It looks like the “rescued” climate scientists, journalists, and tourists will have to wait on-board the Aurora Australis awhile longer while this episode plays out. There is still a lot of ice ahead according to the webcam on Aurora Australis (seen below) which had been slowed to a crawl, making only 1/4 knot.
![A140030701A[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/a140030701a1.jpg?quality=83)
Press release: 4.30pm AEDT Friday 03 January 2014
Aurora Australis on standby as a precautionary measure
Xue Long notified AMSA at 1pm AEDT this afternoon it has concerns about their ability to move through heavy ice in the area.
The Aurora Australis has been placed on standby by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s (AMSA) Rescue Coordination Centre Australia (RCC Australia) to remain in open water in the area as a precautionary measure.
The Xue Long has advised RCC Australia that it will attempt to manoeuvre through the ice when tidal conditions are most suitable during the early hours of 4 January 2014.
There is no immediate danger to personnel on board the Xue Long.
www.amsa.gov.au/media
Source: http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/documents/030114UpdateAntartica.pdf
==============================================================
Meanwhile, the beginning of this domino effect has been traced back to a sightseeing expedition by the passengers of the Akademik Shokalskiy that spent too much time getting back on the ship.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Having followed a couple of links in comments on the latest taxpayer funded media stunt,erm, research expedition, erm, voyage, both here and at Jo Nova’s site, I expect that once the scientists, erm, tourists recently aboard the Akademik Shokalskiy return to dry land, their story is going to be something along the lines of their stranding being ‘…unequivocal proof that human caused gullible warming is more alarming than we thought because it shows how Antarctica’s land ice is melting and sloughing out to sea and that once it all melts the sea level rise will be a zillion metres by the year two thousand and frozen to death…’, or some such nonsense.
I forget who posted it, but there was a link in one comment to the Guardian’s indignant article explaining how the escapades of Turney et al are entirely in line with gullible warming, for reference it’s here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/02/antarctic-ship-stranding-delights-climate-change-sceptics.
The article contains five commandments to the flock when confronted by deniers laughing at the irony of it all and then by two pages of followers patting each other on the back for keeping the faith and linking vaguely to IPCC reports showing how Antarctica is actually losing ice volume and how silly the contrarians all are for grasping at straws and not knowing the difference between sea ice, pack ice, ice and snow. We’re also apparently all quite nasty for laughing at the numpties unfortunate mishap (they were all heroically out there doing important science didn’t you understand?)
It’s quite eye opening reading (as was the link to the ABC Lateline interview with Turney et al).
That is, eye opening in the same way that the sudden realisation one is about to vomit explosively is eye opening.
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:45 am
I suspect that the Polar Star will be needed or maybe an Aircraft Carrier,
**************************
Well that limits it to a very few nations that actually posses aircraft carriers–Australia has none.
I imagine the “scientific junketeers” are finding their new hosts on the icebreaker a bit less friendly than their previous “environmental tourism” crew. They’re probably being ordered to stay below, keep out of the crews’ way and knock off the “group sing-alongs”.
Who’d a thunk … being clueless and oblivious … the gift that keeps on giving.
North of: A carrier is not needed. A helilanding ship would suffice, preferably one trained in cold (very cold) weather.
rogerknights says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:13 am
But Turkey apparently asked, “Is that an order, sir?” and got the captain to back down into making it a request. So who’s to blame?
—-
Do you perhaps have a citation for that bit? If true, I think it will be the rock that sinks the CAGW boat or scuppers Turney (someone has to go under the bus :))
re: Brian H says January 2, 2014 at 11:34 pm
This tracker: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ shows the XL doing 1.5 knots.
Brian, I just checked and here’s what I get back for info:
XUE LONG
Flag: China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ship Type:Other
Length x Breadth:167m X 25m . . Draught: 9m
CALL SIGN: BNSKIMO: 8877899MMSI:412863000
Received: . . . . . . . 23 minutes ago . . (AIS Source: 1)
Status: . . . . . . . . . StoppedSpeed/
Course: . . . . . . . . 0.0kn / 114°
Destination: . . . . . ANTARCTICETA:
.
Just a side note, that only a few years ago this entire drama would have occurred in a vacuum, only to appear as a sanitized report weeks or even months later (if it ever got reported beyond friend of a friend stories).
Thanks to the internet and crowd sourcing examination of blogs, twitter posts ship position reporting systems and bridge web cams, it is now much harder for blunders like this to go unnoticed by the world at large. The even more delicious out come is much of this reporting is unintentional self reporting of events as they happen by the people immersed in the event, often with little thought by them of the information that they are “leaking” to the outside world that in time will undermine their efforts to sanitize the story or shift the message.
My thanks to all the real time digging folks have done to put together this puzzle from all these snippets of information. As usual the combined skills and life experience of the readership of WUWT have produced a documentary in real time as this story develops.
With regards to “who will pay” and the proximity of Australia to the Antarctic continent relative to Russia and China I suspect this whole thing will be swept under the rug. It would make things more difficult for the more distant countries when they run into their own problems in the future. Proximity is a big advantage when you’re travelling at 18 knots.
See if the Russians will divert one of their big nuclear icebreakers from the arctic to clean up this mess.
http://rt.com/news/world-biggest-icebreaker-russia-275/
Offload the ‘tourists’ to a Chinese or Russian fishing factory mega ship for a dose of smelly reality.
From today’s BBC website and further confirmation (if it were needed) that the ship wasn’t exactly full of climate scientists and fellow their travellers:
“Those Chinese guys are heroes,” added Nicole De Losa, head of Art at Hornsby Girls High School in Sydney. “They made what could have been a frightening experience so quick and easy for us. Without them, we would still be stranded.”
This would be a good teaching moment for low information alarmists to see the scale differences between their notion of glacier ice loss to explain areal ice extent and anomalous continental-scale records of ice increase. There is a difference in scale involved that they have not grasped with their limited talking point lists.
It is, it truly is, more ironic than we thought:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/antarctica-rescue-xue-long-calls-for-help-after-becoming-stuck-while-trying-to-help-akademik-shokalskiy-20140103-309dl.html
Resourceguy says: January 3, 2014 at 6:45 am “Offload the ‘tourists’ to a Chinese or Russian fishing factory mega ship for a dose of smelly reality.”
Martin Cruz Smith’s Polar Star comes instantly to mind, a well researched dark tale of Arkady Renko and peristroika. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Star_%28novel%29
But isn’t the general AGW consensus that warming is occurring mainly in the northern hemisphere and that in the southern hemisphere warming is much reduced (and even negative in some regions)? And this has been the AGW consensus for some time now. If so how does the fact that there is more ice than expected in the Antarctic contradict this consensus? It seems to me that there is nothing in this ‘rescue’ event that provides evidence either pro- or anti-AGW. Nothing to see here.
Just asking 🙂
MattS says: @ur momisugly January 3, 2014 at 6:44 am
See if the Russians will divert one of their big nuclear icebreakers from the arctic to clean up this mess….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can’t. They need COLD water to cool the reaction so can not go towards equator.
Richards in Vancouver says:
January 3, 2014 at 5:22 am
I’m buying more shares in Laughing Stock.
Now that is the best stock pick for 2014! Unless one’s short?
Gail Combs says: January 3, 2014 at 7:38 am “Can’t. They need COLD water to cool the reaction so can not go towards equator.”
Was this sarcsm? If so it must be marked so, else it’s just Wikipedia ignorance. The Lenin famously used a S1W modelled reactor plant which 500F highest temperature provided plenty of Carnot efficiency in equatorial waters. (From my personal experience.)
Believe nothing read or heard without verifying it oneself unless it Weltanschauung congruent.
” Larry Ledwick says:
January 3, 2014 at 6:34 am
Just a side note, that only a few years ago this entire drama would have occurred in a vacuum, only to appear as a sanitized report weeks or even months later (if it ever got reported beyond friend of a friend stories).”
Ironically, all of the extra media and communications gear on board was put to good use. Hoisted on their own petard.
Doug, the nuke ice breakers in question are stationed in the Northern Hemisphere and would have to cross the Equator.
Phaaz Spaas says at January 3, 2014 at 7:26 am
Exactly. It is known that Global Warming isn’t Global. That is pretty much the end of the scare.
But these guys still took a load of journalists down there to report on the issue. And strangely didin’t take the chance to say “Look Global Warming isn’t Global”. It was such a good, visual example of Global Warming not being Global.
Funny that.
Rob Ricket says: January 3, 2014 at 8:09 am “Doug, the nuke ice breakers in question are stationed in the Northern Hemisphere and would have to cross the Equator.”
Thank you, Rob, is there an issue remaining? I will be glad to clear up any nuclear power misapprehensions that I can.
Doug Huffman says: @ur momisugly January 3, 2014 at 7:51 am
That myth is all over the net. (Wiki strikes again.)
Here is a better article 2013 World Nuclear Association: Nuclear-Powered Ships
Doug Huffman says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:20 am
—-
Do you know the most recent date a nuclear icebreaker crossed the equator?
(Not trying to be funny, I would really like to know and I can’t seem to find out from the net – all the references just point to the equatorial waters being problematical.)
I am wondering whether the situation could deteriorate so far that the Polar Star couldn’t cut it and whether they would have a chance of sending down a nuclear icebreaker – if they wanted to 🙂