Remember me
▼ Content

glacer girl controvesy


glacer girl controvesy13-12-2016 19:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Some users have asked for people to address the fact that WWII Airplanes are buried in glacers even though that the Glaciers are melting

I can't find any controversy in mainstream sources its only really bible literallists That seem exited about the implications beyond the engineering challenge of recovering them and aviation history.

http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemID=1053

Another addition to the list of discoveries that debunks conventional wisdom is today's subject on the lost World War II airplane squadron that was found in the early 1990s. It was located 250 to 264 feet under ice in Greenland.


http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

As usual, it is not the facts which speak against the Biblical account of a recent creation, but the mindset of our culture. 'Millions of years' are casually tossed around so often that we unconsciously perceive all natural changes as taking long timespans.


It's interesting that Climate change skeptics and people who think that whatever we do to natural world has no relevance because the earth is only 6000 years old and we are going to be Raptured anyway seem to use the same arguments.


Of course the explanation is simple;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing.


So they have not only been burried they have also moved a fair distance, anyone want to guess what happens when the glacier meats the sea?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
13-12-2016 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
spot wrote:
Some users have asked for people to address the fact that WWII Airplanes are buried in glacers even though that the Glaciers are melting

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing.


So they have not only been burried they have also moved a fair distance, anyone want to guess what happens when the glacier meats the sea?[/quote]

You are aware, aren't you, that glaciers flow?

This particular glacier is much slower than most, moving at only 2m per year. The aircraft landed a good distance from the sea also.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2016 20:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Into the Night wrote:

You are aware, aren't you, that glaciers flow?

This particular glacier is much slower than most, moving at only 2m per year. The aircraft landed a good distance from the sea also.



Flow is a synonym of move.

How is that relevant? the point is that its dynamic it will get there eventually. It builds up in one area and moves and is lost to the sea in another area.

Really its not a hard concept.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 13-12-2016 20:35
14-12-2016 00:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are aware, aren't you, that glaciers flow?

This particular glacier is much slower than most, moving at only 2m per year. The aircraft landed a good distance from the sea also.



Flow is a synonym of move.

How is that relevant? the point is that its dynamic it will get there eventually. It builds up in one area and moves and is lost to the sea in another area.

Really its not a hard concept.


So? What does that have to do with anything?


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2016 01:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
The point is that even though snow is building up on top of the aircraft and turning to ice, its not permanent, as evidence by the fact that it has moved 2 kilometers towards the sea as well as buried The existence of this plane does not prove what you think it proves.
14-12-2016 01:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
spot wrote: The point is that even though snow is building up on top of the aircraft and turning to ice, its not permanent, as evidence by the fact that it has moved 2 kilometers towards the sea as well as buried The existence of this plane does not prove what you think it proves.

The idea that ice accumulation is not permanent if it flows is absolutely absurd.

This would have been a candidate for my signature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2016 10:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Some users have asked for people to address the fact that WWII Airplanes are buried in glacers even though that the Glaciers are melting

The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing.

So they have not only been burried they have also moved a fair distance, anyone want to guess what happens when the glacier meats the sea?


You are aware, aren't you, that glaciers flow?

This particular glacier is much slower than most, moving at only 2m per year. The aircraft landed a good distance from the sea also.

How does 2 km in 48 years work out to be 2 m per year?
14-12-2016 12:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

This is the wikipedia link for it.

That idiot creationist fools also use such information does not change the fact that the planes have been burried very deeply by falling snow which has increased more than it has melted.

It is also telling that the glacier is moving so slowly, be that 2m/yr or 40m/yr. Neither figure will be anywhere near the needed number for maintaining the ice mass of Greenland let alone reducing it.

Edited on 14-12-2016 12:08
14-12-2016 12:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html
14-12-2016 17:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html


Yes, it can but a figure of 8km/yr is more of a reasonable average.

8x 10 (km width) x 0.4 (km deep/thick) is 40 km3 per year. That gives a value of 615km3 per year for all the glacier out flow from Greenland.

Say (using the lower figures for snow fall on Greenland) 900km3 of snowfall on the ice sheet.

And how do we get to a net loss of ice again??

I mean I am using the fastest flowing glacier there and assuming that all the glaciers drain the place at the same efficency. Just because it is draining the most Southern 6.5% of Greenland does not mean that the bits n the middle get such a good drainage via glaciers does it?
14-12-2016 19:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html


Yes, it can but a figure of 8km/yr is more of a reasonable average.

8x 10 (km width) x 0.4 (km deep/thick) is 40 km3 per year. That gives a value of 615km3 per year for all the glacier out flow from Greenland.

Say (using the lower figures for snow fall on Greenland) 900km3 of snowfall on the ice sheet.

And how do we get to a net loss of ice again??

I mean I am using the fastest flowing glacier there and assuming that all the glaciers drain the place at the same efficency. Just because it is draining the most Southern 6.5% of Greenland does not mean that the bits n the middle get such a good drainage via glaciers does it?

You've gone from a position of completely ignoring glacier flow to one of completely ignoring melting. The reality is that both mechanisms contribute to ice mass loss.
14-12-2016 19:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html


Yes, it can but a figure of 8km/yr is more of a reasonable average.

8x 10 (km width) x 0.4 (km deep/thick) is 40 km3 per year. That gives a value of 615km3 per year for all the glacier out flow from Greenland.

Say (using the lower figures for snow fall on Greenland) 900km3 of snowfall on the ice sheet.

And how do we get to a net loss of ice again??

I mean I am using the fastest flowing glacier there and assuming that all the glaciers drain the place at the same efficency. Just because it is draining the most Southern 6.5% of Greenland does not mean that the bits n the middle get such a good drainage via glaciers does it?

You've gone from a position of completely ignoring glacier flow to one of completely ignoring melting. The reality is that both mechanisms contribute to ice mass loss.


Yes both have to be added up.

And then you have to explain why the rate of glacial flow has increased.

Remember, the snowfall has increased so what has happened?
14-12-2016 23:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html


Yes, it can but a figure of 8km/yr is more of a reasonable average.

8x 10 (km width) x 0.4 (km deep/thick) is 40 km3 per year. That gives a value of 615km3 per year for all the glacier out flow from Greenland.

Say (using the lower figures for snow fall on Greenland) 900km3 of snowfall on the ice sheet.

And how do we get to a net loss of ice again??

I mean I am using the fastest flowing glacier there and assuming that all the glaciers drain the place at the same efficency. Just because it is draining the most Southern 6.5% of Greenland does not mean that the bits n the middle get such a good drainage via glaciers does it?

You've gone from a position of completely ignoring glacier flow to one of completely ignoring melting. The reality is that both mechanisms contribute to ice mass loss.


Yes both have to be added up.

And then you have to explain why the rate of glacial flow has increased.

Remember, the snowfall has increased so what has happened?

The rate of flow of many Greenland glaciers has indeed increased over the past couple of decades. One of the main reasons for this appears to be increased lubrication due to rising amounts of surface meltwater seeping down to the glacier beds.

Yes, the snowfall has increased, but the rate of ice loss has increased more. This has led to large net losses in ice mass around the periphery of the Greenland ice sheet which have been partially offset by small increases in mass balance in the interior.

This website shows some excellent visualisations of laser and radar altimetry data from NASA's ICESat satellite and IceBridge aircraft missions, vividly illustrating the ice mass losses:

Measuring Elevation Changes on the Greenland Ice Sheet
15-12-2016 20:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Question then;

If people like sums so much and think the ability do to them is all you need to 'sceince'.
Assume this is true;
The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.


and we also know;
snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year.


What should be the altitude of the glacier if we are idiotic enough to assume all that is happening is accumulation?
Edited on 15-12-2016 20:58
15-12-2016 22:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
spot wrote:
Question then;

If people like sums so much and think the ability do to them is all you need to 'sceince'.
Assume this is true;
The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.


and we also know;
snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year.


What should be the altitude of the glacier if we are idiotic enough to assume all that is happening is accumulation?


Don't you know? I thought the place where Glacier Girl landed would have told you.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2016 00:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
The point of asking that question should be obvious.
16-12-2016 01:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
spot wrote:
The point of asking that question should be obvious.

The point of asking that question is pointless. It is an irrelevant question, based on numbers and conditions you made up.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-12-2016 01:56
16-12-2016 13:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I thought the fact that the aircraft was buried is the only supporting evidence you provided for your assertion that Greenland is in fact increase ing, now your telling us that the numbers are made up. Do you even attempt to get your story straight? Or is your mind that addled that you have no idea that you're being incoherent?
16-12-2016 16:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
If you had to land a plane on a glacier, would you choose one that is flat and smooth (and hence very slow moving) or one that is jagged and full of crevasses due to the speed of its motion?

I'm guessing you probably wouldn't go for one like the vast Jakobshavn Glacier, which drains about 6.5% of the Greenland ice area and can flow at speeds of over 12 km/year.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03130.html


Yes, it can but a figure of 8km/yr is more of a reasonable average.

8x 10 (km width) x 0.4 (km deep/thick) is 40 km3 per year. That gives a value of 615km3 per year for all the glacier out flow from Greenland.

Say (using the lower figures for snow fall on Greenland) 900km3 of snowfall on the ice sheet.

And how do we get to a net loss of ice again??

I mean I am using the fastest flowing glacier there and assuming that all the glaciers drain the place at the same efficency. Just because it is draining the most Southern 6.5% of Greenland does not mean that the bits n the middle get such a good drainage via glaciers does it?

You've gone from a position of completely ignoring glacier flow to one of completely ignoring melting. The reality is that both mechanisms contribute to ice mass loss.


Yes both have to be added up.

And then you have to explain why the rate of glacial flow has increased.

Remember, the snowfall has increased so what has happened?

The rate of flow of many Greenland glaciers has indeed increased over the past couple of decades. One of the main reasons for this appears to be increased lubrication due to rising amounts of surface meltwater seeping down to the glacier beds.

Yes, the snowfall has increased, but the rate of ice loss has increased more. This has led to large net losses in ice mass around the periphery of the Greenland ice sheet which have been partially offset by small increases in mass balance in the interior.

This website shows some excellent visualisations of laser and radar altimetry data from NASA's ICESat satellite and IceBridge aircraft missions, vividly illustrating the ice mass losses:

Measuring Elevation Changes on the Greenland Ice Sheet


Umm, you see I just don't believe that the tiny amounts of meltwater going down the valleys has any different effect than it always has had. The out flow of the rivers at the bottom of the glaciers where you can see it shows no vast increase in such flows.

There would also be a lot of other visable effects on these glaciers that would be obvious.

The pressure at the bottom of a 400m thich glacier is 40 bar or so. water will need to actually float (to some extent) the glacier to make an impact on the friction since there always was some water doing this lubrication thing. That would be very obvious.

And yes I am saying that NASA/GRACE is lying.
16-12-2016 16:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Question then;

If people like sums so much and think the ability do to them is all you need to 'sceince'.
Assume this is true;
The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.


and we also know;
snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year.


What should be the altitude of the glacier if we are idiotic enough to assume all that is happening is accumulation?


The rate of accumulation is obviously not constant.

When the ice stretches out far off over the oceans the snowfall is drasticaly reduced. The prescence of open water in the Arctic ocean is doubless having a very considerable effect on this.

There is obviously some drainage of ice from Greenland, if there was not then as you imply there would be a tower of ice to the top of the weather.

The speed of this outflow of ice down the glaciers is a function of the depth of them. As the central ice sheet thickens this will increase and thus increase the outflow. The time it will take to adjust may well be very very long though, like 1,000 years.

Edited on 16-12-2016 16:14
16-12-2016 19:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The rate of accumulation is obviously not constant.

When the ice stretches out far off over the oceans the snowfall is drasticaly reduced. The prescence of open water in the Arctic ocean is doubless having a very considerable effect on this.

There is obviously some drainage of ice from Greenland, if there was not then as you imply there would be a tower of ice to the top of the weather.

The speed of this outflow of ice down the glaciers is a function of the depth of them. As the central ice sheet thickens this will increase and thus increase the outflow. The time it will take to adjust may well be very very long though, like 1,000 years.


At least you get my point. I don't know what you base your claims on though, a lot of what you say seems to be waffle, and you seem to be ignoring the predicted and observed phenomenon of ice melting when it gets warmer.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-12-2016 12:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The rate of accumulation is obviously not constant.

When the ice stretches out far off over the oceans the snowfall is drasticaly reduced. The prescence of open water in the Arctic ocean is doubless having a very considerable effect on this.

There is obviously some drainage of ice from Greenland, if there was not then as you imply there would be a tower of ice to the top of the weather.

The speed of this outflow of ice down the glaciers is a function of the depth of them. As the central ice sheet thickens this will increase and thus increase the outflow. The time it will take to adjust may well be very very long though, like 1,000 years.


At least you get my point. I don't know what you base your claims on though, a lot of what you say seems to be waffle, and you seem to be ignoring the predicted and observed phenomenon of ice melting when it gets warmer.


Well I have spellt out my points several times here and I will point out there is one of them in the passage you have quoted.

Ice melts when it gets to be warmer than 0c. Not when it goes from -20 to -19.9.

Whilst there has been a retreat of the termination point of most glaciers in Greenland due to the warming of the climate this does not mean that there has been a net mass loss.
17-12-2016 14:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I haven't been to Greenland and I doubt that you have too but in that chasing Ice documentary there is clearly vegetation in some of the videos and flowing fresh water, so clearly its closer to 0c then -20c in that location at that time of the year.

But who are people going to believe NASA, the scientists on the ground and of course with the power of vidio their own very eyes or alternatively you? a person in the habit of making Weaponsgrade idiotic claims such as the Andes are above the troposphere, the budget for the ICEBRIGE program is only $2000 etc, etc.
17-12-2016 17:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
spot wrote: But who are people going to believe ...


That's the bottom line with you. What and who people are going to BELIEVE. Science never enters the picture. In fact, science is the enemy in your religious pursuits.

Religion over science. Unfalsifiability over the falsifiable. You aren't pursuing any sort of truth. You are seeking your spiritual comfort zone.

Good luck with that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate glacer girl controvesy:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact