The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming!
- Thread starter Gaby
- Start date
I have no words, except that these people have long since lost the plot.
Scientists will soon try to dim the sun in first ever attempt to mimic volcanic eruption and reverse global warming
"Scientists plan to mimic the effects of a massive volcanic eruption in a bid to tackle global warming.
Plans to geoengineer the atmosphere by blocking out sunlight have been floated before, but an experiment launched next year by Harvard researchers will be the first to test the theory in the stratosphere.
The team will use a balloon suspended 12 miles above Earth to spray tiny chalk particles across a kilometre-long area, with the intention of reflecting the Sun’s rays away from the planet.
In doing so, they will attempt to replicate on a small scale the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
During this event, the volcano spewed 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, creating a haze that cooled the planet by 0.5C for around 18 months – returning the Earth to its pre-industrial temperature.
The scientists argue that replicating this effect on a large scale could provide the planet with respite from global warming, stopping sea ice from melting and protecting coral from bleaching."
Scientists will soon try to dim the sun in first ever attempt to mimic volcanic eruption and reverse global warming
"Scientists plan to mimic the effects of a massive volcanic eruption in a bid to tackle global warming.
Plans to geoengineer the atmosphere by blocking out sunlight have been floated before, but an experiment launched next year by Harvard researchers will be the first to test the theory in the stratosphere.
The team will use a balloon suspended 12 miles above Earth to spray tiny chalk particles across a kilometre-long area, with the intention of reflecting the Sun’s rays away from the planet.
In doing so, they will attempt to replicate on a small scale the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
During this event, the volcano spewed 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, creating a haze that cooled the planet by 0.5C for around 18 months – returning the Earth to its pre-industrial temperature.
The scientists argue that replicating this effect on a large scale could provide the planet with respite from global warming, stopping sea ice from melting and protecting coral from bleaching."
Weather Map and Snow Conditions for France
Snowfall for 6 hrs ending Saturday 22 Dec at 7pm CET
Mont Olympia snow forecast for 285 m
Mont Olympia Snow Forecast
Mt Elbrus snow forecast for 3070 m
Mt Elbrus Snow Forecast
Chisenupurri snow forecast for 691 m
Chisenupurri Snow Forecast
Related:
Monday Morning Powder... | Tahoe Daily Snow | Snow Forecast
Monday Morning Powder...December 15, 2018 8:13pm +03
Summary
Meanwhile Avoriaz 1800, France Dec 11, 2018
This is more a critique of the AGW thing, and it took place at the University of Calgary in 2017. The presenter, Steve Goreham, puts on a pretty good presentation - at one point he describes an aircraft (P-38 Glacier Girl) taking off during the world war (1942) and the weather turns them around whereby they crash land on Greenland. In 1992 they go back to retrieve the aircraft, yet low and behold it is now under 268 ft. of snow and ice.
screen shot:
He also shows the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska as people were all upset that it was melting, and then a team enters underneath the glacier and finds roots carbon dated to only a thousand years before. This happens elsewhere around the globe that are date marked much more recently.
screen shot:
Was glad that at least around here there are people speaking out and an audience that listens - which one does not seem to hear in the press of course.
The last part of the talk he takes apart renewable energy - nothing new yet pretty amusing; especially bio-fuels.
screen shot:
He also shows the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska as people were all upset that it was melting, and then a team enters underneath the glacier and finds roots carbon dated to only a thousand years before. This happens elsewhere around the globe that are date marked much more recently.
screen shot:
Was glad that at least around here there are people speaking out and an audience that listens - which one does not seem to hear in the press of course.
The last part of the talk he takes apart renewable energy - nothing new yet pretty amusing; especially bio-fuels.
This is an excellent video and we should all be sharing it on social media regularly - just flood the airwaves with it!
Jeffrey of Troy
Padawan Learner
Having been reading Laura's various websites since the year 2000, I have been aware of two ideas she has been promoting: that we are going into a cooling period of long duration, and that history is very different than the officially approved version.
More recently, I was looking through an historical atlas, when I noticed almost all the paintings, drawings, carvings, etc. - every kind of visual representation - from the Dark Ages until about 300 years ago depicting historical events is allegedly anywhere from decades to centuries after the fact. Upon further research, it seems to me that if 200 years were added to the written history for that period, then there is a very stable cycle of 200 years warm & 200 years cold for thousands of years. I posted this to my blog as When Did This Happen, which I reproduce most of here for your amusement.
More recently, I was looking through an historical atlas, when I noticed almost all the paintings, drawings, carvings, etc. - every kind of visual representation - from the Dark Ages until about 300 years ago depicting historical events is allegedly anywhere from decades to centuries after the fact. Upon further research, it seems to me that if 200 years were added to the written history for that period, then there is a very stable cycle of 200 years warm & 200 years cold for thousands of years. I posted this to my blog as When Did This Happen, which I reproduce most of here for your amusement.
Translated from French by Microsoft
It#neige abundantly on #Alpes this afternoon with a limit between 800 and 1200 m from north to south-wet flakes are even observed up to #Annecy or #Chambéry-Webcam at Crévoux (#HautesAlpes): Crévoux Village-Station | Webcams de la vallée de Crévoux
It
Pretty interesting facts and video you have brought up there Voyageur! Your post actually has resurfaced a question I had a while ago after delving a bit into catastrophisms and the recent related ice core propes, that seems to point to certain times in the past. What I was asking myself back then was:
"How certain can the scientist who study the ice cores be, that the ice cores that they are studying are actually as old as they think they are? What exactly is the basis on which they rely, by which they establish datings of some of those sheets, to extents so far back in time, in a continuous fashion?"
Case in point here is the P-38 Glacier Girl you mentioned above and I haven't heard of before. What I would like to know is, if there have been any studies done on the exact location this plane was buried in and how the surrounding area is behaving and looks like (archeologically and geologically speaking as well as regionally speaking). From the pictures it doesn't look like the planes are damaged all that much, which would speak quite clearly against them falling into a depressions and then being covered by an already high and moving glacier ice.
What I'm getting at here is, if those planes indeed have been covered by 268 feet of new ice between 1942 and 1992, then this could represent a real big problem for the established dating of this and other ice areas via Ice-Cores?
Here we can see a couple of cool pictures from the excavations of the planes. I do note here, that there is a rather big mass of snow that can be seen from the surface when they started to excavate. So I'm guessing that snow cover is calculated in the statement of "268 feet of ice"? Would be interesting to know.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on the Glacier girl in which it is stated that the plane "was restored to flying condition after being buried beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet for over 50 years".
Now we know that some of the datings about past climate and catastrophes are based on Greenland Ice Cores. We also know that Greenland was quite different during the Medieval warm period (conventionally around 980 AD), which enabled the Vikings to establish flourishing settlements there. We also know (if I remember correctly from the book "Climate gate" from Brian Susmann I think) that climate and ice behavior on Greenland is pretty complex, in that certain parts can grow quite intensively while others melt at the same time at other spots, mostly depended on regional climate variations and things like this and the like. Greenland it seems has the most variations of snow/glacier behavior which makes it difficult to study. As far as I know they say that the oldest known ice there is 1,000,000 years old.
So I'm guessing/hoping that the scientist who took the ice core samples, were aware of that and didn't drill into ice sheets that have grown recently strongly and based their past climates on this?
Edit: I wrote "298 feet of ice" in two places in the post above, which should mean "268 feet of ice". Corrected now (21.12.2018.)
Last edited:
Agree, yet I don't know about studies - had a look and the only mention so far comes from Popular Mechanics wherein they seem to suggest it sank rather than was covered over by the up to 300 ft. as cited ("the ever-shifting ice sheets of Greenland buried the aircraft") - right. It does not really look good to say it was just covered up, so they used the 'shifting ice' to explain. Shifting ice would pretty much do the plane in if that was the case, and the plane was in good condition. It sounds like the signs that it was there in the first place was by recovering hydraulic fluid pulled up when probing.
The above link was from 2018, and they have one from 2016 also. There they said that it was the "Greenland Expedition Society, 50 years after it had been reclaimed by the Earth. Pat Epps and Richard Taylor of Atlanta..." seem to be the finders. And then they found a group of engineers and investors to carry out the extraction. How they found it and made there way down is explained:
"...the team sent a small steam probe through the ice, followed by a 264-foot long steel pipe. The Thermal Meltdown Generator, as it was called, followed the track of the pipe and tunneled a four-foot wide shaft through the ice, descending between two and four feet per hour (they ultimately made five tunnels from the surface to the P-38 below). Workers were then lowered into the ice where they carved a cavern around the plane using a hot-water cannon. The plane was then disassembled and brought to the surface, piece by piece."
There is a more broad feather article in Air & Space. In that article it said:
"In retrospect, it seems obvious that the airplanes would be buried under a good deal of ice. But no one was prepared for how much."
The article has 6 parts. This link has some amazing photos of the find.
Apparently, there are other planes not found from the group; one with 3 or 4 people on it.
Concerning the Mendenhall Glacier, I could not say how steady the carbon dating is, and there are some issues. I had never looked on SoTT for this and have just now done so finding this article: Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest 'tomb'
There the tests seemed to be carried out by "UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor" which is explained further:
Even much later the English sent all those ships past Greenland into the arctic to find passageways, as they had had evidence of pretty open going, and then it froze hard, really hard for a few hundread years, with some just now being rediscovered and recovered.
One other thing recalled - possible from an article on SoTT or from the pages of one of the many books read was that a well know scientist found trees under either Swiss glaciers or Austrian (think the former) and carbon dated them to around 2,000 BC or sooner, and that did not go over well, yet who was saying it could not be well argued with.
I'll have to look for that.
I'll have to look for that.
Potatoes and Tomatoes
Jedi Master
This from LiveScience from August 2018
'Lost Squadron' WWII Warplane Discovered Deep Beneath a Greenland Glacier
'Lost Squadron' WWII Warplane Discovered Deep Beneath a Greenland Glacier
Potatoes and Tomatoes
Jedi Master
I was curious about the ice melt in the region...26 years since the first P-38 discovery, so surprised to see in the above Live Science article that the ice/snow thickness had not reduced significantly...this "From A Glaciers Perspective" Koge Bugt Outlet Glacier, Southeast Greenland
Thank you Voyageur and Potatoes and Tomatoes for the additional info. Well, it looks like "Houston, we have a problem here" with the Glacier girl and the other crafts of this fleet and where, when and under how much ice they were excavated.
And I think the problem can be summarized as follows, from Voyageur's post:
In regards to the old trees under the Mendenhall Glacier, we have to keep in mind here that this one is a Mountain glacier in Alaska, in contrast to the "Greenland Ice sheet" in which the Glacier girl was recovered. Another place and quite another ice morphology and behavior I would guess. So leaving this interesting piece of evidence from Alaska aside for the moment, I would like to concentrate on the Glacier Girl and its companions in the fleet, since it could represent quite big problems both for the human made global warming folks, as well as the scientist who study ice core samples with which thea come up with their past climate datings and catastrophes.
Well, the idea of the planes having been covered over by ice instead of buried by NEW ice is actually one of the reasons I would like to see some concrete archeological and geological studies on the exact location of those planes, since Greenland is known for its complex shifting and moving, melting and building up of ice sheets, in various places. It is a rather unique place in regards to ice behaviors compared to other large ice sheets. So we shouldn't dismiss the idea of it being covered by shifting ice sheets out of hand.
At least we still have the big problem of the planes having been pretty much intact after excavation as you mentioned as well. That is indeed a big data point that speaks against a moving ice sheet that went over the planes. If an ice sheet of any substantial height would have moved over the planes, you can bet that they would have been pretty much destroyed and not at all as pristine as they were discovered. Also, the idea of the planes falling into deep cracks, seems to be fairly unlikely, because of the pristine condition the planes were found in.
The only "plausible" explanation I could think of out of my head, that maybe could explain the evidence in favor to the shifting ice idea, is that the planes were covered in a not so big ice sheet of a couple of meters (frozen in) soon after they landed and later a much bigger, already existing ice sheet, moved over the already solidly frozen planes. That could at least theoretically explain why they weren't crashed to pieces by the ice.
It looks like it was a private enterprise and no one really looked at it scientifically, which is a big pity, to say the least. The exact location in Greenland where they were found, would already be a big plus in solving this problem. I couldn't find that yet.
Having said that, the most sensible explanation, from the little data we have, is that they were indeed buried under that much new snow/ice since 1942.
And now comes an even more interesting part, that can be found in Potatoes and Tomatoes post above. In the article we can read (notice the bolded parts):
Anybody notice something peculiar in the above? We are talking about the rediscovery of another plane of the same "Lost Squadron" fleet, that Glacier Girl was a part of. So recently, they started to rediscover another plane of that fleet, that hasn't been excavated/recovered in 1992, from this lost "Lost Squadron" and they want to dig it out next year.
Notice that it says "Jim Salazar, told Live Science that the team found the wrecked P-38 on July 4 beneath more than 300 feet (91 meters) of ice". First, notice the roundabout number of "over 300 feet" and second that no exact date of this measurement is given. Was that amount of ice measured in 2011 or later? And under how much ice was it exactly?
Since the article doesn't mention those crucial data points, I had to look elsewhere, and I found the following bunch of articles, in some of which the height of the ice of this rediscovery is given as 340 feet and in others as 350 feet. Notice the big discrepancy to the statement above of "over 300 feet". And that in other articles it says "around 300 feet".... How can you say that, when it is actually probably well over 300 feet, with one article stating "350 + feet"?
"340" feet:
1: Expedition to locate P-38 “Echo” from Lost Squadron just returned from Greenland’s Ice Cap
2: Consent Form | Flying Magazine
"350 +" feet:
1: A Team Just Found Another P-38 Under 300 Ft. Of Ice-Prepping To Recover
Notice that in the last article it provides the depth as:
Notice also that they also finally give us a date in that article, when exactly that probe hit the 350 + feet mark:
So low and behold we have the following:
- In July 2018 the P-38 from the same fleet as "Glacier Girl" was rediscovered, buried under 350+ feet of ice/snow
- In 1992 Glacier girl was pulled out of under 268 feet [81,68 Meters] of ice/snow (August 1, 1992)
Conclusion:
- In the last 26 years, between approximately July 1992 and July 2018, an additional 82 feet [25 Meters] of ice/snow build up on top of the planes, arriving at a total of 350 + feet [106,68 Meters] since July 1942 (when the planes landed)!
A couple of simple calculations derived from those numbers, with pretty interesting results:
- The total height accumulated over the planes between July 1942 and approximately July 1992 was 268 feet [81,68 Meters], which means in a time span of exactly 50 years. That calculates to an average rate of increase of 5,36 feet [1,633 Meters] of ice/snow over the planes in every year in that time span.
- Between approximately July 1992 and July 2018 an additional 82 feet [25 Meters] of ice was added, which means in a time span of exactly 26 years. That calculates to an average rate of increase of 3,153 feet [0,961 Meters] of ice/snow over the planes in every year in that time span.
- Taken together we get: In a time span of 76 years, from July 1942 to July 2018, the ice over the planes increased in an average rate of 4,605 feet [1,4036 Meters] in every year of that time span.
- The thickest thickness of the Greenland ice sheet (here again I have a hard time to find an exact number) is generally given as "over 3 Kilometers at its thickest point" and "The oldest known ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 1,000,000 years old." A concrete thickness for this 1 Million year dating, is given in this scientific article as "3020–3026 m", on which that date of one million is based. It is from the GRIP data which they summarize as follows:
- So as we have rightly guessed, the scientist think that under currently the thickest point in Greenland, at the very bottom of it [3020–3026 Meters] they "measured" it at an average date of 1 Million years ago. The variance is given as 970±140 ka. Which means somewhere between 1.110.00 years ago and 830.000 years ago.
- Calculated with the mean given at 970 ka, we can calculate the following for fun and interest, with the accumulation data over the planes:
If we assume for the sake of the argument that the above 76 year period of ice accumulation over the planes is the average/mean increase of ice/snow in the past, with which we can calculate the date of that thickest point under the Greenland ice sheet, we get this:
1: 1,4036 Meters ≙ snow/ice accumulation every year on average in the last 76 years
3026 Meters ≙ 2.155,88 years!
That means if we calculate with the average yearly rate of ice increase over the planes over the last 76 years, we arrive at the date 2.155,88 years before July 2018 for the first snow on the 3026 deep layer under Greenland ice sheet to appear, that is conventionally dated by the ice core people at approximately 970.000 years ago!?
That is a humongous difference right there!
Now we might argue that there were much colder and warmer periods in the official time line which both would make that calculated number of 2.155,88 much bigger, but in fact that doesn't seem to be the case, quite the contrary in fact. If we would calculate in a couple of warm periods, in which it probably snowed much less, like the "medieval warm period", it is only logically to assume that the 2155 year calculation (we calculated above) would need to be calculated quite significantly downward. The same holds true for very cold periods in which it probably snowed much more if you think about it. Am I missing something here?
How to reconcile that????
So what I'm getting here is the following:
- The Glacier Girl and its companions in the fleet represent maybe a case study that creates huge problems, both for the global warming Propagandists, as well as the ice core scientists and their datings
- The Uniformitarian dogma of a slow "one drop of water, one grain of sand at a time" model, over long millions of years, without anything fairly big happening in between, in pretty short periods, might be responsible for huge miscalculations of dating data not only in ice cores.
- Then again, we are dealing with Greenland, a very complex ice sheet system, so definitively more data is needed, especially about the location of the planes on Greenland.
And I think the problem can be summarized as follows, from Voyageur's post:
In regards to the old trees under the Mendenhall Glacier, we have to keep in mind here that this one is a Mountain glacier in Alaska, in contrast to the "Greenland Ice sheet" in which the Glacier girl was recovered. Another place and quite another ice morphology and behavior I would guess. So leaving this interesting piece of evidence from Alaska aside for the moment, I would like to concentrate on the Glacier Girl and its companions in the fleet, since it could represent quite big problems both for the human made global warming folks, as well as the scientist who study ice core samples with which thea come up with their past climate datings and catastrophes.
Well, the idea of the planes having been covered over by ice instead of buried by NEW ice is actually one of the reasons I would like to see some concrete archeological and geological studies on the exact location of those planes, since Greenland is known for its complex shifting and moving, melting and building up of ice sheets, in various places. It is a rather unique place in regards to ice behaviors compared to other large ice sheets. So we shouldn't dismiss the idea of it being covered by shifting ice sheets out of hand.
At least we still have the big problem of the planes having been pretty much intact after excavation as you mentioned as well. That is indeed a big data point that speaks against a moving ice sheet that went over the planes. If an ice sheet of any substantial height would have moved over the planes, you can bet that they would have been pretty much destroyed and not at all as pristine as they were discovered. Also, the idea of the planes falling into deep cracks, seems to be fairly unlikely, because of the pristine condition the planes were found in.
The only "plausible" explanation I could think of out of my head, that maybe could explain the evidence in favor to the shifting ice idea, is that the planes were covered in a not so big ice sheet of a couple of meters (frozen in) soon after they landed and later a much bigger, already existing ice sheet, moved over the already solidly frozen planes. That could at least theoretically explain why they weren't crashed to pieces by the ice.
It looks like it was a private enterprise and no one really looked at it scientifically, which is a big pity, to say the least. The exact location in Greenland where they were found, would already be a big plus in solving this problem. I couldn't find that yet.
Having said that, the most sensible explanation, from the little data we have, is that they were indeed buried under that much new snow/ice since 1942.
And now comes an even more interesting part, that can be found in Potatoes and Tomatoes post above. In the article we can read (notice the bolded parts):
August 25, 2018 06:45am ET
A World War II airplane that was lost in Greenland decades ago has been found deep beneath glacial ice. The warplane was part of the so-called Lost Squadron, and was first spotted by an aerial drone, though a ground-based survey confirmed the location. Searchers hope to eventually melt the ice and recover the warplane.
Searchers have located the wreck of a P-38 Lightning fighter aircraft buried deep within a glacier in Greenland, more than 70 years after a lost squadron of U.S. warplanes crash-landed on the ice there during World War II.
The search team plans to dig and melt the rediscovered warplane out of the glacier next summer — and the searchers hope that their techniques can locate other World War II air wrecks in the region, including some that carried MIA (missing in action) U.S. airmen. [Photos: WWII Battleship 'USS Juneau' Discovered]
The Lost Squadron of airplanes included a group of two B-17 bombers and six P-38 fighters flying from the U.S. to Britain in July 1942 when they hit a storm and went down in remote Greenland. Here, a photo of the P-38 fighter on the ice.
Credit: US Army
The search leader, California businessman Jim Salazar, told Live Science that the team found the wrecked P-38 on July 4 beneath more than 300 feet (91 meters) of ice using a ground-penetrating radar antenna fitted to a heavy-lift aerial drone. The drone was scanning a part of the glacier where hints of the buried warplane were detected in 2011.
[...]
Snowball Route
This latest find echoes the 1992 recovery of another P-38 fighter from the same "Lost Squadron" of U.S. warplanes in Greenland. That fighter was eventually restored to flying condition under the name "Glacier Girl".
Anybody notice something peculiar in the above? We are talking about the rediscovery of another plane of the same "Lost Squadron" fleet, that Glacier Girl was a part of. So recently, they started to rediscover another plane of that fleet, that hasn't been excavated/recovered in 1992, from this lost "Lost Squadron" and they want to dig it out next year.
Notice that it says "Jim Salazar, told Live Science that the team found the wrecked P-38 on July 4 beneath more than 300 feet (91 meters) of ice". First, notice the roundabout number of "over 300 feet" and second that no exact date of this measurement is given. Was that amount of ice measured in 2011 or later? And under how much ice was it exactly?
Since the article doesn't mention those crucial data points, I had to look elsewhere, and I found the following bunch of articles, in some of which the height of the ice of this rediscovery is given as 340 feet and in others as 350 feet. Notice the big discrepancy to the statement above of "over 300 feet". And that in other articles it says "around 300 feet".... How can you say that, when it is actually probably well over 300 feet, with one article stating "350 + feet"?
"340" feet:
1: Expedition to locate P-38 “Echo” from Lost Squadron just returned from Greenland’s Ice Cap
2: Consent Form | Flying Magazine
"350 +" feet:
1: A Team Just Found Another P-38 Under 300 Ft. Of Ice-Prepping To Recover
Notice that in the last article it provides the depth as:
Notice also that they also finally give us a date in that article, when exactly that probe hit the 350 + feet mark:
So low and behold we have the following:
- In July 2018 the P-38 from the same fleet as "Glacier Girl" was rediscovered, buried under 350+ feet of ice/snow
- In 1992 Glacier girl was pulled out of under 268 feet [81,68 Meters] of ice/snow (August 1, 1992)
Conclusion:
- In the last 26 years, between approximately July 1992 and July 2018, an additional 82 feet [25 Meters] of ice/snow build up on top of the planes, arriving at a total of 350 + feet [106,68 Meters] since July 1942 (when the planes landed)!
A couple of simple calculations derived from those numbers, with pretty interesting results:
- The total height accumulated over the planes between July 1942 and approximately July 1992 was 268 feet [81,68 Meters], which means in a time span of exactly 50 years. That calculates to an average rate of increase of 5,36 feet [1,633 Meters] of ice/snow over the planes in every year in that time span.
- Between approximately July 1992 and July 2018 an additional 82 feet [25 Meters] of ice was added, which means in a time span of exactly 26 years. That calculates to an average rate of increase of 3,153 feet [0,961 Meters] of ice/snow over the planes in every year in that time span.
- Taken together we get: In a time span of 76 years, from July 1942 to July 2018, the ice over the planes increased in an average rate of 4,605 feet [1,4036 Meters] in every year of that time span.
- The thickest thickness of the Greenland ice sheet (here again I have a hard time to find an exact number) is generally given as "over 3 Kilometers at its thickest point" and "The oldest known ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 1,000,000 years old." A concrete thickness for this 1 Million year dating, is given in this scientific article as "3020–3026 m", on which that date of one million is based. It is from the GRIP data which they summarize as follows:
- So as we have rightly guessed, the scientist think that under currently the thickest point in Greenland, at the very bottom of it [3020–3026 Meters] they "measured" it at an average date of 1 Million years ago. The variance is given as 970±140 ka. Which means somewhere between 1.110.00 years ago and 830.000 years ago.
- Calculated with the mean given at 970 ka, we can calculate the following for fun and interest, with the accumulation data over the planes:
If we assume for the sake of the argument that the above 76 year period of ice accumulation over the planes is the average/mean increase of ice/snow in the past, with which we can calculate the date of that thickest point under the Greenland ice sheet, we get this:
1: 1,4036 Meters ≙ snow/ice accumulation every year on average in the last 76 years
3026 Meters ≙ 2.155,88 years!
That means if we calculate with the average yearly rate of ice increase over the planes over the last 76 years, we arrive at the date 2.155,88 years before July 2018 for the first snow on the 3026 deep layer under Greenland ice sheet to appear, that is conventionally dated by the ice core people at approximately 970.000 years ago!?
That is a humongous difference right there!
Now we might argue that there were much colder and warmer periods in the official time line which both would make that calculated number of 2.155,88 much bigger, but in fact that doesn't seem to be the case, quite the contrary in fact. If we would calculate in a couple of warm periods, in which it probably snowed much less, like the "medieval warm period", it is only logically to assume that the 2155 year calculation (we calculated above) would need to be calculated quite significantly downward. The same holds true for very cold periods in which it probably snowed much more if you think about it. Am I missing something here?
How to reconcile that????
So what I'm getting here is the following:
- The Glacier Girl and its companions in the fleet represent maybe a case study that creates huge problems, both for the global warming Propagandists, as well as the ice core scientists and their datings
- The Uniformitarian dogma of a slow "one drop of water, one grain of sand at a time" model, over long millions of years, without anything fairly big happening in between, in pretty short periods, might be responsible for huge miscalculations of dating data not only in ice cores.
- Then again, we are dealing with Greenland, a very complex ice sheet system, so definitively more data is needed, especially about the location of the planes on Greenland.
Last edited:
