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.
Oh my!!
I live in Washington State, USA. I am almost directly in line with the diraction of change for the North Pole.
Climatologically, is this going to cause climate change for me, now living 500km closer to the pole?
Politically, is Canada going to lay claim to the state of Washington?
I had better buy some warmer winter wear and learn to speak Canadian, EY!
That BBC statement seems a little less biased than they used to be. I gather they used to say that they did not give voice to contrarian opinions on AGW because these contrarians were in such a minority that to report their view would give the public a false impression that there really were two sides to the debate of equal weight.
I too was so incensed by the BBc coverage of the return of the three stooges that I was moved to complain. The BBC reply was:-
Thanks for your e-mail regarding BBC News at Six’ broadcast on 13 May.
I understand you feel a report on the programme about the melting polar ice caps misrepresented the facts as arctic ice is at its thickest for 50 years. – (I actually wrote that “global ice is above the average of the past 50 years”) – I note you also feel the footage of the crew of Catlin was disingenuous and staged.
Climate change and the retreat of artic ice is one of the most high profile news stories of recent years and while we’re fully committed to balanced and impartial coverage of the issue, the overwhelming scientific opinion is that the ice is retreating. We’ve an obligation to reflect this broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
While it mightn’t always be possible to reflect all opinions in one programme we charge our editors with ensuring that all relevant voices are heard over a reasonable period of time across our programming output, and this has included our main news broadcasts and flagship programmes such as ‘Newsnight’.
Nevertheless I appreciate your strongly held views on this matter and with them in mind I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’ve recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.
The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.
Thanks once again for contacting us with your thoughts.
Anyone out there heard the dissenting voices that the BBC gives time to?
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.
An average reported to 1 mm precision. I wonder if they really measured the ice to a precision of 1 mm. I wonder if it’s even possible on real snow covered ice with variable texture.
Some how I suspect this is more False Precision in an average unsportable by the raw data.
Neven,
The fact that The Guardian occasionally prints some accurate information about the Arctic does not preclude me from poking fun at them the rest of the time.
OK, Neven et. al have convinced me. The Guardian really didn’t say what they said. (How daft of me to think that I could cut and paste verbatim from their web site, and have it be what they actually wrote.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/24/catlin-arctic-survey-arctic?picture=347364812
Steven Goddard:
There will undoubtedly be a Catlin press conference to highlight the “science” showing that the Arctic is melting “faster than expected”. I would hope you could attend to ask some probing questions.
Here’s a working list of questions which real science journalists might ask:
1) On April 2 Hadow reported “We’ve noticed that the ice is older and thicker than before”. When you were interviewed at the pick up site, he indicated that the ice was expected to be “much thicker” than the 1.77m average recorder during the trek. How do you square that discrepancy?
2) The Catlin website reports “First year ice is typically thinner than 2 m, while Multi-year ice is generally thicker than 3 m.” Since the route was primarily planned over first year ice, how is an average measurement of 1.77m surprising?
3) Also on the website it is claimed: “The Catlin Arctic Survey’s route was specifically designed so that the team would begin the expedition on multi-year ice, transit briefly through a region primarily covered with first-year ice, then enter a region in which second-year ice now prevails.” The track of the route clearly shows most of the transit over primarily first year ice. Why was the plan changed?
4) The expedition was terminated after 73 days of the 100 days planned, largely explained by the onset of ice melt. This is in spite of the 3rd slowest April ice melt recorded in the recent past. That would suggest that under recent ice melts history the plan was too ambitious?
Please feel free to add other discrepancies. Maybe some journalist with cajones will be at the press conferences.
The Russians certainly have more common sense than the three Catlin stooges:
“Strictly speaking, ‘battling to’ a destination does not imply with 100 surety that the destination was achieved, merely that the direction of any progress was towards that destination. Its the perfect weasel word for this situation.”
In that case, I “battled to the North Pole” yesterday in my car. I drove from Holly Springs, NC to northern Raleigh, ending up at least a dozen miles farther north than I started. That’s progress toward the North Pole!
Since I also traveled a considerable distance east, I “battled to” Morocco, Iran, and China at the same time.
On my way home, I “battled to” Japan, Peru, and Chile.
Perhaps in Monbiot’s neighborhood it gets instantly dark when the sun sets?
People driving their cars have to remember to turn their lights on immediately to avoid massive pile ups, as the landscape flips instantly from day to night. Parents tell their children to be home 10 minutes before sunset. Birds crash into walls and human eyes have no opportunity to adjust to the sudden onset of total darkness.
Imagine hitting a golf ball and having the course switch to total darkness before it hits the ground.
E.M Smith 11.01.04
The excel sheet posted on the science tab of the Catlin site shows astounding precision
Col. 1+2 =coordinates, col 3 ‘ice thickness. That man Pen sure knows how to use a tape measure (cm).
83.56.09 128.55.43 12/04/2009 170.9285714
Steven Goddard: “The fact that The Guardian occasionally prints some accurate information about the Arctic does not preclude me from poking fun at them the rest of the time.”
If that’s what it’s about I’m 100% sure you can find something every day, as there are several hundreds of people involved in making a news paper (and content for a website), and some of them are bound to screw up or lay it on if it makes for better headlines.
But this time you did exactly the same IMO, by putting your magnifying glass on a photo caption. A photo caption, for crying out loud! And it didn’t even state something that spectacular.
Just stick to the science. Who gives a rat’s ass about the Catlin expedition. I’m an ‘alarmist’ and I couldn’t care less about the hype. And if you can’t contain yourself and just have to poke fun (I’ll grant that you have a large audience for it here), then make sure it’s obvious you’re doing so, for example by tagging it under ‘fun stuff’.
Weren’t they dragging a radar unit behind them? That MIGHT (one of those words again) account for the “precision” of the ice thickness?
“Steve (12:08:09) :
…ice thickness
83.56.09 128.55.43 12/04/2009 170.9285714”
I’m pretty sure that the last 4 should be a 3 which indicates much thinner ice.
Mike
Without comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/liberal_fantasyland.html
“E.M.Smith (11:01:04) :
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.
An average reported to 1 mm precision. I wonder if they really measured the ice to a precision of 1 mm. I wonder if it’s even possible on real snow covered ice with variable texture.”
The mean is more precise that a single measurement (if you measure to a precision of, say, 1 cm, you divide that by the square root of the number of measurements to get the precision of the mean. So if you have 100 values, it will be 1 mm)
A thought:
Is anybody else having Catlin withdrawal?
Dang.
Schadenfreude was giving me a little upper in these crazy times.
” pwl (12:33:47) :
Weren’t they dragging a radar unit behind them? That MIGHT (one of those words again) account for the “precision” of the ice thickness?”
The radar sets allegedly broke, perhaps due to excessive human frustration over the radar providing data that contradicted the expedition members beliefs.
The ‘data’ provided was hand measured by drilling holes and using an old tape measure, trusting in the high integrity and honesty of Pen Hadow.
Gee, John Servais shoots his mouth off on this blog and never replies to those who challenge his comment. Worse, he never apologizes.
The Caitlin expedition deserves to be exposed everywhere possible as the farce and lie it was. This exposure will never be at the BBC or Guardian, who committed early to the scientific validity of this ridiculous exercise. They don’t even have the decency to bury the story, rather they lie about the results and claim great success.
“Mike Bryant (12:42:16) :
“Steve (12:08:09) :
…ice thickness
83.56.09 128.55.43 12/04/2009 170.9285714″
I’m pretty sure that the last 4 should be a 3 which indicates much thinner ice.
Mike”
0.0285714 etc etc is the beginning of 0.2 divided by 7. I have no idea why he divided something by 7. And yes, the precision is nonsense.
Neven, please don’t cry. Just because your heroes are being subjected to the ridicule they deserve accuse others of making fun of them rather than being reasonable about small errors. This whole expedition is a scientific farce. The data gathering, the quotes claiming thin ice. Everything.
The photo caption was not a mistake. It was there to gain the attention of readers, many of whom will quickly move on to another picture, satisfied they now know about the Caitlin expedition to the North Pole. Classic tabloid journalism.
John Servais (16:58:28) :
It was sarcasm John. Catlin was supposed to be picked up at the North Pole. But conditions were harsh, worse than they expected. They were unprepared. So they ended up short of the North Pole. They cannot claim success can they? And if they claim success then that will mean they accomplished their goals. Thus, they are picked up at the North Pole.
Makes perfect sense doesn’t it? 😉
Rob H (14:47:24) :
This whole expedition is a scientific farce.
This whole expedition is an unscientific farce. 🙂
Did anyone notice that thick fur lining on their hoods? Looks like fox or wolf to me. Where is PETA when you need them?
One comment on the misstatement in the photo caption:
Captions are known to be read more frequently than any other print element.
This does not mean the Guardian exploited their knowledge of reading patterns. Neither does it mean that they did not exploit their knowledge of reading patterns.