# USCGC Polar Star icebreaker



## Davey Jones (Jan 5, 2014)

Now that are 3 ships,Australia, Russia and China, stuck in the Artic ice,there is only one thing to do...

*CALL THE U.S. COAST GUARD....
*
http://rt.com/news/rescue-icebreakers-antarctic-us-195/


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 5, 2014)

Only two ships stuck, Davey. One Russian and one Chinese.
The Australian ship avoided that fate. I expect the US one will also stay unstuck 
but whether it will succeed in freeing both icebound ships will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 5, 2014)

_Apparently it can break through 6 metres of ice if that is true  so they should succeed._


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 5, 2014)

Prediction: the Polar Star will succeed in breaking the ice, but a little too enthusiastically, ramming both vessels and sinking all three. A twelve-man dug-out canoe from Tonga will be dispatched and save all crewmembers.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 5, 2014)

_Those Tongans are good aren't they, of course they were just out for a leisurely cruise in their canoe, case of being in the right place at the right time_:wink:


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 5, 2014)

Either that, or they paddle _awfully_ fast!


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 5, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Either that, or they paddle _awfully_ fast!



Paddle fast, create heat, melt ice.  Easy.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 5, 2014)

_Hey you know that may work DB_


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 5, 2014)

We should give the politicos a call and get them moving on this! King Tupou VI will appreciate the business, I'm sure.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 5, 2014)

_You would have to have connections Phil would you do it._


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 5, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _You would have to have connections Phil would you do it._



Normally I would say "Yes", but Tupie and I are on the outs at the moment - something about him accusing me of taking off with a few of his wives in one of those canoes ...


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 6, 2014)

_ You're going to have to start behaving yourself Phil, have you been hanging out with Catfish by chance. Looks like the ships will be stuck for long time now, boy it's going to cost big munnies now._


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 6, 2014)

Nah, the Chinese one is paddling furiously and moving a bit.  Desperate to get out before the Yanks arrive.  



Reports say something about them 'clearing a path' for the ship to break through.  Maybe they took my advice and fired a few skyrockets into it?


----------



## Rainee (Jan 6, 2014)

And I thought that as the One aim of the expedition was to track how quickly the Antarctic's sea ice was disappearing because of global warming, but a blizzard and thick ice caused the expedition to be abandoned on Christmas eve, despite the fact that it's the height of Summer in the Antarctic, wonder if they found out if it was because of global warming? I am confused about all this.. hehe !!


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 6, 2014)

Jillaroo said:


> _ You're going to have to start behaving yourself Phil, have you been hanging out with Catfish by chance. _



I couldn't help myself - that terrible twosome of Tongan teases titillated me terrifically! 

Catfish? Who or what is this Catfish you speak of? I know of no "Catfish" ...


----------



## Davey Jones (Jan 6, 2014)

Warrigal said:


> Only two ships stuck, Davey. One Russian and one Chinese.
> The Australian ship avoided that fate. I expect the US one will also stay unstuck
> but whether it will succeed in freeing both icebound ships will be interesting to watch.





YUP ,you're right,I read that wrong.PLease dont mention this mistake to Vice Admiral Ray Griggs of the Royal Australian Navy.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 6, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> PLease dont mention this mistake to Vice Admiral Ray Griggs of the Royal Australian Navy.



Heck, no! He'd probably send you to a penal colony like ... like ... 

... Australia.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 6, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Heck, no! He'd probably send you to a penal colony like ... like ...
> 
> ... Australia.



I need a houseboy.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 6, 2014)




----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 6, 2014)

Easily explained ... the weather was warmer then because there was less CO2 in the atmosphere.  That's "the science", isn't it?

:wink:


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 6, 2014)

dbeyat45 said:


> I need a houseboy.



Me too!!  Pick me! Pick me!


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 6, 2014)

Further to SB's video, found a 12 minute one with a good run down on these climate alarm fleas, and what they're earning for their 'support.'    It's done with a very wry commentary.  Will appeal to the 'schadenfreude' in climate change skeptics and is a good wake up call to those who still believe every word from these shamans.





... and Warri, just for you especially and for any still convinced that this whole thing isn't a con.  
It is an excerpt from an Andrew Bolt show which I know you never watched  as you view him as the representative on Earth of the forces of evil  that produce successful people,  and the Climate Change anti-Christ  incarnate.

(If it's any consolation I never watched him either because I didn't want my opinions to be 'led' by hearing only people who shared them.)

But just this once, for the sake of the fairness I know you always display and espouse, have a look at what real, unbribed, climate scientists had to say about the what the Government funding dependent ones were predicting.  

It's old footage of your iconic Gillard making moronic statements, in reverential tones, of the infallibility of ... _"the science"_  being discussed in lucid terms by 'real' climate scientists.
 It remains relevant because those same bullsh*t misinformed 'facts' are still being delivered.

To save trauma and time start it around the 5 minute mark, the first bit is  just about the fallacy of CO2 being termed a pollutant etc, and you've  heard plenty of that one from DB and I already... the rest of it is  illuminating though. Very. 

 Especially pertaining to the Gt Barrier Reef which is used as some kind  of icon that we must 'save' from the deprivations of Global Warming.   That a tropical coral reef would suffer from warmer temps was always  beyond my imagination, but Greenies still believe it so...............  have a look and listen. 




[video=youtube_share;C35pasCr6KI]http://youtu.be/C35pasCr6KI[/video]

For those who can't be bothered...it also mentions that the carbon tax imposed on us by the illustrious one J.Gillard, PM to reduce 'carbon' emissions from OZ, would, at best,  in real figures reduce GLOBAL 'carbon emissions' by one 20,000th of 1%.  Wow, we were all just busting to empty our pockets into hers, and the *UN*'s coffers for that fantastic result!     Hell, that would stop it in it's tracks right?!
Still wonder why we voted those fraudulent fleas out???


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 6, 2014)

You should know better than to wave Andrew Bolt in front of my nose.

Not bothered about answering your post point by point, but to present the other version of the current Antarctic situation, I offer this:



> *Chilly warning from scientists on impact of Antarctica changes*
> 
> DateJanuary 7, 2014
> *Peter Hannam*
> ...


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 7, 2014)

> "We just don't know how thick it is," Dr Press said.



Got that right!  The ice *and *the bullsh*t!.

But Warri, the point is that they don't understand it themselves, or they wouldn't be freezing their butts off would they?  
Didn't they read that piece by the ultimate expert on everything at the SMH or something?   
They are the 'scientists'.  
They are the ones presenting their theories and brainsnaps as_ 'the science.'_ 
They are the ones who claim to be right and that all those of other opinion are "dinosaurs."
They are producing the computer modelling and fancy figures that we are supposed to accept as gospel.
They should have known bloody better where (and why) the ice was if they *really* have any more of a clue what's going on than anyone else.

Any idiot can rearrange the figures to fit the reason for the stuff up.  *True* science doesn't need to! 
True scientists don't make stupid predictions and prophesies until they've proven the theory beyond doubt.
I'd hate to be in the space shuttle any of these fleas built and pointed in the rough direction they thought it might go according to a theory and computer modelling exercise based on guesstimates and cherrypicked figures.  No insurance company would cover me.

They don't KNOW!  They THEORISE.  When the theory doesn't fit they just change the wording.
When Global Warming was blown they altered it to 'Climate Change.'  When CO2 was shown to be a natural inert gas which didn't sound scary enough to convince the public to pay a tax to 'stop' it then they changed the terminology to 'carbon pollution'.  Wtf is that exactly?  Then they started weighing air!!!  So many tonnes of CO2 per capita... c'mon what's that about?  The particulates in it may have weight but the gas???

It's farcical.

You don't indicate if you watched the video so about that crapola reported about the Gt Barrier Reef's imminent demise that the Greens and Aunty ABC flap about.

Firstly, sea levels have been slightly lower than normal in recent geological times. (perhaps because it's all frozen around a boat somewhere?) Hence the topmost coral growth is more likely to be exposed at low tide and dies off. 
 Rising sea levels would be the best news the Gt. B. Reef has had in a millenium.  It will have more room to grow!

2ndly.  The warming sea temperatures.  That reef has exactly the same coral species as the parts of it near P. New Guinea.  The only difference is that the corals in the WARMER waters of PNG are growing bigger and healthier than the ones off Qld.   Is there a message there???  They are *tropical *corals.  Duh.

That's just an example of the stupid things that have been thrust down the throats of the public to brainwash them into accepting anything proposed to stop a largely invented cataclysm  befalling the planet.  
There has just been too much wrong stuff put out there. 

 Personally, I don't give a toss if the planet eventually pops and produces a cosmic butterfly.  I won't be around long enough to care and have no DNA investment in the future to protect.  All I care about is exposing the posers as frauds. I hate people who try to rip me off!
 I don't even care if they fluke it and have it right, I just hate the farce and bullsh*t they've turned 'science' into at the behest of politically and financially motivated con artists.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 7, 2014)

What Di said ..... and, for what it's worth, the temperature in the Antarctic has been dropping (ever so slightly) all the time the sea ice extent has been increasing:



​Source:  ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png


and, leaving the Antarctic for a while, Arctic sea ice seems to be recovering well and *getting thicker*. 







Source:  http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicennowcast.gif

Global Temperatures through November 2013 had not increased for between 8 years and 11 months to 17 years and 3 months. depending on data set and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)  reached 17 years in October, 2013:   Interactive graph


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 7, 2014)

China's out!  They're into open water.
No one seems to know how they did it but they were no doubt being well motivated from Beijing.


----------



## Rainee (Jan 7, 2014)

*What they say: *‘The rate of warming over the past 15 years [at 0.05C per decade] is smaller than the trend since 1951.'

*What this means*:  In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the  world had warmed at a rate of 0.2C per decade 1990-2005, and that this would continue for the following 20 years. 

The  unexpected 'pause' means that at just 0.05C per decade, the rate  1998-2012 is less than half the long-term trend since 1951, 0.12C per  decade, and just a quarter of the 2007-2027 prediction. 

Some  scientists - such as Oxford's Myles Allen - argue that it is misleading  to focus on this 'linear trend', and that one should only compare  averages taken from decade-long blocks.

*What they say*:  ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals  during the Medieval Climate Anomaly  (950-1250) that were in some  regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
*What this means*:  As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the  IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least  1,300 years. Their new inclusion  of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long  before the Industrial Revolution and  its associated fossil fuel burning  – is a concession that its earlier statement  is highly questionable.
*What they say:* ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’
*What this means:*  The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to  ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no  statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first  reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to  deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it  either. Now it not only accepts it is  real, it admits that its climate  models  totally failed to predict it.
*What they say:*  ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and  observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate  variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar,  volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models,  from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’


*What this means:*  The IPCC knows the pause is  real, but has no idea what is causing it.  It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and  crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight  to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on  temperature change.
*What they say:*  ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there  remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of  these processes in models.’
*What this means:* Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.
*What they say:*  ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice  extent, in contrast  to the small increasing trend in observations...  There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small  observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
*What this means: *The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.

*What they say:*  ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the  assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report],  reflecting the evidence from new studies.’
*What this means:*  ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much  the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high  value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that  previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way  too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are  scaling down their estimate for the first time.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cts-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2pifnJoiA 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​


----------



## Phantom (Jan 7, 2014)

Both ships are free

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ntarctica-break-free/articleshow/28540644.cms


----------



## dbeyat45 (Jan 7, 2014)

Rainee, you will get excommunicated from the *Church of Global Warming* if you don't moderate your language/posts.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 7, 2014)

Seems 'Boris' must have been issuing the same motivational sermons from Moscow that Beijing was giving the Snow Dragon. 



Bet the crew on the Coast Guard ship are less than happy their leave was cut short for nothing.

It's being mentioned that OZ is adding the cost of delays to their research program  to the bill due to the Australis being held up.  We're finally learning how the world works instead of acting the good guy and carrying the costs of these rescues of too frequent Southern Ocean mishaps.

Polar heroes in trouble  in the NH have a heap of nations to rescue them and split the bill, but there's only 4 of us down here and good luck with waiting on S.Africa and Chile to send the navy in at short notice.

That's partly what annoys me with the Greenpeace antics, they have the hide to demand our government send warships down to monitor their  Jap whaler bothering.  They should have enough donation money to buy their own destroyer by now. Or spend it another self aggrandizing stupid publicity stunt Batboat.   (mumble grumble grrrrr)


(Yeah yeah, I don't want to see whales slaughtered either but I just don't think Greenpeace are going about it the right way. GP have turned it into a p*ssing competition that Japan won't/can't let them win for political 'face' considerations, and they can't give up because the whale hugging donations might dry up.  Japan would probably have stopped years ago due to losing lodza money on the whole operation if Greenpeace had shut up and left it to someone to work out quietly and diplomatically .... those whales are dying of bad politics! ..... but that's just my cynical opinion.)

...and today's rant over.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 7, 2014)

It isn't Greenpeace. It's Sea Shepherd.


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 8, 2014)

They spawned it.  That he's used it as a launching pad for his own splinter radical agenda is still down to GP overall imo.  Many still see them as one and the same.

The Sea Shepherd may be TG's hero but it ain't mine.   Like Greenpeace is may have started out as a righteous operation, and even did some good, but it's not what it originally started out as and lost me many moons ago.


----------



## Rainee (Jan 8, 2014)

Glad the both boats are free , so now they might learn from it and not put each others and others lives at risk for 
experiments.... what do you think? 
What language did I use on there? that was not right  Dbey45? thought I was behaving myself ..

Heres something else from the Facebook page today lol .. 

FACEBOOK  PIC OF THE DAY: This is the St. Joseph Lighthouse on Lake Michigan.  Today, it is encased in ice as the Midwest is hit with a "polar vortex",  causing wind chills to reach -50 degrees. — Now this is cold eh ?


----------



## Diwundrin (Jan 8, 2014)

Well now isn't that just beautiful?  Hope no one's living in it, but it's eye candy to look at.


----------



## Jillaroo (Jan 8, 2014)

_I was very tempted to post that picture too, it's beautiful  and shows just how cold it is there_


----------



## Rainee (Jan 8, 2014)

Its not the first time it has happened either I have some like that from a few years ago , more details then so maybe the ice was just as bad as it is now.. there is something like creeping ice too ..must look that up maybe some from USA can let me know the details of that as well its kinda scary too.. but yes it is a nice picture I am going to frame it .. just to remind myself when I feel cold here.. not to complain lol...


----------

