Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Icebreaker Is Stuck In Ice After Antarctic Research Vessel Rescue
New submitter Cochonou writes "In an unforeseen turn of events, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long is now stuck in heavy Antarctic pack ice, just a day after its helicopter was used for the rescue of the passengers onboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy. The Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis, which is now carrying the passengers of the Shokalskiy, has been placed on standby to assist. The Chinese vessel is waiting for favorable tidal conditions on Saturday to make another attempt at freeing itself."
We heard you needed an ice rescue, so we're sending you an ice rescue for your ice rescue.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Yo Dawg, I herd you like to break ice, so I put an ice breaker in your ice breaker so you can break ice while you break ice.
You can't handle the truth.
could an icebreaker break, if it could actually break some freakin' ice!
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
If you send a ship to rescue another ship from ice, and that ship gets stuck in ice... I don't think that's exactly an "unforeseen" event. They knew the ice was there. And building up fast. It's a humorous turn of events, sure, but hardly unforeseen.
I just think it is cool there is such cooperation between Russia, China, and Australia on this "saving" of essentially Antarctic party animals, on a Russian drinking and discovery cruise.
JJ
That's the problem with Chinese ice breakers. You get stuck again in an hour.
Trolling is a art,
To be fair, January is the middle of summer in Antarctica. That said, within the past decade I've still seen it snow in June in NY and have gone outside on Christmas in shorts. Personally, I'm in favor of the God Is Trolling Everybody theory.
If you'd like to read more about the Antarctic ice and how hard it is to survive down there, I highly recommend the book Endurance. It's about the voyage of Ernest Shackleton and crew in 1914. Their purpose-built ship got stuck in the ice for months then ultimately crushed. They survived on the ice floes for many more months before finally escaping. It goes into lots of detail and is a fascinating read.
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
"Don't forget that Antarctica was void of ice during the Mesozoic era. It was pretty warm then."
As I recall, Antarctica as also north of Australia at that time, and just south of Africa and South America (as in you could walk from one to the other).
Just like gravity
Go outside and look up. What do you see? Birds! Gravity isn't stopping them. If gravity were real why do we see things like dust floating around seemingly freely. Gravity is just a scam to keep airline profits sky-high.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious- I hope.
To tie this to another Slashdot story, this is exactly the reason I fear the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate. I have no doubt that Bill Nye knows his stuff, but I fear that the creationist will toss a hundred "arguments" out and Bill will only tackle one or two successfully (simply because spreading information/proof takes more time than spreading unfounded assertations). Thus, he will be seen as having "lost" the debate because he "couldn't" counter all of Ken Ham's talking points.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
* consensus in this case means 90% or more, as there are always guys who disagree.
Consensus != Fact
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
This goes to the fallacy that we (humans who are alive right now) have solved all the problems and now know everything worth knowing. Think about it. The elites who persecuted Copernicus thought themselves wise and modern at the time.
Thus: while I will not necessarily assert that today's climate "consensus" is wrong, I do maintain that there is a very real possibility that we will someday discover it to be, at the least, inadequate. Every generation finds previous generations to have held some pretty stupid ideas.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
What'r the chances of getting stuck in ice in Antarctica during the summer months of 2013-2014, when global warming is at it's peak (tongue in cheek) - not once, but TWICE? Imagine having to be carried by a helicopter over all that ice, just to set down on another ship that's stuck in the same ice.
On a side note, I live in Alabama (USA) and where it's generally been, for the past 8 years or more, 70+ degrees in January, it's 35 today. I wonder if the last 8 years or so have been hotter due to the sun's cycle. Because supposedly it just ended (last summer was the coolest it's been in 8 or more years) and now it's cold as shit this year.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Its not easy to validate when you cannot get your hands on their raw data. You only get summary reports from the "climate scientists"!
You can't?
Have you tried?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
What exciting analysis are you going to do with this data now I've told you how to get it?
How come you didn't find it using Google? It's the first result.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The AGW bigots are kind of like Jehova's Witnesses. JWs, several times throughout their history, asserted the end of the world was coming. When the end failed to materialize -- each time -- the church would sidestep their inaccuracy with things like "well, we have 'new light' now." Or they'd flatly deny they ever said the end was coming, instead claiming they only meant a change of some sort was coming... and oh look, some kind of change did happen!
So how does this apply? When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all. It wasn't just a tale, either -- they had mountains of data and the most sophisticated models the computers of the day allowed.
Then, as the science progressed a bit (and as the Coming Ice Age had failed to raise the requisite amount of alarm in the populace) it was decided that no, we're not cooling -- we're warming. In point of fact, the phenomenon was called "Global Warming". Pretty specific, that. Not, "we're not sure what's happening but it ain't good," but "it's definitely getting, and will continue to get, warmer, and we're all gonna fuckin' die!"
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
So now, every time something odd, unusual, rare, extreme, or even normal happens with weather, it can be attributed to "Climate Change" -- because something changed, see? Climate Change equals different weather, so something in weather that didn't happen last year or the year before is now because of Climate Change.
This, kiddos, is what we call circular reasoning.
Go ahead, Climate Change bigots. Mod me down. I've got karma to burn. I could post AC, but I'm thumbing my nose at you.
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
Observed data does not support the models. Exactly opposite of what you just claimed.
You cannot toss out data that does not fit into your model; you have to change your model to explain/include the observed data. Data trumps every time. The IPCC models do not reflect actual, measured data - and thus they are wrong. Go ahead, explain the data in that graph - how temperatures haven't come close to the levels of warming reflected in even the most conservative IPCC model.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process.
That, sir, is exactly my point. There can be no such thing as "settled science" because of this. There was no false equivalency; I was alluding to the fact that humans are arrogant when it comes to their place in the time-line. We always think we're not only smarter than those who came before us, but it carries forward such that we think we're not going to get any smarter than we are now. *That* fallacy is why we have people saying absurd things like "settled science". (Yes, I know more politicians than scientists are saying that; it does not, however, disprove my point.)
It's like this: my old man had some rather... interesting... ideas about things. I had my science education, and I could scoff at some of his ideas. Haha, I'm superior in knowledge to my parents. Thing is, though... my kids and grandkids are going to do the same thing to me someday, unless I have already somehow achieved omniscience. Since I'm not certain I have achieved omniscience (I would know if I had, right?) I can assume, safely, that there is more yet to learn.
But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
It's not the equivalent, and I didn't say that. Kindly let me put my own words in my mouth. Here, I'll spell out exactly where I'm going with this:
I am strongly environmentalist, precisely because of science -- science that is of course not settled, but solid enough that I'm comfortable taking action on it.
For instance: I support, very strongly, alternative energy sources. Why? This is simple math. We live on a planet of a finite size, therefore, oil, gas, and coal must be of finite supply. Also, air pollution is an obvious factor -- more so in the developing world. Car exhaust, say. While the battle rages over the danger of C02, I already know that CO, NOx, and HC emissions are unhealthy. Duh, right? So THAT is why I follow biofuel research.
Coal plant emissions are unhealthy. Soot, acid rain, etc... we've been through this, and we have people working on it. Dear gods, look at China. You have to swim through the smog. It doesn't take much scientific data to prove to me that it's not a good thing. It's not that I see solar power as a panacea, but I'd call it a step in the right direction. I'm torn on nuclear. It rarely goes wrong, but when it does... hoo boy.
I live where a lot of fracking for natural gas goes on. There is debate on how much harm it causes, but again, it's not a pure process by any stretch. We use gas to heat our houses. Could we do something different? Sure. Passive solar design for newer houses. I have seen houses in the Colorado mountains heated through entire winters, with nights down to -30F, without fuel -- only passive solar heat and thermal mass and good insulation. This is scientifically sound stuff here, as well as economically.
I hope these examples will illustrate my position. There are many things, easy and hard, that we can and should be doing, to improve our environment. If (and I do mean, IF) AGW people are right, then I have already taken steps in the right direction. If not, I've still done the right thing. Simply put, I refuse to waste time arguing over whether more CO2 is bad, or whether polar bears are drowning, or whatever other ManBearPig lunacy the Algores of the world are spouting. I'm working with what we DO know. And unlike Algore, I'm not flying around in a private jet or spending a small country's GDP to heat my house.
I plant trees, not because Global Warming, but because I like trees for shade, bird habitat... it also turns out that trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Nifty, eh? I drive a fuel efficient car, not because Climate Change, but because I'm chea
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
First, it is important to note that Dr. Roy Spencer has a track record of providing misinformation on climate issues.
Looking at his graph and notes, I don't understand why he chose 1979 as the starting period for his graph, and what he's done to model runs that start after 1979 to extend their trend lines backwards. I would expect a single line with many points of divergence along it to show where each model begins to overestimate warming, the fact that they all seem to start overestimating by 1982 is a clue that someone is playing games with the data. Furthermore, just from looking at the graph it appears to be indicating that the average of the models is between 0.3 and 0.4 degrees per decade. That is significantly higher than the average from the IPCC1 report (which was between 0.15 and 0.3 degrees per decade) so where are these numbers coming from? Did Spencer cherry-pick the worst performing models for his graph or did he alter the results produce by the models in some way? The attached commentary doesn't provide the data or explain the methodology used to generate the graph.
Additionally, the only two reference points are an average of two sets of satellite data and 4 balloons? Where are the ground temperature series in this graph?
Skeptical Science has posted several blog posts that show a much closer match between models and observation, so I'm inclined to believe that Spencer screwed it up unintentionally or otherwise.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Is the data in error? Rather than focus on the messenger, address the message: satellite data does not show the warming that has been predicted by the models. When data and models conflict, it is always the model that is wrong.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!