Note: One of the many integrity issues with Catlin is that none of their photos can be dated. Even embedded EXIF information (including date/time done by most digital cameras in use today) has been removed from gallery photos on the website. For all we know this photo above they included in their just released report could have been taken during training. The high photographic angle suggests the photographer was standing on something, but what? Further, no raw data is offered in their first report, we are expected to take it on faith I suppose. Given their admittedly fraudulent biometric readings, and lack of candor on their ice radar, how can we trust anything they publish? So far for a “science” mission I remain unimpressed with the effort or the transparency. – Anthony
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Catlin Report Confirms that Satellite Data is Accurate
Catlin just came out with their first ice report (PDF)
The ice thickness measurements that Pen and the team have been able to phone in imply that they are travelling over predominantly thick first‐year ice. Satellite imagery of the area, especially passive microwave imagery (e.g. AMSR and QuikScat data), indicates the area is indeed covered primarily with first‐year ice and a scattering of multi‐year ice floes.
The report summary is :
The results collected in the first month of the Catlin Arctic Survey point to an unexpected lack of thicker Multiyear Ice.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent.png
This begs the question – why were they expecting multi-year ice, when satellite data showed otherwise? As reported on WUWT, NSIDC data from February showed their route map starting on first year ice.
If they were looking for older ice, there were many obvious (and shorter) routes they could have chosen. What made them choose this route, which was apparently too long to be completed and which started on first year ice?
Most of the report is regurgitated satellite data, but there are a couple of particularly interesting items:
One further consideration, when interpreting the ice thickness measurements made by the CAS team, is navigational bias. The team systematically seeks out flatter ice because it is easier to travel over and camp on.
and
The ice thickness measurements that Pen and the team have been able to phone in imply that they are travelling over predominantly thick first‐year ice.
In conclusion:
- They seek out “flat” (implying thinner and younger) ice
- They planned on being on multi-year ice, even though the satellites showed that their route is on first year ice.
- The first year ice they are on is “thick.”
- Their measurements agree closely with satellite data.
In other words, they could have been home enjoying a pint in sunny England, and waited to see what happens to the ice this summer.
Expedition Leader Pen Hadow who remembers feeling angry a few days into the expedition because he felt that, between expeditions, his memory had tricked him over the cold.
“Although I’ve been here before, I wasn’t able to hold the memory of just how uncomfortable, in an almost surreal sense, it really is”, he says. “When you’re warm, at home, you can tell yourself how awful it’s going to be, but when you get here, the shock of it hits you all over again and you really can’t believe you’ve allowed yourself to go through it again“.
Pub garden during the hot summer of 2007
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is a little strange they put out what should be thought of as a formal “report” and didn’t include any actual data in it other than an illustration that contains some numbers that one can’t actually read.
According to the report, the sea ice is going to melt very fast this summer and, in future summers as well, and global warming is the obvious cause – that is the “impression” that one is supposed to take away from the report.
But like always, I say show me the actual numbers because every time I look into the actual numbers, I find nothing but significant exageration in the reports and in the abstracts – designed to leave a non-factual “impression” on the reader.
Why is it so hard to “prove” something that they consider to be so clear and so obvious? It supposed to be the definition of an “easy proof”.
But what we are given is just words. Facts speaks louder than words.
Please strike this sentence: “Hence, the rate of heat transfer must vary logartihmically with ice thickness.”
Rate of heat transfer goes inversely with ice thickness. Period.
Wouldn’t they have to spend time purposely disabling any embedded time-stamping on the digital imagery? If so, why? The time of “exposure” would be important for myriad reasons, if this is indeed in pursuit of science. To quote General “Buck” Turgedson from Dr. Strangelove; “Mr. President, I’m beginning to smell a big fat commie rat!”
😉
The cold from the Arctic Circle caused record cold last week in the United States. I am looking forward to watching the summer melt of Arctic ice. Will it surpass 2008 melt?
USA record cold ref :
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,snow
Gary: I used AstroArt 3.0 to apply an Exponential stretch, then ran the lower histogram stretch up (black level) until I could clearly see the shadow coming off the drill. The light source is coming from the left, and a little bit (15 deg) towards us.
I gave the shadow a generous 40 degree angle assuming foreshortening as the end of the shadow (drill top) lies away from the camera.
From this site: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html
I examined the 3 pics you see at the top of the page.
Even in the latest foggy image, the RGB values are all nearly identical with Blue slightly subdued.
On the sunny day images, out in the sun the ice shows equal RGB. In the shadows, the RGB is the same as the Pen Hadlow holding drill image, Red is most subdued, Blue is higher value.
The shadows are consistent with the dates of April 10 & 12 for the NOAA pics.
So, it is possible, but I cannot confirm that the Pen Hadlow image was taken @ur momisugly 60N latitude.
Whomever stated that the image is from the air is correct: I can find no horizon in the Pen Hadlow image, but I can get it on the NOAA Arctic StarDot NetCam Sun Apr 19, 143324 2009 image by Exponential stretch in AstroArt 3.0.
deepslope 18:33:43
Yes, it is the need for the alarmists to lie that is most disturbing. I understand why journalists disseminate untruths; they are interested in drama. I understand why politicians support the lies; they are interested in power. But why must people purporting to be scientists lie like this? It’s very corrupt, and can not stand.
However, these jokers aren’t fooling everybody. Did you see the link to William Connolley’s blog in the last thread, where he ridicules this effort?
===========================================
“Steven Goddard (14:41:34) : probably wish they were at the golf course or someplace else green – like Colorado.”
Funny Steven Goddard! Some locations under that storm yesterday got 50+ inches.
“jorge c. (14:45:06) : please read what william connolley says in his blogs”
Connolley says this there :
“…Catlin Arctic Survey. Why are they doing this? Mostly because it is fun, and you can earn your keep doing it.”
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/04/wandering_across_the_arctic.php
I wonder if William Connolley is earning his “keep” from all of his butchering of Wikipedia?
INGSOC (19:17:07) :
The NOAA Arctic StarDot Netcam has it’s origin, date & time printed right on it.
They hide nothing, and they get the credit for the image.
And the images are 1024 x 576, the X axis being quite normal.
OT: Keep an eye on STEREO, we might have a spot group coming into view soon.
The shadows in the webcam pics from the NOAA are certainly a lot longer than the shadow cast in Pen’s picture: click
So Pen Hadow’s photo must have either been taken at a different time of year, or at a different latitude.
If there’s something I’m missing in this conclusion, please tell me.
“kim (19:20:07) : However, these jokers aren’t fooling everybody. Did you see the link to William Connolley’s blog in the last thread, where he ridicules this effort?”
Thanks – yes it’s quite impressive, given his track record…
Smokey – I estimate the shadow in the picture shows a latitude of around 20 -30N.
I have Google Sketchup pro where you can input the exact location and it casts shadows. To get a shadow that short I needed to reduce the latitude to 20N at noon.
Now they say they were not expecting mostly first-year ice ice, but when they started they expected 80% first year ice:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Cold (save a copy of the page before it melts!)
The Caitlin page “Route” says that they consulted two apparent experts. What did the experts expect?
I SMELL A RAT!
My guess is the picture was taken from a helicopter. Shadows might be indistinct if the sky is overcast at the time.
What planet do you lot come from Here is a processed image from the PDF
1- The image size is 640×427 pixels
2 – the “pole shadow” does not mee the pole base – do not know what the line is but it is not the shadow of the pole. see :
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4568/drill.jpg my processed picture of the catlin document
3 – look at the possible shadow of the persons legs. The scene is lighted from the right with a diffuse source.
4 – the camera angle is high. this photo is not from the expedition unless taken from a pressure ridge.
5 – Does any of this really matter – it is an illustration of the drill in use.
on closer examination of the pic in the original pdf, it’s not a short shadow but an indent in the ice.
Human folly has reached a tipping point.
Also – ain’t Photoshop grand
Yes the Catlin expedition is pointless, a scientific failure and even a fraud, but other than that, it’s kind of like many other Arctic and Antarctic expeditions of earlier years.
What I mean is that the Catlin party is out there freezing on the ice for no real purpose or benefit to anyone.
I wish them a safe trip home and will say no more about their failed efforts at Warmist alarmism – further comment feels like kicking them when they are down, and all that…
Hey Anthony OT [but in the big perspective “On Topic”]… was wondering if you saw Joe Bastardi’s latest rant at AccuW?
Joe wears his heart on his sleeves but he is a damn good meteorologist and I have never seen him THIS fired up.
http://proa.accuweather.com/adcbin/professional/bastardi_index.asp
He was reacting to Energy Sec. Stephen Chu’s ridiculous remarks as of late.
Any possibility to do a thread on the “Energy Secretary’s” remarks or are they so stupid and nonsensical….is a post not worth wasting our time on here?
I think Chu should be put up to the chopping block against our experts here.
Either way….thanks for your efforts here at WUWT.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Pen Hadow drilling and measuring sea ice” was the caption, and the question is “how can we trust anything they publish”?
I just got my header info from the topic pic, my bad:
SIMPLE = T /
BITPIX = 32 / Updated by AstroArt
NAXIS = 3
NAXIS1 = 510
NAXIS2 = 337
NAXIS3 = 3
COMMENT
The pdf image still processes out the same for me.
I still see the shadow of the drill on exponential stretch and him leaned forward with shadow from his forward lean.
I find it odd to have a pic from a science expedition that is not claimed by some type of date/time/ownership stamp.
I should suppose he is using the drill, with what looks like equip. boxes nearby.
If it’s just a demo pic, then do we have any pics that are not demo?
So, I have to say that yes it matters as I can see nothing to authenticate any claims. This latest report changes nothing, authenticates nothing.
Spent a lot of time today trying to dig into it, comparing with authentic NOAA Arctic cam pics.
Hmmm…. well, I can get shadows from footprints in the overcast NOAA Arctic StarDot NetCam dated Sun Apr 19 14:33:24 2009 by exponential stretchng.
So I should expect the same sort of thing in the Pen Hadlow pic.
Why not publish a pic taken during the Arctic day when NOAA can do it 15 deg further North?
I give up on this Caitlin Expedition goofiness. They don’t seem to want anything to do with being reproducible as to where they are.
Fine with me.
If that is the way they want it, then skepticism and disbelief is theirs to keep.
but the air pressure is dropping rapidly, suggesting that there may be a serious weather front closing in.
What! They don’t have access to a weather forecast?
These clowns know full well whether if a serious weather front is coming or not, but its all about telling a dramatic and heroic narrative.
The Caitlan Expedition is a perfect illustration of AGW being ‘trash peddled to morons’.
@ur momisugly bill (20:26:17) :
Someone explained earlier that the thin line in the photo was caused by the drill being assembled on the snow. Sounds good to me.
As for the blue in the pictures, ever wondered why for example the camera’s on the Mars-rovers use a Filterwheel instead of a Bayer-filter (or something like that) wich can be found in almost every digital camera that is being sold? And Artic pictures being already low on (low intensity) red don’t do well when your CCD chip is recording in RGGB. (Red, Green, Green and Blue).
Still, in case of the Mars-rovers, you can download the RAW data whereas for the Catlin PR-stunt, well…