|
|
Post by rustyphillips on May 22, 2010 12:42:52 GMT
ok - so - newbie question here
but just how do we get 237 feet of ice above the P38 (lost squadron) that crash landed in Greenland in 1942
is all of it new snow / ice that formed on top of the plane over the last 68 years (~ 3.5 feet a year)
or is it that the heavy plane sank thru layers of ice that were already there? (like a skate blade liquifies the ice uncerneath it)
or a combination of the two? if so - how much can be attributed to each cause?
any help straightening me out is much appreciated
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 22, 2010 17:25:37 GMT
ok - so - newbie question here but just how do we get 237 feet of ice above the P38 (lost squadron) that crash landed in Greenland in 1942 is all of it new snow / ice that formed on top of the plane over the last 68 years (~ 3.5 feet a year) or is it that the heavy plane sank thru layers of ice that were already there? (like a skate blade liquifies the ice uncerneath it) or a combination of the two? if so - how much can be attributed to each cause? any help straightening me out is much appreciated The airframe was found buried and 'crushed' by the snow so I doubt that the aircraft was able to sink that much even in fresh snow, aircraft are light (this P38 would have been around 8 or 9 tons) and their weight can be carried by the wings which will not sink in the way you suggest. I would go for the aircraft being covered in snow that then crushed it with its weight. For those interested see: p38assn.org/glacier-girl-continued.htm |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 22, 2010 22:19:53 GMT
I think there has always been questions about whether the speed up in glacier movement was because of accumulation or melt. Course the AGW side is that melting is causing the speed up. When accumulation is brought up the claim is that there is a net loss. Personally I'm not buying that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 23, 2010 1:25:52 GMT
scpg02, it's easy *sigh* listen; any glacial accumulation is due to increased precipitation due to man-made global warming as is any increased glacial melt due to man-mad global warming. I know it's difficult for females (who have smaller brains than men) to grasp the scientific concept "x causes whatever you like after the fact" but try, woman!
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 23, 2010 1:59:58 GMT
BTW, scpg02...the main body of the greenland ice sheet and antarctic ice sheets don't actually feed glaciers. The greenland ice sheet has been in place since the last ice age...the antarctic ice sheet for around a million.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 23, 2010 4:08:17 GMT
scpg02, it's easy *sigh* listen; any glacial accumulation is due to increased precipitation due to man-made global warming as is any increased glacial melt due to man-mad global warming. I know it's difficult for females (who have smaller brains than men) to grasp the scientific concept "x causes whatever you like after the fact" but try, woman! LOL Ok you asked for it!  |
|
|
|
Post by alayna on May 26, 2010 4:27:55 GMT
scpg02, it's easy *sigh* listen; any glacial accumulation is due to increased precipitation due to man-made global warming as is any increased glacial melt due to man-mad global warming. I know it's difficult for females (who have smaller brains than men) to grasp the scientific concept "x causes whatever you like after the fact" but try, woman! LOL Ok you asked for it! LOVE THAT! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 29, 2010 19:51:28 GMT
|
|
