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.
They saved 4 years and $17 million.
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.
OK, I know that you are trolling, but here is the relevant section from the article:
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.
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.
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.
Well done, not reading the article and substituting your preconceived notions which are the opposite of what the article says:
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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
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.