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
How is he going to climb up to the top of the auger to attach the hand crank and start turning the drill???
Maybe he’s got a very tall chair to stand on. (Like the photographer).
I notice that the Catlin web page has data for distance to the pole which is about 34 km closer to the pole than the distance calculated by using the lat-lon coordinates. The April 20 location is 84°39’36″N, 126°25’ 41”W which by my calculation using the Great Circle Distance equation, is 594 km to the pole. The Catlin web page says they are about 558.93 km to the pole. They made the same error on April 18 when they reported a location of 84°31’31″N, 127° 47’ 59” W and 575.6 km to the pole when the correct distance was 608.8 km. The last time they reported the correct distance was April 17 when they were at 84°27’58″N, 127° 50’ 31” W and reported 615.6 km to the pole. In one day, they were suddenly an extra 34 km closer.
It is probably just an error on the web page, but it is worth monitoring. Surely they are not lost.
M White (11:29:03) : “Is it possible that the photographs were taken with a none digital camera and the developed pictures scanned into their computer? Never done it so wouldn’t know how to identify this. Given their success with batteries and electrical equipment in general they may have taken an old fashioned camera with film in it.”
1) Images from a digital camera are not “developed.” A CMOS sensor in the camera is essentially an area scanner where as a computer scanner is linear.
2) Images from a digital camera are transferred to a computer where the image can be adjusted, manipulated, and re-named. The Catlin web site shows a Nikon D2Xs and another large pro Nikon (D-3?). Those camera record meta data with the RAW file, so there should exist image data. It remains to be seen if they will release that data.
3) Regarding “old fashioned . . . film,” at the temperatures they are experiencing, the ISO of conventional film changes. In those conditions, light is also quite low. A low ISO film is not recommended. A digital camera can dial in a high ISO rating and shoot well in low light, much better than conventional film.
Is it just me, or do others think that measuring ice thickness during the winter/early spring is the wrong time to measure? Shouldn’t it be measured at the end of the melt season? Most studies admit that summer melt and ice thickness/conditions at the end of melt is a far more sensitive measure of ice conditions that lead to trends (either gaining or loosing ground).
I spent 26 years as an Air Force Photo Analyst. I’ve downloaded the picture everyone’s commented on, done some gamma/contrast manipulations, and found that there is NO shadow for the pole being held. There IS a shadow for the man (a very poor, weak one) and for the drill. There is a sort of shadow for the material piled around to the image’s left, but again, weak and unmeasurable. ALL the shadows I can find slant toward the lower left edge of the image. I would have to state that the slight straight line I see from one manipulation would be more in line with an indenture into the snow where the dipstick was assembled, rather than a shadow.
April sunrise at 85 degrees north would be about 10:15 in the morning, with sunset around 1:45 PM (sun time, not necessarily “local” time). The sun would probably rise about ten degrees above the horizon, AT MOST. Shadows would be from ten to 20 times what I see in this photo. They would also be far more purple than blue, as in this photo, due to light refraction.
Here is some more info on the Catlin survey.
There are a number of photos on their ftp site at
ftp://ftp.cas-media.org/exped_uploads/iPAQ/
It is a protected site but the login info is
Username: cas-media.org – Password: mediaacce55
This login info was given out in a press release for the media (I believe we are media also).
Also, there is a Google Earth kml file available at
http://www.solaradata.com/Solara.kml
which shows their progress with frequent updates.
I have been tracking their progress and here is the location data with dates and lon-lat locations converted from deg-min-sec from their web site:
28-Feb Start estimate,-130,81.5
06-Mar,-130.0755556,82.005
11-Mar,-129.7172222,81.92583333
20-Mar,-129.6622222,81.91083333
31-Mar,-129.7747222,83.04027778
01-Apr,-129.5527778,83.18611111
02-Apr,-129.4075,83.33138889
03-Apr,-129.4041667,83.48805556
04-Apr,-129.335,83.62694444
08-Apr,-128.9,83.87
09-Apr,-128.975,83.86361111
10-Apr,-128.9963889,83.88361111
11-Apr,-128.8330556,83.84722222
12-Apr,-128.9286111,83.93583333
15-Apr,-127.9191667,84.27777778
16-Apr,-127.9202778,84.37833333
17-Apr,-127.8419444,84.46611111
18-Apr,-127.7997222,84.52527778
20-Apr,-126.4280556,84.66
I put together a kml file from the above data and compared the above data with the Solara kml file. It is apparent that the Catlin group spent from March 6 to March 20 essentially immobile. Their web page is currently missing this period of information on their web page. I found the March 6 to 20 data from Google cache, however.
This was apparently the period they were stuck in their tent due to bad weather. See
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/ops_room.aspx?categoryID=27
Oh rats. I was planning to send a link to that thread to some folks. I’ve always been intrigued by Thomas Gold’s hypothesis of an abiotic origin for petroleum. Seems plausible for natural gas, at any rate, considering how much extraterrestrial methane there is.
What is the author’s name?
/Mr Lynn
Old PI (17:31:05) :
Thank you!! Interesting thoughts!
Pieter F (17:14:20) :
2) Images from a digital camera are transferred to a computer where the image can be adjusted, manipulated, and re-named. The Catlin web site shows a Nikon D2Xs and another large pro Nikon (D-3?). Those camera record meta data with the RAW file, so there should exist image data. It remains to be seen if they will release that data.
According to the website they use a D3X and a Panasonic Lumix.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=163
3) Regarding “old fashioned . . . film,” at the temperatures they are experiencing, the ISO of conventional film changes. In those conditions, light is also quite low. A low ISO film is not recommended. A digital camera can dial in a high ISO rating and shoot well in low light, much better than conventional film.
I’d think that the film itself might become rather brittle and inflexible too?
Static buildup on the film can cause interesting effects as well, like lightning marks on the images.
Richard Henry Lee (18:15:24) :
I put together a kml file from the above data and compared the above data with the Solara kml file. It is apparent that the Catlin group spent from March 6 to March 20 essentially immobile. Their web page is currently missing this period of information on their web page. I found the March 6 to 20 data from Google cache, however.
This was apparently the period they were stuck in their tent due to bad weather. See
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/ops_room.aspx?categoryID=27
This was the time when the ice was drifting opposite to their direction of travel, see below.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20090309-20090315.png
I think its a promo picture because they supposedly stretch a string along a straight line and take measurements every so many feet. I transcribed their proceedure from an audio recording in an earlier Catlin article.. had that been an actual measurement you would have supposedly been able to see the drill area, which would not consist of just one hole. But honestly who knows… I just feel sorry for the rescue team that has to risk their lives to pull these foolish people off of the ice. The later in the season they go, the more dangeous the whole deal becomes.
pkatt (00:57:22) :
I think its a promo picture because they supposedly stretch a string along a straight line and take measurements every so many feet. I transcribed their proceedure from an audio recording in an earlier Catlin article.. had that been an actual measurement you would have supposedly been able to see the drill area, which would not consist of just one hole.
Unless the photo was taken while the first hole was being drilled!
So digital cameras work but not GPS?
Also regarding film, developing it would be a nightmare. Developing time is contingent on solution temperature. They would have ample dark hours to do it in, no dark room needed. They would also have to have an enlarger and print paper, and a scanner. Or they could just do slides and scan the film. Seems beyond their capabilities.
Beat the drums till the end.
http://www.planetaazul.com.mx/www/2009/04/20/lack-of-permanent-arctic-ice-surprises-explorers/
The head of a British team walking to the North Pole on a mission to gauge how fast Arctic ice sheets are melting said on Friday he was surprised by how little permanent ice he had found so far
OTTAWA, Canada; April 20, 2009.- Pen Hadow and two other adventurers set off in early March on a 1,000-km (620-mile) trek from Canada’s Arctic to the North Pole. The team was set down in an area where scientists had been sure there would be permanent multiyear ice.
Catlin Arctic Survey Corrects Distance to Pole
Finally on April 22, the Catlin Arctic Survey web page has the correct distance to the North Pole. On April 21, the distance was given as 551.16 km. Today, with the same lat-lon, the distance is 583.38 km which agrees with my estimate of 582.8 km using the Great Circle Distance equation. Note that the Great Circle Distance Equation does not correct for the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid.
As noted in my earlier post, on April 18, the CAS web site suddenly had the team about 34 km closer to the pole than the actual distance.
I like to think that the CAS headquarters folks found their error by reading WUWT. But it begs the question to what extent the 34 km error affected their planning.
It appears that the team will not make it to the pole as Steve Goddard had guessed earlier. Since March 20 when they finally got going again, they have traveled about 323 km in 32 days or just over 10 km/day. Since the (now corrected) distance to the pole is 583 km, it would take them about 58 days to reach the pole, but they only have 48 days left on their 100 day trip. Plus they are encountering areas of open water and thin ice which will likely slow them down.