The people on Turney’s ill-conceived combined PR stunt, eco-tourist vacation and science expedition have been retrieved. Naturally, it’s now time to make fun of them. And fun is being made:
My favorite bit is when he says his nickname will probably become “The Penguin”.
I welcome anyone who provides links to useful stories giving us details on:
- How this was funded. Was it 100% pre-funded, or are there going to be any remaining liabilities?
- Whether there might be any legal liabilities on the part of the organizers, particularly with regard to the eco-tourists. Hey. I’m American. I can’t help but think if this was an American expedition at least some of the eco-tourists would be trying to figure out if they could sue the organizers. Although, admittedly, each will have plenty of interesting stories to tell during upcoming cocktail parties and fundraisers or such like.
- Who paid for the rescue? Did the various ice breakers just head out for free? Or is someone going to pay the Russian, Chinese & etc. for their efforts? (Looks like the SnowDragon itself may end up needing rescue?!. The article I linked tells us
The cost of the rescue would be carried by the owners of the ships and their insurers, in accordance with international conventions on sea rescues, Young said.
So, does this mean whoever owns the ship Turney rented? )
- How this trip affected real research missions. Somewhere I read that some other Antarctic ice researchers were deprived of access to their equipment which remained on board the Aurora Australis when it was sent out on the higher priority live saving mission.
I’m sure these links are all over the place, but I haven’t had time to follow the story as much as I might have. So, share!
http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2014/01/03/colere-des-scientifiques-contre-la-croisiere-piegee-dans-l-antarctique_4342562_3244.html
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/01/02/terence-corcoran-science-of-climate-change-not-on-the-same-course-as-reality/
“Greetings from Casey Station on the East Antarctic coast. I’ve just returned from the deep field site at Aurora Basin where the Australians are drilling a new 400-meter ice core which we will analyze in my lab in Reno.
“I’m writing with regards to the rescue effort for that tourist ship stuck in the ice near Commonwealth Bay and the enormous impact of the rescue effort on Antarctic science programs. The Australian ice breaker Aurora Australis was here at Casey in the process of unloading the coming year’s supplies for the station, as well as a number of researchers and their science gear for this summer’s activities, when the emergency response request was issued. The Australians shut down the unloading very quickly and left within a few hours after the request arrived but only about a third of the resupply was completed and a lot of that science gear was still on board. Before they left they at least were able to get the passengers including six Aurora Basin researchers off the ship. Otherwise I’d still be at Aurora Basin and would have had to stay to the end of January since my field replacement was in that group.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/rescue-effort-for-trapped-antarctic-voyage-disrupts-serious-science/?_r=3
You might be thinking of this:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/rescue-effort-for-trapped-antarctic-voyage-disrupts-serious-science/?_r=0
Rescue Efforts for Trapped Antarctic Voyage Disrupt Serious Science
Don B–
Thanks. That’s the tweet I think I saw!
The French “Le Monde” article is lacerating btw.
Because the rescue operations put in peril a number of important research programs conducted at the various scientific bases on the 6th continent.
RAVITAILLEMENT INCOMPLET
The anger is fed by the nature of the expedition launched by Chris Turney. “It’s a touristy-pseudo-scientific expedition”, in the estimation of Yves Freno the directory of the French Polare Institute (IPEV). ‘It’s a bit of a fun cruise’. (I had to look up croisiere. But My interpretation of a joy ride or some such.)
le glaciologue Jérôme Chappellaz elaborates, “The expedition was represented as scientific, while there are above all (mostly?) tourists on board who have paid a to take the trip.
Jérôme Chappellaz is is affiliated with “Laboratoire de glaciologie et de géophysique de l’environnement” and was still present at Australia Antarctic scientific station Casey base on on Jan 2 waiting for restocking of necessary scientific equipment to support their own activities.
Now the precious cargo– foods, fuel and materials– could not be completely unloaded form the Aurora-Australis which responding to the urgent call.
At Casey, when the collegues were told that the L’Australis was called up, there was a bit of a panic, M. Chappellaz reported. What was more shocking was the manner the members of the expedition on the Shokalskiy communicated: By films (broadcast?) we saw them partying, singing.
Not at any moment was their any suggestion that they were in peril.
I’d say we need more tweets of reaction by scientists on real scientific missions!
Most of the supporters are government or academic.
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/aae-supporters/
Private financing was nearly non-exitistent, going by the fund raising. They raised only about 500, out 37,000 needed, to buy the ATVs. They ended up buying 3, so they probably got the money from gov/Unis/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-us-return-to-mawson-s-antarctic-hut-the-home-of-the-blizzard
I guessing on the liabilities, but it is usually the ship owner that takes the risk, unless there is negligence on the part of the passengers. (there might be in this case, as there is evidence the captain wanted to get the hell out Dodge, but he had to wait for the “explorers”.) But it will all depend on the fine print in the T&C
between the ship and the deep pockets that financed the trip.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/02/the-cause-of-the-akademik-shokalskiy-getting-stuck-in-antarctica-sigtseeing-mishaps-and-dawdling-by-the-passengers-getting-back-on-ship/
The rescue effort will be paid by the owners of the Akademic. By international treaty, a ship in distress must be attended to by ships in the area. Costs will borne by the ship in distress, also by treaty.
As pointed out by Don B, there is considerable angst in the real scientific world, by the diversion of resources from real science.
Google Translate gave me ‘The Love Boat’. 🙂
Mark Bofill,
Ahh!! That would explain the quotes. That must have been the name they gave the television series.
Yes. But it’s still possible that the contract between Turley will require him, his employers, company or his insurers to pay something. Presumably we will eventually learn.
I don’t believe in tipping points so much, but this may be one. I have seen articles in so-called progressive cities and papers, that are critical of the expedition. San Fran, Washington, NY. Not exactly skeptic country.
While not directly related to this, In one article, I saw a sports writer compare the Cleveland Browns to global warming and wind power. Ouch.
According to Pierre at notrickszone, the German response is also highly critical. Apparently the communications director of the expedition is blaming global warming, and readers are not buying it.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/03/expedition-communication-director-alvin-stone-climate-warming-led-to-the-vessels-awkward-predicament/
Lucia, yes, we won’t know until it goes to court, or perhaps FOI, as its publically funded. It will depend on the Terms and Conditions of the contract, and whether the ship owner feels there is negligence on the part of the “explorers”.
From previous work with shipping companies, I strongly suspect that the daily cost of the Akademic will be borne by the leasee’s, as long its stuck in ice.
I think that the flippancy that the “explorers” showed is causing much of the problems.
Talking about parties; having sinalonggs on the ice; Turney saying his most important piece of equipment was his coffee maker; the ships doctor saying they were running low on booze, but they should stay sober anyway, in case they needed to be evac’ed; then in the next breath saying that they should have some drinks, as they are going to a dry ship; Turney taking his wife and 2 kids; the Aussies early on worrying about the beer supply; etc.
It painful to watch, from a PR perspective. If it was passengers on a cruise, it would be amusing. As it was public money for a “scientific” expedition, and a science that predicts catastrophe, its far from amusing.
Les,
I like this ‘reason’:
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/03/expedition-communication-director-alvin-stone-climate-warming-led-to-the-vessels-awkward-predicament/#sthash.FkTYwiWo.dpuf
Whatever the cause of the ice, presumably a ship going vessel should be take into account conditions that arise due to ice chunks that broke off years earlier. This isn’t some sort of unforseeable rapidly unfolding danger like a tsunami.
Passengers on a cruise would, ultimately, be suing.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2013/02/15/carnival-triumph-passenger-lawsuit/1924005/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/us/florida-carnival-triumph-lawsuit/
I have no idea what they might win. But suits would be filed.
Joanne Nova has some more information.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/australian-taxpayers-will-pay-400000-cost-for-climate-scientists-ship-stuck-in-ice-total-cost-millions/
Andy Revkin is annoyed that this fiasco has “energized climate change contrarians”.
He also inadvertently brags he does all of his “polar reporting” from just the Arctic.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/andy-revkin-annoyed-with-climate-change-contrarians-being-energized/
I expect the Russian investigation will find the circumstances were unpredictable, and change unfolded at such a rapid rate there was no way the ship could have escaped the ice.
Les
Reading various blogs speculating on the cause for the ship getting stuck, I know I’ll be interested in learning what the Russians have to report during any investigation. I mean… did the ice form particularly quickly? That is: so quickly the captain was actually taken by surprise? Or did was the ice forming all along, but decisions were made to visit Mawson’s huts possibly on or near various symbolic days?
After all: http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/25/scientists-retrace-steps-of-antarctic-explorer-douglas-mawson
is filed dec. 25. The article starts “In the early hours of Christmas Day 1912 the Antarctic explorer and scientist Douglas Mawson was trekking across the endless plateau of the frozen continent with his companion, Xavier Mertz.”
blah.. blah
Granted, there is a lot of breathless reporting in general. Every single thing seems to inspire reverence, awesomeness, a ‘privilege’ and so on. So this might just be one of the many, many, many zillions things you can get Turney or some other passenger to describe as as ‘close to a holy ground as you could get on this trip’. But that wording does make it sound like getting to the huts was very, very important to Turney.
If it turns out that the Captain was agitating people to get back to the ship while people going to the huts might have been dawdling for whatever reasons of their own (which possibility seems to be suggested at the WUWT article) that’s going to look bad for Turney. That said: since journalists are mostly going to get quotes from Turney or passengers (many of whom are gung-ho Turney supporters and/or who may not really know much about what was going on) maybe it won’t look bad for Turney because he’ll just keep up with the story that the ice changed quickly. We’ll see.
Some time ago an ice berg broke free and collided with the Mertz Glazier. As I understand it, this blocked the normal access to the bay where the huts are located. So tourist voyages were stopping to the east of that mess where there was “open” water access close to the shore; the sea ice to the west was somehow not moving into this area. Around Christmas, when the Russian ship was stationary and many passengers offloaded to make the long trek across ice and land to the huts, the situation changed and the sea ice, driven by strong winds, rapidly closed in on the Russian ship and trapped it.
My understanding is these are periodic tourist cruises. Visiting the huts is part of the cruise. They have a lot of experience at doing this operation. The situation believed to be normal suddenly changed around Christmas 2013.
To figure this out, I had to sift through mountains of disinformation. I stand to be corrected. But right now, I do not see how any of this can be blamed at any level on the passengers. I know rescuers. We have some in the family. They live for these moments. They had the time of their lives.
JCH
A small bit of what you write matches the first hand accounts at the Guardian, but much does not. Other stuff you write is just vauge.
First: The bit about the iceberg and such are true. As for other gigs: There may have been other cruises in the past and maybe they are now cancelled or done some other way. Or maybe there were no such trips. But either way: what happened in other years on other cruises would have little to nothing to do with the current situation for an expedition which is not billed as “a cruise” and certainly whoever “they” are they do not have “lots” of experience sheparding tourists to the Mawson huts.
These are first hand (though possibly incomplete) accounts for the group on this russian ship — which claims to be a science group (not a cruise).
http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/20/sea-ice-mawsons-huts-antarctica
http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/25/scientists-retrace-steps-of-antarctic-explorer-douglas-mawson
Alok Jha filed a report about going to the huts on the 20th.
Referring to the “scientists” as they and the paying customers as “passengers” he writes
(Note: with respect to the crew who run the ship, I would call both the scientists and the tourists “passengers”. If the scientists dawdled, I would consider that “passengers” dawdling. I don’t know that they did; I don’t know that they did not. )
In the Dec. 25 article the reporter writes
That jibes with what you said about the iceberg.
However, the next sentence is
This does not suggest that “cruise” groups were gotting to the huts.
The scientists on the “science-cruise” then proceed to go over the “fast ice” with surface vehicles. An intermediate article indicates that this drive over the “fast ice” is the “farthest ever driven across a patch of sea ice”– which suggests this was hardly routine.
He also write about scientists doing various and sundry things while at the huts, including
I would suggest that if conservation teams have not made it to the huts since 2011, it’s highly unlikely that cruise ship operators have been sheparding any cruise passengers there since that time. And I doubt anyone has much experience getting cruise passengers there. It reads like a destination that no one has been getting to in at least 2 years!
His other articles are here
http://www.theguardian.com/profile/alokjha
Anyway, the Russian ship didn’t just decide to sit there and be stationary. Ships don’t make their own decisions– they are just hardware. A person or people on the ship made decisions to halt the ship and let passengers off and do whatever. (Note in this case passengers include the science team leasing the ship, and making decisions with their off ship vehicles. One off, the ship captain can’t really coral them back but he can’t leave them either.) And sure weather changes: But what did people know about the weather when the stopped the ship? What about when the people left the ship? What sort of communications were going on and so on?
As for the reports: I see nothing that provides any information describing weather ‘suddenly’ changing in a time frame where their getting stuck makes much sense.
Maybe. But right now, what you are writing here doesn’t seem to match what Alok — a reporter on the scene writes. But of course, he’s not the only If you could provide links to the information you gleaned that might help fill in what he doesn’t write about. (He doesn’t say anything about weather changes nor provide weather reports. He writes more or less breathless ‘puff’ type things that sound like NOVA but give no behind the scenes stuff. And this stranding is ‘behind the scenes’ stuff.)
Also: Even if you know rescuers no one in the “rescuer” group could possibly give an eye-witness account of how the Russian vessel got into the scrape in the first place because the rescuers arrived after the vessel is trapped. And the fact that the “rescuers” might live for these moments is also not going to tell us anything about how these guys got into a jam.
For now, I remain agnostic about whether the passengers (i.e. the ‘scientists’) obediently followed all recommendations by the captain and crew or whether they dawdled at the huts. I think we just don’t know– and I think no one is really describing a timeline of trips by the passengers and onset of various weather events. Under the circumstances, the latter seems a bit suspicious– but it may just be that everyone is busy getting rescued.
I spoke with one person who likes visiting East Antarctica. He has been there several times. Why I don’t know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Antarctica
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships/ross-sea-east-antarctica-ships-and-specialty-trips
Scroll down and read the names of the two ships they employ, and the sights the tourists get to see.
“This does not suggest that “cruise†groups were gotting to the huts”
They certainly have been.
Here is an account of a visit from someone on a 2010 tour organised by the Australian Geographic magazine. Here is a self portrait painted by an artist on a trip organised in 2012 by the Mawson’s Huts Foundation.
Nick,
Nice quote trimming. I wrote
(1) That time would be 2011. 2010 is before 2011. So that tells us nothing.
(2) Mawson’s Hut Foundation is not a cruise group. The page of the ship describes the trip thusly
So: they are a restoration/scientific expedition.
JCH is claiming cruise ships are going.
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships/ross-sea-east-antarctica-ships/orion/mawsons-antarctica-commonwealth-bay-1
Posted March 24, 2011. He does say they went into Boat Harbor, so the ice must clear there as the summer progresses.
Sorry, link:
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/ag-blog/2011/03/antarctica-expedition-mawsons-hut/
These are cruises. The guy would have sold me a ticket.
JCH,
If you are trying to make a point, you are going to have to do so more directly by (a) stating the point and (b) providing the quote that shows something at one of the links supports the point you are making.
If your point is that cruises go to Antarctica: Yes. I know that. I have not claimed otherwise.
If you are trying to suggest that those links indicate that cruise ships were taking passengers to the Mawson huts: I scrolled and used my “search” function in my browser and did not find any reference to “Mawson”. First: I see ‘historic huts” at the “Ross Sea” but that doesn’t necessarily imply “Mawson” . There are many different huts in Antarctica.
Second: The page doesn’t tells us which tours happened when and so we can’t know which specific huts toursists were take in since 2011. But the page does not suggest any cruises were visiting the Mawson Huts since 2011. Moreover, the links Nick provided suggests they were not..
This one does describe what seem to be tourist visits to the hut
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships/ross-sea-east-antarctica-ships/orion/mawsons-antarctica-commonwealth-bay-1
With a visit to Mawson’s huts. There are no dates, but the page looks like they are advertising. So, presumbaly these happen.
That said: The Russian ships is not a cruise– and as I said, even if cruises go there, that doesn’t mean decisions involved in this trip to the Huts could not have been the cause of an irresponsible delay.
JCH:
Note the date on the one where the guy is at the hut
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/ag-blog/2011/03/antarctica-expedition-mawsons-hut/
March 2011. My claim is “if conservation teams have not made it to the huts since 2011, it’s highly unlikely that cruise ship operators have ”
I still don’t have any strong reason to believe that any cruises i.e. “tourists ships” have been taking tourists to the Mawson hits since 2011.
http://www.mawsons-huts.org.au/news/expedition-cancelled-for-2012-13/
Starts
Anyway: this strongly suggests that cruises have not been visiting since 2011. Showing that they visited in 2011 or before is not evidence that they visited since then.
“The Russian ships is not a cruise”
In fact, that same Russian ship (now stuck) operated some of the Polarcruises that you link.
Picture at bottom.
“Anyway: this strongly suggests that cruises have not been visiting since 2011. “
In fact, the Mawson’s Hut foundation trip this year did get through. Details here. From the timing it seems it may have been the same trip that got stuck. If so, this is interesting:
“The privately-funded expedition is a joint venture between the Mawson’s Huts Foundation and the Australian Antarctic Division with some 30 scientists on the ship who will carry out many of the experiments conducted by the 1911-14 team.”
Ha! Lucia posts more oil company funded denialist propaganda!!
Nick: If it was privately funded, it does not show. Most of the sponsors are government or academia. They were only able to raise 520 dollars on Indiegogo.
Nick
That doesn’t turn it into a “cruise ship”. And it supposedly wasn’t operating as one in this instance.
Good! (Doesn’t turn their visit into a cruise.) But with respsect to this
Yes. It does seem to be the same trip that got stuck. The Guardian article discusses people involved in restoration getting to the huts. This only makes it seem more likely that the team really, really, really wanted to get to the huts. It would be a high priority for them as for at least some, that was the main point of the trip!
Les–
They did take along some non-scientific passengers. Possibly they got newspapers to pay for them to transport the journalists.
I take it that when they finally arrived at the huts they were going to take wood cores and do a temperature reconstruction or something.
I cannot for the life of me work out the scientific value of visiting 100 year-old huts.
Doc, they are building a replica of the huts in Hobart.
http://www.mawsons-huts.org.au/news/replica-project-underway/
So they will be able to take their wood cores more easily in future.
The 2012 “expedition” (part one of three “commemorative” voyages) seems to have done well.
http://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/news/aurora-expeditions-reaches-commonwealth-bay-100-years-after-sir-douglas-maw
I wonder if they are planning a Starbucks?
Lucia: yes, they had paying passengers, and the media on board. I make it about 500k for paying passengers. The cost is 1.5 million, plus another estimated 400k.
.
But based on sponsorship placement, the vast majority of funds will be public, one way or another.
.
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/aae-supporters/
.
Actually, I make most of the “scientists”, to also be passengers. Some are looking at sub-antarctic (which includes NZ). Some are dendro, some are studying lakes. Some are sudying peat. I believe there is a shortage of lakes, peat and trees on the frozen continent.
.
The student specializing in traumatic brain injury is curious. Unless he suspects something about his fellow “explorers”.
.
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/aae-science-leaders/
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/phd-students/
I want to organize a trip to New Orleans to examine the post-Katrina FEMA huts that are of historic significance. Navigating the bikini clad ladies, handing out Jello-shots, on Bourbon Street may prove to be tricky, but if one gets the timing right one can circumnavigate the obstacles before dawn.
Additionally, if we all wear protective garlic and crucifixes we should also be immune to being part of the undead.
The Financial Times:
“A cruise that will cost the climate campaign dear
“The rescue of passengers from a Russian ship is a setback for those who warn of global warming ”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/04276fd8-69ca-11e3-aba3-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2pO8Jy0Af
I suspect the ship owners and their insurance companies are going to be on the hook for the (millions) expended in saving the eco-sciency-tourists from the perils of the ice. They will all get off Scott free; there may even be a made-for-TV docudrama.
.
The utter humor and cartoon-like irony here seems completely lost in the MSM coverage. Is there a better example of hoisted with his own petard anywhere, ever? If people understood that the whole voyage was mainly motivated by ‘wild eyed green desires’ to emphasize the critical extent of Antarctic warming and loss of sea ice, then the reportage might be a little more harsh than it has been.
.
“Eco-loons in Antarctica to document loss of ice are trapped in ice” should have been the headline.
Les,
I see one of the sponsors is All Terrain Solutions, manufacturers of the “almost amphibuous” vehicles that nearly sank.
I wonder how they feel about one of the “passengers” saying things like
“The Argos are designed to be amphibious – just. ”
“Sadly Argo engines don’t take too kindly to being submerged… the ships engineers are still working on it and not very optimistic about its prospects.”
“Because of the Argo mishap we got off late…”
The mishap referred to apparently led to the delay that may have caused them to get caught in the ice.
http://www.janetrice.com.au/?e=98
Somebody should have told them there was no loss of ice to document.
I mean, apparently they weren’t aware of that fact, the interesting question is why.
Is the Argo is the same vehicle that the banana splits used to drive, the banana buggy?
Banana buggy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nwLJAWqW4VM/UCiE8Vlt2bI/AAAAAAAAiP4/3DGQQ14Dih0/s1600/banana-splits.jpg
Argo
http://www.argoatv.com/sites/default/files/product_images/base.jpg
Well as long as everyone is into crowd funding, how about kicking in to support the Keeling Curve
I’m not going to fund that. I’m mystified why anyone would. But if you want to promote it, go ahead.
I’m more interested in seeing an honest and successful launch of OCO-2.
Good catch, DocMartyn.
There was a six wheel moon buggy in Space 1999:
http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/images/cast/spy1buggy.jpg and Tonka toys also made a similar one:
http://quartus.net/images/buggy%20002.jpg
Then, of course, Parker drove a pink six-wheel roller for Lady Penelope in Thunderbirds.
And I recall Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons went even further by employing a ten wheel “Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle”, which you had to drive while facing backwards.
All the information being asked for is available on Jo Nova’s site [ http://joannenova.com.au/ ] here in Australia. A number of her regular posters have been doing a lot of research as to what actually happened.
[ for what it is worth; Alexa ratings today
Jo Nova ; 85,600
Skeptical Science ; 103,700 ]
An Australian Greens senator elect Janet Rice wrote in her blog, a comment apparently now deleted,
http://www.webcitation.org/6MKoyxMlM
quoted;
The first drama of the day was the sinking – or almost! – of one of the Argos. The Argos are designed to be amphibious – just. They were launched today off the ship – and two of the three made it safely being towed by a zodiac the 50 metres or so to shore. The third was towed too fast it seems – and water came over the bonnet / bow, flooding both the engine and the vehicle itself. Ben tried in vain to bail out with a spade and luckily they made it to shore before the vehicle sunk entirely. Ben ended up rather wet too, but similarly to Mary, not submerged enough for the lifejacket to come into play. Sadly Argo engines don’t take too kindly to being submerged… the ships engineers are still working on it and not very optimistic about its prospects.
The third drama of the day is the one which is still unfolding. Because of the Argo mishap we got off late, and had one less vehicle to ferry people to and fro. I’m told the Captain was becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in. As I write we are continuing to make extremely slow progress through what looks like a winter alpine snow field – it’s yet another surreal part of this journey that we are in a ship trying to barge our way through here! I’m sure the Captain would have been much happier if we had got away a few hours earlier. Maybe we would have made it through the worst before it consolidated as much as it has with the very cold south- easterly winds blowing the ice away from the coast, around and behind us as well as ahead.
We’ll see where we are in the morning – it may be a very white Christmas Eve!
PS. 9.30am 24/12. We have moved less than a kilometre over night, and are now stationary in a sea of ice. The word is that we are not stuck, merely waiting for a weather change. It seems to me that we are having the quintessential Antarctic experience.J Stay tuned.
[end ]
The Antarctic researchers, Australian, French and chinese are not happy to put it mildly as in Australia’s Casey Base situation, the supply ship the Aurora Australis had to hurriedly leave Casey Base on the rescue mission with only about a third of the supplies and experimental equipment unloaded leaving a lot of researchers without the needed equipment to conduct their research during the short 3 month season where such work can be carried out in the Antarctic environment.
Also from Imlxy on Jo nova’s blog.
lmxly
January 4, 2014 at 10:02 am · Reply
This is precisely the issue, Robber. What did Turney imagine he could achieve in a month when the AAD spends millions a year over the past 50 years researching – with real scientists – precisely these questions? And as a polar historian (I edited Captain John King Davis’s Antarctic journals – he was skipper on all Mawson’s expeditions) I am particularly infuriated by the pseudo ‘Spirit of Mawson’ tag; implying that Turney in 3 days could replicate (?) scientific observations of Mawson’s expedition of nearly three years. As a former ANARE station leader, and also staff member on numerous tourist voyages on ships like Shokalskiy, I have been to almost all of the Antarctic coast as well as inland. And I am even more infuriated by the suggestion that the Russian owners of the ship should pay for the rescue, implying that the Captain was at fault; when it’s clear it was the scientists’ incompetence and ignorance, under Turney’s leadership, that caused the delayed departure that had such cascading – and continuing – consequences. When, in all his relentlessly positive posts on ‘Intrepid Science’ (LOL), is he going to show any glimmer of acknowledgement of his responsibility for this fiasco?
There are also other quotes and a considerable amount of information becoming available to indicate that most or all of the funding for this escalating climate warming debacle was provided by the tax payers.
Turney also had his wife and son along on this “scientific research” jaunt with it’s mini bar and milkshakes one of the so called psuedo researchers was missing when the ship got stuck in the ice and the crew had other things to wor4ry about .
On tourism in the Antarctic. It is becoming a much more serious problem than those in the Northern hemisphere realise.
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition ;
[ http://www.asoc.org/issues-and-advocacy/antarctic-environmental-protection/antarctic-tourism ]
[quoted]
From a base of 4,698 tourists in the 1990/91 summer, annual numbers have risen to 36,875 over the 2009/2010 season. Although tourist residence time is shorter, this means that vastly more tourists than scientists and support staff on national programs now visit the Antarctic each year.
[ end ]
There has been already one major tourism disaster in Antarctica when NZ flight TE 901 crashed on Mt Erebus on the 28 th Nov 1979 when 257 passengers and crew were killed.
It is inevitable that there will be another major disaster [ a couple of large tourist ships have already had to call on the Antarctic research community for assistance but this has not been reported in the MSM.] with heavy loss of life due in part to the extreme conditions if tourism to the Antarctic is not drastically reigned in within the near future.
The entire Antarctic research programs of all the Antarctic treaty nations is severely jeopardized whenever the very limited and specialized support facilities of the international Antarctic research organisations have to be hurriedly switched over to a tourist rescue mission. Something that is now being highlighted by the Antarctic researchers themselves after the Turney debacle of a poorly planned and somewhat ignorant and very arrogant attitude to both the dangers involved in Antarctica’s extreme climate of minus 20 to minus 50 C temperatures and thats in the southern summer as of now. Plus the apparent ack of any real preparation and the lack of any organised backup allied with a basic ignorance of conditions and a casual and arrogant disregard by dismissing and failing to implicitly follow the instructions of the ship’s Captain who in the end has to carry the can for the whole Turney inspired debacle.
This fiasco is more like a modern quest for a holy relic. Ill conceived and badly planned, seeking physical evidence to bolster a faith based belief, a varied group not actually qualified to make the journey, taking pointless risks and accomplishing nothing at great cost.
If you are going to do a parody of some thing, first of all you have to know what the thing is. This downfall parody of strawmen is a waste of time.
Well at least part of this was foreseen in a recent Oscar winning film:
LA Times Reporter: What does the title refer to?
Lester Siegel: The Argo, it’s the thing…
LA Times Reporter: Like Jason and the Golden Fleece, or what?
Lester Siegel: No, no, no. It’s the ship, it’s the spaceship, it goes…it goes everywhere. It goes all…all throughout space.
LA Times Reporter: So it’s the Argonaut?
Lester Siegel: No.
LA Times Reporter: What does Argo mean?
Lester Siegel: I don’t know.
LA Times Reporter: You don’t know?!
Lester Siegel: It means Argo f*** yourself!
bugs,
We get it. You don’t think its funny when people make fun of those you admire. Not even if those you admire blunder about, get themselves jammed up due — quite likely– to either incompetence or ridiculous overreach (causing them to make overly risky decisions), spend time on PR during the rescue mission to fish them out of the sea and so on.
The Antarctic cruise industry seems to be in damage control mode. Some interesting facts [or spin].
http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5673
From Cruise Critic:
[quote]
(3:21 p.m. EST) — Thick ice in the Antarctic trapped some 52 passengers and 20 crew members on an expedition ship Christmas Day, resulting in a one-week wait for rescue. Here are the answers to some questions you might be asking about the incident and what it means for Antarctic cruising in general.
Was MV Akademik Shokalskiy on a typical Antarctic sailing?
No. The expedition ship, which is sometimes used by Australian expedition cruise operator Aurora Expeditions, was charted by a scientific expedition retracing the steps of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-1914. Most passengers onboard were scientists, but a few members of the general public interested in recreation were onboard, too.
Was the ship in an area visited by most Antarctic cruise ships?
No. According to Lindblad Expeditions’ spokeswoman Patty Disken-Cahill, MV Akademik Shokalskiy was in the Commonwealth Bay area of Antarctica, which is some 3,000-miles away from the Antarctic Peninsula, where most Antarctic cruises sail. A handful of ships also go to the Ross Sea area, but even that is about 750 miles from Commonwealth Bay.
Is getting trapped in ice something I have to worry about if I take an Antarctic cruise?
No. Expedition cruise lines know which areas, such as Commonwealth Bay, are notorious for ice and avoid those areas. Disken-Cahill said ships are often surrounded by ice, “but ice of a very different nature than experienced in Commonwealth Bay which is renowned for impenetrable ice and bad ice conditions. Being in and amongst the ice is part of the Antarctic experience, so long as you have a properly suited vessel.”
What precautions do “regular” ships take to safeguard against getting stuck?
All cruise lines that operate in the Antarctic are members of the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators, which sets guidelines to ensure that travel in the region is safe. And, as stated above, cruise lines typically stick to areas that are known for being mostly ice-free. Some operators, like Quark Expeditions and G Adventures, use ships with ice-strengthened hulls for extra protection.
What are the risks I might face?
The biggest risks that average Antarctic cruise passengers face are seasickness from rough water, especially through the notorious Drake Passage, and missing ports of call because of bad weather.
-by Dori Saltzman, News Editor
[end quote]
Rom, you left off the lead in, “It’s past 1am. It’s hard to make yourself go to bed when it’s constant daylight outside. I’ve just returned to my cabin after a bracing constitutional around the deck, following a very pleasant evening socialising and imbibing a not inconsiderable amount of red wine.”
In keeping with the Spirits of Mawson commemorative “expedition”, you shouldn’t have 🙂
I love this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html
Presumably, they had all maxxed out on their basket weaving credits while in College.
bugs, like so many fanatics, seems to be suffering from the long term effects of a humorectomy.
It’s only humor if it actually addresses the issue, which it doesn’t, it makes up the issue it wants to lampoon.
The history of tourism and travel to the Antarctic has been dangerous and risky ever since we first went there, and nothing much has changed since.
The plane crash into Mt Erebus, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901
Tourists stranded, 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496272/Aircraft-battles-Antarctica-rescue-tourists-stranded-cruise-ship-sinks.html
Tourists rescued, 2008
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Passengers_rescued_from_stranded_Antarctic_cruise_ship
Tourists rescued, 2010.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/massive-waves-rock-cruise_n_793705.html
The trip to Mawsons old base was something that is important in Australian history. He was knighted and even got his portrait on a bank note.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Mawson
The conditions down there are unpredictable, and the ships were actually not far from open water. A large ice berg, which can occur at any time, has been the cause of the jam. The Chinese ship almost made it to the Russian ship.
bugs,
It’s humor if it’s funny. It’s funny. Deal with it.
Re: bugs (Jan 4 19:26),
The iceberg had been there for several years. Antarctic sea ice has been at or near record levels since before the peak in September, 2013.
There’s another legal issue that I havent seen anyone discuss yet. In nearly all marine charter parties, the charterer is obliged to return the vessel to the specified port on or before the appointed time, and the cost of delays is to the charterer’s account. Sort of like returning a rental car.
At some point, the Russian owners are going to be sending demurrage invoices to the charterers. It looks like the vessel is going to miss its next charter – which will be lost revenue of over $1 million or so.
Some events in a charter are insurable. Whether demurrage costs arising from the particular delay are covered would depend on the precise language of the contract. If the demurrage costs are not covered by the insurance, then the shipowners, who are not charities, will look to someone to reimburse them.
My guess is that the charterer is Adventure Associates, a company co-owned by Greg Mortimer and some associates. However the trip operator was the AAE, which appears to be some sort of joint venture between University of New South Wales and Adventure Associates. It would be interesting to know who received payment from the passengers.
Adventure Associates probably doesn’t have deep pockets. It was purchased last summer by Greg Mortimer, a distinguished mountaineer, and previously seems to have had several owners.
Anyone trying to get paid will look for the person with the deepest pockets, which, in this case, is the University of New South Wales. Adventure Associates would probably go bankrupt rather than pay the demurrage. So the Russian owners would include the university as a defendant, arguing that they were jointly responsible for leading the expedition – which appears to be the case.
Dawdling by the scientists on Dec 23 could also come into play. If sued, Adventure Associates might cross-claim against the University of New South Wales arguing that either Turney’s directions or the dawdling scientists caused or contributed materially to the vessel being caught.
Seems to me that there are more shoes to drop.
Steve McIntyre
Yes. For these sorts of reasons, I expect there will be numerous investigations by different parties, each with different interests. We are likely to see lawsuits which means legal discovery according to whatever rules of discover govern in countries where suits are filed. Those who were on the ship can anticipate being interviewed by people who will be trying to tease out evidence that could help ‘their’ side of the legal case.
This is not going to be pretty for Turney who seems to have pretty good pr/marketing abilities under ordinary circumstances. But those skills often fail when motivated groups are working to get information– and motivated people will wish to because it will matter to their bottom lines in terms of ($$). These people will also not be easy to smear as “denialists”. They will simply be business people. Also: most won’t care what anyone labels them. They will care about 5 to 6 figure $$ amounts involved in various potential awards.
“It looks like the vessel is going to miss its next charter”
Cheeseman’s expects the tour to go. I’d guess their sources of information are better than yours …
It looks like Akademik Shokalskiy’s next scheduled cruise is “In the Wake of Scott and Shackleton”, due to leave Invercargill/Port Bluff, NZ on Jan. 18.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
That’s the tour I’m referring to.
http://www.cheesemans.com/antarctica_akademik_shokalskiy.html
“There’s another legal issue that I havent seen anyone discuss yet. In nearly all marine charter parties, the charterer is obliged to return the vessel to the specified port on or before the appointed time, and the cost of delays is to the charterer’s account. Sort of like returning a rental car.”
Chartering a ship of this sort for a single trip of this kind is more akin to renting a limo + driver, than a rental car.
The safety of the ship is the responsibility of the Captain, not the chartering party. These aren’t barebones charters such as renting a sailboat with friends for a cruise you captain yourself.
When the first cases for damages caused by climate change hit the courts I bet there won’t be much enthusiasm from the “climate sceptics” for legal remedies.
Turboblocke
Who do you anticipate will be sued? What will the claim be?
There is always business in great waters:
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/01/also-seen-in-antarctic-waters.html
The “skeptic/denialist” rag “National Geographic” writes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140108-antarctica-ship-ice-trapped-rescue-history-science/?now=2014-01-08-00:01
Will Eli count them among the “heavy breathers”?
Russell,
Real clever, a spoof handle worthy of the most inane and juvenile posters on Yahoo Message Boards.
Well, I suppose imitation is the sincerest…
If it was for the captain he would have left already for hours, but he had to wait for the “scientists” who were playing around on the ice with their Argos. He had no choice to wait for them and therefore got stuck. The irresponsible behaviour of the Turney bunch at the end lead to the ship getting stuck.
dghozga:
This isn’t remotely like renting a limo + driver.
The safety of the chartering party is the responsibility of the captain too. Hoi Polloi is right, if the chartering party behaves irresponsibly, they put everybody’s lives as well as the equipment at risk.
Turboblocke,
“When the first cases for damages caused by climate change hit the courts I bet there won’t be much enthusiasm from the “climate sceptics†for legal remedies.”
.
That’s the silliest thing I have read in a while. What damages will be claimed? What court will have jurisdiction? What plaintive has standing against, well, everyone in the world who has ever burned fossil fuels? How will a defendant be chosen? Yours is just one more of the seemingly endless supply of silly rants from the green/left.
SteveF & Lucia, I’d guess he’s referring to the made-up claims about climate change “causing” violent weather. I figure it’s a matter of time before energy companies get sued for tornado damage (or flood damage), for example.
Myles Allen seems more appalled about the lack of discussion about the connection between recent flooding and climate change than he is about the inability of the British Met Office (which has been hamstrung by all of the money diverted into climate change research) to predict the recent flooding.
Hoi Polloi, Carrick,
If the ship’s log shows that the ‘sciency-tourists’ did not follow the captain’s instructions to return to the ship, then I suspect they may have legal liability for the costs incurred for their rescue as well as lost time for the ship and crew.
Carrick,
I expect any suit against oil companies will be thrown out. Terrible flooding along the Thames this year, yes, but it is not at all unusual. There was a similar flood in 1947. Here is some text from a web page that describes historical floods int he UK: (http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/floods47.html), which was first published in 1981:
Hard to see how any lawsuit attempting to assign blame for the recent flooding could succeed.
With respect to lawsuits regarding damages resulting from global warming, this is interesting: “The district court further found that the plaintiffs lacked standing in light of the tenuous casual connection that the plaintiffs alleged between the defendants’ conduct and the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.”
Edit: In the quotation, presumably they intended “causal” not “casual”. But, as they say, sic.
Edit: Opinion in the Kivalina case is here. Discussion of standing at p.32 et seq.
HaroldW,
Since the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, this silly case, like the wicked witch in Oz, is now truly and sincerely dead. I don’t see anything similar being tried any time soon; if the most liberal federal appeals court throws throws out the case, it is difficult to see any lower court coming to the opposite conclusion (knowing it would almost certainly be reversed on appeal.)
SteveF, just for the record, I don’t think there’s much chance of success here for lawsuits either.
HaroldW, I went back and looked at Kivalina, Alaska. As Willis points out that the people were relocated to this (disappearing) spit by the US government.
This is from the Kivalina, AK website:
I can see why the locals are looking for a bit of help wherever they can. Seems to me the BIA should be compelled to help relocate them, since they caused the mess.
Hm, you know it’s been unusually wet for January here, and there was some flooding in places recently. A couple of people drowned. I’m not sure but it’s probably safe to say someone blamed “climate change” at some point.
In other news, dealing with internet trolls is stressful.
“This isn’t remotely like renting a limo + driver.
The safety of the chartering party is the responsibility of the captain too.”
That sure sounds remotely like renting a limo + driver, where the safety of those renting the limo are the responsibility of the driver … not the backseat drivers.
“If it was for the captain he would have left already for hours, but he had to wait for the “scientists†who were playing around on the ice with their Argos. He had no choice to wait for them and therefore got stuck.”
If the Captain put the ship in a position where delayed reboarding caused the ship to get stuck in the ice, then one can argue that the Captain should not have 1) put the ship in the position in the first place or 2) allowed the scientists to disembark on the ice.
The Captain’s responsible for the safety of the ship, crew and passengers.
Passengers are not.
dhogaza,
There is a limit to the degree of responsibility of a limo driver toward passengers. He doesn’t have complete control over the passengers and their acts could affect his responsibilities towards them.
Your conclusions about what the Captain should have done are not necessarily correct. If the passengers advised the captain they would be back quite quickly and, possibly, mischaracterized what they were going to do when they left the boat or mischaracterized the the capabilities of their off-ship transport, then the captain would not have had enough information to know that scientists should be prohibited from disembarking. Also: if the passengers chose to not return (in order to get their science project off and running) after having been told to return by time “X” and after assuring the captain that they would return even if turning around meant not getting their argo floats off, that might be considered the fault of the passengers, not the captain.
After all: if the scientists could have decided to return when their off-ship transport was having difficulties, that would have been their decision, not the Captain’s.
We won’t know whose fault what is until results of investigations start trickling in. I’m pretty sure multiple parties will investigate.
dhogaza, if you are a limo driver and you drop the passengers off, you have no further responsibility for them.
If you are a ship captain, and you pull into a remote bay, and the passengers go ashore, you resume responsibility to remain until they re-embark. That’s just one microscopic way in which limo drivers are different than ship’s captain’s.
When you are an expedition leader, you retain responsibility for the people you are leading, regardless of whether you are being delivered to your expedition site by limo driver or by ice breaker.
If the expedition is on a ship, you also retain accountability for their behavior while on the ship, and responsible for maintaining group discipline (e.g., following safety protocols, rules of conduct while on board, etc.)
That’s the sort of thing being a “leader” signifies.
Lucia:
I actually have no idea whose at fault here, or even if any real fault exists here.
Admiralty law can be counter-intuitive. I expect that if the assignment of costs goes to litigation, that would be the applicable law.
What makes sense in cars might have no relation to how this will sort out.
j ferguson, I am certainly no expert at Admiralty law, but what little I know of it, suggests little relationship with the responsibility of taxi or limo drivers.
On another note, has anybody here noticed this graphic, which I believe is due to Nuccitelli.
I believe this is the sort of falsified data that would get you kicked out of an academic program.
The “data” from Lindzen on the graph is, as well as I can work out, completely made up.
Carrick,
The source of that graphic seems to be this article by Dana Nuccitelli, in which he characterizes the blue curve as “my reconstructed temperature prediction by Dr. Richard Lindzen based on statements from his talk at MIT in 1989.”
In the past, I’ve described SkS as “not necessarily wrong”. The Guardian column seems to have slipped a few notches below this standard.
Edit: The article points to the source of the graphic as this SkS article, in which he discusses his method for “reconstructing” Lindzen’s “prediction”. I’d seen in some other column his adjustments to Hansen’s prediction.
Carrick,
The thing that gets me is that Nuticelli makes no bones about it, as if it makes it OK:
It’s an amazing spectacle. The guy sets up and knocks down a massive strawman using absolutely nothing but his own cantaloupe sized balls.
HaroldW:
That’s the really nutty part. Not only is he inventing data and taking “paraphrasing” to a whole new, goofball level, he’s outright lying about Hansen’s predictions.
Mark:
Yes I agree. It’s what you get to do when you have a Masters degrees in physics. Really having Ph.D. just gets in the way… Forces you to “over think”. 🙄