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.

Comments

Re:Global warming makes ice!

[blindseer]

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.

Re: Global warming makes ice!

[blindseer]

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.