Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Cue The Heavy Breathing

Lots of heavy breathing about a ship getting stuck in the Antarctic pack ice, delaying important scientific research.

Whodda thunk that it was the Aurora Australis that got stuck for three weeks from November 12 to December 3 which screwed up the Aussie Antarctic program.

The Australian supply ship, the icebreaker Aurora Australis, has finally returned to port in Hobart, after being stuck in the pack ice for three weeks.
The ship had left the Davis Research Station on the Antarctic coast on 12th November, but became stuck soon after, about 180 miles off the coast. It finally broke free of the ice on 3rd December.
It had been due back in Hobart originally on 16th November, but the three week delay has meant that the planned three voyage season has had to be curtailed to two:

Australian Antarctic Division Director, Dr Tony Fleming said that the ship’s delayed arrival and the recent helicopter crash near Davis station have necessitated changes to subsequent voyages and some research projects.
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think it unlikely that tourist ships with a bunch of birders trying to add to their life lists would get stuck in the ice.  Quel horror!:) 
MORE than 100 penguin-loving tourists including dozens from Britain are trapped by ice off Antarctica aboard a Russian ice-breaker cruise ship, officials and the tour operator said today.
The Kapitan Khlebnikov is in a bay near Snow Hill island, located off the northeastern end of the Antarctic Peninsula, and cannot leave as the bay is sealed off with ice, the Russian transportation ministry said.
"The wind has currently slowed down in the area and the massing of the ice has ended.
Everything is calm aboard the ice-breaker, nothing is threatening the passengers and crew,'' the ministry said in a statement.
"When the wind changes to a favourable direction, the ice-breaker will head into clear water and on to the port of Ushuaia,'' at the extreme southern end of Argentina, the ministry predicted.
Ships, get stuck in pack ice in the Antarctic.  Talk to Shackelton.  Talk to these folk

Send a note to Willard Tony, Nigel Persaud, Ste. Lucia and Ste. Judy

Heavy breathing about the Mawsons may resume.

121 comments:

Anonymous said...

You may have missed the point, that being, irony. If the "tourists" had not been stuck the headlines would have been something like; "Penguin populations seriously declining," or "Scientists find catastrophic loss of sea ice." Some such.

It's the irony, the irony.

Hardy Cross

Anonymous said...

When the Kapitan Khlebnikov got stuck in ice it had been chartered by Quark Expeditions.

Quark Expeditions is the same outfit where Robert Headland works. The Daily Mail (and subsequently all denier sites) recently cited Headland as a 'veteran explorer' from the Scott Polar Research Institure (SPRI) who had 'completed successful missions to where the ship was going' and who criticized the Spirit of Mawson expedition for using a totally unsuitable ice-strengthened ship.

Headland was SPRI's archivist and museum curator who in October 2005, after 22 years at the institute, stepped down. In February 2006 he already worked at Quark Expeditions and it appears that most if not all of his Antarctic voyages have been with Quark Expeditions (which specializes in tourist cruises).

I cannot verify whether Headland was onboard the Kapitan Khlebnikov when it got stuck in ice. Either way, Headland isn't the 'veteran SPRI explorer' some claim he is and he should be the first to know that even ice-breakers can get stuck in the Antarctic ice.

http://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Quark-Expeditions-ship-gets-stuck-in-ice/
http://www.spri.cam.ac.uk/friends/polarbytes/37/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533875/Veteran-explorer-claims-tourists-stranded-eight-days-Antarctica-lives-needlessly-risked-planners-opting-budget-ship-break-ice.html
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/en/why-quark/our-people/expedition-team/robert-headland
http://www.danleeth.com/southernmost.html






Albatross said...

The heavy breathing by Troll and others about the Mawson expedition just highlights their ignorance about the routine problems that comes with navigating Antarctic waters.

Getting stuck in the Antarctic pack ice for varying amounts of time is pretty routine. You are at the whim of the ice and winds and decisions made by the captain. EOS.

EliRabett said...

Well yes, and part of the problem is that the bunnies have not been aggressively pointing this out. Of course the Good Explorers Headland and Dr. Fleming have been serving up a bunch of help yourself quotes. Something again, that they should be called on

Anonymous said...

They were not stuck for three weeks

watch and see for yourself.



http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/aurora/timelapse-video-archive

moshpit

Albatross said...

That video shows the Aurora Australis making very little headway between about 14 November and 28 November. So the delay/loss was more like two weeks. Regardless, two weeks is a long time considering the tight timelines imposed by by the short Antarctic summer and period during which the sea ice is navigable.

The heavy breathing is still not justified and splitting hairs between two and three weeks again shows the ignorance of some heavy breathing commentators when it comes to Antarctic navigation.

Eli's main point still stands.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

According to this page at the AAD the return voyage toook about a week longer than the outbound voyage. The schedules do seem to be updated with the actual itinerary since the next voyage had the "assist trapped tourist vessel" added to it.

EliRabett said...

That, will teach Eli to trust a denialist blog like not a lot of people know that. In any case what Fleming says stands.

steven said...

Here is what Eli claimed at climate audit


"Follow the link. They broke free Dec. 3. Which by the way puts into question the premise of this post that the sea ice was mobile early in December. "

well that is wrong.
Eli is wrong.
Had he checked the source he refered everyone to and gone to source data, he would have seen as I did in about 90 seconds of searching that they were free well before Dec 3.

But he liked the information he found. so he stopped digging.

That is the difference between people who dig until they get to the foundation and those who stop when they find something they like.

Anonymous said...

Heavy breather's to the right of me,
hyper-ventilators to the left....

Daniel Wirt said...

Very imprecise, Anonymous. Just measure the pCO2 in arterial blood.

Anonymous said...

The Rabbit is wrong, wrong, wrong.

https://secure3.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/display_sitrep.cfm?bvs_id=19291

Friday 29-Nov-2013
At 1800 local time yesterday we left the pack ice and into open water. We are now well on our way to Hobart. There was excitement on the bridge yesterday when we reached this milestone on our return voyage. We had been in the pack ice for 15 days.

...

Wednesday 4-Dec-2013

We continue on our return to Hobart at good speed and on good seas. Our arrival in Hobart has been confirmed at 0900 on Saturday 07 December.

Dec 3rd long been in open water and now nearly to Hobart.

15 days is only 3 weeks in you don't work at weekends (or chew carrots).

Anonymous said...


"Follow the link. They broke free Dec. 3."

If the pack ice is only 3/4 days sailing at 14 knots from Hobart we ALL have troubles and not of the warm sort!

"The Aurora Australis docked today (Saturday 07 December) at 0900 at Macquarie wharf, Hobart"

Albatross said...

Err, anon-- read the thread before commenting.

They were slowed or beset by ice for about two weeks, not three. That delay was enough to notably affect logistics for the remainder of the season even before the Khlebnikov was beset by ice.

Anonymous said...

The were slowed on the way out by ice and wind. They were slowed on the way back by ice. They re-planned the rest of the schedule due to those delays and made the two later trips into one. All within their normal contingency planning as the web site notes. They prioritised the remaining work to get what they could get done in the time then allowed.

Then along came Turney. Very poor judgment and planning makes all of that careful, hard, work rubble.

Lots of time and effort now put in to get them all to safety. Emergency planning. The sort of thing you try hard to avoid.

Then along comes the Rabbit. Does a swift drive-by and conjures the Dec 3rd and 3 week delay out of thin air. Dec 3rd they were many days free from the ice and 15 days slow travel (as noted by their own on board logs) does not '3 weeks stuck' make unless you only work a 5 day week. 2 weeks to 3 weeks is only 50% in error. The sort of margin and mistake any Rabbit could make.

Anonymous said...

Albatross: You do realise the the Kapitan Khlebnikov was trapped in Antarctic ice in mid November 2009. Slightly before this event!

GaelanClark said...

Eli, And so you call attention to something that should be well reported in, say for instance in such places that highlight all cruise ship accidents… http://www.mapreport.com/subtopics/d/cruise.ship.accident.html#2013 , or in http://www.news24.com/Tags/Topics/maritime ….narry a peep, save for a few run agrounds and one cruise ship having hit ice.
1. http://www.gadling.com/2013/01/23/british-naval-vessel-rescues-antarctic-cruise-ship/ –this ship ran into heavy ice and was aided out fairly quickly…so no story here.
2. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Passengers_rescued_from_stranded_Antarctic_cruise_ship –stuck on the rocks….
3. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/12/04/stranded.ship.antarctica/ –the single story on ice crippling a ship.
4. http://en.ria.ru/world/20090218/120208591.html –ran aground.
5. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-17/news/chi-area-residents-stranded-on-cruise-ship-20120416_1_cruise-ship-south-georgia-island-traveler –engine problems.

“Endemic – restricted or peculiar to a locality or region”

5 whole stories found googling “history cruise ships getting stuck in Antarctica”, 2 ran aground, 1 engine problems, 1 “helped out”, 1 ice bound and down.

You Eli have very little to establish your claim of shipwrecks in Antarctica being “endemic”. Indeed, not one single research vessel was listed above.

Name one supposedly scientific expedition that had what happened to this ship of fools.

And, I suppose you stand by Turney’s account…maybe he will photoshop you into his photoshoped picture of him at the Mertz glacier.
WOW

BTW, your account of the Aurora Australis is quite lacking since you can not realize that being in port does not constitute "trapped by ice". Why dont you amend your cutsie little timeframe to be accurate rather than hysterical?

By the way, any links from you that show any "endemic" nature of ships being stuck in ice?

Albatross said...

Assuming the same anon is making the unsigned posts. Oops, the Australis was struggling to make headway and losing precious time around the same time that media reports started emerging (circa 15 November) about the Kapitan Khlebnikov.

But anons bleating is moot. The fact remains that the Australis lost precious time (about 2 weeks) because it was struggling to make headway in the pack on the return leg to Hobart.

For a real scandal read about how deniers engaged in malpractice and nepotism at a Copernicus journal ;)

Anonymous said...

Albatross: You do realise the the Kapitan Khlebnikov was trapped in Antarctic ice in mid November 2009.

Albatross said...

Hi Anon,

Wow, that was quite the brain fart by me! TGIF! My apologies.

Anonymous said...

Albatross: No problem. I do think that trying to equate the difficulties that contingency planning was doing its best to overcome (making 2 trips out of the planned 3) with demonstrably very poor thinking on how you deal with you lose 1/3 of your on-shore transport is stretching comparison a little far.

One shows professionalism, the other shows a basic lack of the duty of care.

GaelanClark said...

Hey there MrRabbit, not many comments here for you to pour over so I know that you have read my above posted comment.
With regards to your suggestion of digging, I did. What I found is that you are either (1) lying about knowing of any "endemic"al nature of ships becoming trapped in ice or wrecking themselves in Antarctic ice, or (2) you love strawmen.

You are a liar or a strawman lover.......do, be a dove and let everyone know which it is.

Anonymous said...

I too have notices that lack of recent comments here from the Rabbit.

I am sure he busy off somewhere gathering carrots or the like.

Kevin O'Neill said...

Gaelan Clark said:"What I found is that you are either (1) lying about knowing of any "endemic"al nature of ships becoming trapped in ice or wrecking themselves in Antarctic ice, or (2) you love strawmen.

You are a liar or a strawman lover.......do, be a dove and let everyone know which it is."

Since 2000 here is a *not* comprehensive list of ships that have had trouble with ice in Antarctic waters. I'm sure there are quite a few more whaling and fishing vessels that never make the news unless they require rescue - i.e., if they can wait it out for a few weeks no one other than the parent company ever knows.

Polar Bird
Magdalena Oldendorff
RV Italica
Krasin
Argos Georgia
MS Explorer (sank)
Kapitan Khlebnikov
Ocean Nova
Aurora Australis
Akademik Shokalskiy
Xue Long

Given the choices of Eli lying or you being ignorant and unable to use an internet search engine, I'm putting my money on you.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: The real question is about 'rescue' not 'stuck'

They are kinda different you know.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - All of the ships I listed, except for the Xue Long, required rescue or assistance.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: Rescue of the passengers by transfer to another ship or rescue as in assistance/ice breaking/engine repairs/etc?

What are the years?

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: Please note that my main complaint is that the Rabbit misrepresented what happened. His claim was (and still is as far as I know) that the AA was 'stuck for 3 weeks and broke free on Dec 3rd'.

At that point in time the AA was only some 1250 miles from Hobart.

If the pack ice has reached that far we are in a lot deeper trouble than just rescuing a few passengers!

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - most of the ships I listed required ice-breaker assistance.

I don't have a list of links, but you have ship names, a relatively small time window (post 2000), and a general location (Antarctica). Use an internet search engine - it's really not that difficult.

I'll be happy to go back through browser history and compile a list of links, but I'm not a free research service. If you're actually interested, then you have more than enough information to find the articles I found.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: I didn't ask for links, I asked for dates just to reduce the search time.

Please note again, that my main problem is misrepresentation, not trying to balance the degree of stupidity or bad luck that got people into trouble in the past.

We all know that the Antarctic is a dangerous place and requires careful planning and risk assessment. I am not sure that towing an Argo ashore by a Gemini for shore support falls within competent planning but.... YMMV

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - if I'd saved dates or links I would have listed them. As I said, if you were really interested you had more than information enough to find the articles - far more information than I had.

A quick run through the browser history brings me these. I'm not looking for the rest unless there's a reason, and laziness isn't a reason.

Polar Bird - 2001/2002
Magdalena Oldendorff - 2002
Italica - 2003
Argos Georgia - 2008
Ocean Nova - 2009



Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill; And those ships were getting assistance because they had planned shore trips badly or because of bad luck?

And again, I am not really interested in balancing details between who got caught and how.

I am interested in the Rabbit misrepresenting basic facts.

You know, the "got stuck for three weeks from November 12 to December 3" bit.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - Are you Gaelan Clark?

My post was directly addressed to his accusations that these instances aren't endemic to ships navigating waters.

I think the ships I've listed getting into trouble pretty much put GC's stupid little rant to rest.

As for your "three weeks" kerfluffle - first, Eli was directly quoting an article and news reports; second, it arrived back in Hobart 3 weeks after its scheduled return. So what is your problem - that it was only "trapped" for 12 days, but delayed for a total of three weeks and Eli should have noted the poor wording in the original articles? Isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Whatever. I suspect you are GC because you appear to be just as loony. Another distinction without a difference :)

GaelanClark said...

So, because you were writing to me "anonymous"'s objections are irrelevant? (!!!!)
What a stooge you are.
By the way, I have not checked your links (I will though) and yet the relevant question is how "endemic" is it that ships carrying research scientists (supposedly) funded by AAD get caught in Antarctic ice?

Not very. Your man is hiding in his hole because he is both a liar and a strawman lover.

GaelanClark said...

And I dont need to be anonymous, no thing influences what I say but reality.

What are those models up to? Sssssssssnnnnnnnnnnicker

Kevin O'Neill said...

GC says: "By the way, I have not checked your links (I will though) ..."

Umm, you mean you made the accusations *without* any research into the basic facts first? Yeah, I thought so.

You and anon are cut from the same cloth. Expect someone else to do all the work for you -- but think your mistaken opinion actually counts for something.

All you need to say at this point is, "I was wrong. Forgive me." Of course I know what the odds of that are .... and slim left town.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: No I am not GC. I would have thought you could tell by the writing style.

You partly answer one part, three weeks, but conveniently ignore the second, 3rd Dec.

In fact they were delayed on the way out by winds and ice and on the way back by ice making a total of three weeks delay for the whole trip.

They used their contingency planning and re-arranged three trips into two, minimising the impact on the scientific work as best they could.

Then, because solely of extremely poor risk assessment and management by a third party all of that hard work was brought to naught.

The facts are that the Bunny read an incorrect newspaper report and/or made stuff up.

As I noted, if they only got free on the 3rd Dec then, from the reported position of those on board, they were only 1250 miles or so from Hobart. That is SOME increase in pach ice!

Kevin O'Neill said...

GaelanClark says: "So, because you were writing to me "anonymous"'s objections are irrelevant? (!!!!)"

Can you read? anon's stated kerfluffle was with Eli stating the shipped was trapped for three weeks. And despite the fact I was only addressing your comment, I *did* answer anon's objection. So who's the stooge? I take it that's egg on your face and not a birthmark.

Again, it's simply time to admit you're an idiot and move on.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill:

"I *did* answer anon's objection"

You have NEVER addressed in full what I said was wrong with the Bunny's report.

Please supply the appropriate quotes from the on-board sitreps that supports either part of his statement. I am sure you can use a browser to find them, given your demonstrated web skills.

"got stuck for three weeks from November 12 to December 3"

Good luck. I have read them all through and the answer you seek is not there.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill:

"Umm, you mean you made the accusations *without* any research into the basic facts first? Yeah, I thought so."

About as much research as the Bunny did then. Or perhaps he needs glasses or reading classes.

GaelanClark said...

Okay, of the five one is a pdf for a group that goes on trips, one link doesnt work, one ship ran aground, another was a tour and one......one.........one single research ship got stuck 12 years ago!!!!!
WOW

Do you know the definition of "endemic"?

GaelanClark said...

Hey jerkyboy, did you read my first comment above?

I did the research and found zilch to the effect of any "endemic"al nature of research ships getting stuck in the Antarctic.

In fact mr smarty pants, you cutsie wootsie wittle link to your ship that ran aground was provided by me, before you, in my first comment.....but morons like you cant read....can you?

GaelanClark said...

By the way again.....11 original "FINDS" turns into 5 actual links which turns into 1 actual research ship.....is called "alligator arms" in football, you know, when the wide receiver retracts his arms from an extended catch in order to not get his by the defender......
You got alligator arms on your resources.....ssssssssssssssssnnnnnnnnnnicker

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I was kinda wondering myself that if ships didn't regularly get stuck in the ice then why do you have gigantic icebreakers to rescue them? Doesn't form follow function and market follow demand, lol? Or is it just a friendly giant icebreaker race among competing nations?

Kevin O'Neill said...

GC says on 1/17: "Name one supposedly scientific expedition that had what happened to this ship of fools."

When presented with the evidence,

GC says:" 1 actual research ship.....is called "alligator arms" in football" No, it's called meeting your stated request. Besides, a couple of those ships are icebreakers - which makes doubly clear the point.

BTW, have you ever read an IAATO yearly report? Do you even know what IAATO is? Many of the tourist ships *also* carry supplies and scientists back and forth from Australia, Chile, New Zealand, etc. En route those onboard often carry out scientific research. These are facts. I know in the early 2000s the IAATO reports used to list which activities were being supported by the tourist ships. You really ought to get out more.

If you had done proper research ahead of time you would have found all the ships I found and more. Just admit you're a moron and move on. Everyone here (excepting perhaps anon) already knows it. BTW, the first rule when finding yourself in a hole is to quit digging. You just keep digging.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Thomas Lee Elifritz; True we have icebreakers in the same way we have ambulances or fire trucks. To help out when people get into trouble.

That does not mean that we should approve or condone people who carelessly get into trouble though.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: "You just keep digging."

And you keep avoiding answering if the Bunny just got it wrong.

Care to find first hand, factual, reports that support his words of

"got stuck for three weeks from November 12 to December 3"?

GaelanClark said...

Do you know the definition of "ENDEMIC"?

DO YOU KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "ENDEMIC"?

DO YOU HAVE ANY ABILITY TO FIND THE DEFINITION OF A SINGLE WORD? THAT WORD IS "ENDEMIC".

If you cannot find the definition of the word "ENDEMIC" I would suggest buying a wordpack or a dictionary, because obviously your pecky little fingers, in order to save your face, find 1, O N E vessel stuck in ice.................on June 21st no less.......do you know what June 21st in Antarctica is?........I will give you a guess pecky fingers.

One 1 uno single ship stuck on June 21st 12 years ago and you have some feeling that the straw man the lying liar rabbit held up is now somehow actually proven.

Go look up the word "endemic" and then find your argument.....somewhere.

GaelanClark said...

The icebreakers are there to do the job of getting people back and forth because the ice IS unpredictable.

Turney and his glorious shop of fools were in a reinforced hull ship. They were not in am icebreaker as would have been required on an AAD supported vessel....which much to turneys chagrin he was not sponsored by AAD.

Getting stuck in high summer (as turney did) is NOT "ENDEMIC" as rabbit has held and as klown kevin believes because he found 1 one ONE UNO SINGLE ship caught in ice on 21 June...........

You do know what 21 June is in Antarctica?

GaelanClark said...

You do know what 1 out of 11 equals dont you?

9%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now if only climate warmists could be correct 9% of the time....WOW

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - you are cute, but I've already answered you. Perhaps you can respond to what I wrote.

I'll repeat:

The Aurora Australis was delayed by ice for three weeks. 12 of those days it was "trapped" in ice. Now, delayed, trapped, slowed, whatever. A distinction without a difference. It was three weeks late due to ice (due in port Nov. 16th, arrived Dec. 7).

What's particularly ironic is the denialista in Australia were fuming about the 21 day delay. http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2507

GaelanClark said...

Rabbit stooge kevin has found a ship stuck in the ice in June in Antarctica and claims that this one ship supports the "endemic"al nature of ships getting stuck in the ice in Antarctica.

Digging a little finds this salient information. ..... "The ship is believed to have stayed late in the season in order for the ice to harden enough to allow the unloading of heavy machinery."

Oh...and this from the same article......... "All ships normally leave Antarctica by April at the latest."

Can you read kevin? That didnt read "some ships normally".....it read "all ships NORMALLY leave ny April".

Further, the first quote above gives a reason why they were there so late. That and the second quote make it obvious that those sailing the boat could have reasonably expected to get stuck.

Your strawman is in flames....unlike the planet.

http://www.wdcgc.spri.cam.ac.uk/news/ship/

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

That does not mean that we should approve or condone people who carelessly get into trouble though.

It's pretty clear you have never spent any time on the high seas or engaged in any high seas rescue or salvage efforts. But by all means keep talking on and on about things that obviously you know little about. These are paid services. Are you asking for or requesting commercial assistance? These large ships don't appear out of nowhere, they have evolved into existence because of a commercial need. If they did not get paid, then they would not exist, trust me on that one. Somebody foots the bill, it a fundamental law of the high seas, especially that far off the beaten track.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"It's pretty clear you have never spent any time on the high seas or engaged in any high seas rescue or salvage efforts."

Actually wrong factually. I have spent a large amount of time on the water in craft large and small. I observed and supported the RNLI in an official capacity for quite a long time as well.

I have also observed the stupidity of some of those on the ocean. Some of it amounts to criminal insanity.

Towing an Argo ashore by Gemini with an impending storm comes pretty close to that IMHO. YMMV.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill: I do not contest what you said as you rather well know.

I was the first to point out the true fact from the onboard sitreps.

I do contest what the Bunny said. He was wrong. Admit it and we can all move on.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill:

Just in case you cannot scroll up to see what was said much, much earlier.

The Rabbit is wrong, wrong, wrong.

https://secure3.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/display_sitrep.cfm?bvs_id=19291

Friday 29-Nov-2013
At 1800 local time yesterday we left the pack ice and into open water. We are now well on our way to Hobart. There was excitement on the bridge yesterday when we reached this milestone on our return voyage. We had been in the pack ice for 15 days.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Some of it amounts to criminal insanity.

Did they request commercial assistance? Towing clients out of the way of impending storms is routine work for ocean salvage and rescue, get over yourself. I've got hundreds of 'saves' knotched on my sculling oar and outboard alone.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

Calling PANPAN or MAYDAY should always be a last resort. If you get yourself into a position where you need to do it, any subsequent inquiry is likely to assess your degree of negligence or culpability.

Bragging does not alter these assessment of the facts.

No doubt you sail along, beer in hand, and feel perfectly correct in doing so.

Rescued a lot of people from that state of affairs?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Requesting commercial assistance is not the same as calling mayday.

Did they call mayday? With stores for months in a steel hulled vessel stuck in the ice, I think not.

Did they somehow not pay their bill? That's the reason commercial operators ask that question.

Your ignorance of the sea and its culture is showing. Seaman and boatman just don't complain about other people's problems, they solve them, often in real time.

Get over it and move on.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

And yet, I have answered quite a few mayday's, saved quite a few lives (measured in the hundreds) even when mayday calls were not broadcast, and participated in a lot of commercial rescues and salvage efforts of my friends and neighbors. It goes with the territory.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:
And how many of those were down to stupidity and how many down to pure accident?

Would you characterise the Argo/Gemini fiasco immediately before a forecast storm as one or the other?

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"Did they call mayday?"

No they called PANPAN and in the process diverted three ships from other work.

Get your facts straight before you wade (or float) in.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Dude, some of the work those other ships do is rescue and salvage. It was extra work for them. They are more than happy to schedule it. They get paid for that work. Work at sea is their business, and for a lot of them, it is hard to come by and welcome, no matter if from incompetence, neglect or accident.

You are totally clueless. It's not as if these people are wreckers.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

Some of those people (AA) were engaged in a supply mission to Casey base which had to be hurriedly curtailed/postponed in order to respond. They may or may not get paid for the work done.

They, as noted by scientists aboard and ashore, may also not get their planned scientific work completed this year now.

A group of professional scientists are now very pissed with Turney and his 'Tourist science' way of doing things.

Turney has managed to wreck both his own credibility and others work. Not bad for a single trip.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

As a rescue and salvage expert, I am unconcerned with the details of how you got into your predicament, I am only concerned with saving your life if it needs to be saved, rescuing your pathetic ass if you need to be rescued, or getting you the commercial assistance you need. As such, I am only concerned with your current technical situation. Since this rescue is in the past, and I wasn't involved and truthfully I'm not even aware of many of the details, I've moved on. I'm speaking as someone who has a great deal of this kind of experience in warmer waters. If they haven't paid their rescue and towing bill, there are civil methods of recourse. I don't believe any criminal charges have been filed. If you are worried about the time and work lost, then I suggest you avoid international waters entirely, as things often don't go as planned out there, especially below the forties. Some people can't even get insurance below 24 degrees north.

Brian said...

I've barely followed the whole issue re Shokalsky, mainly because I can't figure out why it's important.

One response is per Eli, it's not important, this stuff happens. I assume the denialists have another response. They might say it's evidence of incompetence operating Shokalsky - I don't know if that's true, but even if it is then it's clearly unimportant as a global issue.

The other possibility is that it's evidence that climate change isn't happening. If they want to make that claim, go ahead, but it would be the lamest evidence against climate change I could possibly imagine.

It's a mini-replay of the whole Watts thing about temperature measurements being screwed up in the US. First, that was wrong, second it didn't matter in the context of global measurement of climate in multiple ways that had nothing to do with shading and pavement at US weather stations.

What thing will they stumble to next to cue their heavy breathing?

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

Bully for you.

I am interested in your assessment then, in light of your long experience, of the situation as described in the various blogs, etc. and as to how professionally the shore support part of Turney's trip was handled and if you believe that the work and planning met acceptable standards for scientific work in the Antarctic.

Please remember that children and students were part of the on-shore work the day they got stuck.

Anonymous said...

Brian said...

"I've barely followed the whole issue re Shokalsky, mainly because I can't figure out why it's important."

Because is shows incompetence on behalf of Turney and a casual attitude to facts on behalf on the Bunny.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

The contracts between the various parties involved with the ship, their owners, passengers, routes etc is really of no concern to me. I'm sure even the helicopter operators have their own business agenda, lol.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

Nor apparently is providing a independent, professional, critique of the state of affairs that Turney found himself in.

Quick to comment on how useless it is to question this however and to avoid any comment on just how badly the Bunny was in his facts.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"I'm sure even the helicopter operators have their own business agenda, lol."

As they were from a Chinese vessel I am not sure that is definitely true. They are changing so they may be looking to recover the costs.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

When a captain and his passengers request commercial assistance it's their problem, not the rescuer's. Whatever mistakes they made are their own. Not your, not mine, and certainly not the rescuer's. I own my mistakes, do you own your's?

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"I own my mistakes, do you own your's?"

Always.

Anonymous said...

For those interested in newspaper reports about the return of Turney to Hobart

http://www.smh.com.au/national/antarctic-field-trip-a-factor-in-ship-becoming-trapped-in-sea-ice-on-christmas-eve-20140121-316xp.html

Interesting reading about how this all unfolded

Brian said...

Why should I care about this person Turney? If the edifice of climate change science was founded on his expert opinion, it might matter, but otherwise, not so much.

As to whether this other ship's delay was three weeks or only two if you don't count the delay on the first leg, add that to the things I don't care about when the relevant premise was that other boats have required assistance because of sea ice.

Anonymous said...

Brian said...

"Why should I care about this person Turney?"

Because he is one of the leading Australian Climate Professors who has just been awarded a prize for his work?

Anonymous said...

Brian said...

"Why should I care about this person Turney?"

Because he is THIS Turney?


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/and_the_award_for_best_global_warming_prediction_goes_to/#commentsmore

Anonymous said...

This update as well

http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2014/stuck-in-the-ice/

That places the blame squarely on Turney. It also looks like USW is going to have to fund the rescue.

Anonymous said...

And the BBC's take on this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25833307

Bernard J. said...

Today has seen quite a few media appearances by Chris Turney and other Australian climate/Antartic researchers. The Australian ABC's 7:30 Report had a couple of stories:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3930420.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3930425.htm

the latter of which will probably reinforce Australian readers' views that Leigh Sales really seems to be turning more into an ambulance chaser than a serious interviewer - her questions are ever more transparent and loaded.

The most interesting interview today was with Turney in the local ABC radio, which dug quite well on the background and the acheivements of the trip. Unfortunately the interview doesn't seem to be uploaded to the interweb, but if that changes I'll be sure to post a link. Suffice to say that going by what Turney said, certain economists who have presumed to pontificate on the hard sciences should pull their heads in and STFU.

Anonymous said...

Another report by the BBC with a video report for those who are reading challenged.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25838570

Anonymous said...

And the Guardian's take is

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/22/antarctic-rescue-passengers-akademik-shokalskiy-dry-land

Anonymous said...

And this one.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2040209/the-inside-story-of-how-expedition-went-so-wrong/?cs=300

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

The latest anonytroll seems to be a big supporter of ad hominem attack--seemingly oblivious that no matter how many climate scientists he attacks, the evidence is still overwhelmingly against him.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Dude, they requested a cushy icebreaker and helicopter evacuation from a remote location where no lives were actually in danger. I'm sure they were informed of the costs and I'm sure they will be paying the freight, just as I'm sure the person paying the freight won't be you. Let it go, the board of inquiry will sort it out as it always does in cases were lives were lost. Ooops.

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space: No I just report facts and data. Not assumptions and fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space: No I just report facts and data. Not assumptions and fairy tales.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

You have been wrong about most of the facts to date. You are wrong in most of what you said now.

Still, you're not paying the bill, why should you care.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You have been wrong about most of the facts to date

Sure, the ship was crushed and sank and they had to camp out on the floes like like Shackleton's men and the crew of Charles Francis Hall - the Endeavor and the Polaris. Let's hope they didn't use too much lead in their tins of Pemmican, lol. It was such a long march back to the mainland.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz: said

"Sure, the ship was crushed and sank..."

Still making stuff up I see.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

And laughing. At you and not with you. Science in the present has devolved into entertainment for me.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"And laughing. At you and not with you"

Well those responsible adults who pay the bill aren't laughing

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/plan-to-curb-antarctic-expeditions-after-costly-rescue-of-trapped-ship-20140122-3191c.html

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I will pray then that Sir Franklin and his brave men all get back to civilization safely. They were well prepared and well stocked, so they should be fine out there. Perhaps some locals will give them aid, lol.

Woosh.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz:

"Woosh."

Is that beer in hand or back to the playground?

Anonymous said...

Too many news stories that contradict what the Bunny said not to list them all.

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=turney+antarctica&spell=1&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:w

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

No, that's an anonymous commenter typing my full name over and over as if he thinks it will change anything.

Straight out of the Christian shill playbook, yet he still can't see that he is a ball in a sports ring. There is an intelligence barrier that some balls just can't jump.

I remain hopeful that Captain Franklin and his brave men will show up in Winnipeg any day now.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"No, that's an anonymous commenter typing my full name over and over as if he thinks it will change anything."

Trying and failing to correct your many errors, assumptions and ignorance.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Failing because NOBODY FUCKING CARES except the people who have to pay the bill. That's not you. You do have a bill to pay and it's considerably more that a couple of million, but that seems to concern a set of problems you'd rather not address, thus your obsession with the trivial. Faux News for you!

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"Failing because NOBODY FUCKING CARES except the people who have to pay the bill. That's not you"

Nice to only have to worry about your own cosy part of the globe isn't it. Talk about small minded.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I only concern myself with real and significant global, scientific, technological and engineering problems, and then I work on them and solve them and stuff, in lieu of shilling anonymously and obsessively on some insignificant past problems.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"I only concern myself with real and significant global, scientific, technological and engineering problems, and then I work on them and solve them and stuff, in lieu of shilling anonymously and obsessively on some insignificant past problems."

Like ignoring false claims and inaccurate quotes from others.

Providing false information and random guesses yourself as well.

Real, careful, accurate and studious work you show in all your posts above.

Now do calm down dear or you'll spray stuff all over your monitor.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Dude, this is some other guy's blog discussing a subject that is old, and utterly insignificant to me.

Read : Entertainment and Sport. The fact that you are anonymous makes it even less relevant to real science.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"Dude, this is some other guy's blog discussing a subject that is old, and utterly insignificant to me."

If you mean the Rabbit then it would appear that you cannot take what he says to be truthful or validated. I am unsure as to if that extends to everything he says as I usually give people the benefit of the doubt.

Strange how it is so insignificant that you keep on coming back to say so.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

then it would appear that you cannot take what he says to be truthful or validated

No, I can take it any way I want. I think you are confusing me for you, because you speak only for yourself. It's amusing how paid shills always confuse identity and always think they can speak for anyone and everyone else but themselves. That is the hallmark of a shill - projection.

You need to go back to shilling for Jesus and billionaires. It's more profitable. Here among the informed, literate and numerate you only expose yourself as illiterate, innumerate and uninformed, shilling for the man.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Ad Hom attacks usually identify the writer as a fool rather than the target.

No change there then.

Asking for truth and clarity is all I have ever done.

Insults and rudeness is all I have encountered.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Asking for truth and clarity is all I have ever done.

Because apparently you can't manage it on your own, lol.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - Truth and clarity?

Eli's point was that ships get stuck in the arctic. And, in fact, the very icebreaker that helped to free the KK was itself stuck for three weeks just one month previously.

Now, who is calling the for the planning heads of the Aurora Australis when it was three weeks delayed? Anyone? You? Have you investigated whether they were negligent? Why not? Why weren't any of the usual suspects screaming bloody murder then?

The answer is obvious. Your attempt to deflect attention away from the point that this is just another attack on a climate scientist is plain to see. Trapped for three weeks or delayed for three weeks is a distinction without a difference *and* it was reported that way by several different sources. Have you asked any of those original sources to print corrections?

And when GC said: "You Eli have very little to establish your claim of shipwrecks in Antarctica being “endemic”. Indeed, not one single research vessel was listed above."

Did you point out that Eli never mentioned shipwrecks and that he never said only research vessels get caught in Antarctica? But why not - you're only interested in truth and facts? Or do you only correct wild claims from one side?

Yes, truth and clarity are surely your motto /snark

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

"Because apparently you can't manage it on your own, lol."

Show anything I have ever said here that was anything other than truthful.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill said...

"Eli's point was that ships get stuck in the arctic."

For an incorrect time and date.


"Have you investigated whether they were negligent?"

No they had and used their contingency time budget they had allowed for as part of the season.

"Why not? Why weren't any of the usual suspects screaming bloody murder then?"

Because there was no reason to do so?

"The answer is obvious."

Your bias is showing.

"Or do you only correct wild claims from one side?"

No I try to remain impartial. You, rather obviously, do not.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Show anything I have ever said here that was anything other than truthful.

I've already snarked enough of your crankiness here already, and your innumerate anonymity does not allow me to definitely distinguish your crankiness from all of the other anonymous cranks that post here, lol.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - If you are impartial, then why did you not correct any of GC's ludicrous statements? Fail.

Was the AA trapped for 12 (15) days?

Does this not prove Eli's point?

minutiae - was Eli's statement (though incorrect) supported by multiple sources?

Have you asked any of those sources to print corrections?

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...
Show anything I have ever said here that was anything other than truthful.

"I've already snarked enough of your crankiness here already, and your innumerate anonymity does not allow me to definitely distinguish your crankiness from all of the other anonymous cranks that post here, lol."

Given the level of 'ad homs' that occur here do you wonder why people opt to stay anon?

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill said...

"anon - If you are impartial, then why did you not correct any of GC's ludicrous statements? Fail."

I thought his points were correct. Please let me know where he was wrong and I'll seek some corrections.


"Was the AA trapped for 12 (15) days?

Does this not prove Eli's point?

minutiae - was Eli's statement (though incorrect) supported by multiple sources?"

"three weeks from November 12 to December 3"

was only ever published here as far as I can tell. Got other urls that also published it?

"Have you asked any of those sources to print corrections?"

Eli never provided links to his sources so how could I?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Given the level of 'ad homs' that occur here do you wonder why people opt to stay anon?

I don't 'wonder' about you. I reserve wonder for discernible reality. I quantify that wonder with 'questions'. Given the (lack of) substance in your comments, it's already obvious to me why you remain anonymous. No questions are required. You are a complainer as well. More precisely, a whiner.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Nothing of value as usual.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I am extracting entertainment value, from you, for myself, at your expense. Keep up the good work!

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon says "was only ever published here as far as I can tell. Got other urls that also published it?"

Eli never provided a URL? That is factually incorrect. I thought truth was part of your motto?

Did you even bother to read what Eli wrote? The very first link in the post this comment thread belongs to:Aurora Australis

What you claim are Eli's words are a quote from that webpage. It in turn was linked to a news article. My god you're an idiot.

I gave you GCs quote and you believe it accurate? There's a real lonney tune hiding behind that pseudonymn.

There's enough egg on your face to feed an army.

Anonymous said...

Kevin O'Neill said...

"anon says "was only ever published here as far as I can tell. Got other urls that also published it?"

Eli never provided a URL? That is factually incorrect. I thought truth was part of your motto?

Did you even bother to read what Eli wrote? The very first link in the post this comment thread belongs to:Aurora Australis"

I do apologise. I did miss the reference url.

Turns out he is just guilty of the sin of failing to verify the accuracy of a report before repeating it, very loudly and rudely.

Like checking the onboard sitreps to confirm the facts first for instance.

If anyone had bothered to do that, either Eli, Paul Homewood, Nine News or any of the rest of you, you would notice the discrepancies.

They were, and are, so obvious only a blind (or blinkered) man won't see them.

Still don't let the facts (such as those I have reported) get in the way of a good, incorrect, story.

EliRabett said...

The blog Eli pointed to is one of the denialing type, and the news report that it pointed to was a serious news operation and the quote from Fleming, one of the guys who moaned most loudly about the AS "delaying" important stuff, was from the Aussie Antarctic Division press release site, and the delay was about three weeks from the scheduled date of arrival.

Eli believes that the technical term for what our friend is doing here is called fly specking. There are more important things in the world such as coffee and toast.

Anonymous said...

EliRabett said...

"Eli believes that the technical term for what our friend is doing here is called fly specking."

You think? Thank you for finally responding.

All I ever asked was for you to update your blog with some correct information. I do understand that you were misled by others into posting what you did. I commiserate.

I do think that you failed dismally in checking the 'facts' you used however. Was it because they said what you wanted to hear? Was it that you were too busy doing other, much more important, things? I don't know.

So will you please just add an addendum to the head post so that you withdraw or modify the incorrect bits of your report?

Now you know what the true facts were?

Bernard J. said...

Following on from my comment on 22 January, here's the link for the Turney interview.