Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:33 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:36 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:58 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:33 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:59 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:06 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:12 am
Django wrote:The one B-17 they found was crushed.
Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:18 am
Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:33 pm
Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:53 pm
Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:46 pm
Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:59 pm
Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:46 pm
Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:03 pm
Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:47 pm
RMAllnutt wrote:They are not sinking, so much as being covered with new layers of ice. it depends upon where they are with respect to the coastal regions. The oceans in general are warming at an alarming rate, which has caused the outer edges of the ice to melt dramatically. In a peculiar twist though, since there is less area of ice covering the outer edges, those areas of ice further in-land have thickened slightly, because without the insulation properties of the outer layers of ice, the sea-water closer to the north pole has gotten a little colder.bdk wrote:I am not alarmed...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635077/posts
"What we know is that the global average temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius or less since the late 1800s. We also know that industrial activity has raised atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations, and that this increase should make things warmer. But there is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far, and how much warming they will cause in the future.
Fred Singer of George Mason University points out that “we have historic [temperature] records in Europe going back a thousand years. It was much warmer then than today. The Arctic was much warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Polar bears survived. The ice caps survived.” And data from ice cores suggest that previous interglacial periods were warmer than the one we’re going through now."
Now this real science alarms me:
"On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060 ... -7360r.htm
A close analogy would be how thick layers of snow insulate those below, and can actually cause them to melt even with freezing air temperatures. When you take away those layers of snow though, the insulating properties have gone, and the snow stays frozen. Anyone who's played in the snow should know this.bdk wrote:Unless you live in Texas where the state shuts down when it snows!![]()
I know that probably sounds as clear as mud though, but it is actually what is happening in the north. A raise in the oceans temperature of 1 degree celcius might not sound like much, but when you consider the enormous amount of energy required to do it, it really is quite staggering! You are talking billions and billions of terrawatts (probably more actually).
That being said, I don't believe that the P-38's are under 400' of ice now. I think that's just a bit of guff to make it seem less attractive to go back. Afterall, glacier girl is unique so far and, in their hearts, I imagine those guys would kinda like to keep it unique. Wouldn't be half as glamorous for them with five glacier girls flying around now would it... of course, for those of us on the outside, it would be awesome!bdk wrote:It also doen't make it clear to me that this makes the recovery much more difficult. You just need a little longer rope to hoist the aircraft out. While the weight of the additional snow/ice is greater, there is no way to know if this affects any of those aircraft specifically. Some could be in pockets of lower density and others in pockets of high density. Were all the aircraft reviewed for damage prior to recovering Glacier Girl?
Cheers,
Richard