quote:

You made a reputation taking apart the Scott legend. But if he was so incompetent, how did he become a national hero?
In Britain there is a tradition of admiration for the glorious failure, a Nelsonian idea of death in the hour of triumph. The other thing is a streak of morbidity. People love a good death, so Scott's story appealed to that undercurrent.

But Scott's diaries are eloquent, poignant...
People say he's eloquent. I find his writing appallingly maudlin and self-regardant, almost pathologically inward-looking, a bit like Lawrence of Arabia. In Scott's diary there's self-pity and comments about poor luck with the weather. I read Amundsen and much prefer his writing. Scott's diary is designed to make things seem heroic; Amundsen underplays things: there's underlying humour, irony, self-deprecation. Returning to Scott, I thought, "oh no, not more of this romanticised trash".

So why do most people only remember Scott?
For British people, Amundsen was a foreigner, whom you don't celebrate. He beat our man and I think that is resented. There's been a tortuous effort to show Scott was the real winner because he suffered and died - he's the sacrificial hero. People feel that when someone does something very competently and, even worse, plays it down, it is somehow cheating.

What do you say to the criticisms of explorer Ranulph Fiennes, who says you can't judge Scott as you have never been to the South Pole?
I've not been to Antarctica, but I've got a background of Nordic skiing - I've been skiing for longer than I care to remember. When I read Scott's Last Expedition I thought, what's he going on about, moaning about the snow? He's describing perfect snow for skiing.

People like meteorologist Susan Solomon also disagree with you about Scott...
Solomon belongs to the school that says but for the weather, Scott would have got through. But there's a saying in Scandinavian countries that there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. It is much easier to protect yourself against the cold than heat - as warm-blooded creatures, we are walking furnaces, so all we need is proper insulation. If Scott's party had worn fur, there would have been no problem. But there was a lingering belief that civilised men didn't use furs - they were for savages. It was OK to use reindeer fur in sleeping bags but not for clothing. Amundsen, however, understood the Inuit, learned from them, and wore fur clothing.

What were Scott's biggest mistakes?
His first mistake was to depend on hauling sledges by foot. This is idiotic, because it is slow and tortuous. But even allowing for that, he could have still survived had he arranged his food depots at intervals which were adjusted to manhauling - which he didn't. On 13 February 1912, during his return, he nearly ran out of food. He wrote: "In future food must be worked out so... we do not run so short if the weather fails us." I am still outraged when I read this. There was no margin of error. When he was returning, it was a case of march or die.

Did Scott know they weren't going to make it?
Scott's letters and diary, written in language eerily like Peter Pan, read like a long suicide note. I don't think he could face failure, so it was a kind of suicide, lying down in the tent.

The diary implies that expedition members Edward Wilson and Henry Bowers were ready to start for the next depot to fetch supplies. It was only 11 miles, but something held them back. Even if one accepts Scott's record of a continuous blizzard - which I don't, on meteorological grounds - it was a following wind. Other explorers, such as Amundsen, travelled gratefully in such conditions. By the mores of the time, if Wilson and Bowers had survived but not Scott, they would have been accused of deserting their captain and been socially dead. Scott's writing implies he was interested in his reputation, not the lives of his followers. He probably persuaded the two to wait on the grounds their records would be found if kept in the tent but not if they fell on the trail. Wilson's letter to Mrs Oates [mother of the team's Captain Lawrence Oates] hints tragically at such pressure, and that, left to himself, Wilson would have kept going.

But Scott didn't just focus on the South Pole, he wanted to do new science. After all, his sleds were loaded with 15 kilograms of specimens when he died. Don't you have any sympathy?
Not really. Five lives were lost out of sheer incompetence. This is a dreadful thing. Scott was putting records ahead of human lives. Science is not worth sacrificing life for.

You write that Scott used science as a "moralistic fig leaf". What do you mean?
Scott was using science in order to give the geographical exploration a higher meaning, to enhance his stature because of intellectual snobbery. He also wanted it as insurance in case of failure to win the race to the South Pole. This dishonesty of purpose has an unfortunate effect. I believe it induces an almost schizoid state, which is not helpful when you're on the edge of survival. Amundsen understood you have to concentrate your efforts - you cannot spread yourself when you have got a goal.

But wasn't Scott's team ahead technologically?
Yes. But the problem was there was no proven technology for low-temperature travel. Scott told the engineer not to bother testing the tractors in cold chambers, and they failed. This was blind faith allied to slovenliness in the application of technology. Scott once said that gentlemen don't practice.

So Scott was interested in the glory of scientific discovery while Amundsen took the best ideas from science to be successful?
Exactly. Here's an example. When Arthur Hinks, the Royal Geographical Society's cartographer, knew Scott was going south, he held a seminar on navigation, explaining that longitude doesn't matter very much at high latitudes because the effect on your course is minimal. Hinks wrote a paper which came to the attention of one of Amundsen's officers. Amundsen realised instinctively that at the edges of survival you have got to save energy so didn't bother measuring longitude. Scott ignored Hinks, so Bowers wasted time looking up tables and doing calculations for a few hundred yards of meaningless accuracy.

Do you think that it's only when compared with Amundsen's seemingly effortless expedition that Scott can be truly understood?
Here's a telling statistic. Amundsen's party had around 100 years of skiing between them; Scott's could barely muster five. It seems to me that Amundsen had what the Greeks called arete, meaning being suited for what you do. By contrast, Scott was consumed with hubris, which is what killed him in the end.

It's very painful to read how easy Amundsen found it all - and how terrible Scott did...
When Olav Bjaaland [ski champion and a member of Amundsen's team] got to the South Pole, he said: "Here it's as flat as the lake at Morgedal [Norwegian village known as the cradle of skiing] and the skiing is good." To understand Amundsen, we must remember they regarded the South Pole as the world's longest ski race. Scott came from the romantic culture of heroism, where there is no heroism without suffering. He gloried in driving himself to the limit and this was a recipe for disaster.

Fatkraken posted:

Anyone got any good Scott/Amundson documentaries? I just watched a doc about Krackauer's climb of the tallest mountain in Antarctica and they talk a lot about the two expeditions, and the contrast between the approaches of the two teams. I also found this marvellously damning and pointed interview with one of his biographers

Plucky Brit posted:

Good interview. It's entertaining how much Scott is revered in Britain, in spite of everything mentioned in that article. What was really interesting was seeing the presentation on the two expeditions in a museum in Oslo: They were sympathetic to Scott but pointed out the numerous problems he created for himself, with Amundsen using tried and true methods and being far more successful because of it.

Fatkraken posted:

Anyone got any good Scott/Amundson documentaries? I just watched a doc about Krackauer's climb of the tallest mountain in Antarctica and they talk a lot about the two expeditions, and the contrast between the approaches of the two teams. I also found this marvellously damning and pointed interview with one of his biographers


I've found a Susan Solomon-centric doc but it's pretty kind to him compared to the picture you get from the interview and I'm after some more critical stuff and something that elevates Amundson who was, by all accounts a far more sensible and professional explorer

The Worst Journey in the World, Ch. 19 posted:

In the broad perspective opened up by ten years’ distance, I see not one journey to the Pole, but two, in startling contrast one to another. On the one hand, Amundsen going straight there, getting there first, and returning without the loss of a single man, and without having put any greater strain on himself and his men than was all in the day’s work of polar exploration. Nothing more business-like could be imagined. On the other hand, our expedition, running appalling risks, performing prodigies of superhuman endurance, achieving immortal renown, commemorated in august cathedral sermons and by public statues, yet reaching the Pole only to find our terrible journey superfluous, and leaving our best men dead on the ice. To ignore such a contrast would be ridiculous: to write a book without accounting for it a waste of time.

Van Kraken posted:

For a first-hand account of the Scott expedition a good one is The Worst Journey in the World, by Apsley Cherry-Garrard. He was a member of the expedition and talks a lot about the polar party's mistakes. The big ones I remember him mentioning are:

• Relying on untested, mixed forms of transportation (dogs, ponies, and motor sledges).
  
• Refusal to sacrifice dogs, resulting in poor depot placement.
  
• Refusal to use pony snowshoes, on the advice of a team member who thought them a nuisance.
  
• Poorly sealed fuel canisters allowing much of their fuel to evaporate.
  
• Taking an extra man on the final push to the pole, so that one member was left without skis and had to walk.
  
• Most importantly, massive miscalculation of the amount of food it takes to sustain heavy man-hauling. The final polar party was essentially starving to death even on full rations.
  

He doesn't talk quite as much about Amundsen except in the closing chapter of the book, but he provides a very thorough account of Scott's whole expedition, and enough about Amundsen to appreciate the the difference in methods.

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

What does 'sacrificing dogs' and 'pony snowshoes' mean?

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

What does 'sacrificing dogs' and 'pony snowshoes' mean?

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

What does 'sacrificing dogs' and 'pony snowshoes' mean?

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

What does 'sacrificing dogs' and 'pony snowshoes' mean?

unpacked robinhood posted:

And what's depot placement and how does it relate to sacrificed dogs ?

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

What does 'sacrificing dogs' and 'pony snowshoes' mean?

bartlebyshop posted:

Some sled dogs weaken faster than others and you don't want to feed them past some point. Instead, you sacrifice them and feed the meat to your men/the other dogs to keep them going longer. Scott brought ponies to Antarctica to haul and they kept sinking into the snow, which they tried to fix by making snowshoes for them. Didn't work too well.

Meatwave posted:

a pipe smoking dog posted:

If he's that close to a cliff edge shouldn't he already be roped up?

OMGVBFLOL posted:

standing near a cliff on level ground isn't really cause to tie in, but you also don't put your foot half-over the ledge and then lean out either

basically everyone else in that picture is an ok distance from the edge, & should have told slips mcgee to get back from the edge

DerekSmartymans posted:

I'M NOT TOO CLOSE, DAD!

Van Kraken posted:

e:


Depot placement was setting out beforehand to leave caches of supplies for the eventual push for the pole. These were placed before the Antarctic winter, so that Scott would be able to set out for the pole when winter ended.

monster on a stick posted:

5.1 quake isn't that big of a deal. That's about 500 times smaller than the 7.8 quake.

For reference there were four earthquakes 5.0 or above today, same thing yesterday, Richter is log 10.

quote:

Abbreviated Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions.

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings.

III. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated.

IV. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.

V. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop.

VI. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight.

VII. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned.

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent.

XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly.

XII. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

bartlebyshop posted:

Some sled dogs weaken faster than others and you don't want to feed them past some point. Instead, you sacrifice them and feed the meat to your men/the other dogs to keep them going longer. Scott brought ponies to Antarctica to haul and they kept sinking into the snow, which they tried to fix by making snowshoes for them. Didn't work too well.

gannyGrabber posted:

E: Seriously though those earthquakes are crazy. Are they rebuilding nepal with real buildings, or are we gonna get another one of these down the road?

MOVIE MAJICK posted:

How far would the average goon make it on an Everest expedition before they died?

Zyla posted:

sponsor me and we could find out!

I'll climb Everest for GBS and Plant the Grenade Flag at the Summit for all of goondom, if you all pay my way.

Leperflesh posted:

Being careless with/about equipment is like the biggest loving warning sign that this razors-edge journey into the unknown in a harsh and unforgiving wilderness is doomed.

Like, I could understand if the equipment was destroyed in some unforseeable accident. But if your expedition team simply loses kit, it's time to pack it in and go home. You can't have that.


Just to bring it back full circle, remember when that first canadian-asian climber, Shah-Clorfine, had on her facebook page or whatever, a list of equipment she was getting, and it was completely generic? You could tell this person had no climbing or mountaineering experience just by the fact that she didn't have equipment preferences. If you don't know what brand and model of crampons you prefer, you're not ready to summit Everest.

MorgaineDax posted:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120524043600/http://www.myeverestexpedition.com/sponsors.php

Cooking Gear: Insulated mug for warming hand - 1 of each
Tent - 1
spoon good quality - 1 set


Only thing she's really got a brand for was a GoPro helmet camera.

NLJP posted:

Speaking of caches and polar exploration, this is still the happiest I've ever seen a man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC8gJ0_9o4M

Leperflesh posted:

The Richter scale measures the energy released by an earthquake at the epicenter. It is only an approximation of earthquake severity, in terms of "how much shaking, and how bad was the shaking" at any given point away from the epicenter. Its main utility is in comparison: you can broadly say, "this" quake is x times more severe than "that" quake. Even then, though, two earthquakes of the same Richter magnitude may have wildly different hypocentral depths; the much deeper quake might be less damaging than one near the surface.

For measuring how damaging an earthquake is at a specific point, there is another tool: the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.


Seismologists and geologists produce maps showing Mercalli intensities after major earthquakes:



Here you can see that while the severity of shaking generally falls off as a function of the distance from the epicenter, there are blobs and shapes and it's not a perfect circle. The fact that, as with most large earthquakes, it's actually a cluster of numerous related seismic events across a region, further complicates things. Mercalli maps can be directly compared to each other, which gives a highly visual and intuitive sense of the severity and damage from two different earthquakes.

Here, for example, is a Mercalli map of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake in California:



These two maps are not at the same scale, but you can still get a sense of how spread out and significant the red areas of the Nepal quake are, compared to the relatively focused point of high-intensity shaking in the SF Bay Area region. Most of the highly-populated areas of San Francisco Bay were subjected to no more than VII or VIII, whereas a huge, 200km long area at the south of Nepal's most populated region was subjected to VIII or IX level shaking.

Note as well that VII or VIII shaking is sufficient to destroy most unreinforced masonry structures. In California, such buildings are extremely rare; in Nepal, they're the majority. The City of SF was subjected to level VI or VII shaking at the most; that was enough to collapse an older double-decker freeway, and drop one segment of roadway on the upper deck of the bay bridge.

Kathmandu was subjected to VIII or IX shaking.

quote:

Mrs. Chippy, a tiger-striped tabby, was taken on board the Endurance by Harry McNish, the carpenter nicknamed "Chippy" (as in chips of wood, chips or chippy being a standard British nickname for a carpenter or for a man named Carpenter[1]), as a ship's cat. One month after the ship set sail for Antarctica it was discovered that, despite her name, Mrs. Chippy was actually a male, but by that time the name had stuck. He was described as "full of character" by members of the expedition and impressed the crew by his ability to walk along the ship's inch-wide rails in even the roughest seas. After the ship was destroyed, Shackleton decided that Mrs. Chippy and five of the dogs would not survive, and on 29 October 1915 recorded:

This afternoon Sallie’s three youngest pups, Sue’s Sirius, and Mrs. Chippy, the carpenter’s cat, have to be shot. We could not undertake the maintenance of weaklings under the new conditions. Macklin, Crean, and the carpenter seemed to feel the loss of their friends rather badly.[2]

McNish had become particularly attached to the cat, and never forgave Shackleton for having him shot. He clashed with Shackleton during the expedition and, despite eventually constructing the boats that would take the party to safety, and displaying considerable fortitude and bravery, McNish was denied the Polar Medal awarded to most of the rest of the crew, on the grounds of his earlier insubordination. In 2004 a life-size bronze statue of Mrs. Chippy was placed on the grave of McNish by the New Zealand Antarctic Society in recognition of his efforts on the expedition.[3] In February 2011 Mrs Chippy was featured on a postage stamp. The stamp was issued by South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands.

quote:

The known dogs' names were Rugby, Upton Bristol, Millhill, Songster, Sandy, Mack, Mercury, Wolf, Amundsen, Hercules, Hackenschmidt, Samson, Sammy, Skipper, Caruso, Sub, Ulysses, Spotty, Bosun, Slobbers, Sadie, Sue, Sally, Jasper, Tim, Sweep, Martin, Splitlip, Luke, Saint, Satan, Chips, Stumps, Snapper, Painful, Bob, Snowball, Jerry, Judge, Sooty, Rufus, Sidelights, Simeon, Swanker, Chirgwin, Steamer, Peter, Fluffy, Steward, Slippery, Elliott, Roy, Noel, Shakespeare, Jamie, Bummer, Smuts, Lupoid, Spider, and Sailor