39 thoughts on “Aurora Australis: Passengers disembarking.”

  1. You would post a photo that makes it look like they’re about to be placed behind bars.

    Are we going to bet?

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

    The interactive link imbedded in the above smh article is more extensive and contains this quoted section.

    At 12.30pm the first rotation of passengers set off for the Hodgeman Islands. They reported a smooth journey and some passengers set off to explore the nearby Adelie penguin rookery.

    “Despite the wind and the extreme cold, the scenery on the journey was spectacular – it seemed unreal, as though we were on a movie set,” said a passenger.

    Each driver and staff member had a VHF radio. Both Turney and Fogwill carried satellite phones.

    At 2.30pm when Mortimer saw the fuzz on the horizon and the captain warned of sea ice moving in behind the ship, the voyage leader used the ship’s VHF radio to tell those with handheld VHF radios to move people back to the ship.

    People at the Islands would later report they did not hear the message on their handhelds, which have a range of about five nautical miles.

    Calls to both the satellite phones, which have a global range, went unanswered. There were 15 people at the islands including six staff, either drivers or field leaders.

    At 3pm an Argo carrying four people returned to the ice edge.

    A passenger, who was standing near Turney when Mortimer called the leader from the ship’s VHF radio, recalled their conversation: “Chris, [captain] Igor has just said we need to expedite people back from the islands so we can get out of here,” said Mortimer.

    Turney, standing on the ice edge, repeated the message to confirm he had heard right.
    “Affirmative,” said Mortimer.
    “If I take this lot out, how long can we stay?” Turney said.
    Mortimer repeated that everybody needed to get back to the ship.

    The passenger was stunned by the conversation, even more so when, a few minutes later, Turney loaded an Argo with six passengers and drove off towards the Islands.

    At 3.30pm the second Argo, this time with only a driver, was sent to evacuate the remaining passengers.

    While Mortimer’s report said the plan was for passengers to remain nearby the Islands and be closely supervised, several passengers said they were not aware of this request.

    One passenger’s written account of the day said: “Unknown to the passengers, the captain sent out a message that he was concerned and wanted everyone back on the ship as the weather was turning and he was worried about the ice coming in.

    “Was it a communication problem or the optimism of those in charge?” Whatever the justification, one more load of passengers was taken out to the rookery, they said.

    It seems Turney has been caught disregarding orders to return to the ship immediately. That passenger overhearing Turney acknowledge receiving the message to return appears damning.

  6. Wow! Well… there did seem to be an information vacuum while the passengers were on their way to Australia. Seems like that vacuum is getting filled!

  8. On who pays
    http://wwmt.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/2a01522d-www.wwmt.com.shtml#.Ut84F_bnZkc

    Arguments continue on who will foot the bill for the rescue operation that involved the United States, China, France and Australia.

    Expedition leader Chris Turney told reporters in the port city of Hobart where they ended the final leg of their rescue aboard an Australian icebreaker Wednesday that it is still not clear who would pay for their rescue.

  9. On how much it might have cost
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20929234/rescued-antarctic-ship-passengers-return-expedition-leaders-sorry-for-disruption/

    The mission delayed Australia’s research program and the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) says it pursue all avenues in an attempt to recoup costs.

    Director Tony Fleming says the total bill could be as high as $2.4 million.

    The AAD is talking to the ship’s insurers and the University of New South Wales which chartered the vessel.

    Expedition leader Chris Turney has described the rescue mission as a great example of international co-operation and he thanked the Australian, Chinese, French and Americans involved.

    He says he is sorry people’s work was disrupted by the rescue but says it is too early to tell if expedition organisers will be footing the bill.

    Looks like we are gearing up for a fight over money.

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

    The BBC

    Escape plan

    Investigations are bound to examine whether the escape strategy the Captain had was put in jeopardy by the less than perfectly executed operations taking people between the ship and the Hodgeman islands, some 8km away, and managing them there.

    In a report he has compiled in consultation with other senior expedition personnel, Greg Mortimer has identified several weak points in the ice-side logistics. These were the responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kiselev.

    “There was a delay of a couple of hours on extracting people from the ice on the Hodgeman Islands and getting them onto the ship to leave the area. The delays may or may not have led to us getting stuck,” said Greg Mortimer.

    “During the period of people being on shore at the Hodgeman islands, the Russian captain said the ice is starting to close around us at which point we hit the evacuation button.”

    This was at about 14:30 ship time (01:30 GMT) on 23 December, according to Greg Mortimer. Despite the captain’s mounting frustration and anger over the situation, the Shokalskiy was ready to leave almost four hours later, at 18:15 ship time (05:15 GMT). Greg Mortimer agrees that this was an excessively long time.

  11. The final line of Andrew Luck-Baker’s article linked in Lucia’s comment above (#122764): “The coming investigations may decide whether an expeditionary cocktail of working Antarctic scientists and accompanying tourists is a viable formula in an environment as unpredictable and dangerous as Antarctica.”

  12. The BBC article is very interesting. It reads sort of the way I might expect things to go:

    1) Some passengers are pure “tourist”. But no one is a trained tour guide, which means they don’t really have experience wrangling tourists. This matters because real tour guides know how likely tourists are to dawdle, not follow orders and so on. They know how to account for that when making land expeditions. (On some tours, the penalty for dawling tourists who really won’t get back on the bus to return to the cruise ship is they get stuck and have to figure out what to do on their own dime. But even so, tour guides know they need to add time to the schedule to deal with the fact that shit happens.

    2) Even the more seasoned “scientists” who’ve been in the Antarctic might not really, truly understand how important it is to follow Captain’s orders. It does read as if they decided to take the “tourists” on the off ship excursion after one of the ARGOs had failed. And they decided to get outside of radio contact (which is, of course, a good way to become unable to follow captains orders). And then some of the tourists acted like tourists (surprise surprise) and went wandering around a bit.

    I have no idea how any of this will affect who is liable for what costs. But scientists doing scientific work aren’t trained as ‘tour guides’. And that combination of “tourists” + “scientists” may not be as splendid as the scientists thought when they conceived of a way to cover part of the cost of chartering the ship!

  13. Interesting that of the partygoers only Mortimer, the only truly experienced expeditioneer, seemed to recognise the the immediate need to respond to the weather change. In hostile conditions things can go titsup very quickly. I wonder what the dynamic between Mortimer and leader Turney is now, and whether Mortimer will be involved with any other expeditions led by climate psyentists?

  14. Hector–
    Other possibility: Mortimer knew that one is supposed to follow Captain’s lawful orders. I know this isn’t a military ship, but still…. a ship can’t function if people won’t follow lawful orders.

  15. That’s my feeling, Lucia. Mortimer was on duty, playing his part as the wise head. The others were partygoing on the ice. Hence my comment about the dynamic between Mortimer and Turney. I doubt there will be much love lost between them when the lawyers move in.

    I’m not normally a betting man, but my money is on Mortimer.

  17. Re: Don B (Jan 22 13:37),

    So not only are the expedition members clueless, so is the BBC, since they published that statement without comment.

    Antarctic sea ice extent and area has been increasing, not disappearing, for over thirty years. It’s been at record high levels since late last year. The average area for 2013 was a record high.

  18. Don B –
    I have to think that the line “One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing” was just sloppy reporting. First off, Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Second, it’s obvious that a single ship can not make any measurements which would be anywhere near as comprehensive, or accurate, as satellite imagery.

    Turney wrote here: “The effects of this marked shift in westerly winds are already being seen today, triggering warm and salty water to be drawn up from the deep ocean, melting large sections of the Antarctic ice sheet with unknown consequences for future sea level rise.” Hence repeating Mawson’s salinity and temperature measurements.

    The same web-page contains a list of nine scientific goals. The extent to which the expedition was capable of contributing to achieving these goals, might be disputed.

  19. DeWitt Payne

    “So not only are the expedition members clueless, so is the BBC, since they published that statement without comment.”

    We do something called irony in Britain and assuming your readership has the brains to get that without spelling it out is not such a bad thing. (No offense intended)

  20. HR,
    Your irony theory doesn’t cut it with me.

    I remember encountering irony from a London hotel owner in 1980. When deciding if I should check in, I asked what they served for breakfast. He answered “Well, this is England. So, we serve the usual, Boiled rat, blah, blah and etc.” I just looked straight at him and said, “I see. Well, I am currently a student spending a year in France. I’d hoped I could get a decent breakfast in England, but the hotel we checked into is serving something they call breakfast but consists of a roll, coffee and sugar. We are Americans. We don’t consider that breakfast. So if you don’t serve a decent breakfast, I’ll look elsewhere. Can you recommend a local hotel that serves a decent breakfast?” My companion nodded and endorsed my decision.

    The London hotel owner– whose place was nowhere near fully booked– turned beet red and proceeded to describe what they had for breakfast. I then told him that was adequate by American standards and we would take a room.

    Did I know he intended irony? Yes. But I also wanted to know what they did serve for breakfast. Irony has it’s places. But that doesn’t mean the person using it is communicating clearly. Nor is it “fair” for them to try to get credit for correct reporting both when they:
    a) report something that is incorrect– but which they claim they meant “ironically” and that people who don’t know they meant the opposite of what they said lack brains and
    b) report something that is correct.

    My best friend from high school eventually went to school in England (oxford? I think.) Anyway, she said she learned the best way to deal with British ‘irony’ was just to blink, look blank and repeat a request or question. If another attempt was required, she could escalate the blank look with “I don’t understand” and repeat.

    But basically: unless someone is really doing a comedy performance, generally the best the way to deal with British irony is to behave as the person said something non-ironically and give them the chance to clarify. This can’t be done when reading a BBC article. But my suspicion is the BBC botched it. If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they said the opposite of what they meant operating under the assumption that all their readers just happen to “know” that sea ice in increasing and that the notion someone is going there to detect how fast it is decreasing. Well… ok. But I think you theory is incorrect and lacks foundation.

  21. Lucia, all of my British friends have an exceptionally dry wit.

    I once asked a British acquaintance this question, “What kind of dry wit criticality incident would occur if we put too many of these people together in one room?”

    The answer: “It was called the British Empire.”

  22. Blackadder: Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?
    Baldrick: Yes, it’s like goldy and bronzy only it’s made out of iron.

  23. Irony is ok in person. Context, facial clues and body language usually give it away.

    This is all lost in blogs, email and texting.

  24. Beta blocker– Dry wit is not necessarily the same as irony. Possibly the American Revolution shows that some people know how to deal with dry wit. 🙂

    Hoi Polloi, I clicked to youtube to watch black adder. I saw very little irony. Most of of the time he just snidely said exactly what he thought though possibly in rather interesting ways. Irony requires saying the opposite of what one means. Said drying, it is sometimes understood and can suggest the person using irony may be heaping scorn either on the person he is talking to or on a 3rd party. But merely heaping scorn does not make something ‘ironic’.

    Note that Black Adder is not “dry wit” as it is too overt.

    Note that my response to the hotelier’s “dead rat” irony was dry. It’s up to you to decide if it was “wit”. But it had the desired effect which included making the hotelier turn beet red and then provide the information I had requested. ( And possibly also turned the tables on him as I perceived an inclination of “dumb American’s! Don’t you even know that the British are famous for their breakfasts!” Well.. yeah. Duh. But some of the hotels claimed the served breakfast and then slipped you “continental”. And I knew this to be so because it happened.)

    Les Johnson

    This is all lost in blogs, email and texting.

    Also in newspapers. Yes, “the onion” can do irony because it’s full bore. But if the BBC is mixing irony and straight reporting, they are being idiots. And a bad newspaper.

  25. Sorry, I don’t see how the statement ““One of the aims was to track how quickly the Antarctic’s sea ice was disappearing” could be viewed as intentionally ironic. For irony to work, your audience has to be clued on on the correct answer ahead of time.

    How many people are even aware of the extent to which Antarctic’s sea ice is increasing?

    Anyway given how otherwise clueless this group was, actually meaning the statement but being preposterously wrong fits the bill much better than intentional irony.

  26. HaroldW (Comment #122776)

    “Turney wrote here: “The effects of this marked shift in westerly winds are already being seen today, triggering warm and salty water to be drawn up from the deep ocean, melting large sections of the Antarctic ice sheet with unknown consequences for future sea level rise.” Hence repeating Mawson’s salinity and temperature measurements.”

    I would think that Turney is talking here about the calving of the huge icebergs from the Antarctica ice sheets. That scenario he sites seems like one I have heard proposed before. I also recall NicL talking about that process as having little to do with global warming.

  27. Lucia you’re hotel owner just sounds plain rude rather than ironic, that’s what passes for service in London. I guess I wasn’t suggesting the BBC was being ironic just that the irony of the situation needed little comment. It’s most definitely ironic that the expedition got trapped in the disappeared ice.

  28. HR,
    Irony and rudeness are not mutually exclusive: he was both.

    Generally speaking, American’s recognize that when those in the service industries resort to negative irony, they are being rude. ( We do have people be overly polite which might be seen as an attempt at “positive irony” in the sense that they are trying to be “nice”. But often, when a company insists on “politeness” the service personel certainly don’t mean “they’re sorry” or “we apologize” when they say “we apologize”. That sort of empty apology from Sears steamed me. And — make no mistake– when it is utterly insincere, and they are implementing an unfair, irrational illegal policy, it will steam people.)

    American’s use lots of irony. Possibly more than the Brits. But there are circumstances where we see it as rude.

  30. If Turney told people he was going to Antarctica to show the pack ice is ‘disappearing’, and he is a climate scientist, then he was lying to those people. He cannot claim ignorance of the fact that Antarctic pack ice is growing.
    Turney now claims that the ice which trapped the ship was an ‘extreme event’.
    That is also untrue. Antarctica is famous for rapid movement of pack of ice and highly variable weather.
    My question now is if he actually went to the Metz glacier as he claimed.

  31. The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, not sea ice but marine because its base is below sea level, is what is usually referenced when one is worried about a catastrophic increase in sea level. Turney, if I read the maps correctly, was on the other side of Antarctica from the WAIS.

    The Wikipedia article about the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is not marine, references Steig, et. al. (2009) on Antarctic warming, as if it were gospel. There is no mention of the refutation of Steig by O’Donnell, et.al. (2010). The article does mention that th latest GRACE data indicates that the EAIS is gaining mass.

  32. Lucia, most of the time when you start seriously analysing jokes, irony, dry wit, comedy etc, suddenly it isn’t funny anymore. It’s all in the timing and the Brits are Kings of Timing.

  33. Hoi Polloi,
    Humor is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. So if you think Brits are funnier then you think Brits are funnier. I don’t share that opinion.

    I don’t think the Brits have any advantage over Americans in humor. Not in irony, not in timing, not in anything. Some British shows are hilarious with great timing. So are some American shows– with equally great timing. Some ‘funny’ British shows are just dumb humor. So are some American shows. (For example: “Benny Hill” and “The Man Show”).

    While I loved Monty Python and Fawlty Towers. I always thought Black Adder and Mr. Bean are unwatchable. I can say similar things of American comedies. Some are good, some just dumb.

    I’ve also never noticed the average individual Brits being any more (or less) funny than the average American. I’ve noticed equal fractions of Brits and Americans who think they are funny when they are not funny. Often, about the same sorts of things.

  34. Even the Pythons varied wildly in their humor. Some of the skits fell completely flat while others would have you almost literally rolling on the floor. I didn’t think that the Peter Sellers movie “Being There” was either particularly humorous or even very good, I seriously disliked “Fargo” and you’d have to pay me a lot of money to get me to watch “Borat”.

  35. Borat was bad. It was supposed to be funny, but it was just dumb. That said: lots of people went to see it. Presumably they like dumb humor. Dumb humor does often draw audiences. (Can we say “Benny Hill”, “Black Adder” or “The Man Show”? )

    I actually like some dumb humor sometimes. For example, I kinda like the 3 stooges. I can’t pretend it’s “smart” humor. But watching Curly do the shuffle…http://vimeo.com/55629845

    I liked Fargo a lot. It had some funny scenes– but I don’t think it was a comedy. Wikipedia describes it as a “crime film”.

    ‘Being There’ is ok, not great though. I don’t think it was intended to be sidesplitting either; wikipedia describes it as a “comedy-drama”, which puts it in a rather nebulous region that’s not quite comedy. I think it’s supposed to be “philosophy” or something.

  36. lucia,

    I like the 3 Stooges too. especially the ones with Curly. But they’re completely over the top and nobody really gets hurt. I have to confess that I enjoyed Married with Children. But they’re not trying to make fun of normal people who might do something dumb when provoked, i.e. Borat. My objection to Fargo is the idiot plot, i.e. nearly every character has to be an idiot or the whole thing would collapse instantly.

    I remember watching I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners when I was a kid, but looking back, I don’t see the humor in either any more.

  37. For me Fargo was an excellent movie and so are most if not all movies by the Coen Brothers. And yes, you’re right, humor is in the eye of the beerholder.
    Borat is boring btw.

  39. Small point perhaps but whether the people at the rookery could hear the message from the ship does not depend on the transmission range of their handhelds but on the transmission range of the ship’s VHF. VHF is line of sight so if they could see the ship’s antenna, which would be mounted quite high specifically because of range, they should have been able to hear.

    There is some other reason why they did not hear; failure to monitor the ship transmissions perhaps? Failure to charge batteries?

Comments are closed.