OK, The “Grunt heard round the world” is no more, apparently burning up over the Pacific. Russia’s Defense Ministry said the probe and what fragments made it through the atmosphere fell about 775 miles west of Wellington Island.
In looking at Google News, I found this was the highlighted story from the BBC. While it is factually correct in words, it has a visual lie, probably due to the correspondent and/or editors inability to understand that radar imaging does not see color. Note the “fiery” red image.
Now here is the fun part, not only is the false color radar image visually misleading (it is of the intact spacecraft, not the fiery re-entry), it is also a FIVE DAY OLD image. Observe, from the source:
BBC apparently couldn’t be bothered to check their own photo source.
And, per the BBC caption “The German TIRA (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility caught this image of Phobos-Grunt” the image wasn’t “caught” (implied with the re-entry), it was a planned photo though careful tracking.
If the radar image looked like this, without the false color added….
…do you think the BBC (or the Daily Mail, see update below) would have used it with the re-entry story?
UPDATE: WUWT gets results, BBC has changed the image!
My error. They’ve changed the position of the radar image, moving it further down and substituting a new one in the original position. Thanks to reader JJ for noticing.
They did change the caption though to:
“The German Tira (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility saw Phobos-Grunt during its last days”.
This implies they realized the original image and caption was misleading.
Plus, there are other material changes to the article. Note that the time stamp for “last updated” has not changed from the original story (13:31). Seems pointless to have a “last updated” time stamp if you don’t use it to advise readers of changes. – Anthony
UPDATE: Monday: 9AM PST The Daily Mail gets it even wronger than the BBC. It seems that my concern about reporters misinterpreting and using a “fiery” radar false color image with the re-entry story isn’t an exclusive misstep of the BBC. If readers see any other misuse/miscaption of the radar image, please point it out in comments. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
paraphrasing:
australian open tennis has begun and john mcenroe just commented that MMGW seemed to have some credibility, but he’s been surprised by how cold it is in australia’s summer…
an aussie commentator jumped in quickly with an explanation: ‘we are having el nino here, john’…
and so it goes in the media…
I agree with Mark and his 2 cats !
undoubtedly this blog is the leading light for the dissemination of climate science.
do I notice an increased number of warmists commenting ? well get on board warmists, your ship is sinking. even rats have a right to life.
ever smelt a dead rat ? not good ! I’m sure even Mark’s cat’s would turn up their noses !
The moral of the story is that NASA and the European Space agency should paint all of their satellites orange and yellow.
Wow. Talk about a trumped up load of crap.
The BBC is certainly the author of a lot of very, very bad science reporting, but this ain’t it. The image presented was not claimed to be a photograph, nor was it claimed that it was an image of the SV at re-entry. You came up with that from within the depths of your imagination.
Also, the image is from radar. Unless your mutant eyes are capable of seeing in the radio spectrum, ANY image presented to you must be false color. Choosing a red gradient color scale to present invisible radio waves is not any more or less accurate a depiction of the radar signal than a gray scale. Given that the radio spectrum is off the red end of the visible light spectrum, it is in some sense more appropriate to use that color. Further, nothing outside of the space betweeen your ears suggests that the image was intended to depict fire of any sort. Finally, the red scaling of the image was present in the original, which is clearly shown in the material that you present above.
Oh, and despite the claim of your “UPDATE”, the image has not been changed. It is still presented in the BBC article, and it is still red.
Having an off day, Anthony?
REPLY: I just checked the link again, and the updated image appears:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16491457
– Anthony
There was a period, a long time ago, when the BBC World Service on shortwave was the main source of unbiased news in third world countries. These days, because of their known biases (Google for articles), I no longer believe what is being broadcast by the BBC. So much so, that I have terminated my subscription to BBC World on cable and tend not to visit their web site. However, in this Grunt case, I tend to believe that it was simply sloppy journalism.
Mark and two Cats says:
—————————–
January 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Jim Cornelius said:
January 15, 2012 at 4:19 pm
No Sir.
This image, as you indeed state is several days old and was also being used by the
BBC to illustrate this story yesterday BEFORE it plunged to Earth. It appears that the
perception that this image was being used to illustrate the spacecraft’s “fiery re-entry”
was your interpretation and not that of the BBC.
—————————
Then why did BBC change the picture?
—
They didn’t.
The illustration of the updated page above is incomplete. It shows only the top of the page.When the story was updated the original image was moved further down the page as this capture of the page in it’s current form shows – http://www.freezepage.com/1326681365FPNCHRJVDY.
I’ll go with the Beeb on this one.
Since they borrowed the color image from the Fraunhofer Institute, not putting it up in color would have been an alteration. Russians don’t waste money doing aerodynamic studies on space probes (can’t speak for NASA), so for predicting drag they’d have to use a generic value. The probe is in an unplanned orbit, and the difference between an Atlantic or Pacific crash is measured in minutes. And anyway, the Beeb staff is all political activists and journalism majors.
For an object that would fit in my garage viewed from hundreds of miles away, I’d say that radar image is impressively detailed.
Watched a Russian booster re-enter one night on a long ago flight from Houston to Minneapolis. Very stately procession of fireballs flying in formation.
Jonathan Amos does /seem/ to try and get stuff right.
Having said that – the torrent of wholly dishonest AGW activist bilge emanating from our state broadcaster makes one twitchy and I don’t recommend prolonged exposure .- it extends down to even the local news.
The ghastly scaremongering fact lite AGW coverage spouted by the ignorant and activist editorial teams and parroted (non telepathically one hopes) by the talking heads is simply appalling. These idiots treat the science around climate as a political issue and anybody asking err… how does that work then? is either edited out or treated to attempted highly contrived ridicule and accused of being a right wing nut job – as if the “right ” of politics had an absolute monopoly of nut jobs.
It’s not good enough, it’s in clear breach of their published principles and it’s got to stop.
JJ,
Don’t be naive. Coloring images a scary red is standard practice for alarmist image manipulators:
http://www.john-daly.com/USGCRP/USGCRP_Animate.gif
Anthony:
REPLY: I just checked the link again, and the updated image appears:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16491457
Check it again. There is no updated image. There is a new photo that has been added, but the radar based image of the Grunt is still there. And it is still red, just as is was in the original that the BBC obtained from the Fraunhofer Institute. Which you show above.
The next time the BBC (or some other cog in the CAGW machine) actually alters an image, or makes claims that aren’t true, or uses a misleading color scheme … whatever complaint you make about it will be muted by recognition of the times like this when you choose to make up a story though they have done none of those things. There is a cautionary tale about boys who cry “wolf” that is applicable here.
REPLY: Ah, I see now, they’ve moved it down from its original position. Yes that is my mistake for not seeing it, and I’ll note this in the update. As for your claims of “making up” a story, the simple indisputable fact is that radar doesn’t see color, and the original juxtaposition implied they had a picture of re-entry. My point is that if false color had not been added, BBC probably would not have made that juxtaposition and all it implied.
They did change the caption though to:
“The German Tira (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility saw Phobos-Grunt during its last days”.
This implies they realized the original image and caption was misleading.
Note also that BBC made changes to the article, but did not change their update timestamp.
As for my part, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
jorgekafkazar says:
January 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm
=============
Thanks for the insight.
Lesson learned.
Jim Cornelius says:
January 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“The illustration of the updated page above is incomplete. It shows only the top of the page.When the story was updated the original image was moved further down the page as this capture of the page in it’s current form shows –”
But they did change the sentence under the radar picture, it says now
“The German Tira (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility saw Phobos-Grunt during its last days”.
So, we can say, the BBC gives a little way as long as it’s not about their core value of CAGW.
JJ,
“Crying wolf” is what those coloring the maps and images do. Please don’t turn the situation on its head. That reeks of psychological projection. It is the catastrophic AGW narrative pushers who use ‘misleading color schemes.’ They are the disinformation alarmists.
The BBC loves a doomsday scenario. I suppose they think it makes “good television”. Their Horizon series is an absolute joke – take some highly improbable event which may (or may not) happen sometime in the next 100 thousand years, play spooky music in the background and try to scare the pants off everyone. My son and I used to watch it religiously a few years ago for the sheer entertainment value, it was so preposterous.
William Martin said:
January 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm
I agree with Mark and his 2 cats !
undoubtedly this blog is the leading light for the dissemination of climate science.
do I notice an increased number of warmists commenting ? well get on board warmists, your ship is sinking. even rats have a right to life.
ever smelt a dead rat ? not good ! I’m sure even Mark’s cat’s would turn up their noses !
————————————————————
I read your comments to my cats; they were well pleased 🙂
Clearly the BBC reads WUWT. There’s hope for the world yet.
Jim Cornelius said:
January 15, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Mark and two Cats says:
—————————–
January 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Jim Cornelius said:
January 15, 2012 at 4:19 pm
No Sir.
This image, as you indeed state is several days old and was also being used by the
BBC to illustrate this story yesterday BEFORE it plunged to Earth. It appears that the
perception that this image was being used to illustrate the spacecraft’s “fiery re-entry”
was your interpretation and not that of the BBC.
—————————
Then why did BBC change the picture?
—
They didn’t.
The illustration of the updated page above is incomplete. It shows only the top of the page.When the story was updated the original image was moved further down the page as this capture of the page in it’s current form shows – http://www.freezepage.com/1326681365FPNCHRJVDY.
————————————————
I see what you mean. Those dirty rats at BBC aren’t to be trusted!
Anthony,
The WUWT headline continues to claim “… BBC’s bad science tendencies …” on the basis of something (the red shaded radar image) that is not an example of bad science, and that does not originate with BBC.
The Fraunhofer Institute for High Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques created that image, and chose the color scheme. I was not aware that they were on the list of “bad science” organizations, and it seems unlikely that they were trying to mislead anyone into thinking that that radar image was a photo of “fiery reentry”, given when they published it. And their choice does not seem to have caused any significant unintentional misunderstanding, WUWT notwithstanding. That image has been used by many, many news organizations and blog sites around the globe, such as MSNBC, Scientific American, Space.com, and Gizmodo. Your interpretation of the Fraunhofer radar image as as intended to represent reentry of the SV does is not supported by the content of the BBC article, or of any of those other media.
It does, however, appear explicitly stated here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085869/Russian-Phobos-Grunt-Mars-probe-expected-hit-Earth-hours.html
The FHR radar image is presented in this article about the reentry of PGMP, with this caption:
Re-entry: The probe burns red hot as it approaches earth’s atmosphere in this image captured by the German Tracking and Imaging Radar facility
I dont have any love for the BBC, as their behaviour on the “global warming” issue is criminally biased. This is evident in their programming as well as their “ho, ho” ing in the Climategate emails. But with respect to their use of the FHR radar image – like Space.com and the rest, they used the FHR radar image correctly. They do not deserve this post.
By the criteria for “bad science” that you set out above, the Daily Mail does deserve a post like this. Consistency demands that either you rake the Daily Mail over the fiery red coals for their “bad science tendencies” … or you apologize to BBC and drop the silly notion that use of the FHR image consitutes proof of such.
I recommend the latter. It avoids having to discomfit the home of beloved Dellingpole, and puts your own narrative back on firm ground. You will need to be standing there when BBC (or NASA or some other entrenched CAGW advocate) decides to do something actually egregious (and actually related to CAGW, unlike this sideshow).
While it does seem that the TIRA system is indeed a radar tracking system, are you sure it not a optical system that only targeted by radar? There are lots of such systems (anti air craft guns, the radar points the guns).
Same goes for these optical systems – it is too hard to humans to aim the optical imaging system, so you use radar.
Eg:
http://esdradar.com/eo_203.aspx
So just because this is a radar tracking system would not “instantly” preclude that the imaging system is not optical. However, in this a case a quick bingoogle does suggest this is a radar only system.
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
They can’t do metric imperial coversion at BBC Science either!!
The journey of about 400km (150 miles) involved crossing a mix of deep snow and rock-hard ice and took three days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16538129
It is the image TIRA released. Thus I doubt you arr correct.
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/research-topics/safety-security/protecting-infrastructures/phobos-grunt.html
REPLY: Dated January 10th. 5 days before re-entry – Anthony
I must add my comment to those that have said this post is overdone. I see nothing in the image above of the original article that would make me think that the BBC sensationalized anything in that story. The only nitpick I could make would be to say that the BBC should have stated that the radar image was a false-color image, if they knew that it was. Still, there’s nothing in the text of the article or the caption that implies in any way that the satellite was imaged while re-entering the atmosphere. I think you’re looking a little too hard for something to criticize when there are likely many more legitimate targets to be had.
Here is the press release, dated yesterday.
http://www.messagetoeagle.com/index.php/space/37-solarsystem/1020-first-radar-image-of-the-falling-phobos-grunt-probe
Apology from you or is.there something I missed?
REPLY: Yes, you missed it….it is a blog repost of the image/story, dated January 10th from FRH.
http://www.fhr.fraunhofer.de/fhr/fhr_c753_en.html
-Anthony
And now the Group W, would like to know where the body is?
http://www.spaceweather.com reports this morning,
PHOBOS-GRUNT DESTROYED: According to the Russian space agency and the U.S. Space Command, the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft re-entered Earth’s atmosphere on Jan. 15th shortly before 1 p.m. EST. So far, no photographs of the fireball or other debris have been submitted to spaceweather.com. Initial estimates of the final ground track suggest a re-entry in the south Pacific in the broad vicinity of Australia and New Zealand..
So did it come down..near south America or near Australia and New Zealand? Oh yeah we are really on top of this one..lol
Mr Watts.
The “correction” to your update now correctly indicates the original image was moved and the caption changed. The change of caption was of no consequence. You have not acknowledged that (as I pointed out in my previous post) the image had been used to illustrate Phobos-Grunt story for at least 24 hours before the spacecraft plunged to Earth. Again the interpretation that this was intended to illustrate the “fiery re-entry” was on your part, and not that of Jonathan Amos of the BBC staff who put together the webpage.
REPLY: Yet, they changed the image from above the fold position of prominence and changed the caption when it was pointed out that it was misleading. When they have a timestamp of 13:31 (GMT/UTC), and that’s within the re-entry window. (Space-track.org’s current estimate of the reentry window is 15JAN12 1326Z-15JAN12 2302Z) and they have a title that says “Phobos-Grunt: Failed probe ‘falls over Pacific'” with a picture of what looks like a fiery re-entry with no caveat of any kind, I’m quite comfortable with my criticism. – Anthony