Text 19166, 68 rader
Skriven 2014-11-09 16:11:44 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
  Kommentar till text 19151 av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Re: Life Under the Democr
=================================
Björn,
 
BF> And the Antarctic ice sheet is *at* *least* ten times more -- that's
BF> the amount that has been surveyed, but there are probably vast areas that
BF> are much thicker than we know.
 
BF> That's 100 times more. Around 70m higher sea level. Oh yes, Ward, now,
BF> including the 7m from Greenland, Brussels is 21m below sea level...  8-)
 
I'm with the non-believers.
 
It is my opinion that science to a great extent has no clue what is under the
Greenlandic nor Antarctic ice. The word "surveyed" is used ... but to what
extent?
 
The surveys mostly were not with a scientific background, but by oil- and
gasexploring companies who were looking for mineral riches, not for the final
answer to the issue of global warming (which I am not disputing).
 
What is the mass of the Greenlandic ice-sheet? It simply is unknown as it
varies so much.
 
The story of the "Lost Squadron" who crash landed on the Greenland ice shelf in
July 1942 is remarkable. 2 B17s and I think 5 Lockheed P38s ran out of fuel and
crashlanded. All survived, were rescued and the planes abandoned.
 
Decades after the incident sometimes the planes were visible for passing
commercial airlines, sometimes not. Several expeditions were set-up to recover
a B17 and they all failed. Finally, in 1992 a crew managed to locate the exact
site and melt a shaft down, some 60 meters and recovered a P38 which was
restored back to flying conditions (at a ridiculous high price).
 
Now 10 years before, the planes were under about 15 meters of ice, when that
P38 was recovered it was some 60 meter and a recent expedition discovered the
depth now is 35m.
 
Your presumption is that the thickness of the ice is a constant with an even
distribution and linear growth over the years. Well, there is not a constant,
there is not an even distribution and there certainly is nothing linear about
it at all.
 
Truth of the matter is that other than historic drill holes from prospecting
companies, there is very little information of what lies under the ice. That
ice sheet, in both cases could be dramatically thinner than presumed.
 
I have flown dozens of time over Greenland so far. Yes, in a commercial
airliner, but nevertheless. When crossing into Greenland you are immediately
welcomed by unending mountain ranges, then comes the ice. The whole of
Greenland consists of mountain ranges under the ice, we just don't know how
high these mountain ranges are nor where they reach. As a consequence, we have
no clue about the ice shelf ... it's just extrapolation of "not enough data".
 
Someone once told me ... "we do not need to be worried about the Greenland nor
Antarctic ice melting. It is a far greater worry what would happen if the
permafrost melts." ... I think there's a lot of truth in that as well.
 
And I repeat ... yes, there is global warming.
 
Here are some views of Greenland, just for fun. I spent about an hour watching
that incredible sight until my eyes hurt. Very uncommon to have that view
there:
 
http://tinyurl.com/gnl-2013
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)