Wonder if while he's waiting he'd club a few baby seals for me...

This proves just how devious the Bush/Cheney/Rove plan to destroy the planet really is. What will "happen naturally" next in order to fool us, 20 ft.snow drifts in the Yukon ? These evil old white men simply will not be satisfied until we are all either dead, or driven insane by their trickery.

Shame on them! Shame on them all!

What a tool

A "tool" you say ? Well, we'll see who the tool is when we're all being marched into the Haliburton reeducation camps and ingrained with our own indelible and very, very "Special Security Numbers".

Whom will be mocking whom then, huh Mr. Smartypants ?

It is a little amusing to contemplate that there may have been a Northwest Passage during the Medieval Warm Period.
===============================================

The bears are angry that the lions have been hogging all the Great Circle of Life action. They've been saying for years that if someone would just bring a little jungle up there they could show those pussies who's boss.
==================================

Haliburton reeducation camps??? Pudge, your tin-foil hat is too tight. I'd be more worried about Hillary's Big Brother reeducation camps. She actually has a well-documented record of abuse of power that makes Richard Nixon look like Stuart Smalley.

Back on subject: If the idiot Mr. Flanigan had tried his passage 7,000 years ago he would have found most of the arctic was open water. Funny, the polar bears did just fine without their ice.

Is ee that ANTARCTICA is getting colder meaning that the PENGUINS and ARCTIC TERNS can enjoy their normal cold weather and tell AL GORE and GREENPEACE to STAY AWAY

This moron winds up being the equivalent of Dominoes Pizza to the polar bears!!

Hey...we deliver!!

As they lay around digesting this fool, the polar bears will no doubt wonder amongst themselves: "THIS species is the dominant species on Earth?"

Warning to the polar bears...liberals ARE tasty, but 30 minutes later you're hungry again!

But if he is right, then he is RIGHT, and the facts of the matter be damned! One can only hope the dumbass gets a little too aggressive waiting for the icebreakers (likely to be a long wait, that), and decides to go it alone... and gets his happy little ass stuck in an iceberg formed around his ship. Explain that to your little environmentalist buddies!

Amazing..

You just can't make this stuff up..

Freakin' dork..

Where are the idiot trolls like BarneyMoron, JFO, Herman coming to this idiot's defense with some idiotic reasoning?

Lemme get this straight. I'm assuming he's some sort of enviro tree hugger (as he's making the statement about global warming). I could be wrong, but I'll go with it anyway.

So this tree hugger, is wanting to enlist the aid of a Russian NUCLEAR POWERED ice breaker to make his point?!?!

I see at LEAST 3 levels of irony there.

He's a Darwin Award nominee on several levels.

So .. uh .. his ex-wife is his manager, and now he's tuck up in the Arctic surrounded by man eating polar bears?

Go figure.

I wonder how much of his China-made "The North Face" jacket will be left undigested by Polar Bear gastric juices? I guess it depends on the lead content, eh?

Global warming kooks sure have a knack for making themselves look like fools.

nuclear-powered icebreaker to break up the ice so he can show everyone how badly it is melting.

You put that excerpt in italics, so I figured it must emphasize something. But I can't figure out what. After all, an icebreaker breaks ice by pushing through it, not by melting it, so there's no irony there. And even if some ice melts from the energy expended, it's a localized effect surrounding the ship, not one that warms up the entire Northern Sea.

So was there some point there, or was this just another post based on nonsense, where you misrepresent your own sources and draw a conclusion that they don't support?

Add to that Casey's point that it's OK for polar bears to be killed off because they will attack people, and you have a candidate for Wizbang's Stupidest Post Ever.

Oh, and since you folks like to cite every story of cold weather out there as disproof of global warming, you might be interested in this one.

Brian, oddly enough that you don't understand a post is not evidence that it is the stupidest at Wizbang.

"you might be interested in this one."

Egads! It's HOT in Southern California?

No shit!?

MUST be a sign of global warming!

Well ..., unless you consider that in July of 1891, it was 109 degrees in LA.

Or, on September 17, 1910 it was 110 degrees in San Diego.

OR ..., it was 100 degrees, in December of 1938.

I'm not saying there isn't climate change (that's just so obvious to anyone - Ice Ages and recessions and the like - natural state of being and all), but that lame-ass link does nothing to prove anything to anyone.

I mean, if you like to site every spike in temperature as a sign of global warming, you might be interested in this (page 76,):

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/document/weatherhistory.pdf

Well at least one idiot troll named Brian showed up. BarneyMoron, JFO, Herman where oh where are you?

Brian, oddly enough that you don't understand a post is not evidence that it is the stupidest at Wizbang.

So perhaps you can explain it to me, and how the mocking references to melting ice are germane to using an icebreaker.

Brian:

You put that excerpt in italics, so I figured it must emphasize something. But I can't figure out what.

Think brian, think. I mean really that brain cell fired up long enough to figure out how an ice breaker works. (using its weight to break thru the ice)

But it shut down short of the time for you to realize it's the ecco-wennies who have prevented nuc plants from being built in the U.S. and elsewhere.

You're right about one thing... it's the dumbest post ever.

By a commenter.

Global warming kooks sure have a knack for making themselves look like fools.
That's because they believe their press releases.
The minor jump in temperatures over the last 100 years isn't causing the catastrophe they keep demanding it provide.
They see things like Lake Chad losing water and read, "The drop in water levels is blamed on bad irrigation plans and global warming." and all they get out of it is, "The drop in water levels is blamed on global warming."
They seem to have an automatic ellipses dowdification quote generator in their heads, they also ignore that the measly increase in temps isn't enough to cause everything they claim it does.

brian:

So perhaps you can explain it to me, and how the mocking references to melting ice are germane to using an icebreaker.

Note the ice breaker was breaking ice in that statement and the melting was a ref to what this idiot was attempting to prove (like global warming) with his "adventure."

nitwit.

but that lame-ass link does nothing to prove anything to anyone.

I didn't say it did. If you read my post, you'll see it was directed at those who cite stories about cold weather as disproof of global warming. I was simply wondering how they view stories about hot weather.

I'm glad to hear you share the view that such stories are proof of nothing. I look forward to seeing your equally enthusatic statement of such next time a cold weather story is posted.

the melting was a ref to what this idiot was attempting to prove

No, the post title is "I'll prove global warming, as soon as I melt this ?#@! ice". So the melting was a reference to what this idiot was attempting to do. Except that he wasn't.

Even a nitwit can see that.

figure out how an ice breaker works. (using its weight to break thru the ice)

Uh, yeah, I already posted that. But thanks for reinforcing my point that it doesn't melt the ice, thus refuting the the nonsense that Jim was stating.

Brian, are you really so slow as to not realize that links to cold weather are made, not because skeptics think that they disprove global warming, but specifically [b]because[/b] incidents of hot weather are used by AGW proponents to claim proof of the AGW hypothesis?

Yes, I guess you are that slow since you didn't understand the original posts point either.

The skeptics understand the difference between random weather variations and actual climate change. It is the simplistic, misleading and unscientific claims of the AGW proponents that are being satirized - all above your head. Jeff Norman on Debunkers' website has been following satellite imagery of the northwest passage for several years now to illustrate the very point made above.

The only thing novel about the Heat in Southern California is the state of their electrical infrastructure and their inability to supply the electrical needs for A/C thanks to their growing population.

The state of the electrical infrastructure has environmentalists to thank. And the growing population is in large part another issue dear to the liberal residents of So Cal.

Holy flying monkey turds, Brian!

This whole "Wizbang's Stupidest Post Ever" got old about 17 posts back. We know you hate everything Wizbang. Get over yourself, and move on already.

Of course, any person with half a brain would realize that a 6x6x6 (pick your unit) chunk of ice melts considerably slower than four 3x3x3 chunks. And guess which set ice breakers make more of? And guess which side of the "half a brain" fence that puts you on, Brian?

Apparently, irony is lost on you. Of course, so is humor in general. And plays on words. And situational comedy. And just plain stupidity (especially the last, considering how often you wield it as though it were Excalibur Itself). How is it that someone as dry, unhumorous, and just plain stupid as you has managed to live this long?

s/four/eight

And I even sat and thought about that for a minute or two. Damn.

Brian - putting new meaning in the term nitwit:

No, the post title is "I'll prove global warming, as soon as I melt this ?#@! ice". So the melting was a reference to what this idiot was attempting to do. Except that he wasn't.

No asshat, when caught in your original query about what was in itals. ("nuclear-powered icebreaker to break up the ice so he can show everyone how badly it is melting.")

Rather than quietly moving on or admit an error you prove to have something less than a PHD holder in reading comprehension 101 and you move the goal post to the title of the piece.

Congrats Brian, you've just been nominated into the barneyG2000 memorial "Nitwit Hall of Fame."

Of course, any person with half a brain would realize that a 6x6x6 (pick your unit) chunk of ice melts considerably slower than four 3x3x3 chunks. And guess which set ice breakers make more of?

OK, go to your freezer, take half of your ice cubes, break them into smaller pieces, and put them back in your freezer. Then tomorrow, come tell us which set of ice cubes has melted the most.

Apparently, science is lost on you.

*sigh* marc once again is using the "you didn't use the exact words I wanted you to use, therefore I don't have to defend what you've shown me to be wrong, and your entire point is invalid, and you're also an asshat" argument.

OK, let's begin.

No asshat, when caught in your original query about what was in itals.

Well, asshat, you were responding to my response to SPQR, which asked how "the mocking references to melting ice are germane to using an icebreaker". The title of the post is one of those mocking references.

I cited the title of the post because that more obviously demonstrated the incongruity between an ice breaker and melting, two things that Jim was ignorantly trying to conflate.

But fine, if you're going to insist on staying away from what so utterly skewers your attempted point, then let's go back to the original excerpt I cited:

("nuclear-powered icebreaker to break up the ice so he can show everyone how badly it is melting.")

In your response, you simply said that an ice breaker doesn't melt the ice. If that's the only point you have to make, then I thank you for agreeing with me.

Brian, you really are an idiot. The melting is what the referenced twit was trying to demonstrate but couldn't because the ice was in the way - hence the icebreaker. Your pedantry on this topic is really amazingly stupid.

But that's typical of AGW adherents who do anything they can to distract people from the deceptive nature of their pseudo-science.

... Brian, you really are a moron. The funny thing is, you probably do not even understand just how stupid your response to me was. Best of luck trying to figure it out, though... something tells me you lack the necessary capacities.

Dear God Brian,

It seems you think that no heat transfer occurs while ice is in water.

Why don't you save us some time, go look up the term "latent heat of fusion", if you have any questions come back and I'll clarify.

If not, just shut your yap until you edjamacate yourself, lest you embarase yourself MORE on the topic of heat transfer.

(Asshat.)

As an aside, recall that "consensus" that was heralded with a dishonest faux survey of published papers in climate science?

Well, another has redone that survey and found quite different results.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

This is of course no more "proof" than the contrary. Science is not done by consensus. It is done by honest scientists who publish their work, reveal their methodology and allow full examination, critique and replication of their work.

None of which describes climate scientists today.

Brain:

OK, go to your freezer, take half of your ice cubes, break them into smaller pieces, and put them back in your freezer. Then tomorrow, come tell us which set of ice cubes has melted the most.

Ah... brian... didn't you forget to turn off the freezer when you put the whole and broken "into smaller pieces" ice cubes into said freezer?

That's below nitwit status, it borders on civil [mis]behaviour's on special brand of loonyness.

Brian:

In your response, you simply said that an ice breaker doesn't melt the ice. If that's the only point you have to make, then I thank you for agreeing with me.

I did? Can you pull the quote where I said that?

Brian, you really are a moron. The funny thing is, you probably do not even understand just how stupid your response to me was.

Perhaps you can show everyone how stupid my response was and explain it to us. Until then, your comment is useless.

ExSubNuc:

Why don't you save us some time, go look up the term "latent heat of fusion", if you have any questions come back and I'll clarify.

ExSubNuc, you should have provided him a link.

Not that he would understand it, but it might keep him busy long enough to vacate the thread and stop making an utter fool of himself.

P.S. Brain - Don't argue with an ExSubNuc on the subject, even money says he's spent way tooooo much time under the pack ice tracking russki Oscar class subs.

Ah... brian... didn't you forget to turn off the freezer

No. Turning off the freezer is only analogous if you believe that a single ice breaker causes massive warming of the Northern Sea. If you don't, then you once again agreed with my point.

Is this a Monty Python routine and I didn't know it?

I did? Can you pull the quote where I said that?

Certainly.

figure out how an ice breaker works. (using its weight to break thru the ice)

Brain:

No. Turning off the freezer is only analogous if you believe that a single ice breaker causes massive warming of the Northern Sea. If you don't, then you once again agreed with my point.

Blithering.... an absolutely blithering idiot!

Not sure why I bother but lets look again at your statement:

OK, go to your freezer, take half of your ice cubes, break them into smaller pieces, and put them back in your freezer. Then tomorrow, come tell us which set of ice cubes has melted the most.

Now at the beginning of this process lets say the freezer is at 26 degrees (F). Then you take out your ice cubes, take half of them and break them into smaller pieces.

Then you put them all back in and wait a day..................

Now explain to me why the smaller cubes have either melted to water or have grown smaller in a freezer that remained at and is still at 26 degrees (F)

And BTW where's my quote?

P.S. Brain - Don't argue with an ExSubNuc on the subject, even money says he's spent way tooooo much time under the pack ice tracking russki Oscar class subs.

45. Posted by marc

Sssshhhhh! It's the Silent Service.

Only slightly related. But speaking of subs, ever read Blind Man's Bluff?

It seems you think that no heat transfer occurs while ice is in water.

Really? Where did I say that? In fact, what I did say is this:

And even if some ice melts from the energy expended, it's a localized effect surrounding the ship, not one that warms up the entire Northern Sea.

So thanks for the pointer to what marc apparently had to look up, but it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

Is this a Monty Python routine and I didn't know it?

Yes, it's the one where the angry malcontents agree with the interloper, but can't bring themselves to admit it, so they repeatedly insult him at the same time they snidely provide support for his position.

Brian:

Certainly. figure out how an ice breaker works. (using its weight to break thru the ice)

Have a look at my quote as provided by brian via his link folks and then recall what he claimed I said: "In your response, you simply said that an ice breaker doesn't melt the ice."

Ya know at one time I just thought you were a graduate of the Sen. Kerry Spinmiester School of Discourse.

I was dead wrong, you're just a blithering idiot. Like Kerry.

Brian:

So thanks for the pointer to what marc apparently had to look up, but it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

First thing you've come close to being correct about in the whole thread. However you failed to understand the context. I did look it up, to provide you with the link.

Now explain to me why the smaller cubes have either melted to water or have grown smaller in a freezer that remained at and is still at 26 degrees (F)

You think small ice cubes will melt to water in a below-freezing freezer? Why don't you get familiar with the laws of physics, and then we'll continue.

And BTW where's my quote?

Right here. Jeez, you can't wait 16 minutes for a response? You really need to take up yoga or something.

Have a look at my quote as provided by brian via his link folks and then recall what he claimed I said: "In your response, you simply said that an ice breaker doesn't melt the ice."

You mean you said an ice breaker does melt the ice?

Your posts are becoming less and less coherent.

Brian:

You think small ice cubes will melt to water in a below-freezing freezer? Why don't you get familiar with the laws of physics, and then we'll continue.

Me yoga? No but your doing a mighty fine job of stretching the truth. That's not the quote I asked for and you know it.

Heres; a refresher for ya in your words: In your response, you simply said that an ice breaker doesn't melt the ice. If that's the only point you have to make, then I thank you for agreeing with me.

Where's my quote

Brian,

A thing that you seem not to have noticed, is that if this fellow's hypothesis of AGW were correct he would not need to call in an icebreaker. Calling in a nuclear icebreaker, when previous expiditions and traders need only use axes, wedges and fire argues:

a) He's no adventurer, using muscle and ingenuity to overcome adversity, but a palsied rich boy with a superiority complex.

or

2) His hypothesis is glaringly incorrect, but he does not have the courage to admit same.

and

III) As a Greenie, with requisite panty-wetting reaction to nukes, he finds it necessary to employ the means that he decries elsewhere in order to continue in a Gore-like spectacle of hypocrisy, for nuclear power is quite good enough for his continued mission but far too Earth-Rapingly Dangerous to provide cheap power.

Where's my quote

Once again, right here.

Oh no, you're not going to use the "you didn't use the exact words I wanted you to use, therefore I don't have to defend what you've shown me to be wrong, and your entire point is invalid, and you're also an asshat" argument again, are you?

You said ice breakers work by using weight to break through the ice. You didn't say by melting the ice, you said by using its weight. That's one of the few accurate things you've said. Don't go denying it now!

And we're all waiting for you to explain how small ice cubes will melt to water in a below-freezing freezer.

A thing that you seem not to have noticed, is that if this fellow's hypothesis of AGW were correct he would not need to call in an icebreaker.

C'mon, that's just silly. It's like saying if you need a machete to hack your way into a rain forest to take measurements, that's evidence that the rain forest isn't disappearing.

Brain:

And we're all waiting for you to explain how small ice cubes will melt to water in a below-freezing freezer.

And the quote for that is....... somewhere in YOUR HEAD not in my explanation of your patent BS.

Brian,

"It's like saying if you need a machete to hack your way into a rain forest to take measurements, that's evidence that the rain forest isn't disappearing."

I'm saying if for hundreds of years it took only a machete, and now you need a bulldozer, then in that instance you could stand to look at your concept more thoroughly. Reflection and critical thought cost nothing. Except humility and pitiless honesty.

Or you could maintain, despite the evidence before you that this proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the rain forest is shrinking at an alarming and heretofore unimagined rate, even though you imagined it before you went there, needed specialized tools not available previously, and tell people all over the world not to use gas and diesel engines because they are EEEEVIIILLL, but you'll use them willy-nilly, because By God you are Right!!! and a priori or a posteriori be damned!!1!

This was the point that you missed. Much like you missed the point about the freezer. Hint, it is not getting warmer if it is plugged in. If you unplug it, the smaller chunks melt first. If this mook's hypothesis is correct, the freezer is not running- is unplugged- is in fact warming up.

Note that at no time have I questioned AGWT. I need more evidence, but I have plenty of data that suggest that this so-called debate is the result of applied science and not pure science. Headline-grabbing idiocy like this does not advance the science, nor was it meant to.

And the quote for that is....... somewhere in YOUR HEAD not in my explanation of your patent BS.

You said:

Now explain to me why the smaller cubes have either melted to water or have grown smaller in a freezer that remained at and is still at 26 degrees

Well, I can't explain that, because I never said that, and in fact I said the opposite. So you can either explain that phenomenon to us yourself, or you're agreeing with the point I made in my first post and you're just too blind with your own spittle to realize it.

I'm saying if for hundreds of years it took only a machete, and now you need a bulldozer

If you needed a bulldozer, and the guy needed an ice breaker, then you might have a point. On the other hand, perhaps you're using them because simply because this is the 21st century and we've come up with a some more effective tools than machetes, or axes, wedges, and fire. So that argues only for the guy having a sense of the dramatic.

Headline-grabbing idiocy like this does not advance the science, nor was it meant to.

No argument there.

Brian, you really are an idiot. Once again, you are opining on a subject you don't understand. The whole point of this twit's voyage are claims by AGW adherents that global warming has made the Northwest Passage free of ice earlier and longer than in the past. So of course the presence of ice blocking the Northwest Passage undermines his claim.

Sheesh, this is a Monty Python skit, we've gone from argument clinic to Brian doing a Silly Walk.

So he is using the expedient and effective tools available to him and not to those before him to prove that it is far, far easier (due to melting ice-caps and generally warming temperatures) to get to the areas he needs to, but can not?

Why can't we take Occam's machete to this ( your analogy, not mine, at least initially) and say that this was a stunt conceived in ignorance and regretted in hindsight? The results are in, and he's no Shackleton. While heavy ice at this point in time is a datum, it does not invalidate his hypothosis, it certainly does not advance it, and Big-Picture-wise, doesn't mean a Gaia-damned thing. But it does provide fuel to the (to you) denialists, (to me) the skeptics (from skeptos, to think, specifically critically. A maligned word.), (to Inhofe) the intentionally misinformed.

Now this particular instance is so chock full-o irony that it is a cure for anemia, but the "debate" continues. Oddly enough, after hundreds of years of this type of debate it is always the same people debating. It's like Highlander; live forever until you can rhetorically decapitate your foe.

"The world is fine!"

"Never, you cur, it is cooling! Cooling us to Death!!"

"The world is fine!"

"Villain! The warmth of this world you have created will kill us all!! Fie, scientist for giving us at the same time the ability to make the world better, and destroy it in the process.!!!

"I have velvet clothes and a cap, have studied at all the best pranking and boarding schools, thusly, your tiny and easily manipulable mind is not capable of my levels of subtlety and nuance.

"I'm wearing clothes I stole outta your house, having relations with your daughter and...

What's this?

I got a...knife!"

"Perhaps I was hasty..."

"I'm gonna need better than perhaps, Guv."

"Shall we step over to yon public house and we may, if you convince your acquintances to let me leave in peace, discourse on matters of mutual benefit?"

"Right enough."

Irony/anemia shamelessly stolen from Cecil Adams circa 1984. Well, shamefully. A bit. That bastard steals my stuff all the time with no hat tip. Ah, well he's a juggernaut now and all you can do is close your eyes and think of revenge.

Brian is correct when he says episodes of cold don't disprove the THEORY of global warming. And episodes of heat (even extreme) don't prove global warming. But since global warming is a THEORY, it needs to be PROVED. The burden of proof here, folks, is on Brian. He has stated that he cannot use episodes of hot temperature as any kind of proof. So, Brian, since the burden of proof is in your corner, why don't you enlighten us?

Well, I will try and help Brian here... The smaller ice cubes will have more surface area and will sublime quicker than those big solid cubes will less surface area.

Sublimation is the process where water changes from ice to vapor with about going through a liquid phase.

This will happen because the typical freezer has coils of metal cooled with freon (or other refrigerant). The cooler object will attract water vapor because it is at a lower temperature (on average) and a lower vapor pressure than the ice itself.

That is why you have to defrost a freezer (or get a frost free freezer which warms the coils once in a while to melt the collected ice).

But, of course, this has nothing to do with this article or why some people are trying to be so obtuse here... What's new about that...

Thankfully for you, Brian, someone with infinitely more patience than I, and a hell of a lot more knowldedge of the topic, took it upon himself to educate you, and hand you your ass at the same time. So spake the ExSubNuke:

Dear God Brian,

It seems you think that no heat transfer occurs while ice is in water.

Why don't you save us some time, go look up the term "latent heat of fusion", if you have any questions come back and I'll clarify.

If not, just shut your yap until you edjamacate yourself, lest you embarase yourself MORE on the topic of heat transfer.

(Asshat.)

Brian, you are a moron. Furthermore, you are an intenionally ignorant moron. For those, I have absolutely no patience.

The Emperor of Anthropogenic Global Warming, King James Hansen the Phoniest, is revealed as nude and mad, his public rants rife with religiosity, and his disciples shuffle their feet and blather in the hopes you won't notice.
====================================

Dont this idiot know it was a ICEBURG that sank the RMS TITANIC well frankly i hope he takes AL GORE,DAVID SUZUKI,JOHN EDWARDS, and JAMES LOVELOCK with him and they get marrooned somewhere in the north atlantic

Spurwing, dear dear spurwing:

Fly back to Ace's place. You are missed, old friend. Many comment threads wonder where you have gone.

Hell, I, me, myself and I miss you.

Come home. We'll be there for you with cookies, brownies and hot dogs with mustard.

Not that I hang out in that cess-pit of hobo-erotica myself, but I do some tasting of the waters (and tapping of my foot {That karen has to be at least 65, and MARRIED!!!})

Come on. That is protein wisdom bait.

You have been missed, and it is time to come back home, if only to reassure the rest that you are well.

Recent reports indicate that both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage may be open for marine navigation within the next 20-25 years as a result of faster-than-expected rates of polar melt.

Brian,

Here's another word you may want to look up, since you obviously don't recognize it:

Sarcasm.

Wow Brian,

Displaying your ignorance in full view for all to see. That could have been the most pathetic attempted take-down of a post followed up by an even more woeful attempt at backing up one's own assertions.

May I suggest taking a week off from commenting here to get your bearings. You need some direction.

P.S. Brain - Don't argue with an ExSubNuc on the subject, even money says he's spent way tooooo much time under the pack ice tracking russki Oscar class subs.

Marc

Actually, my boat was a 2nd flight 688, so we didn't spend any time under the ice. Also, I was in engineering, so I didn't do any tracking. I just provided the power for the ship via good ol' Nuclear Power.

Oh, and I have read "Blind Mans Bluff" (as most submariners I know have). Interesting read, though it annoys me that SOMEONE didn't take their oath of secrecy very seriously.

Hey I saw this show about global dimming last night on PBS (NOVA?) and it was about the decrease in sunlight penetration due to an increase in pollution. I saw only bits and pieces due to incessant nodding off but I think they surmized that the world is pretty much "even steven" due to cancellation by global warming--thank god we're OK now. Al Gore...you may crawl back under your rock now.

Lets send him to the planet of ALPHA 177 where they have balmy night time tempeture of 120 degrees below zero

Brian,

You are very dense,much like the ice on the Northern Sea route,which this wacko needs to break,to show us how bad global warming is melting it.

Brian, sweetie- the point wasn't what the ship was running on- be it nuclear power or gasoline or happy thoughts- but the fact that it was breaking up the ice.
As for your little article- the world has heat waves. It also has cold spells. Even before cavemen began to pollute the air with their evil humanness, the climate shifted.

"OK, go to your freezer, take half of your ice cubes, break them into smaller pieces, and put them back in your freezer. Then tomorrow, come tell us which set of ice cubes has melted the most."

Brian, if this is analogous to the North Sea, (which is eerily akin to the brick and burning chicken wire experiment) and your point is that making the ice chunks smaller won't melt them, then you're basically saying that there's no melting going on.