Greenland's Ice Melting

[longknife]

Referring to my post in ImaGeo, this is an interesting follow-up @ Massive study provides first detailed look at how Greenland s ice is vanishing -- ScienceDaily

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank you. Very interesting arcticle.

 

[konradv]

Hmmm..., if you read this forum, you might think Arctic ice was increasing!

 

[Shrimpbox]

.68 millimeters a year doesn't seem real catastrophic.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[80zephyr]

Hmm, and yet, planes from WWII were found under 260 feet of ice. If the ice is melting, why were these planes under 260 feet of ice just 45 short years after WWII?

World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep - New York Times

Mark

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Politico]

Hmm, and yet, planes from WWII were found under 260 feet of ice. If the ice is melting, why were these planes under 260 feet of ice just 45 short years after WWII?

World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep - New York Times

Mark

Shhh quit applying logic to this.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, we actually have people here who don't understand how glaciers work, and who wish to advertise that fact to everyone. Sadly, such people vote.

An interesting thing about the Greenland melt is that as ice melts off Greenland, sea levels near Greenland go down. As Greenland loses ice, it loses mass, thus it loses gravity, thus it pulls the oceans towards itself less strongly. Sea levels away from Greenland, of course, go up.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, we actually have people here who don't understand how glaciers work, and who wish to advertise that fact to everyone. Sadly, such people vote.

An interesting thing about the Greenland melt is that as ice melts off Greenland, sea levels near Greenland go down. As Greenland loses ice, it loses mass, thus it loses gravity, thus it pulls the oceans towards itself less strongly. Sea levels away from Greenland, of course, go up.

Oh, so it was glaciers that covered those planes with 250+ feet of snow? But...but, everyone knows that glaciers are receding.

Aren't they?

Mark

 

[jc456]

Also B-17s under the glaciers:
source

But, on June 30, 1988, nearly 21 years ago, a group from Middleboro, Kentucky, using an ‘icescope’ — a radar device able to see beneath the surface — detected large object under the ice big enough to be a B-17!

 

[jc456]

seems glaciers are elastic, they grow, they melt, they grow, they melt.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hmmm..., if you read this forum, you might think Arctic ice was increasing!

It isn't, but on the otherhand, it isn't going down at a mindblowing rate either. Up, down, up and down it goes...

 

[Old Rocks]

Not in mindblowing terms relative to time in one generation. Mindblowing in terms of normal time it takes for these kinds of changes in the geological record.

 

[80zephyr]

Not in mindblowing terms relative to time in one generation. Mindblowing in terms of normal time it takes for these kinds of changes in the geological record.

Hey Old Rocks, learn anything about glaciers in geology? I want to know if these planes were buried by glaciers whether the glaciers would have destroyed the planes. From what I can remember of my reading about this incident, I don't believe the planes were destroyed.

Mark

 

[Old Rocks]

If they were on the inner part of Greenland, more than likely they were not destroyed. As long as they simply were buried by the snow accumulating above them, they would be ok, provided the ice was not moving. Here is an example of that;

Exhuming the Glacier Girl Damn Interesting

 

[80zephyr]

If they were on the inner part of Greenland, more than likely they were not destroyed. As long as they simply were buried by the snow accumulating above them, they would be ok, provided the ice was not moving. Here is an example of that;

Exhuming the Glacier Girl Damn Interesting

It has been claimed here that the 260+ feet of snow was from a glacier. Is that your understanding as well, or was it simply built up snow?

Thanks for the link. Very interesting.

Mark

 

[Old Rocks]

Built up snow is what forms glaciers. As the snow is buried deeper and deeper, the weight of the overlaying snowpak compresses the snow into ice. But even then, there are bubbles of the atmosphere from the time of the original snow preserved in the ice, and that is how we get information concerning the percentages of the various gases at the time of the snowfall. Even back a far as 800,000 years in the Antarctic.

 

[80zephyr]

Built up snow is what forms glaciers. As the snow is buried deeper and deeper, the weight of the overlaying snowpak compresses the snow into ice. But even then, there are bubbles of the atmosphere from the time of the original snow preserved in the ice, and that is how we get information concerning the percentages of the various gases at the time of the snowfall. Even back a far as 800,000 years in the Antarctic.

When I think of a glacier expanding, I think of it moving forward and tearing apart the land underneath it. I think this is what those that cite glaciers as the reason to the snow cover mean.

With that, I disagree.

Mark

 

[jc456]

Not in mindblowing terms relative to time in one generation. Mindblowing in terms of normal time it takes for these kinds of changes in the geological record.

so curious, was there a previous recovery from an ice age that you use for reference? I thought we were still in the recovery from the only one we know of, so you have no previous event to compare against on what is supposed to be normaL. Or do you?