But in fact the catastrophe may have been set in motion by a warm, wet year over Greenland in 1908, resulting in greater snow accumulation. Writing in the journal Weather, Grant Bigg and David Wilton of Sheffield University explain how the snow soaked through cracks in the ice sheet, encouraging excess iceberg calving over the following few years. Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.
Yeah, but have a look at what this research actually says and you’ll understand why The Guardian is nothing more than agitprop.
Titanic Sunk During Average Iceberg Year
“more than a century of Atlantic iceberg counts reveals 1912 was an average year for dangerous floating ice.”
Old Coast Guard records are throwing cold water on a long-standing explanation for the loss of the Titanic: the suggestion that the fateful journey took place in waters bristling with icebergs, making 1912 an unlucky year to sail the North Atlantic.
Instead, more than a century of Atlantic iceberg counts reveals 1912 was an average year for dangerous floating ice. The findings also contradict a popular notion that the Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier on Greenland’s west coast birthed the Titanic’s deadly ‘berg. Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.
“I think the question of whether this was an unusual year has been laid to rest,” said Grant Bigg, an environmental scientist at the University of Sheffield and lead study author, adding, “1912 is not an exceptional year.”
…
According to Bigg, 1912 was a high ice year, but not exceptional compared with the surrounding decades.
In 1912, data shows that 1,038 icebergs moved south from Arctic waters, and crossed the 48th parallel. The Coast Guard records show a slightly higher number of 1,041 icebergs crossed south of 48 degrees north in 1909. Between 1901 and 1920, five years saw at least 700 icebergs drift below 48 degrees north, where they could menace ships.
And, inconveniently according to GISS, it was the third coldest year on record. And, the years following it were still quite cold.
Then there is the fact that radar has been around for about 65 years, though some folks think that ship radar might not help against global warming icebergs. They hide in the deep ocean and then surface right in front of the ships. (Thanks Roy)
Image from the bridge of the Ocean Nova Antarctica Cruise Ship
I keep expecting to hear that hangnails are caused by global warming.
Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2014 6:07 am
It’s hard to know if the Gruniad actually believes a single word of what they publish.
Rick K
April 28, 2014 6:12 am
The Gruniad can kiss my ice…
Jimbo
April 28, 2014 6:16 am
Kate Ravilious goes on to say….
Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.
Is she right? Where is the data for this?
The abstract she links to has no abstract to look at.
Anyway, I think I found the full paper, no time to read, have to dash for other duties.
There is a graph showing “Total number of icebergs crossing latitude 48°N” which seems to be trending DOWN since 1985. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2238/pdf
SMC
April 28, 2014 6:21 am
It would be nice to know if there was something global warming and CO2 weren’t the root cause of.
katarax
April 28, 2014 6:27 am
CAGW: I just can’t quit you.
Tom O
April 28, 2014 6:33 am
“SMC says:
April 28, 2014 at 6:21 am
It would be nice to know if there was something global warming and CO2 weren’t the root cause of.”
Might I suggest, in response to your statement, that possibly the cruxifixion of Christ and the Spanish inquisition “may not” have been caused by global warming and CO2. Then again…
Apparently global warming caused Capt Smith to pay little heed to numerous iceberg warnings from other ships and sail his ship far too fast for prevailing conditions. Yeah, that’s how it happened!!
‘The Guardian’is the Titanic.
I am benevolent enough to wish that Dana Nuccitelli survives the sinking of it. Who else is such a silly comical foil for skeptics? OK, Mann is but having two silly comical foils for skeptics is twice as enjoyable.
John
David
April 28, 2014 7:05 am
One thing I know CO2 has done is line the pockets of a bunch of crooks who run around screaming fire in crowded places.
richard
April 28, 2014 7:18 am
They should have rammed the Titanic hard into that iceberg, maybe that would have given them a few extra hrs.
artwest
April 28, 2014 7:20 am
Col Mosby says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:02 am
Apparently global warming caused Capt Smith to pay little heed to numerous iceberg warnings from other ships and sail his ship far too fast for prevailing conditions. Yeah, that’s how it happened!!
——————————————
To be fair, I understand that there is evidence Smith wasn’t doing anything outside of the norms of the time and wasn’t traveling exceptionally fast.
There does seem to have been a bigger problem with lookouts not having binoculars, allied to unusually calm sea conditions which didn’t produce waves against the base of icebergs, thus making them harder to see at the best of times.
Alan Robertson
April 28, 2014 7:21 am
“Yeah, but have a look at what this research actually says and you’ll understand why The Guardian is nothing more than agitprop.”
____________________________
With such luminaries as Dana Nuccitelli managing the Guardian’s comment pages, how can you say such a thing?
(Do I really need a sarc tag?)
There does seem to have been a bigger problem with lookouts not having binoculars, allied to unusually calm sea conditions which didn’t produce waves against the base of icebergs, thus making them harder to see at the best of times.
The binoculars wouldn’t have helped; I’ve stood lookout watches at sea, and we used the naked eye to scan for things. Binoculars can hinder detecting stuff since they narrow your field of view and because they need to be properly focused. I only used the binoculars when I was trying to identify what I was looking at (including the instance when what I thought was a life raft carrying a frantically waving castaway turned out to be a bit of flotsam occupied by three seagulls having a fight over some bit of food).
My understanding was that the cold labrador current impinging on the gulf stream created a layer of cold air under a layer of warm air. This refracted the horizon upwards so the ice berg could not be seen silhouetted against the night sky. It also made the California and Titanic look closer to each other than they were, and distorted their profiles so that the crew of the California were convinced they were looking at a small passenger ship rather than the immense Titanic. Moreover, the refraction layer was unstable, making the lights flicker and twinkle, making it impossible for a viewer to recognize and decipher signal lamp communications.
From what I’ve read, the loss of life was due to poor design and structure of the ship (not enough life boats, for one), with possible crew errors only adding to the tragedy. With the number of icebergs around, the real miracle is that more ships were not lost to them, especially before modern technology made them easier to spot.
The idea that CO2 (plant food) had anything to do with it is, of course, insane.
Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.
So made up data is ok if we agree with it. Right.
Greg
April 28, 2014 7:49 am
“Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.”
Err, I think it would be more accurate to say the ship “hit” an iceberg rather than the other way around.
It’s a bit like driving down a country lane with no lights and getting “hit by a tree”.
Of course if you want to spin it make it sound like “extreme weather” caused the event you’d have to say the iceberg jumped out and hit the ship.
E.M.Smith
Editor
April 28, 2014 7:50 am
Also of note was the construction of the ship. Turns out the iron used was more prone to cold embrittlement than expected. Also the ship had a new disign with one big prop in the middle and two small ones each side. Fine for fast crusing (mid-prop direct thrust line) but lousy for emergency turns (can’t run full forward one side, full back the other, as that midline prop doesn’t put in a turning moment…)
So once the berg was spotted, they could not turn away fast enough. And once it was hit, the iron fractured instead of bending.
Then again, it is nice to know that Global Warming was happening in 1912. That means it was not caused by all that coal and oil burned to raise the CO2 level…. so sure “Global Warming” sank the Titanic… I’m OK with that being pushed by the Dark Side….
Political Junkie
April 28, 2014 7:52 am
Some here may not have seen the “Complete list of things caused by global warming” – worth a peek! The Titanic sinking does not seem to appear on the obviously “incomplete list.” http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Louis Hooffstetter
April 28, 2014 8:00 am
From the conclusions of the article, the authors themselves say:
“The Titanic set sail in a year when sea-ice transport and iceberg calving rates were high, but not exceptionally so.”
So only Kate is making the unsupported claim that global warming contributed to the sinking of the Titanic. The Guardian no longer hires reporters. Instead, they hire activists like Kate Ravilious and Dana Nuccitelli who twist research to fit their agendas.
chris moffatt
April 28, 2014 8:15 am
“…released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912,”
Correction. Titanic hit the iceberg. Under international ColRegs Icebergs have right of way – as any fule kno! The good Colonel Mosby is quite correct; the findings of the Board of Inquiry were that collision occurred due to the speed of the ship being excessive for sea-ice conditions. The iceberg was in way at fault.
Dell from Michigan
April 28, 2014 8:24 am
I have to conclude that the sinking of the Titanic was directly caused by CO2 emissions from burning of coal.
The engines that were making the Titanic travel so fast when its hull was ruptured by the inceberg were coal fired steam engines. Therefore they were emitting CO2. So the sinking of the Titanic was directly related to manmade greenhouse gas emissions from the engines making it go too fast for dangerous iceberg laden ocean travel.
Now where is my 2 million dollars for proving that the sinking of the Titanic was caused by CO2 emissions?
;>P
Jeff Alberts says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:49 am
It should also be noted that the iceberg in the computer model travelled quite a way over Newfoundland itself before sinking the Titanic. It’s worse than we thought.
See Fig 7 in the paper referenced by Jimbo above: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2238/pdf
Great model – didn’t even model the coastline correctly! The rest of the paper is equally ridiculous; including this quote: However, the iceberg risk to the Titanic is likely to have predominantly developed around 1908, when a moderately warm and wet year over Greenland produced enhanced snow accumulation (Figure 8). We believe that this gradually soaked through cracks in the ice sheet and accumulated around its margins, which probably led to enhanced short-term outlet glacier sliding, with resulting enhanced calving.
Snow fell down the cracks in the Greenland ice sheet and caused enhanced calving 3 years later – no evidence provided.
Neil
April 28, 2014 8:37 am
Of course. Global Warming sunk the Titanic (because of icebergs).
Good to know that poor quality rivets supplied because of time pressures, an issue known at the time of Titanic’s construction, (http://www.materialstoday.com/metals-alloys/news/what-really-sank-the-titanic/) had nothing to do with it.
US Marines: “If the ground doesn’t match the map, the map is wrong”
Climate Scientists: “If reality doesn’t match the models, reality is wrong”.
Dudley Horscroft
April 28, 2014 8:45 am
E.M.Smith says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:50 am
“… Also the ship had a new disign with one big prop in the middle and two small ones each side. Fine for fast crusing (mid-prop direct thrust line) but lousy for emergency turns (can’t run full forward one side, full back the other, as that midline prop doesn’t put in a turning moment…)”
With respect, not so. To turn at a high speed, rudder hard over, the centre propeller impinges directly on the rudder, which creates a very substantial turning moment. With one outboard prop going full ahead, and the other full astern – if it had time to reach that speed, very likely it would have nearly stopped – does take time to stop large masses of machinery – the turning effect would have been very good.
And no, the side was not slashed open. IIRC the divers did not find the side slashed open. If it had happened she would have sunk in minutes. Far more likely is the explanation that she actually ran aground on the berg. At depths there is hardly any water flow past the ice, so there is a ‘blanket’ of ice-cold water against the ice. Melting is slow. At sea level wave action continually washes over the ice and the melt water is removed, to be replaced by water a bit warmer, so melting is quicker. The result is that a shelf can develop underwater, and it is believed that she ran onto the shelf, with the effect that when balanced on the shelf there were very severe stresses on the hull which caused substantial rivet distortion and some failure. A ship I was on hit another in Singapore. The other ship was berthed on a curve in the wharf, and we hit her just abaft midships. So she was bent a bit. There was apparently little damage, but the Class Society determined that in order to inspect the damage she would have to be dry-docked, and the cargo discharged to permit this. As the cargo was removed, so the stresses on the ship were relived and she straightened up. As she did so, rivets started falling out, and eventually she was leaking like a colander. The water was pouring in as fast as the cargo was coming out. That is what I believe happened with the Titanic. She was badly strained as she rode over the ice shelf, and when Capt Smith ordered her to move ahead again, rivets started popping with the change in strain, and rivetted seams opened up. When the Second Officer was in charge of a naval vessel that had been torpedoed or mined in WW1, rather than go ahead, he ordered astern movements only and managed to bring the ship to safety (needs checking, this from memory of the relevant book). The Master of the sister ship, Britannic, which was either torpedoed or mined, put her ahead to try to reach the shore, but she sank first.
Note that very few of the passengers drowned. Apart from those who could not swim and struggled, leading to drowning, and those who had heart attacks as a result of the sudden immersion in ice cold water, most would have died of hypothermia. Massive temperature loss would have resulted in the body shutting down bit by bit, eventually brain death and heart stoppage.
Note that the rivets supposedly became brittle at temperatures of -4C. But the water would not have been that cold. Approaching it, yes, but not there.
The fire in a bunker had been there for a long time – possibly from the time she set out from Liverpool (?) to go to Southampton. Coal fires were not unknown in coal bunkers, and still are in coal heaps – witness the coal fire in Victoria – not certain if it is out yet, and I believe there are some coal fires in the eastern USA which have been burning for thousands of years.
Vince Causey
April 28, 2014 8:46 am
Well, if it was global warming back then, that’s evidence against it being man made.
One interesting theory of why the iceberg wasn’t spotted early enough, put the blame on “refraction”. Apparently, it was well known that different atmospheric temperature layers can make the horizon appear to lift up. This would completely block the light from an iceberg. Analysis of ships logs on that night does appear to suggest that refraction was abnormally high.
Maybe that was caused by global warming as well.
Gamecock
April 28, 2014 8:47 am
If the dog eats your homework, it’s not the dog’s fault: it’s just a dog.
It wasn’t the icebergs fault the Titanic hit it. All sorts of fanciful theories about the iceberg still doesn’t make it the iceberg’s fault.
Stephanie Clague
April 28, 2014 8:52 am
The loss making low circulation failing guardian? Mad as a box of frogs and dumber than dirt
Jimbo
April 28, 2014 8:53 am
Is it possible that we have better detection capabilities for ice-bergs than we had in 1912?
Arctic ice extent was mapped long before the satellite era. Over data available for the Northern-European Basin (77% of Arctic ocean era), the 1910s had a higher ice extent than a few years immediately beforehand and than the decades afterwards. And that was during relative cold, not relative warmth.
More icebergs might indeed occur in the near future like the next decade from now — and, incidentally, though not arctic, already this year “US temperatures through April 26 are third coldest on record, just barely behind 1899 and 1912. This week is forecast to be cold, and will likely push 2014 into the #1 spot” as noted yesterday at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/2014-closing-in-on-coldest-start-to-the-year-in-us-history/ . But, if so, the “climate change” causing the extra ice would be cooling, not warming.
The ice extent of the 1910s can be seen in a Russian-source plot about 3/4ths of the way down in my usual http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq set of illustrations (which also shows how the GISS temperature in this article has been heavily adjusted, in the usual style explored at http://hidethedecline.eu , although the adjustments were more later in the century).
richard
April 28, 2014 8:56 am
tarran says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:36 am
very interesting.
LogosWrench
April 28, 2014 8:56 am
The ship did swerve but the iceberg hit It anyway. Damn you AGW!!!!!
Jimbo says:
April 28, 2014 at 9:07 am
Aren’t icebergs that far south a sign of cooling?
“The disaster occurred in a period of worldwide cooling. Looking at the National Climate Data Center database dating to 1880, for 15 consecutive years before the sinking, annual global temperatures finished below long-term averages”
Alan the Brit
April 28, 2014 9:17 am
Greg says:
April 28, 2014 at 7:49 am
“Instead, a computer model suggests that one of the glaciers at Greenland’s southern tip released the iceberg that hit the Titanic on April 14, 1912, drowning more than 1,500 people in the frigid ocean.”
Err, I think it would be more accurate to say the ship “hit” an iceberg rather than the other way around.
My thoughts exactly, although such an instance might absolve Captain & crew & the White Star Line of any responsibility, It’s a bit like me savagely butting someone in the fist with nose!
pat
April 28, 2014 9:28 am
One of the more interesting idiosyncrasies of the Guardian is that absolutely nothing in it can be believed, Nothing.
Ex-expat Colin
April 28, 2014 9:34 am
It was sunk because it wasn’t the Titanic…get it right FFS
JimS
April 28, 2014 10:00 am
AGW is sinking like the Titanic, but it will take another 10-15 years before it is totally submerged.
Gary H
April 28, 2014 10:11 am
Well whatever – 1912 was decades prior to the onset of anthropogenic global warming (mid 1900’s is the consensus view there of the IPCC and other alarmists).
Therefore, if it was global warming which caused it (not that it was), it would have been that GW which is naturally occurring, rather than anthropologically induced.
Gary Pearse
April 28, 2014 10:14 am
Yeah, they’ve abandoned the CAGW being only since 1950 when CO2 emissions increased rapidly. That pesky natural variation pushed them back to the 1880s and then, having to abandon the rearguard action to keep the LIA out of site (they are always hiding something – their kids probably never do find the easter eggs), they moved our culpability back to the 1700s. These “corrections” where the first wheels falling off the CAGW cart. Now the “pause” 17+years of no warming, has caused them to embrace odious natural variation, sun activity, AMO/PDO, Enso and whatever else they can subvert to their cause. CAGW and ocean heat are always waiting to jump out at us. The only global warming that threatened a ship was the belief in it by Turney’s Ship of Fools sporting in the Antarctic summer.
richard
April 28, 2014 10:36 am
Remarkable.
The guardian let through a link to this page in the comments section.
Mark
April 28, 2014 10:58 am
E.M.Smith says: So once the berg was spotted, they could not turn away fast enough. And once it was hit, the iron fractured instead of bending.
There’s a theory that it was the turning away was a big part of the problem. Resulting in the berg scraping along the hull. Whereas had the ship not turned away the bow would have crumpled but the ship may have stayed afloat.
Gary Pearse
April 28, 2014 11:00 am
My comment above mentioned the only ship threatened by global warming was the Ship of Fools who thought it was happening in Antarctica. This led me to Chris Turney’s website where I find 140 papers he had co-authored. Only two were published in 2014 – a nature article shrilling that the Ship of Fools was not a pleasure cruise, and ironically the second one:
“The discovery of New Zealand’s oldest shipwreck–possible evidence of further Dutch exploration of the South Pacific”
This struck me as akin to a slip of the tongue vis a vis the brain. Having written 140 papers since 2000, he has definitely quietened down. He hasn’t updated his website – still advertising the Antarctic expedition of the century. I truly feel a little sorry.
Iceberg Occurrences from the book “White Wings” by Henry Brett, fifty years of sail in the New Zealand trade, 1850 to 1900. http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/Iceberg.htm
[1] On January 2, 1868 the 1326 ton clipper “Mermaid” arrived in Lyttelton after an 89 day passage from GB and it was reported that, ” When in the vicinity of Cape Leeuwin, Captain Rose and his officers had an anxious time avoiding 30 huge icebergs.” Are icebergs seen off Albany or Margaret River ever these days ?
Blimey!!
The captain reported seeing several icebergs off the Cape (of Good Hope) and then, “.. that from the Cape to the Crozets was a most trying time as icebergs were in sight for a distance of two thousand miles.”
Gary Hladik
April 28, 2014 11:36 am
Ex-expat Colin says (April 28, 2014 at 9:34 am): “It was sunk because it wasn’t the Titanic…get it right FFS”
That reminds me of a Titanic conspiracy “theory” I discovered only yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic_alternative_theories#Gardiner.27s_Ship_That_Never_Sank
Supposedly the White Star Line disguised Titanic’s sister ship Olympic as Titanic and sank it for the insurance. No doubt the owners turned to crime under the nefarious influence of Glooooobaaaal Waaaaarmingggggg. 🙂
“””Soberingly, global warming has increased iceberg hazard greatly in recent decades, making years like 1912 more the norm than the exception.”””
Kate should be forgiven for her anecdotal remark. After all tragedy struck close to home, when her colleague Laurence Topham aka Peanut Butter Banana Milkshake Boy, was trapped by icebergs in the Antarctic over last Christmas.
Whose to say those icebergs didn’t come from Greenland? A product of snow soaking through cracks in the ice sheet?
The number one cause of the Titanic sinking was poor judgement by Captain Smith, who continued through known iceberg waters at night rather than heave to until better visibility in the morning. Poor metallurgy in the wrought iron rivets may have contributed to the disaster by opening more watertight compartments than would otherwise have been the case, but that is secondary to poor command judgement.
Almost exactly 100 years later the Costa Concordia, with all the best modern navigation instruments and communication gear was likewise sunk by poor command judgement. It was only the very near proximity to land, the shallower bottom (so the entire hull never submerged), and the warmer water which combined to prevent a much larger loss of life. Underwater pictures of the hull show a ribbon of steel stripped from the hull like opening a coffee tin.
100 years of progress have not altered this simple fact: a large ship moving at speed which encounters an unyielding underwater object will suffer extensive hull damage sufficient to cripple or sink the ship. Icebergs, ships, and other hazards await the careless navigator with a most unpleasant result. Global warming, real or imagined, does not increase this risk one iota.
Eamon Butler
April 28, 2014 12:30 pm
But, did we not have ”dangerous” levels of Co2, above 350ppm, until the 1970s?
John F. Hultquist
April 28, 2014 12:43 pm
Kate (Bless her heart!) had a note that Steven Goddard commented on here: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/guardian-has-a-new-prophet/
The first part of my comment there was
“I wonder if Kate R., of the Guardian has any earth science background?”
I think we now know the answer is none, nada, zero, zip, zilch.
Mac the Knife
April 28, 2014 1:22 pm
With their penchant for alarmism at every perturbation in local weather and their continuing loss of credibility, Global Warming may be what eventually ‘sinks’ The Guardian!
One can only hope…
Reblogged this on Two Heads are Better Than One and commented:
Good grief, what are the “Global Warm-inistas” gonna blame on Climate Change/AGW next? The Civil War, maybe? The Black Death? The Chicago Cubs? …Why not?
jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2014 2:12 pm
John Whitman says: ” ‘The Guardian’ is the Titanic.”
The Guardian is not fit for lining the bottom of my budgie’s cage. The recent addition of Darth Ravilious does not represent an improvement.
Just think of all the disasters that would have been avoided if it hadn’t been for Global Warming?
I mean, think of how much better professional hockey teams would since we all would have learned to ice skate before we could walk?
The US national pastime would have been curling instead of baseball!
We’ve lost so much because it’s not freezing outside.
jorgekafkazar says:
April 28, 2014 at 2:12 pm
John Whitman says: ” ‘The Guardian’ is the Titanic.”
The Guardian is not fit for lining the bottom of my budgie’s cage. The recent addition of Darth Ravilious does not represent an improvement.
– – – – – – – – – – –
jorgekafkazar,
I had to look up budgie and Darth Ravilious.
Sounds like you shouldn’t use ‘The Guardian’ to wrap your fish & chips in either. Well, assuming people do actually wrap their fish & chips in old newspapers, maybe I am a bit outdated.
John
I served my apprenticeship as a ships engineer – took/sat all the exams – did the “Workshop Experience” plus the necessary sea time afloat – and therefore I consider myself as being a qualified “Ship’s Engineer” – Especially as I have successfully been in charge of “Engines Afloat” (that’s ships at sea) for more than 40 years.
Now then, in the case of the “Titanic” the “Home Office” (Cunard Line) would have published a “leaving and an arrival time” for the ship (Titanic). – They always do!
The Captain of the said ship, is/was the man in charge,
The Captain has got a “choice”. He can, if he likes, make the ship dock late – which is not in accordance with the “Shipping Company’s brochure” or he can make the ship “dock early” which is going to upset all other dockings, i.e make them late.
Either one case is a sacking offence.
So you may say: “who wants to be a “Captain of a ship” under those conditions? – Well, lots of people. You see; an Atlantic Crossing is estimated – in calm waters – to take 12 days – rough waters can extend this to 15 days. The shipping Company then make their brochures arrival times exact. —— And that is why sometimes ships are idling (waiting for this, that and the other – sometimes for hours) before they dock.
lol
And the band played on as HMS Guardian sank below the waves….
Mike T
April 28, 2014 5:21 pm
E.M. Smith wrote: “So once the berg was spotted, they could not turn away fast enough. And once it was hit, the iron fractured instead of bending.” True, but Titanic’s other problem was that she didn’t have watertight compartments, merely tall bulkheads which were progressively overtopped as the bow sank, reaching a point of no return.
UAN
April 28, 2014 10:21 pm
People who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. The truth is it’s irrelevant whether 1912 was a normal year for ice bergs, below average, or the beginning of climate doom.
It was hubris, pure and simple, that sunk the Titantic. The “unsinkable” ship whose captain threw all caution to the wind to set a record crossing of the Atlantic.
The disaster compounded after the collision when ships in the area were slow to respond, when there was no orderly evacuation of the ship, etc.
So in that respect, the disaster was man-made.
But this story also illustrates the failing of history. History has nothing to do with the past, it’s always about what is relevant for the present, and history is spun with lessons the historian, or those referencing history, wants the people of their day to learn today.
Patrick
April 28, 2014 10:44 pm
:Mike T says:
April 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm”
Not only were they not water tight, about half of the first 6 bulkheads topped out as little as 3 metres above the water line. This design change was to accomodate luxury fittings for passengers.
Rhys Jaggar
April 29, 2014 12:19 am
‘Kate started out as a geologist, but after slicing up thousands of rocks for her PhD she realised that she was too impatient to be a scientist, and better suited to being nosy about other people’s research. ‘
A quote from the Guardian writer’s own website Bio.
One wonders whether she also has the patience to do the due diligence on the science of others? Nosiness only gets you so far, one suspects……….
Psalmon
April 29, 2014 6:18 am
The Titanic used to dump 100 tons of coal ash per day into the Atlantic while underway.
Aren’t we lucky technology advanced beyond big boats to fly people back and forth faster, cleaner, and cheaper.
Amazing how that works.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) grant NE/H023402/1. The twentieth century reanalysis data were obtained from the Research Data Archive (RDA), which is maintained by the Computational and Information Systems Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The I48N iceberg series comes from http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/iip/International_Ice_Patrols_Iceberg_Counts_1900_to_2011.pdf
Which leads you to this.
International Ice Patrol’s Iceberg Counts
1900-2011
Donald L. Murphy
Introduction
Each year, the International Ice Patrol (IIP) estimates the number of icebergs that pass south of 48° N, the latitude south of which icebergs are considered a menace to North Atlantic mariners. The dataset (Table 1) extends from 1900, 12 years before the sinking of RMS Titanic, to the present. For several reasons, these iceberg counts do not constitute a rigorous, scientific data set and should be interpreted with great care. For example, IIP’s reconnaissance operations focus on the icebergs closest to the transatlantic shipping routes, and rarely does IIP conduct a comprehensive survey of the area south of 48° N. In addition, the methods of observation have changed radically over the years as new technologies became available to detect and track icebergs. The earliest data were obtained from visual observations from early 1900s sailing vessels, while the recent information is obtained from visual and radar observations from modern ships, aircraft, and satellites……
Observations versus Estimates The earliest counts were simply a total number of icebergs observed south of 48° N. The icebergs were seen by vessels traversing the northwest Atlantic and reported to the U. S. Hydrographic Service or, after 1913, to the Ice Patrol vessel. The details of the counting process are not known, but it is likely that efforts were made to avoid counting duplicate observations. This task is more challenging than it seems. An iceberg’s appearance can change dramatically from day to day and the complex ocean currents make it difficult to predict the movement of an iceberg accurately, even for short periods. As a result, IIP was careful to refer to the monthly iceberg counts as estimates (IIP, 1927)…… http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=IIPIcebergCounts
Actually, it was cold weather that caused the sinking. The very cold air under a temperature inversion causes refraction – the opposite of a desert mirage on a hot day.
A hot mirage makes the sky appear lower, within the desert sands. A cold mirage makes a ship or an iceberg rise up above the sea. And the SS Californian was one among many ships that reported “super refraction” that night.
Here is what a cold mirage looks like, with ships floating in the sky: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6108/6890136342_3b331f1e89.jpg http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/52444/original.jpg
You can imagine how confusing this effect would be at night.
Ralph
Mike T says: April 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm “E.M. Smith wrote: “So once the berg was spotted, they could not turn away fast enough. And once it was hit, the iron fractured instead of bending.” True, but Titanic’s other problem was that she didn’t have watertight compartments, merely tall bulkheads which were progressively overtopped as the bow sank, reaching a point of no return.”
Watertight compartments are not required to have a “top” which is watertight. Ships, as was the Titanic, are required to have watertight bulkheads extending from the keel to the bulkhead deck, which is where the watertight bulkheads end. Th Titanic had 15 watertight transverse bulkheads, all extending at least to E deck, and being in excess of BOT requirements. See, for a side elevation should the decks and bulkheads: http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_watertight_compartments.shtml
As I understand it, she was designed so that if the forward four watertight compartments (A, B, C, D) were holed she would float. If compartment E were holed as well she would sink, and did so.
Dudley Horscroft
April 30, 2014 7:51 am
oops, para 2, “elevation should” should read “elevation showing”. And “Th” should be “The”.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/titanic_sunk_during_average_ic/25555532
And, inconveniently according to GISS, it was the third coldest year on record. And, the years following it were still quite cold.
Then there is the fact that radar has been around for about 65 years, though some folks think that ship radar might not help against global warming icebergs. They hide in the deep ocean and then surface right in front of the ships. (Thanks Roy)
Tim Ball has a well reasoned analysis:
Titanic Anniversary: Unusual Climate + Extreme Ice Conditions = Tragic Accident
==========================