Arctic Climate Change Study Canceled Due to Climate Change (livescience.com) 155
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.
Global warming makes ice! (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe he has a text-to-speech program, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What? I can't hear you!
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:4, 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.
Re:Global warming makes ice! (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 [www.ipcc.ch]...
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.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2, 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 [wikipedia.org] was at its height, around the same time the Vikings were settling Iceland and Vinland [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That was regional warming. The G in AGW stands for global.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [www.ipcc.ch]...
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like I told my insurance company: Oh, you say my house is gonna burn, do you? Prove it! Greedy fuckers.
Re: (Score:3)
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... [nsidc.org]
Of course, there are still outliers on top of the trend.
Re:Global warming makes ice! (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [ccg-gcc.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2, 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 [slashdot.org] because they only mentioned the problems in the Antarctic and not the Arctic. In fact, they said t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 ju
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
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 on
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Global warming makes ice! (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Global warming makes ice! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they shouldn't go to the North Pole in June if they didn't want to see melted ice.
Re: (Score:2)
It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around.>
2 meters boy that's some thick ass ice multi-year ice
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Global warming makes ice! (Score:1)
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Well I guess that's a new reason to say "nothing to see here" compared to the usual denialist crap.
Only Way to Save Face (Score:2)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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... [slashdot.org]
Ship gets stuck in ice in the arctic circle in the depths of winter.
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
A ship in the antarctic needed help from an icebreaker, people were helicoptered out in the meantime.
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Blah whatever, same story as above, the ship made its way out.
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 wort
Re: (Score:2)
No "we" are not. Remember what happened last year instead of 2013.
Re: Only Way to Save Face (Score:3)
Ice breakers getting stuck is so not new.
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06... [nytimes.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Only Way to Save Face (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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 an
Re: Only Way to Save Face (Score:1)
Nobody cares if you play the violin. You are A person playing the violin, not THE person playing the violin.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell if you're a troll, idiot or a Trump follower of alternative facts.
It's all the same anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
But you admit that global cooling is a risk?
Re:Translation: Canceled because ice didn't melt a (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I got ice out of the pop machine at 7-11, so there can't be global warming. Boom, you alarmist libtards!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Liar. The story says the exact opposite of what you claim.
Think of the good side (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah they would of gotten stuck on the iceberg instead and have to call for a helicopter rescue.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 thin
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Perfectly foreseeable (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Perfectly foreseeable (Score:5, 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 [berkeleyearth.org] 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If oil and gas is a "real business", why does it require so many government subsidies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [nei.org] in recent decades?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 tha
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me how I planned a ski trip... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Been there.
More recently, though, most of my skiing trips are canceled because of a lack of it. Either sucks.
More details (Score:5, Informative)
See for more details https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
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... [nationalgeographic.com] is still fresh in people's minds.
Re: (Score:2, 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>
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Forget climate change, the funny thing is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Which only makes it more perversely funny.
Some clarifications to the liberal wacko summary (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
Marketing backfires (Score:2, 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
Re: (Score:3)
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 sound
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Idiots who can't RTFA! (Score:5, Informative)
Well done, not reading the article and substituting your preconceived notions which are the opposite of what the article says:
Re: (Score:2)
They could become shills for the fossil oil industry, it at least would be paid better.
Re: (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.