Image from WUWT reader “Boudu”
The Guardian’s George Monbiot suffers (at his own expense) from excessive zeal in trying to disprove a statement by Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker, in his post: How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds
I set the stopwatch running, pasted “National Snow and Ice Data Center” into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Booker’s claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.
But then a couple of hours later, when commenters on his blog point out Monbiot’s own error in his 26 second rebuttal, he admits he’s “boobed”:
Whoops – looks like I’ve boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play – 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.
He also confused Global and Polar.
Booker’s article said:(underline mine)
“..the world’s polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.”
Monbiot’s rebuttal said:
“In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.”
Meanwhile in comments for the Monbiot 26 second rebuttal, some people think the picture of the U.S.S Skate nuclear submarine surfacing at the North Pole in 1959, as reported here. is a fake due to the photo being taken in “twilight”.
One commenter points out the official US Navy record:
Now you are trashing the source of the historical photo of the USS Skate surfacing at the North Pole on 17 March 1959, claiming that such a surfacing could not have occurred on this date.
Check the OFFICIAL U.S. Navy historical archive on site:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/datesmar.htm
Click on MARCH.
Scroll down and you will read for March 17:
1959 – USS Skate (SSN-578) surfaces at North Pole
Proof enough for you?
Apparently not.
The problem with that photo is that it was taken in daylight, whereas the Skate surfaced on March 17, before sunrise at the North Pole. That set off a flurry of troofer factoids trying to turn day into night.
I guess some people don’t understand the period of twilight, how much light would be available, and how B&W long exposure photography works.
Indeed, the discussion has become the Twilight Zone.
Re Anthony (10:39:37) and Borderline (12:43:40), I’ve asked Laura Kissel, the archivist at the OSU Library, to confirm the OSU/Byrd photo caption and see if she can find the Navsource photo in their files as well.
Meanwhile, a commenter on the Guardian site pointed out that the Newsreel Anthony links (which must be from 1959 despite the 7/30/58 date associated with it) has exactly the OSU/Byrd scene at the end, with the chunks of ice in exactly the same places. However, instead of apparently solid ice everywhere in front of the sub, there appears to be water on the ice near the sub and behind it. Furthermore, on closer examination of the Navsource photo, there is clearly a slab of ice on the fore deck, as if it had just come up through ice.
Could it be that this is the same scene, shot from different sides of the boat, and that for some reason there were chucks of ice and surface ice on one side, but no chunks and only open water on the other? The only way I could see this happening would be if the sub in fact surfaced twice — once to let off the photographer, and then again for the newreel photo-op — but came up the second time a little to the right of where it was the first time, so as to break dramatically through fresh ice. This would leave chunks on the starboard side, but not on the port side.
If we’re lucky, Ms. Kissel will come across a copy of the Navsource photo in her files, identified by the Navy as to source.
As for Borderline’s suggestion that Anthony change the photo, I don’t think he should, since Navsource says it’s from that event, and no one has proven it isn’t. At most, he might add a note indicating that there is further discussion of the photo’ caption on this thread.
Hu,
Some of the archival film footage I have coming indicates that there is a filmed scene where they have the sub surfacing. That is also in the newsreel. Your theory about letting off the photographer first seems plausible then.
The other possibility could be that the sub simply drifted about in the lead. It is doubtful they could anchor, and as we know, sea ice moves all the time.
I’ll know more when all of the research materials I’ve ordered show up next week.
Hu,
In looking again at the OSU photo March17 photo, it occurred to me that we see the ice stacked on the starboard side of the sub, leaning.
In the newsreel, we see sailors with ice chippers pushing slabs of ice over what appears to be the starboard side. Perhaps all that we have here is a simple photo timeline.
1) Original NAVSOURCE photo I cite could be from letting the photographer off and he gets the first shots so as not to risk missing the opportunity if they are forced to leave immediately for some reason..
2) Sub submerges again, photog walks around the open lead to the other side and sets up.
3) Sub surfaces, as we see in the newsreel.
4) Sailors go after the deck ice with chippers, same or different photographer records that on film, seen in the newsreel as ice is pushed over what appears to be starboard side.
5) The OSU shot you reference (and seen in the newsreel) is made, sans deck ice, showing the handiwork of the sailors with the ice chippers, piled up on the starboard side.
The NAVY footage I’ve ordered is supposedly more complete than the newsreel, which is edited for best effect and length. So, we’ll see if there is some support for your ideas (and this one) in there. – Anthony
Anthony
After following the convoluted discussion on the Guardian Blog I had been inclined to think OntheFence was right (is he actually Borderline?) although he missed the purpose of the photo which was to illustrate that the arctic had open water 50 years ago, as it does now.
Ironically this fact was mentioned in the Guardians own article of 2000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2000/aug/23/g2.weather
So you and the Guardian both agree that the event happened and that the Arctic had open water back then. This makes the parsing of the credentials of the photo by Guardian bloggers -illustrating an event you both agree on- seem a little hypocritical unless the Guardan bloggers also take their own newspaper to account for reporting open arctic water on March 17, as they don’t seem to believe this could be possible.
Anyway, your 14 37 31 sounds plausible so I will hold judgement until you get the material. Which still doesn’t alter the astounding fact that WUWT and the Guardian are in agreement on the purpose of your original article-pointing out that modern arctic ice melt is nothing new.
Tonyb
Hi Anthony et. al.,
Apologies if you’ve already done this, I just emailed Michael Mohl at Navsource to ask about the provenance of the tripod.com picture.
Also, on the newsreel, note the open water seen at three places in the newsreel, including the scene of the crewmen chipping ice which then falls into the water, about 1:10. The surfacing may have broken up the ice, but only because it was thin enough, thin being relative, to be broken.
Conversely, on some other pictures taken at different times/different subs, it’s clear that the ice is right up to the sub and it’s more likely that any chipped ice, had it been photographed, would have fallen off onto the surrounding ice.
The final picture on the newsreel at 1:16 looks remarkably like the other pictures we have, minus that the antennas are deployed in the newsreel.
We really need some artic sub guys to give us the benefit of their experience on the protocol for these surfacings. I’m sure it’s elaborate.
I sent a second comment to the Guardian pointing out the info from the newsreeel last night, but I cannot access comments on the article. The counter says there’s 475.
Oh and add to your timeline, pre-#1 is OSU_35_5_4 of the memorial service. It would look like this was done earlier in the day.
Are we seeing the results of two different cameras? One used for OSU_35_5_4 and Navsource/tripod.com versus OSU_35_5_1 , one perhaps closer to a personal camera, the other a real professional rig and two different types of film?
If it were me I would certainly have taken multiple cameras and I would assume that there might have been some experimental types of film used to see what would work best in those conditions.
Also, are we merely looking at changing/improving weather conditions and lighting as the sun continued to “rise” during the Skate’s time at the Pole? Without the log, we don’t know how long the Skate was there. Hours? Days?
Like I asked in my Guardian comment, why would the Navy go to the effort of getting the sub there, during the Cold War, only to have it surface in darkness and take only one fuzzy (OSU_35_5_4) picture?
I have a CD set of all National Geographics up to 2000 or so. I’m going to search there for their article on the Skate.
It’s a forest and the trees problem, I agree, but very well worth resolving.
Regards,
DA.
Interesting footage of a sub surfacing in similar ice conditions as the Skate 1959 (starts about 1:05 into video):
I am certainly not OntheFence ! Why would you think that ? Please reconsider.
I have looked at the Grauniad article now but it doesn’t have any photos and it does say that open water is not unusual. It mentions average thickness of the ice and no ice at all. If open water is not unusual, what is there to argue about ? I’m still not happy with the use of the photo but it seems I’m the minority so I’ll leave it at that.
If he’s boobed, how about the MIT scientists quoted at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5357725/Global-warming-of-7C-could-kill-billions-this-century.html
This story appears to me to be more scaremongering, but can the technical experts report, discuss and comment please?
Borderline
My apologies. The ironic thing is that I was going to do a post on the Guardian a few days ago saying I thought Onthe fence had a good point. I was unable to access the blog though. However, I decided not to bother having found one of my posts with links had been deleted, my comments taken completely out of context by the cheerleader, and that the bloggers had completely missed (or forgotten) two points.
The first was that it was Mr Monbiot who had got his article entirely wrong (for which he apologised) and in the ensuing smokescreen that the skate photo (taken from a site thought to be reliable and used and captioned elsewhere) was merely to ilustrate the comment that having open water at the Pole was not unusual.
That this was confirmed by the Guardian article linked above (which I had posted but had been removed-perhaps its back) seems highly ironic.
It is good to see you over here and I hope you will stick around as the WUWT blog is completely misrepresented over there.
If you follow the various threads you will see there is much good science and varying viewpoints, and surely that is better than the very closed minds that many on the Guardian blog exhibit. There is also a lot of humour here and courtesy-traits that are largely lacking over there.
Even if you WERE ‘Onthefence (and I accept your comments) provided that person behaved sensibly here I wouldn’t have a problem.
Tonyb
No problems, Tonyb.
As I wrote before, I don’t like the photo because of the way it has been picked up as not having a definite citation or proof of what it is. I looked at the NAVSOURCE site and that photo stands out as the only one without a proper reference. I checked the address given and it is for hosting websites. I just can’t understand why this wasn’t done in the beginning. Maybe it is just me being fussy but for something this important, I would have made sure 100% that nothing could come back to bite me. Maybe it is what it says it is but at the moment all I can see is doubt and an easy thing to criticize this site for, because sources are not checked properly. I suppose the basic point it that I need to believe that something I read is based on facts that I don’t have to check myself. If I have to check everything myself, I will have no time for real life !
Reply: What is this “real life” thing you speak of? ~ charles the virtual moderator
(What is this “real life” thing you speak of? ~ charles the virtual moderator)
Ha, ha. Something I’ve heard people talk about !
Borderline
WUWT -unlike the IPCC and numerous researchers-does not have unlimited budgets. Anthony has to work for a living.
If Mr Monbiot had incidentally referenced a frequently used photo in all good faith to illustrate one of his diatribes- and it turned out to be wrong- we would all accept it as one of those things, despite him having access to infinitely greater resources.
It has taken around a week of continual parsing by dedicated activists to get to a point where the photo ‘might’ not have the provenace that has been thought for many years. Do you really expect Anthony to have the resources to do that?
If this were a three year well resourced intensive study that deliberately used incorrect material to deliberately mislead that would be a different thing, but we are not talking about that level of intensity at all.
Once again we are getting away fro the main point which is that an incidental photo -one of several-was used to make a general point which the WUWT and Guardian both agree on.
Have the Guardian bloggers cottoned on to that yet, or has my post still not been released from limbo?
Ps, as you can see from Charles the moderators comment, we do have a sense of humour AND some good scientists here. It is certainly not a closed mind community.
Charles-subtle but funny
Tonyb
I have now looked at the softcopy version of “Up through the Ice of the North Pole” by Comdr. Calvert, which doesn’t seem to be available anywhere on the web – I’m not sure why the National Geographic hasn’t put their archives on line, even if it would require a paid subscription.
It contains a wealth of detail which deserves to be read and analyzed by WUWT readers. The file is embedded in their proprietary version of Adobe and I don’t think it could be separated. However, I could print it out and rescan it to create a readable file. Could this then be posted at WUWT? Would this be allowed by copyright?
Some brief observations about the article:
1. There are three pictures in the article taken during the March 17 surfacing, all in color. The OSU_35_5_4 picture is a fuzzy b/w reproduction of the one in the article or was possibly taken with a different camera. In the article, the “torch” is clearly visible in one individual’s hand. Comdr. Calvert said that the torches were “the same type used by truckers”. Although the actual ceremony picture is somewhat dark, the other pictures are much lighter.
2. The newsreel footage was shot March 24 and was not shot at the Pole but from somewhere in the ice pack. The voiceover doesn’t specifically say that this is the Skate At the Pole, just that the Skate surfaced at the Pole. The stupid Navy should have realized that people in the next millenium would go over their every word and picture with a fine-tooth comb. And they thought all they had to worry about was the Soviets.
3. The suppositions about putting out a photography party to film the surfacing are of course correct. Comdr. Calvert had tried to get footage at the spot where the first winter Artic surfacing occured, which was some distance from the Pole around March 13 or so, but the camera equipment froze.
4. OSU_35_5_1 seems to match the color photography used in the article that was shot during the March trip.
5. “Our fifth surfacing [occured between 20 March and 22 March] was noteworthy mainly for the fact that on the way up we saw a two foot puddle of open water, the first and last open water we saw on the entire cruise”.
6. The caption on one picture says “‘Security forbids disclosing the exact thickness [of the ice] that we penetrated’, says the author” but the article contains numerous references to their development of the technique of looking for “skylights”, a stretch of thin [“first year”?] ice through which they surfaced, using their strengthened “sail” to break through.
7. Comdr. Calvert’s article covers both of Skate’s trips to the Pole, the first surfacing in August 1958 and the second in March 1959. I believe that the August surfacing was in some ways, the more valuable for our study because it seems to be the first time we have a record of conditions at the Pole during the Artic summer. All previous expeditions had been overland and thus had to take place in late winter/early spring.
8. During the first March surfacing he comments “Once up there we had a breathtaking sight. Contrasted with last summer’s Artic world pale-blue melt ponds atop the ice floes, and almost black lakes of open water, this was a world of stark, frozen whiteness”.
9. About the August 12, 1958 surfacing 40 miles from the pole (89′ 20″N and 93′ 00″ W) at “Polynya 2” he states “No ship of any kind has ever been at the surface of the sea this far north…a thermometer…shows 30′ F-still not cold”.
10. During the March voyage, Comdr. Calvert had Aqua-Lung divers in the water, which “tested 30′ above zero”.
#8, #9, and #10 can help us put some of the AGW articles and AGW “dramatic actions” in perspective. The Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2000/aug/23/g2.weather was written in August, while Comdr. Calvert notes that the 1958 air temperature was 30′ F, with ice floes and “black lakes of open water”.
Lewis Gordon Pugh’s website http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/?page_id=16 states: “On July 15, 2007, he became the first person to complete a long distance swim at the North Pole. While most people can’t imagine swimming in waters of minus 1.7°C (29°F), his swim is the most vivid illustration yet of just how far climate change has progressed.”
However, Comdr. Calvert recorded water temperature of 30’F above zero in the WINTER, so Pugh’s stunt is only indicative of his extremely short historical perspective.
Could it be that the extremely recent development of the relative ease of attaining the Artic in the summertime has been used, deliberately or not, to slant “the Artic is melting” argument?
What is the difference between Comdr. Calvert’s description of an air temperature of -30′ F on March 24, 1958 in the Artic ice pack and present day conditions on the same date?
Regards,
DA. Freiberg
D A Freiberg (AKA Sherlock Holmes)
Great post. Thanks for your time.
I have been investigating arctic ice through the ages on a casual basis for around two years and have come to the conclusion that arctic ice- even from year to year is highly variable- and over a decadal or century long period even more so.
This is shown by the physical records of ice melt in the 1920/30’s (newspaper reports and Pathe newsreel,) around the 1800’s (newspaper reports and expedition by the Royal Society), The Hudson Bay co (physical records) from around 1700 onwards, the extensive remains of the Vikings around 1000Ad (with extensive records) and the physical remains of the advanced arctic civilisation left by the Ipiatuk a thousand years prior to that.
The best records are from Bob Bartlett-Arctic explorer- in the 1920/30 and early 40’s
http://www.ernestina.org/history/1940.html
His ship got to 80 degrees 22 minutes North-some 500 miles from the North Pole.
We do take a very short term historical perspective, such as in the frequent comments by young people that the climate has changed since they were young.
Tonyb
D A Freiberg
Before you think about posting anything from the NatGeo CD, Google National Geographic comlete CD Supreme Court. I don’t speak lawyer at all, but I would avoid it.
Your summary was much better than mine and expresses my thoughts exactly!
Monbiot’s rebuttal said: “In other words, Arctic sea ice extent for April is in fact slightly below its average extent since 1979, not slightly above.”
Heck, at least he spelt “its” correctly.
Here’s another one from Monbiot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/20/climate-change-denier-mit
“MIT scientists forecast a global temperature rise of 5.2C by 2100 – but climate change deniers reject models devised by the world’s finest minds. So what do they suggest instead… seaweed?”
No need for the seaweed. Perhaps a reasoned debate as to why average global temperatures have not increased for the last decade, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions have continued to increase rapidly? You’d think that such a glaring issue with AWG hypothesis might give the “world’s finest minds” a moment’s pause…
TonyB and a reader, thanks for the compliments. TonyB, I think it was you that had posted the Ernestina links on the previous go-around. I read them then. It was, as is all the accounts of exploration, fascinating. onthefence had been the one to mention/quote the Comdr. Calvert’s article, which someone at a John Daly de-bunking site took great glee in quoting from the description of the memorial ceremony. Too bad they didn’t read the whole article but that would’ve upset their apple cart.
The real shame here is that the navies, US, British, Russian, etc. can’t/won’t release their ice data collected from their submarines and military research. Instead we’re stuck with the comparatively little tidbits collected by private expeditions pre-Cold War, none of whom were there in the summer, and the more recent (1970’s) data. Comdr. Calvert visited a “floating ice station”, obviously already in use for a while in August 1958. What a treasure trove of data that would be.
Still, some tidbits of facts slip out which can then be compared with the present.
Summer temperature in August, 1958: 30′ F.
March 17-25, 1959 air temperature -30’F
March 17-25, 1959 water temperature 30’F
Compare that to NOAA’s pole data (2002-present) and what do you get? Not much if any difference.
Borderline, if you’re still there, I’ll add to what TonyB said. This blog is part of a great and civilization-changing debate. The many proposals (wind, solar, cap and trade) have the potential to radically alter both our economy and our environment (think about the chemicals used in many solar panels!) for the worse. As such, it is the People’s Business (“res publica”) to discuss these issues. It is important that the People have all the information available. But they don’t. Monbiot, Hansen, Gore, et.al. selectively quote, maliciously massage data (hockey sticks, anyone?) to present a picture that suits their interests.
Shame on the lot of them, whose job it is to tell the truth and who refuse to do so.
Conversely, if a credentialed scientist doesn’t agree, he or she is immediately slandered as being in the pay of “big oil”, etc., and denied further grant money.
So that leaves us “common citizens” to do the job in our spare time because our common sense tells us that something is amiss. Monbiot and his fellow travelers bitterly resent being questioned by the lot of us and thus gleefully seize on any error, real or imaginary. Could it be that they are not-so-secretly jealous?
Rather than griping, Borderline, kindly jump in, as I have done, and help out. The strength of blogs is the network of individuals each attacking the problem from their own experience with the net result being vastly greater than what any one could have done on their own.
DA Freiberg
Nice thoughtful post. Difficult to disagree with anything you say.
I think the leading AGW scientists (and Al Gore) have painted themselves into a corner and it wouild be very difficult for them to admit that AGW was a working hypotheses that quickly gained more credence than the science and the resuilts really merited. The time was right.
I think there are two iconic pieces of IPCC folk lore. The first being Hansens 1987 piece on global temperatures which he masterfully put in front of the world with his famous speech to Congress when he turned the A/c off. I personally find the idea of a single global temperature computed to fractions of a degree extraordinary. I think the idea of basing it on a tiny number of stations -25 or so worldwide in 1850 a few more in Hansens paper from 1880- is REALLY extraordinary, especially when you consider all the changes since in numbers and locations without even getting onto UHI or siting problems. Yet it has been accepted as fact and one of the pillars of AGW.
Similarly Michael Manns hockey stick always seemed to me to be an interesting work in progress but was catapulted prematurely to world wide attention and became the symbol of AGW. It would very hard for a scientist to turn round and admit it needed a lot more work yet.
I have suggested on another thread that someone like Joel Shore- who I think is a good debater- should be allowed to post an article putting his point of view on his belief that we are responsible for catastrophic climate change. This gives us the chance to examine his viewpoint after reading a considered narrative. There is very little rational debate going on anywhere else that brings the two sides together.
As you rightly conclude:
“The strength of blogs is the network of individuals each attacking the problem from their own experience with the net result being vastly greater than what any one could have done on their own.”
I will look out for more of your posts and hope Borderline sticks around and keeps his mind open.
Tonyb
Thanks Tonyb. I looked at the article published in the January 1959 National Geographic, which was written about the Nautilus’s trip in August 1958 (no surfacing).
Most interesting was the references to the “floating ice station Alpha” which Skate visited in August 1958. The station had been set up for the IGY and had been in operation for a while as of August 1958. Bad storms caused it to close in November 1958. The IGY data would be a worthwhile addition. I had missed Anthony’s post of 5/13 with the data from the Danes (?) going back to 1958.
Yet all any “journalist” can do is chatter on about data from 1970 onward.
Hu McCulloch (13:40:23) :
If you are still around, I should mention that following the shutdown of the related Guardian thread, I’ve continued the discussion on the alleged image of the scattering of the Wilkins ashes at the NP (17 March 1959) @ur momisugly this other WUWT thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ and specifically @ur momisugly Bob_FJ (16:15:30) :
There are some interesting develepments.