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.
I find it interesting that the most vocal here are two photographers who fully admit to altering photos with photoshop but claim this photo is not photoshopped. Reality says one may or may not be able to determine if a photo has been altered, but photographers who alter photos on a regular basis insist they can tell. Confirmation bias? Protecting the brotherhood? (A quick Google tour reveals many, many examples of altered photos—two photos combined, elements added, etc. So Google would say there are fakes out there. Should I ignore that? Should I ignore the many articles that say proving a faked photo is difficult if not impossible without the original inputs?)
Since the dawn of photography, photos have been faked. I don’t know if this one is or not, though if it isn’t, both the photographer and the media took a very questionable photo and used it to show “reality”, which it doesn’t. It shows a very unusual event that is not related in any way to the story at hand. So blame the editor if you’re a photographer and the photographer if you’re an editor. The blame game.
Photography has become art, rather than science. Photoshop allowed home photographers to use a computer and alter photos in ways only experienced photographers could in the past. As technology advances, photos will become useless as “proof” of anything. They are art, pure and simple. I am told the iPhone has some incredible photo altering capabilities. We gave up the “photographic proof” a long, long time ago.
(As for the over-sharpening, color-altering, etc, this seems to be encouraging people to distrust photos. Consider if you will a 65 year old woman with no wrinkles, perfect body shape and bright red hair. Many would assume plastic surgery, liposuction, and hair dye—because the majority of the 65 year olds do have wrinkles, bulges and graying hair. Perfection generally is a lie and altering a photo to make it “better” has the same effect. Besides, many of us have created awesome photos at home on our computers that were pure fiction. We know of the hair dye, liposuction and plastic surgery game and have played it.)
‘The most vocal’? I’ve made exactly five comments here, two in reply to myself. That’s vocal? Well then. Photojournalists operate under strict controls of manipulation. There are written rules for compliance. Yes, we correct color. But what does that mean? Artificial light renders itself unreal to the human eye – tungsten bulbs turn a scene orange for example – and we attempt to correct that so that the photo looks like the scene looked to the naked eye. Yes, we sharpen images, especially for soft newspaper reproduction. Yes, we lighten or darken certain areas of a photo, again to bring the latitude of the image into line with what the naked eye saw. Any other ‘fakery’, such as placing penguins into scenes where there were no penguins, is an immediate firing offense, with cause. And yes, that has happened too, not too often, and rather famously. As you point out, Sheri, digital photo tools give anyone the power to create, but in journalism circles, one MUST never use or abuse that power. In general, you can take the photos produced by employed photojournalists and reporters at face value. Yes, you can. Because it is that integrity that we sell to the public. If a journalist stands accused of the fakery alleged here in this thread, in this post, that is a very serious accusation that, if proven true, would lead to that journalist’s termination.
I have a great deal of difficulty believing integrity is what is being sold to the public by photojournalists. Maybe in the past, but the competition and the political nature of photographs leads me to believe that is no longer true. I am not picking on photographers alone—there’s a tremendous amount of pressure to produce dramatic news and studies of all kinds. It’s the mentality of people that looks for more and more sensationalism and the need to deliver that flashy story.
Adjustments to “reality” are acceptable, but I have a problem calling some enhancements “adjustments to reality”. Some are meant to give the picture more flash—to catch someone’s eye. Increasing contrast or sharpening, brightness, etc, may be closer to reality but it also can be an enhancement that goes beyond reality. You are out there to sell—marketing is vital. The temptation is there—conscious or not.
If you get caught, there are serious consequences, but there are serious consequences for most transgressions. Yet, people transgress all the time. Not a convincing argument.
(I guess I consider five very long comments as being very vocal. Yes, I am very vocal too and will not deny it. Photography is something I am very familiar with and understand well. Same for yourself. Admittedly, most readers seem to side with “fake” and they have no need to repeat comments as others are commenting in the same direction.)
False captioning enters into the classification as “fake”, too. As the picture was of somewhere else, at a different date.. . .
Tom. You say false captioning is also ‘fake’ This may well be the case. However the caption under the image in the article reads:
“© REUTERS/Pauline Askin/File Photo FILE PHOTO: File photo shows two Adelie penguins standing atop a block of melting ice on a rocky shoreline at Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, in East Antarctica”
Which is exactly what is in the picture. The fact that it’s unrelated to the story is another debate. But the caption is true.
Sheri It is impossible for a photographer who shoots in RAW format not to use Photoshop or some equivalent because RAW is in an of itself not an image format. The RAW data is used in conjunction with the program to create and image with levels relating to contrast, saturation, brightness etcetera. It is purposefully taking away the control of the camera to produce an image as it would with a jpeg for instance and giving it back to the photographer. It’s sometimes likened to having a digital negative and is the closest we can get to going back to the darkroom as we would with film.
As for using photoshop to manipulate images it is often a required skill and many people have a valid reason for requiring images made in that fashion. It’s a skill I teach alongside digital art skills in a weekly class for adults with learning difficulties. They greatly enjoy what we do. There is a big difference in creating a scene that a client requires than creating a false image intended to deceive a client. A vast difference. And your passive aggressive accusations are noted. Nobody has said there is not photo manipulation going on, it is often required. But for myself I merely stated that with as much confidence as I can have that this image has not been manipulated. It’s not even had a great deal of post-processing of any kind as far as I can see. I thought I was doing the author a favour by pointing out his error. I’ll know better in future.
@Craig, I’ve taken some time to read quite a few of the above comments, belatedly. Bangarang, fella, you’ve completed an astounding stint in public service schooling some people who clearly prefer hanging onto prejudices and/or stubborn suspicions over learning new and interesting things. Well done – and take heart. Though there is little evidence of your lessons having ‘sunk in’, you’ve found one supporter here. Yes, I’m clapping. Let us know if Reuters returns to you. The photo at the center of this inquiry is, actually, one lousy photo; meaning, it is no prize winner. If one were going to fake something, one should fake it spectacularly, wouldn’t you agree? 😉
Obviously…. I had some trouble posting earlier as a ‘reply’. So I then added a sentence and tried to comment in the general feed (see further along the feed). Neither worked, so I gave up. Now, much later, they both have appeared.
Again, the photo may be “real”- penguins really were on top of a chunk of grounded ice. Penguins are curious critters. It is clearly unusual, and I have been served well by meditating on the proverb that “truth is stranger than fiction.” But does the photo tell a story of climate doom, as the deceptive release of a two year old story with a seven year old photo seeks to do?
The photographer may have simply something cool and taken a snap shot showing the coolness of two penguins stuck on a chunk of ice. The part of the chunk that stabilizes it so it can stand like that could easily fit in the unseen depth of the photo.
And she may have shot more photos of the scene that would tell the story more clearly but did not fit the editorial need of the climate doom article.
In a way this thread has been a demonstration as to how easily “fake news” can grow in both the content producer intent and failings, as well as an audience already highly sensitized to look for “fakeness”. I for one take back any implications I may have given that accuses the photographer photo shopped in whole a non-existent scene when the photo was taken in 2010. Steve Mosher makes a good point, in his rather direct way. There is much we are justified in being skeptical of. But the order of engagement that serves skepticism best is to observe, hypothesize, test. Not Ready! Shoot! Aim!. The climate obsessed consensus does that plenty.
@Craig, I’ve taken some time to read quite a few of the above comments, belatedly. Bangarang, fella, you’ve completed an astounding stint in public service schooling some people who clearly prefer hanging onto prejudices and/or stubborn suspicions over learning new and interesting things. Well done – and take heart. Though there is little evidence of your lessons having ‘sunk in’, you’ve found one supporter here. Yes, I’m clapping. Let us know if Reuters returns to you. The photo at the center of this inquiry is, actually, one lousy photo; meaning, it is no prize winner. It looks like what it is: a grab shot by someone drifting by in a boat. If one were going to fake something, one should fake it spectacularly, wouldn’t you agree? 😉
Yesterday have asked Pauline Askin for help. I asked if she had a photo of the back side of the ice chunk. That would be the definitive proof of the photos realism. Still no reply
Jim Steele,
Any response yet?
Andrew
I don’t care if it was photoshopped or not. If bias rules this news story, a search for an appropriate picture that matches the narrative can usually be found. And it matters little if there is continuity in time and space to the written event. You will find a picture of whatever your bias says is out there and if close enough, it is good enough for today’s media. This bleed and lead story is what the media is all about these days. That doesnt bother me as much as the fact that premadonna climate researchers are prone to these very same bait and switch presentations.
Wonder where at Base Esperanza that reading was taken?
For five months of the year, its average temperature is above freezing. Almost for six months. The record high for every month is 52.5 F or higher. The record highs not only for March, but April, May and October are in the 60s F.
It has four fossil-fuel-powered generators producing electricidad.
Its climate is milder than many if not most cities at higher than 63 degrees. Fairbanks, AK, at 64 N, also enjoys five months with mean daily T above freezing, for instance. Ditto Dawson, Yukon, but colder.
Being at sea level on a coast, Nome might be a better comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nome,_Alaska#Geography_and_climate
Also ave. T above freezing for five months.
The northernmost part of Antarctica is closer to the equator than is the southernmost part of Iceland.
As long as “Fiction Photos” are considered journalism…
http://double-eband.com/Squanch-penguin.jpg
Isn’t Bigfoot in more danger of extinction than Penguins?