|
Post by icefisher on Dec 27, 2013 18:22:30 GMT
LOL! So you think Serreze believes the rapid ice growth was due to a source of heat that warmed the water? ROTFLMAO!! Serreze no doubt will jump at any opportunity to stroke his moron followers with any and all notions that global warming is at the root of everything. We see these kinds of history lessons being applied constantly. . . .after all how else could there have been a large area of open water? Status quo in the global warming world is everything should be under a thick layer of ice. Serreze was man enuf to admit he was wrong. That is how science moves forwards. "I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct."Your English is not so good? The statement above has no admission of a technical error. What it says is they want to word it more clearly while maintaining technical correctness so that even you can understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 28, 2013 2:33:15 GMT
Serreze was man enuf to admit he was wrong. That is how science moves forwards. "I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct."Your English is not so good? The statement above has no admission of a technical error. What it says is they want to word it more clearly while maintaining technical correctness so that even you can understand it. "The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes."
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 28, 2013 4:36:13 GMT
"A scientific mission ship, trapped in dense pack ice off East Antarctica, is still awaiting rescue after a Chinese icebreaker failed to reach it. The Snow Dragon icebreaker was itself stalled by heavy ice, officials say." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25523952
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 28, 2013 9:10:22 GMT
"I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct."Your English is not so good? The statement above has no admission of a technical error. What it says is they want to word it more clearly while maintaining technical correctness so that even you can understand it. "The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes."Its a simple read. No technical problems are noted at all. The entire thrust is simply the third grade interpretation. Being clearer while remaining technically correct. The only call for modification is for more clarity, there is no call for technical improvement, none, zip, nada! Thats why he could blow you off on actually making any changes. Its purely an issue about what people get out of it, not the basic physics behind it. Serreze is stressing that things have to warm before they can cool. Walt Meier obviously observed that the message was not clear and it sounded like freezing ice was warming the arctic instead of humans. I can acknowledge that these huge latent heat polynya effects are not raising the average temperature of the arctic on an annual basis. Thats because the melting of ice has been greater than the freezing of ice.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 28, 2013 14:48:28 GMT
"The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct. A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 29, 2013 2:18:54 GMT
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jan 17, 2014 3:04:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 17, 2014 3:36:41 GMT
Great find Zaphod. Thanks for sharing. Antarctica seems to have lost its luster, as no major news outfits report on it anymore. Wonder why that is?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 24, 2014 2:10:33 GMT
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/turney-was-warned-of-ice-risk-before-entering-danger-area/So we find that:- 1) Shore parties, (including tourists such as Turney’s own son, Robbie), were allowed off the ship and travel across the ice to the land 5 miles away.This was despite weather forecasts and satellite images showing just how perilous the ship’s situation was. 2) Turney was warned by the captain of the deteriorating conditions and told to arrange for all passengers to return to the ship. Instead, Turney proceeded to drive six more passengers into the field, thus delaying the return even longer. There seems to be a clear case for negligence here, and Turney might be well advised to get himself a good lawyer
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 25, 2014 22:57:32 GMT
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/turney-was-warned-of-ice-risk-before-entering-danger-area/So we find that:- 1) Shore parties, (including tourists such as Turney’s own son, Robbie), were allowed off the ship and travel across the ice to the land 5 miles away.This was despite weather forecasts and satellite images showing just how perilous the ship’s situation was. 2) Turney was warned by the captain of the deteriorating conditions and told to arrange for all passengers to return to the ship. Instead, Turney proceeded to drive six more passengers into the field, thus delaying the return even longer. There seems to be a clear case for negligence here, and Turney might be well advised to get himself a good lawyer Negligence is failing to take due care in doing something. Failing to obey the ship's captain ranks worse than just negligence it is intentionally putting everyone at risk. Possibly as it was based on the Captain's observation and not on a model as a 'climate scientist' he did not believe it. But it put the captain in the unenviable position that he had to stay there and get trapped as he could not abandon these plonkers ** on the ice. The bill should be passed to Turney as it was his decision to disregard the warning of the captain that resulted in the ship getting trapped. I believe the award he got was set up before hand to match his triumphant return from an expedition showing the antarctic was melting and has just proven how unrealistic the award is. ( ** -- A UK slang term that has come to mean an idiot with no redeeming features
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 26, 2014 4:57:26 GMT
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/turney-was-warned-of-ice-risk-before-entering-danger-area/So we find that:- 1) Shore parties, (including tourists such as Turney’s own son, Robbie), were allowed off the ship and travel across the ice to the land 5 miles away.This was despite weather forecasts and satellite images showing just how perilous the ship’s situation was. 2) Turney was warned by the captain of the deteriorating conditions and told to arrange for all passengers to return to the ship. Instead, Turney proceeded to drive six more passengers into the field, thus delaying the return even longer. There seems to be a clear case for negligence here, and Turney might be well advised to get himself a good lawyer Negligence is failing to take due care in doing something. Failing to obey the ship's captain ranks worse than just negligence it is intentionally putting everyone at risk. Possibly as it was based on the Captain's observation and not on a model as a 'climate scientist' he did not believe it. But it put the captain in the unenviable position that he had to stay there and get trapped as he could not abandon these plonkers ** on the ice. The bill should be passed to Turney as it was his decision to disregard the warning of the captain that resulted in the ship getting trapped. I believe the award he got was set up before hand to match his triumphant return from an expedition showing the antarctic was melting and has just proven how unrealistic the award is. ( ** -- A UK slang term that has come to mean an idiot with no redeeming features If this goes to Court a court will look at the responsibilities of the captain who appears to have taken the ship thru a channel in fast ice. Was the captain aware of the forecast for strong winds or as Turney claims were they enormously unlucky. The passengers appear to have expressed the fear that the ship could become entrapped in the fast ice and not be released for a very long time. I doubt Turney will be totally hung out to dry on this one by the time the court has looked at all of the conflicting claims. Fairly obviously the Captain should not have put himself in a position where if he failed to leave for half a day he risked getting the boat trapped for a very long time. Obviously the Captain is responsible for the safety of his passengers.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 26, 2014 5:32:36 GMT
Yep. He should have sailed when the idiots didn't follow his orders.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 26, 2014 6:38:06 GMT
Yep. He should have sailed when the idiots didn't follow his orders. The captain should have been aware that tourists rarely come back on time
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 26, 2014 8:03:40 GMT
The Captain appears to haove made the correct choices. His first responsibility is to the lives of his passengers and crew. Staying to wait for the tourists saved the lives of the tourists and no lives were lost by that choice.
He could have some culpability for allowing the expedition leader go on the ice in the first place; but after that its clear he made the right decisions.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 26, 2014 18:08:49 GMT
Yes he did. That whole expedition was a cluster from day 1. Only good thing is no lives were lost.
|
|