Welcome to the TravelPod forums

[whereshegoes]

So anyone know any of the latest info on the melting of the polar ice caps?

[Jessica_CDN]

Hey Carm,

According to this site, http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/qthinice.asp, the polar ice caps have shrunk 20% since 1979!! So I guess there's a bit less to visit now

There's also another good article online at the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm

I wonder if climate change is making tourism in the Polar regions more dangerous or less reliable!

[andrea]

Check out Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." It has some startling facts about global warnming that he chooses not to ignore. JMO, but I wish he would have become president!

Andrea

[Allen]

Here is an interesting site with a link to 17,200 scientists that disagree with Al Gore. "Facts" indeed. One glaring error is blaming the lack of snow at Kilimanjaro on global warming. The real culprit is deforestation by the locals. Also who's to say that snow atop Kili doesn't come and go? His movie is a one sided diatribe filled with errors and conjecture. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you really think that if we wanted to change the Earth's temperature one degree in either direction, we could?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Not sure how you think he could have stopped the so called man made warming trend. And that is the real discussion, whether the trend is man made and not a natural cycle. Scientists 30 years ago were calling for something to be done about global cooling. There have been warming periods and cooling periods long before man. Gore may have tried to pass Kyoto, but that would have done nothing to stop India, China and others from polluting the atmosphere with what he calls harmful gases. Look beyond the rhetoric to find answers. And as usual follow the money. No one gets follow up grants to claim that global warming is not man made. However there is an almost endless supply of money if you claim that man is the cause of all of the Earths problems.

Here is a Canadian response to AGW.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Have I decided? No. There are tons of research for both sides. I am not an alarmist. I am not claiming you are either. There is a lot of info out there.

Allen

[Paul]

Some people on Pacific Islands have already had to move as their previous homes are now constantly being flooded. The Northern Ice shelf is already much much smaller each summer.
So seems that things are changing already.
Of course human action could change the planet. It has in the past. Look at Australia, the middle east, angkor wat. The climate and vegetation in these places have been changed by humans. Look around you. Unless you are in an extremely remote place right now, I think you'll notice that everywhere you look, the landscape has been drastically changed by humans compared to what it was, say 200 years ago. Almost everywhere on the globe is like this. We have made an enormous impact and without doublt this causes changes. Perhaps the snow melting on Kili is due to trees being chopped down or due to more gases in the atmosphere. The end result is the same, humans are changing things.

[Jessica_CDN]

I think the point that Allen is trying to make is that it is probably extremely difficult for humans to effect a GLOBAL change in weather patterns....

However, I certainly agree that humans have had a very significant effect on climate at the local level through deforestation, urbanization etc. I'm just not sure that it's had a global effect of changing the temperature of the planet.

I think in my opinion the jury is still out......but certainly I'm not going to go out and buy a huge gas-guzzling SUV!! I'll still be taking the bus and doing my part not to pollute....I think pollution has more significant effects on the human body than just global warming!

[Paul]

If Allen was trying to say it is difficult for humans to change global weather patterns, then I'd say he is wrong. We have changed them.

As for the jury being out. I think 90% of the scientific jury has come in and screaming out that this is already happening, however there is the 10% with their head in a bucket of sand.

Thanks for your efforts to take the bus etc though.

Clearly excessively polluting the planet we live on isn't such a good idea.

[Allen]

What I am saying is that there is no definitive proof that the changes are man made. Who is to say that these changes would happen whether we were here or not? The snow is melting. So what. The arguments put forth by the scientists (who get money to do these reports) say it is man made or Anthropogenic Global Warming. (AGW) I say and so do thousands of scientists, that the data is unclear. Proof in science is not determined by the number of people who believe in one side or the other. Care to prove that god exists? Sure, a majority of people believe in one, but it is impossible to prove the existence of a supreme being. You might as well tell me that Santa Clause is real. A majority of kids believe in him too.

It appears there is a warming trend. The argument is whether we cause it all, or if it is a natural cycle. 10,000 years ago ice covered most of Europe and the north eastern United States. Did early man cause a warming trend by using fire to cook food? It is unclear to many that we are the cause of all the ills of the natural world. The Earth has taken care of itself for quite a while. Can we help? A little. And we are. The emerging nations are not. China and India, (as anyone who has been there knows) are polluting at an alarming rate. They are exempt from Kyoto. The pollution there is staggering. Will it effect the environment? Yes, but as they grow they will learn, as we have, to clean up their messes and prevent future problems. Taking a bus is a good idea, but do you think we should all stop traveling to help keep C02 emissions down? Not likely.

Changing global weather patterns? Where? When? What are you looking at, a 100 year scale? There are 10,000 year patterns inside of 100,000 year patterns inside of....you get the idea. We have only been watching weather for a short time. How do you explain "The Little Ice Age" or " The Medieval Warm Period" ? Or last years hurricane season? Many large storms... Or this years? No large storms.....

Before we all become alarmists and get our "facts" from the media, do some research. There is a lot out there. Many scientists who make their living from alarmist studies on AGW are suspect. So are scientists hired by energy companies. Wade through and decide.
Allen

[Paul]

Hi, sorry, I haven't got much time to reply as i am off on an adventure for a few weeks today.

Yeah, I certainly have looked through the "evidence" to some extent and also just used my own logic and observations. I have no doubt that we have made huge changes to the planet.

But everyone can have their own opinion.

As for China and India. Yep, the poor countries pollute, but their impact is still no where near the scale of USA. The rich countries have gotten rich from utilising the enviornment at unsustainable rates. They are in the best position to act and start addressing the imbalance. Countries that have to look after thousands of people that are on the verge of starvation aren't in such a good spot. As the richer countries act the technology of cleaner fuels etc will improve and the prices of such things will go down. This will enable the poorer countries to follow suit. Also the richer countries would be the first to benefit from a cleaner environment. Wouldn't that be nice if people in your country could drink the river water, breathe the air and eat the farming produce safely. It makes sense that the bigger / richer countries start the process. It makes sense that the country that uses most of the world's resources (USA) and is richest, does something that will benefit all others.

If they don't. That is OK. We will all suffer. But they will soon collapse and they will least be able to cope with their new circumstances. While that is happening, I suspect China will take over and will follow the lead shown by the last super power and so we will all suffer some more. Great to living in a world of such intelligence and wisdom.


Oh, OK even if you don't want to accept global warming, you may accept that a planet with very little clean water, very few trees, too much toxins and chemicals in the soils and waterways, etc, is not good. I think you can see for yourself that we have done that and are continuing to do it and it has an affect on us and also all the other plant and animal life on the planet.

[ryanl]

Hi, sorry, I haven't got much time to reply as i am off on an adventure for a few weeks today.

Yeah, I certainly have looked through the "evidence" to some extent and also just used my own logic and observations. I have no doubt that we have made huge changes to the planet.

But everyone can have their own opinion.

As for China and India. Yep, the poor countries pollute, but their impact is still no where near the scale of USA. The rich countries have gotten rich from utilising the enviornment at unsustainable rates. They are in the best position to act and start addressing the imbalance. Countries that have to look after thousands of people that are on the verge of starvation aren't in such a good spot. As the richer countries act the technology of cleaner fuels etc will improve and the prices of such things will go down. This will enable the poorer countries to follow suit. Also the richer countries would be the first to benefit from a cleaner environment. Wouldn't that be nice if people in your country could drink the river water, breathe the air and eat the farming produce safely. It makes sense that the bigger / richer countries start the process. It makes sense that the country that uses most of the world's resources (USA) and is richest, does something that will benefit all others.

If they don't. That is OK. We will all suffer. But they will soon collapse and they will least be able to cope with their new circumstances. While that is happening, I suspect China will take over and will follow the lead shown by the last super power and so we will all suffer some more. Great to living in a world of such intelligence and wisdom.


Oh, OK even if you don't want to accept global warming, you may accept that a planet with very little clean water, very few trees, too much toxins and chemicals in the soils and waterways, etc, is not good. I think you can see for yourself that we have done that and are continuing to do it and it has an affect on us and also all the other plant and animal life on the planet.

The British Government just stated laying their claims to Antarctica. And we thought colonialism was over...

[morpheous]

Here is an interesting site with a link to 17,200 scientists that disagree with Al Gore. "Facts" indeed. One glaring error is blaming the lack of snow at Kilimanjaro on global warming. The real culprit is deforestation by the locals. Also who's to say that snow atop Kili doesn't come and go? His movie is a one sided diatribe filled with errors and conjecture. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you really think that if we wanted to change the Earth's temperature one degree in either direction, we could?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Not sure how you think he could have stopped the so called man made warming trend. And that is the real discussion, whether the trend is man made and not a natural cycle. Scientists 30 years ago were calling for something to be done about global cooling. There have been warming periods and cooling periods long before man. Gore may have tried to pass Kyoto, but that would have done nothing to stop India, China and others from polluting the atmosphere with what he calls harmful gases. Look beyond the rhetoric to find answers. And as usual follow the money. No one gets follow up grants to claim that global warming is not man made. However there is an almost endless supply of money if you claim that man is the cause of all of the Earths problems.

Here is a Canadian response to AGW.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Have I decided? No. There are tons of research for both sides. I am not an alarmist. I am not claiming you are either. There is a lot of info out there.

Allen

The thing about action by both the US and Canada to prevent global warming would be that it would allow, humbly, leaders of these nations to say to other countries "Hey we have taken steps to prevent this danger, could you please too." Do the risks of no action out weight the inconveniences of taking action?
Morpheous

[kiwi_surfer]

Ive seen it for myself down in Antarctica. There is a seal down in ross island Antarctica that was frozen around 100 years ago. In the last 10 years it has started to slowly defrost... There are allot of other examples but its late and i need go to bed.

[wisconsin_fan81]

I have got to get down there before this happens. My goal is to begin some cold weather training and traveling soon, and develop the skills to hike the pass all the way to the U.S. Scott-Amundsen South Pole Station. I know it takes a long time to develop the ability to handle temperatures in excess of -120F...and the coldest I've seen is -45F (which is a good start but not enough), but I'm still setting this as my ultimate goal as a traveler....I want to make it all the way though. It may take years, decades, and a LOT of time and money, but it would be infinitely worth it for the experience.