|
Post by ron on Apr 15, 2009 15:27:58 GMT
www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/headline.aspx?postId=160First findings released - Ice is thinner than expected: Yup, I'm sure the route was chosen to locate thick ice. First admission/backpedal that they are not gonna reach the pole: Article also goes into the fact that they really haven't collected any high-tech data at all -- but still hope to be able to collect some after their next resupply.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 15, 2009 19:39:02 GMT
This has been an extremely well managed media & propaganda event. They have spared no expense in getting the message across.
Their only serious mistake was showing the team bogged down in mountains of ice for days on end. I assume the propaganda/media folk didn't have enough science to realise that this was indicating how deep the ice really is, to those that did have some basic science.
//Rant on And who was it who said they'd report the the equipment had failed? ;D They took how many days to report the equipment had failed? 46 days!
"SPRITE, its pioneering Surface Penetrating Radar for Ice Thickness Establishment, and onboard sledge computer kit have, despite rigorous testing ahead of the expedition, both been disabled by the extreme conditions. A fault, not previously detected, has also prevented use of a SeaCat probe which measures the water column beneath the floating sea ice,"
All scientific objectivity has been thrown out the window.
Carefully selected sites of thin ice chosen for drilling: "What matters most is gathering the maximum amount of data possible over a scientifically interesting route."
By carefully following a thin ice lead between the mountains of 60m thick ice, they can get thousands of "suitable" measurements.
Of course, the propaganda effort must be maintained at all costs, until the political changes have all been cemented in place.
Their time is short, in more ways than one. //Rant off
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Apr 15, 2009 19:55:05 GMT
Indeed. Perhaps you try tell that to the AGW luvvies
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Apr 15, 2009 22:55:45 GMT
It is interesting that the low in Sept 2009 will have been established shortly after their final data has been analyzed and possibly reported about, and this event will be several months before the meeting in Copenhagen.
Sort of an external confirmation or condemnation of their findings. I think of it in terms of pass/fail. Perhaps they should withhold their results until later in the Fall ?
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 15, 2009 23:12:57 GMT
"SPRITE, its pioneering Surface Penetrating Radar for Ice Thickness Establishment, and onboard sledge computer kit have, despite rigorous testing ahead of the expedition, both been disabled by the extreme conditions. A fault, not previously detected, has also prevented use of a SeaCat probe which measures the water column beneath the floating sea ice,"
Well as the artic ice cap was supposed to be melting as they arrived, who would have thought to test the equipment outside of grannies fridge in hampstead. Can't get much colder than that can it tarquin, well of course not and it worked spiffingly! We unbolted the reversing radar from the back of granmama's fiesta and superglued it into a clever looking grp case and called it sprite. As it turned out it was just shite. Who needs real scientists when amateurs can make such an amazingly successful expedition.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 16, 2009 18:17:59 GMT
All scientific objectivity has been thrown out the window. Carefully selected sites of thin ice chosen for drilling: By carefully following a thin ice lead between the mountains of 60m thick ice, they can get thousands of "suitable" measurements. Of course, the propaganda effort must be maintained at all costs, until the political changes have all been cemented in place. Doesn't it bother you to call scientific expeditions rotten to the core of each and every individual? For your post to be anything but vitriol, every single one of those people must be risking his life for slave wages with the only possible benefit being infamy when the scheme ultimately unravels, as it would have to eventually. No, you're saying pocket-protector guys - you know them, you met them in high school - seriously, you're saying those nerds a few years later are all lying sacks of ____ who fabricate data and sabotage equipment - and not a single one will squeal even though it would bring fame and a fair chunk of cash (as well as making oneself impossible to fire)? Nerds are way bad at keeping bad secrets - they were the ones who squealed on the "bad" kids, right? Can you imagine the nerds you knew in high school growing up and doing the things you accuse them of?? Remember, when someone ELSE squeals, "you" get the disgrace and since "you've" been proven to falsify data, "you're" essentially unemployable. Who wouldn't squeal?? Your post is insulting and illogical.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 16, 2009 19:16:51 GMT
Doesn't it bother you to call scientific expeditions rotten to the core of each and every individual? If each and every individual actually knew what was going on it might. OTOH, perhaps the actual survey team were directed by an "expert" to take their samples in the valleys between the ice mountains. That might make them dupes, but not con artists. LOOK at the pictures posted on the Caitlin site and elsewhere - unless those ridges they are crossing are hollow, the ice is an order of magnitude over 1.77m thick in several places they've been. I haven't heard any direct statements from the team (I could easily have missed them), so I'm not going to condemn them as con artists. That doesn't mean the organizers and PR members of the Caitlin group aren't. Remember, always, that in any expose it is easy to find people who knew all along it was a fraud but kept their heads down because they wanted to keep getting paid. (Or because they signed NDAs and didn't think they should talk, or because they assumed no one would believe them, or, or, or...)
|
|
|
Post by itocalc on Apr 16, 2009 19:53:22 GMT
I know nothing about Catlin. However, true believers in anything will gladly suffer great deprivation and pain for the cause. Their collection and interpretation of evidence/data will objecvtively support the conclusion they had before the evidence was gathered. When the evidence is not what is wanted, it will be obscured until a reinterpretation is available. In the fossil record, creationists see Noah's Flood, punctuationists see punctuated equilibrium (Gould), and gradualists see gradualism. They are not unintelligent or dishonest; they are true believers. People with a different view will think any honest person would not hold the opposing position. Therefore, they must be dishonest or uninformed. Maybe they are, but I think they are simply true believers.
It is hard for me to believe any rational person could believe in AGW. I like to think of myself as intelligent, informed, and honest. I wonder what the Catlin folks think of themselves?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 16, 2009 20:14:16 GMT
Yeah...as they pass through this wasteland in which they make it a point to mention how they have to meander around masses of 4meter tall blocks of ice...which of course extend much farther under water. I'm guessing they don't bother to measure the depth of THAT ice (the old ice blown there and carried there by currents) and instead measure the low lying areas because it's easlier.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 16, 2009 20:49:51 GMT
I seriously doubt that ice rubble fields are as think as Kiwi likes to think, but I could be wrong.
When broken-up ice is floating and getting pushed up onto solid area, I don't think that means that the shelf has to break off and submerge 90%. The water could be displaced along the entire subsurface of the shelf which might be ENORMOUS. Or the unbalanced shelf might dip a littlethere and be offset by a little raising on the other end.
I'd bet these ice sheets behave a lot more like land masses than they do ice cubes, but of course I am not an ice scientist.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 17, 2009 1:44:23 GMT
When broken-up ice is floating and getting pushed up onto solid area, I don't think that means that the shelf has to break off and submerge 90%. The water could be displaced along the entire subsurface of the shelf which might be ENORMOUS. Or the unbalanced shelf might dip a littlethere and be offset by a little raising on the other end. Thats hilarious! Offset at the other end! Its pretty much basic physics that whether its right under the ridge, or the ridge is the deep spot and through lever action you get a greater cross section sinking. . .in the end 9 times the ice is going to be the surface than above it and that will plus 9 times what ever lifts out of the water at the other end of the sheet.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 17, 2009 1:53:14 GMT
I can assure you Ron, that the Ice is genuinely 90% deeper than the ice above. # A block of ice couldn't be supported by thin ice. The pressure alone would melt the block through the thin ice. We know those pressure ridges are massive, and 30-60m thick isn't abnormal. Quotes form the following NOAA link: Keels in the Arctic can reach down to 50 m, although most are about 10-25 m deep.Ridged ice in the Arctic makes a major contribution to the overall mass of sea ice; probably about 40% on average and more than 60% in coastal regions.www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.htmlTrue, they might be few & far between, but I've seen plenty of evidence that they are extensive, NOAA say 40-60%, and we know the Catlin expedition got stuck in an extensive area of pressure ridges. Lies are OK when you are at War, (so they say) (The War on Climate Change!) and I am convinced that the equipment measuring ice depth was working perfectly, at least at first. We know they withheld the data. We know they changed the website to remove the fact that they had intended to give us the data. As I predicted, they said that the equipment had failed. Lies to the enemy - and the enemy is the public!! # There are geometries that would lower the height above the ice, or raise it for the same depth. At "best" the ice is 4 times deeper than the height above, but most likely geometries give a 9 to 1 ratio.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 17, 2009 2:06:02 GMT
They know that they are being dishonest, (sort of), but the justification is, "We really know that the ice is thin, it has to be" "We don't want to confuse them with what we found, which must have just been a poor choice of location" "We known the 'truth' and that is what we will say we found."
So they are being deliberately dishonest, while in their own minds they are telling us the truth.
Poor, poor, blind fools.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Apr 17, 2009 3:00:02 GMT
in the end 9 times the ice is going to be [below] the surface than above it. THAT is ABSOLUTELY true, but it doesn't mean the ice need be thick under the "rubble", nor any thicker along the entire sheet, just that the displacement be equalized. Like I said, I'm not an ice scientist, but I'm sure I could play with some ice sheets and ice cubes and prove the point pretty darn quickly.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 17, 2009 4:01:58 GMT
in the end 9 times the ice is going to be [below] the surface than above it. THAT is ABSOLUTELY true, but it doesn't mean the ice need be thick under the "rubble", nor any thicker along the entire sheet, just that the displacement be equalized. Like I said, I'm not an ice scientist, but I'm sure I could play with some ice sheets and ice cubes and prove the point pretty darn quickly. Hi Ron, I did just that some posts ago. You have to make sure that your geometry can actually be made up of real ice movements- i.e plates compressed together, or riding up over each other. The likely shapes are like mountain ranges, not pyramids. A pyramid has a larger mass underneath, and doesn't need the same depth, but any ridge shape needs the 9x depth underneath. Do the math and satisfy yourself. The Catlin photos may have been staged to exaggerate height, using false perspectives, lens, and shooting shots from selected angles. I think they'll have been told to stop that nonsense because of the "false" impression it gives of deep ice. ;D
|
|