New Zealand's New Tourist Attraction
About 100 icebergs drifting northward from Antarctica have created a new tourist trade in New Zealand. One iceberg was even visible from the coast of the island nation - the first time that has happened since June of 1931. Tourists are paying over $300 a piece for the chance to fly over the icebergs, MSNBC reports.
The icebergs probably have traveled over 8000 miles (13500 km) since breaking off one of Antarctica's ice shelves. An ice sample taken from one of the bergs will verify its location of origin.
So are these floating islands of ice related to global warming? Scientists are hesitant to speculate. They simply have not been monitoring the icebergs for long enough to know. Clearly, it is unusual for them to travel as far north as New Zealand.
Comments (5)
what scientists are afraid to speculate, the ones with their heads in the sand... paid by whom?
Posted by william worrell | November 20, 2006 9:03 PM
William - if you read the article I linked, you would see the scientist who was unwilling to link the icebergs and global warming was Paul Augustinus, a professor of geology and an expert on glaciers at the University of Auckland.
Posted by Laura Hannon | November 21, 2006 10:18 AM
Hmmm...so people reported seeing ice bergs there in 1931. 1931 also happens to be during the Dust Bowl days in the US.
Could climate be cyclical? Nah. It has to be runaway warming. The climate has NEVER changed before (as long as you ignore the fossil and geologic records).
Posted by Greg Simmons | November 21, 2006 12:03 PM
Paul Augustinus obviously has a good head n his shoulders. I also like the statement, "They simply have not been monitoring the icebergs for long enough to know." When you read carefully enough, bits of truth tend to peek out here and there. Too bad the global warming chicken little's aren't interesed in facts and truth - just scare tactics to enable large transfers of wealth.
You won't find this kind of discussion at the Weather Channel's global warming blog. They aren't interested in any opinion that doesn't agree with theirs, and won't publish it on the site in the comments section. (Try it and see for yourself.)
Posted by woodNfish | November 24, 2006 11:09 AM
Scientists who don't like to speculate are real scientists. They have to stick to the measurable facts and not let cultural trends sway their theories. On that note, of course there's global warming, how do you think we got out of the Ice Age. Geesh, don't people watch historical cartoons anymore (i.e. Ice Age: the Meltdown).
All kidding aside, scientists have to find solid verifiable and measurable link of global warming with GHGs. I don't like the "CO2 increase = global warming" argument. It's so unscientific. Just because something happened concurrent to another, it doesn't necessarily make it the cause. That's like saying "increase in football fanaticism since 1950 = global warming."
From science, I expect quantifiable, measurable, demonstrable proof. From politics, I expect spin. Let's keep them distinct, people.
Posted by swordsmanrex | November 26, 2006 11:42 PM