There was a report on Yahoo news about a P-38 fighter plane that was salvaged 50 years after it crashed in Greenland. It was covered by 250 feet of ice. Now I'm just a dumb redneck, but that figures to 5' of ice a year. Doesn't that go against the conventional wisdom of Global warming? Shouldn't the ice have been receeding on Greenland?
2007-06-23 04:40:43 · 15 answers · asked by mad_mav70 6 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
The problem is more mental than meteorological.
2007-06-23 05:09:30 · answer #1 · answered by billnzan 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The ice is receding from the edges of Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic.
In both Greenland and Antarctica there has been an increase in snowfall due to global warming. As temperatures rise there's greater evapouration from the seas and oceans and a corresponsing increase in the amount of precipitation.
The Greenland and Antarctic interiors are bitterly cold and there is no melting occurring there due to global warming, it will be a very long time before temperatures rise enough to start melting this ice.
It's the edges of the ice sheets that are melting the fastest because there are warmer than the interior. Currently Greenland is loosing 220 cubic kilometres of ice per year due to melting from the periphery (Arctic is losing 600 km3, Antarctica losing 82km3).
2007-06-23 12:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily.
Ice continues to accumulate (via snow). But don't forget that glaciers also melt from below. This story alone doesn't prove or disprove melting of the ice sheet. You have to look at the NET accumulation or loss of ice.
Nonetheless, you're story is every bit as convincing as pictures of large chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean. Those large chunks breaking off happen whether there is a net accumulation or loss of the continental ice sheet. Think about it: as ice accumulates over land, pressure eventually pushes excess ice over the edge and into the water. Many scientists say this is just what is happening in Greenland and Antarctica (although the evidence is much more convincing in Antarctica).
Keep on thinking outside of the box and don't accept everything at face value.
2007-06-23 12:08:39 · answer #3 · answered by 3DM 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Global warming is a problem. Just watch your tax bill go up as the enviro's steal your cash. You think Y2K and the dot bombs cost alot, wait til Gore and his faithful get done.
2007-06-23 14:45:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as global warming. All these big companys pay all these scientists to say that the world is going to flood, but what they fail to mention is that while some ice caps are melting and becoming smaller, there are others are freezing and becoming larger.
2007-06-23 11:45:13 · answer #5 · answered by Q16 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Thats a good point, but global warming is still a problem like hana said.
2007-06-23 11:48:52 · answer #6 · answered by Duke G 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
You're right! Global warming is a popular environmental cause, but it doesn't exist - at least not to the extent that the scare-mongers are claiming it does.
2007-06-23 11:46:15 · answer #7 · answered by Bad Kitty! 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Only if you actually believe in the hoax of global warming.
2007-06-23 11:42:53 · answer #8 · answered by Always Right 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
good question.
maybe it melts slower in that part of greenland?
2007-06-23 13:28:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well now you have me a bit confused. global warming is DEFINITELY a problem that needs to be fixed, but haha, i dont really understand what your trying to say. at all.
2007-06-23 11:44:23 · answer #10 · answered by Hana 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋