UPDATE: Perhaps the headline was premature, the latest SITREP from the rescue ship Aurora Australis indicates they are having some trouble getting into open water.
UPDATE2: It seems the cause of getting stuck was nothing more than dawdling while sightseeing.
Since the Guardian reporters shown above probably won’t do anything but complain about beds and lack of milkshakes (that video has now been “disappeared”) while writing glowing reports about the “adventure” of it all, it will be left to others to ask the tough questions. Now that they are on their way to Casey Station in Antarctica, Andrew Bolt starts off with these questions. I have a few of my own.
- Who paid for this expedition?
- How did the expedition team come to include Turney’s wife and two young children?
- How serious was this scientific endeavor?
- Was the choice of ship wise, given it is not an icebreaker?
- How did the ship, in these days of satellite imaging, high quality weather forecasts and radar, come to get stuck in ice?
- How much did the rescue cost?
- Who pays for this rescue?
- Why have the ABC and Fairfax media, so keen at first to announce this expedition was to measure the extent and effects of global warming, since omitted that fact from their reports after the expedition became ice-bound?
- Why have all those reports – and the expedition leader himself – neglected to mention that sea ice around Antarctica has increased over the past three decades – and is greater than the ice cover Douglas Mawson found a century ago?
I have these questions:
- Who pays for the trip back to Australia once they get let off at Casey Station?
- How much damage has this fiasco done to real science expeditions in Antarctica, not only from a delayed logistics standpoint, but also from PR standpoint?
- Why did the stranded ship reach out for weather forecasts and data when they should have been equipped for this in the first place?
- Who will be responsible if the ship ends up being stuck in ice permanently or gets its hull crushed and sinks?
- What will be the duties and fate of the crew left behind?
- Who funded the ARGO ATV’s after Turney’s Indiegogo crowdsourcing campaign failed miserably? Do those people get a refund?
- Why would Turney book this ship when it has only the barest of ratings for sea ice?
UL = Ice strengthening notation of the ship (independent navigation in the Arctic in summer and autumn in light ice conditions and in the non-arctic freezing seas all the year round) More on ratings here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/icebreakers-class.htm
8. Was Turney mislead about the intensity of the ice by his own beliefs that Antarctic sea ice was melting?
9. Did the sightseeing excursion to Mawson’s Huts on December 19th and again on Dec 23rd (apparently to Mertz Glacier, though their blog and “tracker” are unclear on this point) cause delays that caused the ship to be trapped in rapidly changing weather which closed the sea ice around them?
10. Apparently the crew of the Akademik Shokalskiy spoke next to zero English, did this communications barrier contribute to the situation? Was Turney warned that the weather and wind were changing while the second Mawson’s Huts sightseeing tour was in progress, and if he was were those warnings understood/heeded?
11. Why did the ship have a mix of tourists and media when it was pitched as a “scientific expedition”?
5 Nov: ABC Lateline: $1.5 million Australian expedition to Antarctica Professor Chris Turney from the University of NSW is mounting the largest Australian science expeditions to the Antarctic with an 85-person team to try to answer questions about how climate change in the frozen continent might be already shifting weather patterns in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3898858.htm
Related articles
- Expedition On The Cheap? Did Organizers Recklessly, Negligently Put Lives And Property At Risk? (notrickszone.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One more set of questions.
12A) What was the carbon cost of the rescue in terms of the ice breakers, helicopters, and transport barges? And if those on board truly believe that carbon increases climate change, should they not have waited out the ice (since it is incontrovertible that carbon is melting the sea ice)?
What was the carbon footprint of the trip (including repatriation)?
What was the carbon foot print of the rescue mission (including the failed attempts)?
There are potentially insurance issues if a vessel proceeds to ice bound waters and is not suitably ice strengthened/classed for such a voyage.
Likewise, salvage may become an issue if the vessel needs to be rescued because it is not ice strengthened and is at peril as a consequence of that.
The irony is that the fools who claim human CO2 is causing warming and melting Antarctic ice were rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese ice breaker. China is the largest producer of CO2 and building coal plants rapidly to produce more.
John Boles says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 8:43 am
That ship, the AKADEMIK SHOLKOWSKIY seems rather too small to be a decent ice breaker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is just the point. IT IS NOT. Prof Chris(tmas) Turkey went for the cheapest based on his ASSumption the ice was melting away.
Your question 10 regarding language:
The lingua franca of the sea is English, the Master and the other officers will speak reasonable English but there is no requirement for the ratings to do so. Any communication between the “scientists” and the crew would be, or should be, with/through the officers.
If as has been reported elsewhere the vessel was trapped because some scientists were on the ice “experimenting” and did not return to the ship timeously when told to do so, then they bear a heavy responsibility. The Master would have been castigated if he had left them on the ice so that he could save his ship, just as he is being castigated for being caught by the ice.
The prime “no-win” situation.
Another question for the western MSM, if there was and is no danger to ship and crew,
as they now report.
Why were their comrades and colleges evacuated?
An emergency was called, ships were diverted from their duties to answer a MAYDAY.
Of course I could just wait for Pravda to cover this story, I actually expect a more honest and in depth report from them (Pravda), than I expect form the sponsoring media agencies or my national media org (CBC).
My prediction, this embarrassing fiasco will be covered as accurately as the CRU emails and the subsequent inquiries.
Another blinder well played, old chap.
Charlie says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:57 am
“The Master’s responsibility was to ensure that he was competent: obviously he is not , otherwise he would not have been caught in the ice. This is 2014 not 1914 and we have adequate knowledge of the conditions . The Master has absolute authority to over ride any decision by anyone else which threatens the ship.”
I would have thought then that the sensible Master’s decision would have been to leave the poor fool tourist scientists out on the ice counting penguins when the changing weather conditions merited putting out to sea immediately if I follow your logic to its obvious conclusions.
That would probably have saved the ship from being ‘locked in’. Might have made a slight problem for the tourist scientists though. Mind you, if they were even half way as competent as the real scientist they were attempting to follow, then they would have been fine and able to cope on their own by making their way ashore to safety!
Not that I wish anyone harm (and sincerely hope that the crew do make it home safe and sound) but some of the messages in support of Turney et al. do leave one somewhat annoyed. Especially if attempting to pass the blame on to the Captain for this whole sorry episode!
“Tourist Scientists”. A new phrase for some of those in climate science.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/nnRMMpI-WMs
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/join-the-trip/
Check the two itinerary PDFs. The quote the costs for the berths.
Dr T G Watkins says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 8:45 am
I feel very sorry for the ship’s Master who I’m certain is a competent mariner….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ditto. He will never sail again as a ship master because the blame will land squarely on his shoulders.
I suggest we keep and eye on the Russian/Chinese media for updates on what is happening to the ship master and his crew. With luck there is enough interest that the story will not be stomped on.
OK, the BBC is straight in there with an outrageous lie:
Andrew Luck Baker who, in his last report, was pretending not to be on the ship (referring to ‘a passenger describes…) now has this to say:
“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
A bit about the Russian crew here:
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/a-great-crew/
Oldseadog says: @ur momisugly January 2, 2014 at 9:11 am
…. The Master would have been castigated if he had left them on the ice so that he could save his ship, just as he is being castigated for being caught by the ice.
The prime “no-win” situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
His only option would be to have the crew bodily carry the group on board and as there was a 2 to one ratio in favor of the idiots, that would not work either.
The Master was truly screwed with ZERO options.
Oh this link is hilarious.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=Andrew%20Luck-Baker
The contrast between the pre-ice-bound reports and the post-ice-bound reports are hilarious.
Every year ships get stuck/delayed in ice for weeks on end. There is nothing particularly unusual about that plain fact. I agree with AnonyMoose says: January 2, 2014 at 8:42 am. You would ordinarily expect those on board to tough it out, just as the crew are doing. it does not appear that conditions are such that we are at an abandon ship scenario.
What is unusual is the reason behind the trip, the comparison with the same/similar voyage a 100 years earlier (which earlier voyage was not performed by an ice breaker), and the misconception of the ice conditions in Antartica and an under-estimation of the dangers posed.
Of course, it is not unexpected that MSM when covering this story are not informing their readers/viewers that Antarctic ice is at a 30 year high. Nor are they explaining that much more ice was encountered on this voyage than was encountered a century earlier with the implication that ice extent in this part of the Antarctic is greater than it was some 100 years ago notwithstanding anthropogenic emissions these past 100 years. That is the story that should be told, but obviously will not be tolds
Oatley says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:58 am
“Were the journalists and tourists considered to part of the “…85 member team”?”
This is a fascinating question, and a very important one! If this were truly a scientific expedition, then why were journalists involved at all? Apparently there was a high proportion of journalists among the passengers of that ship. Is it in print anywhere that they were part of the expedition or part of the team? Is this being scrubbed as we speak? To me this indicates propaganda, rather than science, was one of the main goals of the expedition.
And another question: what was a politician doing on that ship? Same question applies to her. Was she part of the team? Did she have any role in procuring public funding for the expedition?
Anthony, these should be among your top questions.
I’d have like to be a fly on the wall when the captain was having a discussion with his tourists about getting back on the boat and getting the hell out of there. Hopefully he has logged it and can spread some blame.
This is what I hear in my imagination:
Captain: Bring your equipment aboard the conditions are turning against us and we need to move
Expedition leader: I’m sure we will be fine we can pack up at a leisurely pace. This passage was free 100 years ago. The air and ocean have warmed appreciably since then.
Captain: My satellite imagery says different. Get as much of your gear aboard as you can. We are leaving.
Expedition leader: Chill out dude. We are not leaving until all the gear is aboard
Captain: [thinks] I should manhandle them aboard and abandon the gear but the customer is always right. I can hardly cast off without them.
Captain: [says] As fast as you can then
Oldseadog says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:11 am
If as has been reported elsewhere the vessel was trapped because some scientists were on the ice “experimenting” and did not return to the ship timeously when told to do so, then they bear a heavy responsibility.
———————————————————————
If, as I’ve read elsewhere, the ship’s owner bears the costs of rescue then the expedition “leader” might have a Russian oligarch very pissed off with him. Still, not to worry, I understand they are very understanding.
Dr T G Watkins says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:45 am
I feel very sorry for the ship’s Master who I’m certain is a competent mariner.
—
Not sure about that. Wouldn’t a captain worth his salt refused to take directions that put passengers, crew, and ship at risk? He, too, will have some ‘splainin’ to do once he (hopefully) gets home.
Go for it Anthony
Since this was apparently a “publicly funded”
fraudexpedition – those FoIs should be a-flying down under. Letters to politicians etcetera… I suspect Dr. Flannery’s wondering if fallout is heading his direction….UK folk can have a pop at The University of Exeter (they’ll be getting one from me) – one has to wonder if usual suspects The Guardian and BBC had any direct input into the venture.
Copy n paste / save pages people! – they’ve already disappeared the milkshake ….
I would not wish to criticise the Master at this stage. We do not know the full facts.
As others have pointed out, the Master is responsible not simply for the safety of his ship, but also for his crew and pasengers. Quite obviously, he could not have sailed off abandoning the passengerss/scientists on the ice. Especially since it is far from apparent that the ship is in real peril. It is stuck in ice, for sure. It is being delayed, but as of yet, whilst ice will always pose some dangers, I have seen no reports that the hull is about to be crushed and breached. Presently, it appears to be an inconvenience, and weather conditions may alter and the ice may be swept away thereby naturally freeingb the vessel. The Master has to balance all issues including how much danger would have been posed to those left behind on the ice had the vessel and crew (and all those who wanted to sail) had sailed off, against the vessel being stuck in ice but with all crew and passengers on board and within the sanctuary that the vessel provides. I very much doubt that the Master will be criticised for that decision.
The real issue for him is how much heed was had to advance weather forecasts and should he have aborted the voyage sooner. .
Sung badly to “Sloop John B” by The Beach Boys
All these questions presuppose that facts and reality are what guide the members of the expedition.
The ship will almost certainly have been chartered. The issue of who bears the costs and expense (including the delay to the ship) will primarily be governed by the terms and provisions of the charter (unless the ship owner donated the use of his vessel for free to what he considered to be a worthy cause, which I rather doubt is the background fact)..
In the first instance, it would be usual for the shipowner to bear the expense of delay to his ship and the freeing/rescue thereof. However, at the end of the day, the shipowner will have insurance. The charterer, if prudent, will have charterer’s liability insurance and it will be left to 2 insurance companies to argue the toss as to which party bears ultiate responsibility for the costs and expense. The helicopter rescue may be on its own special terms and may be provided ex gratia by the state/government connected with a relevant party and there may be no attempt to pass that cost onto anyone, ie the tax payer of some country may be paying for that jolly.
There may well be issues as to seaworthiness. A ship that is not properly ice classed to perform the voyage in question may be deemed unseaworthy. Likewise a ship that does not possess sufficiently accurate and up to date weather, ice and satellite data equipment etc. There is no point in speculating on any of this since we do not have the background facts.
In the words of Indigo Montoya: “science….you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means…”.
Further to my suggestion (on a previous thread) to award a prize for the least likely/ most original CAGW-compliant explanation of these events. Perhaps we could help – how about a thread composed entirely of helpful efforts of our own. It would save the MSM/ activist community some time, they could just refer to it and choose the one that most appealed.
Paradoxical ice can’t be too hard to deal with, surely? I challenge those more knowledgeable than me, to come up with ten truly distinct get-out-of-jail cards, put them into the public domain, and demand that the CAGW lot try to demolish them (in favour of their own ideas, of course)..
Stuart B