MSN augments “Fake News” with photoshopped penguin photos

Guest post by Jim Steele

Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

MSN appears to be a source of climate fear mongering and “fake climate news” based on their story under the headlines Antarctica hits record high temperature at balmy 63.5°F .

The story was accompanied by what can only be a horribly photo-shopped photograph for the unassuming warmunista of a mushroom-shaped ice form teetering on a rocky outcrop.

clip_image001

Supposedly it was photographed on the opposite side of the continent from which the record temperature occurred. Climbing such a structure would be a difficult technical climb for an experienced mountaineer. Furthermore when Adele penguins come ashore to breed they avoid the ice if possible, only crossing snowfields as the seek ice-free breeding territories. Lastly if you magnify the picture 500%, the penguins become extremely pixilated, the ice chunk less so, and the background rocks even less so, a fingerprint of 3 different photographs with different resolution that have been overlain.

MSN reported, “An Argentine research base near the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula has set a heat record at a balmy 63.5° Fahrenheit (17.5 degrees Celsius), the U.N. weather agency said on Wednesday.” The record was set in 2015 and the WMO report simply confirmed the temperature. The Wunderblog had reported in March 2015, “On March 24th Base Esperanza (under Argentinean administration) located near the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula reported a temperature of 17.5°C (63.5°F). Although this is the warmest temperature ever measured since weather stations became established [in 1953] on the southern continent, it is complicated by what the very definition of ‘Antarctica’ is.

To induce fear over Esperanza’s temperature record MSN writes, “Antarctica locks up 90 percent of the world’s fresh water as ice and would raise sea levels by about 60 meters (200 ft) if it were all to melt, meaning scientists are concerned to know even about extremes around the fringes.”

However high temperatures at Esperanza tell us nothing about climate change, or if there is any threat of melting ice caps or rising sea level. Instead Esperanza presents a prime example of how temperatures can rise dramatically without any increased input of heat. Argentina’s Esperanza weather station is situated on the most extreme equatorward tip of the Antarctic peninsula and its mean monthly temperature for March is -3.6 C. But Esperanza’s location subjects it to episodic warm northwesterly winds which is why it is also infamous for its foehn wind storms that can dramatically increase temperatures by 10 to 40 C degrees in a matter of hours.

This record 17 C (63.5 F) temperature recently recorded, is 20 C above average, and as expected the record temperature is the result of foehn winds. Foehn winds warm temperatures via adiabatic heating (no heat input) as descending winds passing over the nearby mountains warm from adiabatic compression. It is meaningless weather regards penguins. But no mention of foehn winds by MSN.

At least the Wunderblog, was honest about the cause of record warming in 2015 stating,

“A strong high pressure ridge and a Foehn wind led to the record temperatures as Jeff Masters explains here:

This week’s record temperatures were made possible by an unusually extreme jet stream contortion that brought a strong ridge of high pressure over the Antarctic Peninsula, allowing warm air from South America to push southwards over Antarctica. At the surface, west to east blowing winds over the Antarctic Peninsula rose up over the 1,000-foot high mountains just to the west of Esperanza Base, then descended and warmed via adiabatic compression into a warm foehn wind that reached 44 mph (71 km/hr) at 09 UTC on March 24th, near when the maximum temperature was recorded. A similar event also affected Marambio on the 23rd.”

Likewise in the 2016 paper Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability researchers with the British Antarctic Survey reported, “The trend in the SAM led to a greater flow of mild, northwesterly air onto the AP [Antarctic Peninsula] with SAT [surface air temperature] on the northeastern side increasing most because of amplification through the foehn effect.”


This isn’t the first time such photo fakery has been used. There’s the Ursus Bogus episode, and NCDC’s fake flooded house, to name a couple. Anything for the cause – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating
363 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 1, 2017 7:57 pm

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story it would seem.

David A
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 2, 2017 4:22 am

“…you magnify the picture 500%, the penguins become extremely pixilated, ”
————————–
HA, LOL. If you take a close look at CAGW alarmists you realize they have become extremely pixilated. ( Crazy, insane)

graphicconception
Reply to  David A
March 2, 2017 5:42 am

I remember Pixilated Penguin. It was on the flipside of Russ Conway’s UK hit Side Saddle. I think I may be showing my age here. 🙁

Gunga Din
Reply to  David A
March 2, 2017 7:09 am
Pop Piasa
Reply to  David A
March 2, 2017 8:38 am

Steely Dan’s song about a very pixilated woman:

leafwalker
Reply to  David A
March 2, 2017 11:14 am

@ Gunga Din

Sorry for the duplication – I didn’t catch your post on first reading, and linked to the same video farther down.

Regrets.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David A
March 2, 2017 2:12 pm

No need for “regrets”.
I’m sure lots of readers didn’t see my clip but did see yours.
It’s all good.

Sara
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 4, 2017 4:52 pm

My response to this article is amazement at this quote: “Antarctica locks up 90 percent of the world’s fresh water as ice and would raise sea levels by about 60 meters (200 ft) if it were all to melt, meaning scientists are concerned to know even about extremes around the fringes.”

That is possibly the WORST piece of writing I’ve seen in donkey’s years! “…meaning scientists are concerned to know even about extremes around the fringes.” –??? Y’know, I think it’s really nice that the owners of media outlets want to give morons a chance at a job, but this is a public admission that they’re willing to hire the functionally illiterate as long as those kids can holler ‘global warming’ with great enthusiasm.

rykart
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
March 16, 2017 10:54 am

If you’d like to see the textbook fraud Jim Steele exposed and splattered all over the wall by actual scientists, have a look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/comment-page-3/

Tom Halla
March 1, 2017 8:04 pm

MSN apparently cannot even bother with a good fake.

Greg
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 2, 2017 1:50 am

To suggest that the tip of the peninsula has anything to do with mass of the continent is a blatant lie and is as false as the childish collage photo.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
March 2, 2017 1:57 am

The lower right of the ice is clearly reflecting blue water, not the dark rock on which is supposed to be sat.

Blatant forgery. More FAKE NEWS.

Now look at Pelosi’s bullshit and lies about Sessions testimony. She must resign.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Greg
March 2, 2017 9:27 am

Shhhh. Warmists don’t do math, and so don’t have any sense of proportion.

Seriously, the sheer size of the peninsula, let alone its geographical location compared to the rest of the continent would be like taking today’s temp in Florida, and saying that it means something to the average temp of the American South East.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
March 2, 2017 10:52 am

More like taking a temperature reading in Key West and declaring that you know something about the temperature for the entire US (and part of Canada).

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Greg
March 2, 2017 11:41 am

“MarkW March 2, 2017 at 10:52 am”

Yeah, I was trying to do the math, but that was my point. Antarctica is ‘yuge”, the Peninsula is large (and not much like the interior), and taking one temp, for one day, at the tip of the Peninsula means basically nothing.

TG
March 1, 2017 8:06 pm

A fake story is to good even for the bottom of a septic tank dwellers like warmist and the main stream media to pass up on!

Timo (not that one)
Reply to  TG
March 2, 2017 6:53 am

Two many times, to times this week, too think these grammatical errors are just a typo.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Timo (not that one)
March 2, 2017 2:54 pm

“Those feet’ll steer you wrong sometimes”…

March 1, 2017 8:11 pm

Good catch!

And isn’t it also a bit deceptive to run a two year old story as news, with a headline which makes it sound like it’s happening Right Now. Maybe they should call it “olds” instead of “news.”

Reuters ran this propaganda piece, too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-antarctica-temperatures-idUSKBN1684I7

Base Esperanza is at the very tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, so it has the mildest temperatures on the entire continent. But, nevertheless, Weather Underground shows that it hasn’t gotten above freezing all day.

AndyG55
Reply to  daveburton
March 1, 2017 11:48 pm

I’m sure there are some “warm” pools in the area as well, ones you can actually swim in..

Can’t recall the name of the place at the moment though

Alan the Brit
Reply to  AndyG55
March 2, 2017 2:29 am

A BBC holiday programme several years ago showed wealthy (mostly) American tourists disembarking from their tour vessel, to land on the shores of Antarctica, & to wallow in the hot pools in their swimwear!

Peter MacFarlane
Reply to  AndyG55
March 2, 2017 2:35 am

Alan, I’ve been on one of those trips. We went swimming at Deception Island and believe me it was not warm at all – the air was around 2C and the water the same. And this was in March, ie as warm as it gets.
Hot pools? Bah.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  AndyG55
March 2, 2017 9:33 am

Yeah, I heard the same thing about swimming in England…

JohnKnight
Reply to  AndyG55
March 2, 2017 12:06 pm

2 stinkin’ degrees . . and people wonder why we stick with Fahrenheit . .

R. Shearer
March 1, 2017 8:12 pm

That picture has been used many times, e.g., in 2013 with an article on Arctic warming. http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2013/12/arctic-thaw-tied-to-european-us.html

commieBob
Reply to  R. Shearer
March 1, 2017 10:40 pm

The 2013 story got about five comments all of which found the picture risible. At least they got it on the correct continent this time.

Editors and writers grab clip art. It’s not that they’re particularly evil, they’re just looking for something with some impact and they’re not going to spend a lot of time looking (or thinking).

urederra
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 3:01 am

And they wonder why they have so little credibility…

BTW, I think they are immoral, or at least amoral.

Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 3:20 am

It’s difficult to distinguish between incompetence and dishonesty.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 4:16 am

It’s difficult to distinguish between incompetence and dishonesty.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice. Heinlien’s Razor

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 6:45 am

Sounds to me like you are admitting that they don’t care about accuracy, just catching the most eyeballs.
If it’s true for the picture, why should we not also assume it’s true about the story itself?

Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 7:39 am

“Editors and writers grab clip art. It’s not that they’re particularly evil, they’re just looking for something with some impact and they’re not going to spend a lot of time looking (or thinking).”

NO,NO,NO,NO,NO!!!!!
These people are liberals. What they eat for breakfast is political. EVERYTHING they do is about advancing their agenda.

That photo was selected for very specific reasons with malice and forethought.

DonM
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 9:45 am

Roving Broker,

Dishonesty starts with a ‘D’ ….

Encompetence starts with an ‘E’ …

not so hard.

TA
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 1:44 pm

“That photo was selected for very specific reasons with malice and forethought.”

I agree with Matthew W. The Lefties use every trick in the book when they are trying to sell a story.

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 3:44 pm

MarkW March 2, 2017 at 6:45 am

Sounds to me like you are admitting …

It’s more of an accusation.

drednicolson
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 3:57 pm

In my high school newspaper/journalism class, we learned about the “inverted pyramid”. Broad strokes first, details last. Ideally, tell the overall story of the whole article in the first sentence. The assumption being that few readers will go through the whole article so give them the gist as quickly as possible.

Naturally, such a structure is easily propagandized. Spin the broad statements on the front page and bury the inconvenient details in the back. Or in this age of digital media, at the bottom where all the annoying ads usually are.

mothcatcher
Reply to  R. Shearer
March 2, 2017 12:29 am

The most likely explanation is that the sea level has receded since the penguins got up there

ShrNfr
Reply to  R. Shearer
March 2, 2017 7:35 am

It is a stock photo from 2010.

drednicolson
Reply to  ShrNfr
March 2, 2017 3:59 pm

Stock photo(shop). FIFY

TomRude
March 1, 2017 8:13 pm

Thank you!

KevinK
March 1, 2017 8:14 pm

Wonder how a couple of flight less birds got on top of a approx 20 foot tall chuck of ice ?

Must be the vertical climbing sub-species of Adele penguins; Pygoscelis adeliae Verticalis……

Cheers, KevinK.

TA
March 1, 2017 8:23 pm

All we get from the MSM are lies, half-truths and distortions. They have confused tens of millions of people.

March 1, 2017 8:35 pm

I know how those pixelated penguins got up there…

Reply to  daveburton
March 1, 2017 9:02 pm

Very funny. Reminds me of the BBC’s spaghetti trees.

Robert from oz
Reply to  daveburton
March 1, 2017 11:52 pm

Pure gold . Just brilliant .

Mike McMillan
Reply to  daveburton
March 2, 2017 1:34 am
David A
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 4:28 am

LOL, dang, that’s one pixilated bear.
CAGW makes everything and everbody pixilated.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 4:33 am

I’ll bet that polar bear is pixilated too. It gives no sign of being hungry, so it must not have been stranded there long.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 8:37 am

That is very funny!

Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 8:50 am

LOL Great work. Fotoforensics shows the bear and penguin equally pixelated. Hmm what does that tell us?

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=26779c72224df1cc9e3bfd15f235a11c8514ab9e.51771&fmt=ela&size=600&i=22157723

Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 9:18 am

I’m sorry Jim, you are flat out wrong here. It’s rare that on WUWT my area of expertise is relevant but it is in this case. All the fotoforensic site can do is pick up artefacts in the image. And every time an image is saved, uploaded, displayed, copied saved etc. jpeg compression artefacts are created and exacerbated along the high contrast hard lines in an image. It’s just the nature of the compression algorithm. It’s why professional photographers take images in RAW format and submit them in TIFF format. They are used in jpeg on the internet because the compression allows for a small file size. The trade off is the loss of quality and the artefact creation.

brians356
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 10:48 am

The ice chunk itself is photoshopped, and crudely. The actual base photo is of a barren rocky shore.

MRW
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 12:27 pm

Craig (@Zoot_C),

every time an image is saved, uploaded, displayed, copied saved etc. jpeg compression artefacts are created and exacerbated along the high contrast hard lines in an image. It’s just the nature of the compression algorithm.

But then all elements in the photograph would show the same level of compression, Craig; you know that. Neither the horizon nor the rock edges display it. The bottom left corner of the ice is straight and turns up. The terrain beneath it, however, dips, and is facing the sunlight.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 12:50 pm

@MRW, no, it does not work that way and that’s why people are paid big money to develop algorithms to combat it. It’s kind of chaotic bit it’s almost always guaranteed along the light side of hard edges of high contrast. ie. anything against a blue sky. We combat it daily as photogs.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 3:52 pm

A palm tree on the right side would really balance the whole photo niceley and “lead the eye”, don’t you think?

Mr Bliss
Reply to  Mike McMillan
March 2, 2017 6:53 pm

It needs a Unicorn….

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  daveburton
March 2, 2017 5:21 pm

That explains a lot about the stories I see in the BBC.

TonyL
March 1, 2017 8:39 pm

The penguins are on top of a big block of ice. Did they think that their readership would assume that the penguins just flew up there?

Michael of Oz
Reply to  TonyL
March 1, 2017 10:13 pm

It used to look like this before man. get some feels.comment image

firetoice2014
Reply to  Michael of Oz
March 2, 2017 4:56 am

Perhaps the two pseudo-photos above suggest why the polar bear in the first pseudo-photo gives no signs of being hungry, though it might be soon.

March 1, 2017 8:41 pm

So the claim is that they did not fly up there? …humor

R.S. Brown
March 1, 2017 8:47 pm

Were we to suppose the penguins FLEW up onto the ice and
couldn’t get down ? Or maybe they nested there and the ice
melted away from around them ?

It’s the kind of visual propaganda the viewer is supposed to have
a visceral reaction to without thinking about the details.

Who could DENY the penguins are in trouble ?

Be skeptical….

March 1, 2017 8:47 pm

Even Leo Decaprio and the polar bear cub think it looks fake.

Sheri
Reply to  harkin1
March 2, 2017 8:38 am

I was waiting for Leo to show up here. He’d be right at home with the whole story.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 3:54 pm

He hires trolls for that.

MRW
Reply to  harkin1
March 2, 2017 12:35 pm

A Foehn Wind is a Chinook in Alberta and Montana, just different names. Leo experienced one when he was filming The Revenant during the month of January west of Calgary, and returned to the US proclaiming that he’d just experienced the worst example of global warming in his life. The entire western provinces howled in derision. Even the Canadian PM guffawed.

Windsong
March 1, 2017 8:47 pm

Esperanza Base at approximately 63S (below, or north, of the Antarctic Circle), gets a foehn wind influenced record high temperature, while Reykjavik, Iceland, at 64N gets a nation-wide paralyzing (February) record 20 inches of snow last weekend. MSM probably won’t be mentioning that story, even though the effect on Iceland was much more severe. My guess is more than few editors think it is winter down at Esperanza.

commieBob
Reply to  Windsong
March 1, 2017 10:52 pm

They will take any extreme conditions, warm or cold, as proof that ‘something is happening’.

A CBC announcer was talking to a climatologist about the record warm February temperature in Toronto (Canada). He wanted to know if it proved global warming. The climatologist pointed out that two years ago Toronto had a record cold February. It wasn’t the record warm temperature that should be paid attention to, it was the extremes that prove that ‘something is happening’.

You could just tell that the announcer didn’t find that very satisfying. He wasn’t sophisticated enough to realize that the record cold February disproved global warming just as much as the record hot month proved it. Nuance is an endangered species. It’s like Al Gore told him: “If you can’t say something alarming, don’t say anything.”

Caligula Jones
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 9:41 am

Yes, and one of the Toronto blogs I read (TRYING to find local events, but they keep filling it up with crappy lists and fake news) went on about the WARMEST FEBRURARY EVAH:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/03/toronto-just-had-warmest-february-its-history/

“The average temperature of 3.48 C beat out the previous record of 3.39 C set in 1998.”

Um, that’s an average of the HIGH temp, BTW…not mentioned in the “article”.

john harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 11:03 am

Toronto? Isn’t that the place where they called in the army when it snowed? They’re not even Canadian!

Caligula Jones
Reply to  commieBob
March 2, 2017 11:45 am

Well, there is Toronto and TROC (that’s The Rest of Canada), and yes, most people outside of Toronto make fun of us. And we’ll never live down calling in the Army down BUT:

1) the mayor at the time was almost as crazy as Rob Ford, (without the excuse of drug abuse)
2) we received a winter’s worth of snow in two days
3) other areas of the nation also call in the Army, as New Brunswick did this year (for snow as well)

EricHa
Reply to  Windsong
March 2, 2017 5:08 am

Incredible timelapse video shows snow getting deeper and deeper as Iceland’s capital has biggest snowfall in 80 years with 20 inches in 24 hours
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4268754/Iceland-sees-20-inches-snow-24-hours.html

Worth looking at.

Auto
Reply to  EricHa
March 2, 2017 12:15 pm

I think that was also on the BBC News website.

Auto

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Windsong
March 2, 2017 5:54 am

HA, if you are at Esperanza, Antarctica (bout 63° S latitude) then you are as far north as you can get from the South Pole and still be on the Antarctica continent.
comment image

So, an air temperature of 63.5° F at Esperanza, Antarctica at 63° S latitude isn’t that much more amazing than the summer air temperature of 70° F at Fairbanks Alaska at 64° N latitude.

MarkW
Reply to  Windsong
March 2, 2017 6:48 am

Snow packs in the Sierras have gotten so deep that the traditional tools for measuring it, can’t.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/02/western-snowpack-too-deep-scientists-measuring-devices/98623436/

Reply to  Windsong
March 2, 2017 8:42 am

What’s funny is that here in New England, USA, we get snow falls like that every year or two. Here’s some good detail on one from 2015. Some years we get more than one.

http://www.weather.gov/okx/Blizzard_01262715

It will shut us down for a day or two, and some places a few more.

Roger Dewhurst
March 1, 2017 8:49 pm

Nothing like pixelated penguins with a glass of whisky.

PiperPaul
March 1, 2017 8:55 pm

Chilly Willy is not happy about this!

http://i.giphy.com/xUPGcAzlECKEApxcME.gif

March 1, 2017 9:03 pm

CO2 is causing a rise in pixels.

Stewy Beef
Reply to  Max Photon
March 7, 2017 1:06 pm
TonyL
March 1, 2017 9:08 pm

I need to set the record straight, here.

Penguins can, indeed, fly.
They just need an assist from a suitably sized catapult or slingshot.
Admittedly, the trajectory is a bit more “ballistic” than “controlled flight”, but they absolutely can be made to go airborne.

The same can be said of the common barnyard chicken, another “flightless” bird. As many a farm boy can attest, the chicken can also be made to fly. A topic I may have some aerodynamic engineering experience with.

Bryan A
Reply to  TonyL
March 1, 2017 10:20 pm

Penguins do fly, and maneuver quickly while in flight, they simply do it underwater

Keith J
Reply to  Bryan A
March 2, 2017 5:06 am

But their wings serve negative lift in order to counter buoyant force as their plumage along with body makes for a density lower than water.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  TonyL
March 2, 2017 6:12 am

My experience tells me that most all of the common barnyard chicken breeds are capable of flying, …… iffen you don’t fatten them up too much. But they are of the same mindset as the Roadrunner who prefers “running” instead of flying.

If available, barnyard chickens will roost in trees if they don’t have a chicken coop/house to spend the nighttime in.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  TonyL
March 2, 2017 6:18 am

Chickens can fly. On the farm we had to clip their wings to keep them from flying over their pen enclosure.

Sheri
Reply to  TonyL
March 2, 2017 8:47 am

There’s fly and then there’s FLY!

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 9:11 am

Lest we forget…there’s flying, and then there’s “falling with style”.

rip

Auto
Reply to  TonyL
March 2, 2017 12:30 pm

The British Aviation Authority used to test the strength of windshields on planes using a device that could fire out dead chickens at extremely high speed.
The device was pointed at the aircraft’s windshield and if the chicken didn’t break it, it was assumed that the windshield would survive the impacts of actual collisions with birds when in flight.
British Rail had recently designed a new locomotive and was testing various designs of windshields, so they borrowed the device from the BAA.
Adjusting it to approximate the maximum speed of the train, they loaded a dead chicken and fired it at the first windshield design.
The chicken went straight through the windshield, broke several components and left a huge dent in the compartment door. Surprised by the result, they asked a BAA official if they had done the test correctly.
An engineer checked everything and suggested that for their next test they defrost the chicken.

Auto

Annie
Reply to  Auto
March 2, 2017 2:03 pm

That’s the best laugh I’ve had in days! Thanks Auto. It just had to be British Rail. 😉

Adam B.
March 1, 2017 9:12 pm

Lastly if you magnify the picture 500%, the penguins become extremely pixilated, the ice chunk less so, and the background rocks even less so, a fingerprint of 3 different photographs with different resolution that have been overlain.

I don’t disagree that the story is purposefully alarming, but I’m not sure about this particular analysis. You may be confusing pixelated edges at various resolutions with image compression artifacts. The affect is more noticeable around contrasting edges.

You can view a higher res version of the above image and zoom in. Although there are still artifacts, I do not see any obvious betrayals of multi-image compositing. Not saying it wasn’t edited, just that it was done well.

Geronimo
Reply to  Adam B.
March 1, 2017 9:42 pm

I would agree. This is bad journalistic practice – using a picture from 2010 to illustrate a
minor point about a weather event in 2015 but that is a long way to go to claim that the
picture is a fake. I imagine that the reason it was taken was because it was so unusual.
And probably there is more of the ice hiding behind the picture explaining why the structure
is stable and how the penguins got up there.

Reply to  Geronimo
March 1, 2017 10:19 pm

There is also something not right with the shadows. Where are the penguin shadows? Based on the ice’s shadow we should see similar shadows elsewhere.

hunter
Reply to  Geronimo
March 2, 2017 9:45 am

Penguins could not get on top of that block of ice unassisted. They can jump out of water. They cannot jump to any significant height on land. The photo is either photoshopped or staged. Either way it is yet another bit of climate hype deception.

drednicolson
Reply to  Geronimo
March 2, 2017 4:27 pm

In cinema there is the concept of “forced perspective”, where multiple actors can be at different spots in the scene, and with the right camera angle can be filmed to look like they are occupying the same space. Peter Jackson used this technique regularly in his LotR movies to make the actors playing the hobbits look like hobbits despite not actually being 3 1/2ish feet tall (along with other tricks, like using child doubles in shots where they face away from the camera).

So there very well could be a penguin-climbable slope on the backside of the ice mass, hidden via forced perspective. How to Take a Fake Picture with a Real Camera.

Reply to  Adam B.
March 1, 2017 10:07 pm

Everything about the picture does not jive with penguin behavior. Nor does it jive with the ice placement in an environment where there is no other ice anywhere land or sea. Nonetheless I realized there was an off chance that the penguin reached the top by means not visible. So I uploaded the pic to Fotoforensics and got this picture analysis

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c656885d3c820e556c8a3e5739301d11967b433d.25737&fmt=ela&size=600&i=22157313

The penguins not only looked unusually pixalated, but their pixalation disrupts the upper edge of the ice. In the original the penguins appear behind the upper edge. In the forensics the pixalation bites into the ice and disrupts the edge. With all things considered it appears fake.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 7:32 am

Jim, the fotoforensic site, whilst fun, is essentially useless unless you are working on an image straight from the camera. The image that ends up with you has been compressed many many times, and then again by your browser and then again by you as you copy it to do the forensics’ on. It’s a useless gimmick ( source me. Adobe certified expert). You are mistaking jpeg compression artefacts with evidence of photoshopping. As someone who has made countless composite images I can tell you that the ‘evidence’ in your site above appears very different in an actual photoshopped image that has not been around the web a few thousand times. See my post below where I explain that it is a Reuters stock file image.

Bryan A
Reply to  Adam B.
March 1, 2017 10:24 pm

Not sure your high res version indicates a lack of shopping. Looking at the pixelated edges around the Penguins, it appears that the pixelation has definite larger right angle zones surrounding flippers and heads

Reply to  Bryan A
March 2, 2017 6:54 am

Here it is blown up 3x using Irfanview . I think the pixelation around the penguins and even around the ice block is pretty apparent compared to , eg : the horizon .
http://cosy.com/y17/WUWT_FakeMSN_PenguinPic.jpg

Reply to  Bryan A
March 2, 2017 7:37 am

@Bob Armstrong. Those are jpeg compression artefacts and are impossible to avoid because of the nature of jpeg compression. Do it with a random sample of images involving a subject taken against a blue sky. I guarantee you in a sample size of suitable jpeg images you will see the same effect >95%

Sheri
Reply to  Adam B.
March 2, 2017 8:49 am

We are supposed to ignore physics and biology and assume the picture is not photoshopped? Sorry. It doesn’t require counting pixels to see that this is manufactured photo.

brians356
Reply to  Adam B.
March 2, 2017 10:54 am

The ice chunk itself is photoshopped into the frame. The original frame depicts a barren rocky shore.

Timothy Soren
March 1, 2017 9:24 pm

Reuters has a photo credit from 1/1 2010 and location of pic at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, East Antarctica

StandupPhilosopher
March 1, 2017 9:26 pm

“Antarctica contains 90% of the worlds freshwater” is a meaningless statistic. Absolutely zero percent of anyones freshwater comes from Antarctica. It’s another example of abuse of language and data being taken out of context is used to miseducate people.

Chris Hanley
March 1, 2017 9:26 pm

Gravity-defying ice.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 1, 2017 10:23 pm

It really is an appalling job, why doesn’t it fall over, the shadow outline on the rocks is ham-fisted and how come is there no sign of any melt water at the base?
As for the flooded house it is also a joke, the BS artist had no idea of linear perspective the horizon line being at the water line at the house the camera lens would have been half under water so any foreground should be submerged:comment image?w=720

ralfellis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 2, 2017 2:11 am

Ah, no, you fail to realise that in the warmist world you can have sloping water. So the picture is correct, and the water level slopes up towards the house…. 😉

R

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 2, 2017 5:43 pm

Sloping water is very common. Sloping water allowed the penguins to swim up onto the ice on the rock.

John F. Hultquist
March 1, 2017 9:32 pm

Cut the heads off of chickens and they can run around like an alarmed warmest.
[Sorry; not nice.]

Pamela Gray
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 2, 2017 6:31 am

Very true. As children during butcher day we got to run them down to take them to the boiling water tank for a dip. The feathers were easier to pluck after a plunge. Bloody business as the cut neck would fling blood around as we caught them. I remember it being fun but smelly work.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2017 6:32 am

I mean chickens, not warmists.

siamiam
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2017 7:43 am

Did you flour the immature eggs and deep fat fry them?

Sheri
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
March 2, 2017 8:50 am

Works on ducks, too. It is messy.

fhsiv
March 1, 2017 10:15 pm

What temperature range was measured by the Esperanza sensor on March 24th, 2015?
Maybe 50°F ? Or more?

hunter
March 1, 2017 10:16 pm

Good job, Anthony. It seems there has been a sharp increase of climate hype stories that fall apart under even slight scrutiny. This one may be one of the biggest whoppers.

March 1, 2017 10:43 pm

The other Arctic record temperature form 1982: 19.8 Deg. C

https://eos.org/features/evaluating-highest-temperature-extremes-in-the-antarctic

Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 1, 2017 10:44 pm

Sorry, no penguin pictures, but 2.3 Deg. C higher 35 years ago.

David A
Reply to  John_QPublic (@John_QPublic)
March 2, 2017 4:37 am

So fake pictures, fake records, and pixulated reporters.

gnome
March 1, 2017 10:51 pm

Someone tell those penguins it’s safe to come down now. Those weren’t really polar bears, just a lot of overfed democrat women dressed as polar bears.

Brian H
March 1, 2017 10:56 pm

Definitely a foeny foto.

Auto
Reply to  Brian H
March 2, 2017 12:35 pm

Ohhhhhhh.

Auto

papiertigre
March 2, 2017 12:06 am

Another thing wrong with this story, the world almanac this new record is updating used different criteria of what qualified as “Antarctica” .

The previous record included only locations within the Antarctic circle (66 degrees South or better). Apparently meteorologists prior to the AGW political movement considered Esperanza Station unrepresentative of general conditions in Antarctica and excluded it for the purposes of almanac records of extremes. So this might not be the highest temperature ever recorded at Esperanza, it might just be the most recent temp higher than the record for inside the Antarctic circle.
The record high temp for inside the Antarctic Circle remains 59 degrees at Vanda Station, Antarctica, on Jan. 5, 1974.

papiertigre
Reply to  papiertigre
March 2, 2017 4:51 am

Here’s Vanda Station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanda_Station

It’s defunct. The ecologists insisted all trace be removed to avoid contamination of the environment. So they needed a replacement for a regular source of Antarctica is so hot stories.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/77%C2%B031'00.0%22S+161%C2%B040'00.0%22E/@-77.5274021,161.7678879,74680m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-77.516667!4d161.666667?hl=en

Interesting that Vanda sat in the moisture shadow of three converging mountain chains. Kind of like the Death Valley of Antarctica.

Griff
March 2, 2017 12:57 am

Has anyone proved this is photoshopped?

Asked MSN for a comment?

You see that’s the difference between this website and the NY Times: the Times asks for comment and fact checks. It doesn’t just sling mud at people.

And it was a record high temp, wasn’t it? Which is of interest and concern… is this article trying to divert attention from that fact?

and I don’t see the posts on the record low Antarctic ice here anywhere ???

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 1:07 am

Griff, it’s very easy to test a digital image for tampering, if you know what utilities to use and what to look for. So, like polar bears, you know nothing about what you speak.

Bryan A
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 12:25 pm

Shopped or not, It definitely isn’t Esperanza on 3-24-15, almost 3400 miles away on a continent that is 3500 miles accross. In fact there is a good Google 360 view at Ninnis and Mertz Cross on Azimuth Hill Antarctica that shows what the area looks like.
A good picture used out of context, is bad reporting in any book

Bryan A
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 12:38 pm

In fact, the only images in the MSN article are from Scott Base and Commonwealth Bay respectively 3400 & 2500 miles away from Esperanza Base. If Esperanza Base on 3-24-2015 is the news, show us an image from there then, not some recycled image from someplace else designed to jerk heart strings.

That is like telling us that LA is overcrouded and showing a picture of New York City

tty
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 1:19 am

“the Times asks for comment and fact checks. It doesn’t just sling mud at people.”

Hilarious comment of the year from Griff

Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 2:08 am

You are missing the point Griff. The object is to discredit a report which is uncomfortable news by diverting attention to the nature of a stock photograph. If it had not been the photograph, doubtless something else would have been found which was equally as minor. However you are right is suggesting we discuss the nature of the report, as opposed to the aesthetics of the Penguin picture.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 2:12 am

Or to fuel emotion rather than fact. Yeah, I missed that point! The fact is, it is fake.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 5:00 am

Gareth and Griff==>the whole damn story, illustration and copy, is bogus, all the way down. It is a fabricated illustration to a grossly misleading story.

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 7:06 am

There is nothing uncomfortable about the report.
It really is funny how easily you alarmists are fooled.
It’s almost as if you have no brain power to speak of.

Griff
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 8:23 am

No, I thought that was exactly what was happening… an attempt to discredit an uncomfortable report by diverting attention.

I was however also trying to make the point that this site is advocacy, not reporting: the news media often have higher standards than websites.

There seems to be a tendency among sceptical sites to have a go at photos… which is ridiculous seeing some photo editor who has really nothing to do with writing the articles usually just sticks in first stock photo which vaguely matches the subject…

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 9:26 am

news media have high standards?

Once again you be-clown yourself.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 9:36 am

The NY Times covered up the starvation deaths of 6,000,000 Ukranians at the hands of the Soviets. They received a Pulitzer prize for their reporting. After their falsehoods were exposed, they still did not disavow the Pulitzer.

I will accept Griff’s polar bear expertise, as an anonymous commenter, on the WUWT blog, before I will ever uncritically accept anything written in the NY Times.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 10:14 am

Gareth,

the story is misleading since they didn’t mention that it was caused by a warming wind (Foehn wind),that lasted for part of a day,as it cooled back down to freezing. There were other previous record highs in the 50’s,that happened numerous times in the past at the base.

Jeff Masters made this statement:

“A strong high pressure ridge and a Foehn wind led to the record temperatures as Jeff Masters explains here:

This week’s record temperatures were made possible by an unusually extreme jet stream contortion that brought a strong ridge of high pressure over the Antarctic Peninsula, allowing warm air from South America to push southwards over Antarctica. At the surface, west to east blowing winds over the Antarctic Peninsula rose up over the 1,000-foot high mountains just to the west of Esperanza Base, then descended and warmed via adiabatic compression into a warm foehn wind that reached 44 mph (71 km/hr) at 09 UTC on March 24th, near when the maximum temperature was recorded. A similar event also affected Marambio on the 23rd.”

That is the TRUE nature of the phenomenon, a temporary WEATHER event that dissipated in just a few hours.

Has nothing to do with “global warming” or insignificant increase in atmosphere CO2 levels. Nothing uncomfortable about it,Gareth. It is warmist loons like you who make a mountain out of a molehill,milking it for propaganda purposes.

What is sad is that Senator Schumer,you and Griff go bananas over a tiny region of the continent,cause by a short term weather event.

MarkW
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 10:56 am

SunSettommy: They are also the first to scream that any temperatures that are colder normal, is just weather and should be ignored.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 12:41 pm

AYUP, Higher Standards like using Stock Photos from different parts of a continent 3000 miles away to make a point about a weather situation that is already 2 years old and an entire continent away

3x2
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 2:25 am

Seriously, Is there any eco-babble that you won’t defend?

BTW if there were actually a record low in ice … this would be a bad thing because…?
Wishing for more ice is like wishing for more desert. Life is orders of magnitude more prolific at the equator for good reason.

MarkW
Reply to  3x2
March 2, 2017 7:07 am

For an alarmist, all that matters is that the narrative must be supported. It doesn’t matter how badly the alarmist has to embarrass itself, support the narrative at all costs.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 4:26 am

err griff mate..its SUMMER down here

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 8:58 am

Griff—You’re proving what skeptics say. You care only about the actual temperature and NOTHING about why it occurred. It’s HIGH!!!!!! For 5 hours once in a while, yes. Why? Who cares? It’s HIGH!!!!!!! Your comprehension of science is just so lacking.

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 9:27 am

As always Griff doesn’t know what the difference between weather and climate is.
Everything is interpreted based on whether it supports one of his religious convictions or not.

ferdberple
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 9:15 am

the Times asks for comment and fact checks.
=========================
Two reporters in a bar:
Reporter 1: Anyone know what Trump is doing?
Reporter 2: My girlfriend’s aunt’s hairdresser says Trump is in bed with Putin.

MSN breaking news – Reporter 1 exclusive:
Confidential sources report KGB blackmailing Trump over kinky sex orgy.

hunter
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 9:53 am

Griff, why are you concerned about a 2015 high in a place that last was that temperature in the 1980’s? No one is commenting on the Antarctic ice because like all claims by climate hypesters, it turns out to be unimportant. Low sea ice in the Antarctic is doing nothing adverse to world climate. So back to the topic of this post: Why would MSM consistently decide to lie and deceive readers about climate?

TA
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 2:00 pm

“And it was a record high temp, wasn’t it? Which is of interest and concern…”

It’s cooled off since then, Griff.

jim heath
March 2, 2017 12:57 am

FAKE SCIENCE

john harmsworth
Reply to  jim heath
March 2, 2017 11:23 am

Does not even qualify as resembling science.

tty
March 2, 2017 1:17 am

I think the photo could be genuine. Of course there would have to be an easier way to get onto the ice from the back, but penguins are much more agile on land than you might believe. And it isn’t unusual for penguins to get onto snow or ice patches on sunny days in Antarctica. I’ve often seen this behavior in Gentoos and Royal Penguins. Admittedly I haven’t seen Adeles do it, but I have rather limited field experience of that species. Remember that those feather coats have to keep the penguins warm in sub-zero water, so I imagine they can get uncomfortable on land when temperatures creep up over freezing.
Jim Steele is right that they only breed on rocks though, I’ve seen them scramble hundreds of meters up a steep snowbank to get to a suitable rocky patch.

tty
Reply to  tty
March 2, 2017 1:22 am

Correction “Royal Penguins” should be “King Penguins”. I always mix those two names up.

Derek Andrews
Reply to  tty
March 3, 2017 8:56 am

It seems to be a 2010 photo taken by Reuters staff. http://pictures.reuters.com/archive/CLIMATECHANGE-ANTARCTICA–GF10000365918.html

Felflames
March 2, 2017 1:23 am

Just out of curiosity,this temperature sensor wouldn’t happen to be next to the exhaust of the generators, or down wind from a heat source perchance ?

tty
Reply to  Felflames
March 2, 2017 1:34 am

Actually not needed to get extremely high temperatures during Föhn conditions. Next time you hear abot record warmth in Greenland, check where it happened. It will almost certainly be in Narsarsuaq which is famous for extreme föhn effect.

March 2, 2017 1:57 am

As soon as I saw the term ‘warmunista’ I gave up reading. You cannot condemn people for using the word ‘denier’ and claim the high moral ground when you patently use the same insulting terms in a different context.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 8:21 am

Gareth I use warmunista as a kinder apolitical term than alarmists. What do you recommend for a term for people who think CO2 causes everything?

Sheri
Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 9:23 am

I often refer to them as global warming advocates or global warming believers. I changed to “advocate” when there were objections to “believer” as being religious (which it isn’t, but I gave up on logic with said persons). Actually, I don’t object to the “d” word—it’s additional proof that the advocates don’t have a science case. If this were REAL science, the “skeptics” would be referred to as those who have a different theory, not those who deny science. Even the use of the term “pseudoscience” would have been less indicative of the advocates not being able to make their case. Of course that term opens the discussions to actual scientific investigation, something that is not wanted by advocates.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 9:27 am

Stupid comes to mind.

Gunga Din
Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:02 am

“What do you recommend for a term for people who think CO2 causes everything?”

The wizards of COZ?

March 2, 2017 2:04 am

If anyone has an interest in false news and dodgy reporting, they may find this of interest :
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/fake-news-and-alternative-facts-in-the-times/

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 2:44 am

Wales. The country in the UK where the Welsh burn houses owned in Wales by the English.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 4:52 am

The same country where English immigrants persecuted school children for speaking their native language and wouldn’t allow official documents to be printed in Welsh!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 8:30 am

Once you realise your beliefs and morals are defunct, it’s always a good fallback position to attack the integrity of someones country or their culture. You are both beneath contempt for reverting to such Philistine pig ignorant tactics.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 8:31 am

Apologies Phil, I think I may have misread your post. Mae’n ddrwg gennyf

john harmsworth
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 11:52 am

As Gareth attacks the Phillistines. Who aren’t even around to defend themselves!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 3:59 pm

The Romans forced the “Angles” to speak and write in Latin. The French forced us to write and speak French, the official language, “English” was actively banned. I don’t quite see your point.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 2, 2017 6:24 pm

@Patrick.
“The Romans forced the “Angles” to speak and write in Latin. The French forced us to write and speak French, the official language”

No they didn’t that’s a fallacy.

There was no such thing as English when the Romans arrived and there was no such thing as English when they left. Latin was the language of the aristocracy whilst there was little to no written language for the common man. That which was spoken was Brittonic Celtic and has no relation to modern English. And after the Romans left the language which replaced the common tongue was am Anglo-Frisian version of German that was spoken by the people left behind by the Romans. With the influx of Angles and Saxons who spoke their own version of old high German the common tongue became a mixture of all three.

English is a form of German and a recognisable form of English as we understand it didn’t come around until maybe 1500 whilst the aristocracy spoke French for a few centuries after invasion the common tongue remained an evolving form of the Germanic Anglo Saxon that had been around a long time. The common man was certainly not forced to speak any language, certainly not that of the aristocracy. Keeping the populace illiterate by maintaining Latin as the language of the church and French as the language of the gentry was a contrived plan to maintain control of the minds of the populace.

Modern English didn’t exist until some time into the 1600’s when the language in Europe had a major shift.

Your comments about Wales are also incorrect but meant to be provocative. As I am in content moderation i will only address those as I am able.

Editor
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 2, 2017 4:05 am

LOL!!

The ever reliabe Bob Ward!

OldUnixHead
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 3, 2017 9:47 am

Heh!! I suspected as much, but was reluctant to visit the LSE Grantham Institute site link to find out. Lo and Behold! For those at WUWT not familiar with Mr. Ward and his long history with Grantham Institute, check out the Bishop Hill site and use the Navigate, Search menus with “bob ward” or, for easier links to Josh’s enhancements, “bob ward josh” . Quite a guy.

ralfellis
March 2, 2017 2:05 am

I would disagree that foehn winds have no heat input. They do have a heat input, through the agent of moisture output. They get their extra warmth though condensation, rainfall, and dry adiabatic warming.

R

tty
Reply to  ralfellis
March 2, 2017 4:27 am

You know what “adiabatic” means? “No heat exchange”, from greek a- “not” -dia- “through” -batos “passable”.
There is no heat input. The temperature increase comes from energy of position as the air moves downward in the gravitational field.

Sheri
Reply to  tty
March 2, 2017 9:25 am

“Adiabatic” is a most interesting word. I find it fun to just say it over and over again! (Yeah, I’m not like other people!)

ralfellis
Reply to  tty
March 2, 2017 9:55 am

>>You know what “adiabatic” means?

Yes, I know what it means. But the air is only warmer on the way down, because it has been given heat through the latent heat of condensation.

No moisture, no foehn wind. Understand now?

R

Hugs
March 2, 2017 2:06 am

The fake picture has been circulating for years. Reuters, for one, has been using it. I wonder who has the credit?

Hugs
Reply to  Hugs
March 2, 2017 2:29 am

Ok, I’m not calling it photoshop fake. I’m calling it a piece of art deliberately planned to not document but to lie about nature. Media are full of that kind of crap. Nice one if you don’t think about the carbon fingerprint created by shooting two penguins.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Hugs
March 2, 2017 6:26 am

Here is a link. Pauline Askin is the photographer. Look at the version of the posting thare. The image edge boundaries and resolution are much crisper.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=RSm4WIDhG8OojwPe8rvgDg&q=pauline+askin+penguin+pictures&oq=pauline+askin+penguin+pictures&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3…46958.56058.0.56326.17.17.0.0.0.0.167.1954.3j14.17.0….0…1c.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.16.1850…0j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.OInek218RZE#imgrc=_

Reply to  Steve Fraser
March 2, 2017 8:26 am

Crisper but the penguin pixelation still disrupts the ice forms top boundary

Editor
Reply to  Hugs
March 2, 2017 7:36 am

It’s Pauline Atkins — anyone with Twitter account (which would not be me) could send her a twit and ask her about it at

@ProudPagen

If you do, let us know here.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 2, 2017 11:17 am

I just tweeted her directly. Such an odd ice shape would prompt a photographer to take several photos. As photographers know, we only get one really good photo for every 100. So I asked her for any photos of the backside of the ice that would reveal a gentler slope that enable the penguins to climb to the top.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 2, 2017 11:35 am

Will absence of such evidence mean you are correct? You have suggested the opposite in my argument.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 2, 2017 11:54 am

Send her Griff. That’s a twit we can do without.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
March 3, 2017 10:26 pm

Craig says, “Will absence of such evidence mean you are correct? You have suggested the opposite in my argument.”

PLease Craig dont be so snarky. The absence of such evidence only means we will never know for sure. Did reuters get back to you that there is no evidence?

ralfellis
March 2, 2017 2:32 am

The CofG of this ice mushroom would be so far to the right that it would topple. The smooth ice shows it was a peak on a larger iceberg. 100% photoshop, even without the added penguins.

However, you can get ice mushrooms if there are some rocks around, to shade the ice beneath them….

http://oi66.tinypic.com/1045c7n.jpg

Daniel Mannix
March 2, 2017 3:08 am

I spent 2 months in the area in 1996, and we had an unusual warm spell because of high pressure. Continuous storms are the norm, but the rare high pressure yields conditions very much like Vancouver in the winter–both being martime climates. The Antarctic peninsula is the Florida of Antarctica. The photo is definitly not from anywhere around Esperanza, and penguins would never achieve such a precarious position.

Pablo
March 2, 2017 3:49 am

“minds bound and cramped by their own theories and despisers of their fellows….They make poor observations because they choose among the results of their experiments only what suits their objective, neglecting whatever is unrelated to it and setting aside everything which might tend toward the idea they wish to combat.
Claude Bernard (1813-78)

Editor
March 2, 2017 4:03 am

Worth noting that the previous record was only slightly lower at 62.8F, set way back in 1961, also at Esperanza.

So “balmy” temps of 63F are not unusual there.

Interestingly the photo originally appeared in 2013, as part of an article by the International Science Times about the record Antarctic COLD temperature in 2010!

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/antarctic-record-temperature-con/

I expect we’ll see plenty more of it every time there is a bit of warm weather there.

David A
Reply to  Paul Homewood
March 2, 2017 4:47 am

Ok, so we can infer .2 degrees C rise in 56 years. Well I’ll be pixilated.

Kaiser Derden
March 2, 2017 4:52 am

actually the story admits that that was not even the Antarctic’s highest record temp …

Kaiser Derden
March 2, 2017 4:54 am

The heat record for the broader Antarctic region, defined as anywhere south of 60 degrees latitude, was 19.8°C (67.6°F) on Jan. 30, 1982 on Signy Island in the South Atlantic, it said. (from the story)

heysuess
March 2, 2017 5:00 am

Putting aside the photoshop inquiry, the photo makes no logical sense. The hunk of ice would have been washed into place by a severe storm with waves big enough, strong enough to place it, or push it, into this unlikely spot, probably much earlier in the season. The idea that penguins would have stayed put through all of this long enough to find themselves isolated from the ocean and terra firma is utter nonsense. So, unless there is a gentle ramp to the heights of this ice chuck unseen on the far side – where one would expect to see a shadow, but one does not – one can be assured that the photo is pure hogwash, without any further investigation into photoshop techniques.

Sheri
Reply to  heysuess
March 2, 2017 10:11 am

Agreed. The only way this would be natural is if there is a ramp on the other side that allowed the penquins to get to the top. Then, it would qualify as use of a photographic angle to produce a photo that gives a false impression of what is going on.

Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 11:36 am

That’s called using your photographic eye. We are taught to use perspective and position to create striking images.

Sheri
Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 3:04 pm

Craig: I’m well aware of that. I clearly label all my photos that are “artistic” as such. I do not use photos to try and bend people’s perceptions of reality. I consider that dishonest.

Reply to  Sheri
March 2, 2017 5:02 pm

So what is your evidence that the photographer is dishonest here? They have taken this image along with many others and submitted it to their employer for the stock image file. It has been used a number of times since then for different articles. At what point has the photographer been dishonest by the time you have become aware of the image? It was submitted without comment.

Ian W
March 2, 2017 5:11 am

Many people do not have any grasp of geography. Antarctica is huge you will see from this overlay picturecomment image that the claim that a temperature at the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula is rather like claiming that the temperatures in the Bering straits affect the temperature of Iowa. The do-you-want-fries-with-that greens are extremely easily led due to their ignorance

ossqss
March 2, 2017 5:37 am

comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Fraizer
March 2, 2017 9:29 am

Life imitates art. ;*]

Ron Clutz
March 2, 2017 5:38 am

There is a pattern of deception by alarmists which has been called out, two notable examples being Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. False advertising is a criminal offense, if the authorities have the gumption to enforce the law.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/01/06/truth-in-climate-advertising/

Art Stanton
March 2, 2017 6:04 am

Don’t they know that ice kills Adelie Penguins?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/world/penguins-die-giant-iceberg-irpt/

Mickey
March 2, 2017 6:06 am

It’s not photoshopped. It’s a series of pictures that Pauline Askin took in Cape Denison in late 2009 – early 2010.

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctic-ice-melting-may-be-worse-thought-314614

heysuess
Reply to  Mickey
March 2, 2017 6:36 am

Yes, there must be access unseen behind the ice block after all. I don’t believe a reporter with Reuters would be making things up… http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&VBID=2C0FCI3HBII44&SMLS=1&RW=1280&RH=625

Reply to  heysuess
March 2, 2017 8:20 am

“I don’t believe a reporter with Reuters would be making things up…”

Why not?

Andrew

Pat Frank
Reply to  heysuess
March 2, 2017 9:17 am

Very notorious example of Reuters using photoshopped pictures as evidence.

TA
Reply to  heysuess
March 2, 2017 2:17 pm

Yeah, why not?

Tony Mach
Reply to  Mickey
March 2, 2017 8:21 am

I would say in that case Jim Steele has published fake news. No evidence of fakery – no cookie.

[but you’ve provided no evidence other than your own opinion -mod]

Reply to  Tony Mach
March 2, 2017 11:37 am

Mod. It’s no less evidence than has been provided to the contrary

Reply to  Tony Mach
March 2, 2017 11:50 am

Except for the very obvious common sense of “How does that mass of ice balance itself?” What magic keeps it from toppling over to the one side

Reply to  Tony Mach
March 2, 2017 12:00 pm

Perhaps its the greater body of ice behind that slopes to the shore not yet eroded by the summer tides that follow the natural channel from the north. Perhaps?

Reply to  Tony Mach
March 2, 2017 1:39 pm

“Perhaps its the greater body of ice behind that slopes to the shore not yet eroded by the summer tides that follow the natural channel from the north. Perhaps?”

Just-So Story.

Andrew

Reply to  Mickey
March 2, 2017 9:24 am

pat. I’m very aware of that image and story which is precisely why it would be suicide for them to include composite images in their library now. Reuters did not manipulate the image, the photographer did. And when it was discovered he was suspended then fired. Reuters are a news agency, not a content delivery service. They as an entity have no position but they must rely upon the integrity of their content providers. The image above was quickly found out and dealt with. To suggest a manipulated image would stay in their catalogue for 6 years undetected is a bit wide of the mark. But by all means, report them for bad practice. Their code of conduct means they must investigate it.

MarkW
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 10:59 am

Reuters defended the reporter for several weeks. Only when the evidence became overwhelming did they decide to cut their losses by firing the reporter.
This issue does create the instant hew and cry that the Lebanese engagement did, so the heat levels are not the same.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 11:38 am

Mark, it does not alter the facts. The reporter was removed. It has not happened since

MarkW
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 1:54 pm

Context is very important.
You left out all of the important details, like the huge outcry and that Reuters defended the “reporter” for weeks.
You want us to believe that absent the outcry, Reuters still would have removed the reporter, and from that concluded that absent any outcry, Reuters went through it’s stock images and removed all photo-shopped pictures.
Based on what? The evidence of their past behavior does not support the picture you are trying to paint.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Mickey
March 2, 2017 9:50 am

Yes, not Photoshopped, but forced perspective. That chunk of ice could be a foot tall.

But definitely deceptive if used in the context of “poor penguins, ice is running out”.

ralfellis
Reply to  Mickey
March 2, 2017 10:27 am

>>It’s not photoshopped.

It is photoshopped.

a. The ice block is unstable, with a far-right CofG. It could not stand on a small plinth like that.

b. The ice shadow is from forward-top-left, casting a shadow to the right and slightly towards us. The rocks shadow is from back-top-left, which is why the rocks are giving no shadow. Had the ice sun-angle been correct, many of those rocks would have been giving shadow.

c. The upper ice shadow is far too smooth. This is a jagged ice shadow on jagged rocks, and it cannot give a smooth shadow.

d. The left penguin has the back-top-left sun position. But the right penguin does not show the same illumination.

e. The penguins could not have got on top of this plinth. And if there were a rear access ramp, we would see its shadow. And there is no shadow.

Photoshop deceit. SOP for the warmist lobby.

R

Reply to  ralfellis
March 2, 2017 12:04 pm

A: You have no evidence that the ice you see is all there is in a 360 view.
b: The shadow is not unusual. It merely means you have no understanding of perspective, In fact the shadow is evidence of the ice being longer to the rear than can be seen.
c.d,e dismissed as lack of education.

sciguy54
March 2, 2017 6:09 am

First there is activism-motivated “science”. Then there is deceptive “reportage”. And then there are the politicians who use the fake news to push agendas. Yesterday a leading US Democrat senator declared that it was presently 64 degrees F in Antarctica. You can’t make this stuff up.

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/837058685520261122

Reply to  sciguy54
March 2, 2017 7:06 am

I tweeted
@SenSchumer Fake Foto w intransigently stupid non-news . The AlGoreWarming eKo-fascists fighting for their scam in the last swamp puddles .

siamiam
Reply to  sciguy54
March 2, 2017 7:34 am

Note today Mar. 2, Esperanza station is -4 degrees. That’s 6 degrees below average for Mar 2nd.

MarkW
Reply to  siamiam
March 2, 2017 9:32 am

Colder than average is weather. Warmer than average is climate.

Reply to  sciguy54
March 2, 2017 8:34 am

Chuck fails on so many points, but most glaring, he does not recognize this record was from 2015, and the report was just a confirmation that it was a record since 1953. It is not a recent temperature, but Chuck tweets “its 64 degrees”

TA
Reply to  sciguy54
March 2, 2017 2:24 pm

I guess Chuck Shumer isn’t aware that this took place several years ago. Or maybe he is.

I can’t wait for the climate change debate to begin. Talk about stirring up a hornets nest. Ole Shumer will be buzzing all around.

March 2, 2017 6:24 am

Unfortunately this image is not photoshopped ( i’m an adobe certified expert and erstwhile professional photographer ) I could find no evidence in the image that showed any photoshopping so I went in search of the images that would have been used to composite it. I could not find them but I could find the original image. It is a Reuters file image ( so available to anyone ho pays to use it and has access to their stock images ).

It was taken by Pauline Askin at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, in East Antarctica on January 1, 2010.

It’s just the perspective that makes the penguins appear stranded atop a pillar of ice where in fact they would have easy access from the shoreline behind the ice.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 6:46 am

So who is Pauline?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2017 6:52 am

As far as I know Pamela she is an Australian journalist with Reuters who has covered many subjects. I believe she is currently, or was recently the Editorial Office Manager of Reuters UK in London if you needed to contact her.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 2, 2017 7:05 am
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 6:47 am

In addition to what I have said above you have to understand that when you receive a stock image from a photo file service you are getting a low resolution compressed jpeg at the size that you have licensed. There is no way to examine the file for evidence of photoshopping other than visually examining it. And unless you have years of practice or the image is so obviously faked that is hard to do.
Pixels around hard edges are easily explained away by the fact that multiple compressions and copies of an image ( the image you copy yourself is again a copy of a copy of a compressed image) will mean that chromatic aberrations which will almost always appear around hard edges of objects and especially when taken against a blue sky background. These are just artefacts of the lenses. They will be less harsh on more expensive lenses but in 2010 I would expect that the original raw image or even the jpeg produced in camera would have produced chromatic aberrations. The act of copying and compressing the image would then turn those into jpeg artefacts which will explain what you see when you examine them closely.

Editor
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 7:50 am

Craig ==> The Reuters caption on their stock images site is no guarantee that the image is not a composite.

Reuters has other images that are composites, and sells them — this is not news.

As a fellow photog, why don;t you Twit Pauline Atkins and ask her about the origins of the photo? @ProudPagen

(I don’t twit…or I’d do it.)

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 10:25 am

@Kip. I don’t wish to use twitter to ‘twit’ anyone because I stopped using the service in October for personal medical reasons. To suddenly come out of hiding with a comment my 3500+ followers could see would lead to a barrage of questions about where I have been. Those are questions I don’t wish to answer. You could easily ask her yourself by emailing her at work as I suspect it’s in her Linkedin profile. Although I suggest you get her name correct first.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 6:53 am

The penguins look fake just to the naked eye.

Andrew

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 7:10 am

That’s the problem with the naked eye and the brain. Once you have ‘seen’ something it’s difficult to see it any other way. In fact with this image an alarmist would insist that this is evidence of warming simply because they can see the ice is melting. Whereas a sceptic would look at it and see the normal coastal ice melt of summer. Completely opposite things that can be ‘seen’ in the image but only one is true.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 7:58 am

Shouldn’t we see penguin shadows? Just asking.

Andrew

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 8:27 am

Andrew no, because the penguins are clearly standing below the high point of the ice structure. Which agrees with the theory that the ice slopes away from the photographer and down to the ground level. Which would be the access point for the penguins.

It really does not matter what anyone thinks, including me. For Reuters to include a photoshopped image in their stock file would be suicide. It’s beyond thinking about.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 8:49 am

Craig,

But their heads are above the high point. We are not look down on the penguins, we are look across at them.

Andrew

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 9:01 am

I don’t see an issue there. The perspective tells me that the photographer, assuming she is hand held and not using a tripod, is holding the camera at a height that is comparable to just above the top of the ice and the distance between the camera and the subject is long, suggesting a long lens, 300mm at the least. In fact I would suggest it was a longer lens as getting close to creatures in the wild as a photographer is often extremely difficult with short lenses.

Here’s what we know. The photographer is a journalist and works for Reuters. She has visited the Antarctic many times as her body of work shows. She was in this area when the photo is purported to have been taken because her body of work corroborates that. She is An Australian who supports conservation areas in the antarctic because she has a thing for penguins.

I’ve not been on Twitter for 5 months and I don’t want to return but I’m getting close to contacting her and asking for an original. You can throw up all the roadblocks you like bur there is no evidence that this is photoshopped, none at all and certainly none that can be determined from a compressed jpeg. I don’t expect you to take my word for it as I won’t appeal to authority for argument#s sake. However you have my opinion. Do with it what you will.

And for reference my opinion on anthropogenic global warming is that there is extremely little of it and much of what the record shows is an artefact of poor record keeping and data manipulation. Just so you know I’m trying to be objective in my observations. I would love this to have been a composite image. But I am extremely sure that it is not.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 9:08 am

“The photographer is a journalist and works for Reuters.”

To quote the late great Matt Foley –

“Well ladee friggin da”

Andrew

Tom Halla
Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 9:15 am

Yea, and the US CBS TV network would never introduce a forged document to malign then President GW Bush/sarc

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 9:28 am

@Tom, hardly relevant information but I’ll bite enough to say that CBS are in the business of entertainment. They also provide news delivery. Reuters is a news agency like AP. They are very different entities. They provide information for the news delivery services who can do with it what they like once they have paid for it.

Glenn999
Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 10:26 am

Craig, you may be right about the photo; I don’t have the expertise to discern otherwise. But your statement about Reuters and AP isn’t entirely correct. Both entities have been exposed in recent years twisting and contorting to produce fake stories and misleading stories. Sad but true.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
March 2, 2017 11:41 am

Glenn you are indeed correct that there have been issues at both organisations. But they were by individuals and dealt with as the problems arose. Are all organisations responsible for all of their employee actions all of the time?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 7:27 am

Sooo,,,even if the photo is not photo-shopped it was taken in 2010? How is a 7 year old picture an honest representation of Antarctic temps in 2017?

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 2, 2017 7:34 am

It’s not. Please don’t shoot the messenger 😀

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 2, 2017 9:34 am

Friendly fire.

“Just so you know I’m trying to be objective in my observations.”

Nothing wrong and a lot right about that. Add in honesty (not implying you’re not being honest) and humility and you’ve nailed what’s been missing in “97%” of climate science.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 8:44 am

Craig, if separate pictures were discovered that were then overlain, that would prove forgery, but your failure to find those pictures on the internet is not proof of anything. Even in the stock footage the pixalated penguins bite into the ice’s upper edge. Perhaps your expertise could explain such an anomaly?

Furthermore the rock substrate has a small rising step that is in shadow across the photo. The shadow suggests the sun is behind so that shadows would be angled straight towards the viewer, while the ice shadow is strongly angled from left to right.

Finally the imagined gently incline on the back side of the ice is just that imagined. Again hardly the proof leading self proclaimed expert to suggest it is a real photo.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 9:34 am

Jim, I’m sorry if you can not understand jpeg artefacts and how they appear. Please. I’ve stated the case for the photo. The woman took hundreds while she was there. Try using your technique on all of those and you will come up with the conclusion that they are all fake. Please, try it, then report her to Reuters. That’s the logical conclusion to this if you are so convinced. Have the courage of your convictions and report her.

I’m only taking the stance I am because i value photo-journalistic integrity most highly. I’d be all over this is there were anything but common compression artefacts in it, but there are not. You are calling my integrity into question by continuing to argue in the face of reasonable explanation

Please, report this dishonesty if you believe so hard. I have done my best to help you avoid being hoisted on your own petard. I’m done now.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 9:46 am

As for the snide remark that I missed on the first read I used the term expert as that is the qualification I referred to as opposed to having a pompous opinion of self. It’s called the adoce certified expert programme and i use the term as they do.

https://training.adobe.com/certification/overview.html

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:17 am

I am calling your interpretation into question based on many things about the photograph. Every thing about Adelie biology suggests a fake photo. Adelies prefer to be on ice floes in the winter and while molting. They are on land to breed. But this photo is certainly not a typical breeding area. They use pebbles to build nests, and breeding colonies have dense concentrations of nests. Nothing like that is visible either.

Compression artefacts of the penguins would not just take a bite out of the upper ice edge, while creating no such artefacts anywhere else. But compression artefacts are not the only issue you raised. You said you searched the internet for similar ice pictures on top of which the penguins would be added, but did not find any. Such an ice form is highly unusual on land, but often seen on floating icebergs, with its underwater mass giving stability to such an awkward shape. Second to see such an ice form on land when there is no other ice in view on land or water is highly suspect. One would expect her to take several pictures of such an odd shape.Conversely if such a phenomenon was not rare, we would should find other examples in your internet search. Your argument regards compression artefacts has merit, but it is odd how vigorously you try to defend the photo as real based on imaginary possibilities. Its odd you try to defend the photo based on the absence of evidence, when that absence is more suggestive of a phony photo.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:25 am

Craig, you are missing the point here,I agree with Jim because it is obvious that the Ice part of the image was ADDED onto the rocky area. It is a composite of at least two separate photos. That make it a photoshopped picture.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:29 am

When you have submitted your report of dishonesty Jim I’ll continue to address your points. Conviction. Go for it.

[ok, that’s it -mod]

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:36 am

I suggest Craig you do a google search of mushroom shaped ice bergs. There are hundreds of examples. If you search for mushroom shaped ice berg on land you only get this weird penguin photo.
comment image

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:38 am

I’ll just give you a taster of a rebuttal though

“Every thing about Adelie biology suggests a fake photo. Adelies prefer to be on ice floes in the winter and while molting.”

I’m pleased for them and have no doubt in your expertise when you say that. Because I trust your authority enough on the subject.
However this was taken on jan 1st 2010. The height of the Antarctic summer.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:38 am

Here is a clue that Greg pointed out that cast strong doubt on the image as being a real single composite photo:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/msn-augments-fake-news-with-photoshopped-penguin-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-2440235

“The lower right of the ice is clearly reflecting blue water, not the dark rock on which is supposed to be sat.”

I add one more,the center of gravity of that ice pile should have toppled it since the base is tiny,with most of the weight at the top and to the right of the center column. This was actually the top part of an ice berg being placed on DARK rock,with zero snow or ice visible in the area. Then we have two,ONLY two penguins who by magic got on top.

The whole thing smells badly.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:42 am

Jim,your Mushroom photo is part of an iceberg,which is why it can look like that and still be intact. While that same shape is NEVER like that on land with a tiny base and a huge head on dark rock.

That alone is why I think it was added onto the rocks.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:43 am

Christ Jim this is becoming tedious. It’s only a mushroomed shaped object in the perspective of the photograph. To the left, the north, you can see where the tidal water pushes in, you can see from the right of the ice that this tail of ice suggests the water rushes in from the north.

You are assuming that this structure is a mushroom. Well assume that there is a great deal more of the structure beyond what the camera sees and it’s not an unusual structure at all, it’s just a wedge shaped chunk of ice on a beach.

As for the why the photographer took no more images of this mushroom structure? Because it never existed. She simply took the image from a perspective that worked most for her narrative and I’m afraid we all do that because boring does not sell images.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 10:56 am

Craig and Jim,here is the photo of Esperanza base,that has ZERO indication of tall mushroom ice piles anywhere:

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2016/08/esperanza-base-argentina-antarctic-peninsula/

Just some small patches of snow and possible FLAT ice patches in the area.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:00 am

What’s your point Tommy? The image was taken at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Denison and I refer you to the pertinent paragraph about the penguins in 2010

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:02 am

Close up photo of the base:

also many photos of the base and the surrounding area:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Photos+of+Esperanza+base&*

Not a single instance of towering land ice at the base in Summer and Winter, Patches of Flat ice in the water.

I am now 100% convinced that Jim,Anthony are correct.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:05 am

And just in case it has escaped you completely Tommy your example is 3300 miles away and 6 years later during the winter. i’m not sure you could get less opposite.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:08 am

Tommy please stop, you are beclowning yourself. The image is not anywhere near the base in question. That’s been one of the main points of the post. It’s a Reuters stock image from 2010 used in a current article about an unrelated place. Do keep up.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:10 am

Craig, I never disputed the reality of the photos themselves,but it is obvious the ice part was ADDED onto the rocks,which were supposed to be in the vicinity of Esperanza base.

Posted several times to show that it never gets that big or have a mushroom shape at the area of the base itself,where the few hours long record high occurred.

That is why I have to agree with Anthony and Jim on this.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:14 am

So Tommy, please explain why you are using images and video of a place 3300 miles away? It was long ago established that this is a stock image and is unrelated to the article. That has been put to bed. Or are you just here to argue with me rather than read the whole body of the conversation?

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:24 am

Very good Craig, you finally make a point of the photo, What the article did was misleading and dishonest since NO photo of the actual region of the warm wind caused record high was shown.

Here is the headline:

Antarctica hits record high temperature at balmy 63.5°F

Which was at Esperanza base.

But the iceberg shaped mushroom Photo in the article were at Cape Denison,which I saw from the start,since it was under the photo.

The other two were from the Ross Sea and a large iceberg not specifically located.

Now here is what Cape Denison region really looks like:

https://www.google.com/search?q=cape+denison&biw=1280&bih=860&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwimuKzsxLjSAhUIjVQKHUkfDHgQsAQILQ

There are over 100 photos of the area of Cape Denison,only that photo you are trying mock me with is shown,while all the others are mostly snow fields and small flat ice areas. It appears to be a made up photo…….,not remotely similar with ANY of the others in the region.

I think you are being snookered here,Craig.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:30 am

Holy f&*^ Tommy are you simple? At no point ever have I taken issue with the subject of Jim’s article. I merely offered my expertise as to whether the photograph was a fake. And my opinion is that it is not. I offered no opinion on the fair use of the image or if it offered ant deception to the reader.
My opinion on man made global warming is quite prominent and I apologise if when you discover it’s likely the same as yours you are disappointed.

I gave me honest opinion on the validity of the image from a position of some knowledge. Yet I’m attacked. Well done y’all. This is why we can’t have nice things.

Once again, I offered no opinion on anything other than the validity of the image. So don’t try and sideline me with bullsh*&

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 11:52 am

Craig indeed it is getting tedious that you are so persistent in defending the photo based on imaginary evidence. Long ago I agreed it is possible to have a more gentle sloping ice hidden from view, but to suggest that the ice berg washed up on shore in January when there is no floating ice to be seen anywhere appears to be more wishful thinking with you hoping to support your expert adobe opinion. That the top heavy ice could be tossed onto the rocks and remain in an unstable position is a stretch. Any semblance of proof of authenticity, will require photos of the other side. And again show me real pictures of such ice structures on land.

In January most adelies have chicks that are about 3 weeks old, and both parents are very busy swimming, often to great distances, to find food.The penguins in the photo are adults, so we can rule out stray chicks. But there is also no signs anywhere of a breeding colony in this photo. Even if there are some hiddnen evidence, the adults are making bee lines from the chicks to the ocean, and would not waste energy hiking up an iceberg away from their nests.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 12:00 pm

Craig,

I am sorry if you feel attacked by my comments.I wasn’t trying to attack YOU,just your position on the photo that has several credible objections commented against it.

The shadow is wrong, The bluish color on the SHADED side of the ice, indicating reflection. Penguins being on top of a tall ice column.without apparent way for them to get there,note the steep walls of the ice.

Then you didn’t adequately address Jim’s comments about the Penguins habitats and the ice:

“I am calling your interpretation into question based on many things about the photograph. Every thing about Adelie biology suggests a fake photo. Adelies prefer to be on ice floes in the winter and while molting. They are on land to breed. But this photo is certainly not a typical breeding area. They use pebbles to build nests, and breeding colonies have dense concentrations of nests. Nothing like that is visible either.”

I have showed numerous photos both Cape Denison and Esperanza base,that make clear mushroom ice with a tiny base are not found on land at all. They are a common feature of icebergs IN THE WATER,not on land based ice. Ferdberple,and Jim posted examples of Mushroom shaped ice,which are also in the water,not on land,YOU stated that you couldn’t find another photo to

Craig, there are simply too many surrounding problems with that photo,to think it has been created for propaganda purposes. You have to look at the whole picture, to decide on its legitimacy.

Try not to take it personally.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 12:08 pm

I don’t care about the suppositions and assumptions Jim because yours are no more valid than mine.
On the basis of photo evidence this is not a fake. My apologies if you don’t like the answer. As for the rest of it i don’t care. You have ruined my day here at wuwt because you have lost the basic concept of sceptics having an open mind. Good day and please call your rabid dogs off.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 12:12 pm

Also be a man and make your accusations of professional impropriety public by complaining to Reuters. Because if you don’t I will and we shall see who’s reputation survives.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 12:15 pm

Craig, you need to chill.

Here is my latest comment showing my sudden change in my opinion:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/msn-augments-fake-news-with-photoshopped-penguin-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-2440696

Found the photo that can be greatly expanded to show additional details that were not readily apparent before.

Click on the small one,then click again.

It is amusing that the person who posted this was for propaganda purposes,but actually doesn’t help her at all.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 12:21 pm

Gosh Craig, you really need to calm down,since I am NOW admitting that I now think it is real,this after trying to prove the opposite, that it was a probable fake.

You have no idea what I do, since I post all over the internet,do moderation and run my own small climate forum. I have been wrong before and admitted it as I am now doing here.

LOL.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 2:54 pm

Craig, Sorry Ive ruined your day by challenging your conclusions. I am biased by a biological perspective that makes the photos look odd. It does not have the look of a typical penguin colony, but it could be a peripheral area.

You are basing your conclusion based on not detecting compression artifacts. As I said earlier, you argument has merit when looking at a more “original” photo. Although I do not know enough about photo forensics, I do believe there are ways to photoshop that are difficult to detect. So what I do object to here is arguing the photo must be real based on imaginary scenarios, although it may turn out to be true.

What is needed to settle this debate is a photo of the back side of the ice, Otherwise we will never know.

I have watched video of penguins be catapulted and stranded on top of tall icebergs by heavy sea surge. Friends who lead trips to Antarctica see that in the Weddell Sea but rarely elsewhere. Ice chunks do get tossed on to land but rarely in that position and rarely in summer. I am asking geologist friends to see if the rocks in the photo are typical for Cape Denison. I am also sending the photo to someone I know to also be an expert on photoshopping.

Whatever the authenticity, we both agree the article was alarmist in nature and the photograph was inappropriate for the region, the date and the causes of the 2015 temperature record in that region. Even if the photo is proven to be authentic, it was now used in a most misleading way, to impart an effect via a perspective that the photographer had purposefully intended, even if that effect was not intended for the MSN article. Hopefully the photographer can produce an image of the back side of the ice as requested.

Reply to  jim steele
March 2, 2017 4:37 pm

Jim. I have made your complaint known to the original author of the image and to the highest person I could find available responsible for ethics standards and values and integrity at Reuters.
I used your name and linked to this article. I’m sure you have no objections to this. I will await their response to the accusations of dishonesty and i’ll report back here. You may hear from them yourself should they feel it’s necessary to contact you personally.

hunter
Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 10:18 am

My observation is whether or not it is fabricated in whole or simply staged is not important. The photographer is using deception to feed the false narrative of climate doom.

Reply to  hunter
March 2, 2017 11:50 am

You can’t accuse the photographer of anything if they merely take the image and submit it to their boss. only the people who license the image for use can be accused of that when they decide how it fits their narrative.

Honestly, we just take pictures, we don’t tell the stories that appear in your head when you view them.

Reply to  hunter
March 2, 2017 12:10 pm

Here is a link to a zoomed photo in question, now I have doubt that it was faked:

https://lifeupcall.com/2016/09/14/lifeupcall-for-mother-earth/two-adelie-penguins-stand-atop-a-block-of-melting-ice-on-a-rocky-shoreline-at-cape-denison-commonwealth-bay-in-east-antarctica/

Click on it to greatly expand it. It now appears that it is real?

Reply to  hunter
March 2, 2017 12:17 pm

You really are clueless about how this works aren’t you Tommy? You have linked to a licensed image of the original. Further compressed for web use. The best version of this image you will get without paying is the one posted at the bottom of the discussion, click it through to full size and don’t save it because when you save it you will compress it further. And ad nauseum.

Dave in Canmore
March 2, 2017 6:37 am

LOL If MSN makes Jeff Masters seems like the voice of reason you know its lost its mind! To me, he usually comes off like an actual lunatic.

MarkW
March 2, 2017 6:42 am

The record goes back to 1953?
Sheesh, call me when you have 200 years worth of data to compare against.

Gary Pearse
March 2, 2017 8:14 am

The latitude is about 60S like Oslo in NH ~60N.

Johann Wundersamer
March 2, 2017 8:23 am
Griff
March 2, 2017 8:24 am

So – its a stock photo, not faked… some photo editor just stuck it in to illustrate the article.

Back to the main point – what about that record high temp and record low summer ice extent in Antarctica?

Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 8:59 am

This photo is as fake as a dollar with Big Al’s pic on it.

Andrew

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 9:35 am

Both points have been addressed over and over again. In this article as well as others.

Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 9:40 am

Griff, if you photoshop an image onto a photo,it is now all fake, since it is a composite of two unrelated images.

The Esperanza record high was caused by a warming wind,which lasted for just a few hours,rapidly cooled back down to freezing within the same day.

After it was record highs sea ice levels for years, you were silent,until a single year drop you suddenly babble about it.

You are indeed a warmist bigot.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 10:32 am

Again, HIGH means nothing out of context. Are you like Leo DiCapprio and don’t understand a foehn wind? Maybe you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather—this is WEATHER.

Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 12:02 pm

The record high temp is weather related. While the drop in sea ice extent shows that nature is ever changing, and science has a lot more to learn before gaining a better understanding of “why”.

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
March 2, 2017 8:20 pm

Already 2 year old weather news 3-24-2015 not 3-1-2017

March 2, 2017 9:16 am

I give up. What is an “MSN”, and why should I care what it claoms?

Reply to  mib8
March 2, 2017 9:16 am

er, clowns, claims.

leafwalker
Reply to  mib8
March 2, 2017 9:50 am

Media photoShopped News!

Actually, it’s the renamed Micrsoft Network:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN

ferdberple
March 2, 2017 9:33 am

the photo could be genuine
==================
nope. the ice has been undercut by water, as can be clearly seen by the line 1/3 the way down. the bottom of the berg has been cut off and replaced by a rock. Here is a photo example of where to start. Replace the ocean with a photo shopped bit of rock. It is impossible for an iceberg that large to get back onto land, and there is no way it would stand on land given the center of mass is outside the foot.
comment image

Reply to  ferdberple
March 2, 2017 9:49 am

Fred. The image is on the shoreline. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that tidal water is the reason a block of ice, on the sure, during summer, could be eroded that way? Just devil’s advocate.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 9:50 am

*Shore, apologies for some horrendous typos today. Still want that edit feature added.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 11:35 am

Ferberple is correct,that it can’t stand like that on the rock.It would have toppled over. You need to consider center of gravity with most of the weight at the top and to one side,way to unstable to still stand like that.

Greg, already showed that on the right side shows bluing,indicating reflection of the water, but photo shows only rock all around it, a glaring contradiction.

Reply to  ferdberple
March 2, 2017 12:36 pm

Fred. In the absence of further evidence how is this?
comment image

not easily translatable to this?
comment image

and beyond my expertise in images that’s all i can offer. And it’s no less viable than anyone else assuming that the camera perspective shows a 390 degree mushroom because well, that would be absurd.

Reply to  Craig (@Zoot_C)
March 2, 2017 3:00 pm

Again Craig, that backside slope is possible, but then again I see no evidence of it in the shadow. Such an extend gentle slope should have casted some hint of a shadow. But it doesnt.

And agreed 390 degrees would be absurd.

Sleepalot