Sea level potential rise doubles in new study

[jc456]

Dude, that's less than nothing. They obviously DID expect ice - it's what the expedition was intended to observe.

how much do you supposed that nothing cost to get them out of that unexpected ice? Or are you saying they deliberately wanted to get stuck. You seem to be confused.

 

[Crick]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

 

[jc456]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014

 

[jc456]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014

Well, It's not clear your point that says what I posted was out of line, but here is a quote from your article:

"In the opinion of Murray Doyle, the captain of the rescue vessel, the Aurora Australis, the conditions around the Mertz glacier were typical of those seen in the past few years"

 

[jc456]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014

Oh, and here is another excerpt that backs my statement from your article:

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

 

[RollingThunder]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014

Well, It's not clear your point that says what I posted was out of line, but here is a quote from your article:

"In the opinion of Murray Doyle, the captain of the rescue vessel, the Aurora Australis, the conditions around the Mertz glacier were typical of those seen in the past few years"

Yeah, so? So what, moron? Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.

Oh, and here is another excerpt that backs my statement from your article:

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

Again, SO FUCKING WHAT???

Again, Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.

The actual account makes it quite clear that what happened had nothing to do with the very real observed global warming driven changes in the Antarctic region.

From the article I cited....

The vessel's entrapment happened at the end of the AAE's final intended day at the Antarctic coast. The expedition leaders were keen to get some of their scientists and accompanying tourist assistants to a small cluster of rocky hillocks called the Hodgeman Islands, close to land. The islands rise out of what's called fast ice - a margin of persistent ice between the land and the water's edge. Travelling eastwards and then southwards, the Shokalskiy took a route through a relatively clear patch of water, called the Mertz polynya. A polynya is an area of water kept relatively clear - much of the time - of sea ice, by a particular kind of polar wind. This katabatic wind blows pretty persistently towards the coast from the polar plateau in the continent's interior. However, routes through polynyas can close within a few hours if the distribution of sea ice in the general area changes with shifts in the wind direction and speed.

The Shokalskiy began to run into trouble towards the end of that day as it attempted to leave the area. Its location was close to the edge of a huge glacial system called the Mertz Glacier where it flows into the sea. Four years ago, the end of this glacier was smashed into many pieces by a gigantic passing iceberg named B09B. Expedition leader Chris Turney, a professor of earth sciences at the University of New South Wales, said that the ice floes that surrounded his ship appeared to have come from the eastern side of the wrecked glacier front. "It seems to have been coming from the other side of the Mertz glacier. This was very thick ice - three plus metres thick which was coming across (our path)," he said. "The captain did an amazing job, weaving a course trying to get out but it was quite clear this was a different event from anything we'd seen before."

'Little warning'
The captain and crew realised they were surrounded and stuck fast by Christmas Eve, 24 December. Chris Turney estimates that open water lay just two nautical miles ahead. However, by that point, with the ice so thick and more floes accumulating around and ahead of us, clear water might as well have been 20 nautical miles away. Within a couple of days, it was in fact that distance to open water. On Christmas Day, the captain issued an international distress call, not only because his ship was stuck fast but because there were large icebergs moving on currents in the area on trajectories that were potentially dangerous to the ship. Chris Turney said: "It looks like it was fast ice attached to the continent on the other side of the Mertz glacier and, for whatever reason, it was broken up and with strong southeasterly winds, chunks of ice were driven across our path. It was one of those events which happens occasionally (and with little warning). We were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

 

[jc456]

No, you seem to be confused. The purpose of the expedition was to study ice. They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed. They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice. If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it. Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck. They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last. As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica. No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now. The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid. That was the result of your choice to be stupid.

so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba. if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice? I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is. It's all on the genius' that were on that ship. And, it is funny as hell. First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know. Let's see what you're referencing for your material.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014

Well, It's not clear your point that says what I posted was out of line, but here is a quote from your article:

"In the opinion of Murray Doyle, the captain of the rescue vessel, the Aurora Australis, the conditions around the Mertz glacier were typical of those seen in the past few years"

Yeah, so? So what, moron? Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.

Oh, and here is another excerpt that backs my statement from your article:

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

Again, SO FUCKING WHAT???

Again, Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.

The actual account makes it quite clear that what happened had nothing to do with the very real observed global warming driven changes in the Antarctic region.

From the article I cited....

The vessel's entrapment happened at the end of the AAE's final intended day at the Antarctic coast. The expedition leaders were keen to get some of their scientists and accompanying tourist assistants to a small cluster of rocky hillocks called the Hodgeman Islands, close to land. The islands rise out of what's called fast ice - a margin of persistent ice between the land and the water's edge. Travelling eastwards and then southwards, the Shokalskiy took a route through a relatively clear patch of water, called the Mertz polynya. A polynya is an area of water kept relatively clear - much of the time - of sea ice, by a particular kind of polar wind. This katabatic wind blows pretty persistently towards the coast from the polar plateau in the continent's interior. However, routes through polynyas can close within a few hours if the distribution of sea ice in the general area changes with shifts in the wind direction and speed.

The Shokalskiy began to run into trouble towards the end of that day as it attempted to leave the area. Its location was close to the edge of a huge glacial system called the Mertz Glacier where it flows into the sea. Four years ago, the end of this glacier was smashed into many pieces by a gigantic passing iceberg named B09B. Expedition leader Chris Turney, a professor of earth sciences at the University of New South Wales, said that the ice floes that surrounded his ship appeared to have come from the eastern side of the wrecked glacier front. "It seems to have been coming from the other side of the Mertz glacier. This was very thick ice - three plus metres thick which was coming across (our path)," he said. "The captain did an amazing job, weaving a course trying to get out but it was quite clear this was a different event from anything we'd seen before."

'Little warning'
The captain and crew realised they were surrounded and stuck fast by Christmas Eve, 24 December. Chris Turney estimates that open water lay just two nautical miles ahead. However, by that point, with the ice so thick and more floes accumulating around and ahead of us, clear water might as well have been 20 nautical miles away. Within a couple of days, it was in fact that distance to open water. On Christmas Day, the captain issued an international distress call, not only because his ship was stuck fast but because there were large icebergs moving on currents in the area on trajectories that were potentially dangerous to the ship. Chris Turney said: "It looks like it was fast ice attached to the continent on the other side of the Mertz glacier and, for whatever reason, it was broken up and with strong southeasterly winds, chunks of ice were driven across our path. It was one of those events which happens occasionally (and with little warning). We were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Sure, all it took was researching the weather patterns:

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

I mean these are supposed to be the smartest frikn men/women in the world right? You believe everything that comes from their greasy little fingers. So?

I said the captain did what he was asked to do and why the blame was not on him and his crew. you called me crazy. Well, it looks like the scientists on board were the crazies who now will have to justify what happened. That too was in your article bubba boy.

 

[Pop23]

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...

A study cannot double the sea level, dumb ass.

That depends on how large the study is!

As wordy as some libs get, the water displacement if dumped in the sea could be massive!

 

[Muhammed]

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...

A study cannot double the sea level, dumb ass.

That depends on how large the study is!

As wordy as some libs get, the water displacement if dumped in the sea could be massive!

Not really.

 

[Crick]

"Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.

 

[jc456]

Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content

 

[RollingThunder]

Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content

Are you denier cult idiots too stupid to actually read the article cited in the OP? LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[jc456]

Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content

Are you denier cult idiots too stupid to actually read the article cited in the OP? LOLOLOLOLOL.

Yep

 

[westwall]

"Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.

Ahhhhh yes... the magic "could". Which also means, "probably won't".

 

[Crick]

Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger Effect in full display

 

[Darkwind]

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...

Let Me know when you learn the difference between "could double" and "will double"...

Even your subject line mocks you.

Do you know what the word "Potential" means?

 

[jc456]

Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger Effect in full display

what one says when one has no actual factual material to base an argument. Nice job....

 

[jc456]

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny. Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...

Let Me know when you learn the difference between "could double" and "will double"...

Even your subject line mocks you.

Do you know what the word "Potential" means?

why can't they give the probability number for this to happen? BTW, the only way would be for the continent to lose the ice at once. What do you think that probability is? To give these jerk offs credence is simply ludicrous.

They only want to scare those who don't investigate such things like 90% of the planet. Trust me, con men for sure.

 

[jc456]

"Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.

What's that probability number old crick?