×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Helicopter Rescue For All Passengers Aboard Antarctic Research Ship

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the who-pays-for-all-that-rescuing? dept.

China 168

The BBC reports (with video) that all aboard the ice-trapped MV Akademik Shokalskiy have been rescued by helicopter, after more than one icebreaker attempt to reach the vessel directly proved too challenging. Also at the New York Times, which reports "The twin-rotored helicopter, based on a Chinese icebreaker, the Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, flew several sorties across miles of packed ice to pluck scientists, tourists and journalists from a makeshift landing zone next to the marooned MV Akademik Shokalskiy research vessel."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

Global warming. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845731)

Yeah, right.

Re:Global warming. (1, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845779)

Yes, and the ice dispenser in my freezer is also supporting evidence for your position, as long as we're not going to look at useful aggregate data.

Re:Global warming. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845803)

Care to cite this data? The OP is bringing a hell of a lot more evidence to the conversation than you are.

Re:Global warming. (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845845)

Care to cite this data? The OP is bringing a hell of a lot more evidence to the conversation than you are.

The fact that you think they had any evidence at all is far more a reflection on you than me.

Re:Global warming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846223)

If you can't recognize single incident evidence as more than just being a smart ass than you don't understand the idea of evidence. You flap your lips a lot but you never say much. Step up or shut up.

Re:Global warming. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846297)

If you can't recognize single incident evidence as more than just being a smart ass than you don't understand the idea of evidence. You flap your lips a lot but you never say much. Step up or shut up.

Doubling down. Okay. If bank of America's stock is down today against yesterday, what does that say about where the DJI will be next year?

Congratulations, if you said anything at all, you're an idiot who jumps to conclusions.

Re:Global warming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846369)

Yeah, just like you... continue to skirt the real questions at hand and still act like you know what you're talking about. Top it off with a "I'll set the rules of this conversation to shut you up" and you got the perfect melodramatic Slashtard who still hasn't brought a single damn thing to the conversation but more of the same old gum flapping that goes on around the watercooler.
 
All style, no substance.

Re:Global warming. (1, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846441)

The real questions would be the kind answered with study of climate data, you know, wide-scale, multi-measure temperature assessments. The fake question would be "how much does ice at one point near the Antarctic matter?"

Melodrama would be blowing up angrily when your idiotic point is compared against an obvious parallel.

Re:Global warming. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846585)

No, a real question would be "According to their models, there would be a sea of water there, but they found a sea of ice, instead. Is their model correct?"

But go on and continue ignoring the scientific principle for the sake of losing a semantic argument in your stubbornness.

Re:Global warming. (1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846613)

No, that's stupid, like really stupid. There's nothing about these models that should be anywhere near that temporally localized.

Re:Global warming. (4, Insightful)

Kookus (653170) | about 4 months ago | (#45846685)

you're being trolled.

Re:Global warming. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846725)

How do you tell the difference between someone who has taken to denying factually reality to antagonize others and one who does so out of self-delusion?

Re:Global warming. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 4 months ago | (#45846793)

I'm not a Bayesian model, but if I were I would score an AC or high user number very high when looking for trolls.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847703)

Keep flapping dem lips... keep ignoring the science while trying to look scientific... Your argument is sunk no matter what the misinformed modders would have us think. Either you're a troll or your a moron. Or both.

That isn't a question. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846757)

Since it has a required predicate, to whit: "According to their models, there would be a sea of water there".

According to their models, there was nothing about an absence of sea ice.

Re:That isn't a question. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45847631)

So, since your whole argument depends on someone having said something they didn't say, it kinda makes you look both like a douche and a moron.

Re:That isn't a question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847909)

No one said it? LIAR!!! [google.com]

Re:Global warming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845805)

You do not get to pick and choose your data. You will be able to support any conclusion you care to reach if you are allowed that. You must use the data that is measured and given to you, and that data unflinchingly supports global cooling. Hell, I can open my window right now and demonstrate that convincingly.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845935)

when do the Climate Models say the ice will melt enough to get the ship out?

Re:Global warming. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846047)

I don't know. When do economic models predict I'll win the lottery?

Re:Global warming. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846271)

More melodrama instead of real answers from the big fraud.
 
Global warming goose steppers always tell us the ice caps will disappear in 2xxx... Why can't we get an answer to this question as easily as you guys can tell us that we're ruining the planet?
 
You're just another Slashtard with a Science Channel education trying to look wise in the eyes of the unwashed masses.

Re:Global warming. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846345)

I gave my real answer, actually.
It was "I don't know." Which is appropriate because climate data has no relevant to day-to-day weather. And I illustrated that point with a similar question.

Rather than address the main point, you compared me to nazis(not wanting to damage the economic output of the world by excessive emissions is ethically identical to genocide), made up claims I've never made, and made yourself sound like a crazy person.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846525)

Hmm, that's a good point. However my oven makes a counter argument in support of global warming.

Re:Global warming. (1)

Yew2 (1560829) | about 4 months ago | (#45845891)

Its called climate change because of the unpredictable events. Perhaps you would like to consult a scientist? I wont ridicule you like those that claimed it was a myth when Las Vegas got snow in the summer time, but trust me - they got it good.

Re:Global warming. (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845999)

No, actually, it's called climate change, at least originally, because that was a euphemism developed by a conservative think tank to make the results sound more palatable. It's called climate change now, because not all parts of the globe would warm. Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.

Re:Global warming. (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#45846123)

Also, there's more going on that just CO2 levels and gradual heating. We're cutting down forrests, polluting the air and water with hundreds of thousands of chemicals, killing off life in the largest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died, paving over and building on top of ecosystems with reckless abandon, ad nauseum. In short, we're changing the environment in many ways at once, not just increasing levels of greenhouse gases. Climate Change seems more descriptive to me than Global Warming.

Re:Global warming. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846169)

Except that the data in question isn't of the whole environment, and all its components. Science doesn't have an everythingology to study that.

Re:Global warming. (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#45846277)

Granted there's no model of the earth that includes everything, other than the earth itself. There have been many studies of the effects of deforrestation, pollution, food supply, et al however. And there are more and more interdisciplinary studies using systems theory [wikipedia.org] and complexity theory [wikipedia.org]. Science is itself the study of everything. It's only its practioners who are divided into specialties by their own choice.

Re:Global warming. (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#45846977)

polluting the air and water with hundreds of thousands of chemicals,

Credibility dropped here, as you fell off the deep end; your claims went from "sort of vague" to "downright hysterical". Every time I hear someone use the word "chemicals" in such a fear-mongering way, I wonder whether they are aware that water is a chemical too, or that its the worlds biggest fear-word. Oh no, chemicals, theyre so bad for you -- except for all of the ones necessary to support life.

Which specific extinction are you referring to, by the way? There are a number of species which are being removed from the endangered list as they are making a comeback (eagles for one), so that its pretty hard to swallow claim that we're in the middle of the biggest extinction event in the last epoch, especially given how vague and handwavy your whole post is.

Re:Global warming. (3, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#45847207)

And your credibility dropped to zero by conflating water with pollution. Here's [panda.org] one of the first results when I googled man-made chemicals. I've previously read that there over 100,000 man-made chemicals released into the environment. If you know of a better word than chemical to use, BTW, please let me know. Here's [wikipedia.org] an overview of the current mass extinction event, started about 10,000 years ago when man really started getting down to wiping out animals, burning forrests for agriculture, etc. It's a selective list. Here's [wikipedia.org] a list of man-made extinctions, or at least the documented ones. Googling is hard, but thankfully I was here to do it for you.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846157)

Unpredictability is just weather being weather, and has very little to do with climate at all.

Unless it's hot, or a drought. Then it's all about Climate.

Re:Global warming. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846997)

It's actually called Ampholpological Global Warming.

3 words to understand.

Ampholpological - human induced (due to CO2, methane, etc.)
Global - global, as in "The Earth as whole", not your backyard
Warming - as in heating up

So, human induced warming of the earth's average temperature. Simple, eh?

It doesn't say that climate will change, but heating the planet likely will change it. It doesn't say weather extremes will happen. It doesn't say there will not be ice in Antactica in December of 2014 or 2020. It says the planet is warming.

Now, if you want to look how your current weather looks in terms of global averages, just look.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ [noaa.gov]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201311.gif [noaa.gov]

so if you live in eastern US, you are probably colder than normal. But if you live almost everywhere else in the world, it is kind of warm. For example, look at Moscow. In 1942, Hitler was defeated near Moscow and weather played an important part. It was very cold and usually it was very cold in Russia in winter. This year? -4C (or +25F).

https://www.google.ca/#q=moscow+weather [google.ca]

So now you can look up weather in plenty of places with internet and verify that NOAA is not lying to you about AGW.

Re:Global warming. (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#45845959)

If the ice was covering the globe, you'd have a point. But saying that my basement is cold doesn't prove that my whole house is.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846649)

Well, perhaps not proof but noting a colder temperature in your basement does suggest something. Not knowing your situation I hesitate to make statements about it specifically, but in general I wouldn't be surprised if basement temperature had some correlation with the temperature in the rest of the house. In such a case, it wouldn't be irrational to notice a colder than expected basement temperature and suspect that the rest of the house was also colder than normal.

I'm not saying the ship caught in ice suggests anything, it's far beyond my field of expertise. For one, I don't know how the ice-around-boats-near-antartica correlates with global temperature, or even how "global temperature" is measured. I'm just saying your analogy might not lead in the direction you intended.

Re:Global warming. (1, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 4 months ago | (#45846147)

Well, at least they were able to show the world conclusively that the antarctic ice is, in fact, disappearing.

Re:Global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846455)

As global warming continues schools in Minnesota are preparing to close next week for more record low temperatures. Year 17 of the temperatures cooling.

Re:Global warming. (2)

slim (1652) | about 4 months ago | (#45846547)

As global warming continues schools in Minnesota are preparing to close next week for more record low temperatures

Meanwhile, the British Midlands have barely seen a frost this year. Your anecdote about Minnesota is worth no more than mine about England.

Re:Global warming. (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 4 months ago | (#45846937)

Meanwhile, the British Midlands have barely seen a frost this year. Your anecdote about Minnesota is worth no more than mine about England.

Everything important in the world happens in the US, didn't you know? That silly "rest of the world" thing is irrelevant.

But don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845739)

We totally have "the tech" and resources to send people to Mars.

Re:But don't worry (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845767)

A. These people aren't dead thanks to a 20th century technology available to bail them out. The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.

B. People sometimes die for much more mundane dreams.

Re:But don't worry (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45845927)

The only reason they went on a ship and not on a helicopter in the first place was because it would have been wastefully expensive to do so.

No currently existing helicopter has the range needed for a mission like that. Their position is not within reach by helicopters stationed on land, the helicopter that rescued them is stationed on an ice breaker.

Re:But don't worry (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845951)

That's certainly believable. Call B in my reply overzealous then. But A stands just fine with that caveat.

Re:But don't worry (4, Interesting)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#45846535)

Absolutely agreed. You could pretty much replace "helicopter" with "nuclear ice breaker capable of sailing in practically any ice" and there would have been nothing for me to gripe about. Although the existing nuclear ice breakers are all in the Arctic and allegedly cannot cross the tropics under their own steam due to insufficient cooling.

Re:But don't worry (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#45845897)

I don't think we were planning on sailing a seagoing ship to Mars, no matter how often that has shown up in anime and Doctor Who (sort of), nor were we planning on doing much sailing on Martian seas, they've been at ultra low tide for quite a few millennia now.

Re:But don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846459)

" don't think we were planning on sailing a seagoing ship to Mars,"

Exactly. The Mars Nutters don't even have that.

Re:But don't worry (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#45847017)

Sometimes I wonder how it is that so many people on a supposedly tech oriented site have apparently no understanding of how technology works.

Breaking through huge layers of ice is a totally different task than firing a rocket at another planet. We could be really good at one and really bad at another.

The Antarctic successfully defends itself (0)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45845823)

Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys to work more ice into it's getting warmer paper WTB more grant and endowment funding for fun vacation trips.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#45845923)

Saying that an isolated incident completely disproves global warming is like saying that my diet doesn't work because I gained a gained two pounds last week (ignoring the fact that I've lost an average of .5 lbs/wk over the last two years).

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845963)

The ice caps do not expand overnight. How is it an isolated event?

Instead, alarmists use isolated events as evidence for their position, and decry those who want the raw data and point out that the overall trend is a cooling, not warning - which goes against ALL theories (that we are coming out of an ice age, that man is causing global warming, that the sun is getting hotter)

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45846035)

The ice caps do not expand overnight. How is it an isolated event?

Instead, alarmists use isolated events as evidence for their position, and decry those who want the raw data and point out that the overall trend is a cooling, not warning - which goes against ALL theories (that we are coming out of an ice age, that man is causing global warming, that the sun is getting hotter)

Now, I can't deny the presence of people who went "Katrina was caused by global warming," but their being wrong doesn't excuse you ignoring incredibly reliable data from people who know what they're talking about. No more than idiots blathering about super-volcanoes "being due" excuse people who deny the existence of plate tectonics.

You can always find someone hyperbolic and wrong to disagree with, it doesn't make your position right.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846247)

Katrina, Sandy, various typhoons, tornadoes, drought just about anywhere, etc.

Face it. The Alarmists routinely attribute bad weather news with "Climate Change". Even the supposedly smart "Climate Scientists" do so at times.

And to add to the fun, they just came out with a new and improved "model" that claims a 3C [telegraph.co.uk] increase by 2100. Never mind that their old models pretty much said the same thing, predicted it earlier and have FAILED the test of empirical evidence.

The credibility of these models and climate scientists is shot. I wouldn't believe them if they predicted the sun will rise in the east.

Disavow much? (1)

MacDork (560499) | about 4 months ago | (#45845981)

This isolated incident is already morphing to fit your beliefs, isn't it? Scientists, tourists, and journalists? I thought it was some big mission led by a climate researcher [slashdot.org] to retrace the steps of some decades old mission. You know, to prove how much ice has disappeared over that time period and we can learn how CO2 is going to kill us all.

Soon it will no longer be serious climate scientists that marooned themselves in Antarctic ice such that icebreakers could not reach them in the middle of summer. No, it will just be a bunch of tourists. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Disavow much? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#45846065)

What, pray tell, are my beliefs? The only thing I said was that this incident (the boat being captured by ice) should be disregarded as proof in one direction or another. If it happens again next year and the year after, then it will be something to think about. But just happening one year is meaningless on its own.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (0, Troll)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 4 months ago | (#45846213)

I would say that this incident mostly proves that these "scientists" are a bunch of media whores and drunks (seriously, these guys gotten more footage of themselves drinking and joking around onto TV lately than Russell Brand on a bender), with a captain who doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

mpe (36238) | about 4 months ago | (#45846319)

Saying that an isolated incident completely disproves global warming

In the case of scientific theories so called "isolated incidents" can be all that is needed for "falsification".

They would have to be theories relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847481)

They would have to be theories relevant to the evidence.

Saying that an ice breaker going to check on ice in the Antarctic finding ice does nothing to disprove the theory of climate nor that AGW has been falsified, since they do not theorise that such an event will not happen.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 4 months ago | (#45845933)

Look at me, I don't understand science, and I call people doing their jobs in dangerous environments a vacation.

From a person who has never seriously done any difficult labor in their life, so much you can smell it.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45848011)

Oh there eco tourism trip will be fairly rough so much that the leader took along his wife and young children 4 scientists 26 paid tourists it's PR trip not science to go redo a century old expedition Awareness/PR is not science (unless it's quantifying it or otherwise studying it) these guys were a bunch of prats taking a vacation under the guise of science. The expedition is lead by Chris Turney a UNSW prof who happens to also to be pimping a carbon reclamation start up he help found any science would be tainted by his conflict of interest. Sure there were reporters paying to go along it should have had a lot of great photo's and heart and minds sort of fluff and drivel but little of that ya know hard science stuff.

Real scientists are pissed about this boondoggle, it pulled an icebreaker away from unloading supplies for the station only unloading about 1/3 of the supplies, some of the new research gear and all the people to go rescue these guys. Effectively cutting down the time they have to do there work that not photogenic science stuff.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

mpoulton (689851) | about 4 months ago | (#45845943)

Glad everybody is safe. Cue the impending doom guys to work more ice into it's getting warmer paper WTB more grant and endowment funding for fun vacation trips.

Yeah, climate change is a load of crap! Why, I heard that just a couple months ago the whole state of Minnesota turned from lush greenery into an icy snow-covered wasteland! Entire lakes froze over, that didn't have any ice at all in the previous months. Surely the world climate can't be gradually warming over many decades if certain areas ever get any colder in the short term!

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45846027)

PS I understand global warming, the amount of doom and gloom is excessive. The amount of bad science that gets funded is insane. At this point we really need to get past the it's going to happen bits and stop frothing at the mouth.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 4 months ago | (#45846069)

Glad everybody is safe.

TFS is, as usual, wrong. The passengers have been rescued, the crew remains aboard and decidedly not safe.

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

Creator, Father, who dost show
Thy splendor in the ice and snow,
Bless those who toil in summer light
And through the cold Antarctic night,
As they thy frozen wonders learn;
Bless those who wait for their return.

Yes, it's the Navy Hymn, but it will have to do. If you've never been to sea, you'll never grok.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

solidraven (1633185) | about 4 months ago | (#45846179)

Just select your dataset yourself and throw out the statistical tests compared to the measured data, seem to be practice on both sides of climate "science". Until they stop messing around with statistics I'm not going to believe either side, got better things to do like restarting my CFC production plant!

But to be serious for a minute here, climate science really annoys me at times. Many times you e-mail authors, and I'm talking about both sides, to request more information about their datasets they either say it's confidential (really???), lost, destroyed, ... or they don't respond at all. Those that do have either an inconclusive end result or questionable practices. If you cherry pick your data to lead to your result it's not difficult to come up with the conclusion you want, combined with the staggering lack of statistical background knowledge. It's one thing to remove noise from your data, almost all researchers do that when they publish. If you're measuring over a few months or years you're bound to have a few extreme values that aren't representative. But then you should also mention what you did, why, and what the influence on the overall dataset was.If you go further then you should execute the right statistical tests to verify if the chosen samples are representative for the entire dataset. And until they properly do that I'm not taking either side serious.

Re:The Antarctic successfully defends itself (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#45847687)

It's now political not scientific people buy the results they want, cheery pick for talking points, remove data that does not support there pet theory. It's more a a religious war that a scientific one at this point.

PS the scientists were on a vacation, retracing the steps of Douglas Mawson's trip 100ish years ago. It's a PR tour not a scientific endeavor.

GJ (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45845893)

I love good news, it's a shame there is not more of it.

LOL (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#45845903)

So I was watching this whole thing on the news and they never mentioned once that this expedition was meant to show the melting ice and such in hopes of showing the effects of global warming on the icepack. Now, I do believe Global warming is a thing... and we need to deal with it. But the clear bias by the media outlets isn't doing anyone any favors.

Re:LOL (5, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#45845953)

So I was watching this whole thing on the news and they never mentioned once that this expedition was meant to show the melting ice and such in hopes of showing the effects of global warming on the icepack.

I'd suggest that you change the news outlets that you read/watch. Plenty of places reported the aim of the scientific experiments.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847189)

Jesus holy fucking christ man. What experiments? By whom?
This was exactly as Charliemops presented. Shit, some teacher from Aus even WON a contest to participate.
Get a grip man.

What the rescuees are paying with (2)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 4 months ago | (#45845937)

The sub-tag "who-pays-for-all-that-rescuing?" has me wondering if they boat people are planning to pay with carbon credits. I have to say, though, that all climate science debating aside, it's pretty clever to turn one of the most abundant elements in the galaxy into a currency. It reminds me of a plot point in one of Neal Stephenson's books where a character stockpiles shells to use as currency only to find out that nobody else considers them valuable.

Re:What the rescuees are paying with (1)

slim (1652) | about 4 months ago | (#45846103)

Except that with Carbon Credits, carbon is a negative currency, sort of because it's abundant.

I doubt that this expedition was involved in any kind of Kyoto Protocol emission allowance trading.

However, it's not that unlikely that they'd have balanced the expedition's emissions with a voluntary offset scheme (a donation toward tree planting, renewable power source building, etc.)

Re:What the rescuees are paying with (2)

jasper160 (2642717) | about 4 months ago | (#45846109)

I wonder what the carbon footprint of this whole GW expedition and its rescues are?

Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (2)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about 4 months ago | (#45845975)

Seeing as how the BBC article clearly mentions that the "Passengers" (aka Researchers) on the ship have been rescued, but that the crew members of the ship are staying on board and could be stuck for several weeks, I hope the attention span of the people keeping an eye on the ship is a bit better than that of the /. editors, who had apparently forgotten that the crew exists before they reached the bottom of the article...

Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 4 months ago | (#45846131)

Well, the duty of the crew is to first off protect the passengers. After that their choice is either to remain with the ship (which is now much better off provision-wise with the passengers gone) to keep up routine and emergency maintenance, or abandon ship and have a good chance of loosing the vessel. But I am sure that the crew is remaining in contact with rescue or research stations in Antarctica, in case they do end up having to abandon ship. But the owner/insurer of the ship is going to want them to remain on board as long as practical.

Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846633)

loosing the vessel

Well, if they could get it loose there wouldn't be a problem.

Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846159)

I hadn't read the article, but I initially assumed that everyone on the ship (crew, passengers, researchers, whoever) was being rescued and the ship would be abandoned until conditions were more favorable for recovery.

Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (1)

Shimbo (100005) | about 4 months ago | (#45846347)

Seeing as how the BBC article clearly mentions that the "Passengers" (aka Researchers) on the ship have been rescued.

Passengers is more accurate than researchers, because some of them were paying tourists. Given there were 52, quite probably the majority were tourists and guides.

Cheers for the crew! (3, Interesting)

coder111 (912060) | about 4 months ago | (#45846443)

While the world watches the researchers and tourists being "rescued", these guys stay to save the ship if that is at all possible. These are the guys who are doing all the work and should be getting all of the attention and respect they deserve.

--Coder

Re:Glad I am not one of the crew on that ship... (2)

SethJohnson (112166) | about 4 months ago | (#45847371)

Don't worry about the crew. They'll be fine. Getting stuck in the ice for weeks or months is par for the course down there. Seriously. This whole episode was only remotely newsworthy because they had a large number of passengers and perhaps not enough food for a long-term stay with comfortably-sized rations.

I just read the book about Ernest Shackleton's voyage [wikipedia.org], and their epic journey really puts this stuck vessel in perspective. Dudes were in a wooden ship that got stuck in that ice and the hull was crushed. Those guys didn't make it back to England for 3 years, living on the ice in tents, sailing rowboats through incredibly rough seas, and doing it all with very crude clothes, tools, and equipment. The book is appropriately titled "Endurance" after the ship they set sail in.

Research ship - Bah humbug! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846171)

There's about as much research in that ship as in the Japanese "whale research" fleet that for some mysterious reason needs to test and re-test the deliciousness of whale meat every year..

It's a damn 'eco tourist' (i.e. green-washed) cruise. Not to mention the fact that, being a Russian ship, they're probably dumping toilet water and bilge oil directly into the sea..

I bet the taxpayers are happy about their tax dollars going to rescue this group of clowns ;-)

Re:Research ship - Bah humbug! (2)

mpe (36238) | about 4 months ago | (#45846451)

There's about as much research in that ship as in the Japanese "whale research" fleet that for some mysterious reason needs to test and re-test the deliciousness of whale meat every year..

Possibly more going on those ships. Since, AFAIK, the Japanese have never used the oxymoron "settled science".

Choplifter (2)

JoeCommodore (567479) | about 4 months ago | (#45846303)

Makes me want to break out an emulator and play a few rounds of Choplifter. :-)

Re:Choplifter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847629)

Not the original. But close nuff. Play online. http://www.playr.org/play/choplifter_iii/117

So what happens to the ship? (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 months ago | (#45846561)

Is it stuck in the ice "forever"? Or will the Antarctic "summer" experience enough of a breakup in the ice pack to get an icebreaker in to free it?

If it is stuck for the long term, is it any environmental risk of a hull breech from the ice causing leaks, etc, or is the hull strong enough that it won't get crushed, it'll just sit there until the hull rusts out?

Re:So what happens to the ship? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | about 4 months ago | (#45846759)

If that happens it would be an environmental catastrophe and they would be held liable for any damage done to the ecosystem. I'm sure they'll get it out of there!

Re:So what happens to the ship? (3, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#45846945)

Only the passengers were evacuated. The crew will stay behind and sail it out once free from the ice. They have enough provisions to last months; they didn't have enough provisions for the 52 passengers.

Re:So what happens to the ship? (4, Informative)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#45847511)

It is summer down there now. The ice isn't freezing around the ship. Wind is blowing ice floes into a large pack which has trapped the ship.

Hopefully, as the seasons change, the winds will shift and loosen the ice before winter and an actual freeze.

Maybe off topic here, but... (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 4 months ago | (#45846699)

...does anyone know how this works, as far as who pays for these ships supplies? I mean, I understand a little about how scientific research gets paid for - it's usually private funding mixed with some governmental funding. But when an expedition such as this goes south (no pun intended), who pays for the other ships/helicopter to come save them?

Re:Maybe off topic here, but... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 months ago | (#45847005)

I'm going to take a guess that insurance company that insures vessel in trouble deals with these costs.

Re:Maybe off topic here, but... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847343)

The rescuers pay for the cost of the rescues. Rescues at sea are a no-cost agreement under maritime conventions and traditions.

Some US politicians raised questions about this practice after costly rescue operations for Carnival cruise ships last year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/carnival-u-s-won-reimbursed-triumph-costs-article-1.1315792

wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45846887)

A few days ago. I saw some video footage of the snow blowing in the wind. Piloting a helicopter in such windy conditions looks dangerous. hats off to the rescue crew.

Salvage rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847101)

If everyone is rescued this means nobody is left on board which means I hereby claim salvage rights on this wessel when global warming and or change of season thaws the ship out of its icy cage. You are all more than welcome to join me on my new Russian Party boat.

Ice, in summer? On a warming planet? (2)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 4 months ago | (#45847331)

from the article:

The 233-foot Russian research ship had been lodged in the ice since Dec. 24, when powerful winds encircled it with pack ice near Cape de la Motte, about 1,700 miles south of Hobart, Tasmania.

Navigating pack ice is like wandering through a labyrinth where the walls periodically move.

MV Akademik Shokalskiy (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | about 4 months ago | (#45847769)

Interior views and deck plans here: Expedition Vessel: Akademik Shokalskiy [expeditionsonline.com]

Classification: Russian register KM ice class
Year built: 1984
Accommodation: 50 berths expedition, 30 crew
Shipyard: Finland
Main engines: power 2x1560 bhp (2x 1147 Kw) Register: Russia
Maximum speed: 12 knots (2 engines)
Cruising speed: 10 knots(one engine)
Bunker capacity: 320 tons

Not actually on the mainstream publicized purpose. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45847969)

Not actually on the mainstream publicized purpose; they are in fact there for climate research. Not retracing an explorer's route. Funny how the world eats the spoon fed garbage put out by journalists who allegedly have some sort of integrity. When they figure that one out let me know.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...