Slashdot Mirror


Arctic Climate Change Study Canceled Due to Climate Change (livescience.com)

A Canadian expedition to study climate change in the Arctic has been canceled due to climate change. Specifically, the icebreaker CCGS Amundsen had to be cancelled "due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice," reports University of Manitoba. From the report: This regrettably postpones the much-anticipated Hudson Bay System Study (BaySys) involving 40 scientists from five universities across Canada. Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project. The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives. This year the Expedition Logistics and Science Teams accelerated the mobilization of the 2017 Arctic Expedition to permit departure of the Amundsen six days ahead of schedule. This would allow CCG to carry out critical marine safety and security operations in the unusually severe ice conditions in the Strait of Belle Isle and along the northeast coast of Newfoundland before beginning the Science Mission. Unfortunately, the conditions required much more extended support than anticipated. Fleet management issues and inadequate alternative ships forced the cancellation of the science program due to significant safety concerns. This decision to cancel the BaySys 2017 program was not made lightly. Although the cancellation was due to circumstances beyond control of the Expedition Team, every effort was made to develop a viable option to allow this valuable work to proceed.

155 comments

  1. Global warming makes ice! by CajunArson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You heard it here first, and if you disagree you're a science-denier who should be sent to the reeducation camps.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You heard it here first, and if you disagree you're a science-denier who should be sent to the reeducation camps.

      Read. You read it here first. This is text. I can't hear text, maybe you can. Can you? You're right, I need to be sent to a re-education camp.

    2. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe he has a text-to-speech program, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the headlines makes sense but Beau is so tainted....

    4. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK, I know that you are trolling, but here is the relevant section from the article:

      Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

      He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

      It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around. Since climate change doesn't mean the temperature simply gets uniformly warmer, but leads to larger swings of temperatures, it means that the ice breaks apart and then can refreeze into more chaotic configurations. It is less likely to be a large, predictable mass of ice. This makes it difficult for ships to safely navigate, as they have to contend with moving masses of ice as well as facing the possibility of being trapped in the ice as it refreezes behind them blocking of what had been a safe passage.

      There was never any suggestion in the article that the problem was that there was more ice than before. But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming. But then not looking at the facts and jumping to conclusions is what causes them to be deniers in the first place.

    5. Re:Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before. It has always been that the ice would get thin and recede which would open the waters to shipping without the need for ice breakers.

      Assuming what you say is true, that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.

      These global warming alarmists keep making predictions that prove to be wrong later. How many times does this have to happen before they admit that they cannot in fact predict anything with any kind of accuracy?

      But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming.

      I have to ask, does everything have to be "proof" of global warming or not? Can't something just be a random event? They could have called this just a temporary unforeseen weather event, which is probably what it is. Instead they tried to explain this as "evidence" that the ice is melting. If the global warming alarmists want to be believed then every once in a while they will have to admit that some events can in fact be random events that could be contradictory to global warming.

      I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend. There will be outliers. The global warming alarmists need to admit that there will be outliers once in a while or they start to sound like fanatics instead of scientists.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    6. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before.

      Well maybe you never saw it, but...

      I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend.

      Except that this point does fit the trend. Does it really not make sense to you that higher temperatures would make the ice break up into smaller pieces and become mobile? Have you ever seen a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't just melt down into a single little ice cube and vanish; it begins to crack and break up into pieces long before the ice completely melts.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    7. Re:Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I read the page you linked to and it said nothing about increased ice mobility being a problem in the Arctic. It did mention that being a possible problem in the Antarctic. This was also not because of sea ice breaking up but of land ice calving into the sea and becoming free floating.

      The IPCC got it wrong.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Global warming makes ice! by SirCowMan · · Score: 1

      Well, there are two types of ice which impede navigation - icebergs, and sea ice. Icebergs are indeed predicted to increase, glacial melting leading to greater calving rates, which then flow out of the arctic and into the north atlantic shipping lanes. With regards to sea ice, do recognise it is going to form in quantity so long as the earth remains habitable. Extended periods of 24 hour darkness will ensure that. Warmer, shorter winters though would precipitate the loss of multi-year ice banks, so a greater fraction of ice over time would be replaced with first year, and liable to outflow.

      Additionally, Newfoundland itself is not predicted to see the same warming trends as most of the rest of the world in climate change models, care of predicted increased outflow from the arctic sea cooling portions of the North Atlantic.

      The ice this year is indeed an outlier, as seen in 1974, 1990, 2007, now 2017, so is earlier than expected from a cyclical perspective.

      --
      !Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
    9. Re:Global warming makes ice! by shess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming.

      Yeah, I pretty much require all predictions to be 100% accurate before I believe any of it at all. For instance, if the weather person says it will rain with 10 mph wind, and there is no wind, do I take an umbrella? Hell no, because once any part of the prediction is wrong I know that all of the prediction will be wrong.

    10. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The better description for this manmade problem is is "Weather instabilisation". Now happy?

    11. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (((MAN MADE)))

    12. Re: Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The best description I've seen for this is CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

      If there is no global warming then we have nothing that is man made or catastrophic. If the global warming is not caused by CO2 then it's also not likely man made or catastrophic. If we allow ourselves to call it "climate change" then we are just lying to ourselves that warming can cause cooling. I can understand local and periodic cooling events can happen (like winter) but the issue always was man made gases causing the atmosphere to take in more heat. Calling it "climate change" is nonsense because the climate always changes.

      If it is not anthropogenic, man made, then we cannot really do anything about it. Or rather the tactics we have been using are all wrong and in fact may make things worse for us. We had better be certain that the problem is from man made CO2 release or we are just fucking ourselves.

      If the effect is not catastrophic then we have nothing to worry about. If it is not catastrophic then it is then merely inconvenient or perhaps even beneficial. Having some inconvenient weather is not something to shift an entire economy over. If it is beneficial then, more please!

      Calling this anything other than some variation on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is inaccurate or just plain a lie.

      This is why I advocate for nuclear power. If we are in fact experiencing CAGW then an energy source that is carbon free, inexpensive, plentiful, and reliable is a good idea for the future. If we are not in fact experiencing CAGW then an energy source that is inexpensive, plentiful, reliable, and safe is a good idea for the future.

      We have three choices, nuclear power, coal, or freezing and starving in the dark. If CAGW is an actual threat then I choose nuclear power. If it isn't then nuclear power is still a choice but then so is coal. Waiting for solar and wind to get cheap enough to replace coal and nuclear is waiting for a ship that may never come to port.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re: Global warming makes ice! by MuraliRangachari · · Score: 1

      Good. You manage to put your argument to bend the truth. Swings have been there in the past or not is unknown. Man set foot deep into arctic only 200 years ago. And you drive by professor is not going to think twice to lie again if swing in temperature does mot get worse. Like Arctic ice increased few years back to record levels

    14. Re:Global warming makes ice! by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend. There will be outliers. The global warming alarmists need to admit that there will be outliers once in a while or they start to sound like fanatics instead of scientists.

      If you took a statistics class you should be able to recognize the trend.
      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...

      Of course, there are still outliers on top of the trend.

    15. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Assuming what you say is true, that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.

      Well, they got the physics of the mechanics of global warming right, and the temperature has increased faster than natural variability, so it seems they got the fundamentals right about climate change. So wonder all you like about what they have wrong, but don't imply that anything is wrong just because you weren't told of one of the consequences of climate change.

      Elsewhere, you said that the IPCC got it wrong because they only mentioned the problems in the Antarctic and not the Arctic. In fact, they said that the reduction of extent and thickness of the sea ice will be beneficial to shipping. But that is not necessarily wrong, it just hasn't happened yet. What we are seeing now may simply be a step on the way towards a time where the ice levels are so low that ships will have better access. And don't forget, they were talking about general tourism, not ships that deliberately go deeper into the icy regions to study them.

      I have to ask, does everything have to be "proof" of global warming or not? Can't something just be a random event?

      That's a bit rich considering that you have used this occasion to question whether other unrelated aspects of the science are wrong because scientists supposedly didn't predict this scenario. Scientists are all about error bars and levels of confidence. They are the ones who have to keep chanting the mantra that weather is not the same as climate every time there is a cold day in summer. The "alarmists", as you call them, don't need to use outliers to prove their point because they have global, long-term trends on their side.

      It is the deniers who have to cherry-pick the outliers to cast doubt on the science. It is they who kept using the year 1998 as their basis of proving that the climate was actually cooling during the 00s even though it was an outlier, El Nino year that was unrepresentative of the temperature of the years around it. Why didn't the deniers use 1997 or 1999 for their comparisons? Oh yes, because that would destroy their flimsy arguments.

      And look here at how many people tried to say that this story was about an increase in ice and that this proved that global warming was a lie. Would you also say the same thing to them if this had been a case of the ice increasing? That it may have just been a random even that didn't prove that climate change was all a hoax?

      But the fact that the ice is melting is not an isolated, random event. This is a continuation of what has been seen for years. There is only so many times that you can say that a continuing pattern is just a series of isolated events.

    16. Re:Global warming makes ice! by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the ice is too thick then the ice is too thick and we can call it an outlier, an unexpected weather event, or whatever the case may be. What this is not is "proof" of global warming

      The ice is not too thick. It is too fractured and mobile, and it's being pushed in the shipping channels. Therefore they've cancelled the research mission, so that the ice breaker can be used for search and rescue, as well as escorting ferries and fishing boats.

      They are twisting themselves in knots so that they don't have to admit the irony of a pair of ships being sent out to study thinning ice only to have to turn back because the ice was too thick.

      The only irony is you not reading the article.

    17. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh no! They used a figure of speech! How dare they! Obviously that means the entire argument must be dismissed without any consideration.

    18. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly hope you are getting paid and not just an idiot...

    19. Re:Global warming makes ice! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before. It has always been that the ice would get thin and recede which would open the waters to shipping without the need for ice breakers.

      That's because you were listening the the "climate change is good" people like Bjorn Lomborg (economist) and Christopher Monckton (sodoku columnist) instead of people who work with the physical sciences.

    20. Re:Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 0

      Can you give some examples of scientists predicting this phenomenon?

      I really wouldn't care so much what these global warming alarmists said so long as their suggestions to solve this problem made some sense. Carbon taxes don't solve anything because a tax on one source of energy is a tax on all energy, likewise for subsidies. Do you really think that the utility does not take their windmill subsidies and NOT buy more natural gas plants? That money goes in the same pocket. These government regulations just impoverish us and move some money around to make some senators look good for their next election.

      If these people were serious about preventing CAGW then they'd call for more nuclear power. Those that do I have no problems with. Those that think we can avert CAGW, maintain our economy, and not have nuclear power I have a problem with.

      I say we kill two birds with one stone here. Build more nuclear powered icebreakers and we'd have our scientific missions in the Arctic while also reducing our carbon footprint. If these people have such a problem with man made CO2 melting the Arctic ice then maybe they shouldn't use diesel engined icebreakers to take ice samples.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    21. Re:Global warming makes ice! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Funny

      What do you mean with "predict"?
      Assuming what you say is true, that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.
      Stuff like that are known consequences since decades. No reason to "predict" them.
      To have ice like this in late spring, you need special geographic conditions (and probably certain wind conditions over an extended period of time), or do you 'believe' now that the whole arctic area is covered with 'unpredicted' fast moving ice?

      Next time you see an ice berg floating in front of New York, better think where it came from instead if panicking and thinking NY is freezing all over.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:Global warming makes ice! by famebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like I told my insurance company: Oh, you say my house is gonna burn, do you? Prove it! Greedy fuckers.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    23. Re:Global warming makes ice! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they shouldn't go to the North Pole in June if they didn't want to see melted ice.

    24. Re: Global warming makes ice! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1, Troll

      The AGW scare is plain bullshit. The North Pole has been a lot warmer than it is currently in recorded history. Back when the Novgorod Republic was at its height, around the same time the Vikings were settling Iceland and Vinland it was clearly warmer than it is today. Back then the world population was much lower.

      The influence of human activity on global temperatures is clearly overblown.

    25. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell no, because once any part of the prediction is wrong I know that all of the prediction will be wrong.

      I predict that we will see sunny days in the future and that you will have a unicorn next to you in the next ten minutes.

      I do hope you are wrong, because if you are not, I just managed to break our sun. Or perhaps summoned an unicorn.

    26. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higher temperatures cause ice glaciers to fracture into smaller pieces. Ice that breaks into smaller pieces become distributed over a wider area. Ice spread over a wider area increases the albedo effect, which reflects more sunlight back into space, providing a cooling effect. It's almost like a self regulating system, which is what historical temperature extracts have shown over millions of years.

    27. Re: Global warming makes ice! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The North Pole has been a lot warmer than it is currently in recorded history

      In your haste to respond, you seem to have forgotten the links to the North Pole temperature records of those days.

    28. Re: Global warming makes ice! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      So the ice breaker can be used for search and rescue rather than the annual adventure trip?

    29. Re:Global warming makes ice! by dbIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you give some examples of scientists predicting this phenomenon?

      Every fucking glaciologist who has lived for the last century and even every fucking person who has heard of the "Titanic" - where the fuck do you think the icebergs go? They go out to sea. Faster glaciers, more icebergs. Warmer water - sea ice detaches - just like it does every year only earlier.

      What's with deliberately pretending to be thirty times more stupid than you could possible be? It's incredibly insulting to everyone unfortunate enough to read such pretended ignorance.

      You couldn't resist some stupid offtopic charging at windmills and cheering for nukes either - it's all a big one package deal with you blindly following a Party line then isn't it? Well, not even your hero Putin is getting some nukes built, he's got his money in oil, so it doesn't matter how much you cheer it's not happening.

    30. Re: Global warming makes ice! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      So the ice breaker can be used for search and rescue rather than the annual adventure trip?

      Yes. It's primarily used as a research vessel, but if the circumstances require it, the Canadian Coast Guard can use it as part of their regular ice breaking services.

      http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Icebr...

    31. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my bourbon on the rocks.. and after a few, I enjoy just watching the ice melt.. usually at that point I just switch to neat, in the bottle. Can I call myself a Glaciologist?

      Wow.. imagine telling your parents "when I grow up, I want to watch ice melt"...

    32. Re: Global warming makes ice! by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      pediatrician dies of childhood disease.

    33. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      burp

    34. Re:Global warming makes ice! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around.>

      Barber and the scientists were still on the Amundsen, the ice breaker was tasked with rescuing fishers on four fishing vessels from La Scie Harbour that were stuck in sea ice off Newfoundland's Baie Verte Peninsula.

      But, within sight of the boats, the Amundsen was called off from helping after it was discovered the ice was two metres thick - too strong for it to get through. U of M climate change study postponed due to climate change

      2 meters boy that's some thick ass ice multi-year ice

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    35. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go shove your head back into the sand.

    36. Re:Global warming makes ice! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      that they simply saw effects from global warming that they could not predict then I have to wonder what else they got wrong.

      Not predicting something is the same as not being wrong. Science is based on testing hypothesise not feeding a model into a computer and having the future shown to you in full on a cinema sized crystal ball.

    37. Re:Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You couldn't resist some stupid offtopic charging at windmills and cheering for nukes either - it's all a big one package deal with you blindly following a Party line then isn't it?

      You don't see the irony of using diesel powered vessels to investigate the damage fossil fuels are doing to the environment?

      It's not like nuclear powered icebreakers are theoretical, they do exist and Russia has been sailing them for 50 years or so. If we are to agree that CAGW is a problem then would it not immediately follow that something should be done about it? Should not that something we do be a something that is inexpensive, exists today, and highly effective? Nuclear power replacing coal means taking one of the dirtiest energy sources we have now and replacing it with the cleanest and cheapest we have now. It's even better than windmills for carbon footprint, and nuclear works when the wind doesn't blow.

      Of course it's a "package deal". If CAGW is real then we should do something about it, not just talk about how we're ruining things with the status quo.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    38. Re:Global warming makes ice! by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

      The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before.

      Well maybe you never saw it, but...

      I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend.

      Except that this point does fit the trend. Does it really not make sense to you that higher temperatures would make the ice break up into smaller pieces and become mobile? Have you ever seen a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't just melt down into a single little ice cube and vanish; it begins to crack and break up into pieces long before the ice completely melts.

      You failed to read the IPCC article. Here's the relevant quotes from it:
      Increased calving of icebergs from the Antarctic Peninsula may, however, affect navigation and shipping lanes north of the Antarctic Convergence.
      There is no clear consensus, however, about whether the frequency of icebergs, and their danger to shipping, will change with global warming (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.4).
      Less river ice and a shorter ice season in northward flowing rivers of Canada and Russia should enhance north-south river transport. Combined with less sea ice in the Arctic, this development would provide new opportunities for reorganization of transport networks and trade links. Ultimately, those changes could affect Northern Hemisphere trading patterns (IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 7.5.1).

      You need to read your own references better. On the expected results, GP was correct. There was no consensus about what effect warming would have on the threat of icebergs to shipping. There was a consensus that increased ice berg calving was likely in Antarctica. There was a consensus that a shorter ice season and reduced river ice would not only happen in the Arctic, but would make sea travel there change notably for the better.

      Your response is about as terrible as you can get.

      Take the example of when someone says it's cold in August in Florida this week, looks like climate change is disproven. Your response is akin to declaring that the IPCC expected Florida to be colder in August, and pointing to an article by the IPCC saying they expect it to be warmer. The better response is exactly as the GP observed. Statistically anomalies are going to happen, and you shouldn't be going around embracing the exceptions as the signal.

    39. Re:Global warming makes ice! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      You don't see the irony of using diesel powered vessels to investigate the damage fossil fuels are doing to the environment?

      Not really. On the total scale of all CO2 production, the single diesel powered icebreaker isn't going to make a difference, so why spend large amounts of money on a symbolic gesture ?

    40. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Strider- · · Score: 1

      There was never any suggestion in the article that the problem was that there was more ice than before. But that doesn't stop the deniers trying to pretend that this is some problem with the concept of global warming. But then not looking at the facts and jumping to conclusions is what causes them to be deniers in the first place.

      The bigger worry on this trip is that while the CCGS Amundsen was doing her search and rescue work, the scientists on board took the opportunity to examine the ice they were navigating through was multi-year ice, rather than first year ice. The thing is that multi-year sea ice can not form below a certain latitude. There is always some multi-year ice that gets pushed south every year, but never in this quantity or size/shape, but what they found implies that the arctic ocean has warmed up significantly.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    41. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These global warming alarmists keep making predictions that prove to be wrong later."

      Often in the same way that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein.

    42. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's with deliberately pretending to be thirty times more stupid than you could possible be? It's incredibly insulting to everyone unfortunate enough to read such pretended ignorance.

      Is the god damn reason I quit asking "How Stupid can you get?" as evertime I've asked; someone takes it as a fucking challenge and tries to be stupider then the next person.

    43. Re: Global warming makes ice! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Fuck you [citation needed] morons. Which link did the parent post provide for his scare mongering?

      It's plainly obvious it's true. Go to the Wikipedia page for "Iceland" and read the historic migration flows section. No I won't provide a link. Fucking idiots who need to be spoonfed all the time.

    44. Re:Global warming makes ice! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      so why spend large amounts of money on a symbolic gesture ?

      Because symbolism is important. Isn't that what we were told about the Paris Accord? That even though it enforced nothing the symbolism of the agreement was important. This is why Greenpeace replaced the diesel ship they used to protest drilling with a sail assisted ship. They were mocked heavily for burning diesel to harass oil rigs. And they should be mocked for this. Not that their new ship is much of an improvement, it still has a 500hp diesel engine for primary propulsion, the sails are really only to give a thin veil over their hypocrisy. They will describe the ship as having a "highly efficient electric hybrid drive" which just means its a bog standard marine drive. Not that they'd like nuclear powered ships either.

      Nuclear icebreakers are not just symbolic either, they are highly capable ships. Do you really think that Russia gives a damn about their carbon footprint? I don't. I think they use nuclear powered icebreakers because they can be at sea non-stop for a whole year, break the heaviest of ice, and generally run circles around any diesel counterpart.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    45. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you were listening the the "climate change is good" people like

      Whether it is "good" or "bad" is purely a matter of perspective.

    46. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      That was regional warming. The G in AGW stands for global.

    47. Re:Global warming makes ice! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Because symbolism is important

      Hence your incredibly stupid and sig I suppose. Somehow you seem to think a symbolic gun can keep you free instead of the reality being a very large number of people, armed or not, keeping you free.

      One guy with a gun calling for freedom is just called a target.

    48. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ice becoming more mobile to the point of becoming a hazard to navigation was something I've never seen predicted before.

      Well maybe you never saw it, but...

      I took statistics in college and one thing they teach is that not everything has to line up to show a trend.

      Except that this point does fit the trend. Does it really not make sense to you that higher temperatures would make the ice break up into smaller pieces and become mobile? Have you ever seen a lake melt in the spring? It doesn't just melt down into a single little ice cube and vanish; it begins to crack and break up into pieces long before the ice completely melts.

      Except it could also be explained by the expanded ice extent (more ice) extending into water or currents of warmer temperatures.

    49. Re:Global warming makes ice! by mcswell · · Score: 1

      What? I can't hear you!

    50. Re: Global warming makes ice! by mcswell · · Score: 1

      How do you know it was regional? We have records in Europe because there were people exploring the Arctic, and indeed living in the Arctic or near-Arctic. We don't have any records from Alaska, because nobody there was writing. And we don't have records from the Antarctic, because nobody was exploring there at the time. And we don't have records that would bear on the issue from anywhere else, because the temperature differences were too small for people to notice. All we're left with from the rest of the world is proxies, which seem to be pretty unreliable.

    51. Re: Global warming makes ice! by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      So what are you saying? That the proof that global warming is bullshit is that there is a possibility that there was global warming in the past? Are you saying that it is good enough to extrapolate the global climate from the couple of examples given by the grandparent? Because if climate scientists did that sort of thing to prove that climate change was real, deniers would quite rightly criticize them for it.

      Seriously though, your whole argument stems from the idea that climate proxies are unreliable such that they are worthless. I can tell you that they are probably as accurate or better than any direct measurements made by people because they didn't have accurate thermometers or even standardized temperature scales back in the times that the OP discussed. Besides, even if you can't tell actual temperature by proxy, you can determine whether the temperature changes in two regions were of the same magnitude. And that is all the scientists need to be able to say that the warming of that period was not global, but peaked at different times in the various parts of the world.

    52. Re:Global warming makes ice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fuckin foolish idiot.

  2. Nothing to see here by Muros · · Score: 1

    Well I guess that's a new reason to say "nothing to see here" compared to the usual denialist crap.

  3. Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    And by climate change, you mean global cooling. It makes perfect sense that global cooling would result in more sea ice at lower latitudes. And the cyclical nature of Earth's climate shows that we're due for another period of cooling, as we've seen over the past several hundred thousand years. This actually makes complete sense to me.

    1. Re:Makes sense to me by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if you're a troll, idiot or a Trump follower of alternative facts.

      It's all the same anyway.

    2. Re:Makes sense to me by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      But you admit that global cooling is a risk?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  4. Think of the good side by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Informative

    They saved 4 years and $17 million.

    1. Re:Think of the good side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "think of the bright side" you FUCKING MORON!!!!

    2. Re:Think of the good side by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it is "think of the good side", not "think of the bright side". "Bright side" makes no sense.

    3. Re:Think of the good side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct phrase is "look at/on the bright side". "Think of the good/bright side" is not an actual phrase and makes no sense, so you're both idiots, but the AC a bit more since he was screaming.

    4. Re:Think of the good side by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Nah, I'm pretty sure it is "Always look on the good side of life" from the Monty Python song.

    5. Re: Think of the good side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Compared to the billions wasted in researching mythological global warming

      I know, those sphinx farts are really fucking us up! Not as bad as leprechaun induced warming, and as for the whole poltergeist thing... don't get me started.

      bad ideas like renewable energy

      Yeah, fuck that shit. Pollutant free energy that's cheaper than coal? Fucked up shit man. We don't need that crap around here.

    6. Re:Think of the good side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of all the money they could of saved if they used dog sleds instead of ice breakers. And they wouldn't have to cancel either. But that wouldn't go well with their ice free arctic narrative they are trying to sell.

    7. Re:Think of the good side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I'm pretty sure it is "Always look on the good side of life" from the Monty Python song.

      Christ on a crutch, you're wrong again :-D
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re:Think of the good side by catprog · · Score: 1

      Yeah they would of gotten stuck on the iceberg instead and have to call for a helicopter rescue.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  5. Only Way to Save Face by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the best spin they could come up with, lest they generate another disastrous round of headlines like these:

    https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

    1. Re:Only Way to Save Face by Muros · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the best spin they could come up with, lest they generate another disastrous round of headlines like these:
        https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      Ship gets stuck in ice in the arctic circle in the depths of winter.

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor... https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      A ship in the antarctic needed help from an icebreaker, people were helicoptered out in the meantime.

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

      Blah whatever, same story as above, the ship made its way out.

      https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

      Oh come on, same incident. 1 ship stuck in ice in the antarctic circle and got away again. Linking it 4 times doesn't make it 4 incidents. Ships get stuck in ice in frozen seas.

    2. Re:Only Way to Save Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local conditions != Global trends

    3. Re:Only Way to Save Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't know shit.

      I was stationed at CFS Alert, look it up, in the early 80s during parts of 'spring and summer'; the quotes are there since everything has a different meaning above the arctic circle. Again, you don't know jack shit and likely don't care.

      For the entire deployment the ice did not open at all, no open water... period. And that was normal at that latitude. But sadly that is no longer the case and if the arctic ice goes away so does the Gulf Stream and the great Atlantic conveyor. I'm old and will likely die before the really bad stuff start to manifest but your offspring, I'm hoping against all hope that you have not yet procreated, will suffer the brunt of those changes.

      If you'll excuse me I going to go back to playing the violin ... look that up as well.

    4. Re:Only Way to Save Face by blindseer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ships get stuck in ice in frozen seas.

      Those were not just "ships" they were icebreakers. Granted, they were light to medium duty icebreakers but they were in Antarctic waters in the summer. They had to be freed by one of the largest ice breakers in the world.

      Ships getting stuck in frozen seas is not news, as I admit. Icebreakers being unable to free themselves from the ice is news. Having two stuck in the same vicinity is news. Having to bring what may be the heaviest ice breaker in the world to free them is news. Having one of them stuck while studying the "loss of sea ice" is just plain hilarious.

      Another thing...

      Ship gets stuck in ice in the arctic circle in the depths of winter.

      It was the Antarctic and in the summer. January south of the equator means summer.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Only Way to Save Face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Having one of them stuck while studying the "loss of sea ice" is just plain hilarious.

      Where do you think the lost sea ice on the shore goes? It drifts out to sea and this ship got stuck in an unexpectedly huge amount of it far out to sea.

      You really should read at least a tiny bit about something that you are attempting to pontificate on.

    6. Re: Only Way to Save Face by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Ice breakers getting stuck is so not new.
      http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06...

      Look at the date. What the article does not say is that this research ship is itself a ice breaker and was already stuck in antarctic ice in 1977 (and will be stuck again in 1991 by the way). Difficult ice conditions can be difficult even to ice breakers.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Only Way to Save Face by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the lost sea ice on the shore goes? It drifts out to sea and this ship got stuck in an unexpectedly huge amount of it far out to sea.

      We're talking about the Akademik getting caught in the ice in 2013, right? They were caught in a snow storm within sight of the shore. They were not "far out at sea" and the ice formed around them, it had not drifted from the shore. They assumed the ice was melting, because that is what they kept telling themselves. The only reason it would have been "unexpected" is because they did not check the weather forecast and/or thought that recreating a historic journey to Antarctica on its anniversary was worth not waiting.

      They hoped to prove that man made global warming was a threat and picking this date would make it memorable. People don't remember the historical aspect to this, they remember some global warming "experts" getting stuck in the ice like idiots while trying to prove that the ice was melting. It turned out the ice was not melting and they did far more harm to their cause than they did good.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re: Only Way to Save Face by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares if you play the violin. You are A person playing the violin, not THE person playing the violin.

    9. Re:Only Way to Save Face by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We're talking about the Akademik getting caught in the ice in 2013

      No "we" are not. Remember what happened last year instead of 2013.

    10. Re: Only Way to Save Face by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Ice breakers getting stuck is so not new.

      I don't believe anyone is claiming that icebreakers have not been stuck in ice before. When it does happen though it is noteworthy because that is not supposed to happen. Icebreakers are supposed to get through ice and when they cannot, either stuck in the ice or even when they have to turn back because the ice got too thick, then that means something unusual or unexpected happened.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re: Only Way to Save Face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it does happen though it is noteworthy because that is not supposed to happen.

      Icebreakers aren't using some kind of Fairy Fire Magic to slice through ice, there are limits to what they can break through. Those limits are known, and most of the time the Captains do a pretty good job of not attempting to exceed those limits.

      Every once in a while they don't predict the conditions properly, or attempt to go beyond the limits of the vessel, and sometimes they end up getting stuck.

    12. Re: Only Way to Save Face by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Even nuclear ice breakers can be stuck and they are vastly more powerful than Diesel engine ice breakers. Compressed ice and severe weather together make life dangerous even to these giants. A Diesel ice breaker can get stuck even thanks to wind refreezing water.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  6. Re:Translation: Canceled because ice didn't melt a by Muros · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read between all of the weasel wording, the real story is that some Warming Alarmists actually believed the hype about all of the sea ice melting - so when lots more ice came back the mission they had predicated on ice not returning, was totally screwed.

    That's pretty much the exact opposite of what the story said. It said that due to increased ice melt the remaining ice was much more mobile and was reaching further south than they had expected.

  7. Re:Translation: Canceled because ice didn't melt a by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Exactly. And if there was no ice then it must have warmed enough for it all to melt.

    "I got ice out of the pop machine at 7-11, so there can't be global warming. Boom, you alarmist libtards!"

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:Translation: Canceled because ice didn't melt a by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    Liar. The story says the exact opposite of what you claim.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. Why not send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not send the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS?
    It's a class 3 vessel.
      It's just sitting in Quebec City doing fuck all!

    1. Re:Why not send by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Why not send the CCGS DES GROSEILLIERS?
      It's a class 3 vessel.
          It's just sitting in Quebec City doing fuck all!

      Have you considered the possibility that even that class of ship is not heavy enough?

      I have to wonder if they are downplaying the thickness and expanse of the ice. If this is just some local refreezing of ice chunks that stuck together then they should be able to sail around. If the ice is just generally thicker and rougher than expected then, as you suggest, they "need a bigger boat". But if the ice is too thick for even their biggest icebreaker then there is nothing to do but turn around and go back.

      Not only that but the ice may be too thick for any ice breaker. It seems to be pretty common for nations to make arrangements to "rent" or "borrow" icebreakers from each other. Would it be all that hard to ask to "borrow" an icebreaker from the USA, UK, or Germany? I understand that they all have some pretty capable icebreakers. Probably the biggest are owned by Canada and Russia. If Canada is not willing to put one out in these ice conditions then Russia is likely to be reluctant too, that is assuming the two nations are on friendly enough terms to do such a thing.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Why not send by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      I have to wonder if they are downplaying the thickness and expanse of the ice. If this is just some local refreezing of ice chunks that stuck together then they should be able to sail around. If the ice is just generally thicker and rougher than expected then, as you suggest, they "need a bigger boat". But if the ice is too thick for even their biggest icebreaker then there is nothing to do but turn around and go back.

      You misunderstand the problem. The ice isn't too touch for the icebreaker at all. The problem is that there's ice that drifted so far south that it's hindering regular shipping traffic, and so they cancelled the research mission so that their icebreaker could assist other vessels:

      Considering the severe ice conditions and the increasing demand for Search And Rescue operations (SAR) and ice escort, we decided to cancel the BaySys mission

    3. Re:Why not send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is one for the climate should never change group. We no longer have an icebreaker since it has become one with the ice. In essence, we have attached massive diesel engines with propellers to the arctic ice pack. Since we are all about not having any change. We can use the the ship to move the ice pack were it should be all along. Granted it will take awhile, but we can put things back to normal. Right?

  10. That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The ice is too thick to get through. The ice that Al Gore said would be gone in 2014, "American Experts" said would be gone in 2013, NASA said would be gone in 2012, and "Norwegian Experts" said would be gone in 2008.

    And what is the penalty for being a false prophet?

    1. Re:That's right folks by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      And what is the penalty for being a false prophet?

      The Alarmists have the government pass a law making climate-heresy a criminal offense.

      Oh wait...you thought Climate Alarmists could be held responsible for any of their failed predictions, policies, or scientific theories!? Bwaahahaha!

      Heh, sorry, I know you understand as well as I do that the world would have to radically change before that has any chance of happening.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:That's right folks by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Christ the morons are out in full force today along with their little army of moron mods.

      You're (a) a moron and (b) wrong. Citation: TFA.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:That's right folks by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Can we add promises by people in politics to the same law?

    4. Re:That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is the penalty for being a false prophet?

      Being sent to Norway and having to eat Lutefisk.

    5. Re:That's right folks by mpercy · · Score: 0

      Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I look forward to clean fusion plants (now supposedly only 20 years in the future!).

      So please don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

      It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.

      (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

      Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

      Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

      Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

      Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."

      David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

      Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."

      Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

      Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."

      Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."

    6. Re:That's right folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod-up parent Insightful/Informative!

      I would, if I had points. Excellent post.

    7. Re:That's right folks by catprog · · Score: 1

      Seeing as though the people that don't think climate change is a problem get away with being false prophets I don't think their is any penalties.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  11. Poorly worded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue is the amount of free ice that's broken away and heading south. Not that there's too much ice up north.

  12. Re:Translation: Canceled because ice didn't melt a by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Sure, why not? Everything contributes to climate change.

  13. Perfectly foreseeable by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A headline like this brings out the Climate Change deniers in full force. Too bad they'll now have to miss their Chemtrail and Moon Landing Conspiracy meetings due to their efforts to trash Slashdot.

    I'll probably be modded down almost instantly for daring to point this out.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plenty of people are still denying that the climate is changing, and many more deny that humans have anything to do with it. We call these people "deniers" and not "skeptics" because real skeptics don't ignore all the evidence, when it's this overwhelmingly strong. The deniers refuse to consider any of it, and just spout the same old irrelevant nonsense like "the climate has always changed".

      And if you're looking for groups that have strong reasons to con people out of their money - wouldn't you agree that fossil fuel industry executives have far more billions at stake than a bunch of middle-wage climatologists?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      We call these people "deniers" and not "skeptics" because real skeptics don't ignore all the evidence, when it's this overwhelmingly strong

      ...while at the same time not showing any skepticism towards pieces of data that can be twisted in their favor.

    3. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly do the fossil fuel groups con me out of money I have never once considered myself conned when I fill the car up with gas. Oil and gas industry is actually in real business i.e. providing people with a product that they want/need. There are always examples of problems from such industries.

      As to the Moon landing conspiracy meeting it is always on Mondays.

    4. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      If oil and gas is a "real business", why does it require so many government subsidies?

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    5. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't mod you down, but will tell you, chem trails are real. Here is an eye opener for you. Exhaust trails, like all you pro science is settled folks. Only gliders produce no exhaust gas. With little atmosphere stiring, little or no or no mark of passage. Other aircraft, exhaust the atmosphere, even electric jets, produce heat, to be exhausted. That changes the atmosphere after the passage. Cooling air, produces a cloud after the passage. That's a fact of life. Aka, chemtrail.

    6. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Oil and gas pays far more taxes each year than the ~$150mil it gets per year. This myth needs to die. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/r... The numbers are all there, take a look.

    7. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'll probably be modded down almost instantly for daring to point this out.

      I know this statement is just fishing for mod points but when has criticising a poorly written Slashdot post ever resulted in down modding?

    8. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

      I'll probably be modded down almost instantly for daring to point this out.

      I've done this myself but, I don't understand why.
      Why should there be some kind of need to point out that we expect to be down-modded/flamed/trolled/etc ?

      It reminds me of "You won't believe XYZ!" headlines for some reason.

      --
      I tend to rant.
    9. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And reason #2 people don't believe AGW alarmists.

      If you would stop lying, you might gain credibility. As long as you lie in easy ways to prove, why should I trust anything you ever say?

    10. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, to the Climate Change Deniers, only Al Gore has a financial interest. In anything! And Al Gore has apparently "made a killing" in "fake news" about "taxes". Dark government!

      Or some such nonsense. It's all such addled nonsense that there's no point in even trying to figure out the alleged conspiracy network; you only feed the trolls by giving such arguments any time at all.

    11. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it enough to pay for our military jaunts in the Middle East?

    12. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fossil fuel industry made a genius move by making this a partisan issue. Now they can recruit half the nation to their cause.

    13. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      That's a fair question before wars in the Middle East are 100% about oil. Furthermore, paying arms makers and civilian military is equivalent to subsidizing oil companies. Thanks for your brilliant insight, AC.

    14. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell me, what amount of the projected $6 trillion cost of the Iraq war do *you* think was about protecting US oil supplies? Because almost any percentage would be dramatically more than the US has spent on renewables. Heck, the US "lost" more in the sofa cushions than it gives to renewables.

    15. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Even if you accept that report as the whole picture (and it says right at the beginning that it isn't), it says very clearly in Table ES2 that your "$150 million" figure is low by well over an order of magnitude.

      The question stands: why does any industry as mature as coal and oil *still* need billions in direct annual subsidies, on top of the $400+ billion it's already received in recent decades?

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    16. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      predictable, but "tax expenditures" means taxes not collected, not incentives given. You need to look at the direct expenses column. Tax expenditures is tax breaks for depreciation of capitol, which all industries claim, not just energy. For direct subsidies see "direct expenses" you'll see the renewables column is about $8.4 billion and everything else combined is about $180 million.

    17. Re:Perfectly foreseeable by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Except the report makes it very clear at the beginning (page xi) that the only subsidies it describes, including tax expenditures, are given solely to the energy industry. Tax breaks that are also available to a different industry were not included in the report, which means depreciation of capitol is not shown, and all the figures in the Tax Expenditures column are indeed actual energy industry subsidies.

      If you read the report; you'd see full breakdowns in Tables 2 & 6 of the specific tax subsidies that makes up those numbers. Capitol depreciation is not one of them, nor are specific subsidies like "Temporary 50-Percent Expensing for Equipment used in the Refining of Liquid Fuels" ($600M in FY2013) available to other industries.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  14. That reminds me how I planned a ski trip... by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

    ...but it was cancelled because of snow.

    1. Re:That reminds me how I planned a ski trip... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Been there.

      More recently, though, most of my skiing trips are canceled because of a lack of it. Either sucks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Idiots who can't RTFA! by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title should then read as, "Study Into Sea Ice Losses Canceled Due to Unexpected Ice Thickness Discovered."

    Well done, not reading the article and substituting your preconceived notions which are the opposite of what the article says:

    "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re: Idiots who can't RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that if two opposite outcomes are both equally possible, or at least likely enough that prediction becomes impossible, that you dont have science right?

  16. More details by knorthern+knight · · Score: 5, Informative

    See for more details https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

    The icebreaker was supposed to navigate from Quebec City, down the St Lawrence River, up the east coast of Canada, and into Hudson's Bay for the research mission. But shit happens...

    > The icebreaker was soon diverted. Dense ice -- up to 8 metres (25ft) thick -- had filled the
    > waters off the northern coast of Newfoundland, trapping fishing boats and ferries.
    >
    > "It was a really dramatic situation," said David Barber, the expedition's chief scientist.
    > "We were getting search and rescue calls from fishing boats that were stranded in the
    > ice and tankers that were stranded trying to get fuel into the communities. Nobody
    > could manage this ice because it was far too heavy to get through."

    [...snip...]

    > The decision to cancel the first leg of the expedition was made after it became clear that
    > continuing north would interrupt search and rescue operations and probably put lives at risk.

    The first priority of the CCGS icebreaker is search and rescue, and there happened to be more work than anticipated, so the research mission was cancelled.

    For those of you wondering, no, it is not a good idea to charter an "ice-reinforced ship", when you want to get up close to the ice and do first-hand measurements. You need a real icebreaker. The Akedemik Shokalskiy fiasco http://news.nationalgeographic... is still fresh in people's minds.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    1. Re:More details by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > The decision to cancel the first leg of the expedition was made after it became clear that
      > continuing north would interrupt search and rescue operations and probably put lives at risk.

      Wish I had mod points. Thank you. One sentence from an article not even linked gives us the truth at last.

      </thread>

    2. Re:More details by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Thing is, this isn't new. 8m thick ice off NFLD happen all the time, it was actually worse in the 60's and 70's where 9-12m thick flows could show up around this time of year. In places like Hudson's Bay, they used air compressors for decades to make sure remote communities wouldn't have an over abundant iceflow problem through the winter and into the early summer. Environmentalists decided to throw a hissyfit over that and now some of those remote communities have very narrow windows when they can get supplies in at all. Thing is, if you live in Canada a lot of what is happening is a repeat of the 1970's "deep freeze" that we had. Where the great lakes would also freeze up early, or be 100% ice covered, it was a few years ago we still had ice on parts of the great lakes in July. That hadn't been seen since the 1970's, or 1940's either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:More details by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The difference is this ice is multi-year ice that has drifted south, then been blown into shore by wind/current. It's drifted down from a lot further away than the ice you're referring to.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  17. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like every planed study of the arctic get canceled, it is almost as if..... they don't want proof that man made climate change is false. Who am I kidding, they would just edit the data to say planet is warming when it isn't so they keep getting funding.

    I am still waiting for some scientific tests to prove man made climate change. Too many depend on climate change to get rich to believe any of it without any real science.

  18. Re: Misleading title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish people would stop saying that global warming stopped 20 years ago. If you look at the statistics you will see this is wrong. I dont know about the northern hemisphere but the southern hemisphere has continued to warm up at record rates.

  19. Re:Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Careful, those rising temperatures might actually ignite all your straw men.

  20. Re:Too bad by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    They could become shills for the fossil oil industry, it at least would be paid better.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Schadenfreude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can the post at the top of a thread be a straw man, you imbecile.

  22. Global Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When in the history of the planet has the climate not changed? Can someone explain ? We know the planet has been tropical, icy and all points in between

    1. Re:Global Climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not that it's changing, because as you said it always has been. The problem is the rate at which it is changing, which is many times faster than any rate observed recently or in the fossil record. The rate is not allowing ecologies to transition, and where we're heading will have weather and climate we consider very unpleasant.

  23. Forget climate change, the funny thing is by sabbede · · Score: 1

    that and icebreaker couldn't go out because there was too much ice. What kind of icebreaker can't sail near ice? Did they forget what the ship is designed for?

    1. Re:Forget climate change, the funny thing is by tbannist · · Score: 1

      It's not that funny, because the problem isn't that the icebreaker can't go near the ice, it's that it can't leave the area where fishing boats and tankers are being trapped by unusually heavy iceberg activity, mostly because leaving would endanger the lives of those fishermen and sailors.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    2. Re:Forget climate change, the funny thing is by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Wait, the icebreaker can't leave because it would break the ice that's keeping other ships from leaving? Unless the problem is that they need to keep the breaker around to rescue trapped ships, that makes even less sense.

      Which only makes it more perversely funny.

  24. stop driving cars or flying or eating meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is what you'd need to do to not be a hypocrite when you complain about global warming.

      I for one, cannot fathom giving these things up. I'm neither a denier nor a global warming warrior. But, if you're not contributing by not do it these things, then STFU re 'we need to...'

  25. Climate Change ruined my morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My coffee got cold before I could finish drinking it this morning. I'm blaming it on Climate Change.

  26. How can this be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone, including noted climate scientist Al Gore, told us all as recently as last week that all the ice up there was melting!

  27. Some clarifications to the liberal wacko summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1.) The coast guard ship the expedition was travelling on was requested to divert to the Belle Isle Strait to assist other ships that were stranded by ice. The expedition itself was only affected by not having a ship available to them to take them where they wanted to go, they decided to change plans and while still on board the coast guard ship decided to study the ice in Belle Isle Strait.

    2.) Ice is normal in Belle Isle Strait and varies in intensity every year between April through June.

    3.) Someone that was a part of the expedition claims the ice they saw in Belle Isle Strait had many layers which would seem to indicate it came from the high arctic and that is somehow unusual, when in fact, that's where it all comes from.

    On a side note, here is an informative excerpt from a book on Amazon about the ice that flows through Belle Isle Strait: https://books.google.com/books?id=py8ukChGA_cC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=Strait+of+Belle+Isle+arctic+ice+june+-study&source=bl&ots=4I6vwPBkCs&sig=lDAclGL_GSj0NNEw9Dec2Sr4NPA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhh-mr1cLUAhVIxYMKHdN2AhcQ6AEIVDAL#v=onepage&q=Strait%20of%20Belle%20Isle%20arctic%20ice%20june%20-study&f=false

  28. Marketing backfires by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The term "climate change" was arguably a master stroke of marketing. The earlier version "global warming" had the inherent flaw that if the temperatures stopped rising consistently, people would stop believing it. By rebranding it as "climate change," any variation in climate that the promoters didn't like could easily be attributed to it regardless of the underlying causes. But at some point, as a researcher, you'd have to be able to prove to your donors that you've achieved your research goals. Vague goals or no goals eventually runs out of Schlitz. And when nature borks your research expedition, kiss the grant funding goodbye.

    1. Re:Marketing backfires by tbannist · · Score: 2

      You know who gets the credit for changing it from "global warming" to "climate change" in the American public discourse? George W. Bush. It was Bush's advisor who recommended that he always refer to climate change instead of global warming because climate change isn't as scary as global warming. It also allowed them to shrug off the effects of climate change by suggesting that the climate is always changing. The focus groups indicated many voters would accept that deception uncritically because it sounds like common sense.

      The scientists actually have slightly different definitions for global warming and climate change and they are used for different purposes. Specifically, global warming is a subset of climate change.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    2. Re:Marketing backfires by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Most people on the left are proponents of the notion of "climate change" and most people on the left think Bush was an incompetent moron. Thus the inconsistency.

    3. Re:Marketing backfires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you're dumb. But the term and notion of "climate change" is a century older than "global warming". It did need to be separately established that the climate could change at all for the AGW theorists to be taken seriously.

  29. Al Gore told Us the Ice would be gone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all of Al Gore's predictions had come true: New York city would be under water, there would be zero ice in the Arctic (not the largest ice increase since they began measuring), Polar Bears would be extinct - not with the highest population they have ever had .. and on and on.

    The Global Warmers want to have it both ways .. either the ice is gone or it's there and increasing.. when You find out that Your ridiculous climate models were totally wrong .. the easy answer is: "It's Climate Change" .. no it's bullshit. As the retired head of Greenpeace has stated: Global Warming is a joke, the scientific models are all completely wrong.

    It's amazing when science can say: "We predict it will be black", then when it turns out to be "white" they say: See We told You so.

    1. Re:Al Gore told Us the Ice would be gone! by catprog · · Score: 1

      Largest ice by volume or by area?

      Which is more ice. 1km^2 of ice 10m thick or 5km^2 of ice 10cm thick.

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  30. Re:Misleading title! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Articles like this deserve mockery"
    Yes but not the idiot denier trolls who don't read the fucking article and proceed to write 10+ fucking longwinded comments where they get almost every fucking thing wrong.