Stuck vessel needs electricity supply from shore after getting gridlocked for rest of winter on Northern Sea Route.
Kapitan Dranitsyn icebraker in the port of Pevek.
The Kapitan Dranitsyn icebreaker has been marooned for around a month due to freezing sea off the coast of Chukotka in the extreme east of Russia.
This week the vessel had to be connected by cable to a shore electricity supply in the port of Pevek so the crew can survive on board until May or even June, when they can set sail back to Arkhangelsk.
The icebreaker and two cargo vessels it was escorting had earlier made a successful voyage in the Arctic waters of the Northern Sea Route over the New Year period.
Kapitan Dranitsyn icebreaker and cargo carrier Sinegorsk have received a power boost. Pictures: Yury KapasyovThey delivered building materials for the Academic Lomonosov floating nuclear power station, currently under construction, the first in the world. But on the return voyage, they became stuck.
The fourth vessel in the convoy – the Admiral Makarov – has been dispatched to undertake other icebreaking duties in the region.
The failure of the return voyage is not surprising given the time of year. But it shows that while Arctic ice is in retreat, the reliability of the Northern Sea Route – which Russia is actively promoting and developing – cannot always be relied upon.
NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa.
The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
I keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.
That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.
But is it? I have no idea.
So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.
Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.
Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.
Then report back to me in the comments here or on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.
This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.
by Jon Rappoport
December 5, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
“When you see a problem defined as ‘a threat to all humans’, you can be sure Globalists are using that fake or real problem to impose control on all humans.” (The Underground. Jon Rappoport)
With the election of Donald Trump, climate change and global warming have come back into the spotlight. In a different way.
“The science is settled” isn’t good enough now.
Neither is the Globalist plan to cut energy production in every country in the world, in order to “rescue us from frying.”
LA Times: “Donald Trump will be about the only head of state who does not believe in climate science or the responsibility of his government to act,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club…”
But all along, there have been dissenters from the manmade warming mantra; they just haven’t been allowed inside government portals.
Freeman Dyson, physicist and mathematician, professor emeritus at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, Fellow of the Royal Society, winner of the Lorentz Medal, the Max Planck Medal, the Fermi Award: “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies [in climate change models] between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger. It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago… I’m 100 per cent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this [climate change] issue, and the Republicans took the right side…” (The Register, October 11, 2015)
So, is there, or isn’t there, man-made Global Warming? What a Hegelian Mind-fck!
My shrewd take on this question is that so long as ushering carbon credit is the principal underlying agenda of Global Governance, so long as global warming menace is the means employed by the United Nations Agenda 21 to forcibly induce changes in attitude and behavior that give preference to the natural processes of “Gaia” over human existence and human experience, so long as political will and its legalisms continue to be enacted on the core premise laid out in the Club of Rome report “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”, the principal focus of the public’s, as well as the scientists’, and all the national and international political pied pipers’ attention should not be on this red herring question of is there or isn’t there Global Warming.
Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming. –Sarah Knapton