Update - I've added the result of an enquiry by a HotWhopper reader - Thanks, Rattus Norvegicus. You will need to read the rest of the article to see the context. (3 January 2014)
Rattus Norvegicus January 2, 2014 at 1:05 PM
At the suggestion of a poster above I emailed Dr. McGillivary. Here are the bullet points.
1. They were discussing contingency plans should they be called up.
2. Needed long term forecast.
3. Usual sources all on vacation, so called Scott.
4. Forecast was provided (and misreported on KUSI piece).
5. Polar Star's mission is resupply of McMurdo.
6. They have not been asked to participate in rescue.
7. The Akademik Shokalskiy is in no immediate danger.
8. Polar Star just arrived in Sydney....
It would appear that more than a few things are messed up in the reporting by WUWT and KUSI. It appears as though he was looking for confirmation of his forecast that winds would turn around. This was confirmed by information from KUSI and a sea ice expert who got back to him (apparently). The forecast as reported by KUSI seemed to be far more dire.
BTW, from Sydney to the Mertz Glacier/Cape Dennison area is about two weeks sailing, so the situation would have had to go on for quite some time before they could be of any use.
To summarize, Scott provided a forecast (long term?) which was used for discussion of contingencies in case they were called to assist in the rescue efforts.
It can be tough reading stuff at WUWT. One needs a very strong stomach at times.
I've just been alerted to a complete about face at WUWT. Anthony Watts has girded his loins, put on his shining armour, saddled his white steed and ridden to the rescue of the stranded ship in the Antarctic. In one fell swoop and swish of his cape, Anthony has decided to shift sides and can prove it, on television no less. Now he's an "ethical" and "professional" hero, gallantly putting aside his science denial to rescue the What KUSI-TV reported
Actually, what happened was that Anthony got a call from a John Coleman of KUSI-TV who said he got a call from Dave Scott of KUSI-TV who got a call from someone on the Polar Star (a US coastguard ice breaker) asking for weather information. Then Anthony did a television interview via webcam for a TV station in San Diego without a hint of the mockery, derision or conspiracy theorising he wrote on his blog. (I've got to say the TV presenters at KUSI-TV are masters of overstatement, something that hasn't yet percolated here to quite the same degree, thank goodness. For example, they claimed the Polar Star is "standing by". But it's not. The Polar Star said in a statement that it will consider any request by the Australian Government for assistance, but it hasn't promised anything and is not "standing by" in any normal sense of the phrase, according to its statement aired on KUSI-TV.)
Anthony Watts' Spin
Anthony's spin is different though. He claims that he got a call from John Coleman (so far so good) but then diverges from what Dave Scott reported:
Then to my surprise, he relayed a conversation he had just had; a person on the Akademik Shokalskiy had reached out, because they didn’t have adequate weather data on-board. At first, I thought John was pulling my leg, but then as he gave more details, I realized he was serious.Not according to Dave Scott of KUSI-TV, who said he received the original phone request from his friend on the Polar Star for the Polar Star. There was no mention that anyone on the MV Akademik Shokalskiy asked for weather information. They'd have access to Antarctic weather information from BoM and other sources closer at hand.
Publicity-seeking Anthony Watts
Anthony must have figured that getting deliberately stuck in ice was such a terrific "publicity stunt" that he wanted to be part of it. I doubt you'll see a better example of hypocrisy.
The new hero image doesn't mix well with the old anti-hero image, best change it
There is shift in the WUWT comments now. Some of his followers are very well-trained monkeys. Let's see how the comments evolved over three articles.
First a few of the really nasty ones that Anthony allowed on his blog:
Stephen Richards says, after quoting another commenter who suggested "toning it down":
December 30, 2013 at 1:37 amGail Combs says (excerpt):
Can we all start jumping for joy after they die ?? then (archived here)
December 29, 2013 at 5:35 pmMichael Ronayne says:
I really do not care if people who wish me and others to live short, nasty brutal lives end up earning Darwin Awards. However I do care if those who went to the rescue of these idiots are hurt. (archived here)
December 30, 2013 at 10:47 am
Question: What do you call a ship load of trapped Global Cooling Deniers who are in danger of freezing to death?
Answer: A good start! (Archived here)
Then some plain ordinary mockery WUWT-style.
albertalad says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:12 am
You can’t make this stuff up – the AGW dude stuck in ice along with the Australian Green Party senator and their ilk. Priceless! (Archived here.)
Mac the Knife says (excerpt):
December 29, 2013 at 11:53 am
At last – true Environmental Justice in action! In the most direct and immediately tangible terms, the expanding ice pack surrounds them with blunt and massive evidence that their beliefs are wrong. Yet, they continue to preach the AGW dogma, even as the antarctic climate tries to kill them. If that isn’t a hallmark of religious environmentalism, I don’t know what would be! (Archived here)
Now that Anthony is heroically rescuing the stricken vessel, he and some of his trained monkeys have done an about face, as per Anthony Watts' instructions (archived here):
Despite the irony and folly of the situation, I’m sure readers will join me in the hope that everyone makes it off the ship safely, whether it is by helicopter or by the ship being freed from the ice.
Janice Moore says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:42 pm
Good for you, An-thon-y! They went to the best.
That you have been given the opportunity to come to the aid of your “enemies” (v. a v. truth in science), can only be God’s providence. And, yes, I have been and will pray that God gets them out of there (they are certainly not going to get out without God’s help).
Your admiring fan,
Janice
P.S. Yet another resounding blow for free markets over socialism: During Hurricane (a real one) Katrina, it was privately owned Home Depot who got the supplies and equipment through; when 33 Chilean miners needed rescuing from the bowels of the earth, it was private companies in the U.S., Germany, and other capitalist countries (sorry, forgot all of them) who had the drill bit and cable and who flew in the supplies (U.P.S.); and now, it is you and Joe, two American free market entrepreneurs and genuine scientists’ turn. WAY TO GO!
Mark and two Cats says "warmunists! this is called ethics" - It's not my ethics, Mark
December 31, 2013 at 11:46 pm
“My first thought was that no matter how much we’ve been criticizing the expedition for its silliness, that if such a request had reached all the way from Antarctica to me, I’d do everything I could to help.”
————————————–
See all ye warmunists! This is called “ethics”.
Try to get some.
albertalad decides to join in the alleluia chorus and says:
January 1, 2014 at 12:17 am
The speed and professionalism of Anthony and friends was magnificent, indeed the best of humanity itself. Thank you to all involved! God speed to those in peril on the sea this night!
NikFromNYC says:
January 1, 2014 at 12:03 am
Civilized professionalism at its finest, and a PR coup too.
Mac the Knife changes his tune somewhat and says:
January 1, 2014 at 12:42 am
Anthony,
Serendipity makes for strange bed fellows, doesn’t it? May God bless you for doing the right thing. While we can laugh at the self-induced predicament of the ship of fools, we all should pray for their survival… and help, if it is in our power to do so.
MtK
dp says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:54 pm
Anthony – you are a person of extreme character and great industry. What an exemplary way to start off the new year, bridging the bitter divide between climate alarmism and skepticism in a time of uncommon and dire need. Hopefully this will lead to some bridge mending.
MrX doesn't read WUWT comments and says there should be no doubt (about the good intentions of Anthony and all at WUWT) - Huh?
January 1, 2014 at 12:23 am
Of course everyone wishes a safe return for all those out at sea. I don’t think there should ever be any doubt of that. Yet I’ve just had a discussion about this with my liberal friends and they don’t see the irony at all. In fact, they resent my suggesting it. This won’t change a thing. Those who believe the globe is warming due to human influence won’t let being surrounded by ice deter them.
The way I see it Watts is at least four degrees of separation, on this particular chain, from the people on the Akademik Shokalskiy.
ReplyDeleteI am two degree of separation from the Black Abbott (and no, I won't reveal the identity of the intermediate node) so Watts needs to deflate his ego before he floats into the stratosphere.
It seems to me that he's suffering from that other form of attention deficit disorder, post AGU13.
And the hypocrisy of the man - well, Sou's already pointed out the nova's worth of shine in that regard...
Bernard J.
Lol - I just checked and discovered I am three degrees of separation from Chris Turney, at most :D
DeleteI don't think anyone on WUWT can have watched the news clip otherwise they would not be posting all their rubbish. Not very sceptical or inquisitive lot are they?
ReplyDeleteAs well as not being fact-checkers by nature, his followers are probably well aware of the risk of checking sources (that they'll discover that Anthony is spinning for all it's worth).
DeleteWhy spoil a good yarn?
The main point, that you entirely avoided Sou, is the fact that all the information that was requested was sourced from AGW sceptics, not just from WUWT.
ReplyDeleteThe kick in the teeth to the cultists is the fact that no alarmist were asked as they can't be trusted to have reliable information.
Karen
Watt a nutter is Karen. Fake sceptics hang out together in clumps. That's common knowledge.
DeleteHowever, try exercising your grey matter, Karen. Just where do you think Anthony Watts, Joe D'Aleo and other fake sceptics get their weather information from?
Do you think it's from Bob Tisdale's leprechauns? Or maybe you think there is a pixie hiding up above Wondering Willis' thunderstorms beaming satellite images through their tin foil hats?
Funny that Karen has voiced no objection to Anthony telling fibs and even parroted them with his "ice party stuck alarmists...reaching out to the sceptics" comment..
I don't know about Dave Scott, but John Coleman is as nutty as a fruit cake going by this article.
DeleteAnd I gather that a lot of people regard KUSI-TV as being somewhere between politically conservative and far right, which in the USA is pretty well crank territory - at least as far as acceptance of the modern world and science.
Karen, the amazing thing is that someone bothered to ask a San Diego TV station for information on weather in the Antarctic. I'm sure Anthony can do the weather on the nines but I'm not so sure he can do the weather out of his area.
DeleteDid you also notice that John Coleman misrepresented Al Gore by saying that Al predicted "the sea ice at least at the north pole (!) was going to be totally melted by the summer of 2013" when as you can clearly see (at 6:15) that Al Gore was quoting Dr Maslowski suggesting it could be 2030 for 'that projection' (but the projection is not actually covered by the clip).
ReplyDeleteKatyD
Karen you do not know what information has been requested. You only know what the TV station has said and then Antony has not reported it correctly. The point made by KatyD was also not picked up on by anyone on WUWT.
DeleteI'm still waiting for just one of the fake sceptics to comment on how wrong all the fake sceptics' predictions have been.
DeleteJudith Curry said a few days ago that she thought a submission by John McLean was 'worth reading'. This is the same John McLean who predicted, in 2011 mind you, that 2011 would be colder globally than 1956. Judith Curry thinks a lot of Donna Laframboise too, so her admiring John McLean isn't such an odd thing for her to do.
Don Easterbrook made nutty claims that the world by now would have cooled a lot (not quite as bad as John McLean's but close).
As for David "funny sunny" Archibald and Pierre Gosselin - well we've got to wait till 2020 to see if the world is going to get as cold as they've predicted. That is, colder than ever before in the 10,000 years of human civilisation.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html
http://archive.is/SdAJg
Thanks for pointing out the watts up with that website ... it is brilliant!
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
"It is brilliant!" That's one of the most frequent comments there, often prefaced by "I don't understand this but"
DeleteSo, you're welcome. You should fit right in :)
I think I managed to find out just who this "Dr Philip Mcalobray" is who KUSI TV's Dave Scott claims contacted him from aboard the Polar Star. It very likely is Dr. Phil McGillivary, a Science Liaison for the US Coast Guard.
ReplyDeletehttp://seaspaceinitiative.org/dr-phil-mcgillivary/
It is highly unlikely however that Dr McGillivary would request 'all the help they could get' from a second rate San Diego based TV weatherman taking into account all the meteorological equipment the recently overhauled USCG Polar Star has on board. Along with the USCG Healy, the Polar Star is equipped with "Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)" systems which "monitors meteorological, oceanographic, and solar-terrestrial physics for the United States Department of Defense".
Yet after John Coleman (deliberately?) messes up the crucial element of just who 'requested all the help they needed', Coleman mobilizes his Dunning-Kruger buddies Watts, Bastardi and 'Palmer Drought Severity Index Joe D'Aleo' so they can all get their fair share of media attention.
And not a 'skeptic' in sight who notices the monumental f@ck-up nor questions their claims.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a2fb41f4693556b50ad671bba4d16729&tab=core&_cview=1
http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/8/28/2012/2012082872436721.pdf
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/wet-is-dry-and-dry-is-wet/
Thanks for that research. It sounds right. I found this recent presentation he gave, too, about the US CoastGuard .
DeleteAmong the top five science issues for the US Coast Guard (out of 12 issues), Philip McGillivary listed ocean acidification and climate change.
It's looking more and more as if someone made an off the cuff remark in hearing range of Dave Scott and the denial brigade turned it into a circus.
Given the fact that the Polar Star is supposed to be in McMurdo, which is basically the other side of the continent, escorting a tanker this seems increasingly fishy.
DeleteShe appears to be heading towards Sydney (http://www.marinetraffic.com/)
DeleteKatyD
Not surprising. I figured it would take close to 3 weeks at full speed (an unlikely assumption) with no stops for provisioning to reach McMurdo. That would have put her in the vicinity of McMurdo on 12/24 or thereabouts. Obviously they weren't treating a routine operation as a military emergency. :-)
DeleteWhy not email him at Philip.A.McGillivary@uscg.mil to verify whether he requested weather info from the San Diego station
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts ?
ReplyDeletehttp://archive.is/mZxE2
[Sou: Anonymous - see comment policy. No direct links to denier websites. I've replaced it with a link to an archived version]
For my thoughts - see here and here.
DeleteFor other thoughts - see here.
End of me commenting here then.
DeleteAnonymousJanuary 2, 2014 at 7:47 AM says:
Delete"End of me commenting here then."
C'mon. It's JUST the tolerant left showing their brand of love ...
_Jim
You must be doing something right when you get a WUWT fan like _Jim so annoyed he has to post messages to himself here.
Delete"End of me commenting here then."
DeleteCry me a river.
"C'mon. It's JUST the tolerant left showing their brand of love ...
No, it's the blog owner's prerogative. And if she doesn't want to inflate the traffic of anti-scientific sites, all credit to her.
Sou, I think that you need to treat your posts with copper-chromium-arsenate...
Bernard J.
I don't know what Anonymous' problem was. I replaced the direct link with a link to the exact same article as archived.
DeleteThe only rational explanation is that it was a frustrated link spammer (someone who posts lots of links on blogs for the sole purpose of upping traffic to the linked website and raising search engine rankings).
I guess they weren't seriously asking for a response.
The closer you look at the text the more you see in the twisting! What Anthony wrote was;
ReplyDelete...the US Coast Guard had received a message from the ship, requesting weather and wind information for Antarctica...
...The message was that they needed better weather information on the ship than they had...
...That got relayed to someone at the Scripps oceanographic Institute in San Diego, and 'it went' to John’s weekend KUSI meteorologist Dave Scott...
So in other words, a ship in distress, or a ship monitoring a ship in distress requested weather & wind updates from an expert in ice-breaking capabilities (US Coast Guard), who discussed it with experts in ice & climate change in San Diego (Scripps). Then the storey got out to the local hacks in San Diego (KUSI) who decided to ring Tony! haha.
http://www.uscg.mil/top/missions/iceoperations.asp
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/topics/ice-and-climate
KatyD
The only mention on David Scott's segment on KUSI TV of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in San Diego is when he mentions that he first met Mcgillivary 2 years before when he was doing a documentary on a famous Scripps oceanographer Walter Munk.
DeleteThat's the only mention of Scripps in the whole piece. Yet somehow Watts changes this into the US Coast Guard receiving a message from the Russian ship which somehow got relayed to the Scripps Institute in San Diego which in turn calls Broadcast Meteorologist David Scott.
Yeah...right.
One has to be severely delusional to think that a Russian ship doing an Australian Expedition sponsored (among others) by the Australian Government, by Meteoexploration.com (which specializes in Antarctica) and last but certainly not least by the 'Antarctic Meteorological Research Center & Automatic Weather Stations Project' would need urgent meteorological help from a handful of US based TV weathermen who just happen to be deniers.
I personally find it highly unlikely that a US Coast Guard icebreaker based scientist would call a broadcast meteorologist he met two years earlier seeking for help. It is much more likely that David Scott contacted Mcgillivary (who than possibly called him back given the limited communication possibilities in that part of the world) for some info on the Russian ship. It is very well possible that Mcgillivary said something like "they [the Russian ship] need all the help they can get" which ultimately KUSI TV's weather honcho and known denier spins into something completely different.
http://www.spiritofmawson.com/aae-supporters/
-1
Delete_Jim
No need to tell us your IQ score Jim; it's kind of obvious.
DeleteSo, this is what dross looks like (that is, this blog, this website).
ReplyDeleteThankfully there are sites out there of substance, versus this 'biting at the heels' (the reference is to small dogs that are no more than "ankle-biters".)
_Jim
Hi Jim
DeleteRemember that in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king (that is, those that can see a bit...oh, sorry, you can work it out for yourself). Here you find 20/20.
Tired old, worn-out cliche; PLEASE try something new so as not to bore the readers. Thanks for the ankle bite too. Needed that right about now ...
DeleteBTW, do any of you ppl engage in any real science or engineering projects around here? Or is this simply another mutual admiration society (kind of like, you know, SkS, RC etc. or any mainstream media comment section)? You know, original research or design projects? Any at all? Surely I haven't wandered into another internet blog whose only purpose in life is to cheer one side and jeer at the other other ...
_Jim
I don't think there are any new cliches, by definition. If you hang around though, Jim, you'll find that contributors here do actually do real science. That's unlike the motley collection of retired engineers, park rangers, hereditary peers and a whole swathe of non-entities who line up to be the first to say well done for another recycled bit of debunked thinking or round on someone who does actually understand some science.
DeleteAs for my modest contributions, a previously unknown genus of Cretaceous fish, minor contributions to the palaeoecology of the Eocene and an astronomical observation are, at least, real science.
Jim, ask a sensible question, show evidence that you're interested in the dialog, and my guess is that people will discuss it with you.
DeleteSome of us are actually scientists.
PL
_Jim, as you asked...
DeleteI started in research (and diagnostic) oncology/immunology, thence to pharmacology and finally to ecology. Collected a few postgraduate degrees, saved a few lives, and hope that my work might in hindsight even be seen to have saved a few species.
After three decades of working in science I have a pretty good understanding of the scientific process. You'll find lots of credible scientific opinion and expertise here and on similar sites, and you'll find very little to none on sites like WUWT. I know that this might be confronting to you, but that's just how it is.
If you need to have your ideology stroked it might be best if you stay at WUWT, where they'll sell you a pup for every day of the week.
Bernard J.
Jim, from what I can make out, probably most people (ie more than half) who comment here are working research scientists and contribute a lot of good info and insight.
DeleteI'm not a research scientist, though I've worked in and for scientific R&D organisations and done a certain amount of science writing.
If you stick around, you may find it interesting - that is, if you are interested in climate science and related subjects.
Last month, I shamelessly promoted my original research here.
DeleteWhy? Why? Why? Why go to an ex-TV-weatherman who has to go to the BOM site at http://www.bom.gov.au/ant/observations/antall.shtml to check out the weather in antarctica? It's like asking something of the organ grinder's monkey instead of the organ grinder.
ReplyDeleteBut it could be even simpler than that if another anti-AGW website is correct when stating that the Aurora Australis is "close" to the stranded ship. Why not ask the Australis about the weather or simply go to its webcam at http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/aurora to "see" what the weather is like in its vicinity? Then again, maybe US-centric Tony doesn't know the difference between Austria, Australis and Australia.
-1
Delete_Jim, your modus operandi is showing...
DeleteThe fact is that George Montgomery is correct, and if you don't like hearing the truth you should simply stop listening. If you have a coherent rebuttal to his statements then put forward an evidenced case, otherwise stop banging on the lever like a crack-addicted rat.
Bernard J.
You have to be pretty stupid to fall for the crap WUWT comes up with these days. The whole idea that an incident like this happening out in Antarctica would suddenly turn into an urgent call for help to WUWT and John Coleman reads like the kind of plot you'd get on some 3rd rate straight-to-video movie.
ReplyDeleteWhat next? Vladimir Putin just called KUSI-TV, he wants to know how steam pipes might be heating up Siberia and the only person he can think of who can find out is Anthony Watts.
Greenland wants to know where to place their runways.
But ridiculous as it is the WUWT readers actually believe it. Is there a word for gullibility where you are fooling yourself?
Feynman: "It's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science."
DeleteSou, You seem to have a heavy obsession with analyzing WUWT's blog post comments. I agree that there are some really silly and offensive comments that should be moderated like you are very good at deleting on your blog. But if Anthony did that your blog posts would be much shorter.
ReplyDeleteThat suggestion to WUWT is based on a misunderstanding of what happens here at HotWhopper. In any case, there seems to be an endless supply of people at WUWT willing to make "silly and offensive" comments. Anthony could discourage silliness by writing sense himself. He prefers to be a crank magnet.
DeleteAnthony in the main only bans people who write about science. He allows three science commenters at a time tops. When his quota is exceeded he bans some. And he deletes science comments and comments that challenge Anthony's silliness - on a whim.
I've only had to ban two people from HotWhopper - for ignoring the comment policy excessively and repeatedly. I'd have deleted fewer than a dozen comments ever at HotWhopper. Mostly for using excessively crude language, a couple for wishing harm on other people and a couple for gross personal attacks on other commenters and a handful at once, which were a barrage of ugliness from an angry religious type letting of steam. If your comment was deleted then be assured, it's a rarity and must have flouted the comment policy in an excessive manner. The balance of deletions is about 50:50 science accepters vs science rejecters.
(You'll be pleased to know your fib won't be deleted. I'm reasonably tolerant here as you'll see if you look around the blog. It could be just a mistake on your part rather than a deliberate lie or pure trolling, because you didn't realise that here in the wider world, it's only a very tiny proportion of people who think like WUWT-ers.)
If you stick to the comment policy here you should be fine. The policy is fairly liberal compared to WUWT and much shorter.
I know I'm one among many, but as a casual science observer, I've never managed to leave a successful comment at WUWT. I wasn't rude or confrontational, but asked for clarity about the facts discussed. In addition, the moderators used the occasion to add insulting personal remarks of exactly the type they were accusing me of. Tell me again why I should comment there, or take WUWT seriously?
DeleteYea this happened because of budget cuts and there was no one manning the phones at noaa or nws. All navy and army commanders along with all military pilots are given telephone numbers of tv weather forecasters across the country. They try not to call the same one twice because they want to keep it a secret. I believe this because I overheard someone who was sitting on a couch picking lint out of his navel talking about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Anthony's flying monkeys like having his "thoughts" criticized. You seem to have attracted quite a few of them recently, sou. It's fascinating that they can come here and see every detail of Watts' work shown to be wrong, but they still don't learn anything! For example Anonymous on Jan 2nd is happy to accuse you of deleting comments, but doesn't seem to have put even a moment's thought into the content of the post.
ReplyDeleteAnonymice, do you have any comments on the actual post? Do you believe Watts even after reading sou's investigation?
I think that Anonymous may be a stray from the weird and wonderful world of science deniers and conspiracy theorists - and couldn't believe that here in the wider world the ratio of cranks to more normal people is around 8%, whereas normal people are surprised at it being as high as that..
DeleteAt the suggestion of a poster above I emailed Dr. McGillivary. Here are the bullet points.
ReplyDelete1. They were discussing contingency plans should they be called up.
2. Needed long term forecast.
3. Usual sources all on vacation, so called Scott.
4. Forecast was provided (and misreported on KUSI piece).
5. Polar Star's mission is resupply of McMurdo.
6. They have not been asked to participate in rescue.
7. The Akademik Shokalskiy is in no immediate danger.
8. Polar Star just arrived in Sydney....
It would appear that more than a few things are messed up in the reporting by WUWT and KUSI. It appears as though he was looking for confirmation of his forecast that winds would turn around. This was confirmed by information from KUSI and a sea ice expert who got back to him (apparently). The forecast as reported by KUSI seemed to be far more dire.
BTW, from Sydney to the Mertz Glacier/Cape Dennison area is about two weeks sailing, so the situation would have had to go on for quite some time before they could be of any use.
To summarize, Scott provided a forecast (long term?) which was used for discussion of contingencies in case they were called to assist in the rescue efforts.
Many thanks, Rattus N. I've added it to the main article above.
DeleteAnthony it is and iceberg
ReplyDeletehttp://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/news/aurora-expeditions-reaches-commonwealth-bay-100-years-after-sir-douglas-maw
,
I am surprised, a steel hulled vessel with so many fervent warmers encapsulated within should cut through the ice like a hot knife through butter :)
ReplyDeleteooops, forgot to add......
DeleteKaren
The Lilliputians and Blefuscudians of the science world who frequent Tony's bogsite often confuse temperature and heat, possibly even regelation and fracturing, as well as displaying basic misunderstandings of (a) how icebreakers - the ships not the conversation starters - work, (b) how most body heat is eventually transferred within a ship to its deck and thence to the atmosphere, (c) the difference between the melting of ice and the melting of butter in terms of latent heats of fusion and volume changes, etc., etc.
DeleteScience is an endemic, if not congenital, weakness for fervent cooligans and ardent coldaholics.
I'm a fence sitter when it comes to CAGW, but who is winning the war on climate science news? The deniers or the alarmists? Just read Mann's hockey stick war book to see how silly the debate has evolved...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/0231152558/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1388631885&sr=8-1&keywords=hockey+stick+war
You gave it away at your use of the term "CAGW." Nice try.
ReplyDeleteWhy? The term of catastrophic anthropogenic warming is no longer valid? It has been used in the past most frequently, but now: not so much.
DeleteDon's nailed the Anonymous to the picket of the fence on which he is sitting.
DeleteOn the matter of the denialists' favouring of the deriding term 'catastrophic' preceding 'anthropogenic global warming', I personally am not afraid to use the term in context...
To wit, if humans double the pre-Industrial Revolution concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the results will be catastrophic for Western civilisation, for most other coherent human societies, and for a large chunk of the biodiversity of the planet:
Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html
Taking the available observations at face value implies a most likely climate sensitivity of about 4 °C, with a lower limit of about 3 °C. Indeed, all 15 of the GCMs with ECS below 3.0 °C have an LTMI [lower tropospheric mixing index] below the bottom of the observational range."
Bernard J.
See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CAGW
DeleteCAGW is an umbrella term for use by anyone who opposes action on AGW, from outright deniers of the greenhouse effect to lukewarmers who only deny the catastrophic element. In this sense, "catastrophic" can be defined as "worse than has yet happened, however disastrous that might be". Expect to see it around for a long time yet.
DeleteUsing 'CAGW' consistently as of the Colorado floods '13.
DeleteBacking this up by Tamino's 'Unnatural Catastrophes' and the MunichRE db.
CAGW is an identifying shibboleth for deniers - the very use of the term indicates that the person presenting the term isn't interested in the science, is someone more than a bit challenged in regards to reality.
DeleteKR
Some visitors to this site (you must be waking waves, Sou; 59 comments already? Bravo!) seem not to realise it's for entertainment, not for science. Sufficient science is presented to make clear the idiocy of WUWT posts and posters (and a little more if it's interesting) and the rest is about mocking the eminently mockable, as amusingly as possible. In a maddening world it provides some therapy.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind the targets of mockery deserve no better treatment; they put themselves beyond the Pale with their slanders and bile.
As one of Anthony's fans wrote on one of Anthony's sillier articles, "ridicule is both powerful and satisfying". It works best if you're on a sure footing.
DeleteIt backfires horribly if based on false premises (which is, of course, Anthony's habit). It lands one in a bog where monsters like us lurk. I learned that the hard way, fortunately while still at school. Anthony, I suspect, is incapable of learning anything, not even the nature of baselines on graphs.
DeleteIsn't it ironic that Watts would send Scott "the operational weather data model that covered the region" and his WUWT fans, who are otherwise quick to congratulate him on his 'heroic' effort, do not have a problem at all with the use of 'a model'?
ReplyDeleteThe rescue of everyone but the ship's crew is being live blogged as I write this, on the Guardian's website.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else notice MrX's comment?
ReplyDeleteThose who believe the globe is warming due to human influence won’t let being surrounded by ice deter them.
Tony Watt's agrees that some of the global warming is due to human influence. I wonder if anyone pointed that out to MrX.
btw Jim, Ph.D. Chemist here 37 years of industrial practice. Very tired of amateurs with chips on their shoulders, who haven't put in the time and the study thinking they can simply snap their fingers and make the science go away.
Tony Watts tried that with the UHI business, at a higher level than any of his rabid partisans and was forever humiliated when Berkeley Earth destroyed that line of thinking. Sucks to be scientifically incompetent, but have a chip on your shoulder about those scientists.
Welcome to HW, Jim.
DeleteWUWT is a magical place. You can believe two or more quite contradictory things at the same time in WUWT Land. Even in the same sentence :(
Sou- not Jim- I'll send you an note via another channel.
DeleteOh, sorry - I misread your comment. Greetings anyway even if you're not a newbie here. (It gets a bit confusing with all the anons, but I'm very happy for anons to be anon, needless to say :D)
DeleteSou, the way you wrote this thing reminded me of a song called Tony's theme (check out the lyrics).
ReplyDeleteLove it, Neven. Bookmarked for future use :)
DeleteSou:
ReplyDeleteis there any way to eliminate "Anonymous" as one of the choices?
It's easy enough to enter a consistent pseudonym so readres can at least keep track of conversations.: I've gotten so I simply skip all posts by Anonymous; it jsut starts to take time to sort things out, and life is short.
John, I can't disable anonymous without people needing one or other account to comment. The choices are Registered User (with OpenID), a Google account or only members of HotWhopper. So I'm inclined to leave it open because I don't want to discourage people from commenting.
DeleteI've just commenting with "Name/URL", leaving the URL box blank. This doesn't require any registration anywhere - and the best I can do is encourage people to use this option.
Google Blogger is great, but it has some limitations. If anyone has any tips how to disable the "Anonymous" choice but leave the "Name/URL" choice, can you let me know. I'll dig around some more and see if I can find a hack.
Watts Up With That?
ReplyDeleteThe world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
The world's most viewed site on [redacted:global warming and climate change] paranoid conspiracy theories motivated by libertarian ideology
DeleteThere, corrected for you.
Wow - and McDonalds, the world's best restaurant, right?
DeleteAs I keep saying, as soon as all you lumpenpopulists vote in new laws of physics we'll be set.
"The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change"
DeleteI suspect that the viewing of pornography far exceeds the total viewing of museum art that depicts nudity, but that doesn't mean that pornography is the highest expression of human sexuality. Your claim is meaningless.
Sou, I'm becoming a little cross with the fallacious logic of the drive-by anonymous trolls who leap in with fossilised denialist memes. Such unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions are intended only to gum up the works.
A casual anonymous following-up or such is one thing, but if these idiots can't lack the wherewithal to append even a pseudonym to their crap I think that it should just be hosed away.