Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

You are spinning and refusing to answer the question, because you know you are wrong.  Talk about whining?  You're the king of it, and every one here knows it.  As for those '38's sinking in ice....  take a block of ice, place a nut on it and watch.  You might be amazed.

       Good examples of this phenomenon can be found in areas of very high precipitation, such as the more coastal regions of Greenland. It was in this area, 17 miles off the east coast of Greenland, that Bob Cardin and other members of his squadron had to ditch their six P-38’s and two B-17’s when they ran out of gas in 1942 - the height of WWII. Many years later, in 1981, several members of this original squad decided to see if they could recover their aircraft. They flew back to the spot in Greenland where they thought they would find their planes buried under a few feet of snow. To their surprise, there was nothing there. Not even metal detectors found anything. After many years of searching, with better detection equipment, they finally found the airplanes in 1988 three miles from their original location and under approximately 260 feet of ice! They went on to actually recovered one of them (“Glacier Girl” – a P38), which was eventually restored to her former glory.20

          What is most interesting about this story, at least for the purposes of this discussion, is the depth at which the planes were found (as well as the speed which the glacier moved). It took only 46 years to bury the planes in over 260 feet (~80 meters) of ice and move them some 3 miles from their original location. This translates into a little over 5 ˝ feet (~1.7 meters) of ice or around 17 feet (~5 meters) of compact snow per year and about 100 meters of movement per year. In a telephone interview, Bob Cardin was asked how many layers of ice were above the recovered airplane. He responded by saying, “Oh, there were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane.” When told that each layer was supposed to represent one year of time, Bob said, “That is impossible! Each of those layers is a different warm spell – warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold.” 21 Also, the planes did not sink in the ice over time as some have suggested. Their density was less than the ice or snow since they were not filled with the snow, but remained hollow. They were in fact buried by the annual snowfall over the course of almost 50 years.

        Now obviously, this example does not reflect the actual climate of central Greenland or of central Antarctica. As a coastal region, it is exposed to a great deal more storms and other sub-annual events that produce the 17 feet of annual snow per year. However, even now, large snowstorms also drift over central Greenland. And, in the fairly recent warm Hipsithermal period (~4 degrees warmer than today) the precipitation over central Greenland, and even Antarctica, was most likely much greater than it is today. So, how do scientists distinguish between annual layers and sub-annual layers? Visual methods, by themselves, seem rather limited – especially as the ice layers get thinner and thinner as one progresses down the column of ice.

Density.  Look into it.

Hint:  Start between your ears.

(A plane will float until it fills with water.  Ice cannot "fill" a plane.  Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow.  A bolt (edit: NUT), however is not hollow.  It is solid metal. It sinks. If this principle did not exist, ships wouldn't float.  They weigh a lot, you know.)

[CAP1]

Density.  Look into it.

Hint:  Start between your ears.

(A plane will float until it fills with water.  Ice cannot "fill" a plane.  Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow.  A bolt, however is not hollow.)

NOT that i should do this.....but he said a nut, not a bolt. 

[MORAY37]

NOT that i should do this.....but he said a nut, not a bolt.  

Lol.  Nice!  Corrected for truth.

[Bodhi]

Density.  Look into it.

Hint:  Start between your ears.

(A plane will float until it fills with water.  Ice cannot "fill" a plane.  Glacier Girl was found intact and still hollow.  A bolt (edit: NUT), however is not hollow.  It is solid metal. It sinks. If this principle did not exist, ships wouldn't float.  They weigh a lot, you know.)

Spin spin spin....  FYI, Glacier Girl had a significant amount of ice in her.  The wings were so bad to be mostly unusable, which is why there are L model wings on her (albeit reskinned over the fuel panel).

Let's try this again.

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

[MORAY37]

Spin spin spin....  FYI, Glacier Girl had a significant amount of ice in her.  The wings were so bad to be mostly unusable, which is why there are L model wings on her (albeit reskinned over the fuel panel).

Let's try this again.

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

Don't attempt to sidestep the fact you were wrong.  Just be a man and admit it.   There's no spin.  It's simple physics.  Planes cannot sink through solid ice, as you say they can.  They are simply do not have high enough density overall.  You're wrong, and I've put up repeated facts to illustrate how.  They were covered by 50 years of snow.   As a matter of fact, I've seen a few pages of postulates that try and figure out the amount of buoyancy a -38 would have over ice, as I attempted to research your farcical claim. (there are actually some that have evidence it was shallower than it should have been, at least by the math)

 I've also read over Cardin's letters from the recovery.  The plane was still sealed and wasn't rusted, interior portions of the plane were completely ice free. The cockpit was sealed, and still held the pilot's tin of chewing tobacco, along with the keys.  The pilot's Flak helmet was found in the ice next to the plane, exactly where he left it.  The fact remains that unless the entire structure of the plane is filled and frozen, it simply isn't dense enough to move through the medium, as it is still hollow.  It's simple.  Like a ship sinking.

Once you prove adult enough to admit you were wrong, or provide a speck of evidence supporting your contention, there is absolutely no need to address anything else.  Prove that a plane can sink through ice.  Go for it.  We watch with amusement.  

You don't have a leg to stand on sir.

[batch]

all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane

perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm

if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?

not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed

maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming

[MORAY37]

all I know about those planes is this one thought.......... how much of the glacier was lost due to digging a large enough hole 260+ feet deep to excavate an airplane

perhaps all this drilling and testing and unnatural traffic with equipment and machinery nonstop around the world on our glaciers is whats actually doing the harm

if increasing the exposed surface area causes ice to melt faster......... then isnt drilling ice cores actually destorying the ice?

not to mention any fractures that may occur in the ice as a result of the core being removed

maybe its the alarmists themselves that are causing the global warming

Lol.

[Penguin]

You are spinning and refusing to answer the question, because you know you are wrong.  Talk about whining?  You're the king of it, and every one here knows it.  As for those '38's sinking in ice....  take a block of ice, place a nut on it and watch.  You might be amazed.

Back to the issue that you refuse to address...  Man made global warming is not happening.  Proof of that is in the fact that the CRU (whose data supports UN studies and US amongst other countries data) was modifying their numbers to support climate change that was not actually happening.  Those following along and colluding to cover this up are all perpetrators of one the biggest attempts to scam the public in history.  It is all about money and control.  Plain and simply another way to extort more money from the populace and another way to control them.  Your support is just another hand raised up without any facts to back it up other than citing differences in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.

Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null.  You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B.  You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded.  Prove your premise!

Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.

-Penguin

-Penguin

-Penguin

[Bodhi]

Don't attempt to sidestep the fact you were wrong.  Just be a man and admit it.   There's no spin.  It's simple physics.  Planes cannot sink through solid ice, as you say they can.  They are simply do not have high enough density overall.  You're wrong, and I've put up repeated facts to illustrate how.  They were covered by 50 years of snow.   As a matter of fact, I've seen a few pages of postulates that try and figure out the amount of buoyancy a -38 would have over ice, as I attempted to research your farcical claim. (there are actually some that have evidence it was shallower than it should have been, at least by the math)

 I've also read over Cardin's letters from the recovery.  The plane was still sealed and wasn't rusted, interior portions of the plane were completely ice free. The cockpit was sealed, and still held the pilot's tin of chewing tobacco, along with the keys.  The pilot's Flak helmet was found in the ice next to the plane, exactly where he left it.  The fact remains that unless the entire structure of the plane is filled and frozen, it simply isn't dense enough to move through the medium, as it is still hollow.  It's simple.  Like a ship sinking.

Once you prove adult enough to admit you were wrong, or provide a speck of evidence supporting your contention, there is absolutely no need to address anything else.  Prove that a plane can sink through ice.  Go for it.  We watch with amusement.  

You don't have a leg to stand on sir.

I am not wrong about a weight sinking into the ice.  It is a fact. 

Gonna spin away on the rest just like I expected.  Not a surprise Moray.  It really isn't.  Talk about adults....  lol

[Bodhi]

Your argument is a false dichotomy, therefore, your point is null.  You've proved (to yourself) that A isn't true, and therefore it must be B.  You have not proven your first premise at all, therefore all subsequent (assuming no non sequitur fallacies) are unfounded.  Prove your premise!

Just for all ye laymen out there (No offense. Just trying to avoid confusion) a fallacy is a logic error, not a falsehood.

-Penguin

-Penguin

-Penguin

How is it wrong?  A weight does sink into the ice.  The second point is what this thread is all about.  The GG issue is never going to go get anywhere. 

[Penguin]

Check the first part of that argument you made a few pages back.  You'll see that since that you think is A is wrong, that you think that B is right even without evidence, premise unfounded, point unfounded, argument moot.

-Penguin

[MORAY37]

How is it wrong?  A weight does sink into the ice.  The second point is what this thread is all about.  The GG issue is never going to go get anywhere.  

I have told you repeatedly how it is wrong.

The same principle that keeps ships afloat.  Or an aircraft that crash lands in water, until that water enters its' hull.  Or an aircraft that lands in oil... or ice.

Until the hollow parts of it are filled, it is less dense than the surroundings. Besides the fact ice is already a solid and resists, and cannot fill those hollow parts....

  I'll make it in crayon for you.


Anax, wherever you are... please explain to this gentleman.

[Penguin]

What kind of a nut?  Like the really fast ones on the road? 

 

Anyway, Moray has a point.

-Penguin

[Getback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk


Hide the decline  

Note the Christmas Tree at the end.

[Sundowner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk


Hide the decline  

Note the Christmas Tree at the end.

Now that there is funny...I don't care who you are.

Regards,
Sun