I realized that global warning isn't all that bad! Antarctica is a very mountainous continent and has abundant river valleys under all those snow capped peaks.

So, although we may all perish of heat exhaustion up here, we can just go south and have first D's for all!

So turn on that gas guzzler and lets melt that snow quick before we are too old to boat the epic whitewater beneath.......

Dude you guys are talking my language, long term investing here... how does this work... is there a government down there yet? If not I would want to move down and be a dicktater. I mean really... aren't those pretty rare now a days.

J

Actually, while the evidence seems compelling that the far northern hemisphere is warming (regardless of whether you believe that this is natural, man-made or caused by Haliburton), that is definitely not the case in Antarctica.  In fact, while it doesn't make the headlines, Antarctica, overall, is actually cooling or stable.

And, even though casual empiricism is not scientific evidence, any visit to Antarctica - even to the Antarctic peninsula which seems to be warming somewhat - will confirm what I'm saying.  Even in the height of summer very little melting is observed.

So, don't get too excited about the boating opportunities down in Antarctica just yet.  Sorry to be the bearer of bad (?) news.  Head to the High Arctic instead - it is a better bet for possible boating opportunities.  Just bring your rifle to protect yourself from polar bears! 

And, yes, there are way more polar bears up there today - even with global warming - than there were 30 years ago.  Mostly because of decreased hunting and other conservation measures.  This isn't to say that those populations couldn't be threatened in the future.  But, for now, I'd bring that rifle.  Because, there are only two important things to know about polar bears: (1) They always attack from down wind and (2) They always want to eat you.


Edited by arnobarno - 19 Nov 2007 at 10:57pm

Arn is correct (well, half right anyway).  While the Arctic Penensula has seen significant warming the rest of the continent has not.  Unfortunately this news is not as positive as it may sound.  If you are interested you can read more here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

"super kook"

Mike,
I agree.  That guy was committed and I should refrain from making a sound-bite judgment about his mental state.

But, you have to admit that he crossed over from studying bears to almost thinking of himself as a bear.  It was an accident waiting to happen - much like the "Crocodile Hunter" guy.

So, here is a question, when does "commitment" cross over and become foolhardiness?


Edited by arnobarno - 20 Nov 2007 at 10:35am

aNd

Edited by huckin harms - 20 Nov 2007 at 10:41am

That crock hunter thing was a complete fluke... I mean stinger through the heart... a few inches and a different outcome would have been there.... Dude this coming from a WW boater?/?? Risk Calculation???

If you asked Steve Irwin to chuck his junk off a water fall he would probably have said ... Krikey ... your running with the dingo's mate!!! Its all perspective... He grew up doing that stuff!

Tom,
You are right that my analogy with weather and river levels was not perfect.  But models are not proof.  They are models.

And, any models of a complex system - are extremely sensitive to small changes in assumptions and these changes can produce big changes in the forecast.  Furthermore, and most importantly, even if a model that uses historical data can then be "played forward" to predict that historic data up to today, it doesn't imply it has *ANY* predictive value for tomorrow.

At a simple level, if I gave you the sequence 2, 4, 6, 8 and asked what the next number was, most would say 10.  But, I can come up with a formula such that the next number is anything I want it to be.  That is true for any finite set of numbers.  Or any model based on the past.

Let me use an example on something less controversial than GW since that is such a politically charged topic.  For example, there were models in 1987 that people were using to model the stock market and portfolio insurance.  They predicted all past events perfectly and were used to model the future.  Those models never anticipated the 20% decline in stock prices in a matter of hours and thus when it occurred it in 1987, it broke not only the models but also lots of wall street players.  This happened again in 1997 when two Nobel laureates practically caused the breakdown of the bond market with LTCM.  These guys were incredibly highly leveraged and made tiny amounts on lots of transactions.  They never anticipated the crazy credit meltdown that happened in sovereign debt.  The Fed practically bailed them out.

It is great that climate scientists are trying to study these things and create models.  But mother nature (and social/market systems like the stock market) are amazingly complex and there is a lack of humility in many of these scientists in terms of describing 100 year projections with overstated confidence.

And, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything - except perhaps that they are wasting their time right now to try to boat anytime soon down in Antarctica.

my two cents (or three)...


Edited by arnobarno - 20 Nov 2007 at 9:15pm

Yeah, it is fun to have a discussion without people calling each other names or assuming they are the devil!

My major point was simply to respond to David's (joking) assertion about getting some first D's in Antarctica.

But on the models specifically, my point isn't that we should ignore models but we need to understand their limitations.  It is very interesting this debate, because as a planet there are so many problems competing for scare resources - unsafe water and lack of sanitation, hunger, malnutrition, lack of education, diseases, deforestation, air pollution, among others - and climate change, of course.  All too often, models are presented as proof and the general public takes as "facts" things that are speculations - albeit sophisticated ones.  And, this can lead to a very inefficient use of society's resources.

Edited by arnobarno - 20 Nov 2007 at 9:37pm

Edited by The OAC - 22 Nov 2007 at 1:34pm

Wow, I never thought that my jesting comment about bountiful Antarctic first D's would spark such lively debate.