AFTER about ninety minutes of flying through dense cloud cover, the coastal mountains appeared through an opening. But where on the west coast were they … they were back on the east coast of Greenland… fuel would only last another twenty minutes. They landed on top of a remote ice cap in Greenland: Eight planes including two B-17 bombers.
That was on July 15, 1942.
Fifty years later a small group of aviation enthusiasts decided to locate the squadron and recover one of the planes. According to Svend Hendriksen, a resident of Greenland, what they found can help explain why Greenland’s glaciers have been melting so rapidly. He wrote:
BACK in the late 1990s and beginning of the 2000s the newspapers and scientific magazines started writing about the speeding glacier in Greenland, probably caused by global warming.
I was wondering because the weight of the Icecap (the gravity) is the power behind the speed of a glacier, that’s a well known fact in Arctic climate science.
The West coast glacier in Jacobshavn (Ilulissat), with the world record of about 20 meters a day, is well-known it started galloping back in 1738.
But the two East Greenlandic slow glaciers had now speeded up too. So what was going on in the Eastern part of Greenland?
I started searching for some practical evidence and I found something interesting going back to the middle of WWII. A squadron of military airplanes was forced to make a emergency landing on the Icecap in Eastern part of Greenland, due a ‘white out’, lack of fuel and bad radio communication conditions on a an route flight from the US to Iceland in 1942. All crewmembers were rescued but the airplanes were left behind on the Icecap.
Many years later a group of WWII veterans and enthusiastic military aircraft guys decided to find the lost squadron on the Greenlandic Icecap. It was easy to find the area by using the coordinates from the rescue mission, but it wasn’t easy to find the airplanes, expected to be around or about 15-20 meters under the surface according to the precipitation data for the last 50 years (1942-92).
But there must be something wrong with the precipitation data because the squadron was found at a depth of 268 feet (about 90 meters) under the surface of the Icecap.
The recovery of the airplane from the Icecap perhaps gives us a clue to the speeding up of the two Eastern glaciers: a huge amount of precipitation accumulating 90 meters of ice!
Svend Hendriksen,
Greenland.
************************
Notes
Glacier Girl, B-38 National Museum website, http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
The picture is of the Russell glacier, Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, via Mr Hendriksen.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A great example of an AGW enhanced hydrological cycle – excellent article !
Additional information: Letter from Bob Cardin (project site manager)
Svend,
The snow density appeared to be the same for the first 20-30 feet and
then gradually got more compact to about the 80 foot level were it
converted to Ice.
There were Ice rings, we called the Ice Lenses, at various depths
indicating periods of snow melt, then slush, then freeze.
The Ice was more dense the lower we went. It was also more explosive
the lower we went.
The ice was at times clear and cloudy at different depths there was a
area of very clear ice at about 200′ were at 268 it was more cloudy.
I estimate the annual snow accumulation is about 7 foot per year. We
measured a 9 year section to be 62.5 feet, that all tracts with a 50
yeas total accounting for compression.
I hope the helps you out,
Bob Cardin
Luke:
“A great example of an AGW enhanced hydrological cycle – excellent article!”
O course you failed to provide data to show that what you state is in fact happening as far back as the 1940’s.
There was a COOLING trend from early 1940’s to the late 1970’s.Does that mean it was snowing far less than 7 feet a year in those decades and now snowing far more than 7 feet a year today?
See why your comment is weak?
Very good proof that Greenland has been recovering from the LIA. However with the amount of snow/ice retained each year it does not look good for additional recovery soon.
luke; I can only suppose you are assuming the increase in Greenland ice and snow is an indicator of AGW in the same way that AGW regarded the cooling and ice expansion in Antarctica as an indicator of AGW; supposedly the increased warming in the surrounding seas increased evaporation which, as we know, was then thermodynamically directed inwards to the Antarctic interior in the same way that back-radiation warms the surface [ no wait, that’s the opposite, oh well]; pity about Steig et Mann.
Yes Cohenite when you talk about Steig, Mann, Luke etc it’s 2 bob each way and then all the way, in fact they don’t know what to believe.
Antarctica cooling was the hold out position until Steig& Mann’s faulty station records messed that up along with the stupid media hacks.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve.
I thought Luke was making a good point: with a warmer Arctic I thought there would be more snowfall – and also more melt?
My first impression of this thread; the initial contribution was hardly scientific to begin with. Then, it wasn’t practical either.
One thing I learned while in NZ recently, glaciers are fickle in the extreme. I overheard dozens of tour guides with strange international accents say the same thing over and over; our glaciers are constantly churning.
What about the fact that a dark metal object is more likely to sink faster than the surrounding snow and ice?
“What about the fact that a dark metal object is more likely to sink faster than the surrounding snow and ice?”
Very interesting point gavin, It could depend on how much air was still trapped inside the aircraft as to what their net SGs were and whether they were all at the same level still etc. but they wouldn’t have had a much greater SG than ice.
Just the right amount of trapped air would counteract the lack of albedo of a black body.
I’m sure it could be modeled.
The other aircraft were six P-38 Lightnings. One of the P-38s was successfully recovered back in the early 90’s and restored as “Glacier Girl”. The recovery and the restoration to flying condition make a fantastic story – see http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
“What about the fact that a dark metal object is more likely to sink faster than the surrounding snow and ice?”
Interesting thought, but insignificant in practical terms. At near-freezing temperatures, and while not completely covered by snow/ice, you might see a small difference. Once buried by a couple of feet of snow, any difference in albedo would be unmeasurable. You might as well try to measure the effect of “buoyancy” that would cause a hollow aircraft to “sink” through the snow and ice more slowly.
None of you have realised the implication that at the observed rate fo snow buildup, andb the glacial churning, that the Greenland Ice cap might only have stratigraphic records going back for a much shorter period of time than assumed.
You have the rate of deposition, you can find out the depth of the ice cap, so figure it out as Cappy Vontrapment said to Agent Karen Sympathy.
What ever is happening in the Arctic it’s natural;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
I like the schizophrenia of the pro-AGW sources; they retain enough honesty to put the real situation out there but always incorporate a little coda at the end or intersperse some deference to the Chimera in the body of the report;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826533.900
But getting back to luke and his it’s getting colder is proof of AGW line; this is how it starts; it warms; the water evaporates; more clouds form; less insolation; and hey, presto, an ice-age.
“But getting back to luke and his it’s getting colder is proof of AGW line; this is how it starts; it warms; the water evaporates; more clouds form; less insolation; and hey, presto, an ice-age.”
Not only that Cohers but are not evaporation and condensation both cooling processes.
But dont worry, the way the economies are being stuffed up by the yanks, they are as good as broke and there wont be any business and manufacturing producing GHG’s anyway.
The most important point to glean from this example is the fact that the official calculations of mass balance in Greenland have been way off the mark for at least half a century. Remember, it was the calculation of mass balance that was used to fuel the sea level rise bunyip. They measured the rate of ice loss and fresh water from the glaciers but used a rate of new ice formation on top of the sheet that was considerably below the actual.
Indeed, if deposition is anywhere near the level indicated by this example then Greenland has been accumulating sea water for half a century at least. Damn, keep this quiet or I will never find an eco-sucker with a cheap waterfront property.
Assuming 3000 metres of ice cap (a median number) and the rates referred to above, it works out that it takes about 1400 years for snow to end up at the ocean, everything else being equal.
So if the glacial churning is, rounding off, 1500 years, then the oldest ice should be of that age.
It’s more complex of course than the simple picture I painted here, but it’s in the right order of accuracy.
gavin,
my thoughts would be that since the landed on the ice, and Greenland hasn’t melted since, that the planes would be on the surface they landed on, give or take the depth of melt puddles. If perma frost only melts a few feet in siberia it won’t be far on an Ice shelf, even if the ice melts around the body, the bottom sits on ice.
McManus’ plane in the glacier-girl photo didn’t indicate any surface water, in peak summer. otherwise they wouldn’t have to have worried about sore throats from eating snow.
drats, foiled by page two. Will get used to this eventually.
[ “It was easy to find the area by using the coordinates from the rescue mission, but it wasn’t easy to find the airplanes, expected to be around or about 15-20 meters under the surface according to the precipitation data for the last 50 years (1942-92).
But there must be something wrong with the precipitation data because the squadron was found at a depth of 268 feet (about 90 meters) under the surface of the Icecap.”]
…. Well, so much for all the scientist’s expert theories and knowledge…. It probably goes something like this….
Glacier expert: “Absolutely sir. You will find the planes buried beneath about 20 meters of snow. We are scientists and we know exactly what we are talking about.”
…. after a lot of digging, one of the unwashed and uneducated aircraft enthusiasts pipes up and says.
“er… we found them at 90 meters!”…. ” Does that mean anything significant?”
Expert:… Umm, I’m a bit busy measuring a 5 meter sea level rise in New York….. I’ll, er, get back to you on that…. You sure your measurements are right?
Unwashed aircraft enthusiast:… Aye, we have a real plane, in a real 90 meter hole…. and really need to get it out.
Expert: *sound of crickets* 🙂
Now lets see, 15 -20 metres vs 90 metres is an error range of 350 to 500%.
Yep, that would be about right for the IPCC and the climate cretins. It would only take three bull$hit piggybacked assumtions in a GCM to cover that up.
And Luke, a.k.a. boy wonder, tried to pass it off as confirmation of GCM projections. The dude has no shame.
I have read on the internet (so I am assuming it is true) that supplying a small charge to a metal object can disrupt the bond between metal and ice. I therefore hypothesise that electrical currents are produced in large flexible metal objects that are contained in moving ice (due to flexing and friction). The current would disrupt the molecular bonds at the ice/metal interface producing a liquid-like effect, causing the plains to sink.
A heavy object can sink through ice.
You lot are just hilarious.
Bollocks, Steve Garland, pure bollocks. These planes are up on the main ice sheet where movement is minimal, even if the molecular science was sound, which is unlikely.
Ian and Michael,
It was tongue-in-cheek! Although I would not be surprised if the planes did sink to some degree due to ice movements. And Ian, the article suggested the accumulated ice was feeding eastern glaciers. I didn’t check the plausibility of that. You must have though and shown it to be bollocks.
Stephen
Sorry Stephen, such nuance is right outside the square for this blog.
Good one Stephen!! 8>)
No problems Ian.
Does anyone know if the altitude of the surface of the ice cap has increased by 90 meters? There are probably some records of the altitude when the planes landed. I would be interested to know how much the altitude of the surface varies in relation to snow fall (due to the influence of glacial flow). The concept that the depth of the planes can be estimated simply by the amount of snow fall seems erroneous
You gotta love Luke. He’s an AGW Wiley E Coyote in a Road Runner cartoon. He blows himself up rhetorically with every second post.
More ice in Greenland is a sure sign of AGW. And so is less ice!
BHAH HA HA A AH AH HA….
Interesting reading the different theories about how those planes got to be under 90 metres of ice when the ice is supposed to be getting thinner. At the other end of the world, I read about Capt. Scotts camp now being under nearly 300 metres of antarctic ice. Surely there are no heavy metal or batteries there to cause sinking.