Slashdot Mirror
Australian Icebreaker Tries To Get Through To Stranded Antarctic Research Ship
The shipload of researchers and tourists stuck in the Antarctic ice are still stuck. A Chinese icebreaker, the Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, has gotten tantalizingly close but was hampered by "unusually thick ice." Now, an Australian vessel, the Aurora Australis, will attempt to rescue the 74 people aboard the MV Akademik Shokalskiy.
I believe in Darwin
I love how the NYT and BBC reports on this story completely neglect to mention that the stuck ship is full of climate scientists out to gather global warming evidence. Just a complete oversight I'm sure. Also: consensus.
Yea and Ice breaker should do one thing and do it well oh and be a file.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Web cam for Aurora, hopefully will be on when they are getting close http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/aurora '
You obviously don't understand what "warming" refers to. Here's a hint: It doesn't mean all ice all over the world is suddenly gone. It DOES mean that rising ocean temperatures have seriously fucked up ocean life, as you can see by price trends in seafood, massive overpopulation of lobsters in New England, dearth of shrimp in historically abundant areas, etc.
I do wonder who is going to be paying for these rescue attempts.
Some Antarctic ice thickening after massive Arctic ice thinning, is still a net global climate change; with plenty of potential ramifications --- most likely highly negative ramifications; when it comes to world climates: climate change = potential extinctions.
Naturally, the appearance in the middle of the summer of ice so thick that the icebreakers of multiple polefaring nations cannot penetrate it is proof of anthropogenic warming. You criticize our teachings in any way, and we will beat you to death with our sacred hockey sticks in the East District of Texas. Meanwhile, our last hope is to send in Chuck Norris with a shipload of thermite.
Yes, of course: Because when the average temperature in December rises from -18 C to -16 C means that it's impossible for water to even consider freezing.
I am officially gone from
Risking a whoosh: South - penguins, North - polar bears. The northern ice extent has been receding dramatically over the past decades. Economically, it can be a boon, what with the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage opening up, but the hapless animals will eventually have to suck it up and go extinct.
I am aware Antarctica is one of the coldest places on earth, yet when I lived 60 degrees away from the equator in Alaska it never got down to 7F (the degree in which salt water freezes) by summer. It would not even hit freezing until September or October?!This is not 90 degrees on the dead center of the geographic south pole or anything and is surrounded by water which moderates the climate.
The ice should be rapidly melting?!
http://saveie6.com/
Risking a whoosh ...
Relax. Comments as idiotic as AC's make a dull thud, not a whoosh.
Hey AC: Want to hang out with like minded people giggling inanely until they wet themselves? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#more-100034.
I hope they don't get eaten by the polar bears
rewriting history since 2109
A boatload of CAGW scientists can't engineer their way out of the ice in the middle of the summer in the Academik. An extra half a million square miles of ice that's not supposed to be there. Stuck about 3500 miles south of Darwin. Awards all around.
I love how the NYT and BBC reports on this story completely neglect to mention that the stuck ship is full of climate scientists out to gather global warming evidence.
Just like you are vaguely hinting that locally colder than usual weather somehow is evidence that the climate is not changing. Do you have any conception of the difference between climate and weather?
A tiny bit of money is not even worth mentioning if you can help someone out with a serious problem.
Especially if it buys you a lot of positive publicity and goodwill, which you would mostly lose again if you brought up the issue of money.
That is who it works for people, and it that is also how it works in international relations.
Therefor the Chinese and Australian taxpayer will likely pay for it.
Sailors live with the shared knowledge that they can easily suffer a similar fate. I believe rescue is part of the maritime laws. Even in war, enemies are rescued.
I love how the NYT and BBC reports on this story completely neglect to mention that the stuck ship is full of climate scientists out to gather global warming evidence. Just a complete oversight I'm sure.
On Twitter, Documenting an Antarctic Journey and a Countdown to a Rescue
Four embedded videos from the expedition team. Including a seven minute introduction to the project.
Being serious here, since they are stuck in an ice pack, is it stable enough to get as close as possible then drive out to rescue them? Sure, you will lose the ship as its crushed into oblivion, but you will save the human lives.
No, i haven't seen overhead pictures, thus the question.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
As regards US Maritime law, I can offer this -
Copy and pasted from http://www.maritimeinjurylawyersblog.com/2013/02/rescues_at_sea_the_united_stat.html
According to federal law, 45 USC Section 2304, the master of a vessel must aid anyone at sea who is in danger of losing their lives, as long as such rescue can be performed without serious threat to the master, the master’s vessel, and those on board. However, maritime law is in agreement with common law in that an individual, including a vessel master, has this statutory duty to assist those in peril at sea only when a certain relationship exists, such as carrier/passenger, vessel/seaman, and employer/employee; also, whoever has caused a danger at sea must aid any persons or property they have endangered. Further, whether because of an established relationship or as a Good Samaritan, if an individual attempts a rescue which results in further harm due to negligence, recklessness, or wantonness, he or she may be held liable for damages.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
The Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently more than two standard deviations greater than the 1981 to 2010 average according to the NSIDC.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Not what one would expect in a warming climate. Or maybe it is ... ex post.
Antarctica Sea Ice Reaches Record High: Doesn't Refute Global Warming
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-doesnt-refute-global-warming/
massive overpopulation of lobsters in New England,
That doesn't sound like a problem to me. Lobsters are delicious.
How many researchers in a 'shipload'?
John
Seriously, anyone thought about rescuing them using helicopters? Rescue the people, worry about the ship later...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I dunno. The flappy headed environmentalists have been telling us for years(closer to decades) that there will be no ice in the arctic or antarctic. And the met centre in the UK went as far as to say a few years ago that "snow would be a thing of the past, and would only be read about in books." If there was a great fraud being perpetrated that people are cluing in on, then it would be the doom and gloom hoax of our lifetime.
Om, nomnomnom...
Also why use ice area/volume as a standard of the global temperature?
"His name was James Damore."
I think we need to pause and think about the what's really behind the story here:
The Russians put our camera made by our German scientists and your film made by your German scientists into their satellite made by their German scientists.
This rescue will end when the a US nuclear submarine pops up through the ice sheet, and a bunch of marines in snow gear jump out. But then a Russian airplane will toss out a bunch of paratroopers in snow gear will land.
A suspenseful standoff is guaranteed . . .
This stranded tourists and scientists story is just a cover for the public to hide what is really going on . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
... Aurora Australis hasn't been reporting its location since Christmas day.
The latest reported location for that vessel was recorded at 2013-12-25 07:33:00 (UTC), while it was at the latitude/longitude of: -65.78115 / 109.8082, with speed and course of 13.8 kn / 4Â, according to http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:109.8082/centery:-65.78115/zoom:8/oldmmsi:503043000/olddate:lastknown
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And it's a metric shipload.
Can't the fucking coast Guard runs USAian icebreakers. They could not sail themselves outside a toilet bowl.
Didn't you know that everybody in the Coast Guard has to be over six feet tall? That way, if their ship ever sinks, they can wade ashore.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
No they did not. If that happens most of us are going to need really long snorkels. If you are going to suggest that others are lying it's best not to lie to do so - otherwise you come off as being dishonest.
The last of the hapless crew having survived through cannibalism will die. Thus the un-happy fate of the 'anthropocene' "researchers" will end. A nasty tale on a nastier fallacy of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
You trying to write a screen play or are you just an idiot?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Seriously, anyone thought about rescuing them using helicopters?
That has been thought of, and is being considered as the last resort.
The Chinese ice breaker, the Xue Long (Ice Dragon) has a chopper on board, and the vessel is only some 7KM away from the Russian vessel.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yes Virginia - Polar Bears can swim and run on the ever thickening Ice!
I'm sure they can
But I'm also pretty sure they cant swim all the way to Antarctica .
So this is what basementfaring people are like.
Good to hear from a real climate scientist that knows their shit instead of a software developer telling every expert on the subject on the planet that they have got it wrong. Oh wait - looks like I got that backwards.
This sort of shit is not funny any more and just makes the people spreading it look like morons. They don't seem to understand that their arguments against expertise are undermining themselves unless they are also mediocre at what they do. To the above poster - I suggest leaving it to the entertainers and idiots in politics instead of indirectly shooting yourself in the foot.
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.
... perhaps because for years deniers have been looking for observations that buck the trend.
Strange, when I was a kid, we called looking for observations that counter a scientific theory "science".
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Is it trapped forever? Will the ice crush it and cause a nasty little fuel spill? Or is the ship's hull strong enough that it will just be frozen in place either forever or until it can be salvaged?
There would be more usable land on Earth if all the ice caps melted, not less. A lot of people would have to relocate, but the process would be more than slow enough to adjust.
I think you're proving his point. Was that your objective?
Huh...what?
Global Warming, I thought all of the ice was unusually thin and melting? These must of been pretty dumb scientists. :-P
If the earth became a ball of ice. It would still be blamed on global warming. The only possible thing that could disprove global warming is if the earth suddenly went through a 10 year period of zero temperature change in any region. That is about the only thing that could disprove Global Warming.
And if that happened, we'd have a much worse concern than global warming.
Maybe if the U.S. government would budget some funds for the U.S. Coast Guard instead of blowing trillions on a dozen aircraft carriers that will all be sunk in the first 2 weeks of a war.
None of those issues mentioned are due to global warming. Rather, they're due to overfishing. And have been a significant problem even during the 70's when cold had people talking a mini ice age.
Heck, New England Cod has been in decline since before modern industry. Take the mismanagement of commercial fishing and multiply that by a population that is twice as big as it was in the 50's.
Except, I can prove Gravity and replicate its affect. And predict it with a reasonable amount of accuracy.
None of which can be done with global warming.
First off, it's not locally vague. It's been documented globally.
So here is the reason why Global Warming is bullshit science. It has zero ability to be proved.
Any big storm, earthquake tsunami, hurricane, tornado, snow storm, heat wave, drought = PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING
But at the same time, GWA always decry local/regional not equal ...blah blah blah...you're such a stupid denier. Well you know what, we've shown major regional coolings. We've shown planetary coolings. Heck, we chould show you absolute proof. And you morons would still act the same.
Global Warming Alarmists are simply, religious nutjobs on par with well religious nut jobs and Apple fanbois.
Antarctica is an archeapelago. Just islands under that ice, not a continent.
WUT?!?
http://www.universetoday.com/102754/what-does-antarctica-look-like-under-the-ice/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_surface.jpg
-18 to -16 is not a drop.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
A projection is.
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised. You start sounding like the religious nutjob on the corner who keeps changing his sign reading the "End of the World is October 2011"
And yes, Newtonian physics fails at certain speeds. But at least Newton was able to replicate with a modicum of repeatability and prediction.
Something none of the GWA models have done. And we're not talking 1-2 years, but 1-2 decades of being off. That based on a mere 2-3 decades of seeming warming.
I'm not even saying the earth can't be warming. I'm just saying that those shouting it from rooftops have less accuracy than a JW.
A projection is.
In my definition, it is "if I have x, y, z, and it continues on path q, I can project that it will continue to do so with a given accuracy". But as soon as I open my big fat mouth and say that "q will be such", I've changed from a projection of a model to a prediction. And when ALL of those predictions are wrong and revised.
That's where I think you're mistaken; they don't say, "q will be such", they state something more like, "if q continues to be such, we expect ___ with an X% level of confidence" (ya know, like scientists tend to do).
I found this IPCC glossary:
Climate predictionA climate prediction or climate forecast is the result of an attempt to produce a most likely description or estimate of the actual evolution of the climate in the future, e.g. at seasonal, interannual or long-term time scales. See also: Climate projection and Climate (change) scenario.
vs
Climate projectionA projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasise that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions, concerning, e.g., future socio-economic and technological developments, that may or may not be realised, and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.
Finally, the IPCC projections are criticized for being, if anything, too conservative in their projections. Time and time again they've said X in Y years and in Y - Z years X is seen to be having an effect. And when something stupid does come out (Himalayan glaciers melting in 30 years), they correct it. Ya know, like scientists do.
Also, don't confuse media headlines with IPCC projections, just like you can't expect to see realistic scenes of IT in movies.
And please, check out the link a few posts above that points to the Ars Technica story where the comp sci prof has a look at the models - he was impressed - they're pretty good. Or, "all models are wrong, some are useful" and climate models are useful.
Delighted to hear it. Let me know when you come up with a better theory.
No they did not.
Really? Odd that I've run across no less than two stories today claiming just that. One from atmos.uiuc, and the other via climate change websites. Can't remember where I saw the last but oh yes, those doom and gloom folks are reporting just that. Don't worry if it doesn't fit your narrative.
Om, nomnomnom...
It appears the attempt failed, at least for now. https://secure3.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/display_sitrep.cfm?bvs_id=19314