"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Where did that Greenland ice come from?

With unprecedented ice melt in Greenland according to  "climate scientists" WW2 planes have been found under a staggering 260 ft or 80 metres of ice. Where did this ice come from and why hasn't it melted?
It is this sort of inconvenient physical evidence which causes scepticism in what we are told is being measured by satellites flying overhead. The ice loss figures quoted for Greenland would seem to be at variance with this buildup of ice.

Six American fighter planes and two bombers that crash-landed in Greenland in World War II have been found 46 years later buried under 260 feet of ice, searchers said today.
A group from Atlanta said it found what became known as the ''lost squad-ron'' last month and plans to tunnel into the ice and lside the eight air-planes to the surface.
Richard Taylor, one of the leaders of the successful expedition, said today that he and another leader, Pat Epps, were ''going to fly two of them off the ice.''
The other planes will be dismantled and returned to the United States for restoration, he said. Some will be sold to pay for the expedition.
''We have a meeting tomorrow with a contractor from Seattle who is accustomed to doing Arctic work,'' Mr. Taylor said.
The saga of the flights began July 15, 1942, as the two B-17 bombers escorted six P-38 fighters from greenland to Reykjavik, Iceland. They ran into bad weather. A German submarine jammed their communications with Reykjavik, and the planes low on fuel and unable to find their destination, returned to Greenland, where they belly-landed on the ice about 10 miles inland.

11 comments:

  1. Well I suppose one could argue the current ice melt is unprecedented, if one also cares to ignore the obvious; namely that existing ice levels are unprecedentedly high, given that they are now clearly 260ft, or 80 metres higher than they were back in the 1940's when these planes landed on the ice. It's bit like me winning the $50 million lottery then stating my current level of spending is unprecedented. While it is true, it does not tell the complete story, but of course our 'Climate Change' scientists won't let this get in the way of a good story, will they? Heaven forbid, they might find their grant funding reduced if the real truth came out!!!
    What shockers they are!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that snow falls, even as the Ice shrinks. So planes which landed 70 years ago would still be under the ice even if the glacier was shrinking. I don't think this disproves the shrinking Greenland ice-sheet theory, or indeed prove it.

    The problem with climate science is everyone's shouting the evidence which supports their priors. I suspect there's distortion in the reporting, but I am not sure how much.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, you are correct Jackart which is my whole point. The shrinking ice is being replaced, just like it always has been. Other evidence confirms that historically, ice levels in Greenland are known to have been much lower than they are today and temperatures much warmer.

    When you comment about the selective use of evidence, you do so within the context of what is good science which ignores the reality that this whole climate change issue has now gone way beyond pure research based science into the realm of open debate and as we all know, the rules of debating do not require one to make the other sides case for them.

    The terrible fear mongering being carried on by the Alarmists and Warmists cannot simply be left to go on unchallenged and their selective use of trumped up evidence has now reached plague proportions to the point of being ridiculous, so if you want a cause, try bringing some sense into that side of the debate...and I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I take the view that climate change is happening, we are at least partially to blame, and this isn't an entirely bad thing. I do not buy into the hair-shirt hysteria which strikes me as a bit of millenial cult. I wish we'd just get on with building a lot more nuclear power stations until solar is cheap enough to solve all our problems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, calm considered logic Jackart. Great stuff and to be frank, I don't take issue with most of what you have to say; including the nuclear option. But solar is now proving to be a disaster here in Australia, even with its abundance of sunshine, primarily because of rank government stupidity. They are finding that only those with money can afford the solar option, which is leaving the others who are less well off, including renters, to pick up the tab for lost revenue and expensive subsidies, because they still can't do away with the power distribution network which costs a lot of money to provide and maintain and someone has to pay for this. Also, on the generation side, capacity still has to be available to meet demand when solar is not up to the mark, so there have been precious few savings there either. It has been calculated that if Australia found some magic pill to enable it to completely eliminate all of its CO2 emissions, it would reduce worldwide CO2 emissions by less than 0.02%, so the answer is clearly not there is it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Folks, the ice moves - outwards and downwards. Over time it's a liquid, not a solid. So 70 years later, those planes must be at a lower level, whatever the state of the ice-cap, shrinking or growing. That they are proves nothing either way.

    In my view, getting your news and opinions about climate from Goddard's site is not entirely advisable. He's prone to uncritical, even irrational, exuberance from time to time, which leaves him unnecessarily wide open to screeching about cherry-picking from the watermelons. Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You've certainly got me thinking Thon, but if you are correct in what you say, how come the scientists place so much importance on the reading of he ice core samples they take?
    It is my understanding that they believe the ice contains an accurate reading of historical events which must mean it is relatively solid and stable in depth, even though it always moving horizontally across the earth surface, carving out valleys and wearing down the rocks as it travels inexorably toward the coast and ultimately into the rivers and sea.
    Fascinating stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a point of clarification on my earlier post. I did not mean to imply that I think the levels within the ice do not change over time. Naturally, I would assume the older ice will inevitably move further toward the bottom of a glacier as new layers are constantly being added on top, season by season year by year. However, if we see this as a kind of sandwich, it is my understanding that the individual layers pretty much maintain their relationship to each other as they settle lower down, because the ice layers remains in a fairly solid state for long periods of time, even as the entire mass flows horizontally across the earth's surface. I repeat, this is just an assumption on my part based on my understanding that the scientists claim they can interpret or read ice cores, much like they read tree rings. I don't really know and I would be interested in hearing from someone who does know.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In the end, I have found my answer...good old Wiki.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier

    Should have gone there first aye?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wiki is so unreliable that they cannot be used in book reports in college. Even in community colleges, Wikipedia is forbidden as a source for any kind of report. try again

    ReplyDelete
  11. If there is no net decrease of ice on the Earth, how did global sea level rise about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century, and nearly double this rate in the last decade? Is there a possible cause for rising sea levels other than melting ice? Is there a possible cause for increased melting ice other than rising temperature?


    ReplyDelete