Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Earth

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arctic Climate Change Study Canceled Due to Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • You heard it here first, and if you disagree you're a science-denier who should be sent to the reeducation camps.

    • by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 ) on Thursday June 15, 2017 @10:34PM (#54630619)

      OK, I know that you are trolling, but here is the relevant section from the article:

      Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

      He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

      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.

      • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer.earthlink@net> on Thursday June 15, 2017 @10:57PM (#54630713)

        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.

        • by Plus1Entropy ( 4481723 ) on Thursday June 15, 2017 @11:14PM (#54630757)

          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)

            by blindseer ( 891256 )

            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.

          • 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

        • Well, there are two types of ice which impede navigation - icebergs, and sea ice. Icebergs are indeed predicted to increase, glacial melting leading to greater calving rates, which then flow out of the arctic and into the north atlantic shipping lanes. With regards to sea ice, do recognise it is going to form in quantity so long as the earth remains habitable. Extended periods of 24 hour darkness will ensure that. Warmer, shorter winters though would precipitate the loss of multi-year ice banks, so a great
        • by shess ( 31691 ) on Thursday June 15, 2017 @11:59PM (#54630857) Homepage

          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... [nsidc.org]

          Of course, there are still outliers on top of the trend.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 )

          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

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )

          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.

          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.

          • 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

            • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Friday June 16, 2017 @07:45AM (#54632085)

              Can you give some examples of scientists predicting this phenomenon?

              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.

              • 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

                • 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 ?

                  • 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

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                      Because symbolism is important

                      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.

        • by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Friday June 16, 2017 @05:47AM (#54631671) Journal

          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.

        • 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.

      • Good. You manage to put your argument to bend the truth. Swings have been there in the past or not is unknown. Man set foot deep into arctic only 200 years ago. And you drive by professor is not going to think twice to lie again if swing in temperature does mot get worse. Like Arctic ice increased few years back to record levels
      • Perhaps they shouldn't go to the North Pole in June if they didn't want to see melted ice.

      • It totally makes sense that as the ice is reduced and thins, it will break apart more and start moving around.>

        Barber and the scientists were still on the Amundsen, the ice breaker was tasked with rescuing fishers on four fishing vessels from La Scie Harbour that were stuck in sea ice off Newfoundland's Baie Verte Peninsula.

        But, within sight of the boats, the Amundsen was called off from helping after it was discovered the ice was two metres thick - too strong for it to get through. U of M climate change study postponed due to climate change [winnipegfreepress.com]

        2 meters boy that's some thick ass ice multi-year ice

      • by Strider- ( 39683 )

        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.

    • pediatrician dies of childhood disease.
  • Well I guess that's a new reason to say "nothing to see here" compared to the usual denialist crap.

    • 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] 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]
      • by Muros ( 1167213 )

        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.

        A ship in the antarctic needed help from an icebreaker, people were helicoptered out in the meantime.

        Blah whatever, same story as above, the ship made its way out.

        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)

          by blindseer ( 891256 )

          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

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            Having one of them stuck while studying the "loss of sea ice" is just plain hilarious.

            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.

            • 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

              • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                We're talking about the Akademik getting caught in the ice in 2013

                No "we" are not. Remember what happened last year instead of 2013.

          • 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.

            • 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.

              • 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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

  • They saved 4 years and $17 million.
  • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

  • ...but it was cancelled because of snow.
    • 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)

    by knorthern knight ( 513660 ) on Thursday June 15, 2017 @11:39PM (#54630801)

    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>

    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      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

      • by Strider- ( 39683 )

        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.

  • that and icebreaker couldn't go out because there was too much ice. What kind of icebreaker can't sail near ice? Did they forget what the ship is designed for?
    • 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.

      • Wait, the icebreaker can't leave because it would break the ice that's keeping other ships from leaving? Unless the problem is that they need to keep the breaker around to rescue trapped ships, that makes even less sense.

        Which only makes it more perversely funny.

  • 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

  • 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

    • 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

      • 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.

"So why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here." -- Biff in "Back to the Future"

Working...