By Steven Goddard
The Catlin crew was picked up this week, after completing less than 50% of their planned journey to the North Pole and coming up about 500km short. Immediately upon their return, The Guardian reported :
After 73 days, the Catlin Arctic Survey has come to an end. Pen Hadow’s team of British Arctic explorers have battled to the North Pole through freezing conditions collecting data about the ice en route.
This reminds me of the legend of “bringing the mountain to Mohammed.” The crew reported traveling over 400km, a non-trivial percentage of which was due to floating along with the Arctic drift. See this map of Arctic buoys and their drift patterns:
Polar drift map over the last 60 days.
Given the polar drift, one has to wonder how much ice was actually traversed, and how many measurements were taken near the same spot on the first year ice. The Catlin Crew reported in The Telegraph :
Arctic explorer Pen Hadow has warned that the polar ice cap he has been examining to gauge the extent of climate change appears far thinner than expected after trekking more than 250 miles to the North Pole
From the Catlin web site :
Expedition Leader Pen Hadow revealed that initial Survey results show the average ice thickness in the region to be 1.774m.
1.774m is fairly thick for first year ice (and requires a very accurate tape measure.) They started their expedition in March on ice which NSIDC had already identified in February as first year ice – so why were they surprised to find first year ice?
The NSIDC February map showed multi-year ice as shades of red and orange, and their start point (red dot) was more than 100km away from the edge of the multi-year ice. The crew also reported that their data is biased by a pragmatic choice of route across flat (first year) ice.
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.
According to the Catlin web site, there was plenty of second year ice – but apparently the cold weather and lack of progress kept them from reaching it. Note in the map below that second year ice (SY) is not considered multi-year (MY) ice. The AGW world has recently redefined the word “multi-year” as meaning greater than two years. (Next year it may need to be defined as greater than three years.)
.
In summary :
- Due to horrifically cold weather, hypothermia and frostbite, they made it less than half way to the pole.
- Some of the distance they did travel was due to polar drift. They reported crossing the 85th parallel “in their sleep.”
- They started on ice which was already known to be first year ice, yet were “surprised” to find that it was first year ice.
- They stayed on first year ice for most of the truncated journey.
- Their ice measurements tell us that the first year ice this year is fairly thick.
- Their ice measurements tell us very little or about the thickness or “health” of multi-year ice.
- They will no doubt get an invite to St. James Palace for tea with Prince Charles
May, 2009 shows the greatest ice extent in the AMSR-E record, which seems to contradict Hadow’s highly publicised remarks about Arctic ice health.
One comment from team member published on the Catlin web site was about the fact that the drift moved them closer to the North Pole. It was made after the last re-suply and was something like this (not exactly these words!) : “The drift is good since we then can complete as much as possible of this very important scientific study which after all is the reason why we’re here.”
What is the point to stay on the same flake of ice and do “scientifically important job” when that isn’t scientifically tolerable?
Ann said a few weeks before that education is important, and that she used her math skill to calculate how long distance they have to achieve each day to reach the North Pole. Then, late in April, they had to make 16 km a day or something… I made that scientifically important calculation in a second and felt like I could have saved the Earth… Not exactly, maybe… 😉
The Catlin expedition will deserve several of the Armageddon´s False Prophet next slides presentation.
HE is collecting material for HIS next roll over you in NH summer time.
I do predict you will have forcefully to give tithes to HIS most devilish cause.
Get all the “male garlic” you can!
Chris Schoneveld (04:57:49) :
**I am a bit puzzled why everybody is at John Servais’ throat. He correctly referred to the text in the main body of the article rather then the caption of a photograph to which Steve referred. I think Steve owes John an apology. **
John refers to a 3 day old article. I believe that Steve’s article was recent which suggests that the media “moved” the North Pole. It is up to John to verify this before send insulting comments.
For those of you who would like to see the results the Catlin team achieved there is a spreadsheet of values on this link:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science
The whole spreadsheet seems to be a bit disorganised (does that surprise anyone?) and it doesn’t seem to show individual measurements, rather averages.
There appear to be many days when measurements weren’t made.
I found it when I was looking for evidence of the (BBC’s) claim of 1500 ice thickness measurements, which, considering the effort expended in drilling each hole (according to information supplied in earlier posts on WUWT) seemed rather high. 1500 measurements over 73 days is roughly 20 holes a day and that’s without accounting for the days when no measurements were taken?
The Methodology document, also at the same location, states that 10 holes a day were drilled, when conditions permitted, over a 3 to 5 hour period. Perhaps they made multiple measurement down each hole.
I would be interested in an opinion on these two dosuments from someone who understands the subject.
I also see the start of an explanation of why the first year ice thickness would appear to be so high. Weather conditions at the start of the “survey” didn’t allow measuremnets to be taken, so of course all those low ice thickness figures that they should have obtained then weren’t included, thus biassing the results towards the thicker, more recently mesured, ice.
MSM slowly turning around:
On CNN-Money, John Christy of UAH says loud and clear what he thinks about climate alarmism. Here’s a part of the CNN intro:
Christy is actually the environmental lobby’s worst nightmare – an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth’s atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.
Here’s the article
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412
We don’t know that “John Servais” on this site is the same person running the site which he mentions.
On the other hand, someone posting as Watts on that site still seems to think that human population is growing explosively; perhaps he once was told that and because it’s not his field he hasn’t bothered looking at the population patterns. There also are questions about what wiped out the Mastodons and the Clovis culture; there is evidence supporting an impact or airburst event.
Be interested to know what you guys think of the data Catlin posted on its own site in excel format. I’ve tried every which way I know to extrapolate the sheet data into 16,000 datapoints but just can’t get anywhere near. Standard dev. doesn’t pass muster either.
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/science
—————
Chris Schoneveld (04:57:49) :
I am a bit puzzled why everybody is at John Servais’ throat. He correctly referred to the text in the main body of the article rather then the caption of a photograph to which Steve referred. I think Steve owes John an apology.
——————
Let me explain it more s-l-o-w-l-y… in a photo essay on the Guardian website dedicated to the Caitlin expedition they claim that the expedition reached the North Pole, a clear objective of the survey.
Your argument is that the Guardian is right because they have the correct information in another location. So if I make a blog entry under science that says that a scientist invented cold fusion, then later on write a new post on that site in a different part say under world events that says he gave up after getting only half way to inventing cold fusion, and do not update my previous post with a correction then that is OK beans by you?
‘…Strictly speaking, “battling to” a destination does not imply with 100 surety that the destination was achieved.’
The ex-English teacher in me would disagree. The preposition ‘to’ in this usage explicitly identifies ‘goal of motion’; joined with a verb in the simple past tense, it explicitly claims arrival at that goal.
The preposition ‘toward’, on the other hand, does not claim arrival. If I say, as a resident of New Jersey, ‘I drove to New York,’ I am explicitly saying that I arrived there. If, however, I say ‘I drove toward New York, I am not claiming arrival. Perhaps I turned off at Fort Lee. The difference between ‘to’ and ‘toward’, in this latter case, would save me $8.00 one way.
How many thousands of readers of the Guardian, or of any newspaper, read the entire article (Please turn to page B-25)? How many ‘readers’ would have simply addressed their attention to the photo and its caption, and come away with the entirely erroneous impression that the Caitlin team did arrive at their ‘goal of motion’?
How many propagandists take advantage of this propensity of readers?
John A (03:09:08) :
I’m baffled why anyone would install any Norton product.
Let me bore everyone a bit more. The tense of the verb form makes a big difference. ‘They are/were battling to the North Pole’ would identify a goal-directed motion in progress at this time/at some past time; this sentence would claim nothing about the ultimate success of the journey. But ‘they have battled to the North Pole’, with the verb in the perfective aspect, definitely claims successful completion.
Ian
I do not think think any ammunition has been supplied to the AGW movement because this is a non-science issue it is about MSM bias and bad journalism and really poor content editing. Just like if there is an error in a post on any “DENIER SOURCE” it is immediately pointed out and commented on across the blogosphere with vile mockery. If anything these posts create little tempests in teapots to allow myself and others to vent at what frustrates us without bringing the science into it.
If you look at my post about the the New Thermohaline Model you will see I tend to take a more pragmatic view on things scientific and warn about irrational exurberence when new papers are published as to not provide an opening for ridicule.
Just to give an idea of how few have been taken in by all this, just go and visit the blog on the article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/13/catlin-arctic-survey-ends?commentpage=1. You should invite them here, Anthony.
“May, 2009 shows the greatest ice extent in the AMSR-E record, which seems to contradict Hadow’s highly publicised remarks about Arctic ice health.”
I bet you that the NSIDC graph would never hit the 1979-2000 line with the winnings going to charity Steve and you didn’t take me up on my offer.
How about the same for the JAXA graph, I bet it will not be above 2008 come June 1st, this time do you feel confident enough to put your money where you mouth is? Money goes to London Air Ambulance.
Regards
Andy
Re: Catlin Fuel Drums
Fuel drums are supposed to be marked with the user’s name. As they can be recyled many times they could have many names on them.
I contacted Canadian Authorities (Nunavut Environment, Canadian Coast Guard and Indian and Northern Affairs) to determine if the Catlin Expedition made any assurances that they would retrive all drums. I only received a reply from Nunavut Environment. They said “contact Indian and Northern Affairs. So far I haven’t heard from Indian and Northern Affairs or Coast guard nor do I expect to!!
AnonyMoose,
This might help you with your math.
9,000.000.000 people X 631 years / (30 years/generation) = 189,300,000,000 people.
You seem to have forgotten that people die and are replaced by other people. You don’t need any growth past mid-century, much less “explosive growth.”
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who will take aggressive potshots – without thinking through what they are saying.
And no, it is not OK to accuse other people of “making up quotes.” Particularly when they are properly cited and referenced.
Last summer I travelled from L.A. all the way to New York City, even though I really only made it to Chicago.
AndyW,
No doubt the fact that NSIDC Arctic ice extent is about 1/2 std dev below the 1979-2000 mean is a sign of imminent global meltdown. I suggest you move to higher ground – immediately.
Alan the Brit (05:54:49) :
Steady on old chap. We British have a rich history of fearless exploitation.
This is from the so-called “accurate” Guardian article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/may/13/catlin-arctic-survey-ends?commentpage=1
This is what Hadow reported on April 2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7897392.stm
The BBC view of Climate Change
A couple of days ago I complained about the biased coverage of the Catlin “survey” mission. I have received a reply, and this clearly states the BBC stance:
So there you have it, the BBC is there to reflect concensus views. RIP broadcast journalism. But if you want to influence the BBC, keep complaining.
Peter Plail, at least you received a reply from the BBC. I’m still awaiting mine. Judging by the one you’ve recieved it’s hardly worth the wait for mine. The content is puerile.
“…while we’re fully committed to balanced and impartial coverage of the issue, the overwhelming scientific opinion is that the ice is retreating.”
Balanced and impartial? Overwhelming scientific evidence? What utter garbage!
It’s criminal that I, along with millions of other TV Licence payers, am legally compelled to fund this disgraceful BBC twaddle.
Re: Richard Henry Lee (22:24:04)
Many thanks Richard. That’s quite an interesting route. The survey team was actually “traveling” in circles on several occasions (idle in their tents awaiting resupply, no doubt).
Steven, this is also from the so-called “accurate” Guardian article: “‘They will be picked up 490km from the pole, less than half way there.”
But you named this article: “The Guardian Relocates The North Pole By 500km”
See what I mean? We can agree on many things regarding hypes and media reporting, but this blog post of yours isn’t much better IMO. And it’s not the first time either. Sometimes you do great work, but sometimes you write articles like this one.
I distinctly remember that somebody of the air support team of the Catlin expedition said, that they prefer to pick people from the Arctic until the end of April, later it may be too dangerous for landing.
How does that agree with a pick-up in the middle of May, according to Pen due to “early ice melt”???