Maybe I am being oversimplistic (Moray, without busting your balls go ahead and explain it) but I look at it like this:
July 15 1942, the lost squadron of P-38's goes down in Greenland
(Image removed from quote.)
1992 under 268 feet of Snow and Ice pack which had accumulated over the past 50 years recovery begins
(Image removed from quote.)
To where we are today
(Image removed from quote.)
I don't see the accumulation of 268 foot of ice and snow accumulation in less than 50 years to support "Global Warming"
It snows in Greenland. I'm shocked.
The theory is ruined.
Snow falls in the interior, forms a glacier pack, and moves. Greenland averaged ~3.0 meters of snow for the period 1940 until 1990(After which it actually increases to around 9.5 meters per year... An effect predicted by climate change, btw). Glacier Girl crash landed on 15 July '42, on an interior shelf in southeast Greenland. It was recovered almost exactly 50 years later. A simple bit of calculations will give you 50 years x 3.0 meters=150 meters accumulate.
450 feet feet of snow, then packed into glacier ice, yields around 300 feet of ice. They pulled it out of 268 feet of ice. Seems about right.
Again, glaciers are bad predictors of climate, until very late in any shift. Their formation depends more upon snowfall than ambient air temps. Recently, it has been shown that Greenland's glaciers are growing at the accumulation field, and melting faster at the ablation zone. The net yield of the glacier may actually shift up due to the increased snowfall, but the amount lost will move up with the increased melt at the ablation zone.
Remember a warmer atmosphere supports more snowfall, as well, because warmer air holds more water (CLIMATE). Local conditions dictate how that water falls...(WEATHER)(Which may be why Greenland has shown an increase in snow for the past two decades.)
