Chinese Icebreaker Is Stuck In Ice After Antarctic Research Vessel Rescue 361
New submitter Cochonou writes "In an unforeseen turn of events, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long is now stuck in heavy Antarctic pack ice, just a day after its helicopter was used for the rescue of the passengers onboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy. The Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis, which is now carrying the passengers of the Shokalskiy, has been placed on standby to assist. The Chinese vessel is waiting for favorable tidal conditions on Saturday to make another attempt at freeing itself."
Unforeseen (Score:5, Insightful)
If you send a ship to rescue another ship from ice, and that ship gets stuck in ice... I don't think that's exactly an "unforeseen" event. They knew the ice was there. And building up fast. It's a humorous turn of events, sure, but hardly unforeseen.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:3, Insightful)
FTFY
Look, there are idiots on both sides of the isle You got the people who are no matter what going to say that man caused all the problems, there are those who will claim that the climate is not changing even when its clear that there is change, what is not clear is whether or not we caused the changes or if they are natural, and is there anything we can actually do to combat the change without causing unintended consequences or going broke from spending everything we have to make no difference whatsoever.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:2, Insightful)
What everyone needs to remember is that believers are idiots who think it is all or nothing, Man is causing the problem and there are no possible other reasons
Except that's a stupid proposition that is just untrue. Of course people who understand global warming don't think it's "All or nothing". It's cold where I am today, and that has nothing to do with the fact that this winter is still, on average, almost a degree warmer than a decade ago. Your placing yourself right in-between scientifically accurate and idiotically wrong just makes you wrong too. It doesn't make you a "reasonable moderate" it just makes you another willfully ignorant person who doesn't even begin to understand the basic science in question.
The presence of idiots doesn't even begin to justify that one "side" is entirely idiotic positions.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your the one that points out every storm or high temperature is PROOF of global warming.
No one is seriously doing that. The proof is in the absolute fuck-ton of easy to validate wide scale observational data, core sound principles(like absorption spectra of greenhouse gasses), and the staggering accuracy of mainline predictive theories.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and if weren't for the other parts of the post, that'd be a pretty good critique. It ignores the former(widescale observational data) and the latter(astounding predictive accuracy on primary variables, by mainline predictions, such as IPCC).
But yeah, if you ignore reality and data, it is "just a theory". Just like gravity
Re:Unforeseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody said anything about the helicopter having problems. However, the helicopter is from the Chinese ship that did get stuck, which is a polar resupply ship and not an full-fledged icebreaker. Even if it was an icebreaker, they have significant limits to how much ice they can break through. Therefore, it's not entirely unexpected for a ship, icebreaker or otherwise, to get stuck rescuing another icelocked ship than it is unexpected for a pickup truck to get stuck in mud trying to pull out a car from mud. It's less likely, but certainly not unforeseen.
Re:Unforeseen (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just remember now... (Score:2, Insightful)
...global warming is supposed to be melting all this ice.
... said the guy completely clueless to how chaotic systems work.
The "system" is determinist, not chaotic. If the weather is hot, its caused by global warming. If the weather is cold, its caused by global warming. If the predictions are wrong, there is still global warming. The "science" is settled, but if it has to be fudged to match predictions, then there is still global warming. If the predictions are right, it's, "Yeah! We were right. It's global warming!"
And, the followup is always, "give us money and your freedom because global warming!"
Re:It's still there? (Score:5, Insightful)
* consensus in this case means 90% or more, as there are always guys who disagree.
Consensus != Fact
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
This goes to the fallacy that we (humans who are alive right now) have solved all the problems and now know everything worth knowing. Think about it. The elites who persecuted Copernicus thought themselves wise and modern at the time.
Thus: while I will not necessarily assert that today's climate "consensus" is wrong, I do maintain that there is a very real possibility that we will someday discover it to be, at the least, inadequate. Every generation finds previous generations to have held some pretty stupid ideas.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The AGW bigots are kind of like Jehova's Witnesses. JWs, several times throughout their history, asserted the end of the world was coming. When the end failed to materialize -- each time -- the church would sidestep their inaccuracy with things like "well, we have 'new light' now." Or they'd flatly deny they ever said the end was coming, instead claiming they only meant a change of some sort was coming... and oh look, some kind of change did happen!
So how does this apply? When I was a wee lad, the "settled" climate science was that Earth was cooling, and we were careening head-on into a new Ice Age that was going to destroy us all. It wasn't just a tale, either -- they had mountains of data and the most sophisticated models the computers of the day allowed.
Then, as the science progressed a bit (and as the Coming Ice Age had failed to raise the requisite amount of alarm in the populace) it was decided that no, we're not cooling -- we're warming. In point of fact, the phenomenon was called "Global Warming". Pretty specific, that. Not, "we're not sure what's happening but it ain't good," but "it's definitely getting, and will continue to get, warmer, and we're all gonna fuckin' die!"
Then, as science, data collection, and computer modeling advanced yet further... "Global Warming" has been called into question. So much so, in fact, that many of the climate scientists of today will not use the phrase "Global Warming", but have chosen the trademark of "Climate Change". It's back to "we're not sure what's going on but we're all gonna die!" "Climate Change" is a delightfully vague yet alarming turn of phrase, and a stroke of genius.
So now, every time something odd, unusual, rare, extreme, or even normal happens with weather, it can be attributed to "Climate Change" -- because something changed, see? Climate Change equals different weather, so something in weather that didn't happen last year or the year before is now because of Climate Change.
This, kiddos, is what we call circular reasoning.
Go ahead, Climate Change bigots. Mod me down. I've got karma to burn. I could post AC, but I'm thumbing my nose at you.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, aside from the long term economic viability of my planet and region(which I consider a pretty big deal), I view ignorance, and particularly scientific ignorance a thing to be combated at every turn.
Re:It's still there? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was once consensus that bleeding patients was the cure for disease. There was once consensus that Earth was flat. There was once consensus that there was no relationship between eating citrus and preventing scurvy. And etc etc etc.
You mean before the use of the scientific method was the consensus?
You've set up a false equivalency comparing superstition and folklore to scientific inquiry. Science, by definition is open to reevaluation. Because humans are involved it isn't a perfect process. But if the scientific consensus on global warming is the equivalent of blood-letting with leaches then the opposition to the consensus is on the order of suffocating a patient with a stubbed toe to put him out of his misery.
Re:Hey dawg.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, most of the specific claims of specific models that are 15+ years old have been falsified, to a degree that should be embarrassing. Are current models vastly better? Maybe so, but the specific details of models are usually kept secret so how can we judge (until those models are old enough)?
Time will certainly sort the good science out from the bad, but IMO that hasn't happened yet, and structurally this area of research sure seems to shy away from the usual public culling of specific models by specific falsifiable predictions. "Average worldwide temperature increases, over a sufficiently long measurement period" doesn't cut it as a prediction - that sort of hand waving isn't science. merely fortune-telling. It's easy for a clever man to explain how Nostradamus's vague predictions were all accurate as well. Specificity is a requirement for falsifiability.
Re:Just remember now... (Score:4, Insightful)