Town Square

Post a New Topic

See Nat. Geo documentary 'Chasing Ice'

Original post made on Sep 26, 2013

James Balog, a National Geographic photographer, did an Extreme Ice Survey where he captured undeniable evidence of our changing planet. Balog's videos compressed years into seconds and captured ancient mountains of ice as they disappear in an alarmingly un-glacial rate. See "Chasing Ice, a National Geographic Documentary" at 7 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 27 at the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center (55 Eckley Lane, Walnut Creek). A $5 donation is requested. Call 933-7850 or 360-4529. Go to www.ourpeacecenter.org or Web Link

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 25, 2013, 4:48 PM

Comments (14)

Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Sep 26, 2013 at 9:34 am

Well, I guess it is probably true that his photos represent "undeniable evidence of our changing planet", since many things are no doubt changing at all times....

Whether it says anything about global climate change (i.e. warming), remains to be seen. The article doesn't say where he took the photos, nor when. If it was of Arctic ice, then pictures taken this sumnmer would look vastly "better" (if you define better as more ice) than they would have in 2012.

If it is of glaciers, there is no doubt that many more glaciers are receding (net melting) at present, versus the number of glaciers that are growing (adding in thickness, and/or ground coverage). On the other hand, the long term trend with glaciers has been net melting for thousands of years, and there ARE glaciers that are currently growing, in some cases just a few miles away from ones that are shrinking. Alaska's coastal glaciers are a good example - most are shrinking noticeably in recent years, but some are growing, all in the same basic area. (But they're ALL changing....) As a side comment, "calving" of ice off of glaciers (creating icebergs in the water) isn't an indication of anything (other than that gravity works), since it can happen whether the glacier is growing or shrinking. Actually, it would tend to be more prevalent for a growing glacier. I'm sure his talk will be very interesting, in any case, with good photos.


Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Sep 26, 2013 at 9:42 am

Sorry about a typo or two in my post, above. It is very frustrating that there is no ability to edit posts. It seems like even when I do a quick proof-read before submitting, I STILL miss something!

Also, I should perhaps be clearer, in saying that I really have no idea what the presenter is going to be saying during his talk. So I'm not criticizing the presenter, or his talk. But I have to admit to being a bit opposed to the use of the phrase "undeniable" in the talk summary. It's a little bit like saying, "Let me preface my remarks by stating ahead of time that I'm 100% correct in my positions." Well, maybe. Or maybe not. In short, I'm only commenting on the implications of the use of the word "undeniable".


Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Sep 26, 2013 at 9:46 am

C'mon, Mudge -- you're normally a pretty smart guy -- so why do you cling so desperately to such ridiculous skepticism about global warming? Does it not occur to you that the evidence is well-beyond a reasonable doubt by now, that most of the 99% of scientists who accept that evidence have no ax to grind, and that nearly all the deniers DO have $uch an ax?

What would you have to give up if you came out from the dark closet of the climate skeptics? It must be precious to you, but what will you tell your grandkids? I'll wager they will be a Lot more concerned about this issue than even the national debt!


Posted by Derek, a resident of Danville
on Sep 26, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Because CR knows it's always cool with his head in the sand.....


Posted by Farmer Dave, a resident of another community
on Sep 27, 2013 at 8:05 am

Farmer Dave is a registered user.

"Human influence on the climate system is clear."

"Warming in the climate system is unequivocal"

This is evident in most regions of the globe, a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes (9/27/2013).

Web Link


Posted by Danville Independent, a resident of San Ramon Valley High School
on Sep 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

Climate change inspires a lot of debate. It also inspires a lot of Climatologists to science! For me, there is no doubt that climate change is not only taking place, but it is the real danger facing us humans as we progress. The only question that remained in my mind was: is it caused by humans? Years ago I turned to the experts -

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (From the NASA website). Studying the topic further, one will find that 97% of the Climate Scientists in the world agree with this simple quote (which is good enough for ME!). I for one am looking forward to viewing, and listening to James Balog's presentation.


Posted by Derek, a resident of Danville
on Sep 27, 2013 at 12:53 pm

......and here is another for the Faux Nuus listeners that quotes a 95% certainty-

Web Link


Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Sep 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm

If you read my post carefully, you'll notice that I didn't say anything about whether or not global warming was occurring, nor did I comment on contributions to it from human sources, one way or the other. I WAS critical/skeptical of the idea that photos (still, time-lapse, or whatever) of ice melting represent "undeniable" evidence of anything.

If anything, proponents of manmade global warming should also be critical of what amounts to anecdotal evidence. The arctic ice in 2013 is some 60% greater than in 2012. I don't view this as "undeniable" evidence that long-term climate trends have changed. By the same token, the lower ice levels of 2012 shouldn't be viewed as being too significant, either, photos of polar bears on ice floes notwithstanding...

I find it semi-amusing that the increase in Arctic ice in 2013 has caused so much consternation amongst the IPCC folks, over how best to talk about what seems like a disconnect with the models.

In the end, all I'm really saying is to beware of anyone who is completely certain about climate change, even if there is now a "95% certainty" according to the IPCC. I am interested to learn more about how that confidence factor was calculated, actually. I don't doubt that the models say that the confidence factor is 95%. At least today's models.


Posted by Huh?, a resident of Danville
on Sep 28, 2013 at 10:19 am

CRM, the "consternation" among IPCC folks arises from the concern that there are lots of people who will willfully misinterpret data in order to advance an ideological agenda to deny scientific evidence of global warming. That the year with the lowest amount of Arctic ice on record would be followed by a year with more ice - but still far less than historical averages - was to be expected. There is nothing about that fact which is - in any way - inconsistent with AGW models, and anyone with an even slight understanding of the difference between signal and noise can see that without any effort. The fact that average annual minimum Arctic ice coverage for the past 7 years is 33% lower than the average for the late 20th century is, however, significant. (2013 is the 6th lowest on record.)

But there will always be folks who insist that the predictable partial retreat from the historic low constitutes "proof" that AGW theory is wrong. That is something that will cause consternation among reasonable people trying to avoid horrific consequences to our children and grandchildren.

The gullibility of people who grab onto the latest focus-group tested soundbite circulated by the multi-million dollar denial propaganda campaign is remarkable. I get that people have things they would prefer to be true, but the mental gymnastics they are capable of performing to justify their rejection of scientific knowledge - not all scientific knowledge, mind you, just scientific knowledge which threatens the short-term profits of some very rich people - is something which will cause consternation among the responsible adults left in the room.

Arch cynicism in the face of potentially devastating consequences is neither sophisticated nor admirable.


Posted by Derek, a resident of Danville
on Sep 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm

If you go back to Al Gore's film and watch it CRM (maybe you have already) there are two incredibly simple principles extolled: One is that the HUMAN CAUSED carbon output and it's concentration in our atmosphere directly - not anecdotally - parallels temperature increases on a graph that even a third grader can clearly understand.
Second, that we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment with the only ecosystem and atmosphere that we have.
Big Al jetting around on a fuel gulping aircraft while promoting this film was not very example-setting I'll grant you, but it does not change the facts.


Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of Danville
on Sep 30, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Derek,

Al Gore's movie - a good example of how to cherry-pick data and then craft ways of representing things to make the desired point.

Although I will agree that Gore IS a major-league hypocrite (in terms of his own environmental habits), what's worse is his cronyism and profiteering. Making profits is of course not bad. But the extent to which Gore has "leveraged" his political connections is truly astounding. Carbon credit brokering - quite the "opportunity"!


Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Sep 30, 2013 at 8:14 pm

You know, Mudge, the Second Amendment was Not passed to make it easy for you to just shoot the messenger. Fact is, Gore was right, so his opponents had to try a classic diversionary tactic. I do not give a rat's fat patoot about his individual so-called carbon use.

Because fact is, he was right. So put that in your pipe, but please don't smoke it -- leave that carbon sequestered for Al. He makes better use of it.


Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Sep 30, 2013 at 8:14 pm

You know, Mudge, the Second Amendment was Not passed to make it easy for you to just shoot the messenger. Fact is, Gore was right, so his opponents had to try a classic diversionary tactic. I do not give a rat's fat patoot about his individual so-called carbon use.

Because fact is, he was right. So put that in your pipe, but please don't smoke it -- leave that carbon sequestered for Al. He makes better use of it.


Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of Danville
on Sep 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm

Although my point bears repeating, I do not know why it posted twice -- sorry!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Anti-fracking folks rail against railroads
By Tim Hunt | 36 comments | 958 views

Moneyball, the Sequel: Billy Beane for President!
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 711 views

Spedowfski Announces run for Livermore City Council
By Roz Rogoff | 1 comment | 686 views

Be an Exhibitionist!
By John A. Barry | 5 comments | 284 views