Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 12/10/2009

Local exhibit showcases photos of climate change

By Ann Posegate

Wx and the City

* Windy and cold: Full Forecast | Slight Sunday snow risk *

MtHoodSet_GaryBraasch.jpg
Oregon's Mt. Hood in autumn of 1984 (left) and autumn of 2002 (right). The Portland region has experienced a two degree Celsius warming trend over the last Century, and the seven largest of Mt. Hood's eleven glaciers have each lost an average of 34 percent of their mass (source). Images copyright Gary Braasch/Earth Under Fire.

When it comes to documenting our changing planet, a picture is worth a thousand words. Climate Change In Our World, a new exhibit by award-winning environmental photojournalist Gary Braasch, proves this adage. As international discussions about climate change take place in Copenhagen this week and next, artistic presentations such as this serve an important role in educating the public.

The exhibit, hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in D.C., displays five-foot tall color photographs from Braasch's book Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming is Changing the World, along with captions describing the science behind them. The images educate viewers about climate change impacts to the world's ecosystems and show examples of human adaptation and solutions.

A companion exhibit, How We Know About Our Changing Climate: Learning and Taking Action on Climate Change, is a multimedia display for school groups and families. The exhibit features science and stories from the book How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming, by Braasch and author Lynne Cherry, as well as the film Young Voices on Climate Change, produced by Cherry.

These exhibits offer a scientific and artistic backdrop of global change for those following the conference in Copenhagen over the next several days. They are on display Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. through March 15, 2010 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science headquarters on 12th & H Streets in Northwest D.C.

See also Andrew Freedman's post about Braasch's work

By Ann Posegate  | December 10, 2009; 11:00 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Posegate, Wx and the City  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Sunny, blustery & cold weather arrives
Next: PM Update: Cold winds keep on blowing

Comments

Have you considered the possibility that those images are cherry picked for maximum alarmist effect?

http://www.mountainhikingholidays.com/johnblog/uploaded_images/Mt_Hood_11-23-2008-705370-717102.jpg

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Excluding land use, which clearly has an effect on local climate, how do you know that man can have any measurable impact on global climate?

So, assuming that pictures aren't cherry picked, how do you know that it isn't a natural process?

Did you know that according to a new study reported in Nature, the Mediterranean Sea was created/filled in less than two years?!?! Not the previously thought several thousands of years. How is that for a rapidly changing climate!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4d3eaceb94e76f30f9e2b75555025c27.3d1&show_article=1

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Q, that is a fascinating article, but if you read it you'll see that there is evidence that the quick surge of water into the Mediterranean Sea was likely caused by a tectonic shift (earthquake) which opened a channel through which water poured at velocity. The phenomenon had little to do with climate and a lot to do with shifting tectonic plates.

Why do people so violently protest these pictures?

My husband and I honeymooned in Grand Teton WY in 1990. We hiked to Lake Solitud, up in the Teton range that year. Five years later, we made the hike again for our anniversary. In 2005, we hiked there again, but slightly later in the season. I have pictures of the glaciers at Lake Solitude each year we visited (note we were there the same time of year, I have records to prove it). The glaciers are nearly gone in our last visit.

Posted by: angua1 | December 10, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

One thing that most people - even the non-paranoid who don't believe in a Great Climate Conspiracy involving thousands of scientists - underappreciate is how uneven climate change is. It's having its biggest effects first at the extreme lattitudes. Portland makes me think of that as it's somewhat further north. I imagine it's warmed there a bit more than the lattitude where we are?

That's doubly bad news for us. Because the melting of so much snow and ice causes a decrease in the earth's albedo (total reflectivity) which in turn drives more warming as the earth instead absorbs all that energy. Non-linear, snowballing effects like that can get out of hand pretty easily if we don't watch out. So when people say to themselves "oh, who cares about the polar regions, no one lives there!", they should. A lot. They are the canary in the coal mine for us. We're lucky, in a way, that we have them as an early warning system.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 10, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

One last thought. Glaciers are massive. They don't melt in one hot summer, and one really cold, wet winter won't regenerate ice that has been melting faster for decades. If you don't regularly visit these places, then you can keep your blinders on. But if you regularly visit these glaciers, you see the decline. I have pictures of the huge Glacier at Glacier National park on similar dates plus a few more summers. You could set the pictures out in a progressive row without having any idea what year the pictures were taken just by comparing the amount of melt. If these were isolated incidents, there would be little cause for concern. That people can now easily navigate the sea at the north pole should be alarming to anyone who is old enough to remember the old PBS nature shows with the old ice-breaking ships they used to try to sail through that straight. Progress was very slow and the ice was very thick - and it was summer - all the pictures and video are in daylight (it's dark there in winter).

Posted by: angua1 | December 10, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think Al Gore sat on Mt. Hood and it began to melt. He is full of hot air!

Posted by: stinkerflat1 | December 10, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

angua1,

And how do you know that man is to blame? How do you know it isn't natural?

If a plague had wiped man completely off the face of the Earth 100 years ago, can you guarantee me that the glacier(s) at Glacier National Park would not be melting? Can you?

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

angua1 wrote, "That people can now easily navigate the sea at the north pole should be alarming ..."

Do you have proof/video/link of people easily navigating the sea at the north pole? This is the first I have heard of this. I have heard of people trying and getting stuck in the ice. But I haven't heard of people successfully and easily navigating the sea at the north pole.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"And how do you know that man is to blame? How do you know it isn't natural?"

Well, perhaps we can start with physics, chemistry, meteorology, climatology, statistical analysis, empirical evidence...

Posted by: mcaicedo | December 10, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

mcaicedo wrote, "Well, perhaps we can start with physics, chemistry, meteorology, climatology, statistical analysis, empirical evidence..."

Please do start then. Prove it isn't natural. I'll wait.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Ann, the caption for your photo states, "The Portland region has experienced a two degree Celsius warming trend over the last Century, ..."

Is that two degree Celsius adjusted or raw? I've seen the games they play "adjusting" the temperature. Check out this animated gif showing the raw data vs the adjusted data.

And is if the temperature "adjustments" aren't bad enough, sometimes they just flat out make up station data! "Wang had committed fraud" (a direct quote from Tom Wigley of the CRU) and the so called scientists at CRU knew it. And they sat silent and allowed Wang's University to cover it up. Which makes them complicit in the fraud.

Pure, unadulterated fraud. And they used our tax dollars to do it!

They need to go to jail. It is an outrage that they are walking free.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Cherry picked pictures? From a left wing rag "reporting" global warming?

Has anyone bothered to look a picture of Mt Hood this autumn?

Here is one for starters:

http://www.salemdailyphoto.com/pics/autumn_mthood.jpg

Let poll the good folks in Iowa and Wisconsin today about the effects of "global warming."

What a joke!

Pathetic, even for the WAPO.

Posted by: ubimea | December 10, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

So Mr Q, please enlighten us on the natural phenomena that can explain the RAPID retreat/melting glaciers around the world and shrinking arctic sea ice cover??

How do you know is it NOT human caused given that you are so certain that is the case? There is solid evidence it is, so what's your evidence that it is not.

How come you haven't referred to the MSU satellite data now that it is once again showing global temperatures increasing? Such short term trends don't mean a whole lot, except for you when the trend is the other way. You are pretty good at what you decry, namely, cherry picking.

Nothing but direct answers to the questions will do. That should not be a problem from someone is sure of his case. I do not want to hear more criticism of why mainstream science has it all wrong, I want your evidence as to why you are right - beyond self righteous self assurance you have the truth and need not tell anyone what that is. I'm open minded, so convince me you have it right, not why mainstream science is wrong.

Posted by: SteveT-CapitalWeatherGang | December 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Ubimea, yes, it still snows on the mountain. So obviously, the glaciers can't possibly be shrinking. Congratulations, you've exposed the fraud.

Posted by: Brian-CapitalWeatherGang | December 10, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Mr Q, there is plenty of evidence out there. Educate youself. No one here can or will do it.

In the interest of discussion, read this (as well as the comments), there is more than meets the eye to "climategate."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/09/climate-gate-timeline/

Posted by: mcaicedo | December 10, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@Brian and Steve.
As we used to say on Usenet:
"YHBT, YHL, HAND"

See here for definitions:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/go01.html

Posted by: wiredog | December 10, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

SteveT,

I have NO DESIRE whatsoever to do ANYTHING at all that will impact you. I do not want any legislation that will control you or impact you in any way. None!

You and the alarmists want to make laws that will directly affect me and my family. The burden of proof is therefore on you.

Since you are here, perhaps you can answer a question -
What percentage of the alleged warming is man made and what percentage is natural?

Nothing but a direct answer to that very simple question will do. And please provide supporting documentation/study/proof of whatever percentage you claim.

I am open minded. Convince me you are right.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Just what I expected from Mr. Q!. Enough said.

Posted by: SteveT-CapitalWeatherGang | December 10, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

A non-answer from SteveT. Color me shocked.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Mr Q.:

Prove it is ONLY natural, without any impact from human activity... I'll wait...

In the meantime, please tone down your comments so they are not so condescending to anyone who may disagree with your opinion. I understand your point that no one knows, for sure, what the causes of the temperature trends are, and I agree there is no absolute evidence. I, however, think that there should be a productive discussion of the possible link between human activity and climate change, without going after the author of the comments for being less than intelligent. The tone of your comments, for the most part,(Notice how I am not being absolute) does nothing to foster discussion.

I have lurked on these discussions for quite a while, so I am referencing your body of work, not this discussion, exclusively.

Poking holes in other people's arguments is relatively EASY, so come to the table with your scientific evidence (proving your point of view, absolutely), or start a blog of your own and provide a link, so others may scrutinize your science.

I mean no personal disrespect. I feel your tone is not helpful in fostering discussion, and have noticed some complacency in your position (Sometimes, resting more on belief, than science). You have every right to challenge other's assumptions and assertions, but there is no need to be so darn snarky.

Posted by: dprats21 | December 10, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Steve T,

You have just proved Mr. Q's point. He asked for evidence of you position and you refuse to provide it. You assert that there is "solid evidence" that humans are the cause of global warming, yet you refuse to provide a shred of evidence that actually proves that. Mr. Q is right, the burden of proof is on you. If there is so much evidence to support your position, you shouldn't have a hard time presenting some of it.

Posted by: octopi213 | December 10, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

People need to stop feeding the trolls...

Posted by: wiredog | December 10, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

dprats21 wrote, "... without going after the author of the comments for being less than intelligent.

What are you talking about? I did no such thing.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

octopi213, have you seen this? The video is awesome!

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Brian, I can't tell if you are serious or sarcastic.

Glaciers form when winter snows do not melt during summer. The snow cover after a cold season snowstorm has little bearing on glacier coverage

Not withstanding the caption on the figure shown, the photographs were actually taken in August when winter snows had melted leaving an unobscured view of glaciers. The decline in actual glaciers is obvious.

"fraud"?? Please get real!

Posted by: SteveT-CapitalWeatherGang | December 10, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I realize that this has almost no chance of persuading anyone in the "Global warming is a myth" camp, but when Russia is sending military expeditions to the Arctic sea to lay claim to shipping routes because they predict less sea ice - it might be time to check other sources.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5989257.ece

Can I guarantee that this is man-made? No, because I don't have the access to data or educational background to say for certain. Just something to consider.

Also - the Northwest Passage IS open these days: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm

Posted by: wildwolf45 | December 10, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Since SteveT doesn't want to answer the question, I will open it up to any member of the CWG.

What percentage of the alleged warming is man made and what percentage is natural?

And as a bonus question -
If a plague had wiped man completely off the face of the Earth 100 years ago, what would the temperature trend of the Earth be today? Rising, falling, or flat?

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

@SteveT

I think it's abundantly clear Brian's being sarcastic...

Posted by: CapitalWeatherGang | December 10, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Intelligence nurtures an open mind and curiosity.

Regarding "educating the public", to quote Ann. Is this a completely unbiased mission? or an attempt to influence public opinion to support an agenda?

There seems to be suggestion that the two images reflect the effect of global warming from 1984 - 2002. Identical color and light resolution would be necessary for even snapshot comparison.

Will "educating the public" include the revelation of glacial advances and retreats for nearly as far back in time as mankind can reach?

Will "educating the public" reveal that precip. patterns and in the case of Mt. Hood, also the stage of the PDO are major contributing factors to glacier condition or extent?

Will "educating the public" reveal that the glaciers of Mt. Hood declined from 1901-1946, then advanced for 30 years until the mid 70's, during a cool wet period, then declined again for the next 25 years of dry and warmer weather?

Will "educating the public" reveal that the Mt. Hood glaciers probably reached a maximum about 18,000 years ago, then declined for 7,000 years? The USGS should be a trusted site:
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Hood/Glaciers/description_hood_glaciers.html


Curiosity is consuming me regarding these and other questions, for I am only interested in the truth, wherever that leads!

Posted by: AugustaJim | December 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"What are you talking about? I did no such thing.
Mr. Q"

Really? I have to explain this to you? I expected better from you, "q". No science, yet huh?

OK, see if you can follow...

Read the whole post and focus on the word condescend. Within the definition of condescend (go ahead and look it up, I'll wait) is the inference that you are superior to others (be it intellectually, morally, or whatever), therefore you do it all the time with your snarky, condescending tone. (And, now I have done the same to you, to make my point) Thus, the earlier post.

But really? No scientific proof? Just opinion and conspiracy theories? Show us your scientific proof that human activity has not impacted climate, at all. Better yet, prove to me that when you admitted local land use impacts local climate, it cannot be aggregated to a global level, thus a global impact.

AgustaJim makes his point without being snarky, and provided evidence for his point. Why can't you? Where's your science?

Methinks wiredog is right. Sorry, wiredog, I took the bait, twice.

Posted by: dprats21 | December 10, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Ann,

Have you looked at a temperature graph from a Greenland ice core? Would you please look at this graph of the last 5,000 years? Pretty please. Look where we are on that graph. Look how much warmer past temperatures were. Look how quickly the temperature changed. Current temperatures are nothing in comparison with past temperatures!

If you want the associated article that goes with the graph, you can find it here.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Q, There's that tone again. Can't make a point without condescending to someone?

So is your point that humans have no impact on climate, or that it doesn't matter, we're doomed in 100,000 years anyway? Or do you have no point, only criticism? That's the easy way out.

Where's your scientific evidence showing humans have not had any impact on climate?

Posted by: dprats21 | December 10, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

@AugustaJim -- You've raised many of the same questions I had in regards to the photo. Ann did not mention AGW, she merely mentioned "climate change." I think the photo and the issues raised in your post are both talking about climate change. Whether it's man made or not was not a subject of this post.

Further, since you've attacked only this post, please expound upon your views in regards to both climate change and anthropogenic global warming. Surely, since you claim to be interested in the truth, you would welcome a discussion of AGW throughout the world rather than cherry picking this post in regards to what is actually an art exhibit.

Posted by: druffk | December 10, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

druffk:
Thanks very much for your interest in my comments!

#1- your point about AGW not being a point of Ann's post......The book that all of this is based on "Earth Under Fire" ends with a "vision of how we can slow global warming". I ask, what does this say to you???? Think about it very carefully.

#2- I do not accept the premise that I have attacked this post. I have concerns and I am asking questions.

#3- Regarding my views, As I explained to Andrew several months ago, I do not believe that my personal views have any relevance, because I am a very small player in the overall picture. I will say that I have been disappointed in the nonsense exhibited by so-called experts on both sides of this issue, and I believe that the argument of the AGW proponents has been damaged, probably irreparably, by the revelations of the past few weeks. That is a fact of life.

#4- A discussion regarding AGW is already raging worldwide, and this is not a discussion about an "art exhibit". This is to again quote Ann: "educating the public" about "climate change"

If you relish evidence to support your preconceived mindset, that is fine, I am more interested in the truth. This illustration to enlighten, is sadly lacking.

I hope I have answered your questions or addressed your concerns. I think we both have questions that have never been asked!

Posted by: AugustaJim | December 10, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

The caption states, "The Portland region has experienced a two degree Celsius warming trend over the last Century, ..."

Ann wrote, "As international discussions about climate change take place in Copenhagen this week and next, artistic presentations such as this serve an important role in educating the public."
and
"The exhibit features science and stories from the book How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore GLOBAL WARMING, by Braasch and author Lynne Cherry ..." emphasis mine

druffk wrote, "Ann did not mention AGW, she merely mentioned "climate change.""

She didn't mention AGW, but she did reference a book about global warming.

This is one of my major complaints with the term "climate change". It is too ambiguous. If taken literally, it means almost nothing. It means the climate is changing. It is redundant. Of course the climate is changing. It has never been stagnant.

But I would argue that in today's vernacular "climate change" is synonymous with man made global warming. And I am fairly certain that 95% of the people attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen share that interpretation/definition. Do you disagree?

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 10, 2009 9:20 PM | Report abuse

The pictures are georgeous, a great collection. The discussion following the post is interesting. Lots of reference to retreating glaciers, and Glacier National Park is often brought up. I wonder how many people know why GNP is called Glacier National Park? It is not because of the current glaciers, receding or not. I have been going there almost every summer for about 30 years, with friends there who have been doing it for 50 years plus. Anyway, GNP is called that because of the unique formation of the park which was carved out by Glaciers of yore. The shape of the valley and peaks is a perfect example of how carving by Glaciers work over long periods of time. All those glaciers are gone, they have retreated and finally disappeared long before man played any role in Climate Change. Had we been able to take pictures of the transformation it would have looked extremely destructive to land, species, plants etc. The few remaining glaciers have been retreating for more than a hundred years. Yes it is sad to see the bare, muddy earth left behind. It looks baren and damaged, but actually it is what nature has done for thousands of years without man's help. Sea level has risen, waves have eaten away foundations of homes. If you go to Cannon Beach Oregon you can see huge movements of sand with the seasons, absolutely huge. Man has been trying to interfere in this natural wave driven process with all kinds of interventions, none have worked long term. Of course the movement of the sand, and the change of species as a result is exciting part of nature doing its thing. But some of the pictures of dead birds looks sad. Be well,

Posted by: 123andy | December 10, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Relax, Steve and everyone. The rancor on these boards always increases when a post even tangentially related to this subject is made, which seems unnecessary.
The twin fights to find out what is truly going on with our planet's climate, and if necessary to do something about it, will proceed as required without needing to prove anything at all to Mr. Q, Augusta Jim, or anyone else. Why? Because people, in the DC area and around the world, know how to think and observe and figure out motivations. They can take the arguments that both sides are providing and draw their own conclusion of which is right. And the majority eventually rules.
In politics, people never give up on their arguments, no matter how ridiculous they are. We happen to be going through a bit of a big patch of that in the US right now. For scientists, this probably seems a little stupid and unusual. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Just keep posting what you know, and relax. The truth, whatever it is, will work itself out.

Posted by: ward_9_from_outer_space | December 10, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

NASA is also refusing to comply with FOI requests.

--begin quote--
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
--end quote--

Source of the above quote and full article.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 12, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Q poses unanswerable questions and then (smugly) pronounces himself unconvinced. Out of what orifice did you pull that 95% number? I'll wait...

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 12, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade wrote, "Mr. Q poses unanswerable questions and ..."

Those questions are of paramount importance and directly related to this post from Ann.

How is that scientists can't answer those questions but they continually point to the current climate as if it is ALL MAN'S DOING? That's absurd to say the very least!

Consider just this one "unanswerable question" question that I posed -
"If a plague had wiped man completely off the face of the Earth 100 years ago, what would the temperature trend of the Earth be today? Rising, falling, or flat?"

If scientists can't answer that question, then how on Earth can people hold up photographs like those shown above and point to them as if they are evidence that we have done something to the climate?!?!

For all you and I know, the scenes depicted in those photographs would be identical to scenes that would be if man had been wiped off the face of the Earth 100 years ago!!!!!!

It is maddening that so many people fail to grasp this simple point!!!

Some guy/girl publishes an entire book on "climate change" and people hold that up as if it means that man is to blame for the change. It is absurd beyond belief!

Unless you can prove what the climate would be like if man had gone extinct over 100 years ago, then those photographs mean absolutely, frickin NOTHING. Is there any way I can make the point more clear or simple than that?

I am terribly sorry that so many "journalists" and politicians and scientists won't tell you what I just did. The fact that they won't is not my fault. Don't vent any anger at me if you feel deceived. It isn't my fault. I am just the one pointing out the deception.

Google "correlation does not equal causation".

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 13, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company