During the 2006/2007 Austral Summer research season, Werner Herzog came to Antarctica under the auspices of the NSF's artists and writers program. This program is a PR tool to help the good folks back home understand what their hard-earned tax dollars are paying for. Programs such as this have helped government agencies secure funding for as long as there has been a government.
Late in the 07/08 research season, a copy of Herzog's documentary, entitled "Encounters at the End of the World" made it to McMurdo for a screening - in fact, several screenings to ensure that everyone who wanted to watch it got a chance. After having become somewhat emotionally invested in the film and its quality, I was excited to finally be able to get a chance to see it. Of course after the on-ice premier the film was the centerpiece of most mealtime conversations. It took me a while to form an opinion on the film. It's sort of like when you buy something for a lot of money and you immediately realize that it's a piece of crap - but admission to that reality is undesirable so you go on telling yourself that your purchase was sound. No, I didn't enjoy the movie.
Marsha, having gone to film school and forced to endure hours of film, was a Herzog fan and was very excited that he was coming to Antarctica. On the day he arrived she went to the building where arriving passengers first go to meet him. To paraphrase, his first comments were about the sun, the warm temperatures and the ATM. He had his mind made up about what Antarctica was after only spending a few hours there. And his film reflected that.
With preconceived notions Herzog defaulted to the M.O. for which he is famous. After all, it's never been about the place for him, and he's been to some amazing places. It's always been about people - or as he said it himself "truth in cinema". He immediately sought out the egomaniacs among us. He found a community full of Kinskies and Treadwells, people who like Herzog himself completely buy into the legend of themselves. He singled these folks out, interviewed them and in typical fashion, interjected his own opinions over theirs.
I've seen a couple of reviews for "Encounters" some seem to be a bit patronizing but this one - in the Austin Chronicle is about the most accurate and best reflects this particular film. That's to say that, like the film itself, the review really doesn't say much. It's packed with a lot of words and descriptions but really has no substance.
My opinion of "Encounters" is that it came off like the family vacation slideshows you had to endure at the neighbors house when you were young. While it was refreshing to see footage of the people behind the science rather than another penguin movie - the film was, at best, a mish mash of several different ideas, none of which really made much sense and had no relationship with any other part of the movie. There just didn't seem to be a point.
Mr. Herzog was delightful to be around and surprisingly unpretentious. He did have an overall positive impact on the McMurdo community, save those who thought him invasive. He hosted a screening of Freaks, a 1932 film made by an undereducated circus performer. He also hosted a screening of his unreleased (at the time) "Rescue Dawn" which I did think was a wonderful film.
He also found time to play a role in this masterpiece - originally shot for the 2007 McMurdo Film Festival and featuring not only Werner Herzog but also 2/3 of the crew on the other film being shot that same season - Ice People. Without further adieu - the Internet premier of Chickenman:
7/15/08
Global Warming - I don't know and neither do you
Wherever I go, as soon as I mention that I work in Antarctica, people always immediately assume that I'm a researcher of some sort. Perhaps it's the 'mad scientist' look that I have adopted - or rather defaulted to out of a lack of caring. People also always assume, even after I set them straight that I'm no researcher, that I'm some sort of global warming expert. Even though the election and the economy have top billing right now in the news headlines, global warming lurks right below the surface. For all the articles that have been written and all the stories that have been broadcast, I remain rather skeptical. I'm not skeptical that the polar icecaps are shrinking - they are, there is quantifiable proof that that is happening, though there are isolated instances of advancing glaciers. 
I'm also a firm believer that the inhabitants of earth should strive to reduce our carbon emissions - it certainly can't hurt. What I am skeptical about (I'm sure I'll be the unpopular one now...being paid by science's dime and all)...erhem, what I am skeptical about is what science really knows. Policy in the U.S. has been steered by scientific "fact" in the past - then when a shift in policy is needed, the "facts" are either disproved or otherwise discredited. The most glaring example being eugenics which was a popular notion in the late 1800's and well into the 20th century. Scientific facts were stated to bolster the movement and eventually the Supreme Court of the U.S. even upheld laws that favored eugenics as being constitutional - all based on scientific evidence. When the time came to attack Adolf Hitler though, we had to paint him as villainous as possible - we'd seem like quite the hypocrites if we attacked him for his own eugenics program while still practicing our own.
Remember the periodic table of elements that you had to memorize in high school science class? Since 1994 six new elements have been discovered. What sort of an impact does this have on previous science? There used to be 9 planets in our solar system, then 10, now 8. Here Charlie Brown, kick this football, I swear I'll hold in place THIS time.
From the April 28th, 1975 edition of Newsweek:
Back to the melting polar icecaps - the time that humans have lived on earth only represents a tiny fraction of the time the earth has existed. The time that we have been keeping records of temperature on earth is but a tiny fraction of the time humans have existed. We can certainly show a warming trend based on 200 years of data(regional warming & land use warming are huge contributors to this), but we have absolutely no clue on a larger time scale. That said, there is evidence that vast expanses of the earth have periodically been covered in ice. This ice melts. The smaller the ice sheets get, the faster they melt. Same thing happens when you put an ice cube in a glass of water - it melts faster as it gets smaller. Are the shrinking polar icecaps really something to be alarmed about? Species are losing habitat as a result and could likely become extinct. Tragic, sure, but over 90% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. This is the nature of things. It seems to me that evolution's main goal is to create life that adapts to and then consumes its environment. Of course then it seems that the evolutionary process will destroy itself at some point - and maybe it will.
Cynical as it may seem, my opinion is that science will prove what science is paid to prove. Currently there's a lot of funding for global warming - but the NSF's budget is being cut so severely that I may have to hitchhike home; I have to wonder if "global warming" will fall out of vogue.
I'm also a firm believer that the inhabitants of earth should strive to reduce our carbon emissions - it certainly can't hurt. What I am skeptical about (I'm sure I'll be the unpopular one now...being paid by science's dime and all)...erhem, what I am skeptical about is what science really knows. Policy in the U.S. has been steered by scientific "fact" in the past - then when a shift in policy is needed, the "facts" are either disproved or otherwise discredited. The most glaring example being eugenics which was a popular notion in the late 1800's and well into the 20th century. Scientific facts were stated to bolster the movement and eventually the Supreme Court of the U.S. even upheld laws that favored eugenics as being constitutional - all based on scientific evidence. When the time came to attack Adolf Hitler though, we had to paint him as villainous as possible - we'd seem like quite the hypocrites if we attacked him for his own eugenics program while still practicing our own.Remember the periodic table of elements that you had to memorize in high school science class? Since 1994 six new elements have been discovered. What sort of an impact does this have on previous science? There used to be 9 planets in our solar system, then 10, now 8. Here Charlie Brown, kick this football, I swear I'll hold in place THIS time.
From the April 28th, 1975 edition of Newsweek:
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Back to the melting polar icecaps - the time that humans have lived on earth only represents a tiny fraction of the time the earth has existed. The time that we have been keeping records of temperature on earth is but a tiny fraction of the time humans have existed. We can certainly show a warming trend based on 200 years of data(regional warming & land use warming are huge contributors to this), but we have absolutely no clue on a larger time scale. That said, there is evidence that vast expanses of the earth have periodically been covered in ice. This ice melts. The smaller the ice sheets get, the faster they melt. Same thing happens when you put an ice cube in a glass of water - it melts faster as it gets smaller. Are the shrinking polar icecaps really something to be alarmed about? Species are losing habitat as a result and could likely become extinct. Tragic, sure, but over 90% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. This is the nature of things. It seems to me that evolution's main goal is to create life that adapts to and then consumes its environment. Of course then it seems that the evolutionary process will destroy itself at some point - and maybe it will.
Cynical as it may seem, my opinion is that science will prove what science is paid to prove. Currently there's a lot of funding for global warming - but the NSF's budget is being cut so severely that I may have to hitchhike home; I have to wonder if "global warming" will fall out of vogue.
7/7/08
Purty Lights:
One of our own was featured at Space Weather for his superior efforts as a shutterbug. On July 5th there was an outstanding Aurora display and Dana was there to capture in on - well, not film, but the digital equivalent. The featured photo (shamelessly hotlinked):
Jupiter looms brightly in the sky above the South Pole Telescope during this magnificent Auroral display
I don't understand all the science behind it all, but the article at space weather explains that these auroras were fueled by the interplanetary magnetic field tipping south which opened a crack in earth's magnetosphere and allowed solar wind to pour in - sure is pretty. I guess before I came down, I aspired to take some photos of my own of the aurora Australis - and I have managed a few, but when temps are below -70 the idea is much less appealing not to mention that cameras operate at quite a bit less than peak efficiency in those temps. Fingers used to press shutter release buttons don't fare much better.
Antarctic Treaty Meeting
Each year the 46 (?) member nations of the Antarctic treaty have a meeting to discuss the future of the treaty and compliance of the same. Lots of interesting topics are discussed. Of special interest to me is the United States' management plan of the South Pole Station. I intended on summarizing it here, but - well, maybe it isn't so interesting after all. If you can navigate the site you can find it here or, for a better look at it, check out Bill's unofficial South Pole Station web site.
Jupiter looms brightly in the sky above the South Pole Telescope during this magnificent Auroral display
I don't understand all the science behind it all, but the article at space weather explains that these auroras were fueled by the interplanetary magnetic field tipping south which opened a crack in earth's magnetosphere and allowed solar wind to pour in - sure is pretty. I guess before I came down, I aspired to take some photos of my own of the aurora Australis - and I have managed a few, but when temps are below -70 the idea is much less appealing not to mention that cameras operate at quite a bit less than peak efficiency in those temps. Fingers used to press shutter release buttons don't fare much better.
Antarctic Treaty Meeting
Each year the 46 (?) member nations of the Antarctic treaty have a meeting to discuss the future of the treaty and compliance of the same. Lots of interesting topics are discussed. Of special interest to me is the United States' management plan of the South Pole Station. I intended on summarizing it here, but - well, maybe it isn't so interesting after all. If you can navigate the site you can find it here or, for a better look at it, check out Bill's unofficial South Pole Station web site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)