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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
I tweeted
@SenSchumer Fake Foto w intransigently stupid non-news . The AlGoreWarming eKo-fascists fighting for their scam in the last swamp puddles .
Note today Mar. 2, Esperanza station is -4 degrees. That’s 6 degrees below average for Mar 2nd.
Colder than average is weather. Warmer than average is climate.
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”
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.
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.
So who is Pauline?
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.
I believe this is she https://twitter.com/proudpagen?lang=en
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.
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.)
@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.
The penguins look fake just to the naked eye.
Andrew
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.
Shouldn’t we see penguin shadows? Just asking.
Andrew
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.
Craig,
But their heads are above the high point. We are not look down on the penguins, we are look across at them.
Andrew
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.
“The photographer is a journalist and works for Reuters.”
To quote the late great Matt Foley –
“Well ladee friggin da”
Andrew
Yea, and the US CBS TV network would never introduce a forged document to malign then President GW Bush/sarc
@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.
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.
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?
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?
It’s not. Please don’t shoot the messenger 😀
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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*&
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Here you go, Craig,this make you feel better?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/msn-augments-fake-news-with-photoshopped-penguin-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-2440710
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.
The record goes back to 1953?
Sheesh, call me when you have 200 years worth of data to compare against.
The latitude is about 60S like Oslo in NH ~60N.
Already in the tube –
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/the-last-emperor-gm147262644-3726704
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?
This photo is as fake as a dollar with Big Al’s pic on it.
Andrew
Both points have been addressed over and over again. In this article as well as others.
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.
Griff, it appears that I was wrong about the photo:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/msn-augments-fake-news-with-photoshopped-penguin-photos/comment-page-1/#comment-2440701
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.
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”.
Already 2 year old weather news 3-24-2015 not 3-1-2017
I give up. What is an “MSN”, and why should I care what it claoms?
er, clowns, claims.
Media photoShopped News!
Actually, it’s the renamed Micrsoft Network:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN
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.
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.
*Shore, apologies for some horrendous typos today. Still want that edit feature added.
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.
Fred. In the absence of further evidence how is this?
not easily translatable to this?
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.
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.
I don’t believe a journalist went to Antactica and took 1 photo. Show us the other photos, including at least one with the pov you’ve drawn.
Definitely pixelated!
One of our teachers from our homeschool co-op went to Antarctica over winter break (summer there) to look at the amazing ice structures in Antarctica. (They went to study them so they might guess what could be found on other planets and moons that have ice.) He went to McMurdo, I believe, but I’m not 100% sure. One of the things he talked about was how they don’t mess around in dealing with the weather. And even though it was summer, how they still had to layer up, and wear parkas and whatnot.
All that to say, that structure isn’t even all that weird looking compared to some of the ones he saw (that were in the interior).
Using that picture, griff, is misleading your audience. So there was a one day temperature record set. The image implies that Antarctica is getting warmer and that penguins are getting trapped on the top of the ice and can’t get back to the ocean to get their food. That’s why it is wrong to use that picture.
Weather Underground shows 15 degrees for the high on March 24 2015 and wind speed of 9 km/hr. They show higher temperature and wind in the graphs below the numbers , but it stops at 10 pm. It does not show the temperature going to 17.5. The weather station number is 88963.
Jim, Anthony, et al
Possibly already posted…
You can download a large version here:
http://www.getjoys.net/sharingSub/1605/tr1310762817797813373558.jpg
I take photos and proficient on Photoshop. Can’t really say it is a fake.
If no one has mentioned TinEye…here:
https://www.tineye.com
TinEye is an excellent resource to find other versions of an image..any image. In this case, copy the WUWT image URL and paste it into TinEye’s search window and then select “largest” in the “Sort by” window.
That photo has been used many times to support all sorts of climate articles. For example:
ANTARCTICA’S CO2 LEVELS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY’VE BEEN IN 4 MILLION YEARS
But that is not the point as others have said and the tenet of Jim’s article is sound. i.e. using an OLD photo to support and realy mislead whether or not it is ‘shopped. .
Jim, I like your articles. Please continue to publish here.
Clive
I too love Jim’s articles. Especially butterflies and his knowledge on species movement in response to climate. I have the utmost respect for him. I’m not often in the business of correcting my betters but in this instance I had to point out that the image is original and not photoshopped. I take no issue with anything else in the article.
What you are saying is you cannot find evidence of photoshopping. That is not the same thing as “It was not photoshopped”. While it may show no evidence of tampering, the picture in no way appears to represent realtiy which is why it’s being questioned. If there were other photos that showed the other side or other angles, the believability would go up. Without those, it’s just looks like a faked photo. (This is what happens when photography goes digital and there are hundreds of ways to alter photos now—a picture is no longer evidence of anything.)
I can’t find evidence of photoshopping because the multiple things that do appear in photoshopped images are not here. Not a one of them. So Occam’s razor and all that. There is nobody that is good enough to create a composite image that will show NONE of the often multiple artefacts of a photoshopped image.
Not even me.
I did attempt to add an image Sheri but I have no idea how to do it here is normal html does not work
http://s2.b3ta.com/host/creative/47549/1320035927/spgirlmedium.jpg
Andrew it’s as confident as i can be without taking the raw image from the camera and knowing the person myself.
I agree with you,Craig.
At this point in time with digital photography, I would require seeing the RAW image. In the ancient days of film, the negative was required. Even then, a photo could be faked. Photos are not “proof with certainty” as people ascribe to them.
“I can’t find evidence of photoshopping”
You’re saying the photo is real?
I am saying it is real with 99% confidence. Because if it is faked then it is the best I have ever seen. The full scale resolution image posted above makes it almost more of a certainty. It’s just the eye of the photographer who took good advantage of the situation.
Flying penguins or photoshopped penguins?
I guess we will never know for sure.
The image I posted above is one of mine. It is as composited as they come. it has also been through the compression engines of many internet browsers, including yours before arriving here. Do your forensics on that. You know it’s fake, i’m telling you it’s fake but please, subject it to your ‘forensics’.
“I am saying it is real with 99% confidence.”
Is that the same as 97% of climate scientists saying something?
Andrew
I suppose since we know the name of the photographer, that maybe the onus is on jim Steele to PROVE his potentially actionable claim against the photographer.
Only in a day of fake news would a NON EXPERT in photoshop get away with claiming that a photo was a fraud, with ZERO evidence. Zip. zero. There isnt a shred of evidence this photo was photoshopped.
And ONLY on a site of fake skeptics, would people demand the impossible before they rejected unsupported claims like Steeles.
Basically Jim Asserts its a fraud, and the ONLy way to disprove that is to actually Have Been On the scene when the photo was taken and take the raw data from the camera sensor AND provide a traceable
and secure chain of custody of that raw data..
Once Steele claims fraud he effectively shifts the burden of proof to strangers and No evidence we could present would satisfy some people here.. That is the nature of conspiratorial thinking.
Let me show you how it works.
I have good reason to believe that Jim Steele has a ghost writer and that he didnt write this post.
Prove he wrote it.
See how burden shifting works?
Mosher is here. Now we know the photo’s fake.
Andrew
I do not find it at all comfortable to be agreeing with Steve Mosher. We have clashed on various issues in the past. Yet here is is defending the position I have taken so in this instance I can only say thank you.
Given the darkness of the shadow, the under side of the ice is unreasonably bright.
I have read Dino Brugioni’s book, Photo Fakery, and what looks suspicious is that the shadow fall, I.e. the lighting ,on the rocks looks different from the ice chunk and penguins.
Is there a fake reporting and photoshopping convention for global warming news outlets? Perhaps they could give lifetime achievement awards to Soviet photoshop experts.
Sorry that image was way to large to post…here is the URL with separations
http://www.getjoys.net/sharingSub/ [remove space] 1605/tr1310762817797813373558 DOT jpg
Whether or not the photo is Photoshopped to fabricate a photo in whole, or the penguins were placed on top of the ice as props, or the angle the photograph was take was arranged to hide the access point for the penguins is irrelevant. The picture was shot to deceive people into thinking that penguins are stuck high and dry on ice due to “climate change”. It is a sales photo designed to sell cliamte hype. It is not a photo designed to honestly show how the penguins got where they are.
Perhaps it is simply an ice island that has capsized due to too many penguins.
“Climbing such a structure would be a difficult technical climb for an experienced mountaineer. ”
Oh please, every school child knows that the Penguins were trapped on that outcropping of ice after the rest of the ice field melted in the intense heat. ‘scientists’ are still trying to figure out how this particular outcropping was able to resist the intense heat where the rest of the ice cover succumbed .
/sarc off
I can imagine an unscrupulous photographer might easily pick up two penguins and throw them up there to get a good photo. Photoshop isn’t the only way to fake things.
I have asked a motorcyclist at a race track to get back on the floor next to the disintegrated mess of his motorcycle after a 200mph crash in order to get a picture that better suits the narrative. And he did. It’s an extreme example but it’s how the job works.
“Andrew it’s as confident as i can be without taking the raw image from the camera and knowing the person myself.”
I do apologize, Craig, but I don’t think this means anything.
Andrew
fuck off
My apologies to Anthony and the moderators. I have been pushed too far today for trying to be helpful. Although it is in no way an excuse it is all the mitigation I have.
What’s scary about this sort of staged, photo-manipulations is how many people – who you’d think would know better – actually buy it. A while back, a friend sent me a picture of giant squid washed up on a beach, blown up to appear larger than a battleship, under a headline about the effects of nuclear waste (college-educated friend by the way, although not in any science-related field), with the comment, ‘I sure wouldn’t eat any of THAT calamari’.
I pointed out that ‘giant’ squid really don’t get much over five, six hundred pounds, and then supplied the original image of the squid used in the picture – which might have had a six-foot mantel, and maybe another fifteen feet of tentacles.
Now that was all in fun, and mostly harmless (unless you count the fact that it was yet another scare-story about nuclear radiation), but he was ready to buy it.
Point being, its hard to filter through this stuff, if you don’t already know what you’re seeing.
The photo is from 2010 http://www.christiantoday.com/article/scientists.discover.monster.virus.frozen.in.siberia.for.30000.years.as.arctic.ice.melts/64785.htm
Not saying if real or not (probably doctored)
The photo could suggest the ice is in an area of significant tide changes when reviewing the water marks and remnants on both ice and land or it could be modified for viewing pleasure also. Those Penguins did not jump up there and the ground around the ice shows no signs of a raised area or supplimental ice out of the sightlines.
https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Esperanza-Station-Antarctica/forecasts/latest/six_day
My money would be on a 2 picture solution. One with water around the ice with penguins combined with one with no water and no penguins. Just sayin…..
My money is on a real but staged photo. I think the penguins probably got tossed up there to add interest to what would otherwise be a boring picture of shoreline ice.
In the Weddell Sea with tall surges penguins do catapult to the top of tall icebergs. This photo is different.
Any other photos of “mushroom” ice on the shore of a seacoast, with or without penguins, out there?
If I saw one, I’d take a picture.
Just asking.
I don’t live near either pole but it sure strikes me as unusual enough that there should have been lots of pictures taken. Maybe they’re to common to attract a shutterbug.
This has been a busy post and my comment may have been after everyone has moved on, but no one has put up a similar photo, with or without penguins or polar bears.
That could mean that this was a one-in-a-million shot or ……. clever, very clever.
PS Has the lady who took the photo responded to anyone?
Craig,
I appreciate your reasonable input ….
WRT to your posted ‘photo’ you say:
“The image I posted above is one of mine. It is as composited as they come. it has also been through the compression engines of many internet browsers, including yours before arriving here. Do your forensics on that. You know it’s fake, i’m telling you it’s fake but please, subject it to your ‘forensics’.
I sense that you are saying that it would be difficult to deem it as a fake through. Is it a good enuf compilation that it can’t be stated to be a fake, with certainty?
(and my first criticism of the picture would be that the air is ionizing over the thumb to get to the hand rather than just ionizing from the thumb down. But if it is a really a witch then she could short out at any point on her body at will; magic could allow that the path of least resistance wouldn’t really mean anything)
DonM. I have no idea how long it will take for you to get this message because I am in content moderation for losing my cool earlier. To be honest this is an old image with no purpose. it was just something I found quickly that I knew had upwards of 100 layers to the final output. The point was to allow Jim and his forensics to dissect that and see just how the standard they are holding up the article photo to is flawed.
I most certainly did not expect an off the cuff image done for fun in 2009 to be held up to any physical integrity checks. If I take up this nonsense again in future I shall be more mindful 🙂
Folks, please, put it to bed. As improbable as this scene seems and looks to be (it does), as inappropriate as it is for a ‘global warming’ story use (it is), as many good arguments as can be raised to prove fakery (they’re good, they really are), this is a real photo. I’m a photographer. Thirty year photojournalist actually. I’ve seen a lot of photos. Taken a few too. I’ve downloaded the original photo. ‘Depth of field’ comes into play. Upon enlargement, the foreground rocks at the bottom are slightly out of focus, annnnnnd (drum roll here) so is the base and rim of the ice. The lens focus is on the penguins, not enough depth of field to render the entire image in focus. There on the top rim of the ice are what look like feces and yellow stains (urine?) You can’t fake this shyte. It is a simple enough matter to contact the journalist directly and get the tale from the horse’s mouth.
If I may add, the photo shows a familiar ‘ghosting’ around the edges of objects, penguins included, that comes hand-in-hand with oversharpening. We all do that, to give an image some digital visual snap.
And one more. The lady who took this photo is a writer in the main (I looked it up), who also takes photos for some of her stories. Reuters will not have felt like paying a photographer for this trip. That’s how that happens. So we call them ‘two-way’ journalists. n general, with two-way, writing is the first discipline and photography is of the point-and-shoot variety, ‘good enough’ auto-everything. A real (good) photographer would have ensured the entire scene was in focus by stopping down in advance, as there is little to be added by having the foreground out and nothing but clarity to be added otherwise.
That was the way it worked for me Heysues but in the opposite. I was a motorsport photographer who had the good fortune to have an in with Ducati. I did some work for them and ultimately ended up doing PR for a race team. But I always took the photos. I think most of us do, whichever side of the fence we start on. There are few ‘union’ rules amongst photogs. We just fight to get there first.
So, you are saying that if you did stationary high res timelapsed photos , through an entire 10’~ tide cycle, of the ice you could not easily merge photos to show penguins who were on ice at high tide, at low tide, without water. I believe if we could obtain the source imagery, you would find the one shown above, was altered.