Helicopter Rescue For All Passengers Aboard Antarctic Research Ship

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Helicopter Rescue For All Passengers Aboard Antarctic Research Ship

Posted by timothy on Thursday January 2, 2014 @03:11AM from the who-pays-for-all-that-rescuing? dept.

The BBC reports (with video) that all aboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy have been rescued by helicopter, after more than one icebreaker attempt to reach the vessel directly proved too challenging. Also at the New York Times, which reports "The twin-rotored helicopter, based on a Chinese icebreaker, the Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, flew several sorties across miles of packed ice to pluck scientists, tourists and journalists from a makeshift landing zone next to the marooned MV Akademik Shokalskiy research vessel."

168 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:12 · Score: 0, Troll

Yeah, right.
1. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes, and the ice dispenser in my freezer is also supporting evidence for your position, as long as we're not going to look at useful aggregate data.
2. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:19 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Care to cite this data? The OP is bringing a hell of a lot more evidence to the conversation than you are.
3. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Care to cite this data? The OP is bringing a hell of a lot more evidence to the conversation than you are.
  The fact that you think they had any evidence at all is far more a reflection on you than me.
4. Re:Global warming. by Yew2 · 2014-01-02 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Its called climate change because of the unpredictable events. Perhaps you would like to consult a scientist? I wont ridicule you like those that claimed it was a myth when Las Vegas got snow in the summer time, but trust me - they got it good.
  
  --
  will work for dragon quest localization
5. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  when do the Climate Models say the ice will melt enough to get the ship out?
6. Re:Global warming. by SJHillman · 2014-01-02 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  If the ice was covering the globe, you'd have a point. But saying that my basement is cold doesn't prove that my whole house is.
7. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, actually, it's called climate change, at least originally, because that was a euphemism developed by a conservative think tank to make the results sound more palatable. It's called climate change now, because not all parts of the globe would warm. Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.
8. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't know. When do economic models predict I'll win the lottery?
9. Re:Global warming. by thaylin · 2014-01-02 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because you are picking your data...
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
10. Re:Global warming. by oodaloop · 2014-01-02 03:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Also, there's more going on that just CO2 levels and gradual heating. We're cutting down forrests, polluting the air and water with hundreds of thousands of chemicals, killing off life in the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died, paving over and building on top of ecosystems with reckless abandon, ad nauseum. In short, we're changing the environment in many ways at once, not just increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Climate Change seems more descriptive to me than Global Warming.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
11. Re:Global warming. by TWiTfan · 2014-01-02 03:52 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Well, at least they were able to show the world conclusively that the antarctic ice is, in fact, disappearing.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
12. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.
  Unless it's hot, or a drought. Then it's all about Climate.
13. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Except that the data in question isn't of the whole environment, and all its components. Science doesn't have an everythingology to study that.
14. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  That sure is something actual climate scientists have said, and not some kind of elaborate strawman you set up for yourself to attack.
  Yep.
  Now, statistically There has been a small increase in drought severity and frequency in the northern hemisphere as some oceanic changes occur, which has some limited, but measurable fallout. But that doesn't mean any given drought is climate change.
15. Re:Global warming. by oodaloop · 2014-01-02 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Granted there's no model of the earth that includes everything, other than the earth itself. There have been many studies of the effects of deforrestation, pollution, food supply, et al however. And there are more and more interdisciplinary studies using systems theory and complexity theory. Science is itself the study of everything. It's only its practioners who are divided into specialties by their own choice.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
16. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you can't recognize single incident evidence as more than just being a smart ass than you don't understand the idea of evidence. You flap your lips a lot but you never say much. Step up or shut up.
  Doubling down. Okay. If bank of America's stock is down today against yesterday, what does that say about where the DJI will be next year?
  Congratulations, if you said anything at all, you're an idiot who jumps to conclusions.
17. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I gave my real answer, actually.
  It was "I don't know." Which is appropriate because climate data has no relevant to day-to-day weather. And I illustrated that point with a similar question.
  Rather than address the main point, you compared me to nazis(not wanting to damage the economic output of the world by excessive emissions is ethically identical to genocide), made up claims I've never made, and made yourself sound like a crazy person.
18. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 04:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The real questions would be the kind answered with study of climate data, you know, wide-scale, multi-measure temperature assessments. The fake question would be "how much does ice at one point near the Antarctic matter?"
  Melodrama would be blowing up angrily when your idiotic point is compared against an obvious parallel.
19. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  As global warming continues schools in Minnesota are preparing to close next week for more record low temperatures. Year 17 of the temperatures cooling.
20. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, that's a good point. However my oven makes a counter argument in support of global warming.
21. Re:Global warming. by slim · 2014-01-02 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  As global warming continues schools in Minnesota are preparing to close next week for more record low temperatures
  Meanwhile, the British Midlands have barely seen a frost this year. Your anecdote about Minnesota is worth no more than mine about England.
22. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 04:39 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  No, that's stupid, like really stupid. There's nothing about these models that should be anywhere near that temporally localized.
23. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, perhaps not proof but noting a colder temperature in your basement does suggest something. Not knowing your situation I hesitate to make statements about it specifically, but in general I wouldn't be surprised if basement temperature had some correlation with the temperature in the rest of the house. In such a case, it wouldn't be irrational to notice a colder than expected basement temperature and suspect that the rest of the house was also colder than normal.
  I'm not saying the ship caught in ice suggests anything, it's far beyond my field of expertise. For one, I don't know how the ice-around-boats-near-antartica correlates with global temperature, or even how "global temperature" is measured. I'm just saying your analogy might not lead in the direction you intended.
24. Re:Global warming. by Kookus · 2014-01-02 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  you're being trolled.
25. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  How do you tell the difference between someone who has taken to denying factually reality to antagonize others and one who does so out of self-delusion?
26. Re:Global warming. by MightyYar · 2014-01-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a Bayesian model, but if I were I would score an AC or high user number very high when looking for trolls.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
27. Re:Global warming. by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2014-01-02 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, the British Midlands have barely seen a frost this year. Your anecdote about Minnesota is worth no more than mine about England.
  Everything important in the world happens in the US, didn't you know? That silly "rest of the world" thing is irrelevant.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
28. Re:Global warming. by LordLimecat · 2014-01-02 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  polluting the air and water with hundreds of thousands of chemicals,
  Credibility dropped here, as you fell off the deep end; your claims went from "sort of vague" to "downright hysterical". Every time I hear someone use the word "chemicals" in such a fear-mongering way, I wonder whether they are aware that water is a chemical too, or that its the worlds biggest fear-word. Oh no, chemicals, theyre so bad for you -- except for all of the ones necessary to support life.
  Which specific extinction are you referring to, by the way? There are a number of species which are being removed from the endangered list as they are making a comeback (eagles for one), so that its pretty hard to swallow claim that we're in the middle of the biggest extinction event in the last epoch, especially given how vague and handwavy your whole post is.
29. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually called Ampholpological Global Warming.
  3 words to understand.
  Ampholpological - human induced (due to CO2, methane, etc.)
  Global - global, as in "The Earth as whole", not your backyard
  Warming - as in heating up
  So, human induced warming of the earth's average temperature. Simple, eh?
  It doesn't say that climate will change, but heating the planet likely will change it. It doesn't say weather extremes will happen. It doesn't say there will not be ice in Antactica in December of 2014 or 2020. It says the planet is warming.
  Now, if you want to look how your current weather looks in terms of global averages, just look.
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201311.gif
  so if you live in eastern US, you are probably colder than normal. But if you live almost everywhere else in the world, it is kind of warm. For example, look at Moscow. In 1942, Hitler was defeated near Moscow and weather played an important part. It was very cold and usually it was very cold in Russia in winter. This year? -4C (or +25F).
  https://www.google.ca/#q=moscow+weather
  So now you can look up weather in plenty of places with internet and verify that NOAA is not lying to you about AGW.
30. Re:Global warming. by oodaloop · 2014-01-02 05:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  And your credibility dropped to zero by conflating water with pollution. Here's one of the first results when I googled man-made chemicals. I've previously read that there over 100,000 man-made chemicals released into the environment. If you know of a better word than chemical to use, BTW, please let me know. Here's an overview of the current mass extinction event, started about 10,000 years ago when man really started getting down to wiping out animals, burning forrests for agriculture, etc. It's a selective list. Here's a list of man-made extinctions, or at least the documented ones. Googling is hard, but thankfully I was here to do it for you.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
31. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Keep flapping dem lips... keep ignoring the science while trying to look scientific... Your argument is sunk no matter what the misinformed modders would have us think. Either you're a troll or your a moron. Or both.
32. Re:Global warming. by sycodon · 2014-01-02 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  That sure is something actual climate scientists have said
  Not so fast there. You have to admit that the AGW camp is comprised on many different people. And many of those people are in positions that are influential...media, entertainment, etc. These non-scientists regularly equate weather events with AGW. They do so forcefully and very publicly with widespread exposure. All I've ever heard from the scientists are tepid and hard to find statements that, "no, you really can't say that".
  Highly prominent scientists in AGW research have moved from science into advocacy of specific public policy. In doing that they have taken the debate out of the scientific realm and placed it into the public realm, where everyone has the right to express an opinion and where the science is merely one component of the debate.
  And even then, some very visible AGW scientists are saying that weather events can be related to climate change
  So you cannot dismiss accusations that the AGW camp is equating weather and climate when convenient and beneficial to the cause and then hide behind the scientists that are sticking as closely as possible to the scientific method when someone calls you on it.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
33. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  What is Ampholpological? Can't find any definition of such a word anywhere.
34. Re:Global warming. by LordLimecat · 2014-01-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  If you know of a better word than chemical to use,
  Yes, you refer to specific things rather than waving your hands and saying "...and all of the bad stuff we're doing". Could you have been any MORE vague than you are?
  
  I've previously read that there over 100,000 man-made chemicals released into the environment.
  
  Great. Are they biodegradeable? Does refined sugar count? does salt count? What exactly counts? What quantity? Who's doing it, and on what scale? Is it environmentally relevant?
  If you havent learned by now that figures like that tend to be worthless, nows a good time to start. Always demand specifics, or file the factoid under "suspect".
35. Re:Global warming. by fahrbot-bot · 2014-01-02 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  If the ice was covering the globe, you'd have a point. But saying that my basement is cold doesn't prove that my whole house is.
  This is /. so I imagine you meant your parent's basement. And it being cold means you're not going to get a girl naked there. (Pray for a warming trend Grasshopper.)
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
36. Re:Global warming. by danbert8 · 2014-01-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'd consult with a climate scientist, but apparently they are trapped in antarctic ice...
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
37. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's not implausible to aggregate some cause there. "The dice are loaded" as claimed in your "damning" link doesn't mean we always roll sixes, just that they come up more often.
  That is a reasonable interpretation.
38. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Economic models have nothing to do with who wins the lottery. It's a false parallel
  Nope. That's exactly why it's apt. Climate models have nothing to do with whether it's going to be icy today. You're intentionally conflating scales in order to be as wrong as you possibly can. I don't get it.
39. Re:Global warming. by bigwheel · 2014-01-02 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, the IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft.
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
  "Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 C from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 C, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 C over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 C."
  No fanfare. No mea culpa.
40. Re:Global warming. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2014-01-02 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  According to Al Gore's models, within a year. This speech from 2009
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
41. Re:Global warming. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2014-01-02 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  This seems pretty darn specific
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
42. Re:Global warming. by sycodon · 2014-01-02 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  You should play doge ball.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
43. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Much ball. Very dodge.
44. Re:Global warming. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, look, it's a non-scientist.
45. Re:Global warming. by SiChemist · 2014-01-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  He meant Anthropological.
  
  --
  God is imaginary
46. Re:Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  Careful, the whole "warming" argument is based on ignoring a whole bunch of "aggregate data" and only looking at the past few hundred years.
47. Re:Global warming. by Dunbal · 2014-01-02 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  You do not get to pick and choose your data. You will be able to support any conclusion you care to reach if you are allowed that.
  Welcome to the new millenium and politicized science.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
48. Re:Global warming. by Sabriel · 2014-01-02 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. Whether it's "hundreds of thousands" or "thousands" - I too would probably just call them "chemicals" and be done with it. This is slashdot, not a PhD thesis. Seems to me that if one's response is to pick out the portion of his argument that contains some hyperbole, you've not really tackled his argument.
  Are you generally agreeing with him but wanting him not to use hyperbole because of the "with friends like these" problem? :)
49. Re:Global warming. by oodaloop · 2014-01-03 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. I apologize for not listing all 100,000+ "molecules" (since chemicals offends you), with quantity, scale, producer, and environmental effect in a massive 800,000 page slashdot post. Please forgive me.
  
  --
  Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
50. Re:Global warming. by slim · 2014-01-03 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  AGW stands for "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
  Anthropo- : of human beings
  -genic : produced or generated by
  Dunno where the hell "Ampholpological" came from.
  Anthropology is the study of human origins. "Anthropological" means "to do with anthropology".
  So I suppose "Anthropological Global Warming" would be global warming cause by anthropologists...
51. Re:Global warming. by IndieVoter · 2014-01-03 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  We could use REAL science here, but it will never get funded. After all, we learned from ICCC that peer review will be 'managed' to predetermined outcomes. Why do real science when you can have so much fun hanging with starlets, drinking good booze, and be entertained by Danish prostitutes at an 'Global Warming' event?
52. Re:Global warming. by LordLimecat · 2014-01-03 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Im objecting to language so vague that there isnt really an argument there. Some of his post has some substance (there are countries releasing industrial chemicals into waterways), but again its so vague that its meaningless; the only point of such a post is to whip up a sort of empty hysteria. See for example with the Snowden/NSA posts that are running rampant right now: whatever substance might have been there is completely invalidated by how mindless and empty the posts are, completely obscuring the actual issue. The result is either that people now believe something thats completely false ("biggest extinction event ever"-- demonstrably false as we're becoming a lot more environmentally responsible in this country, and it was quite bad in the 19th/20th centuries), or are going to tune out a potential issue because of how hysterical the tone of the post is ("releasing chemicals"-- an actual issue in a number of countries like China).
  His use of "chemicals" I find particularly bad because its in the same vein as "processed food". "Chemicals" can be good (mosquito control in malaria ridden areas), just as "processing food" is often good (pasteurization), but such comments tend to sway people against such technologies "just because it sounds scary". Starting with "I read that..." just indicates that he was too lazy to actually fact check his one source, and so isnt willing to attach his own name to the statement.
53. Re:Global warming. by Sabriel · 2014-01-03 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. Thankyou.
But don't worry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:13 · Score: 0

We totally have "the tech" and resources to send people to Mars.
1. Re:But don't worry by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  A. These people aren't dead thanks to a 20th century technology available to bail them out. The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.
  B. People sometimes die for much more mundane dreams.
2. Re:But don't worry by SJHillman · 2014-01-02 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think we were planning on sailing a seagoing ship to Mars, no matter how often that has shown up in anime and Doctor Who (sort of), nor were we planning on doing much sailing on Martian seas, they've been at ultra low tide for quite a few millennia now.
3. Re:But don't worry by amorsen · 2014-01-02 03:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.
  No currently existing helicopter has the range needed for a mission like that. Their position is not within reach by helicopters stationed on land, the helicopter that rescued them is stationed on an ice breaker.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
4. Re:But don't worry by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's certainly believable. Call B in my reply overzealous then. But A stands just fine with that caveat.
5. Re:But don't worry by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  " don't think we were planning on sailing a seagoing ship to Mars,"
  Exactly. The Mars Nutters don't even have that.
6. Re:But don't worry by amorsen · 2014-01-02 04:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Absolutely agreed. You could pretty much replace "helicopter" with "nuclear ice breaker capable of sailing in practically any ice" and there would have been nothing for me to gripe about. Although the existing nuclear ice breakers are all in the Arctic and allegedly cannot cross the tropics under their own steam due to insufficient cooling.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
7. Re:But don't worry by Salgak1 · 2014-01-02 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but we can't get Congress to get on the rocket. . . .
8. Re:But don't worry by LordLimecat · 2014-01-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes I wonder how it is that so many people on a supposedly tech oriented site have apparently no understanding of how technology works.
  Breaking through huge layers of ice is a totally different task than firing a rocket at another planet. We could be really good at one and really bad at another.
9. Re:But don't worry by njvack · 2014-01-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Although the existing nuclear ice breakers are all in the Arctic and allegedly cannot cross the tropics under their own steam due to insufficient cooling.
  Then why don't they go the other way?
10. Re:But don't worry by amorsen · 2014-01-02 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Err? I feel a whoosh coming on here.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
11. Re:But don't worry by DarthVain · 2014-01-03 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not being able to cross the tropics to attempt a rescue is pretty moot as it would take the ship too long to get there anyway.
  The irony here is that 90% of the worlds nuclear ice breakers are Russian, and this was a Russian ship that was trapped.
  Canada should get off its ass and get nuclear ice breakers. Unfortunately this becomes political nonsense rather than common sense very quickly. I doubt Canada has the ability to produce nuclear ice breakers, or it could but at ridiculous expense. It would make much more sense to contract it out to the Russians and have them build us a few. Though this wouldn't help this particular situation all that much as they would be in the north also.
  However the government wants to create jobs, and to spend the 6 or 8 Billion locally. Which means we are getting "ice hardened" warships. Which I believe are more less the corvette size. So really expensive warships, that are slow and small, and don't really break ice all that well either.
The Antarctic successfully defends itself by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-02 03:20 · Score: 0

Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys to work more ice into it's getting warmer paper WTB more grant and endowment funding for fun vacation trips.

--
No sir I dont like it.
1. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by SJHillman · 2014-01-02 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Saying that an isolated incident completely disproves global warming is like saying that my diet doesn't work because I gained a gained two pounds last week (ignoring the fact that I've lost an average of .5 lbs/wk over the last two years).
2. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Look at me, I don't understand science, and I call people doing their jobs in dangerous environments a vacation.
  From a person who has never seriously done any difficult labor in their life, so much you can smell it.
3. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by mpoulton · 2014-01-02 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys to work more ice into it's getting warmer paper WTB more grant and endowment funding for fun vacation trips.
  Yeah, climate change is a load of crap! Why, I heard that just a couple months ago the whole state of Minnesota turned from lush greenery into an icy snow-covered wasteland! Entire lakes froze over, that didn't have any ice at all in the previous months. Surely the world climate can't be gradually warming over many decades if certain areas ever get any colder in the short term!
  
  --
  I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
4. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-02 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  PS I understand global warming, the amount of doom and gloom is excessive. The amount of bad science that gets funded is insane. At this point we really need to get past the it's going to happen bits and stop frothing at the mouth.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
5. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The ice caps do not expand overnight. How is it an isolated event?
  Instead, alarmists use isolated events as evidence for their position, and decry those who want the raw data and point out that the overall trend is a cooling, not warning - which goes against ALL theories (that we are coming out of an ice age, that man is causing global warming, that the sun is getting hotter)
  Now, I can't deny the presence of people who went "Katrina was caused by global warming," but their being wrong doesn't excuse you ignoring incredibly reliable data from people who know what they're talking about. No more than idiots blathering about super-volcanoes "being due" excuse people who deny the existence of plate tectonics.
  You can always find someone hyperbolic and wrong to disagree with, it doesn't make your position right.
6. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by DerekLyons · 2014-01-02 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  Glad everybody is safe.
  TFS is, as usual, wrong. The passengers have been rescued, the crew remains aboard and decidedly not safe.
  Eternal Father, strong to save,
  Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
  Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
  Its own appointed limits keep;
  Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
  For those in peril on the sea!
  Creator, Father, who dost show
  Thy splendor in the ice and snow,
  Bless those who toil in summer light
  And through the cold Antarctic night,
  As they thy frozen wonders learn;
  Bless those who wait for their return.
  Yes, it's the Navy Hymn, but it will have to do. If you've never been to sea, you'll never grok.
7. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by solidraven · 2014-01-02 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Just select your dataset yourself and throw out the statistical tests compared to the measured data, seem to be practice on both sides of climate "science". Until they stop messing around with statistics I'm not going to believe either side, got better things to do like restarting my CFC production plant!
  
  But to be serious for a minute here, climate science really annoys me at times. Many times you e-mail authors, and I'm talking about both sides, to request more information about their datasets they either say it's confidential (really???), lost, destroyed, ... or they don't respond at all. Those that do have either an inconclusive end result or questionable practices. If you cherry pick your data to lead to your result it's not difficult to come up with the conclusion you want, combined with the staggering lack of statistical background knowledge. It's one thing to remove noise from your data, almost all researchers do that when they publish. If you're measuring over a few months or years you're bound to have a few extreme values that aren't representative. But then you should also mention what you did, why, and what the influence on the overall dataset was.If you go further then you should execute the right statistical tests to verify if the chosen samples are representative for the entire dataset. And until they properly do that I'm not taking either side serious.
8. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by TWiTfan · 2014-01-02 03:59 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I would say that this incident mostly proves that these "scientists" are a bunch of media whores and drunks (seriously, these guys gotten more footage of themselves drinking and joking around onto TV lately than Russell Brand on a bender), with a captain who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
9. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Katrina, Sandy, various typhoons, tornadoes, drought just about anywhere, etc.
  Face it. The Alarmists routinely attribute bad weather news with "Climate Change". Even the supposedly smart "Climate Scientists" do so at times.
  And to add to the fun, they just came out with a new and improved "model" that claims a 3C increase by 2100. Never mind that their old models pretty much said the same thing, predicted it earlier and have FAILED the test of empirical evidence.
  The credibility of these models and climate scientists is shot. I wouldn't believe them if they predicted the sun will rise in the east.
10. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by mpe · 2014-01-02 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Saying that an isolated incident completely disproves global warming
  
  In the case of scientific theories so called "isolated incidents" can be all that is needed for "falsification".
11. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-02 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's now political not scientific people buy the results they want, cheery pick for talking points, remove data that does not support there pet theory. It's more a a religious war that a scientific one at this point.
  PS the scientists were on a vacation, retracing the steps of Douglas Mawson's trip 100ish years ago. It's a PR tour not a scientific endeavor.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
12. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by silas_moeckel · 2014-01-02 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh there eco tourism trip will be fairly rough so much that the leader took along his wife and young children 4 scientists 26 paid tourists it's PR trip not science to go redo a century old expedition Awareness/PR is not science (unless it's quantifying it or otherwise studying it) these guys were a bunch of prats taking a vacation under the guise of science. The expedition is lead by Chris Turney a UNSW prof who happens to also to be pimping a carbon reclamation start up he help found any science would be tainted by his conflict of interest. Sure there were reporters paying to go along it should have had a lot of great photo's and heart and minds sort of fluff and drivel but little of that ya know hard science stuff.
  Real scientists are pissed about this boondoggle, it pulled an icebreaker away from unloading supplies for the station only unloading about 1/3 of the supplies, some of the new research gear and all the people to go rescue these guys. Effectively cutting down the time they have to do there work that not photogenic science stuff.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
13. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by fiannaFailMan · 2014-01-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh there eco tourism trip will be fairly rough so much that the leader took along his wife and young children 4 scientists 26 paid tourists it's PR trip not science to go redo a century old expedition Awareness/PR is not science (unless it's quantifying it or otherwise studying it) these guys were a bunch of prats taking a vacation under the guise of science. The expedition is lead by Chris Turney a UNSW prof who happens to also to be pimping a carbon reclamation start up he help found any science would be tainted by his conflict of interest. Sure there were reporters paying to go along it should have had a lot of great photo's and heart and minds sort of fluff and drivel but little of that ya know hard science stuff.
  Real scientists are pissed about this boondoggle, it pulled an icebreaker away from unloading supplies for the station only unloading about 1/3 of the supplies, some of the new research gear and all the people to go rescue these guys. Effectively cutting down the time they have to do there work that not photogenic science stuff.
  Good grammar is a virtue.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
14. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by fiannaFailMan · 2014-01-02 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's raining where I live. I'll build an ark.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
15. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by Drethon · 2014-01-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  There is hyperbol and panic on both sides. Doesn't mean either side is 100% right or wrong. With humans it is usally a pretty heavy mix of right and wrong.
16. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "Truth is in the middle" is an idea that assumes there's a fundamentally equal basis to "both sides." When it comes to science v. ignoramuses+shills, that's not really going to work.
  Some points are wrong forever, and climate change denialism is one of them.
17. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's the thing. Overall statistically significant changes in weather patterns, like, say, overall drought occurrence, or net amount of flooding changing decade to decade can be attributed. Things are changing, just not in a localized predictable way. (Hurricanes in particular show no correlation, as far as I've read)
18. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by fche · 2014-01-02 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  "Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys ..."
  Dude, those are the same people. Check the passenger manifest.
19. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by Drethon · 2014-01-02 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  And I've seen published peer reviewed scientific articles on both sides. I believe that is typically accepted definition of real science.
20. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  The ice caps may not expand (much) over night, but the floating fields of pack ice DO shift and move over night, as they are pushed by the wind and currents. In point of fact, they shift and move quite a bit, even on an hour-to-hour basis. It's quite possible to get stuck in a frozen sheet of ice because the wind shifts and pushes the pack ice around you, and it freezes together before you can make your way out of what used to be passably open water.
  (Note: That's what actually happened here.)
  Your lack of understanding in a subject does not demonstrate failure on anyone other than yourself.
21. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  Not for any meaningful definition of "both sides" you haven't. The vast majority of what's said in the denial side has 0% representation, and you'll find more published fringe views suggesting cataclysm than that.
22. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by solidraven · 2014-01-02 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, you know what would have been really funny considering the sort of PR they were aiming for. If they would have been saved by a Russian nuclear powered ice breaker.
23. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  The vast majority of what's said in the denial side has 0% representation
  maybe at YOUR cocktail parties, but when every article, every year tells us about how wrong every predictive climate model created by the Cult of Climate Change has been, the evidence is against you. I can see you drowning out all negative evidence against your Cult with bad analogies and groupthink. Part of science is admitting your models are wrong (e.g. showing an exponential increase when reality shows a logistical curve). If the Cult of Climate Change bothered to do this, in an honest, open fashion, then I might consider it as a real science. Otherwise, I'm stuck looking at nothing but bad studies, on both sides of the issue, done by groups that are trying to sell me billions of dollars worth of product and policy. The last 10 years of data refute almost every published 30-year model there is. That doesn't speak well for AGW.
24. Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself by VortexCortex · 2014-01-02 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  > Going to sea.
  > Pissing off Poseidon with your dessert dweller chant.
  Release The Kraken!
GJ by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I love good news, it's a shame there is not more of it.
1. Re:GJ by ejasons · 2014-01-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I love good news, it's a shame there is not more of it.
  
  The way that I look at it is that there is so much good news every day, that most isn't even worth reporting...
  And I'm not even that much of an optimist!
LOL by Charliemopps · 2014-01-02 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

So I was watching this whole thing on the news and they never mentioned once that this expedition was meant to show the melting ice and such in hopes of showing the effects of global warming on the icepack. Now, I do believe Global warming is a thing... and we need to deal with it. But the clear bias by the media outlets isn't doing anyone any favors.
1. Re:LOL by OzPeter · 2014-01-02 03:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  So I was watching this whole thing on the news and they never mentioned once that this expedition was meant to show the melting ice and such in hopes of showing the effects of global warming on the icepack.
  I'd suggest that you change the news outlets that you read/watch. Plenty of places reported the aim of the scientific experiments.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus holy fucking christ man. What experiments? By whom?
  This was exactly as Charliemops presented. Shit, some teacher from Aus even WON a contest to participate.
  Get a grip man.
3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  The expedition included a half dozen reporters, the Guardian on a high profile. An upcoming BBC documentary was planned. There was an onboard "media hub". Chris Turney sold it as a "conversation with the public". It was a media, PR stunt from the start. That is why it is so funny.
4. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 08:27 · Score: 0
  
  So I was watching this whole thing on the news and they never mentioned once that this expedition was meant to show the melting ice and such in hopes of showing the effects of global warming on the icepack.
  I'd suggest that you change the news outlets that you read/watch. Plenty of places reported the aim of the scientific experiments.
  Actually, 98% of new stories did not report on the aim of the scientific experiments.
  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi
5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Of course I'm pretty sure you also realize that the presence or absence of rafts of pack ice in some part of the Antarctic on any particular day has about as much to do with climate change as whether or not it will rain on Friday has to do with climate change...which is to say next to nothing. Pack ice accumulation is mostly a factor of wind, waves, and currents interacting with coastal topography and other local factors. Summer pack ice in the Antarctic has periodically trapped ships for as long as ships have been visiting the Antarctic in the summer, and will probably continue to do for as they keep going there. So if the news report sensationally tried to link climate to this ship getting stuck in this particular spot at this particular moment as evidence for or against climate change, it would be as dim-witted as arguing that because it's cold outside climate change isn't real, which fortunately we're clever enough not to do -- unless we happen to be politically aligned as an "independent", in which case we're not that clever, which is depressing.
  At any rate, it would certainly be nice if the news report had said something about the purpose of the expedition as retracing the steps taken by explorers 100 years ago to better understand the changes since then (be they from climate change or anything else since the Antarctic is a very dynamic environment), but I'm sure you wouldn't blame the news for trying not to insult the intelligence of its audience by lying through insinuation, even if the way you phrased your comment might have accidentally led some hurried or unsophisticated readers to think you might have preferred as much.
6. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-03 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  98% of all coverage did not mention global warming at anytime of their coverage of this issue. -Clear bias
7. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-03 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, most media outlets did not bother to mention the fact that they were researching global warming. It was only when internet posters kept bringing it up that they were forced to acknowledge it.
What the rescuees are paying with by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-01-02 03:32 · Score: 2

The sub-tag "who-pays-for-all-that-rescuing?" has me wondering if they boat people are planning to pay with carbon credits. I have to say, though, that all climate science debating aside, it's pretty clever to turn one of the most abundant elements in the galaxy into a currency. It reminds me of a plot point in one of Neal Stephenson's books where a character stockpiles shells to use as currency only to find out that nobody else considers them valuable.
1. Re:What the rescuees are paying with by slim · 2014-01-02 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Except that with Carbon Credits, carbon is a negative currency, sort of because it's abundant.
  I doubt that this expedition was involved in any kind of Kyoto Protocol emission allowance trading.
  However, it's not that unlikely that they'd have balanced the expedition's emissions with a voluntary offset scheme (a donation toward tree planting, renewable power source building, etc.)
2. Re:What the rescuees are paying with by jasper160 · 2014-01-02 03:47 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder what the carbon footprint of this whole GW expedition and its rescues are?
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished.
3. Re:What the rescuees are paying with by tompaulco · 2014-01-02 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I would assume the insurance company of the expedition.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Stolpskott · 2014-01-02 03:35 · Score: 2

Seeing as how the BBC article clearly mentions that the "Passengers" (aka Researchers) on the ship have been rescued, but that the crew members of the ship are staying on board and could be stuck for several weeks, I hope the attention span of the people keeping an eye on the ship is a bit better than that of the /. editors, who had apparently forgotten that the crew exists before they reached the bottom of the article...
1. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Nidi62 · 2014-01-02 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the duty of the crew is to first off protect the passengers. After that their choice is either to remain with the ship (which is now much better off provision-wise with the passengers gone) to keep up routine and emergency maintenance, or abandon ship and have a good chance of loosing the vessel. But I am sure that the crew is remaining in contact with rescue or research stations in Antarctica, in case they do end up having to abandon ship. But the owner/insurer of the ship is going to want them to remain on board as long as practical.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  I hadn't read the article, but I initially assumed that everyone on the ship (crew, passengers, researchers, whoever) was being rescued and the ship would be abandoned until conditions were more favorable for recovery.
3. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Shimbo · 2014-01-02 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing as how the BBC article clearly mentions that the "Passengers" (aka Researchers) on the ship have been rescued.
  Passengers is more accurate than researchers, because some of them were paying tourists. Given there were 52, quite probably the majority were tourists and guides.
4. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  loosing the vessel
  Well, if they could get it loose there wouldn't be a problem.
5. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by SethJohnson · 2014-01-02 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry about the crew. They'll be fine. Getting stuck in the ice for weeks or months is par for the course down there. Seriously. This whole episode was only remotely newsworthy because they had a large number of passengers and perhaps not enough food for a long-term stay with comfortably-sized rations.
  
  I just read the book about Ernest Shackleton's voyage, and their epic journey really puts this stuck vessel in perspective. Dudes were in a wooden ship that got stuck in that ice and the hull was crushed. Those guys didn't make it back to England for 3 years, living on the ice in tents, sailing rowboats through incredibly rough seas, and doing it all with very crude clothes, tools, and equipment. The book is appropriately titled "Endurance" after the ship they set sail in.
  
  --
  $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
6. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by blagooly · 2014-01-02 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  The expedition celebrated another crazy one by the Aussie Mawson. Those were some rugged sonza bitches, no doubt. Stark contrast. This vid of Laurence Topham deserves a high profile. Feel of a Monty Python sketch, or something from the Onion. This entire escapade has that, actually. http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/video/2013/dec/30/antarctica-live-video-diary-trapped-ice-missing-milkshake-video
7. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by SethJohnson · 2014-01-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, after watching that clip, I don't have a lot of sympathy for these folks. How about kill and eat the dog you've raised from a puppy and then come back and cry to us about missing a banana milkshake.
  
  --
  $5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
8. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by blagooly · 2014-01-02 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Scott may have chosen ponies because he shares our soft spot for dogs. Not a lot of room for soft at that time and place. Good doc here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyrOKsiRolQ Second part is Scott vs Amundsen, which always grabs me. Scott is fascinating, in spite of evidently doing everything precisely wrong, the guy still almost got it done. Gal he left behind. Kathleen. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00384/121983006_384403c.jpg
9. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by russotto · 2014-01-02 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  But the owner/insurer of the ship is going to want them to remain on board as long as practical.
  Right. If the crew leaves, the Chinese will quickly discover their icebreaker works better than they thought, and will claim the ship as salvage.
10. Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  I haven't read anything to suggest the vessel is in danger, but provisions may not be adequate to maintain the passengers and crew for an extended period, and keeping the passengers with the ship doesn't clearly accomplish anything when there's a ready opportunity to get them home. It's not clear when the ship might be freed, but it could be weeks -- I think the USCGC Polar Star is headed that way. It will probably have little trouble reaching the ship as it's capable of cutting through ice six meters thick and is the most powerful icebreaker in the world outside the Arctic where Russia's giant nuclear powered icebreakers are stationed.
  To be clear, steel hulled ships have drifted in Arctic pack ice for years, often abandoned, and been reasonably well off despite the abuse. For example, the SS Baychimo floated abandoned around the Arctic for 38 years, variably locked in pack ice. Others, even some wooden hulled ships, have weathered years this way.
Disavow much? by MacDork · 2014-01-02 03:35 · Score: 1

This isolated incident is already morphing to fit your beliefs, isn't it? Scientists, tourists, and journalists? I thought it was some big mission led by a climate researcher to retrace the steps of some decades old mission. You know, to prove how much ice has disappeared over that time period and we can learn how CO2 is going to kill us all.
Soon it will no longer be serious climate scientists that marooned themselves in Antarctic ice such that icebreakers could not reach them in the middle of summer. No, it will just be a bunch of tourists. Nothing to see here, move along.
1. Re:Disavow much? by SJHillman · 2014-01-02 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  What, pray tell, are my beliefs? The only thing I said was that this incident (the boat being captured by ice) should be disregarded as proof in one direction or another. If it happens again next year and the year after, then it will be something to think about. But just happening one year is meaningless on its own.
2. Re:Disavow much? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2014-01-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, isn't it the middle of summer in the southern hemisphere?
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Because it's obviously that simple by wonkey_monkey · 2014-01-02 03:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, right.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The Chinese... by torsmo · 2014-01-02 03:46 · Score: 5, Funny

...took Xue Long to rescue them.
Research ship - Bah humbug! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 03:54 · Score: 2, Informative

There's about as much research in that ship as in the Japanese "whale research" fleet that for some mysterious reason needs to test and re-test the deliciousness of whale meat every year..
It's a damn 'eco tourist' (i.e. green-washed) cruise. Not to mention the fact that, being a Russian ship, they're probably dumping toilet water and bilge oil directly into the sea..
I bet the taxpayers are happy about their tax dollars going to rescue this group of clowns ;-)
1. Re:Research ship - Bah humbug! by mpe · 2014-01-02 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  There's about as much research in that ship as in the Japanese "whale research" fleet that for some mysterious reason needs to test and re-test the deliciousness of whale meat every year..
  
  Possibly more going on those ships. Since, AFAIK, the Japanese have never used the oxymoron "settled science".
Choplifter by JoeCommodore · 2014-01-02 04:05 · Score: 2

Makes me want to break out an emulator and play a few rounds of Choplifter. :-)

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
1. Re:Choplifter by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Not the original. But close nuff. Play online. http://www.playr.org/play/choplifter_iii/117
Cheers for the crew! by coder111 · 2014-01-02 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

While the world watches the researchers and tourists being "rescued", these guys stay to save the ship if that is at all possible. These are the guys who are doing all the work and should be getting all of the attention and respect they deserve.

--Coder
So what happens to the ship? by swb · 2014-01-02 04:33 · Score: 1

Is it stuck in the ice "forever"? Or will the Antarctic "summer" experience enough of a breakup in the ice pack to get an icebreaker in to free it?
If it is stuck for the long term, is it any environmental risk of a hull breech from the ice causing leaks, etc, or is the hull strong enough that it won't get crushed, it'll just sit there until the hull rusts out?
1. Re:So what happens to the ship? by Adult+film+producer · 2014-01-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  If that happens it would be an environmental catastrophe and they would be held liable for any damage done to the ecosystem. I'm sure they'll get it out of there!
2. Re:So what happens to the ship? by UnknowingFool · 2014-01-02 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Only the passengers were evacuated. The crew will stay behind and sail it out once free from the ice. They have enough provisions to last months; they didn't have enough provisions for the 52 passengers.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:So what happens to the ship? by PPH · 2014-01-02 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It is summer down there now. The ice isn't freezing around the ship. Wind is blowing ice floes into a large pack which has trapped the ship.
  Hopefully, as the seasons change, the winds will shift and loosen the ice before winter and an actual freeze.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Maybe off topic here, but... by BringsApples · 2014-01-02 04:46 · Score: 1

...does anyone know how this works, as far as who pays for these ships supplies? I mean, I understand a little about how scientific research gets paid for - it's usually private funding mixed with some governmental funding. But when an expedition such as this goes south (no pun intended), who pays for the other ships/helicopter to come save them?

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
1. Re:Maybe off topic here, but... by Luckyo · 2014-01-02 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to take a guess that insurance company that insures vessel in trouble deals with these costs.
2. Re:Maybe off topic here, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The rescuers pay for the cost of the rescues. Rescues at sea are a no-cost agreement under maritime conventions and traditions.
  Some US politicians raised questions about this practice after costly rescue operations for Carnival cruise ships last year.
  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carnival-u-s-won-reimbursed-triumph-costs-article-1.1315792
3. Re:Maybe off topic here, but... by BringsApples · 2014-01-02 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I had no idea. So if you're stuck at sea, regardless of your nationality, or where you are, the rest of the world has an obligation to help you. Fuck, imagine if that same rational humane ideal carried through on land, throughout all situations, throughout all circumstances - rather than from sea captain to sea captain, but from human to human. Queue John Lennon Imagine...
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
4. Re:Maybe off topic here, but... by slew · 2014-01-02 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Although under maritime conventions, the cost of rescuing people entails no obligation of reimbursement, freeing boat from ice might be considered a salvage operation. If so, the costs for freeing the boat from the ice may mean that the owners of the boat might be liable for the cost of any salvage operation (if successful) maybe even up to 50% of the value of the boat.
5. Re:Maybe off topic here, but... by Cochonou · 2014-01-02 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  In many European countries, there is actually a "duty to rescue" law which is actually enforced. For instance in France, you can face up to 5 years in jail for not helping somebody in peril (even if you are not responsible at all of the perilous situation).
That isn't a question. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since it has a required predicate, to whit: "According to their models, there would be a sea of water there".
According to their models, there was nothing about an absence of sea ice.
1. Re:That isn't a question. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  So, since your whole argument depends on someone having said something they didn't say, it kinda makes you look both like a douche and a moron.
2. Re:That isn't a question. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  No one said it? LIAR!!!
3. Re:That isn't a question. by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-02 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Your search just yields evidence of really substantial diminishment in arctic sea ice over the course of the last half century, which leads me to believe that you've been training google to reinforce your biases.
  That doesn't prove much of anything at all. Other than that you like to call people liars.
wow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:01 · Score: 1

A few days ago. I saw some video footage of the snow blowing in the wind. Piloting a helicopter in such windy conditions looks dangerous. hats off to the rescue crew.
Salvage rights by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:19 · Score: 0

If everyone is rescued this means nobody is left on board which means I hereby claim salvage rights on this wessel when global warming and or change of season thaws the ship out of its icy cage. You are all more than welcome to join me on my new Russian Party boat.
Ice, in summer? On a warming planet? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2014-01-02 05:35 · Score: 2

from the article:

The 233-foot Russian research ship had been lodged in the ice since Dec. 24, when powerful winds encircled it with pack ice near Cape de la Motte, about 1,700 miles south of Hobart, Tasmania.
Navigating pack ice is like wandering through a labyrinth where the walls periodically move.
1. Re:Ice, in summer? On a warming planet? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Like Ms. Pac Man?
2. Re:Ice, in summer? On a warming planet? by VortexCortex · 2014-01-02 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, more like Labyrinth Zone in Sonic the Hedgehog -- or their rotating maze special stage for collecting chaos emeralds in said game.
  If you need an old-er school reference, it's a bit like playing Brickout, if instead of the paddle you were the ball -- Wait, that reminds me of an old Mac game called Diamonds.
  Crap, there goes my evening.
They would have to be theories relevant by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 05:47 · Score: 0

They would have to be theories relevant to the evidence.
Saying that an ice breaker going to check on ice in the Antarctic finding ice does nothing to disprove the theory of climate nor that AGW has been falsified, since they do not theorise that such an event will not happen.
MV Akademik Shokalskiy by westlake · 2014-01-02 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Interior views and deck plans here: Expedition Vessel: Akademik Shokalskiy

Classification: Russian register KM ice class
Year built: 1984
Accommodation: 50 berths expedition, 30 crew
Shipyard: Finland
Main engines: power 2x1560 bhp (2x 1147 Kw) Register: Russia
Maximum speed: 12 knots (2 engines)
Cruising speed: 10 knots(one engine)
Bunker capacity: 320 tons
Not actually on the mainstream publicized purpose. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 06:27 · Score: 0

Not actually on the mainstream publicized purpose; they are in fact there for climate research. Not retracing an explorer's route. Funny how the world eats the spoon fed garbage put out by journalists who allegedly have some sort of integrity. When they figure that one out let me know.
And the relation to global warming... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 07:27 · Score: 0

Even Faux News gave pretty fair-sounding overview of the situation (if you ignore the heavily slanted headline) at: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/
The key point that so far seems to have been missed by Slashdotters:
"Turney later told FoxNews.com the ice surrounding his ship is old, rather than recently formed, and likely from a particular 75 mile-long iceberg that broke apart three years ago. Climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded, Turney said."
Which, I think, is quite reasonable assessment of the situation. As a scientist, of course, the expedition leader is forced to use those "likely from" and "may have" phrases, but the hypothesis is much more likely than that the ice just suddenly formed around the ship while it was traveling by a local reversal of global warming or even act of revenge by an angry God on the blasphemers.
1. Re:And the relation to global warming... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  the ice just suddenly formed around the ship while it was traveling by a local reversal of global warming
  The amount of sea ice in Antarctica is currently above normal, above where it was when we first started measuring it and the second highest on record.
  Don't know about "suddenly".
  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4b.png
2. Re:And the relation to global warming... by gargleblast · 2014-01-02 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Debunking exactly what the GP said didn't happen.
AGW is religion, not science by schwit1 · 2014-01-02 07:45 · Score: 0

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.
2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.
3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.
4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.
5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.
6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.
7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.
8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.
9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do
1. Re:AGW is religion, not science by Drethon · 2014-01-02 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  And anti-global warming seems just as religious as AGW to me. IMH(or not so humble)O we need to focus on actually learning how things work and applying knowledge. Both sides seem to be only paying attention to observations to back up their theories rather than taking all observations and building a complete model, with nothing invested in any specific result.
  
  Just my bent $0.02.
2. Re:AGW is religion, not science by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Every single one of your points has at least one fallacy, false assumption or outright lie in it. Additionally, the vast majority of your links point to well-established sources of disinformation. Posting a large amount of such drivel makes it prohibitively time-consuming to write a nice point-by-point rebuttal. However, that doesn't make them any more true.
  Just a random pick of the long-discredited climate myths you regurgitated:
  * #9
  * #51
  * #10
  * #119 (it's that far down the list because the smart deniers are busy pretending they never used it). Also on that subject: this and this. Also, your wattsupwiththat.com source makes a huge leap of logic by assuming the 2 scientists were filtered out based on their answer to the first question as opposed to the more mundane explanation that they were filtered because they didn't fill in the second question, which is common practice in this kind of studies and leads to the fluctuating "total sample" numbers that are ubiquitous in the literature. Also, even if their questionable assumption were true, 94.9% still counts as a consensus. Also, it is quite ridiculous of you to compare absolute numbers from polls that were conducted on a different scale (10,257 earth scientists vs. the 10 million science graduates that live in the US). Not to mention that the studies are of a fundamentally different design, with one being reasonably well-designed, and the other one, not really...
  * Bald eagles and wind farms, really? How does that even say anything about climate change? Other than that people who are smarter than you are sufficiently concerned about it that they're willing to sacrifice an insignificant percentage of a species that, although iconic, is classified as "Least Concern" by IUCN?
I'm curious by argStyopa · 2014-01-02 11:03 · Score: 1

Who's paying for the rescue?
I mean, not that China's all capitalist or anything, but they should have their costs covered by someone responsible for this pack of morons.
(I'm one of those crazy people that believe that people who put themselves into extreme situations like mountain climbers (or their inheritors), etc should indeed pay for the extraordinary costs of their rescues or rescue-attempts.)

--
-Styopa
1. Re:I'm curious by RockDoctor · 2014-01-05 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about your country, but in mine the mountain and cave rescue is done by ... mountaineers and cavers. Who also render considerable assistance to the police when they need personnel. (The recent jubilee of the Lockerbie bombing, for example, reminded me of the cave and mountain rescue teams of the whole of northern England and southern Scotland accumulating thousands of man-days searching for evidence, often in really miserable weather conditions - as many man days as the police could put in themselves.)
  There are several reasons for this : to acquire the necessary skills to perform the rescue, you need to be [DOH!] a mountaineer or caver of many years experience ; you can't compel employees to perform this sort of work, often at real risk to their lives (even if their reluctant compliance would be any good at all) ; and in the social milieu of mountaineering and/ or caving, to be the target of an avoidable or unnecessary call-out is really, really embarrassing. Not least because the people who rescue you are likely to be friends or acquaintances.
  Other than that - you do get random people caught up in such events. The tourist who slips on a footpath and falls into a river to be swept away. The farmer's sheep which falls down a hole in the ground (there's an annual spate of practice sessions recovering lambs). The car that crashes on a remote stretch of public road. And most importantly (in our context) the plane on a military training flight which goes into a mountain side and needs both the crew and (sensitive) equipment recovered.
  That last case is why the Air Force maintain their own mountain rescue service, and they acknowledge that if they were prevented from assisting the civilian mountain rescue teams, then their costs for training and personnel would actually increase. Because they would have to spend more time with more staff dedicated to sitting around waiting for something to happen, and/ or drilling, and they wouldn't be able to call in the civilians for support when something big does go down. Case in point was last winter with two separate parties of special forces on training missions getting caught in the same storm in different areas, where it was the civilians who went in and located the missing persons because the weather was too bad for helicopters.
  When ever I hear people saying the sort of thing that you say, I think to myself "there is someone who knows absolutely fuck-all about what he is talking about, and is the more dangerous for it."
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
China being more and more visible. by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-01-02 16:18 · Score: 1

Is it just me or is China becoming more and more visible on the world stage? Usually you'd have heard that the US Navy had a destroyer in the area and they flew the passengers off. China? Pretty far down the list of nationalities you'd expect to hear about in such a situation.
Airlifting stranded travelers, astronauts in orbit, rovers on the moon...
Welcome back to the world stage, China. Please don't go all Genghis on us like last time.
1. Re:China being more and more visible. by RockDoctor · 2014-01-05 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Welcome back to the world stage, China. Please don't go all Genghis on us like last time.
  You do know that Genghis Khan (however you want to transliterate it) wasn't actually Chinese, don't you? And to be honest, he wasn't particularly expansionist - once he had conquered the Chinese, he pretty much stopped at the pre-existing borders. He had enough on his plate massacring enough of the pre-existing apparatus of state to ensure the compliance of the remainder.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
2. Re:China being more and more visible. by Areyoukiddingme · 2014-01-13 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  I know he was a Mongol, but I could hardly say "go all Qing on us like last time", could I? Most people don't recognize that dynasty name.