The farcical account of the Catlin Crew continues. You don’t even have to dig deep anymore to find as many holes in their stories as they say they are drilling. In addition to what Steve points out, our own “Charles the moderator” provided the video framegrab below, notice anything interesting? You can watch the Quicktime video showing how they do “drilling and measurement” on the Catlin website developer, Indigopapa.tv, is here .
In case you don’t see it, the answer for the clip above is at the end of the article. – Anthony
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Wednesday, 15 Apr 2009 12:39
The Catlin Arctic Survey has now released its first set of ice and snow thickness measurements, showing the floating sea ice cover it has travelled over in the early stage is predominantly new ice, with an average thickness of 1.77m. The findings were obtained by manual drilling and are currently being analysed by science partners.
Finding ‘First Year Ice’ in this part of the Ocean was not what the Ice Team had expected at this stage of a route chosen, in conjunction with science advisors, to begin in an area where there would be multi-year ice. It suggests that the older, thicker ice has either moved to a different part of the ocean or has melted. This First Year Ice will only have formed since September 2008 and, being thinner, is less likely to survive the annual summer thaw. It points to an ever-smaller summer ice covering around the North Geographic Pole this year.
We’ve noticed that the ice is older and thicker than before
The Catlin Arctic Survey has now released its first set of ice and snow thickness measurements, showing the floating sea ice cover it has travelled over in the early stage is predominantly new ice, with an average thickness of 1.77m.
At the other end of the measurement spectrum, NASA’s IceSat has made more than 1.9 billion ice measurements already this spring – with no hypothermia or frostbite.
ANSWER: The tape measure shows a red 7F marker. That’s 7 feet for our Euro and UK visitors. Now why would they measure in feet then convert to meters?:
“…with an average thickness of 1.77m” source: April 15 Catlin blog
when you can easily buy metric tape measures with calibration certificates in Great Britain?
I could be wrong, but I watched the video several times to see if I could see evidence of perhaps printing in English units one side and Metric on the other, I did not see any and I did several frame grabs. It looks to me as if one side is blank and the other printed only in Feet and Inches. It appears to me that the tape is translucent white, perhaps a cloth or vinyl tape which would be lighter than a steel one since they have gear carrying considerations to make.
Readers feel free to double check my observation and report in comments. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
the UK went metric in the 1970’s
Not entirely. We still buy beer in pints, measure distances in miles (and speed in mph) and announce baby weights in lbs and ounces! Also, the law used to prosecute a greengrocer for selling bananas by the pound has now been rescinded…
Even French markets sell things by the livre.
Serious questions for the polar explorers and ice measurement specialists among us — I assume there is an answer — just interested:
Given: I can understand some of the above posts indicating methods other than a “tape down a hole” to measure ice.
Using the simple tape measure shown, how do they “anchor” it to the underside of the ice to pull it tight and take an accurate measurement?
Is the underside of the ice “smooth” or “rough” (i.e. at constant depth in a given location — or variable)?
Is it possible that the picture is just for PR and they use a different (more accurate) method than the one shown?
I really don’t know it humans are impacting on the climate but I have a very great antipathy to “the science is settled brigade”. I know squat about the Catlin Institute but I do wish the science on both sides could be fairly and fully presented so that there is sufficient evidence on which to form opinions. It does seem as if these adventurers are working to some pre-conceived agenda but those on blogs like RealClimate (from where I’m banned) will spruik and carry on as thought this were the equivalent of finding the holy grail. It’s all a bit scientifically disappointing
@Benjamin P. (02:34:39) :
“This is becoming a bit obsessive?”
Not a bit. It’s pure comedy that flirts with the edges of a real tragedy.
Even the “Best Science Blog” has to take a break from discussing science every now and then, ’cause fer sure, the Catlin Arctic Survey isn’t science.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic of their measures, I would think they’d do a little something akin to gage R & R. I’d love to see the data that would be produced by each of the three team members measuring the same hole several times each.
1.77m, indeed. Hrumph!
Crosspatch, …
a pity that all your wonderfull equipment and your camera on the Pole will sink to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean when there’s no more ice, but just water, in a few weeks …
🙂
tallbloke (00:16:35) : Probably 69 and 57/64″
254 millimetres = one inch. 7 feet = 84 inches. 254 X 84 = 2133.6 millimetres or 2.13 metres. They claim the average ice thickness is 1.77 metres which converts to 69.68 inches or fractionally 1/2 inch over 5 feet 9 inches, using a floppy tape measure. How reliable is that?
This has to be more evidence that hypothermia is sapping the Catlin crew brain cells.
Benjamin P. (02:34:39) : “This is becoming a bit obsessive?”
What! Don’t you like us being accurate seekers of what’s going on?
We are sticklers for accuracy, we are.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
Internal temperature is minus 83 degrees Centigrade! Does that mean inside the camera?
Perry
Allen63:
The bottom of the ice is rough:
http://peterbrueggeman.com/nsf/gallery/gallery14.html
If the ice is as thin as the Catlin team claim does that mean that there is no danger of a catastrophic rise in sea level?
Or has it already happened?
I think the tape measure says “Visit Wall Drugs, Since 1931” on the back.
Granted my experience in measuring ice thickness is the personnel experience of chucking rocks and seeing if they go through and watching Ice Road Truckers, but it would be nearly impossible to measure the thickness with a tape measure even a steel one. You would have to stick a rod with a right angle bracket on the end down the hole and bring it back up until it catches on the edge, mark the spot on the rod and measure the distance once you have it on the surface, or have a marked rod. On Ice Road Truckers they drag a RADAR sled behind the truck to measure the ice and stop on occasion to drill a hole for calibration. I think the expedition was intended to use the same technique just a much slower and labour intensive version of it. But even then they should have brought a proper measuring stick, even a nice light aluminum or magnesium or maybe even carbon fiber if they were worried about the weight.
LOL! When hatching this scheme, I doubt that it ever occurred to them that there would be so many critical eyes on them, particularly once peoples’ suspicions became aroused, nor did it probably occur to them that once caught in the act of fibbing, nothing they did would be taken at face value. This reminds me of the videos of incredibly stupid criminals.
Catlin and its “expedition”, like Lewis Pugh’s ill-famed “expedition” have become a laughingstock, and just another big black eye for AGW “science”.
H.R. (04:32:59) :
Even the “Best Science Blog” has to take a break from discussing science every now and then, ’cause fer sure, the Catlin Arctic Survey isn’t science.
Sadly science rarely makes an appearance here these days!
Leif tries to put across science, but then has to repeat the same critique of anothers theory many times, and occasionaly gets abused for his efforts.
No one in this thread has shown the date/time/location for the clip. It is not on the Catlin site yet people are still trying to work out the sun angle or whether a metric/imperial ruler was used.
H.R. (04:39:46) :
Oh, and while we’re on the topic of their measures, I would think they’d do a little something akin to gage R & R. I’d love to see the data that would be produced by each of the three team members measuring the same hole several times each.
Perhaps the measurement is averaged over a number of holes? A single hole will measure the depth of ice at that point. 2mm away it could be different – a “gage R&R” would prove little, nor would it give a better idea of the depth in a particular area. If the Radar had worked then perhaps a profile of the underside of the ice could be drawn. Failures unfortunately occur.
Grant Hodges (03:30:09) :
… if they say they drilled them with a hand powered augur. Then I would like to know how long they say it took them to drill 7 foot deep ice holes. …
They spend 4 hours a day drilling according to the web site
A picture of ice drill in use is here from 2008 seems to have rigid and flexible measures.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science
clearly, the tool with which Pen is drilling is provided by Mora of Sweden … http://www.moraofsweden.se
“The Mora Nova ice drill is providing answers to global warming questions.
Mora of Sweden are providing all the scientific drilling equipment for the Catlin Arctic Survey. The 5-metre long Ice Augers are a vital tool in gathering the ice-thickness measurements.”
does anyone of our Northerly situated readers has any experience with this equipment ? and if so, how long does it take to drill say 0.5m or 1.0m of ice ?
thanks beforehand …
Catlin = AGW = scam.
If I had to drill holes in a hypothermic state through ice at -40C after a long day hauling a 100kg sledge, I suspect that I might look for the thinnest places to drill, in order to minimize my work.
Thanks to B Kerr for his reference to the Catlin Educational resources page. I see from this that ” they walk across and swim through the Arctic sea ice”.
So that’s how the really get the ice thickness – no auger – they swim through the ice with the end of the tape gripped between their teeth and stop when they get to the bottom of the ice!
I would of thought that they would use a weighted whistle that when it reaches water a whistle sounds and read off the measurement from a tape. This is the method I have used for measuring depth to bore water.
I think someone should question why the Catlin team is not using the “sonar” device that they originally planned to use. Perhaps it was giving them data which they didn’t like? (i.e. thicker ice than they hypothesized).
REPLY: Maybe you missed it, but it failed early on in the expedition. – Anthony
Steven Goddard (05:46:03) :
…I suspect that I might look for the thinnest places to drill, in order to minimize my work.
Why would you drill on top of an ice ridge – this would not be valid. Unfortunately not everone has eyes capable of measuring ice thickness as you imply you have in your rather silly comment. How will they chose the thinnest ice. (drill near a lead I suppose you will say)
alex verlinden (05:36:01) :
“The Mora Nova ice drill …does anyone of our Northerly situated readers has any experience with this equipment ? and if so, how long does it take to drill say 0.5m or 1.0m of ice ?
Look at the video you can gage how fast it penetrates.
The obvious way to measure such a hole is to use a rod that’s longer than the hole is wide. Drop it vertically in with a rope attached to one end, haul it up by the tape attached to the center so it spans the hole. Measure and slack the tape and pull it out vertacally by the rope. Since they haven’t mentioned this, I take it they aren’t doing it.
The bottom of the ice is well below the water-level in the hole, I see no attempt to measure that, nor any equipment capable of taking the measurement. They describe their misery, presumably accurately, which simply does not tally with the holes drilled and measured.
I’d be delighted if the expedition HQ were to explain the methodology of the bore-hole measurement with particular reference to the depth of water in the bore-hole, obviously a photo from this expedition of the process would be useful.
Otherwise one must assume the bore-hole data is at least partially faked
“The findings were obtained by manual drilling and are currently being analysed by science partners.”
Anyone know who these “science partners” are?