Antarctic sea ice saga

by Judith Curry

The drama and the irony of  the Antarctic expedition stuck in summertime sea ice.

The aim of the Spirit of Mawson expedition:
.
The Antarctic remains one of the last great unexplored regions on Earth. In spite of a century of discovery, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean remain a unique place to monitor the health of our planet. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition – the AAE – will truly meld science and adventure, repeating century old measurements to discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment.
.
On Dec 30, expedition leader Chris Turney writes:
.
It has been a sobering week. At the time we were initially caught by the sea ice, the Shokalskiy was just 2 to 4 nautical miles from open water. Now the sea ice distance has become even greater with the continued winds from the east, putting our nearest point of exit at some 16 nautical miles. 
.
Meanwhile on board the Shokalskiy, morale remains good and the team are pulling together in an extraordinary way. Everyone is working hard to support one another. Take a look at the video diaries on the Intrepid Science YouTube Channel to see what we are up to. We are all keeping busy, with twice daily briefings outlining all the information we have to hand, alongside classes through the day (knot tying, languages, yoga, photography and many others) while the science programme has continued as best we can.
Photos can be found at:  Daily Mail
.
The skeptics are having fun with this:
  • Marc Morano refers to this as ‘Clitanic
  • Josh has a cartoon
  • BishopHill sums it up with this statement: “the sheer majesty of the propaganda failure that Prof Turney and his colleagues have achieved.

JoNova has a comprehensive discussion, as does WUWT

Rescue efforts
.
A summary of the recent rescue efforts:
.
An Antarctic blizzard has halted an Australian icebreaker’s attempt to reach a Russian ship trapped for a week with 74 people onboard, rescuers said on Monday. A first rescue attempt by a Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon, had to be halted because the ice was so thick.

Now another attempt, by the Aurora Australis, has been hampered by the weather. It has had to return to open waters about 18 nautical miles from the Akademik Shokalskiy because of poor visibility, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), which is co-ordinating the rescue, said.

The BBC provides the latest on the rescue mission:

A rescue mission for a ship trapped in ice in Antarctica is under threat as reports have emerged that one of the assisting vessels may itself be stuck.

Fifty-two passengers and four crew members were due to be evacuated by helicopter from China’s Xue Long ship as soon as conditions allowed.

However, the Xue Long has barely moved in a day and may be stuck in the ice.

The Aurora Australis, is now understood to be planning to carve through the dense thick pack to assist the Xue Long.

The initial plan had been for a helicopter from the Xue Long to carry people in groups of 15 up from the pack ice next to the Shokalskiy.

The airlifted passengers would then be transferred by a small boat, deployed from the Australian icebreaker, onto the Aurora Australis.

The expedition members would then have travelled to Australia’s Antarctic base at Casey some four days’ voyage away.

However, if the Chinese vessel is also stuck and the Australian vessel cannot help it reach clear water, there will be no airlift.

Under the initial plan, the remaining crew members would have stayed on board until another, more powerful US icebreaker arrived in up to 10 days’ time, the BBC’s Andrew Luck-Baker reports from on board the Akademik Shokalskiy

However, it may now be that all of those on board may have to wait for the US icebreaker, the Polar Star, he adds.

A tweet from sadmaninagame sums it up:  Just as I suspected. The escape plan is to form a line of ships from the Antarctic to South America, and walk home.

Andy Revkin points out that these diversions of resources for the rescue are disrupting serious Antarctic science.
.
Stuck in their own experiment

FoxNews interviews expedition leader Chris Turney:

But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.

“We’re stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We … are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.

“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement.

Turney later told FoxNews.com the ice surrounding his ship is old, rather than recently formed, and likely from a particular 75 mile-long  iceberg that broke apart three years ago. Climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded, Turney said.

“The ice was swept across to this area by the South-East wind, its pieces creating a knock-on domino effect,” Turney told FoxNews.com, speaking from a tent erected on the stranded ship’s top deck. “We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

From an article at SFGate:

Turney had told journalists that his expedition wanted to collect data that could be used to improve climate models. Too bad the folks who are supposed to predict climate decades into the future are guided by scientists who could not manage to avoid ice floes during a five-week trip.

Climate changers usually warn about Arctic ice, which has been receding over the last few decades, but rarely address the overall growth of ice in Antarctica.

“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition acknowledges. It’s a conundrum. If warming is melting ice in the North, why isn’t it melting ice in the South?

Turney told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. that his goal is to excite the public about science. As for climate change, “in the scientific community, it’s remarkably solid.” And “self-evident.”

He pushes a framework of science being data-driven and free from politics. And yet it’s hard to escape the suspicion that whatever the icebound researchers experience, they will frame it as proof that climate change is unassailable.

Climate implications

In case you haven’t been following the Antarctic sea ice story, the Antarctic sea ice  extent shows a positive trend, with large positive anomalies the past two years.  A paper by Liu and Curry addressed this issue:  Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the hydrological cycle and sea ice.   The punchline for why Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing:

For the last half of the 20th Century, as the atmosphere warmed, the hydrological cycle accelerated and there was more precipitation in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica.  This increased precipitation, mostly in the form of snow, stabilized the upper ocean and insulated it from the ocean heat below. This insulating effect reduced the amount of melting occurring below the sea ice. In addition, snow has a tendency to reflect atmospheric heat away from the sea ice, which reduced melting from above.

Jinlun Zhang published a recent paper in Journal of Climatology entitled Modeling the Impact of wind intensification on Antarctic sea ice volume, which is discussed in an article by Michael Lemonick.  The punchline:

Zhang argues that about 80 percent of the growth can be explained by changes in the prevailing winds around the frozen continent; the remaining 20 percent, he suspects, might be the result of changes in ocean circulation.

There are a number of contrasting points and asymmetries between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.  Why is the Antarctic sea ice extent so high when the Arctic sea ice has been so low?  Well, natural variability combined with the fundamentally different geographies.

A paragraph from my text Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans:

At its maximum seasonal extent, sea ice covers approximately 8% of the surface area in the Southern Hemisphere and 5% in the Northern Hemisphere.  In the Southern Hemisphere, sea ice forms a seasonally-varying ring around the Antarctic Continent with relatively small meridional variations.  Most of the Antarctic sea ice is seasonal, with 80% of the ice disappearing by the end of the austral summer.  In the Northern Hemisphere, a perennial sea ice cover exists in the Arctic Ocean, which is essentially a landlocked ocean basin.  Strong meridional variations in the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover arise from the complex configuration of the Northern Hemisphere land masses and from variations in ocean currents.  In winter, the sea ice extends as far south as 45°N to the coast of Japan, while the warm Atlantic water flowing northward keeps the ocean ice free as far north as 80°N near Spitsbergen.

The Arctic ice is generally thicker than Antarctic ice, because most of the Antarctic  ice is first year ice.  The thickest most dangerous ice is icebergs calved from nearby glaciers.  The impact of sea ice on climate is through influencing surface albedo, influencing the exchange of heat between ocean and atmosphere (and the ocean surface temperature), and influencing the circulation patterns of both the atmosphere and ocean.  Hence there is a complex dance between the oceans, atmosphere and sea ice whereby their interactions both influence and are influenced by global climate change.

The predominant focus has been on Arctic sea ice, but the Antarctic sea ice is arguably equally interesting and important.

JC comments

While the stranded passengers seem to be partying like this is Gilligan’s Island and enjoying the adventure,  the rescue risk/cost is substantial. A post at WUWT reminds us of the ships that have sunk in Antarctic waters in the past decade.  As FoxNews reports:

Icebergs pose an even greater danger to the ship than the surface ice that now has the ship in its grip, because they can pierce the hull of a ship like the Akademic Shokalskiy, in a Titanic scenario. Lisa Martin, of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which is coordinating rescue attempts from their New South Wales headquarters told FoxNews.com icebergs have been seen in the area.

While science does not seem to be the predominant motive for this expedition, the expedition may serve to highlight the increasing extent of Antarctic sea ice, the importance of natural variability in influencing sea ice extent, and the role of weather processes in determining the variability of ice in any given year.  I don’t think this was part of any scientific objective for this expedition.

The expedition failure also highlights concerns about logistics of such expeditions, and why/how this happened in the first place.  I am familiar with the extensive efforts, planning, and superb logistics undertaken by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) for U.S. funded expeditions, somehow I don’t see this happening if this had been a U.S. expedition.  Perhaps since this expedition was more motivated by civic than scientific reasons, the same efforts were not undertaken.  But the influence of this expedition failure on canceling scientific research as vessels are diverted in rescue attempts has implications for international science and its coordination.

And finally, I return to the issue raised by BishopHill:  “the sheer majesty of the propaganda failure that Prof Turney and his colleagues have achieved.”  This angle seems to be downplayed in the media reports, but it seems fairly obvious that CAGW PR was a major part of this expedition.

473 responses to “Antarctic sea ice saga

  1. All theory is grey, but green life’s golden tree.

    H/t Goethe via J. Mieses.
    ==============

    • “Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

      “The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

      “‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’” (Mail Online)

    • Thanks, Wagathon, for that illuminating quote from Pak Brekke.

      We do not need to wait 10-15 years to know that the consensus claim of CO2-induced global warming was made without sound experimental evidence.

    • May this still-comical, small-scale reminder of the danger of policies and actions based on unreliable or blatantly false, consensus “models of reality”, remind us of the far more serious consequences of policies based of unreliable models of the cores of atoms and stars:

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/time-to-start-eating-the-dogs/#comment-305321

  2. Thanks for this bit humor in a deadly serious matter.

  3. “The expedition failure also highlights concerns about logistics of such expeditions, and why/how this happened in the first place. ”

    Will be addressing question shortly. Stay tuned.

  4. R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

    Your scientific explanations for some of the potential reasons for increased Antarctic sea ice were much appreciated, though will perhaps be missed or glossed over on the “globe is cooling” crowd– unfortunately.

    We can hope the crew and passengers are successfully recused from this potentially life-threatening adventure.

    • It’s obvious, but not often highlighted, that the polar areas are in many ways opposites: The Arctic is an ocean area surrounded by land, whereas the Antarctic is a continental mass surrounded by ocean. Both areas have approximately the same daylight-darkness cycles, but most everything else is different, and it’s just sloppy thinking to expect the areas to behave the same.

      The polar areas are seen as being the most sensitive to the (observed and) predicted global warming due to increasing CO2 levels. Yet these two areas seem to be divergent in response. My question is, which response is more likely to represent the response of the rest of the world?

      My off the cuff guess would be the Antarctic, since outside of Eurasia, the continents are readily defined by the oceans that surround them. Hydro cycles, moving all that water around, would seem to be the overwhelmingly dominant controlling factor for climate local and global. CO2 has to be a minor factor at best.

      I hope this expedition get everyone home safe, and is a teachable moment with attentive students….

    • Which GCMs predict the record high sea ice levels in Antarctica?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Yes, R Gates. I think you get it. Recused they should be.

  5. It’s a dilema.

    A) If the expedition was about science, then CAGW science seems to be somewhat clownish.

    B) If the expedition was CAGW PR, they must change their PR strategy.

    C) Both.

    Any case, that’s their problem.

  6. Chris Turney is displaying a severe case of cognitive dissonance. In steadfastly refusing to acknowledge best available data that tells us that global sea ice concentrations are in fact rising, he is demonstrating that his belief system can not handle the reality that one of its core tenets is being falsified by Mother Nature.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      So rather than actually look at what the science is telling us about Antarctica, you’d rather issue platitudes?

    • John Carpenter

      “In steadfastly refusing to acknowledge best available data that tells us that global sea ice concentrations are in fact rising…”

      The overall trend of best available data (whatever that means) is global SIE has been slightly declining over the last two decades.

      http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

      Arctic has seen a more rapid decrease than arctic increase.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      John C,

      Save your rationality and facts for those who actually care. Since the science doesn’t support the so-called “skeptics” to AGW positions, let them have their little mob feeding frenzies on the non-scientific tidbits as they can find them.. Try posting your rational fact-based data over at Joannova’s site if you want to see how sharks can mob you.

    • Rgates and John C,

      I call BS on you both. Apparently neither of you read either the paper referred to above or the NSIDC SOTC article on sea ice extent you refer to. And you go accusing everyone else of not noticing the science that doesnt support their worldview. Talk about irony!

      First, on the very article you refer to on sea ice extent on the NSIDC website, there is a chart that shows sea ice extent anomaly trend for both arctic (in blue) and antarctic (in red). This post is about the antarctic. so lets stick to antarctic. The antarctic sea ice trend shows a clear increase from 1972 to 2012, as the green house gases have increased over the same period. This trend is unmistakable and very clear from the chart . I have a hard time believing that both of you missed this one. I suspect it is more of the syndrome (of ignoring science that doesnt fit your worldview) that you accuse others of. Dont try and wriggle out of this, by quoting the text below that chart which says that some antarctic regions experienced strong declines. If we are going by regions, then we should limit the discussions to individual regions. The overall antarctic ice trend shows clear increase.

      Second, about what the paper concludes: if you look at the paper, it says the following about the 21st century antarctic sea ice (in the abstract and discussion sections):
      From the abstract: “With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.

      From the discussion section:
      As shown in Fig. 5, all three scenarios show a loss of the total Antarctic sea ice area over the 21st century (0.4 × 105 km2 per decade for B1, 2 × 105 km2 per decade for A1B, and 3.02 × 105 km2 per decade for A2), with the greatest loss occurring in the Atlantic and Indian sectors of the Antarctic.

      Unfortunately I dont know html enough to insert pictures. Otherwise I would insert both of them here. But you really cant miss the message from either of those charts, unless you really didnt understand them at all.

      That said, the conclusion about 21st century clearly isnt supported by the available observed data thus far from the SOTC website. You could argue that we need more data or we need better scrutiny of this paper and others etc. I havent done the research on this topic to conclude the paper is wrong. But something is amiss in that paper regarding their 21st century projections and the reasons they provide for the projection of declining antarctic ice. so unless you want to accept part of the paper that suits your agenda, you cant make any worthwhile conclusions on whether the reasons they provide for increase in 2nd half 20th century antarctic ice extent is correct or not.

      I have no idea whether antarctic ice is going to increase or decrease. much less the reasons for it. It could be increasing or decreasing due to warming or cooling. So I dont pretend to know. More importantly I suspect most of the climate scientists (of a science which is clearly at very early stages) dont know well either. I suspect most dont know good reasons for past climate observations, let alone future ones. My problem is with you pretending you know any better. Particularly using these 2 articles to pretend that those papers say something that you wish they did.

      But above all, for someone who didnt bother to read the paper in full, stop accusing others of cognitive dissonance, when you are clearly exhibiting exactly the samething , assuming you actually even understood what was said.

    • Maybe the discussion will be aided by a plot of total sea ice cover in km squared, rather than anomalies plotted independently, percentages, or other methods which may mislead the audience? Such a plot would probably show a slight increase in total sea ice when both hemispheres are combined.

    • The Global sea ice anomaly is currently positive at around +1 million square km. Let me reiterate. Currently global sea ice levels are roughly 1 million square kilometers ABOVE long term average.

      Antarctic has more sea ice overall so tends to dominate global sea ice statistics. The global sea ice anomaly graph shows ABSOLUTELY NO LINEAR TREND. Zero. Zip. Nada. And by coincidence the global sea ice anomaly today is roughly the same as it was 35 years ago in 1979.

      Climate scientists use language carefully and will talk about the “decline in Arctic sea ice”. The inclusion of the word “Arctic” here makes tthis statement techically correct. But omitting all mention of the Antarctic leaves the misleading impression that sea ice overall has declined. To me this smacks of deliberate deception by omission because surely they must KNOW that this will be misinterpreted.

      And many climate ecowarriers are indeed mislead. The giveaway is that they will speak of a decline in sea ice levels without using the careful qualifying word “Arctic”. They think global sea ice levels have actually declined. Climate scientists carefully say “Arctic sea ice levels have declined” and these people are hearing “OMG SEA ICE IS DISAPPEARING AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!”

      You have to bear in mind that many ecowarriers are scientifically pretty ignorant and get most of their scientific information from sources like the Guardian newspaper. Many would willingly sign a petition to ban dihydrongen monoxide. Misleading them is not exactly difficult. It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Thank you, Shiv.
      Nice catch.

    • John Carpenter

      Shiv, you need to read a little harder what I wrote.

      “Arctic has seen a more rapid decrease than arctic increase.”

      Now I’m not sure how you think you know I didn’t read the text you site or looked at the figures either, but your magical abilities to know this have failed you. As to the particular graph you assert I never looked at, please note what it says:

      “Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, 1979-2012: Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2012, but Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase, although some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent. Thick lines indicate 12-month running means, and thin lines indicate monthly anomalies. See the Arctic Sea Ice FAQ for more information. Image provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.”

      In particular look at this part:

      “Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2012, but Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase…”

      Compare with what I said:

      “Arctic has seen a more rapid decrease than arctic increase.”

      They look pretty similar, no?

      Now look at the context in which I said this. Tetris said:

      “In steadfastly refusing to acknowledge best available data that tells us that global sea ice concentrations are in fact rising,…”

      Note he used the word GLOBAL sea ice concentrations, not Antarctic. Again, turning to the figure you seem to know I never looked at, eyeball the slopes of the two trends. Note the slope for the arctic sea ice decline trend is steeper than the slope of Antarctic sea ice increase trend. From that one can infer that overall GLOBAL sea ice extent is a net decline. I was simply pointing out that the ‘best available data’ does not agree with his statement.

      Now to give Tetris the benefit of not being totally wrong, the current year appears to have a higher than average GLOBAL amount of sea ice. But it is only one year worth of data and in no way reverses the long term trend.

      You seem to believe that I am letting my worldview hinder my ability to evaluate the data as interpreted. Where in my statement did I give an opinion about the facts as they are presented by NCIDC? Did I offer some snarky comment to Tetris? Did you read my short comment at all? I can only assume you did, yet somehow in your imagination you turned me into some sort of ignorant buffoon that recklessly came to wrong conclusions and accused people of cognitive dissonance about information posted on the NCIDC website. How you came to those conclusions is beyond me to understand because what I wrote is pretty clear and easy to understand. I can only conclude you yourself are incapable of understanding what you read.

      This is further illustrated by your confusion about the difference between model simulations and actual data. The A1, B1 and A2 models predict Antarctic sea ice loss with increasing GHG. The actual data to date appears to contradict this, hey… Maybe the model is running a little hot. Funny, because same models tend to underestimate sea ice decline in the Arctic. The problem with GCM’s is they are poor at predicting decadal trends. Frankly, I think they run generally run hot all together, but hey, according to you I have an agenda that gets in the way of understanding climate science.

      Your inability to understand the factors that would promote sea ice decline or increase is your problem. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t give you any authority to say no one can understand it. It certainly doesn’t give you any ground to tell me I’m the one who doesn’t understand what I apparently didn’t read. A little advice… Read peoples comments carefully before going off half cocked accusing and asserting fantastical ideas to those commenters you clearly have a preconceived idea of with absolutely no evidence to back up. You are the definition of ignorant moron.

    • David Springer

      Is it just me or is Gates getting increasingly angrier and more obnoxious as the pause lengthens?

    • eyeball the slopes of the two trends.

      Not the best graphs to do this with. They are graphs of “standardised anomalies” which means the Arctic and Antarctic are using different scales (standardised means divide by the standard deviation of the anomaly which is different in each hemisphere). Also simply eyeballing the two graphs doesn’t take into account the different sizes of the icepack in each hemisphere. If you are interested in what global levels are doing you should look at a graph of global levels. Don’t try to guess by eyeballing graphs of standadized anomalies for each hemisphere.

      A graph of global sea ice anomalies in straightforward unirts of millions of square kilometers can be found here

    • John Carpenter

      Ian H, Fair enough comment. I agree that sea ice area is a better way to present global sea ice extent vs the individual anomalies presented in that graphic. However, if you even eyeball the graphic you link to, it is clear that from roughly 2000 to 2012 the trend appears to decline in the daily global sea ice anomaly and the daily global sea ice area and mean both clearly are lower peak to trough in the range from around 1996 – 2013 compared to 1979 – 1996. I would have to maintain that the overall trend is a slight decrease over the time period presented. A regression of the data would probably bear this out. It appears the data used to create the graphic is from the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA, NSIDC, U. Bremen as this was what was referenced at the U of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences website on the Cryosphere today page. I’m sure the data would be available to do such an analysis if one has not already been done somewhere.

      In addition, I would be careful throwing around “ecowarrior” generalizations as there are plenty of climate “skeptics” that fit the same characteristic mold…

      just sayin.

    • ‘Note he used the word GLOBAL sea ice concentrations, not Antarctic. Again, turning to the figure you seem to know I never looked at, eyeball the slopes of the two trends. Note the slope for the arctic sea ice decline trend is steeper than the slope of Antarctic sea ice increase trend. From that one can infer that overall GLOBAL sea ice extent is a net decline. I was simply pointing out that the ‘best available data’ does not agree with his statement.’

      Infer all you like – although it’s probably better to use actual data, wouldn’t you say? Like this:

      which clearly shows current GLOBAL sea ice area at ABOVE average, and while the anomaly line shows some variability, it doesn’t look like it has a clear trend to me – by cherry picking (removing the last few years) you could argue for a downward trend, but put those ABOVE average last few years back in and it goes away.

    • John C,

      Bluster and name calling cannot make up for lack of understanding of even the basic stats/math.

      The post is about antarctic sea ice and the paper referred to in the post is about antarctic sea ice. Did you bother to read either of those? what are you commenting here for, petty point scoring on an unrelated comment? even that you cant seem to be able to do. You take off an unrelated comment about global sea ice and still get the global sea ice extent “eyeball estimations” wrong. when you get caught on that rookie error, you point to the tetris’s comment on global sea ice as an excuse, your response to which is still wrong.

      Go look at the same NSIDC web page you pointed to again. There is no quantification of global sea ice anywhere on that page except for a section title referring to global sea ice. go ahead and look as long as you like. there is none. You eyeball and estimate something that shows complete lack of understanding of basic stats or chart reading. The two anomalies are plotted on the same chart wrt to their own standard deviations . Unless you manage to obtain the data sets and establish that the data sets have the same std deviation, you cannot eyeball or earball to add/subtract those quantities to come up with global sea ice extent. Now if you do have the data sets and the mean/std deviation on those data sets, by all means show us your hand. In looking at a different website, the std deviations look to differ by 2x. But I have no time to dig into this. But you should know that this is a basic mistake to eyeball total sea ice extent for the globe from std deviation based anomlay data. if you understood the chart you were seeing you wouldnt have come to that conclusion on global sea ice to correct tetris. This not withstanding the fact this entire worthless waste of time is a tangent unrelated to the post on antarctic ice in the first place.

      And you state “This is further illustrated by your confusion about the difference between model simulations and actual data. The A1, B1 and A2 models predict Antarctic sea ice loss with increasing GHG. The actual data to date appears to contradict this,”. You dont say, Sherlock! again you didnt read my reply carefully, did you? that is the entire point Im making on using the data from that paper to come to conclusions as in “That said, the conclusion about 21st century clearly isnt supported by the available observed data thus far from the SOTC website…..” . Read that paragraph before you lecture on models vs observations.

      Listen, you have exposed very little understanding of anything in this entire exercise. If I were you, I would stop digging while Im 10 feet in the ditch. Instead you would do better to learn some basics in stats, chart reading, reading comprehension and so on. And most of all stick to the topic of the post for your comments and stop wasting other people’s time! I have wasted enough of mine on this worthless journey. I should know better. apparenlty I need to learn not to waste my time with folks with limited understanding!

  7. And, as far as I know, the rescue they talk about is only for the scientists / journalists / tourists. All the crew is expected to remain on board, according to AMSA. So, either the crew doesn’t matter, or the situation is not so much live-threatening.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      Passengers always leave an endangered ship first, with the only exception being a crew member who was in serious medical condition already.

    • R. they are not talking about “first”, but “only”. And, if you risk lives to save the ship, you keep only an emergency crew. Not 22.

    • Latimer Alder

      The worrying part is when they talk about leaving just a ‘skeleton’ crew behind.

      Not sure I’d want to volunteer for such a mission, however much it might help the post-party weightwatching……..

    • Apparently the 22 crew members volunteered to remain with their ship.

    • Abandoning a ship at sea has legal consequences under the laws of salvage, which ios why crew are reluctant to do it. If they abandon ship then if the wind later shifts and the ice pack disperses leaving the ship afloat; anyone who lands on it could claim it.

    • Yes, they’re sailors. They would risk ending up in a gulag in Siberia.

  8. Neven seems to be suggesting that the ratio of first year to multi-year ice in the Arctic is fast approaching the Antarctic ratio as (one interprets) AGW leads to perishing of higher and higher amounts of summer ice in the northern ocean and evulsion of more and more shelf ice from the southern continent.

    How long before the Antarctic — and to what degree — may become more thickly forested with seagoing hulks than the Arctic once had been? And what Gilligan would venture such folly to build oil rigs or commercial freight routes in either, given the peril-leveraged expense of such rescues for the people, and far more amplified destructive impacts on the ecosystems north and south.

    • That’s a cute theory, Bart R. Can you link me to when it was first predicted?

      The shipping industry are big boys, and can look after themselves.

    • michael hart | January 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm |

      The shipping industry are big time flag of convenience parasites sucking at the teat of big government contracts, big government injections and big government favors while ever shirking responsibility for the harms they do. Where do you get the idea such a bunch of charity cases take care of themselves? Do you think they really pay even the full cost of icebreakers?

      And which theory? AGW? I believe that is generally regarded as originating with Arrhenius.

    • The shipping AGW industry are big time flag of convenience parasites sucking at the teat of big government contracts, big government injections and big government favors while ever shirking responsibility for the harms they do.

      There, fixed it for you.

    • Kneel | January 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm |

      Not to diminish your wit, I think the normally-nonsensical James Taylor presented it more clearly and convincingly: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

      Why are these people getting tax relief for this spending on marketing that serves themselves, on either side of any of these issues?

      Are they directly building a hospital for those who cannot afford medical coverage? Feeding the starving for no fee? Sheltering the homeless for no fee? Providing clothes to the destitute and desperate for no fee? Rescuing people lost or endangered through no fault of their own for no fee?

      No?

      Then they don’t deserve a tax break or gifts of government, any more than wealthy ship owners do.

      That said, let’s lay to rest the lie that Scientists are “alarmists” to ensure they get a big bite of some hypothetical government pie. Scientists clever enough to think up such a scheme would also need to be clever enough to realize that the lion’s share of the benefits of such a scheme would go to the policy actors and the solution enactors, not to any scientist at all, and that the more they succeed the less share of budget would go to Science at all, least of all to their own field. Raising the alarm on AGW is thereby an action contrary to the self-interest of any Scientist, so would be under rabbinical teachings for example considered the purest sort of virtue, one expecting nothing but personal loss for doing right for strangers.

      Savvy?

  9. Hopefully the students* on board the booze-cruise will have learned more than they expected, and the eco-tourists* who may have paid $8K+ for the experience will realize they have purchased some wisdom.

    (*I’ll leave it to them how they define themselves).

    I’d save the last bottle for the helicopter pilot, once he’s finished the job.

    • Latimer Alder

      I assume that the helio pilot will insist on his unexpected cargo being sober before coming on board….seems like it might be a long wait for that to happen.

    • Nay-chur is genuine
      and don’t yer fergit it.
      Say, jest when yer thought
      yer could safely advent-chure
      into the Antarctic
      in a ship_ not_an _ice_breaker,
      nay-chur reminds yer
      not ter take lightly
      the testing reality,
      climate’s vari-ability,
      sea-ice, tempests ‘n such like
      that test yer ass-umptshuns,
      ‘cos nay-chur is genuine,
      and don’t yer fergit it.

      beth_the_serf.

  10. Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

     The Australasian Antarctic Expedition’s ship being stuck in ice isn’t preventing the Expedition from doing what it intended to do ( see “We are going south to:” below), and the participants are having a good time partying and running around on the ice.

    Apparently, climate skeptics think it’s comical for people to accomplish objectives while enjoying the experience. I think that’s funny.

    We are going south to:
    1. gain new insights into the circulation of the Southern Ocean and its impact on the global carbon cycle
    2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
    3. use the subantarctic islands as thermometers of climatic change by using trees, peats and lakes to explore the past
    4. investigate the impact of changing climate on the ecology of the subantarctic islands
    5. discover the environmental influence on seabird populations across the Southern Ocean and in Commonwealth Bay
    6. understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns in the Southern Ocean and Commonwealth Bay
    7. produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay
    8. determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica
    9. provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future

    http://www.spiritofmawson.com/

    • michael hart

      Who is “We”, Max_OK, Citizen Scientist? That ship is currently going neither north, south, east, or west. It was also supposed to be a resupply ship for existing Antarctic projects. The net scientific-result of the “expedition” will probably be less than zero.

      That is really quite a pathetic wish list that could been written by a travel agent (and probably was).

      Please forgive me if you were being sarcastic.

    • “Apparently, climate skeptics think it’s comical for people to accomplish objectives while enjoying the experience. I think that’s funny.”

      I’ve come to believe that one’s climate position is a function of temperament and personality more than anything else. You alarmists among many other things simply have tin ears. It’s not your fault Max_Callow, Cub Reporter.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Michael Hart envies the members of the expedition for doing science and having a good time. He would prefer they fail and have a miserable time.

    • Thanks for a positive pro-science injection Max_OK

      But these nasty climate skeptics would probably even wish ill of children on a school science field trip if the kids were having fun doing it.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      In trying to understand Pokerguy’s sense of humor , I imagined him winning a poker tournament, and me laughing my butt off because he won. Well, that made me laugh at myself. So I guess Pokerguy likes to laugh at himself. That’s weird.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      lolwot said

      “But these nasty climate skeptics would probably even wish ill of children on a school science field trip if the kids were having fun doing it.”
      _______

      Grinches hope their negativity will have a depressing effect on others. It doesn’t work.

    • k scott denison

      Max, as a skeptic I find this situation far from comical. I find it to be deadly serious (literally). It is clear that the expedition was planned very poorly, which I believe would be the responsibility of the leader. Because of the failure to plan properly they have now put not only themselves, but other, innocent “bystanders” in real danger. In addition, they have cause the delay and possibly loss of other research as vessels who were scheduled for other projects are now obligated to assist this merry band of misfits.

      That anyone thinks it is OK for a group whose poor planning out other people’s lives at risk is, to me, the height of irresponsibility. That those on board choose to party while others are risking property (boats) and life to rescue them is, to me, the height of arrogance and immaturity.

      We should all be condemning the lack of planning, asking who is responsible and demanding that they be held accountable.

      Shame on you for saying that it is OK for the leaders of this incompetent expedition to party while others risk life and limb to save them. Shame on you.

    • michael hart

      Actually, I’m fairly confident that all will escape without physical injury, and they will have the opportunity to learn from the experience. If they don’t, it won’t be my fault.

      You, on the other hand, appear to represent people who seem to be positively desirous of harm to the whole of humanity as a result of carbon dioxide.

      I think you shall be disappointed. I also think it is partly your fault that many will suffer physical and economic depredations before your failed hypothesis is run out of town.

    • @Max_Callow, Cub Reporter, “..likes to laugh at himself.”

      I suspect you’re very young, Max. I’d be amazed…not to mention depressed…if you’re older than mid-20’s. In any event, if you can’t laugh at yourself then you’re taking yourself too seriously, which as it happens is another common trait among you alarmists…

    • Chris Quayle

      Max Ok:

      That’s the way I read it as well. Sounds like a really interesting expedition. People can cast aspersions about the motives, but it’s the results and data generated by the expedition that will add to the sum of knowledge. If the raw data is made available, then there should be no room for fudging of the results.

      Bad luck that they got stuck in the ice, but even the best laid plans can come adrift, especially in a place like that. Let us be generous and wish them the best of luck and hope they have fun doing it

      Chris

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      pokerguy, I laugh at myself at every opportunity. It’s lots of fun. It’s even more fun to laugh at others, which I also do at every opportunity.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      k scott denison
      Max, as a skeptic I find this situation far from comical. I find it to be deadly serious (literally).
      _______
      k scott, it’s good of you to be concerned, but science is discovery, and discovery sometimes requires taking risk.
      Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Chris Quayle, thank you. I sometimes wonder if skeptics appreciate how science is done.

    • k scott denison

      Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      k scott denison
      Max, as a skeptic I find this situation far from comical. I find it to be deadly serious (literally).
      _______
      k scott, it’s good of you to be concerned, but science is discovery, and discovery sometimes requires taking risk.
      Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
      ——–
      So, a “scientist” pulls together an expedition that is part science, part PR and part tourism (remember his family is on board) and then prepares it poorly. So which is it, arrogance, incompetence or both?

      Please open your eyes. This expedition has PUT OTHERS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY. That, Max, is irresponsible and those in charge should be held accountable and, yes, ridiculed. If for no other reason than to help ensure others don’t behave so irresponsibly in the future.

    • “Please open your eyes. This expedition has PUT OTHERS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.”

      Oh spare us your crocodile tears.

      Your motive here is guided entirely by your hatred of those on the ship.

      If you didn’t hate them you wouldn’t be so fixated on the situation.

      Stop trying to pretend you are worried about the welfare of others when it is clear you are just exploiting the situation for your political ends.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Max_OK, citizen scientist: The Australasian Antarctic Expedition’s ship being stuck in ice isn’t preventing the Expedition from doing what it intended to do ( see “We are going south to:” below), and the participants are having a good time partying and running around on the ice.

      They are having fun up til now, but they are in some danger. So let’s wait a while on that one.

      Are the scientists actually doing any of what they set out to do? They are ice bound and can’t study anything except surface conditions in one locale.

      With modern technology, is the crew guilty of negligence or dereliction of duty? Who gave the (I am imagining this): “Don’t worry, go right ahead into those ice floes”? or some such.

    • k scott denison

      Hatred for no one here. Just a lack of tolerance for incompetence when it puts others at risk unnecessarily.

      And I will request you stop in your attempts to put words into my mouth, thank you.

    • Max_OK,

      Thanks for posting the objectives of their mission, I think this one bears repeating

      2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by THE GROWTH OF EXTENSIVE FAST ICE and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay[my caps]

      Yet we’re told by the “skeptics” that they were expecting to see melting ice. Anyone would think that they were intent on making cheap shots without any attempt to understand the facts and based on silly prejudice.

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: “Please open your eyes. This expedition has PUT OTHERS AT RISK UNNECESSARILY.”

      Oh spare us your crocodile tears.

      No crocodile tears from me. I think someone in the crew or the scientific team was negligent. At least it should be investigated. There is still some risk that the ship may be capsized, some passengers lost (e.g. in a helicopter crash or some such), or other mishap.

    • Berényi Péter

      Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 1, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
      Michael Hart envies the members of the expedition for doing science and having a good time. He would prefer they fail and have a miserable time.

      One week on

      Meanwhile on board the Shokalskiy, moral remains good and the team are pulling together in an extraordinary way. Everyone is working hard to support one another. Take a look at the video diaries on the Intrepid Science YouTube Channel to see what we are up to. We are all keeping busy, with twice daily briefings outlining all the information we have to hand, alongside classes through the day (knot tying, languages, yoga, photography and many others) while the science programme has continued as best we can.

      I can see how classes in knot tying and yoga through the day are a great leap forward in science, moreover, this kind of knowledge could never be acquired anywhere else on the face of Earth but under the most extreme conditions along the desolate shores of Antarctica while trapped in thick ice which threatens to crash the hull of their vessel. However, it remains an utter mystery how these profound scientific activities are able to boost their morale by simply forcing them to have a good time.

    • I can’t say that knot tying and yoga are exactly my cup of tea (I’m more of a pilates man myself) but I suppose they might be interesting enough distractions in the circumstances given the need to fill the time in addition to whatever scientific activities might be possible.

      But hey, why bother to show a bit of empathy for their position when you can just BACAI.

    • I believe this thread would benefit from extensive use of the /schadenfreude tag. I also think that in their haste to count their own PR coup, some skeptics are seeming quite callous. I think a lot of shutting up about this event would be good for all concerned.

    • lolwot said “But these nasty climate skeptics would probably even wish ill of children on a school science field trip if the kids were having fun doing it.”

      Hey – climate skeptics are not the ones with the little red buttons blowing kids all over the classroom.

      These guys organised a media circus only to find themselves cast in the role of clowns. They deserve a little laughter. However none of us wishes any harm to come to them.

    • This has been another enlightening example of the denizens antipathy to science and their desperate grasping at anything to attack those doing sience that they don’t like.

    • Max, they were on land for 2 days OK?

      Lets divide your 12 points into

      Aspirational and practical and unbelievable

      Practical
      6. understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns
      They shot the baby seals Max, and their mothers, gutted them and examined their stomach contents [from the expedition notes]. I understand the leopard seal population experienced a sudden and severe Polar bear moment
      which made 8. true “8. . determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica”
      and 7 false 7. produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay as the seals were dead.
      5. discover the environmental influence on seabird populations they had a feed on the seal carcasse remains Bird population up
      Birds trapped and gutted bird population down net effect zero.
      9. provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future perhaps baseline data to avoid looking foolish in future?

      Now unbelievable 1, 1. gain new insights need a brain , not a dogma for that
      3 and 4 involve subarctic islands not sure if they landed on any unless you count Tasmania

      Finally aspirational
      2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
      They certainly are achieving that beyond their wildest dreams

    • Chris Quayle

      Max_Ok

      “I sometimes wonder if skeptics appreciate how science is done.”

      Well, turning any issue into a them an us scenario isn’t science, imho and suggests that emotion, not hard logic and reason are in charge. In the end, science is about facts and doesn’t take sides.

      Anyway, a Happy & Prosperous New Year to you all and remember to guard against the hardening of the attitudes :-)…

      Chris

    • I’ll admit to being surprised if much “science” comes out of this.

      But then based on publications from the like of Gergis and Lewandowski, what passes for science down under appears to be very broadly (and loosely) defined.

  11. Curious George

    If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you are a professor of climate change, every event is caused by a climate change.

    • Latimer Alder

      If you are a Professor of Climate Change surrounded by increasingly belligerent (and unsober) tourists demanding to know ‘So how did you get us into this mess, Prof?, and how are you going to get us out of it?’…and with the prospect of some very big bills to pay on your return from your summer boozecrooze, then ‘climate change’ is probably the best you can do.

    • +1

  12. “It’s old ice.”

    Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t I’m not equipped to say. But holy crap, what idiots.

    • Latimer Alder

      In the UK, much fun was (and still is) made of the railway companies who blamed ‘the wrong kind of snow’ on a spate of locomotive breakdowns.

      Using the age of the ice seems to be about as futile an excuse.

  13. Grateful this morning that I’ve lived to see another new year along with the most magnificently humiliating own goal I can recall.

    Their cluelessness beggars belief.

  14. The Chinese helicopter will need to make five flights. The Barge will need to make four trips between ships. This is not a cake walk. How far from Mawson’s hut are they and do they have the gear to allow all to walk there if the ships hull ruptures? Is it big enough to accommodate the party?

    • At a certain point, don’t they have to start worrying about the ice piercing the ship?

      Party on you clueless alarmists while the expense and danger to others involved in your rescue continues to mount.

      I wish you all a safe return, but a little humility would be well advised right about now.

    • michael hart

      In the Spirit of Shackleton, commenter “Siff’ at The Guardian suggested
      “Abandon ship, walk to Elephant Island carrying a small boat. Cross to South Georgia. Walk across South Georgia in 48 hours. Easy.”

    • Steven Mosher

      60 km. The hut could fit 18. Looks like they have at least two atvs. Probably not a good plan

  15. I want to highlight Judy’s “[w]hile science does not seem to be the predominant motive for this expedition”

    There are 18 PhD students on this expedition. Six (1/3) work on the Antarctic. The others (2/3) work on the North Atlantic, Australia’s coastal waters, brain injury, Iceland, New Zealand’s North Island, urban climates, pedagogy, the Equatorial Undercurrent, pharmaceuticals, statistics, microbiology, and Siberia.

    • Latimer Alder

      Wow…that’s a lot of trainee academics. Pity they didn’t include some practical skills as well.

      Like navigation, keeping a lookout, meteorology, commonsense. And that man who used to ride by the Emperors in Rome whispering ‘remember you’re just a man’, lest their conceit and arrogance overwhelmed them.

      Given their complete unsuitability for and incompetence in this ‘expedition’, I don’t think I’d buy a used car from any of them. And definitely not a global energy/governance policy. Sorry Chris.

    • Latimer thinks that scientists pilot the ship on a science expedition?.

      Does Latimer also think kids drive the bus on a school science field trip?

      If the bus gets stuck does Latimer gleefully insult the kids, calling them arrogant, conceited and incompetent? School should have bought along someone who knew how to drive a bus instead! Not kids!

      Those damn kids and their science! they sure learnt a lesson today! ha ha ha! (hope they get run over that would be the icing on the cake!)

    • k scott denison

      lolwot – the scientists chartered this ship and crew. If the chose poorly then yes, that is their responsibility. And if you haven’t seen it, they had to reached out yesterday to WUWT and WeatherBell for quality weather data. Of course, they really didn’t know whom to call so reached out through the USCG I believe. Story at WUWT.

      THE LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE OF THIS EXPEDITION SEEMS TO BE UNBOUNDED.

    • I can remember visiting the Grand Canyon in Arizona in 1964 as an 11 year old. The National Park Service ranger told about the rescues (and yes, a few recoveries of remains) from careless and clueless hikers into the canyon. His comment of “This isn’t Disneyland” has remained with me. Most of us live far removed from nature and we forget it’s power and dominance- until the power goes out. A blizzard is headed towards my corner of New England tomorrow and I am preparing.

    • k scott denison: “If the chose poorly then yes, that is their responsibility.”

      And if they didn’t choose poorly?

      No, you’ve already decided haven’t you, to fit your anti-science agenda.

    • k scott denison

      Lolwot, I am very much pro-science. What I am anti is irresponsible people putting others at risk unnecessarily. They need to be hel accountable for their actions.

    • “What I am anti is irresponsible people putting others at risk unnecessarily. They need to be held accountable for their actions.”

      Like climate deniers will be held accountable for the risk caused through their denial of AGW?

    • k scott denison

      Sure, show me the real and measurable risk.

    • k scott denison

      Do you deny that Tuney et al have put others at real, measurable risk?

    • How about the risk of triggering a tipping point.

      Kind of like getting a ship stuck in ice.

    • “Do you deny that Tuney et al have put others at real, measurable risk?”

      Who has he put at risk?

    • @lolwot
      I don’t know who made the decision to sail into the ice. Everyone on board is at risk, though, as are the crews of the rescue ships.

    • michael hart

      The people in a ship that might be tipping?

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: Latimer thinks that scientists pilot the ship on a science expedition?.

      That’s something I expect we’ll find out.

    • David Springer

      lolwot | January 1, 2014 at 2:05 pm |

      “Does Latimer also think kids drive the bus on a school science field trip?”

      Equating climate scientists and graduate students to children on a school bus.

      Apt. Freudian?

    • “Do you deny that Tuney et al have put others at real, measurable risk?”

      “Who has he put at risk?”

      “Like climate deniers will be held accountable for the risk caused through their denial of AGW?”
      **************
      Who’s the “denier” loIwot? It’s time you were held accountable.

      I bet you deny that thousands died or put at risk from misguided policies like Ethanol use and inadequate planning for snow removal just to name a few.

  16. “The skeptics are having fun with this”

    Not really going to help their anti-science and nastiness image problem is it? A couple of skeptics have even been caught wishing for the scientists to die.

    “And finally, I return to the issue raised by BishopHill: ”the sheer majesty of the propaganda failure that Prof Turney and his colleagues have achieved.” This angle seems to be downplayed in the media reports, but it seems fairly obvious that CAGW PR was a major part of this expedition.”

    Look, the propaganda going on here is by climate skeptics like Bishophill. They need to frame this event a certain way to have their “fun”.

    I don’t know what you mean by “it seems fairly obvious that CAGW PR was a major part of this expedition” for example. You seem to be believing the skeptic framing unquestionably. You provide no evidence. I would expect such a key and critical claim to require evidence.

    Have you read any of the stuff from the expedition before it was caught in ice?

    http://www.spiritofmawson.com/a-full-day-of-sub-antarctic-science/

    I don’t see any PR or propaganda in there. There’s a lot of science in there that has no relation to climate change even. Sure it looks more like educational field trip level science than cutting edge stuff, but so frickin what?

    One of the angles of skeptic propaganda I have noticed has been to claim that the expedition isn’t doing real science because it isn’t cutting edge and therefore it must just be all propaganda. You’ve somehow bought into that idea.

    Here’s another big clue you should have caught from what Turney said:
    “Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted”

    Do you really think Chris Turney went out to Antarctica to prove the sea ice had melted? Of course you don’t. You must realize like Turney that’s a silly suggestion.

    But why then aren’t you realizing where that silly suggestion came from?

    You know where it came from. It’s climate skeptics “having fun”. Their fun is based entirely on lies and silly suggestions.

    • Latimer Alder

      @lolwot

      ‘Sure it looks more like educational field trip level science than cutting edge stuff, but so frickin what?’

      Actually seems to be a photo-op for the grauinad and BBC (climate propaganda arms) with attached ‘Spring Break Antarctic Style’ for a bunch of well-financed 20 somethings.

      And they’re the best New Year present the sceptics could hope for.

    • Iolwot

      A prime aim of the expedition was to discover and communicate the environmental changes going on in the region.

      It say so in their sales brochure;

      http://www.spiritofmawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AAE_Leg2_itinerary_02.pdf

      I certainly don’t wish the science team and their media people -from such as the Guardian and BBC- any ill will and hope they get out of there safely, together with the various members of the public who perhaps were not fully prepared for what has happened.

      tonyb

    • “A prime aim of the expedition was to discover and communicate the environmental changes going on in the region.”

      What’s wrong with that?

    • “Actually seems to be a photo-op for the grauinad and BBC (climate propaganda arms) with attached ‘Spring Break Antarctic Style’ for a bunch of well-financed 20 somethings.”

      I’ll ignore the financial/age jealousy you’ve just bizarrely thrown in there, and focus on your conspiracy theory instead.

      Please provide evidence to back your claim that the expedition was financed (or what are you suggesting?) for the BBC or Guardian. I think you have the wrong country for a start!

      Look science is going to happen. So will education. Both are good. Sometimes there will be educational trips where people can do science in remote places. Some people might dare to even pay to go! How shocking!

      I suspect like so many climate skeptics you really don’t get this concept of doing science, or perhaps you don’t want to get it because you want your “fun” (?)

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      lolwot said

      You know where it came from. It’s climate skeptics “having fun”. Their fun is based entirely on lies and silly suggestions.
      ______

      Yes, this episode shows what a sorry lot climate skeptics are. But these bitter old fuddy-duddies also are amusing.

    • “Look science is going to happen. So will education. Both are good.”

      Especially when Warmers suffer for it. ;)

      Andrew

    • Max_OK, thanks for injecting some positive pro-science here

    • John Carpenter

      “The AAE has a team of scientists who are world experts in the natural and physical sciences while also being passionate about science communication. To help with this, the AAE is using the latest satellite technology to support a full range of social media, including Google+ Hangouts on Air, Twitter and YouTube, to report our first findings directly to you live from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. We want our findings to reach the public and policy makers as soon as possible. ”

      http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-support-antarctic-science-and-exploration

      lolwot, please note the last sentence. First hand evidence of AGW to use as PR for the public and policy makers was a key part of this expedition. If this was purely a science expedition, why the need to get the news out to policy makers as soon as possible? Do you think the intention was to get findings out that were contrary to AGW? Unfortunately for Turney and the AAE they unwittingly did more harm than good for the cause. Once again, science communication at its best. “Skeptics” have every reason to have fun with this PR debacle.

    • catweazle666

      Poor lolwot!

      I’s not going you lot’s way, is it?

      AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

    • “If this was purely a science expedition, why the need to get the news out to policy makers as soon as possible?”

      Unless you deny the climate is changing, policy makers need to know how it is changing and is likely to change in the future in order to decide on policy.

      You cannot divorce science concerning a changing climate from this.

    • k scott denison

      If science why bring your family?

    • false dilema

    • Robert Austin

      lolwot | January 1, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

      “A prime aim of the expedition was to discover and communicate the environmental changes going on in the region.”

      What’s wrong with that?

      Lolwot just can’t seem to comprehend that this statement is just oozing with confirmation bias.

    • We know there are environmental changes going on in that region Robert. That’s beyond dispute. Try again.

    • Thanks to lolwot and Max_OK for injecting some much needed sanity here. The people here who have really beclowned themselves are the skeptics with their reaction to these events, which has been at best laughable and at worst dishonest and downright offensive. It’s a shame that Dr Curry decided to jump on their bandwagon, not just because it makes her look as foolish as them (or more so given her position) but because it has obscured the interesting scientific points about Antarctica in her post.

    • lowlot:

      Please provide evidence to back your claim that the expedition was financed (or what are you suggesting?) for the BBC or Guardian.

      So they took those photos with the Guardian banners for scientific purposes, did they?
      Or perhaps just for fun?

    • lolwot,

      Nice job keeping up with the folks you claim are nasty and anti-science.

      I’m remainded of the line about it often being better to remain silent and let people think you are slow minded, rather than speaking up and proving it.

  17. Here is the book written by Douglas Mawson himself in 1914 giving his own account of the expedition.

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mawson/douglas/home/complete.html

    This item from 1932 demonstrates the amount of warming seen at the Antarctic since the mid 1800’s and later;

    “This 1932 article demonstrates that, unlike the modern era, the warming affected both poles whilst highlighting the continued retreat of the glaciers generally and in Greenland and Alaska specifically;

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667?searchTerm=greenland%20%20melting&searchLimits=

    “Some great world change is taking place on the Antarctic Continent. Its glaciers are shrinking. L.A. Bernacchi, who visited the South Polar land 30 years ago, says that the Great Ice Barrier which fronts the continent with a wall of ice for 250 miles has receded at least 30 miles since it was first seen and surveyed. Sir James Ross…on the earliest Antarctic expedition of the nineteenth century, and those who followed him, left clear descriptions of this tremendous ice frontage and its position. It was a cliff 150ft. high and 1000ft. thick. But now it appears to be continuing its century-long process of shrinking; and that process may have been going on for centuries. It might imply, unless it is offset by some increase of ice in another less explored part of the Antarctic, that the climate of the South Pole is changing and becoming warmer. The shrinkage of the Alpine glaciers of Europe is a well-known and carefully measured fact. Professor Buchanan, of. Edinburgh, drew attention to it twenty years ago, and showed from old and accurate drawings of (many) that they were retreating rapidly. This led to the continuous measurement of the Swiss glaciers (and) examination of other glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland, Alaska, and elsewhere. Prom these measurements many geologists concluded that the northern part of the globe was still recovering from the last of its Ice Ages, of which the more southerly of its glaciers in Europe were a relic. If all the glaciers of the Southern Hemisphere as well as those of the Northern are shrinking, the geologists would have a new problem to examine. It would be whether, instead of areas of cold and ice having shifted on the earth, the whole globe is growing warmer. Even if that could be shown the change might prove to be temporary.”

    tonyb

  18. Jim Cripwell

    The best commentary I have seen is at http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/31/expedition-on-the-cheap-did-organizers-recklessly-negligently-put-lives-and-property-at-risk/

    I think Pierre has nailed it, and there is not much more to say. I suspect had this disaster occurred on someone’s national territory, there would be a mandatory enquiry by some sort of Transport Safety Board. Since this is in international waters, I doubt that a thorough enquiry will result, and as a consequence we may never know what really happened.

  19. From the aim of expedition (I assume it was written by Chris Turney) it says ,
    ” . . . .Antartica and the Southern Ocean remain a unique place to monitor the health of our planet. ”
    Really ? That sounds like a tremendously ‘alarmist’ and exaggerated statement. Not sure I would want a doctor who would check just feet to when monitoring my OVERALL health.

    And about Turney, I saw at WUWT, a comment by Steve McIntyre, about Turney:

    Steve McIntyre says:
    December 30, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Together with Joelle Gergis, Turney was also co-leader
    of the AUS contribution to the PAGES2K climate
    reconstruction. Turney was one of the coauthors of
    Gergis et al, discussed last year at Climate Audit.

    So thinking that Turney made this ‘expedition’ just for science . .? Sure . . .

  20. Chief Hydrologist

    “Sunlight falling on Earth is about 7% less intense in July than it is at our closest approach to the Sun in January,” says Roy Spencer of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center. You might expect northern summer to be cooler because it occurs when Earth is farther from the Sun. Not so, explains Spencer. “The oceans and land on Earth are not evenly distributed around the globe. The northern hemisphere has more land; the southern hemisphere has more water. This tends to moderate the impact of differences in sunlight between perihelion and aphelion.” http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast30jun_1m/

    It is all relevant – but is the important metric here summer solstice insolation at 65 degree north?

    Btw – congrats Max_OK – you have at last posted what might pass for substantive comment. Drop the climate warrior crapola – and you might make some progress.

    I am not sure I am really surprised that Antarctic Ice is resisting melting – and as far as weather is concerned – sh_t happens as they say.

    However – the post is The expedition seems funded in part by the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. A hugely venerable organisation founded in 1888.

    http://www.anzaas.org.au/about-anzaas/

    They financed at least part of the expedition – and I have not been to ascertain their sources of funding. Their annual report is missing from the new website. I expect it is a mix of government and private source – and I have absolutely no problem with that. This expedition seems a signature public relations exercise – that has blown up in their faces. Well – no publicity is bad publicity.

    It’s intention was to follow Douglas Mawson’s travels and repeat his observations. A reasonable enough objective. Mawson is an Australian hero – past presidint of ANZAAS – and I note a keen advocate of whaling and sealing in Antarctica. Mawson was the reason Australia was able to claim so much of the territory. Mining is currently banned by the Antarctic Treaty. No great loss – it is all under 4 kilometres of ice.

    Rescues in the Southern Ocean are quite common – that’s why we have the capability. It gives them something practical to do rather than merely exercises. Real life training opportunities – without much risk to anyone.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      However – the post is (about) the expedition (which) seems…

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Chief said

      Btw – congrats Max_OK – you have at last posted what might pass for substantive comment. ”
      ______

      Chief, thank you. It’s hard for me to tell which comment you have in mind, since I think almost all of my comments are substantive.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Well we will have to agree to disagree Max. There is only one comment from you ever that marginslly approached substantive. It is quite obviously mostly school yard level snark. I encourage you to do a lot more more reading – and try putting your brain in gear before engaging your mouth.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The 7 day Antarctic forecast is easily accessible from the BOM website.

      The ship was built in 1983 for polar exploration and refitted in 1998. It is ice strengthened.

  21. Anthony, when he heard the expedition was looking for good weather forecasts, jumped to help.

    “WUWT and WeatherBell help KUSI-TV with a weather forecasting request from ice-trapped ship in Antarctica Akademik Shokalskiy”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/wuwt-and-weatherbell-help-kusi-tv-with-a-weather-forecasting-request-from-ice-trapped-ship-in-antarctica-akademik-shokalskiy/

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The 7 day Antarctic forecast is easily accessible from the BOM website.

      The ship was built in 1983 for polar exploration and refitted in 1998. It is ice strengthened.

      When I start losing the thread – I usually take it as a sign not to continue.

    • “What’s even more amazing is that a climate scientist would charter such a poorly outfitted ship.”

      What’s amazing is that you have no evidence the ship was poorly outfitted.

    • Chief Hydrologist - you lucky basterd

      What’s more amazing is that the ship was built for polar exploration – and is ice strengthened.

    • It’s one of ten similar research ships built in Finland for Soviet Union in 1980s. It’s strengthened for heavy ice loads but not powerful enough to move in thick packed ice, only the most powerful ice breakers are powerful enough for that.

    • 75K horsepower for this ice; the Polar Star has that and more.
      ============

    • Who needs weather forecasting when you are in the temporal nexus of global warming?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Wow. They obviously have communications. Perhaps they should download something useful instead of wasting time and effort with Watts and D’Aleo – if indeed this isn’t just total nonsense.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/ant/observations/antall.shtml

      http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=windbarb&level=10m&tz=AEDT&area=SH&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+View

    • k scott denison

      That they are reaching out for better weather info at this point is amazing. Seems the incompetence of the expedition leaders shows no lower bounds.

    • Somebody at Scripps is going to be cleaning heads with his toothbrush for months.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      That was an entertaining story from WUWT. It’s amazing to think this ship would actually go into Antarctic waters without the very latest in satellite and sea ice tracking technology. This would reflect poorly on the captain and navigational crew– but then again, even with the latest technology conditions can change unpredictably, especially for how the sea ice is moving. The fact that even an experienced “rescue” ship (with presumably the latest technology (i.e. they wouldn’t have to make a phone call!) got stuck, tells you how dangerous and unpredictable that area is..

    • Rgates

      Here is the sales brochure produced in order to get some paying customers on to the boat.

      http://www.spiritofmawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AAE_Leg2_itinerary_02.pdf

      It is difficult to believe that the organisers would obtain a ship that wasn’t up to spec so we must assume that it is the norm for the tourist cruise ships to be not as well equipped as they might be in view of the hostile conditions.

      We see adverts for these cruises in our newspapers quite often and I always think how dangerous it sounds and assume the ships must be stuffed full of the latest safety equipment

      Tonyb

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Chief Hydrologist said
      “Wow. They obviously have communications. Perhaps they should download something useful instead of wasting time and effort with Watts and D’Aleo – if indeed this isn’t just total nonsense.”
      ______

      Chief, you are right. Even I would have know to look for a weather web site from a country near the antarctic for antarctic weather forecasts rather than contact my local TV station.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Of course Tony.

      Our ship, the Shokalskiy, is a true expedition vessel. Built in 1984
      for polar and oceanographic research, she is fully ice-strengthened. This class of vessel is world renowned for polar exploration, because of its strength, maneuverability and small passenger numbers. With a maximum of 26 berths available to the public to join as members of the AAE, we are able to offer a unique expedition experience.

      Again –

      In mid February 2010 a massive iceberg collided with the floating tongue of the Mertz Glacier, just west of Mawson’s Huts. The collision precipitated the calving of another massive iceberg called C28, measuring 78km long and 35 km wide. C28 is now grounded at the entrance to Commonwealth Bay. It provides both an obstacle to accessing Commonwealth Bay and a great opportunity for scientific study. Since 2010 it has not been possible to access Mawsons Huts by sea so there is some chance that we will also be stopped from accessing the huts. However we do have remote controlled drones and over-ice vehicles onboard our vessel to improve our chances of access.

      It is important that you aware that this is not a regular tourist voyage to Mawsons Huts. The heavy ice around these massive stranded icebergs does create a significant obstacle to our access to the huts. There is a real chance that we will not be able to get to the huts. We will not know the outcome until we are in position in Commonwealth Bay. If you need to be sure you will get to the huts then this is probably not the voyage for you. In other words the outcome is highly uncertain, although we are quietly confident of success. It is a true scientific adventure in the best sense of the word and in the spirit of Mawson.

      In the centenary – indeed – of the Mawson Expedition. They do seem to be emulating Mawson in one way.

      Some things haven’t changed in the past 100 years, but much has. The Aurora was completely cut off from contact with the outside world. But 100 years later, when a ship is trapped, her crew can send out a call for help. Not long after Akademik Shokalskiy was trapped, three icebreakers set out from different directions to free her. Those aboard the trapped vessel have even been able to post video reports on the internet.

      http://discerninghistory.com/2013/12/ship-trapped-in-antarctic-ice/

      And if they can post on youtube – they can certainly contact the Australian Antarctic Division or the British Antarctic Survey.

    • k scott denison

      R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
      That was an entertaining story from WUWT. It’s amazing to think this ship would actually go into Antarctic waters without the very latest in satellite and sea ice tracking technology. This would reflect poorly on the captain and navigational crew– but then again, even with the latest technology conditions can change unpredictably, especially for how the sea ice is moving.
      ————
      What’s even more amazing is that a climate scientist would charter such a poorly outfitted ship. Especially when he was bringing his family along. Arrogance? Incompetence? Both?

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      I think the actual story of how eventually Anthony Watts came to be contacted is probably far less interesting than the entertainment value merits– but it makes good reading for WUWT followers. It seems it was not a navigational crew member and certainly not the captain to came to call someone a Scripts who called the local TV weatherperson, who called Anthony, etc. etc. etc. It was some member of the passenger crew who probably knew someone at Scripts who decided to see what they could find out about the weather situation very informally. The crew (especially the Captain) would have been communicating with those from the ships and countries attempting to rescue them, and it very well could be that navigation and weather forecasting on-board the ship is quite advanced, and this was just a matter of rapidly changing conditions. We should remember that even the rescue ships got stuck.

  22. The request to Anthony Watts and associates to find out which way the wind is blowing has to be the icing on the cake. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/wuwt-and-weatherbell-help-kusi-tv-with-a-weather-forecasting-request-from-ice-trapped-ship-in-antarctica-akademik-shokalskiy/

    • There was no request to Watts and associates.

      God how stupid are you people. Do you really think the world is so small that the people on that ship would even know who Anthony Watts was?

      What’s happened, if we can believe even that, is that the ship has sent a request for weather info out, Watts and associates have found out about that request – it wasn’t sent to them – and they have jumped in to pretend to be some kind of heroes, ie to make themselves look good. It no doubt pleases their egos to be able to pretend they are saving the world.

      • The story is more interesting than that. Someone from the ship contacted someone at scripps for help with weather forecasts, who then contacted John Coleman (at local TV station) who then contacted Watts and WeatherBell.

    • k scott denison

      lolwot | January 1, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      There was no request to Watts and associates.

      God how stupid are you people. Do you really think the world is so small that the people on that ship would even know who Anthony Watts was?

      What’s happened, if we can believe even that, is that the ship has sent a request for weather info out, Watts and associates have found out about that request – it wasn’t sent to them – and they have jumped in to pretend to be some kind of heroes, ie to make themselves look good. It no doubt pleases their egos to be able to pretend they are saving the world.
      ———
      Sure, it’s a big-oil funded conspiracy to make WUWT look good.

      Earth to lolwot…

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Did you leave out the Coast Guard. I thought the sequence was someone on the ship, the Coast Guard, Scripps, Coleman, Watts and Weather Bell.

      I am curious about why Scripps would contact a local TV station (Coleman). Why would a local California TV station have a weather forecast for antarctica?

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “The story is more interesting than that. Someone from the ship contacted someone at scripps for help with weather forecasts, who then contacted John Coleman (at local TV station) who then contacted Watts and WeatherBell.”
      ____
      It was a long chain of events that eventually led to Watts and WeatherBell getting involved. No matter, it was an entertaining distraction and should be a huge embarrassment to the captain and navigator that they didn’t have the technology on board to forecast basic weather conditions and sea ice in such a dangerous region.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      It is also curious as to why a Russian crew would not contact someone in Russia for weather and navigational assistance, if it was really needed. I think there may be more puffery to this story then first meets the eye.

    • “should be a huge embarrassment to the captain and navigator”

      Should be a even bigger embarrassment to those who organised the penguin survey, the recovery of those undertaking it taking too way long and thus pinning the ship to the fast ice they were docked to whilst the survey was taking place.

      Great planning there and not necessarily the captains fault.

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “Should be a even bigger embarrassment to those who organised the penguin survey…”
      ____
      The safety of the crew and passengers always rests with the Captain. It is his decision alone on whether a course for traverse is too dangerous. You cannot blame the passengers for decisions that always rest with the captain.

      But in that part of the world, even the best captains can be fooled by rapidly changing ice conditions.

    • “The story is more interesting than that. Someone from the ship contacted someone at scripps for help with weather forecasts, who then contacted John Coleman (at local TV station) who then contacted Watts and WeatherBell.”

      Oh please, don’t tell me you actually believe the WUWT story?

      Tall-tale might be more accurate.

    • k scott denison

      Max_OK, Citizen Scientist | January 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
      Did you leave out the Coast Guard. I thought the sequence was someone on the ship, the Coast Guard, Scripps, Coleman, Watts and Weather Bell.

      I am curious about why Scripps would contact a local TV station (Coleman). Why would a local California TV station have a weather forecast for antarctica?
      ———
      Maybe because Coleman founded The Weather Channel.

    • “But in that part of the world, even the best captains can be fooled by rapidly changing ice conditions.”

      And, it would appear, by other people underestimating how long an off ship expedition would take to complete with the consequences we now see.

    • Gates, “No matter, it was an entertaining distraction and should be a huge embarrassment to the captain and navigator that they didn’t have the technology on board to forecast basic weather conditions and sea ice in such a dangerous region.”

      I doubt that they started without weather data, but since they got stuck, might be looking for a second and third opinion.

  23. Party like it’s 1999!

  24. I would have love to read the Safety Assessment Prof Turney turned in.
    The cost of the rescue is going to be millions and one hopes they were insured and that his department isn’t going to have to pay the costs of the ice breakers and helicopters.
    Putting yourself in a place of danger is a calculated risk, but making Ph.D. students heads into a lions mouth is a sacking offence.

  25. And if the ships and choppers were not rescuing something, how cheap would it be to have them parked?

    • They would have been undertaking re-supply and other work from which they have now been diverted. The costs directly and indirectly are very non trivial and the knock-on effects of this whole event are all down to poor planning in the first place.

    • John Carpenter

      Interesting twist in logic. If firefighters are not out fighting fires…. How cheap is it having them sit in the firehouse? As if fighting fires or rescuing people is cheaper and safer than not?

      I don’t get the idea here JCH, there is an expense associated with providing any type of rescue team regardless of whether they are needed or not. Preferably not, as that is obviously cheaper than having to use such services. The cost of maintaining such a ready team is borne by the people because the cost of having no such team is known to be much more expensive. Having rescue teams ready for emergencies is soooo beside the point.

    • Diverting from a scheduled activity and parked are essentially the same thing in terms of costing the rescue effort The proximity makes the rescue costs lower. Sounds like the Australian icebreaker is a true icebreaker – almost two meters.

      The Chinese probably would have paid cash for the media exposure.

      Millions? Maybe, but I doubt it. The Australian ship was chartered recently for two full months at a cost of 3.4 million. A few years ago a Japanese ship had to rescue an Australian icebreaker. It’s very possible the nations that do research on and around Antarctica have cost sharing agreements in place for rescue efforts. Just speculating there, but it is a dangerous and unpredictable place.

    • Say the vessel charters for 100,000 a day. It’s diverted. Can it charge $100,000 a day for the duration of the rescue? I sincerely doubt it. It’s probably covered by some maritime agreement/tradition.

  26. Adventure tourism + ecotourism + a link to science.

    What more?

    The annual number of risky tourist expeditions that end in costly rescue must be already quite high. The scale of this case is larger that average, but hardly exceptional.

  27. When are we ‘gonna learn? We quickly figure out it’s icy cold in the Arctic and Antarctic when some greenies to set off on an expedition to prove the Earth is doomed by global warming which ends in some Herculean rescue effort, amputated and frostbitten fingers and eco-whackpots being rescued by copters or an oil tanker.

  28. “Climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded, Turney said.”

    These guys should never write murder mysteries. There’d be no suspense because you’d have the same culprit in every one.

    The ACO2 did it, in the Antarctic, with an iceberg.

    • michael hart

      Professor Turney, in the Shokalskiy, with the gin bottle.

    • Oh, michael, I’ll pay that one (wiping tears of laughter from eyes).

    • Climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea, or it may well have happened anyway.

      I think icebergs are always breaking off and floating somewhere.

      Ice piles up on top and pushes out and breaks off at the edges. Glaciers pile up on top of the heads and along the way and advance and break off at the tails. The Titanic sank before the CO2 Alarmism. That iceberg was not our fault. Many other icebergs may not be our fault.

  29. Stuck on a ship of (cold) fools The Australian January 02, 2014 12:00AM

    YOU have to feel a touch of sympathy for the global warming scientists, journalists and other hangers-on aboard the Russian ship stuck in impenetrable ice in Antarctica, the mission they so confidently embarked on to establish solid evidence of melting ice caps resulting from climate change embarrassingly abandoned because the ice is, in fact, so impossibly thick.

    The aim of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, led by Chris Turney of the University of NSW, was to prove the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting. Its website spoke alarmingly of “an increasing body of evidence” showing “melting and collapse from ocean warming”. Instead, rescue ships and a helicopter, all belching substantial carbon emissions, have had to be mobilised to pluck those aboard the icebreaker MV Akademik Schokalskiy from their plight, stuck in what appears to be, ironically, record amounts of ice for this time of year.

    In that lies a hard lesson for those who persistently exaggerate the impact of global warming. We believe in man-made climate change and are no less concerned than others about it. But the cause of sensible policy is ill-served by exaggeration; there is a need for recognition of the science, which shows there are variations in how climate is changing and what the impact is, or will be.

    Professor Turney’s expedition was supposed to repeat scientific investigations made by Douglas Mawson a century ago and to compare then and now. Not unreasonably, it has been pointed out Mawson’s ship was never icebound. Sea ice has been steadily increasing, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s gloomy forecasts. Had the expedition found the slightest evidence to confirm its expectation of melting ice caps and thin ice, a major new scare about the plight of the planet would have followed. As they are transferred to sanctuary aboard the icebreaker Aurora Australis, Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/stuck-on-a-ship-of-cold-fools/story-e6frg71x-1226793309195

    • “the mission they so confidently embarked on to establish solid evidence of melting ice caps resulting from climate change embarrassingly abandoned because the ice is, in fact, so impossibly thick.”

      It’s interesting to count how many lies are in that paragraph.

      Propaganda is coming rich from one direction here folks, and it isn’t from the scientists.

    • lolwot, some facts in an excerpt below.

    • “the mission they so confidently embarked on to establish solid evidence of melting ice caps”

      What is the evidence for this claim that the mission was to establish solid evidence of melting ice caps?

      The Australian is just making fabricating a narrative, making up facts. Ie lying.

    • “The Australian is just making fabricating a narrative, making up facts. Ie lying.”

      Sorry lolly, even if you’re right it doesn’t matter. The narrative is the narrative. The underlying “facts” are irrelevant. If we’ve learned nothing else over the last 20 years of lies and exaggerations, it’s that. Thus for one simple example, President Obama can assert that the earth has warmed up much faster than the models predicted in the last decade not just with utter impunity, but with every expectation of enthusiastic approval.

    • Blame the Oz’s right-wing bias. Here is the (sarc on) letter I sent today:

      The Australian’s shocking right-wing bias is evidenced by the 2 Jan Commentary page: articles by a Palestinian activist; a former policy adviser to the Federal Labour government; the ACTU member of then ALP leader Kim Beazley’s advisory committee on telecommunications; and the NSW secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. No wonder the Gillard government sought to curtail your freedom.

    • Gee that paper is a steaming pile of sh!t.

      As lolwot said, count the lies…then count the simple factual errors (sic).

  30. JCH | January 1, 2014 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    And if the ships and choppers were not rescuing something, how cheap would it be to have them parked?

    You really have not kept up with this have you?? All three ships have resupply missions to the Antarctic for real scientist and work which as one on board the Chinese ice breaker has said his science that was planed is now out of reach.

  31. David L. Hagen

    See: WUWT reference pages on Sea Ice, Artic & Antarctic

  32. I suspect their problems may continue after they reach warm dry land as disgruntled $8k tourists seek refunds and damages.

    • Latimer Alder

      The ‘leader’ didn’t seem to do much leading. Claims for negligence and ruined vacations (and hangovers) seem highly likely to succeed. And somebody’s got to pay for the helicopter and crew…..

  33. As Blue Oyster Cult put it: “History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man — Godzilla!”

  34. Steven Mosher

    The blogs are worth a read to get a sense of some o fthe science being done

    http://www.spiritofmawson.com/friday-13th/

    • Science??

      Who’s interested in that here????

    • i found that the bar doesn’t open until 6 pm, so it’s not as much of a booze cruise as some have made it out to be.

    • Max OK wrote the points of the mission Steven I did a little tongue in cheek reply on the ?”science” Worth repeating
      6. understand changes in seal populations and their feeding patterns
      They shot the baby seals Max, and their mothers, gutted them and examined their stomach contents [from the expedition notes]. I understand the leopard seal population experienced a sudden and severe Polar bear moment
      which made 8. true “8. . determine the extent to which human activity and pollution has directly impacted on this remote region of Antarctica”
      and 7 false 7. produce the first underwater surveys of life in the subantarctic islands and Commonwealth Bay as the seals were dead.
      5. discover the environmental influence on seabird populations they had a feed on the seal carcasse remains Bird population up
      Birds trapped and gutted bird population down net effect zero.
      9. provide baseline data to improve the next generation of atmospheric, oceanic and ice sheet models to improve predictions for the future perhaps baseline data to avoid looking foolish in future?

      Now unbelievable 1, 1. gain new insights need a brain , not a dogma for that
      3 and 4 involve subarctic islands not sure if they landed on any unless you count Tasmania

      Finally aspirational
      2. explore changes in ocean circulation caused by the growth of extensive fast ice and its impact on life in Commonwealth Bay
      They certainly are achieving that beyond their wildest dreams

  35. Perhaps the lesson is that in the face of uncertainty, you need to plan to avoid the worst-case scenario. Maybe this is too obvious but sometimes it needs to be said.

    • In the face of uncertainty (which is always present), the best approach is to increase your capacity to make best use of whatever befalls, rather than divert resources to one particular possible scary scenario when there are many others, presently known and unknown, which could eventuate.

    • Their mistake was in underestimating what could happen, and not having taken measures to mitigate against that possibility, such as exercising precaution with the ship’s position while keeping an eye on how things were developing in real time.

    • To carry this further, suppose someone had said let’s just move the ship over here where we can escape if the worst happens, but that was overruled as a waste of money and/or time. Now they are wasting both much more. It is an example where a small measured action would have saved a lot more trouble later, and there was a limited time window in which that action could have been taken.

    • Sorry, Jim, I was interpreting your post in terms of broad policy, rather than in terms of expeditions into areas of high danger. Yes, you need to have disaster and recovery plans in such cases.

    • I was talking more about risk reduction than disaster recovery.

    • Sorry, I must be having a low-comprehension day. Or my interpretation was distorted by the fact that I am not very circumspect.

  36. The only thing sillier than Warmers wailing and gnashing teeth about AGW Skeptics is Warmers wailing and gnashing teeth about Climate Scientists Stuck In The Ice Skeptics.

    Andrew

  37. stevepostrel

    The use of the cant term “health of the planet” immediately reveals the propagandistic aspect of this venture. It may have had other aspects as well (although given Turney’s track record with Gergis I’m not too confident about any science), but the PR own goal is pretty funny in that context.

    • The Earth has a fever … not.

    • The personification of the planet is dangerously primitive. The effect on those who know no better, is to actually feel sorry for the atmosphere as if it were a wounded animal.”The earth has a fever” is calculatedly propagandistic and anyone making such a statement is not to be trusted…

    • True, pokerguy. “The Earth” is never at risk from man. It will continue merrily on its nine-billion year journey until the Sun calls it home, whatever pinpricks on its surface man applies. Sheer ignorance and hubris to think otherwise.

    • Red tide. A bloom.
      ======

  38. The Oz has a feature article under the heading “An icy blast of scepticism.” Some extracts:

    But as the public relations team back home was remaking the purpose of the journey, the ice-trapped Turney was arguing from the frozen Antarctic that climate change really did explain it all. “We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship,” he says. “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up,” according to a statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

    Turney says the conditions are the result of the frequent and deep low pressure systems that encircle the continent. “In combination with a funnelling effect from the ice sheet, these lows are producing strong and pervasive winds from the southeast. The wind is not unusual but what is unexpected is the major reconfiguration of thick multi-year sea ice to the east of the Mertz Glacier,” he says.

    In 2010, a large iceberg known as B09B calved from the continent and collided spectacularly with the extended tongue of the Mertz Glacier. Turney says the knock-on effect was that Commonwealth Bay had filled with sea ice (termed “fast ice”), preventing direct access from the sea to Mawson’s main hut at Cape Denison. “Unfortunately for the Australasian Antarctic Expedition it appears the region has just undergone a massive reconfiguration of sea ice, years after the loss of the Mertz Glacier tongue,” according to Turney. He says this may be the future long-term expansion of fast ice to the east of Commonwealth Bay. “The thick chaotic surface we see around the MV Akademik Shokalskiy is consistent with the idea that this ice is several years old and is considerably more difficult to break through by icebreaker than single-year ice,” he says.

    But the bottom line is, once again, nature has drifted from the script.

    Turney’s view is undermined in part by the Australian head of the rescue mission that has so-far involved ships from China, France and Australia, and will end with a helicopter evacuation of passengers, but not crew, when the weather clears. … John Young, general manager of emergency response at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, says the stranding can be neatly explained as a weather event. “Commonwealth Bay, where the ship was conducting its operations for the expedition, is usually relatively free of ice but a prolonged period of wind from the southeast moved the ice floes around and it has packed up in the vicinity of the Shokalskiy,” he points out. “That is how most ships get beset by ice.”

    Young says it was a prevailing wind that caused the issue and it was a reverse of the prevailing wind that could solve it. Contrary to Turney’s view that this is all old, thick ice, Young says the ice is of varying ages. “In the pack is some a few years old, some one year old and some newer than that, with snow on top,” he says.

    It is also a bit rich now for expedition organisers to say they did not have climate change in mind when the trip was conceived. Promotional material says the expedition’s aim was to “discover and communicate the changes taking place in this remote and pristine environment”. Outlining the science case, the expedition says: “Three years’ worth of observations gleaned by Mawson and his men provide a unique dataset against which we can compare the changes seen today. Policy documents highlight numerous science questions that need to be urgently addressed across the region. And yet, despite of a century of research, major questions remain about whether the changes seen today are exceptional.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/an-icy-blast-of-scepticism/story-e6frg6z6-1226793315257

    • The lie is the idea that they were trying to prove the sea ice was melting.

      Clearly they weren’t. Anyone familiar with sea ice knows they weren’t doing that.

      Thus that they got stuck in sea ice is not ironic.

      It’s only ironic if you buy into the lie that they were there trying to prove sea ice was melting.

      That’s why skeptics are lying to push that idea.

    • The irony is that the Antarctic Sea Ice, fast and slow, is at a record high level, around two million square kilometers more than the mean of the satellite observational level. Furthermore, winds in the Southern Ocean are notoriously strong and unpredictable. These they knew or should have known.
      =================

    • I am staggered that you don’t understand what irony is kim

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      The word “irony” is from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία (eirōneía), meaning “dissimulation, feigned ignorance.”
      _____

      There’s nothing feigned about kim’s ignorance.

    • Seems to me that if you want to study the effects of dumping kilometer on a side pieces of freshwater ice in a salty ocean, then commonwealth bay is the place to be.

      Finding out why the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing is a worthy scientific goal, at least in my opinion. If calving icebergs and ice shelves breaking off is part of it, I would like to know.

      If the ship is only stuck in the ice and still seaworthy, then leave the crew there to sail it out when conditions change, as there are still a couple months or so until the antarctic sea ice minimum. The commonwealth bay is one of, if not the windiest place on earth, and the ice could be blown away as fast as it trapped the ship.

    • bob droege,

      Finding out why the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing is a worthy scientific goal, at least in my opinion.

      Well it’s not just your opinion – here’s what our host says.

      The predominant focus has been on Arctic sea ice, but the Antarctic sea ice is arguably equally interesting and important.

      Yet she piles on when people make evidence free attacks on the motives of people who are actually trying to study it. One might consider that kind of… ironic.

    • Yet she piles on when people make evidence free attacks on the motives of people who are actually trying to study it. One might consider that kind of… ironic.

      Oh come on!
      Why should a climate scientist be in a position where they have to guess at the motives of other climate scientists?
      Something seriously wrong there.

    • I would say that both are interesting, but as far as the effect on weather, I would say the arctic is more important.

      A lot of reasons have been put forth for the increase in Antarctic sea ice including the ozone hole causing increased winds which push the ice north, an increase in fresh water run off from glaciers insulating the surface from deeper warm currents allowing more sea ice to form and increased snowfall.

      Someone always has to play the natural variability card, right?

      Not the best card in the deck though.

    • Why should a climate scientist be in a position where they have to guess at the motives of other climate scientists?

      She doesn’t have to.

    • bob droege,

      I would agree that what’s happening to the Arctic ice is more significant in terms of its potential wider impact. That said, I think there is more to Judith’s analysis than just “natural variability”, although it would have been good if she’d have expanded on it and made what is actually happening in Antarctica more the focus of her post.

    • 2 days to repeat 3 years of experiments says it all

    • Iolwot

      Your 4.47

      According to the BBC correspondent who was on the ship and presumably knew more than you do about the projects aims ;

      ‘One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing’

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25573096

      tonyb

    • Lol. A reporter would never make a mistake.

    • The crew stays there to see how fast the ice will disappear – before it starts to increase again for next winter.

    • Pekka: +1

    • Latimer Alder

      So the poor Russian guys in the crew get to stay while the ecojollyists get a helio ride home. Doesn’t seem fair to me.

    • LA, it may take the Polar Star to rescue crew and vessel, in a week. Let us pray.

      Five whirlybird flights and three barge voyages, just for the passengers. Call for more prayer.

      Cleopatra, carpets, barges, apes, grapes, asps, ivories and peacocks.
      ==================

    • k scott denison

      Best of luck with the rescue.

    • “So the poor Russian guys in the crew get to stay while the ecojollyists get a helio ride home. Doesn’t seem fair to me.”

      The Russian guys are working, the others are on a vacation.

  39. I suggested in reply to an earlier post that the ship would be within Australia’s maritime jurisdiction. From wiki:

    The Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) is a part of Antarctica. It was claimed by the United Kingdom and placed under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1933. It is the largest territory of Antarctica claimed by any nation. Since the Antarctic Treaty came into force in 1961, Article 4 of which states “The treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force”, most countries do not recognise territorial claims in Antarctica.[1]

    AAT consists of all the islands and territory south of 60°S and between 45°E and 160°E, except for Adélie Land (136°E to 142°E), which divides the territory into Western AAT (the larger portion) and Eastern AAT. It is bounded by Queen Maud Land in the West and by Ross Dependency in the East. The area is estimated at 5,896,500 km².[2]

    The territory is inhabited by the staff of research stations. The Australian Antarctic Division administers the area primarily by maintaining three year-round stations (Mawson, Davis and Casey), which support various research projects.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory

  40. The impact of sea ice on climate is through influencing surface albedo, influencing the exchange of heat between ocean and atmosphere (and the ocean surface temperature), and influencing the circulation patterns of both the atmosphere and ocean.

    Sea ice is also a constraint on the growth rate of atmospheric Co2 ie it limits sea/atmospheric exchange by ventilation eg Stephens and Keeling.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v404/n6774/abs/404171a0.html

    The observed changes in the Co2 growth rates in MLO and southern mid latitude stations in the SH such as Baring head are now anomalous in the 21st Century eg Brailsford.

    1972-2011 -2.30ppm
    2000-2009 -3.03ppm

  41. Will the royalties of the inevitable book that gets written by Professor Chris Turney be attached to pay the costs of the “rescue”, should it be needed? Careless hikers in the White Mountains of NH and others often get bills for search and rescue operations…..

    • Latimer Alder

      Turney’s book will be called ‘How Evil BigOil Deniers Lured Innocent Climate Scientists to Near Disaster Only Rescued by the Personal Interventions of Saints Jim Hansen, Al Gore and Mike Mann’

      But from the other passengers

      ‘How a Bunch of Incompetent Professional Climate Scientists Nearly Got Us All Killed – and Ruined Our Summer Holiday As Well’

    • k scott denison

      +1 Latimer

  42. Chief Hydrologist - you lucky basterd

    To summarise.

    It was a purpose built ship with adequate communications and safety systems.

    The expedition was sponsored by the ANZAAS – a venerable science communication organisation formed in 1888 – with a mission to educate the public and promote science. An exercise essentially meant to inspire and instruct students and young scientists with a sense of adventure. In the footsteps of Douglas Mawson. A great Australian hero.

    Anything else – oh yeah – did someone really ask Anthony Watts for a forecast that could be downloaded from the BOM in minutes?

    If I go sailing on Keppel Bay – I assure you a far different thing – the weather is checked before hand and the radio tuned to the regular BOM maritime updates.

    Stuck at Commonwealth Bay? That’s the major base of Australian operations established by Mawson in1912 – and a BOM weather station of course.

    Other than that – plan B always works. There is no guarantee that you won’t end up in the water. What happens after that depends on preparedness.

    I’m quite sure there are immense misunderstandings here mischievously promulgated.

    • A primary goal, education of the public, is being gloriously and uproariously accomplished. Pray for a comic end to this tragedy stalked farce.
      ===============

    • Chief Hydrologist - you lucky basterd

      The Aurora – a three masted sailing vessel – was stuck in ice for a year.

      http://www.library.uq.edu.au/fryer/treasures/mawson/mawson.html

      Is there any real risk in an ice strengthened, purpose built ship?

      Shall we ham it up for dramatic effect and pretend to pious indignation. This is all sillier than usual.

    • ” …with a mission to educate the public and promote science. An exercise essentially meant to inspire and instruct students and young scientists with a sense of adventure”

      Nope – mis-summarised

      Developing a sense of adventure in young scientists, sure – and I wholeheartedly approve (I’ve done an Antarctic geological mapping project)

      Educating the public? No way. A big PR grope of the “it’s worse than we thought” variety. This is evidenced by the deliberate choice of embedded “meeja” onboard

      The irony is contained within the hypothetical explanation for the packed sea ice: freshwater melt from the glaciers re-freezes on the sea surface. Why irony ? Because that explanation (even if more correct than not) is impossible to sell to the general public – way too unintuitive

      So PR snafued, and at some danger to those deeply impractical passengers

    • Chief Hydrologist - you lucky basterd

      ‘What is ANZAAS?

      The Association aims are:

      to promote communication and interaction between scientists in different disciplines
      to foster public interest in science and technology, and awareness of their role in every day life
      to encourage the curiosity of children about the natural and man-made world around them.

      Founded in 1888, ANZAAS has a long history and many specialist scientific societies in Australia and New Zealand have developed from what were sections at ANZAAS Congresses. The last ANZAAS Congress was held in Adelaide in September 1997.

      While ANZAAS can be justly proud of its achievements, it cannot live in the past. The ANZAAS Council is convinced that the objects and role of ANZAAS are as important today as they ever were, believing that the advancement of science is essential for the well-being and advancement of society as a whole.

      The ANZAAS Council intends to retain the best elements of the old ANZAAS, notably the emphasis on youth and education through Youth ANZAAS and the award of the ANZAAS and Mueller Medals, which give recognition to outstanding achievement in Australian science.’

      The organisation has a long and proud history. Mawson was a past president. This was what I was talking about rather than one PR exercise that has obviously gone wrong.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      I better change mu handle back before I forget again – just a bit of new year fun.

  43. What I see is that 100 years ago there were men one could admire and now the world has gone to mice, and I’m not being partisan about any particular side. My father worked full time and went to school at night to make a life for his family. If I go to the bank and laundry in the same day, I need a nap.

    • Easy, take in others’ laundry. My bank machine is not an ATM.
      ==============

    • Oh and I’ve been to Antartica as a tourist, albeit the other side by the Peninsula, on a ship similar to the Akademik Shokalskiy, the Akademik Ioffe, . This is the type of ship normally used for these voyages to answer those who question the choice. I’ve heard the story that the Captain had to wait for the dawdling professor to get back to the ship from a land excursion before he could try and get ahead of the ice. I hope that’s the case for the sake of the Captain’s career.

      Noting the blog post mentioned by Mosh above, it discusses some biologists taking blubber samples from Weddel Seals.

      I wonder if they had the proper permits required under the Antarctic Treaty.

      http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/update_1991.php

      Somehow, given the tone of the junket, I doubt it. Some prosecution from the Australian authorities may be called for.

  44. Leaving aside the propaganda value of so- called ‘greenhouse’ gases, much more human-generated waste heat is produced in the northern hemisphere than the southern, therefor we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warmer

    But the Captain of the ‘Shokalskiy ‘, no doubt influenced by the scientists, on board allowed his ship to penetrate about 4 miles into pack-ice where it is now firmly wedged. He will have some ‘please explain’ to the owners of the vessel. But isn’t this a strange expedition? Part financed by tourist passengers? Sounds like a mad-cap scheme of the kind the previous government might have supported. Our taxpayers will want the current Australian government to look into this..

  45. Since there seem to be some confusion about what kind of ship Akademik Shokalskiy is and the “Spirit of Mawson” brochure is somewhat less than truthful I think I would clear some things up, since I have spent a number of weeks aboard two sister ships in both subarctic and subantarctic waters.
    These ships were built for oceanographic (NOT polar) research in the early 80’s by Värtsilä and operated by the Soviet Academy of Science. After the USSR (and science appropriations) collapsed the Academy of Science was forced to lease them out on long terms to western expedition-tourism outfits to raise money. They were fairly extensively rebuilt and modernized in the 90’s.
    They are excellent ships for expedition tourism. Very seaworthy, reasonably comfortable and small enough to get into small natural harbours and through narrow and shallow passages. Safety equipment (lifeboats, immersion suits etc) is good and the crew are careful about safety briefings and exercises. However, being so small, they tend to be very lively and roll quite a lot in heavy seas, so I wouldn’t recommend anyone who suffers badly from seasickness to go on one of them.
    However they have their limitations. They are ice-reinforced (as are almost all Russian ships), but they are by no means icebreakers. They don’t have an icebreaker bow, and they have fairly weak engines (top speed is about 12 knots if I remember right). They’re not fit for anything but open ice, and this is also the way they normally operate. The round-Spitzbergen trips are always conditional on more-or-less open water and in 2012 a sister ship (Professor Khromov) failed to get through to Wrangel Island despite sea-ice being at a record low level. In Antarctica they usually operate on the “Milk Run” from Ushuaia to the Northern Peninsula where the waters are normally almost ice-free even early in the season. Heritage Expeditions do make occasional tours to the Ross Sea area, but always late in the season when the Ross Sea is almost ice-free.
    Taking one of these ships deep into a lead in dense and thick sea ice is in my opinion extremely ill-advised and I am very surprised that the captain accepted doing it, since both captains and crews are normally quite experienced.
    By the way the talk about “skeleton crew” is quite sensible since the crew contains a number of catering and housekeeping staff (mostly female) that won’t be needed once the passengers are gone, so it would make sense to evacuate them at the same time.

    • Chief Hydrologist - you lucky basterd

      It seems to be a Finnish-Swedish Ice Class II.

      ‘…ice class II; ships that have a steel hull and that are structurally fit for navigation in the open sea and that, despite not being strengthened for navigation in ice, are capable of navigating in very light ice conditions
      with their own propulsion machinery…’

      But

      ‘The vessels are strongly built of steel with an ice-strengthened hull (ice-strengthened from the bow until about 1/4 of the ships length), perfect for the polar seas. They have the Russian ice-class notation LU(1), which is identical with Lloyds Register 1D.’

      http://www.bsis-ice.de/material/table_iceclasses.pdf

      Perhaps there is a story – just how suitable is this ship?

    • charles the moderator

      “However, being so small, they tend to be very lively and roll quite a lot in heavy seas, so I wouldn’t recommend anyone who suffers badly from seasickness to go on one of them.”

      No shit, Trying to go to the head standing up while crossing the Drake Passage was an extreme sport.

    • These daisies all sit down to pee…

  46. I will email my Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who weekly preaches the gospel of climate catastrophe to a near empty Senate Chamber, about the additional costs being incurred by the US Icebreaker Polar Star for its involvement in this incident. Having read that it was originally 8-9 days sailing away- hardly in the neighborhood- there are certainly incremental costs involved. Lucky for the AAE and the denizens of the Shokalskiy this didn’t happen during the government shutdown…..

  47. “If warming is melting ice in the North, why isn’t it melting ice in the South?” (Chris Turney)
    Well, that’s like trying to compare an apple and a pear. Surely a pear looks like a distorted apple with rough skin. … The North Pole area is mostly an ice covered ocean surrounded by large land masses, and the South Pole area is a large land mass surrounded by the extensive Southern Ocean. Also, most of Earth’s land is in the Northern Hemisphere, which apparently disrupts the jet-streams that try to circle the globe about the latitude of Canada and northern Russia. …. Here is a NASA video about a jet-stream like feature on Saturn that forms a rough hexagon shape around the pole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUgnVApqnTA … At 8:44 they show animation of Earth’s jet-streams and suggest that the mountain ranges and the continent-ocean boundaries disrupt the jet-streams.

  48. One more thing I forgot to mention – no helipad, they are too small.

  49. A particularly impudent member of the Australian klimatariat was implying that there is a more purely scientific purpose to Professor Turney’s expedition, in contrast to that of Mawson. This comment is almost as insolent as the unqualified Turney’s bungled stunt.

    Anybody unaware of Douglas Mawson’s background, exploits and scientific accomplishments should check them out. Warning: you may feel very humble after reading.

    http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mawson-sir-douglas-7531

    • For planning purposes what is the schedule for having to rescue the professor of climatism that attempts to duplicate Sir John Franklin’s attempt to find the Northwest Passage?

  50. The dangers these intrepid Antarctic researchers faced are about as substantial as maybe Al Gore will run out of ice for mixed drinks on a private jet to the next AGW speaking engagement.

  51. Western society’s indulgence of a Leftist academia has born bitter fruit. Western school teachers have turned enlightenment into superstition like demented alchemist turning gold into lead. We’re now well into the second decade of the pause… If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious. ~Benny Peiser

  52. Judith, thanks for this post. There are a number of ironies.
    Mawson in 1912 was able to sail right up to the coast. Pictorial proof.
    Apparently thse idiots couldn’t get close due to ice, so set off on an 80 km (rt?) over ice journey to visit Mawsons land huts. The ship captain asked them to return due to worsening conditions, and for whatever reason they could not in time. The Captain has risked his vessel in order not to leave these idiots behind.
    It may still not end well, as the vessel now has a pronounced port list owing to uneven ice pressure on the starboard side. And ice strengthened vessels are only so the bow area. The flanks are helpless against relentless ice pressure, now evident.
    The CAGW PR fiasco is rich. But this could still end very poorly. Prof. Turney is no Shackleton.

    • I’ve had an increasingly sick feeling for a few days now, regarding their ultimate fate. Would hate to see people actually get hurt, of course. So far it’s all been a rollicking good time for the skeptics among us.

  53. “but it seems fairly obvious that CAGW PR was a major part of this expedition.” – JC

    Evidence?

    Zero as usual for Judith’s dogmatic anti-IPCC assertions.

    But hey, thanks for the WUWT links – loved the WUWT comments – eg ” Can we all start jumping for joy after they die ??” etc etc…..

    • IPCC evidence that dangerous changes are happening?

      Zero, as usual.

      Turn about is fair play, innit?

    • First start by showing IPCC claims that ‘dangerous changes’ are happening.

      Then we’ll take it from there.

    • Michael,

      Where’s your evidence that WUWT comments are full of “can we all start jumping for joy after they die??”
      I beleive you’re the only one lying here.

    • Seems fairly obvious, DCA.

      INTEGRITY ™ – Fairly Obvious

    • Willard,

      It “seems fairly obvious” that Michael is lying. I’ve read several hundred comments there and didn’t see any wanting any of them to “die”. In fact I read many that many, if not most, wishing a safe rescue.

      I would suppose that if someone claims to see behind the words and judge the motives, they wouldn’t have much “INTEGRITY”.

    • Here are some fairly obvious premises, DCA:

      (P1) DCA just said: “It “seems fairly obvious” that Michael is lying.”

      (P2) It seems fairly obvious that lying implies a motive.

      (P3) DCA just said: “If someone claims to see behind the words and judge the motives, they wouldn’t have much “INTEGRITY”.”

      What would be the most obvious conclusion?

    • DCA,

      “Can we all start jumping for joy after they die ??”

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#comment-1517377

      Or you could just read this very thread;
      ” leave them where they are; the world would be a bit better place with few dozen less active Warmist!”

      Ho hum.

    • Give us some more examples of flippant blog comments that you find distasteful, mikey. Tell us about the billboard, again. Those Duck Dynasty guys must had said something offensive that you invoke to discredit Climate Deniers. Shame us into submission, mikey. It’s all you’ve got left.

    • Michael,

      “Can we all start jumping for joy after they die ??”

      After much search I did find it. I apologize for saying you were lying.

      I also found one that one could say is similar but it was followed by a commenter saying,

      “Some of us are reasonable and intelligent people who know when a line should not be crossed in debate. Wishing one’s opponents dead crosses that line.”
      And a Moderator response:
      ”[Ease up. NOBODY representing this site wishes harm come to ANYBODY. ANYWHERE.” Mod]

      I also reminded the mod that the above comment was over the line and I’m sure it will be snipped now that it has been brought to his attention. With more than 400 posts, as I said before there were many wishing them all a safe rescue.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t an alarmist who made the above comment to make WUWT look bad.

    • > I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t an alarmist who made the above comment to make WUWT look bad.

      The commenter already has been taken in by a black helicopter to an undisclosed location, DCA.

    • Willard,

      ….and the black helicopter is funded by the Koch bros and Big Oil.

    • Shorter mod: ““Some of us are reasonable and intelligent people who know when a line should not be crossed in debate. Wishing one’s opponents dead crosses that line.””

      Interesting that the given qualities are reason and intelligence, rather than empathy..

  54. lolwat: “Thus that they got stuck in sea ice is not ironic.”

    Sure it is – they went to make surveys etc in order to “show” the changing climate was affecting Antarctica too. That they got stuck in sea ice in summer in a way that Mawson et al did not 100 years previously has a certain irony to it, especially given their post-hoc statement that the climate was/is warming, just “not here”.

    “Just weather”? Sure – just like Sandy was “just weather”. Of course, Sandy “shows us what we can expect in a warming world”, while this case is just “bad luck”, right?

    Amazing that “many lines of evidence” only seems to apply where it supports your preconceptions, isn’t it? On BOTH sides, I might add.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      They were expecting more sea ice – as a result of increased calving from glaciers.

      It is just a matter of (a short) time before before the laughter and accusations of skeptics not understanding ‘the science’ appear. Could easily be warranted it seems.

      Mawson did find warming as well in fact – not surprising at all given the modern temperature records.

      His ship – the Aurora – was trapped in ice for a year on the very next expedition.

  55. They should save the ship’s crew and to leave the ”propagandist Warmist” where they are.

    If Douglas Mawson was able to get there 100y ago, with the ”imaginary GLOBAL warming” should be even easier now – leave them where they are; the world would be a bit better place with few dozen less active Warmist!

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “leave them where they are; the world would be a bit better place with few dozen less active Warmist!”
      —-
      That’s the spirit! Starting the New Year off right where we left off.

    • Nice work Judith!

      Dog whisltel worked.

      You must be so proud.

    • “Starting the New Year off right where we left off.”

      Boo hoo hoo

      Andrew

    • Chief Hydrologist

      You can’t really equate stafanthemaniac with rational people of any sort – or blame Judy for it.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      He is about as credible as you Michael. The idea of Judy organising a choir of maniacs for her nefarious purposes is conspiritorial to say the the least.

    • Judith likes to cultivate and encourage not-IPCC bile and invective.

      That much is obvious. If you want to call that ‘conspiratorial’ that’s up to you.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Judy is one of the few it seems who have a credible theory of climate. There are a few – and these people seem to be arbitrarily claimed by one side or the other. Swanson is a darling of warmists and Tsonis – more lately – claimed by skeptics. Yet their work is the same work – and neither side seems to understand what it implies.

      You should try to listen to Judy and understand more – rather than leaping to the defense of the IPCC – and hence a failed paradigm. Now you may get indignant and deny that the IPCC embodies a failed paradigm – but it is so and the proof is fairly obvious.

      So obviously I am a skeptic – except to skeptics – who occasionally call me a warmist.

      I am a climate catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom – or indeed of Wally Broecker. The catastrophe yo get by poking sticks at a wild climate. Work that one out.
      .

    • I have no particuar interest in defending the IPCC.

      I only noted that Judith’s critique is weak.

      I think that is a result of this blog being primarily a vehilce for Judith’s self-promtion in the pursuit of her activism. Hence the rhetocial flourish of “but it seems fairly obvious that CAGW PR was a major part of this expedition.”.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth.

      http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/

      Figure out what this means and you will find that the critique is well warranted.

  56. Mawson was a great man. I had little understanding of this when years ago in my loutish youth I rented a house he had lived at in Adelaide.

    For some reason a stuffed Emperor penguin had been left there, perhaps a specimen Mawson had collected on an expedition? Or perhaps it had rescued him from the depths of the Antarctic, waddling hundreds of miles through blizzard and storm to the shelf, cradling the explorer on its feet. A grim determined heroic waddle; loyalty unexampled in the annals of penguin/human devotion, then or since.

    Its last strength just sufficed to reach the expedition’s camp. Lurching out of the blizzard it deposited the unconscious Mawson at the feet of his astonished comrades, and expired. When he recovered, Mawson had it stuffed and mounted as a perpetual tribute to his saviour.

    Anyway, our story added some interest to the stuffed penguin, which actually was rather shabby and moth-eaten.

    One night some drunk visitor got into a fist-fight with it and knocked its head off. I cringe at the memory. The museum took it away and fixed it up, thankfully, so it ended up where it should have been all along.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The penguin is reputed to have said – I am just going outside – I may be sometime. This was very surprising as penguins are not not renowned for their mimicry.

  57. The Xue Long is now also stuck in heavy sea ice,and has requested assistance.Is there a plan c?

  58. Eddy,

    You have been led astray.

    It is well known that penguins suffer from cold feet. Who wouldn’t? But I digress. Although adopting the persona of the loveable harmless bird, the penguin often steals up on a hapless explorer, and renders him unconscious with a quick blast of fermented fish breath. Penguins found with their feet under or on an unconscious explorer are being selfish rather than devoted.

    Your penguin was merely keeping his feet warm with Mawson. He got lost in the blizzard, and stumbled into the camp. Mawson promptly despatched the errant bird. His words at the time, “Stuff you!”, were taken as an order by Mawsons crew.

    If you have difficulty accepting this odd facet of penguin behaviour, you will probably deny the well known habit of rhinoceri leaping on campers’ fires, attempting to extinguish them, to prevent people from accidentally burning themselves.

    So, rhinoceros – helps man. Penguin – helps penguin.

    I hope I have set you straight. You don’t need to thank me.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  59. Like those global sea level rises which began in the late 1700s and occurred faster before the 1860s, the past fluctuations of Antarctic land ice seem an impolite subject in some circles.

    You would think that the enormous increase then plunge in continental ice levels in the 13th century would have certain people asking big questions about both the past and present. Instead we are treated to “answers”, and about the present only. I suppose by not contemplating the past, imperfectly outlined in ice cores, those who hold to dogmas of CAGW or “coming Ice Age” can find confirmation of their beliefs in what is an altogether unremarkable increase in Antarctic ice in recent decades.

    Rather like the Arctic temp plunge and ice increase over the 1960s and 1970s, some subjects seem to be off limits. Yet the questions they raise would seem to be pivotal. Weird.

    • @Mosomoso

      “Rather like the Arctic temp plunge and ice increase over the 1960s and 1970s, some subjects seem to be off limits. Yet the questions they raise would seem to be pivotal. Weird.”

      If they are attempting to collect data and figure out how our climate system works, you are absolutely correct: It is VERY weird.

      If they are providing ‘scientific’ justification for politicians to assume absolute control over/tax all activities that either produce or consume energy it makes perfect sense. And they have succeeded beyond what could have been their wildest expectations when they announced 20-odd years ago that ‘The science is settled.’. Our children are now taught with axiomatic certainty that ACO2 is causing the TOE to rise rapidly and catastrophically and that government MUST take action to control it. And they believe it with axiomatic certainty.

    • Supposedly they had a 36 hour window; at least the days there are long, still.
      ============

    • Can’t do the barges in the sea ice, but the Polar Star may be closer than a week; it’s chucked it all by Sydney Harbor and heading South by Southwest, mebbe low on fuel.

      H/t tomo
      =========

    • My windows are measured in inches or centimetres, theirs must be huge by comparison.

    • @kim

      ” … Can’t do the barges in the sea ice”

      So why not move both boats into open water for barge transfer after the chopper delivers all rescuees to the Xue Long ?

      As I commented earlier, there is much we are not being told

      One cannot trust the comments from marooned passengers as factual, accurate and complete; AMSA is taking its’ cue from the various ship captains; said captains are in VHF radio contact with each other; we are being corn-fed

    • AMSA Rescue Coordination Centre: “The search and rescue operation commenced on Christmas morning after the Falmouth Maritime RCC in the UK received a distress message by satellite from the MV Akademik Shokalskiy. The distress message and subsequent coordination of the incident was passed to RCC Australia, who is the responsible search and rescue authority for this area.”

      So the Russkis contacted Falmouth, a town of 25,000 in Cornwall SW England (Tony B will know it well) for assistance. But some denizens don’t believe a clearly-spelled out sequence by which a US vessel obtained weather information from weatherman Anthony Watts?

    • I saw at least one report that the Chinese ship is also stuck, making a helicopter transfer pointless.

    • i8888, I think the Chinese vessel is trapped, and I’m not sure the Australian one isn’t feeling a little more sluggish than it likes; both essentially drifting.

      Call for Maria the Wind, or 75,000 powers of north horse stars.
      ================

    • Dang, I was supposed to work polar in there among the ponies.
      ===============

    • R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist

      “But some denizens don’t believe a clearly-spelled out sequence by which a US vessel obtained weather information from weatherman Anthony Watts?”
      ——
      Oh my, Witness Ye the Birth of Urban Legend.

      Amazing nonsense.

    • @kim

      It is a distinct possibility that the Xue Long is also stuck – this was my implied point about barge transfer in open water. It is also possible that the chaotic pack ice around the stuck Russian ship is considered too dangerous at the moment for heavy chopper landings

      I admit to amusement at the tweet Judith C included in the initial post:

      “The escape plan is to form a line of ships from the Antarctic to South America, and walk home”

    • Faustino

      Here is the sequence of events involving Falmouth maritime rescue

      http://www.maritimejournal.com/news101/industry-news/rescue-operation-in-the-antarctic

      tonyb

  60. Steve McIntyre

    Chinese helicopter arrived at vessel.

  61. No it wont. This is now a deadly serious situation with seafarers from three nations in danger. Hopefully everyone gets out alive. And the University of New South Wales, Turney’s employer, which carries vicarious responsibility fo his sheer incompetence, pays every cent of he costs of this dangerous and expensive indulgence.

    • what are you ranting about??

    • Connolly

      According to the BBC-who only mention this as a Russian research ship which happens to have a BBC correspondent on it- the helicopter arrived as he was speaking in order to make a second trip with another 12 people.
      Hopefully everyone will be safely away in the next couple of hours and they can then wrangle about costs.
      tonyb

    • I notice that the luvvies of the Fairfax press are reporting the matter in the “travel” section. Why, I remember a time when the expedition was a “science and environment” concern.

      It’s been good of the Oz MSM and especially Fairfax and the ABC to shield us from unpleasant details and implications. Reminds one of the gentler era when royal and religious personages were spared the glare of unnecessary publicity.

    • OMG – scandal!

    • The ABC was particularly keen on reporting the expedition’s purpose of measuring the effects of anthropogenic climate change. (Never mind the inquiry, feel the dogma.) Two-part reports and so on. The network got its most earnest finger-wagging convent girls on the case.

      Now the ABC is stealthily mumbling of stranded “tourists” and referring to the ludicrously titled Professor of Climate Change as an “expedition leader”.

      Too absurd for scandal, too dangerous and expensive for laughter.

    • Hmm, year feel the dogma;

      From their website;
      “despite of a century of research, major questions remain about whether the changes seen today are exceptional……the ability of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to soak up heat and carbon from the atmosphere remains deeply uncertain….A key problem for reducing the uncertainty in climate projections is historical records of change are often too short to test the skill of climate models,….However, large gaps in our knowledge of past change in the region remain. ….Previous work has shown that large-scale shifts have taken place in the past. The causes remain unknown. …. the Antarctic continues to be an area of great uncertainty.”

      Clueless.

    • “EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: A modern-day scientist adventurer is about to undertake one of the largest Australian science expeditions to the Antarctic. Professor Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales and an 85-person team will spend two months trying to answer questions about how climate change in the frozen continent might already be shifting weather patterns in Australia…”

      That’s how the clueless ABC reported on the stunt. Like I said, never mind the inquiry. (And yes, I note the handy back door left open by the use of the meaningless expression “climate change”, which is what they want it be depending on whether they are advancing or retreating in argument.)

      Of course, you have to be in Oz to appreciate just how profoundly trashy our national broadcaster has become. Mind you, this from the expedition website is pretty damned trashy: “…the ability of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to soak up heat and carbon from the atmosphere remains deeply uncertain….” One leaves a back door open with that pet word “uncertain”, but the millennarian spin is there for the faithful.

      “It is deeply uncertain if so-and-so has stopped kicking his puppy. There are questions as to whether he has ever kicked his puppy hard. We may even speak of uncertainty over whether he has actually kicked his puppy, though the degree of that uncertainty is yet to be determined.” See how they do it?

    • Idiot skeptics can’t even tell the difference b/n science and stunts.

      Scientists will continue to go out in the real world and try to improve our knowledge,while the dogmatic key-board warriors fling poo from the comfort of home.

      Clueless cowards.

  62. Another climate alarmist publicity stunt backfires, period.

  63. Michael
    I am not ranting about anything. I am pointing out the obvious -. Turney’s ice follies has put people lives in danger. That may be a small beer to you and i guess when you are saving the world the risks to seafarers created as a consequence of the sheer incompetence and negligence of Turney means little. To those of us who have a concern for the saety of workers it means something.

    • The captain is in charge of the ship and has the final say and the trip schedule was clear and planned.

      Any trip into this area has its risks – without any daring much scientific discovery would neve rhave oocured.

      The pearl-clutchers and hall-monitors can just STFU and go back to their knitting.

    • David Springer

      Michael | January 2, 2014 at 5:05 am |

      “The pearl-clutchers and hall-monitors can just STFU and go back to their knitting.”

      Yeah. And they can take the anonymous blog cowards with them. ;-)

    • David,

      You too, back to your kniting or cross-word or whatever…..

    • David Springer

      Crushing rebuttal there Michael, whoever you are. You should consider going on stage if you can screw up the courage to identify yourself in front of live people.

    • Who the hell is ‘David Springer’?…and who cares??

    • Michael,

      Go back to your worthles tree-hugging.

    • …..oh I forgot watermellon peddling….Michael

    • watermelons don’t grow on trees ;-)

    • Ironic isn’t it?

    • Can’t we just all get along…

      ..on this cooling planet ?

  64. About your actual article facts Rant follows

    Its colder in the Antarctic, for the last 30 years but especially recently.
    Why, because there is more ice, like in a refrigerator when the temp is turned down. How do we know?
    Because there is more ice for 30 years.
    Sort of the reverse of the Arctic Global warming theme.
    Some of the other reasons are bizarre. The new research saying there is more ice extent because it is getting warmer. Please , tell that to the Arctic. Hey guys, there is less ice , we must be having a drop in temperature.
    The circulating winds are shrinking in extent. The Glaciers are flowing into the sea, The ozone hole is getting bigger/smaller. The hotter arctic is making more snow which makes more ice.
    Anything but a simple its colder in the Arctic.
    Now no-one knows why.
    But if we started off with the fact that it might be colder, we could recheck our measurements, we could do extra measureing and we could recalibrate Grace with an algorithm to show that there is more ice in Antarctica, after all
    ts colder in the Antarctic, for the last 30 years.

  65. Oh yeah, I forgot, they’ve been rescued.

    bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25573096

    • From the BBC report:

      Despite being trapped, the scientists continued their experiments, measuring temperature and salinity through cracks in the surrounding ice.

      One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing.

      Pathetic!

    • phatboy said:
      “From the BBC report:
      One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing.”

      They found out. Not fast enough.
      ad homs & denials of reality from michael & lolwot in 3, 2, 1, …

    • “One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing.”

      Uh huh. Too bad there aren’t any other ways to get such “scientific” information than sending a bunch of grad students and tourists, and of course the obligatory CAGW PR rep from the BBC.

      Were they going to circumnavigate the entire antarctic to survey the ice extent? I mean, what miniscule percentage of the area were they going to see?

      I know. I know.

      If you want to keep your delusions that this was a scientific expedition, you can keep them. Period.

      (Take a look at the map of their “progress” on their home page. Absolutely hilarious. http://www.spiritofmawson.com/)

  66. Here – http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/01/antarctic-sea-ice-saga/#comment-431813 – John Carpenter asserts:

    “Shiv you need to read a little harder what I wrote”

    ‘Arctic has seen a more rapid decrease than arctic increase’

    and then goes on to spout a bellyful of accusations that people are ignorant and aren’t paying attention.

    What he writes here is meaningless. What he may have meant to write is:

    ‘Arctic has seen a more rapid decrease than *Ant*arctic increase’

    Perhaps if he paid more attention to what he actually writes, he could legitimately fulminate how people misread it.

    • Lower case arctic is sneaky but appropriate. Arctic or Antarctic versus Polar Sea Ice is less confusing, but then jargon is part of the indispensable aura cultivated by wanna be scientific fields and social cliques.

      . .

  67. A ecotourist junket/ecostudent field trip/media PR stunt incompetently planned and led by a junk ecoscientist, co-author of the sunken Gergis et al paper. Who would trust Turney as a school crossing guard/lollipop man?

  68. With the Gore Effect now lifted we can hope that summer will progress, the winds change, and the Russian ship and crew can escape minimally unscathed. It sounds like all three ships are still in ice; perhaps the Australian is not bound.
    ============

    • I’ll bet at least some of the non-rescued crew abandoned to the fates are having the mother of all parties right now. They should put it up on you tube afterwards.

  69. The rescue effort should basically wait for the ice to melt as expected.

    • If it were me, I would have stayed on the ship. Helicopters are bad enough in normal environs. A crash out there?

  70. Curious George

    Congratulations to the crews of Snow Dragon and Aurora Australis for a successful rescue operation. They rescued among others a Green Party senator-elect Janet Rice, whose expedition video is worth remembering:

  71. I think that Turney may well be responsible for the phrase “Tourist Scientist” entering the lexicon.

  72. I am waiting for the announcement: “”To all…here is the Captain speaking….!!!” Isn´t there a captain who can speak? Or is he deaf, or
    is he locked up? Or died already? Or wasn´t here a captain at all?
    Is the crew in hiding under deck? Being ashamed? Or too much wodka and cant walk taking part in the group photo?
    Please folks, enlighten me……!

    • An aunt of mine emigrated from England to Australia in 1950. She feared flying, and took a ship for a return visit in the 1960s. The ship broke down in mid-Pacific, caught fire, and drifted for four days. The captain shot himself. (I do not recommend this.)

      Coincidentally, her brother emigrated to Canada in 1952, and at the time his son, my cousin Cal Millar, was an up-and-coming news photographer in Toronto. Cal hired a light plane and flew over the ship with a film camera. The world-wide coverage of his film launched a highly successful news career, mainly with the Globe & Mail. I’m not sure if he knew his Auntie Eve was on board.

    • are you sure your aunt didn’t set fire to the ship, shoot the captain and deliver a scoop for your cousin?

  73. “wonder how 12 year old kid got on board?”

    http://www.spiritofmawson.com/welcome-aboard-robby-and-cara/

    The kid wrote some of the better blog posts.

    Reading the blog I see that they actually reached their destination before getting trapped. I didn’t get that from any of the reporting.

    The last blog post is from Turney, explaining how old pack ice broke away and trapped them.

    • Nutso – will you join us on our Polar Cruise? Bring the family. We’re filling up fast, so don’t blink. We might get to charter the same Russian ship, which would make reenactments of key events of the historic Turney Expedition all that more realistic.

      Remember, it’s only dangerous for scientists. They have a tradition of dying on Antarctica. Tourists go all the time and nothing happens.

    • JCH, I’d love to go, but only if everyone aboard agrees we will not ask for help if we get trapped in pack ice. Some in the Mawson expedition spent two years at Commonwealth Bay, and Mawson reenactors should be willing to do the same.

    • Excuse me, that should be “…reenactors of the Mawson reenactment should be willing to do the same.”

  74. Today’ Australian has an article by Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University, entitled “Bring science to climate policy.” Excerpts:

    I identify five segments of science – all detailed in peer-reviewed journals in the past three years – which demand scrutiny before we believe current global warming projections.

    First, climate sensitivity is generally defined as the change in global temperature produced by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. A range of studies across the past five years indicates this may be below, or significantly below, present values quoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which case published modelling projections of future global warming and sea-level rise become overstated.

    Second, the disconnect between CO2 increase and global temperature change since 1900 is especially evident in the global warming hiatus of the past 17 years. The mechanisms for this hiatus are not adequately described by consensus science, but there is increasing evidence to suggest natural cyclic change plays a major role in this dichotomy between projections from climate modelling based on anthropogenic global warming theory, and systematic measurement using terrestrial and satellite observation platforms.

    Third, cyclic variations in global sea level suggest natural cycles of about 60 and 30 years in length. Such cycles, which are deserving of considerable further study, suggest a significant fraction of the observed rate of sea-level rise of past decades may be attributable to the upswing of natural cycles. The consequence, if proven, on projections of future sea-level rise and associated planning and land-use policy is large.

    Fourth, natural cycles in climate change are increasingly evident from precise studies of temperature records imprinted in cave deposits, ice cores, corals and deep-sea sediments. These provide mounting evidence that current global warming is not abnormal in a historical context, and variations are subject to a range of natural cyclic phenomena with periods ranging from about 60 years to millennia.

    Finally, causative mechanisms for natural cycles in climate change are an essential complement to observational data showing natural cycles in climate change. Mechanisms involving highly complex interactions of solar physics, magnetic fields and cosmic rays are on the cusp of delivering insights into possible mechanisms. …

    The Abbott government is committed to spending $5 billion annually on its direct action emissions reduction program. The Senate inquiry would do well to recommend some thousandths of this sum be spent re-examining which projections are credible, which natural changes require mitigation of effect rather than cause, and what cost-benefit parameters apply to programs targeting residual anthropogenically related climate change.

    – Asten also addresses the issue of sea level rise.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/bring-science-to-climate-policy/story-e6frgd0x-1226793918373

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Faustino’s quotes Professor Michael Astern saying the following in a Today’s Australian article:

      “Third, cyclic variations in global sea level suggest natural cycles of about 60 and 30 years in length. Such cycles, which are deserving of considerable further study, suggest a significant fraction of the observed rate of sea-level rise of past decades may be attributable to the upswing of natural cycles.”
      ______

      I wanted to see the 60- and 30-year sea level cycles that Professor Asten believes are suggested by cycle variations, so I went to Google Images and entered “global sea level rise.” I found several graphs showing long-term sea level rises but none of them showed what I would consider cycles of the lengths the Professor believes are suggested unless I suppose the 60-year or 30-year period started early or late and likewise ended late or early. However, shrinking or stretching periods for the purpose of calling them cyclical doesn’t seem right to me.

      Faustino said Asten also addresses the issue of sea level rise in article, but his link (see above) doesn’t go to anything about sea level.

  75. The United Nations has unfortunately led the world in deceitful science post-1945 in an effort to save the world from nuclear annihation.

    There is a great deal of humor in the climate predictions of those on the government payroll, but the possible consequences of government deceit is deadly serious.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/time-to-start-eating-the-dogs/#comment-305321

  76. I just noticed the place in the itinerary where it states: “Because of extensive sea ice in Commonwealth Bay, we will undertake aerial reconnaissance using drones to find a safe route to Cape Denison”
    One might speculate that wind and temperature conditions in the Antarctic are not exactly ideal for drones. If they were counting on that Turney-supplied bit of tech to guide them through the ice, rather than more conventional recon systems, it would explain a good deal about how they got into their fix.
    This is all speculation, mind you. Anyone have any actual information?

  77. Cartoon Josh: do something with the infamous Shackleton add

    http://www.antarctic-circle.org/advert.htm

    • SUT, fascinating. A cold corrective as we’re expecting 37C in Brisbane today, 41C tomorrow. Shackleton and his ilk must have had an amazing amount of heroism and fortitude, and perhaps a hint of OCD.

  78. Is The Global Warming Hoax over yet?

    Andrew

  79. Nope, no children ever go to Antarctica.

    So kids on Antarctica are nothing new. Tourist excursions to Antarctica are nothing new. Ships, like icebreakers, responding to distress calls, for free, on the oceans is nothing new.

    Paper sacks can be a simple cure.

    • Steven Mosher

      base esperanza. its a permanent settlement. they also have a couple of school teachers.

      However, it’s immaterial to the question at hand about the balance between PR and science on this expedition and more deeply whether
      the folks in charge who preach about risk to our grandchildren have any business on that soapbox

    • I hope somebody highlights any papers that come out of this, or cite any of the “data” collected on this “scientific mission.”

    • They were in no imminent danger.

      The polar cruises have taken a lot of young children, even younger, to Antarctica. This is probably not that kid’s first trip to Antarctica, or his first scientific cruise.

    • JCH, “They were in no imminent danger.”

      By who’s standards? Were they in less imminent danger than say the Earth is from AGW, a person not wearing their seat belt, a 737 in a deep convective storm, a person living 50 km from a nuclear power plant or a three biscuit a day consumer? I am pertty sure Dana could work out the odds so that science/vacation junkets should be banned. I me really, the ship could have lost power and all aboard would have been forced to eat cold canned Spam for two weeks.

    • Steven Mosher

      They were in no imminent danger.

      ##############################

      1. well, there you go. we are in no imminent danger from sea level rise.
      That doesnt prevent us from talking about possible dangers.
      2. Then why leave the ship?

      The polar cruises have taken a lot of young children, even younger, to Antarctica.

      1. This says nothing about the danger. Billy smokes cigarettes mom.
      2. This says nothing about whether or not this was done for scientific
      reasons or PR reasons. I’ll suspect the latter.
      3. This says nothing about how their trip was funded.

      This is probably not that kid’s first trip to Antarctica, or his first scientific cruise.

      1. This says nothing about the risk
      2. this says nothing about the PR
      3. This says nothing about the funding.

      #################

      Your task is to actually address the concerns. My friend once took another pilots kid up with him on a ride in a trainer. No problem. 17 year olds have been in these types of aircraft. he was in no imminent danger.
      Paul flew the aircraft ,the kid sat in the back. what could go wrong. His father Jim flew chase.These men were professionals.

      Imagine his dad’s surprise when….

      http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-23/local/me-681_1_company-test-pilot

    • “Imagine his dad’s surprise when….”

      Yes that might have brought on a little stress for a father. Good story though.

    • The Captain said the passengers and crew were in no imminent danger.

      Why they left the ship is a good question. It probably had to do with the real prospects of an icebreaker reaching them in a reasonable amount of time. You know, like there were hairdresser appointments at risk.

    • Every parent deals with this. When I was in grade school I was one of my father’s hands. I did everything the adult hands did. If a bull needed roping, I roped him. Ditto for studs, and they can get about as nasty as it gets. I operated farm equipment, and that was before safety shields. I wasn’t alone. Everybody’s kids did the same. If Dad needed to pull a calf in the middle of the night in blizzard conditions in the middle of some field miles and miles from anything, I went with him so I could watch for the ditch on the passenger side. Could have been killed. Could have frozen to death. Could have been injured. Farm equipment accidents among children were not uncommon. Every year people died of exposure in blizzards.

      It was a delightful childhood. I think this kid is lucky.

    • Steven Mosher

      JCH.

      What you seem to be arguing is that parents know best about the risks they expose their children to. That’s fair enough. And we understand from this story
      that others might be exposed to more risk because of a parents decision. Like an ambulance driver who might have had to drive you to the hospital. Or a helo pilot.

      So I sit here and wonder. Which risk should I expose my children to. The risk of increased taxes or the risk of climate change. I choose the risk of climate change. I understand that others may be put at risk as well. I understand that they may have to be rescued in the future by someone else, but hey, I get to choose.

  80. They are the new green aristocracy. – a noblesse au premier degré of the green nobility. We are witnessing the green aristocracy participating in a grotesque masque, In the aristocratic masquee the honoree is usually represented as the hero, resolving the situation and saving society from evil. And we are the despised serfs watch the frolics and follies of the green aristocrats. Vive la revolution!

    • An aristocracy that specializes in the manufacture of nothing but pretense. Pozzo was at the least, very honest in admitting his need for the productive: “I cannot go long without the society of my likes,” (Waiting for Godot)

  81. JCH
    The crews that rescued them and are left behind are at risk. Far more immanent than the four degree rise in temperature that apparently threatens your grand kids. O sorry the crews from three nations are only the despised carbon proletariat.

  82. To be honest, I probably would have done the same, if I was a believer.

    In Mawson’s day, there was little or no sea ice around Commonwealth Bay. Average global temperatures have increased since then. The trip is being undertaken for purely scientific purposes and the charter company is highly experienced. We are going in the height of the Antarctic Summer. We can call on assistance from an ice-breaker if we have to.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  83. The first drama of the day was the sinking – or almost! – of one of the Argos. The Argos are designed to be amphibious – just. They were launched today off the ship – and two of the three made it safely being towed by a zodiac the 50 metres or so to shore. The third was towed too fast it seems – and water came over the bonnet / bow, flooding both the engine and the vehicle itself. Ben tried in vain to bail out with a spade and luckily they made it to shore before the vehicle sunk entirely. Ben ended up rather wet too, but similarly to Mary, not submerged enough for the lifejacket to come into play. Sadly Argo engines don’t take too kindly to being submerged… the ships engineers are still working on it and not very optimistic about its prospects.

    The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro.I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in. As I write we are continuing to make extremely slow progress through what looks like a winter alpine snow field – it’s yet another surreal part of this journey that we are in a ship trying to barge our way through here! I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier. Maybe we would have made it through the worst before it consolidated as much as it has with the very cold south- easterly winds blowing the ice away from the coast, around and behind us as well as ahead.

    – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.fSZamK11.dpuf

    This is a Quote from the green party members journal . I think it lets the captain of the hook as he could not just leave them on the ice to safe his ship .

  84. Oh my, how we all forget Liu and Curry, Accelerated Warming of the Southern Ocean and Its Impacts on the Hydrological Cycle and Sea Ice, best summarized by Mark B and the Weasel

    “Liu and Curry, defended by The Team, selected inappropriate data and time periods, ignored data that doesn’t match the IPCC message, manipulated results, clearly engaged in misconduct, dismissed dissenting views, and ultimately pushed the notion that Antarctic Sea Ice will melt, based on fudged computer models, when data clearly shows otherwise. Read ‘The Antarctic Ice Illusion: CurryGate and the Corruption of Science’ by Montfork. It’s one of the best books written on climate science, though I can’t personally vouch for any of its conclusions.”

    • Rabett is always trying to have it both ways. When Curry speaks against the alarmist tribe he is insulting to her very existence on the planet. When he actually notices that she practices science–it must be strange to the rabett, that science actually intrudes on his paranoid fantasies–he is quick to use it in his equally insulting attacks on the skeptics that frequent her blog, and for whose existence he blames Curry.

      In this case he is merely curried rabbit. It is actually more palatable that most instances of rabett appearances.

    • Being bullish on antarctic sea ice melt, is brave in the face of the Harvardton-Bears.

    • Should best every actually publish their combined land/ocean krige, the southern oceans should be interesting.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Yeah – weasel sounds about right. It appears that Eli has just relinguished any remaining shred of credibility.

      Judy – you would be well within the norms of blog etiquette to consign this pernicious and vicious ad hom to the outer darkness of the blogosphere.

    • Chief, “Judy – you would be well within the norms of blog etiquette to consign this pernicious and vicious ad hom to the outer darkness of the blogosphere.”

      Nah, Eli as harmless as a Rabbit. He does suffer from Climette Syndrome, similar to Tourette Syndrome, though Eli’s hasn’t progressed as far as mt’s. A little compassion for the handicapped is always admirable.

    • John Carpenter

      Look penguin!

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Can we take it that John approves of vicious personal attacks from the climatically challenged in the blogosphere? Loosely veiled as a blog science discussion of peer reviewed science in the PNAS?

      The distractions and the dissimulation – the progressive science denial – gets more desperate daily.

    • John Carpenter

      “Can we take it that John approves of vicious personal attacks from the climatically challenged in the blogosphere?”

      Yeah, that’s me chief.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      You might explain the penguin remark to someone who gives a rat’s arse.

    • Go read the paper folks.

    • John Carpenter

      “You might explain the penguin remark to someone who gives a rat’s arse.”

      Well that would be you… Since you seem to think it was originally directed at someone other than Eli.

    • No reply to MarkB’s:

      Liu and Curry, defended by The Team, selected inappropriate data and time periods, ignored data that doesn’t match the IPCC message, manipulated results, clearly engaged in misconduct, dismissed dissenting views, and ultimately pushed the notion that Antarctic Sea Ice will melt, based on fudged computer models, when data clearly shows otherwise. Read ‘The Antarctic Ice Illusion: CurryGate and the Corruption of Science’ by Montfork. It’s one of the best books written on climate science, though I can’t personally vouch for any of its conclusions.”

      Just personal squirrels, and a penguin.

      The power of silence.

    • Eli

      Contrary to Stoats assertions the paper received considerable criticism from many at WUWT, including from me. I think her uncertainty monster might have been born around that time as I wasn’t the only one to question the practice of writing papers using very sparse data.

      It would be very interesting to know what papers scientists would now rebut (or rewrite) if they had the chance. Surely Hansen and Trenberth have a few. Perhaps you do as well?

      tonyb

      • Not arguing with Chief Hydrologist but I am puzzled. This dry season/warmest year evah in Australia seems to be the opposite of warming causes snow in the States because it evaporates water.
        The only logical conclusion therefore is the equator determines the laws of physics. Proof: Toilets flush in opposite directions North and South of the equator.
        I’m ready for my doctorate, Mr. DeMille

    • Squirrels might be interested to know the function of “It would be very interesting to know” in TonyB’s comment.

    • #ClimateBall players might be interested to know that TonyB’s preemptive strike:

      > Contrary to Stoats assertions [...]

      has two interesting effects.

      First, it contradicts something that has been left unidentified, which only creates the impression of an argument.

      Second, that unidentified something has very little to do with Eli’s point, at least if we consider TonyB’s argumentative response.

      The power of squirrels.

    • Willard, “Second, that unidentified something has very little to do with Eli’s point, at least if we consider TonyB’s argumentative response.”

      You mean like trying to create or imput data for a region that can be in or out of phase with “Global” and even regional trends which can lead to Olympic class conclusion leaping?

    • I always hesitate to correct the estimable Don Surber, who is usually funnier and more accurate, but the coriolis effect is different on either side of the equator, but toilets flush according to the vagaries of design and contents.

      Though his, and the Cap’n’s point about the hemispheric difference is both accurate and funny in a peculiar sort of way. The earth flushes heat poleward from the equator, according to the design and contents of each hemispheric. When have the two hemispheres even approximated each other, except, of course, constantly?
      =================

    • Steven Mosher

      willard missed out on giving stoat a chewbacca award.

      funny how that works

    • As our Judge might say, your question is certainly valid, Cap’n, but not particularly interesting nor relevant to Eli’s reminder, IMO, which is why I am not motivated to answer it, even were I repeatedly queried (including email) about it.

    • Willard, “As our Judge might say, your question is certainly valid, Cap’n, but not particularly interesting nor relevant to Eli’s reminder, IMO,”

      I am not surprised. The “Science” question was the use of EOF to create data. The juvenile BS involved, is not one of my greater interests which is why I typically don’t read Stoat or Rabett Run. Mosher seems to think that you, since you are a student of juvenile BS, might have noted what was a rather poor choice of “Got’cha” topics.

    • Curious George

      Eli – thank you for a valuable reference to a software engineer’r and a climate blogger’s take on climate. Are you a software engineer, too?

    • Dear Cap’n,

      Since you seem to ask, “before 1978 the data isn’t usable over large regions” was the kinder way to reword the Stoat’s Chewbaccattack, not the “there is no justification for the EOF analysis,” which ain’t one. Not that you have any interest in Eli’s reminder, but you might appreciate that NG’s:

      I think I just did a ‘Judy Curry’.

      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/31/round-in-circles-with-accelera/#comment-14399

      has yet to be thrown in our lukewarm moshpit.

      Let’s not wonder why.

  85. Chief Hydrologist

    To change the subject – which was pretty boring to start with.

    Cant find a global update – but the Australian BOM is loudly announcing the hottest Australian year on record. Yea team warmer.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

    And it has been dry for a couple of years – and very dry still with a late onset wet season – again. This is related to temperature through the lack of evaporation and the resultant reduced environmental lapse rate in the troposphere. This results in increased surface temperature – i.e. at 2m in the standard weather station – but not the total heat in the troposphere.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0

    Looking forward – it looks very dry and very warm.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/maps/rain.national.hrweb.png?1388712875993

    Great beach weather. I very nearly took a picture this morning to share of Keppel Bay from Wreck Point as I was passing on my way to the pool for some laps. Absolutely gorgeous. Too cruel.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_North_American_cold_wave

  86. Those who like to farm with a green twist – and those who like to incinerate wood slowly and money quickly – might want to consider an investment in Carbonscape, Professor Turney’s company specialising in biochar. Biochar isn’t just overpriced charcoal from your weekend market. It can be an overpriced “solution” covering many acres.

    Since I don’t fertilise, spray or burn, and only make enough bamboo char for my own use, I won’t be buying. But there’s a green opportunity for somebody here. (Yes, there are two types of “green”, aren’t there?)

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The scattered clumps of sclerophyll forest, never large or dense in Aboriginal times, began to surge outward, spreading down off the ridges to cover the valley flats which had carried only a few trees to the hectare in pre-European days. When my father was a young man, he and his brothers could ride everywhere in ‘the State’, as they called the vast forest reserve near their home, seeking the giant timber trees that stood among the younger spindlier growth. As my father told me recently, ‘You hardly had to make roads for the bullocks then. You could see through the bush for hundreds of yards.’ Now, you could barely get a horse through most parts of the Myall State Forest, among the vines and wattle thickets and dense stands of young trees which flourish there after eighty or ninety years of mill logging and sleeper cutting. Eric Rolls – A Million Wild Acres

      Can we forgive an imported ‘toff’ – albeit one who has fallen on reduced circumstances? Perhaps not. The transformation of the Australian bush to thick stands of woody weeds is a great ecological tragedy – not to mention the fire risk.

      The real question is how much you would pay to reduce woody weeds like Parkinsonia aculeata and moso bamboo?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Note to Judy – this is actually quite acceptable Australian banter – expected from from a NSW ‘blues’ cockroach.

    • Note to Judy – this exchange between Chief and mosomoso is the height of civility and genteelness compared to what Pommy immigrants such as me are expected to put up with without complaint. Australia has laws against racial abuse, except when the recipient is British.

      • It’s impossible to underrate the intelligence of those who elect to bat last in Sydney. Must have biochar between their ears. The volatiles are gone, the inert remains.

    • mosomoso, I think that Captain Cook is totally lacking in tactical nous and the “mongrel” needed to exert continued pressure on the opposition. So I won’t be rising to that bait. Looking at the squad, we might need to find a captain elsewhere even if he isn’t quite test standard as a player, a la Brearley (whose brother took me to see him play in his amateur days, when he was an academic at Durham Uni).

      • Yes. You need someone a bit sly/sinister like Brearley. Perfidious Albion and all that. We eat your jolly types and earnest types with our cornflakes.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      There was a stage where I ‘advocated’ military annexation of New Zealand to get access to their cricket team. Thank God that wasn’t necessary. (Expletive deleted) are almost as bad as pommy basterds.

  87. No need to worry. Our heroes are off the ice and a great adventure was had by all. The seafarers are just incidental to saving the grand kiddies from the end of the world. I have yet to see even a public word of gratitude from our wretched government or these arse clowns, to the Chinese pilot and crew that saved them.

  88. I guess the media decided it didn’t want to confuse the public with global warming activist scientists being stuck in the ice so they didn’t mention it:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2014/01/02/frozen-out-98-stories-ignore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

    • newsbusters is hardly a credible source of factual information

      “In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change”

      That’s BS.

      • Surely you gest:

        The Science Case

        The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1914 resulted in the first complete study of the vast region which lies south of Australia and New Zealand. The three years’ worth of observations gleaned by Mawson and his men provide a unique dataset against which we can compare the changes seen today. Policy documents highlight numerous science questions that need to be urgently addressed across the region. And yet, despite of a century of research, major questions remain about whether the changes seen today are exceptional. The combination of extreme conditions and vast distances involved make the Australasian sector of the Antarctic one of the most problematic to study.

        The scale of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is staggering. Over 98% of the continent is submerged by three large ice sheets that drown the underlying topography. The Australasian sector is dominated by the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, the largest of three ice sheets that contains enough freshwater to raise the world’s sea level by some 52 metres. Until recently it was thought this ice sheet was stable, sitting on the continental crust above today’s sea level. However there is an increasing body of evidence, including by the AAE members, that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.

        you did notice that:

        ….”that have identified parts of the East Antarctic which are highly susceptible to melting and collapse from ocean warming.”

      • meant: Surely you JEST

    • While I agree about Newsbusters, there is still the stopped clock, twice a day factor. Are you suggesting that the cruise was not largely about publicizing “climate change”? Which is it? Was it a “scientific expedition” or a pleasure cruise?

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      lolwot said on January 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm

      newsbusters is hardly a credible source of factual information

      “In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change”

      That’s BS.
      __________

      I would call it chump bait. Poor ordvic swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

    • I don’t even think climate skeptics are on the same page.

      I see a hell of a lot of activities on the expedition blog that fall under science not activism. Indeed if the purpose of the trip was activism I find their blog horrendously ineffective. I wonder why they sent so many scientists, and why they wasted so much time on scientific activities!

      The short of it is that the skeptics loathe climate change getting any attention in the public sphere. They don’t really want that discussion to take place because everytime it does they are forced to either admit it’s happening to some extent, or denying it is. Neither of which help their cause.

      So for them it’s far better than what happens in Antarctica stays in Antarctica. Hence an expedition like this which gets attention by it’s very nature of retracing Mawson’s expedition, and highlights the subject of climate change, becomes a hate target.

      As soon as they saw an angle of attack they were in. We’ve witnessed a smorgasbord of different attack angles. Every skeptic blog has been working frantically not on posts about the science of Antarctica, but on posts trying to find new angles of attacking the expedition. Everything from mass speculation about the captain and team leader’s moves, to diving through the crew roster to exploit the kids on the ship.

      Even the narrative that skeptics have chosen to adopt to frame the expedition is pathetically childish and divorced from any rational assessment of the situation. By carefully ignoring inconvenient facts they come up with something absurd like this:

      Shorter skeptics: “scientists went to antarctica thinking the ice had all gone but now they are stuck in it LOL”

      The calls for the expedition members to be held punished is an indication of the animal urges of some of the skeptic community, lusting as they are for blood. A deep and bizarrely fixated concern on appointing blame. It’s more like a hope or wish than a concern.

      • I think you missed the point. It’s not about skeptics denying science and decrying media reports that opine climate change, It’s about the media denying a science expedition even exists to prevent the hyperventilating about the irony of the situation.

    • Curious George

      lolwot says “I see a hell of a lot of activities on the expedition blog that fall under science”. There may be. Of the last 10 entries, only one titled “marine biology” may come under “science”: Penguin watching, and attempting to lure seals using underwater speakers. All in the best tourist traditions. Hell…

  89. Lolwot
    Are you an Australian? If you are you can hear a nation laughing. Whatever it started out as this frolic is a propaganda disaster. Be interested to see how the scientist/capitalist Turney’s company’s stocks perform on Monday. Turney set off as Mawson and came back as Monty Python. This is probably the worst planned expedition over ice since the Swedes Andree, Nils Strindberg and Knut Frænkel, tried to land on the North Pole with a directionless hydrogen balloon in 1897. They took tonnes of scientific equipment and carrier pidgeons for communication. The hapless ballooners crashed on the ice after three days of flight and tragically their bodies were found thirty three year later. The upside is the pigeons probably survived. Staggered that Turney didn’t think of pigeons.

  90. John Turner (BAS) has an open minded op ed at the Guardian on the AS.

    Its the weather.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/antarctica-ice-trapped-academik-shokalskiy-climate-change

  91. Maybe he is starting to realise that climate is the average of weather. It is difficult to average what hasn’t yet occurred.

    Unless you derive the future from a model, that is.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  92. Lolwot
    I guess the meticulous planning that managed to get two vessels trapped in summer sea ice puts this eco-tour (WTF?) in the front rank of risk management. Did the ice take them by surprise? Turney is one of a new species of eco entrepreneur/scientist that has emerged particularly in the Terra Australis Incognita universities. This is precisely where science gets corrupted by capital and equity markets. If Climategate was a tragedy for CAGW then thiis is a farce. . Don’t worry old chum there will be a day of reckoning in regard to the corruption of science by Flannery, Mann, Hanson, et al. And every circus has its clown. Enter Professor Christian Turney.

  93. captdallas

    The good professor not only takes his family on the ride of their lives to Antartica he has them on the corporate ride of their lives as well. I guess that a family that eco-tours together profits together. Cute.

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/professor-trapped-ice-hidedisguise-involvement-carbonscape/http://iceagenow.info/2013/12/professor-trapped-ice-hidedisguise-involvement-carbonscape/

  94. captdallas
    It does appear that the ourist industry is running the “science”. Langley who is Turney’s partner in Carbonscape is a skipper and runs a tourist business down in Marlborough Sounds in New Zealand with a 78 year old motor yacht called Faith. I could go on but maybe you should just keep the faith?

    http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/tim-langley/24/48b/279http://nz.linkedin.com/pub/tim-langley/24/48b/279

  95. that should be “tourist”

  96. You too, Judy, have the modeling bug: “With increased loading of greenhouse gases through the 21st century, the models suggest that there is an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean.” is what you and Liu think. Isn’t it enough that all climate models that have been used have predicted more warming than reality has produced? Apparently not because you go ahead with not just one but three projections for our century: one for low, one for medium and one for high carbon dioxide values. Forget about all such models. Carbon dioxide today is the highest it has been but there simply is no warming. It is incapable of producing that greenhouse warming, exactly like the Miskolczi theory predicts. Any and all models using carbon dioxide are incapable of reproducing the real state of the world because greenhouse warming is built into them. Take a look at the CMIP5 duster if you don’t believe me. Latest count for no warming years is seventeen which includes this century and the last one, to the middle of 1997. But this is not all. There was another 18 year stretch of no-warming years from 1979 to 1997. The total of this is 35 no-warming years. That is actually longer than the time that IPCC has existed. If you wonder about those eighteen years, they were neatly hidden by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming” in official temperature curves. I spotted it as a fake when I wrote the book and even put a warning about it into its preface. Nothing happened for two years but then I find suddenly that GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC had decided not to show that warming again. What they did was to align their temperatures for that period with satellites which never showed the fake warming. It was done secretly and no explanation was offered. With that fake warming removed, the global temperature picture now falls into three regions since the start of the satellite era. The first section from 1979 to 1997 is an ENSO oscillation with the center line of the peaks and valleys forming a straight horizontal line. This is followed by the super El Nino of 1998 and a step warming that immediately follows it. In three years this step warming lifts global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stops. It is caused by a surge of warm water strong enough to almost completely suppress the 2004 El Nino. This creates a six year long horizontal platform that ends with the arrival of the 2008 La Nina. From that point on ENSO is in charge again and 2010 El Nino follows. The center points of its oscillations also line up in a horizontal straight line and the whole century becomes a no-warming zone in defiance of the IPCC greenhouse theory. This is actually a good test of rival greenhouse theories. IPCC uses the Arrhenius theory that demands warming, Miskolczi says that no warming is possible because of the interaction of two greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and water vapor. Miskolczi wins.

  97. The Antarctic continent is not warming as predicted by the IPCC models!

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf

    Doran, et al (2002) conducted a study of temperatures and ecosystem response in Antarctica’s dry valleys. They begin by stating that “The average air temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by 0.06°C per decade during the 20th century,” according to the IPCC, “and by 0.19°C per decade from 1979 to 1998.” In fact, “Climate models generally predict amplified warming in polar regions,” which would suggest that Antarctic temperatures should have warmed more than this in response to increases in greenhouse gases.

    However, “Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming,” they declare that “our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data” demonstrated “a net cooling over the entire Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn,” when ice melt would be most likely to occur. A study of temperatures and ecosystem response in the McMurdo Dry Valleys indicated a cooling of 0.7°C per decade between 1986 and 2000.
    Antarctic ecosystems show clear evidence of cooling, suggesting that the temperature measurements reported by Doran et al are occurring widely.

  98. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

  99. Mark Steyn: Global warming’s glorious ship of fools
    Has there ever been a better story? It’s like a version of Titanic where first class cheers for the iceberg

    But still: you’d have to have a heart as cold and unmovable as Commonwealth Bay ice not to be howling with laughter at the exquisite symbolic perfection of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition ‘stuck in our own experiment’, as they put it. I confess I was hoping it might all drag on a bit longer and the cultists of the ecopalypse would find themselves drawing straws as to which of their number would be first on the roasting spit. On Douglas Mawson’s original voyage, he and his surviving comrade wound up having to eat their dogs. I’m not sure there were any on this expedition, so they’d probably have to make do with the Guardian reporters.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9112201/ship-of-fools-2/

  100. Visiting Physicist

    OPEN LETTER to PROF CHRIS TURNEY, University of NSW, Sydney

    Dear Prof Turney

    I am a physics graduate who in recent years has turned his attention to very comprehensive study of climate, climate models and the alleged greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture. I have written to you personally and now make this matter public herein and elsewhere on various climate blogs.

    I make the following points …

    (1) Any study of temperature records for various inland cities (such temperatures being adjusted for altitude) will reveal that the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures are lower in the more moist regions, because the greenhouse gas water vapour cools, as does carbon dioxide to a very small extent.

    (2) The total solar energy reaching the top of the Venus atmosphere would not be anywhere near enough to raise its surface temperate to about 730K so such cannot be explained by radiative forcing.

    My challenge to you is to find anyone with sufficient knowledge of thermodynamics who can in any way support the conjecture that radiative forcing determines planetary surface temperatures.

    (This has also been emailed to Prof Turney directly with a note that it is being posted on about 15 climate blogs.)

    • Careful, Christian “the Penguin” Turney has the official seal of approval of the Australian Antarctic Divsion and is rumored to be operating undercover for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in place of outed CIA Climate Division Chief Beale on project Antarctic Warm Again. Their mission was nearly compromised by the Chinese Climate Spy Ship Xue Long which suspected that “The Penguin” was spreading microwave biochar on the Antarctic Sea Ice. These are powerful agents of Climate Change you are messing with. You could get Steiged.

  101. Pingback: Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? | Climate Etc.