They say a picture is worth a thousand words right? Depending on what you are trying to present, that picture can make or break any presentation.
So it was with great interest that I noticed this picture in the article from the UK Telegraph with this alarming title:
Climate change is ‘faster and more extreme’ than feared
Arctic sea-ice in September 1979 and 2007, showing the biggest reduction since satellite surveillance began. Photo: Fugro NPA Ltd
Hmmm…right below it there was a link to the World Wildlife Fund, and in the body of the article, was the source of this “news” story.
WWF’s report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC’s forecasts.
I didn’t realize that the WWF was a scientific organization, and that they could update the data and conclude our current situation worse that findings of the IPCC. How stupid of me to not pay attention to this.
CNN also picked up this WWF press release. See CNN’s story here.
Maybe WWF should “update” their findings with this picture from 2008:
Click for a larger image direct from the source
Yes a picture is worth a thousand words, isn’t it? For those of you that visit these other blogs, be sure they see this updated picture and send my regards. While you are at it, ask them at the Telegraph to provide the source data and methodology for the creation of the two images used in the report. They look more like artist renderings than data based 3D models. The images were not part of the WWF report.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmm, I just have one word to say…
PHOTOSHOP!!!!!
I would agree on the photoshop, just by looking at the small details, like some of the channels and pennisulas in the ice, they have remarkebly not changed at all in the near 30 years between photos.
You can compare ice extent in the Arctic for any two given dates from 1979 at the Cryosphere site of Univ of Illinois.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t they screaming about global COOLING in the late 1970’s?
I can certainly see how they were just as easily mislead back then as they are now.
it even appears from the Cryosphere picture that the ice near the pole is thicker (i.e., the color is more purple) than it was in 1979. i guess they wouldn’t have had much of an argument if they had used the 2008 data!
MVosters may be on to something.
Photoshop is just not THAT accurate. But then neither are the satellite data interpretations.
Maybe William Chapman uses Paint Shop Pro?
For those who are interested they could follow Wilson Flood’s advice, have a look at the Cryosphere today web site and assess what they see, then contact Dr. Chapman and ask him which program he uses. Clearly the lack of changes in the 30 year period – Greenland is still WHITE for heavens sake – shows a worrying lack of attention to detail.
Of course if this was an image from a fully interactive Google Earth type system we could fly down and see if WWF have got any tour groups at Churchill feeding the Polar Bears at this time. See the WWF travel web site for further information. Looks like they go to some really interesting places but I suspect the Carbon Indulgence payments they promote are compulsory.
could not resist and make a diff of the two images. 1979 it is only moved right and scaled horizontal to match. Diff means pixels are subtracted and if equal it will show black.
I wonder why the world can be such equal at arbitrary points in time…
I appreciate this site – thanks a lot to all contributors
I’ll be VERY surprised if the “photo” from 1979 isn’t just the 2007 photo photoshopped.
“Summer sea ice is now forecasted to completely disappear in the summer months sometime between 2013 and 2040 — something which hasn’t happened for over a million years.”
FORCASTED!!
Perhaps they should just learn English before they attempt science!
Dave.
I wonder how it is that there is apparently no trace of cloud to be seen in either picture. This would seem to point some sort of ‘adjustment’ of the images. If The Telegraph is so confident of its position perhaps it would like to comment?
James Hansen sets up his modeled prediction in 1988 containing a 1.1° C rise in 20 years. On the anniversary of his testimony to Congress the UAH MSU data showed that it was actually cooler in 2008 than when the testimony was first given.
How is it that WWF can conclude climate change is “faster, stronger, sooner”? They have set themselves up for some severe embarrassment.
Well I’ve noticed that the summers are way warmer than the winters so there must be something to this.
You will recall that 1975/6 was when there was all the talk about a devastating ice age in ten years; so it is not surprising that the 1979 ice was very advanced,
No fair comparing a most advanced situation with a most retracted. Ok we expect it has been warming coming out of the last ice age, and it will go up and down, but 1979 was just the start ofthe polar satelite age. Who knows what it looked like in 1975/6
WWF? World Wrestling Federation?
WWF are basically a campaining/ fundraising organisation. Like Oxfam they have been around for a long time and seem to assume this gives them some sort of gravitas
It might do in the provision of aid to wildlife or people but it means very little when they prognosticate on climate change. As RC might say, how many peer reviewed scientific papers has each organisation ever produced?
Maybe they mean “World Wrestling Federation”?
I graduated from high school in 1977 and they were teaching us the next ICE AGE coming! 1978 was very cold as well.
I have no idea why this game is being played out, it must have something to do with global energy somehow. It has nothing to do with just CO2.
thanks,
Steve
Can I suggest that followers of “Global Warming”, “Climate Change” or what ever jargon you prefer to believe, read Christopher Booker’s regular aricles in The Telegraph each Sunday. He seems to have access to more facts about this subject and will enlighten you regarding the Polar ice caps, nuclear power, CO2, and wind farms. He will also show you how much effort and money is wasted by our politicians who have little understanding of the subject and are using it as a spring board to gain votes and keep the “greens” happy.
If the Arctic sea ice is on the mend and its September extent slowly increases over the next several years, I expect to see that 2007 photo {or something comparable} for many years to come. Much like the AGW proponent who speaks of climbing temperatures and, if temperatures don’t cooperate, moves the start point on a temperature graph back to the 19th century.
Just more journalism science.
BTW, just look and compare the snow cover {or is that cloud cover} on the landmasses in the two photos. Sloppy work.
“We Want Funds” ?
They have no shame nor any regards for wildlife. WWF is designed to solicting funds by splashing the most cuddily creatures or scary scenarios in front of the most guilt ridden society. The fact they fudged a pic to fill their coffers matters not a bit.
@Thomas Gough,
These pictures are almost certainly computer generated, based on the ice extent data.
That was photoshopped. Take a look at the crystalline pattern between Greenland and the Arctic Ice Sheet. The pattern is identical. Everywhere you look where there is still ice and not the blue, identical ice patterns. For ice that has been thawed, melted and refrozen for almost 30 years that is darn near miraculous. The snow cover on Greenland shows the identical pattern. Wasn’t it supposed to melting like crazy. Where is the new island uncovered by global warming?
I have visited the site of the UK Telegraph and read the comments!
I think that they will think twice before publishing any other climate related article.
WWF have lost part of their budget when a certain Iceland bank went bust.
They sell IPCC data multiplied by a factor three to really scare people.
They should be saving primates.
Steve,
Energy runs the global economy. He who controls the economy, controls everything. If increasing energy usage is deemed to be “bad” somehow, then that opens it up to taxation and wealth redistribution. It also allows governments to funnel tax dollars away from “bad” energy producers (read “coal, nuclear, etc.”) and toward “good” energy producers (read “wind, solar, etc.”). Finally, if the energy supply is rationed and the weather turns colder, people will become more dependent upon the government than ever before. Government can then swoop in and “solve” the problem they created.
CO2 is the innocent bystander that becomes the target of the “frame up”. Unfortunately, in all end-of-the-world hoopla, the actual benefits of increased CO2 levels get overlooked…..very sad.
Thanks, ‘Martin’.
Your pixel difference picture shows, at the very least, that the edges of the snow/ice in the 1979 picture were altered and smoothed with what appears to be an airbrush technique (bottom-right quadrant of 1979 picture). Contrast that with the well-defined edges at the bottom of the 2007 ice sheet picture.
Then, look at the airbrushed bottom edges on Martin’s difference picture. The left-side of the bottom edge looks airbrushed and smooth. It is difficult to conceive of why the 1979 photo was altered for any reason other than to increase the ice sheet disparity with the 2007 picture. Next time, they’ll probably photoshop in thousands of drowning and starving polar bears (with the starving polar bears being eaten alive by the ravenous cannibal polar bears 🙂
BTW, Martin, what software did you use to examine the pixel difference?
My first response was about the ridiculous title and premise based on the hard data. However, after looking carefully at the images and the notion of them being “PhotoShopped” I don’t think we can really jump to conclusions. At first glance, the snow and ice extent on shore in the two images (1979 and 2007) looks remarkably (read: exactly) the same. This might lead one to conclude that one of the two images was PhotoShopped and based on the other. However, when one looks at the Univ. of Illinois Cryosphere Today animations, the snow and ice extent on shore doesn’t change either. I suspect the ice extent is based on data not on an actual satellite image. One satellite composite image was probably used as the base image upon which the sea ice extent data was animated. If this is true, we shouldn’t expect the land ice and snow to show up in these images as that is not interest of the Cryosphere folks.