Right, the surface ice. The surface ice that has remained unbroken for centuries that they now have access to. So they sent in an icebreaker ship to break the ice and survey the water underneath. I read the article, not really sure what your point is.
Did you? Do you have some kind of point? See, I can be incredulous, too.
The ice recedes enough to get a ship in and break the ice up further to have a good look underneath. This will inevitably exacerbate the issue. You refute that? What are you asking me?
I’m not Arctic expert but I imagine icebreakers aren’t chipping away at glaciers.
They are probably only breaking ice that forms each winter and melts each summer so have no effect on the permanent Arctic ice.
If anyone know more correct me if I’m wrong.
But that’s exactly what the article says they’re doing. Exploring a previously inaccessible body of water due to the previously permanent Arctic ice.
And how exactly does putting a boat with an armored hull in there exacerbate melting? You’re flipping cause and effect.
There are plenty of studies showing how smaller ice pieces melt faster.
Dude they didn’t break the ice to explore. They are exploring because the ice itself has receded due to climate change.
The ice that gets broken by icebreakers is the frozen surface ice, not the glaciers.
Right, the surface ice. The surface ice that has remained unbroken for centuries that they now have access to. So they sent in an icebreaker ship to break the ice and survey the water underneath. I read the article, not really sure what your point is.
Did you? Did you read the article? Lol
Did you? Do you have some kind of point? See, I can be incredulous, too.
The ice recedes enough to get a ship in and break the ice up further to have a good look underneath. This will inevitably exacerbate the issue. You refute that? What are you asking me?