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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Shhh quit applying logic to this.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
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.
Hmmm..., if you read this forum, you might think Arctic ice was increasing!
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.
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
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.
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?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.