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.
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.
Maybe he has a text-to-speech program, you insensitive clod!
"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.
Nah, I'm pretty sure it is "Always look on the good side of life" from the Monty Python song.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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"?
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.
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
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.
Just like I told my insurance company: Oh, you say my house is gonna burn, do you? Prove it! Greedy fuckers.
sudo ergo sum
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.
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.
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
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.