. You take a very detailed scientifically analysed issue and simplify it to the point you are wrong and being the alarmist. Its very well documented that the loss of sea ice in the arctic is affecting the numbers of polar bears, especially when its been show via satellite imagery that the Artic polar ice caps are much smaller and also been shown that polar bears mostly hunt for food on the artic ice.

If you want to take an opposing view on global warming, at least be serious about it and stick to something closely resembling a fact and not a passing flippant remark!

Back to the OP. Looking forward to reading more John. Antarctica is the only continent I have not been to and will visit there one day. I’ll pay the pesky mortgage off first! Although I’m heading to Cuba next year before the American tourism invasion!

dungfungus said :

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

A brief perusal of the available scientific observations tells me,

1. Far from having “always been” in the Arctic, the Polar Bear evolved about 150,000 years ago due to selective pressures applied by climate change to one or more populations of the Brown Bear.

2. Rising temperatures and dwindling sea ice are reducing polar bear numbers among the most southerly of their populations and driving all bears further North.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/17/polar-bears-arctic-sea-ice

I *do* hope you find this information useful and are able to make use of it. As time goes on, it seems to be becoming ever-less defensible to hold contrary views to the results of scientific research.

John Hargreaves said :

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Polar bears have always been and always will be in the Arctic.
But climate change alarmists would like us to believe they are drifting much further south so keep your eyes peeled.

Acton said :

When you get to Ushuaia (el Fin del Mundo – the end of the world) I recommend a short sailing trip on the Beagle Channel. The tour is easy to locate and book down by the wharf.
http://www.tresmariasweb.com/en/115/excursions/
https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g312855-d1907246-Reviews-Tres_Marias-Ushuaia_Province_of_Tierra_del_Fuego_Patagonia.html

Antarctica … an experience of a lifetime.

Thanks for that – we went to the National Park at Fin del Mundo and went on the train. brilliant – also we went by ship to Antarctica which meant a trip down the Beagle Channel. and back of course.

dungfungus said :

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.

I was told there are only polar bears in the Arctic. my next post will be about what I saw in those 10 days.

Good luck with it all John.
Have wanted to go to South America since reading the travel book by Husband and Wife team Trish Sheppard and Iain Finlay..

When you get to Ushuaia (el Fin del Mundo – the end of the world) I recommend a short sailing trip on the Beagle Channel. The tour is easy to locate and book down by the wharf.
http://www.tresmariasweb.com/en/115/excursions/
https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g312855-d1907246-Reviews-Tres_Marias-Ushuaia_Province_of_Tierra_del_Fuego_Patagonia.html

Antarctica … an experience of a lifetime.

To set foot on the soil of Antarctica is a rarity indeed.
The total ice-free area of Antarctica comprises less than 0.4% of the continent.
The ice-free regions, of which about 90% are soil forming, are located mainly on the continental coastline, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys in the Ross Sea Region.
Keep an eye out for orphaned polar bears on melting ice sheets, John.