First, I loathe having to write another story about Pen Hadow and his Catlin Arctic Ice expedition, which I consider the scientific joke of 2009. But these opportunistic explorers are once again getting some press over the “science” data, and of course it is being used to make the usual alarmist pronouncements such as this badly written story in the BBC:
Click for a larger image
WUWT followed the entire activist affair disguised as a science expedition from the start. You can see all of the coverage . It’s not pretty. When I say this expedition was the “scientific joke of ;, I mean it.
On to the Top Ten List.
Top Ten Reasons why the Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted
High profile news and PR from the beginning, plus an unrealistic vision of self importance related to the mission. The entire venture was publicized well in advance of the actual expedition, and the mission was “too important to fail” according to the January 23rd interview with The Guardian Catlin team leader Pen Hadow said:
“During this mammoth expedition we will gather the essential data that scientists need to more accurately determine when the permanent floating sea ice will disappear altogether. We cannot afford to fail on this mission – there is too much at stake.”
With pronouncements like that, you also can’t afford not to bring home
a result consistent with the theme of the expedition.
Reality Show Science as reported , “The trio will be sending in regular diary entries, videos and photographs to BBC News throughout their expedition.” When you tie science too closely to the media from the beginning, it predetermines some outcomes. That pressure is always there to produce the story rather than focus on the task. This is why most proper science is done well away from the media and the results are reported afterwards.
Hadow, by his own admission, has an unrealistic and biased warmer view of the Arctic that doesn’t match the current data. In his Curriculum Vitae posted , he writes:
“Twenty years ago, you could walk to the North Pole – now you have to swim part of the way there.”
Only problem is, the satellite data showed a completely different picture of solid ice, and Hadow’s expedition , and the vast majority of the trip was below 32F (0C). He didn’t encounter vast leads of water along the way, and in fact encountered ice conditions far worse than he expected. This shows his bias for a warmer trip from the start.
The Catlin team’s scientific advisor at the beginning of the trip seemed to already have a predetermined outcome for the Arctic. In this
they write of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, a science advisor to the survey:
“Ultimately, Professor Maslowski hopes to finesse his forecast for when the first ice-free summer might arrive.
Currently, he has it down for 2013 – but with an uncertainty range between 2010 and 2016.”
So if they already had this figured out from the beginning, why make the trip at all? Is it so the BBC could recycle the headline again today saying ? Why do “science” at great personal risk when you already are sure of the end game? There’s also another nugget of predisposition wisdom by Catlin’s science advisor Professor Maslowski. Read on.
They failed to advise of major equipment failure in a timely manner, inviting suspicion. The ice radar sounding equipment that was designed to do the thickness survey failed miserably, almost from day one, yet even though they were “sending in regular diary entries, videos and photographs to BBC News throughout their expedition,” the world didn’t . When Apollo 13 had a problem, the world knew about it almost immediately. When Catlin had a problem, it was covered up for well over a month, yet that didn’t stop the BBC from paraphrasing Apollo 13’s famous words for a headline
as if there was some parallel in integrity and timeliness here.
Hadow and his scientific advisor erroneously believed that their expedition was the only way ice thickness measurements could be done, and they seemed oblivious to other efforts and systems.
From this :
“No other information on ice thickness like this is expected to be made available to the scientific community in 2009,” explained Arctic ice modeller Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, a science advisor to the survey.
While this was obviously a selling point to sponsors and an ego boost for the team, it was flat wrong. For example, there’s a
that provides ice thickness data,. Then there’s
which provides mass and balance measurements, as well as ice thickness maps, shown below:
ICESat data for Fall 2008, source NASA Scientific Visualization Studio
As reported on WUWT, another data source of Arctic Ice thickness in 2009 came in the form of an aerial survey with a towed radar array from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. They didn’t have to risk lives, create drama, or bleat constant headlines to the BBC while doing the science. They simply flew the plane over the ice a few times.
Here’s some excerpts of what was reported on WUWT in the story
At the North Pole ice sheet is thicker than expected
The “Polar 5″ in Bremerhaven
The research aircraft Polar 5 “ended today in Canada’s recent Arctic expedition.
During the flight, researchers have measured the current Eisst?rke measured at the North Pole, and in areas that have never before been overflown. Result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than the researchers had suspected.
Normally, ice is newly formed after two years, over two meters thick. “Here were Eisdicken up to four meters,” said a spokesman of Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. For scientists, this result is still in contradiction to the warming of the seawater.
Gosh. Where’s the polar death defying drama in that?
Due to the extreme cold conditions they were not fully prepared for, they completed less than half of the planned trip. Originally it was to be a 1000 kilometer trip to the North Pole which according to early interviews given by Hadow was easily done, yet they failed. The original start point was to be at 81N 130W but they actually started closer to the pole by about 100 kilometers.
to explore the Catlin Arctic Survey in Google Earth (right click and save as)
According to the
provided by Catlin, they started at
81.7N 129.7W and ended at 85.5N 125.6W for a total distance of approximately 435 kilometers over 73 days. Hardly a broad survey of the Arctic Ice when put into perspective on the Google Earth and ICEsat maps shown below:
Catlin Route Map from GPS data with planned and actual start/end points
Here’s the Catlin Arctic Ice Survey Route overlaid on the ICEsat map. You can see just how little of the ice was actually surveyed.
Catlin Arctic Survey Path over ICEsat map - click for larger image
Note that the ICEsat image is from Fall 2008, while the Catlin trip was in the Spring of 2009. Since we all know sea ice moves, often connected to the Beaufort Gyre, it is likely that the path depicted does not represent the ice Catlin actually traveled over. The sea ice may have moved so that the Catlin path traversed some of the thinner ice to the west, though some thickening of the ice would also be expected during the winter of 2009. The point of this map was to put the route in perspective.
There’s very little actual data return for 73 days on the ice, only 39 datapoints. See the dataset they provide in the Excel file here:
The actual number of holes drilled and measured for ice thickness by Pen Hadow is said to be in the hundreds, and what we see in the Excel file is the average of those many holes at each drilling session. While I commend them for providing the raw hole data, problems with potential measurement bias don’t appear to be well addressed in the
(PDF) while it is mentioned in the :
“One further consideration, when interpreting the ice thickness measurements made by the Catlin Arctic Survey team, may be navigational bias. Typically, the surface of First Year Ice floes are flatterthan that of multi‐year ice floes and because the team systematically seeks out flatter ice which is easier to travel over and camp on, there is a risk that the ice surveyed will not be representative.”
Since they make no mention of the potential measurement bias in the final report, it appears that there wasn’t anything but lip service consideration given to it in the early report, possibly to appease critics.
One of the most prominent sea ice researchers in the world, Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC said he would not use the Catlin data saying in a :
“I don’t anticipate using the Catlin data.”
That begs the question then, beyond the use of the data for generating news stories like we’ve seen in the BBC and other media outlets, who will? Even the media outlets have ignored the actual data Catlin made available, preferring sound bites over data bytes.
The Catlin Arctic Ice Survey knowingly presented false data to the public and to the media in their web presentation.
As many WUWT readers recall, it was here that it was discovered that Catlin’s website had bogus telemetry data on it, giving the impression of “live data from the ice” when in fact the data repeated in an endless loop from a short period.
Here’s the story from WUWT
Something quite odd is going on at the Catlin Arctic Survey website at:
It appears that they are presenting recycled data from the biotelemetry sensors on the team. The “live from the ice” biotelemetry data for each team member is presented here:
Here is a screencap of what the biotelemetry section of that webpage looks like:
click for full sized image
A WUWT commenter posted this:
karl heuer (07:40:46) :
The “Live from the Ice” biotelemetry is definitely not live:
When the data loads,
Pen Hadow core temp starts at 33.25 C every time the page loads, then increments up to 33.57, 33.64, 33.7, 33.75
every time, I have refreshed, cleared temp files and rebooted — still the same
WUWT commenter “hotrod” did his own check:
I just tried it looking at Pen Haddow’s pulse rate — Hmmm what are the odds that 32 consecutive pulse rate measurements would be identical?
Yes looks like the bio metric data is just white was to make their site look nifty, and has absolutely no value at all — perhaps they already have all their ice measurements in the can too?
When called out on the bogus telemetry data issue, the Catlin support team, rather than addressing the issue head on and with transparency, simply changed the web page for “live” telemetry to read “demonstrational”, and it remains that way today.
This is what it originally showed:
Of course they could just end the farce and remove it. Because, well,
who needs demonstrational biotelemetry anyway?
They also posted this at the bottom of the :
An apology
We’d like to apologise to anybody who felt misled by our recent biometric data. The data was initially displayed in error in a way that gave the impression that it was live. The intended qualification and explanation that it was, in fact, delayed information, was at first missing. We have subsequently corrected this with specific information concerning the above data. We apologise for the errors and to anyone who may have found the data misleading.
The real question is: how long would they have let that “live” impression go on had WUWT not called them on it? Originally the URL for the “biotelemetry” was
Now that URL if typed in your browser is automatically redirected to:
So with the words “telemetry” and “live_from_the_ice.aspx” it is clear what the original intent was. The apology is about saving face, nothing else.
So the question to readers and media is: with these sorts of issues listed above, do you really want to trust the data from a group of people that perform and present “science” in this way? If you do, it would seem to me that you are putting form over substance. Even if we didn’t have these trust issues, are 39 datapoints over a short section of the Arctic really that useful given the other tools shown to be at the disposal of real science?
The Catlin Arctic Ice Survey is in my opinion, nothing more than a badly executed public relations stunt covered with the thinnest veneer of attempted science.
Update: On the morning of 10/15 I fixed about a half dozen typographical and grammatical errors in the essay. h/t to Harold Ambler and others for the tips on these. This included changing the description to “opportunistic explorers” in the first paragraph as in retrospect I felt my original description of was too harsh, since despite the shortcomings, omissions, and PR fluff, these people did a physical feat that few could do. My conclusion above remains unchanged by that fact though. – Anthony
Sponsored IT training links:
exam in first try by using
practice questions written and formulated by
certified experts.
Rate this:Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
in , , , .
Related posts
Site stats
278,133,890 views
"...the world's most viewed climate website"
- Fred Pearce
"...invaluable" - Steven F. Hayward,
"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. -
"...flashy (apparently widely distributed)"
BUY THIS BOOK!
Shameless Plug
Donations accepted:
to help keep the
project going.
Follow WUWT via Email
Enter your email address to follow WUWT and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 36,945 other followers
Recent Posts
Top Posts & Pages
October 2009
Select Month
July 2016 &(23)
June 2016 &(156)
May 2016 &(160)
April 2016 &(163)
March 2016 &(172)
February 2016 &(137)
January 2016 &(133)
December 2015 &(158)
November 2015 &(136)
October 2015 &(123)
September 2015 &(129)
August 2015 &(130)
July 2015 &(146)
June 2015 &(144)
May 2015 &(157)
April 2015 &(125)
March 2015 &(126)
February 2015 &(115)
January 2015 &(106)
December 2014 &(130)
November 2014 &(136)
October 2014 &(163)
September 2014 &(185)
August 2014 &(190)
July 2014 &(173)
June 2014 &(195)
May 2014 &(216)
April 2014 &(182)
March 2014 &(185)
February 2014 &(164)
January 2014 &(202)
December 2013 &(144)
November 2013 &(147)
October 2013 &(147)
September 2013 &(148)
August 2013 &(165)
July 2013 &(174)
June 2013 &(164)
May 2013 &(193)
April 2013 &(171)
March 2013 &(164)
February 2013 &(165)
January 2013 &(172)
December 2012 &(126)
November 2012 &(139)
October 2012 &(176)
September 2012 &(151)
August 2012 &(144)
July 2012 &(175)
June 2012 &(179)
May 2012 &(177)
April 2012 &(178)
March 2012 &(190)
February 2012 &(161)
January 2012 &(142)
December 2011 &(161)
November 2011 &(168)
October 2011 &(180)
September 2011 &(189)
August 2011 &(190)
July 2011 &(170)
June 2011 &(187)
May 2011 &(177)
April 2011 &(177)
March 2011 &(172)
February 2011 &(183)
January 2011 &(193)
December 2010 &(183)
November 2010 &(168)
October 2010 &(191)
September 2010 &(179)
August 2010 &(200)
July 2010 &(188)
June 2010 &(140)
May 2010 &(124)
April 2010 &(122)
March 2010 &(136)
February 2010 &(142)
January 2010 &(157)
December 2009 &(168)
November 2009 &(163)
October 2009 &(132)
September 2009 &(106)
August 2009 &(92)
July 2009 &(96)
June 2009 &(94)
May 2009 &(89)
April 2009 &(99)
March 2009 &(99)
February 2009 &(60)
January 2009 &(60)
December 2008 &(58)
November 2008 &(45)
October 2008 &(63)
September 2008 &(75)
August 2008 &(77)
July 2008 &(68)
June 2008 &(72)
May 2008 &(54)
April 2008 &(54)
March 2008 &(39)
February 2008 &(40)
January 2008 &(31)
December 2007 &(27)
November 2007 &(37)
October 2007 &(29)
September 2007 &(17)
August 2007 &(31)
July 2007 &(20)
June 2007 &(25)
May 2007 &(31)
April 2007 &(31)
March 2007 &(27)
February 2007 &(24)
January 2007 &(25)
December 2006 &(22)
November 2006 &(11)
CategoriesCategories
Select Category
<option class="level-0" value="0.org connect the dots
97% consensus
99% certainty
Adjustments/Corrections
Agriculture
Air pollution
Announcements
Anthropogenic Ocean Warming
Attribution
Bad science
Bad science journalism
Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Book Review
Cancun Climate Conference
Cap-and-trade
Carbon credits
Carbon dioxide
Carbon footprint
Carbon sequestration
Carbon soot
carbon tax
Celebrities on AGW
censorship
CFC&#8217;s
Chaos and Climate
Citizen science
Climate cash
Climate Communications
Climate Craziness of the Week
Climate data
Climate FAIL
Climate Models
Climate Myths
Climate News
Climate News Roundup
Climate reconciliation
Climate Reference Network
climate refugees
Climate sensitivity
Climate ugliness
Climategate
Climategate 3.0
Climate_change
COP conferences
Copenhagen Climate Conference
Cosmic rays
Cowtan & Way
Curious things
Current News
Desertification
disinvitation
Durban Climate Conference
dust storms
Earthquakes
Economy-health
Educational opportunity
El Nino Basics
Emergent Climate Phenomena
Environment
Experiments
Extinction
extreme weather
Forecasting
Freeman Dyson
Fusion power
Gavin Schmidt
Geoengineering
geothermal energy
Gergis et al
Global cooling
Global Temperature Update
Global warming
Global Warming Optimism
Gore-a-thon 2011
Gore-a-thon 2012
Gorefest11
Government funding of science
Government idiocy
Green Blob
Green Mafia
Green tech
Greenland ice sheet
Hiatus in Global Warming
Hits and Misses
hurricanes
hydroclimatology
Hydropower
IPCC AR5 leak
IPCC AR5 Report
James Hansen
Karl et al. 2015
Land Surface Air Temperature Data
Land use land cover change
Letters To The Editor
Lewis and Crok
Little Ice Age
Local_issues
Lower Troposphere Temperature
Marcott et al proxy paper
measurement
MedievalWarmPeriod
Michael E. Mann
modification
More On Series
National Climate Assessment Report
Natural CO2 sources
natural gas
Natural Warming
NOAA 2 year FOIA documents
NOAA ERSST.v4 Pauses Buster
Noble Cause Corruption
nuclear power
Obama Climate Plan
Obamas War on Energy
Obvious science
Ocean acidification
Ocean Heat Content
Ocean Temperatures
Open Thread
Optical phenonmena
Paleoclimatology
Papal Climate Encyclical
Peer review
Plankton and other critters
Polar Vortex
Polarbeargate
Positive effects of CO2
Post-normal science
Presentations
Puzzling things
Quote of The Month
Quote of the Week
Radiative Imbalance
RCP 8.5 Science Fiction
Reference Pages
reproducibility
Sea Ice News
Sea Surface Temperature
solar flare
solar power
Southern Annular Mode
Spaceweather
Specific Humidity
Spencer-Braswell and Dessler
statistics
Stephan Lewandowsky
Stern Review
Stratospheric water vapor
Surfacestations paper
Sustainability
Tabloid Climatology
TAO/TRITON Buoys
Technology
Temperature
The &#8220;Clitanic&#8221; aka Spirit of Mawson
The Rat-hole problem
The Skeptic&#8217;s Case
The Weather Channel
The WUWT Hot Sheet
The Yamal Deception
thorium power
Throwback Thursday Predictions
thunderstorms
Trenberth&#8217;s missing heats
UKMO HADCRUT4
Uncategorized
Uncertainty
United Nations
Waste heat
Watts et al 2012
Weather_stations
Willis Autobiography
wind power
Humor/Satire
Lukewarmers
Political Climate
Pro AGW Views
Skeptical Views
Transcendent Rant and way out there theory
Unreliable*
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
Click for the:
Sea Ice Page
Solar Images &#038; Data Page
Atmospheric Maps Page
ENSO/SST Page
ENSO Meter
Sponsored links
IT Certifications:
Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright (C) , by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission.
For permission, contact us. See the About&Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: