Airplanes in the Ice

This came up in another thread: Message 166 by Craig

quote:

---

Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

​

Ice-bound plane flies again!
‘Glacier Girl’ reminds us that it doesn’t take millions of years to form deep layers of ice
by Carl Wieland

​

The fascinating news that one of these magnificent ‘planes in ice’ is actually flying again brings to mind their whole amazing story. It is a powerful, real-life testimony against the widespread belief that it takes vast timespans to lay down thick layers of ice.

---

AIG claims "they turned out to be buried deep beneath some 75 metres (250 feet) of solid ice." as well.Another reminder of how misleading (even dishonest? ) that these souces can be. This was, I think, all discussed once here but it could use a focussed thread of its own.Craig has done enough messing up of the Correlations thread. Let's keep this one focussed a bit.To start with the AIG reference neglects to get clear just where the aircraft in the ice are located relative to the ice core dated samples are. There is a difference in the amount of snow that falls in the two places.The ice cores are located at 72.6 N 38.5 West. This area gets 20 to 30 g/cm^2/yr of preciptation. The planes went down at 65 20' N, 40 20' W where the precip is greater than 80 g/cm^2/year (I can't find anything saying how much greater.)(see http://< !--UB EvC Forum: glaciers and the flood -->http://EvC Forum: glaciers and the flood -->EvC Forum: glaciers and the flood< !--UE--> for maps of precip amounts)The minimum of 80 g/cm^2/year produces 49 meters of solid ice in the 55 years from 1942 to the 1997 AIG ariticle. Of course the AIG talk of 75 meters of solid ice is wrong. The upper layers will not have turned to ice. That takes a few years. The depth of the planes is therefore close to what one would expect at the location.The 75 meter depth is NOT layers of ice. There was no measurement of the annual layers that the planes were under.The seasonal layers are, just like the varves, marked in the snow .
There are several different ways of determining that.
see: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node3.htmlAs usual these creationist sources tell a small part of the story and ignore the rest.The lost squadron says nothing about the validity of the GISP2 and other ice core measurements.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-22-2004 08:08 PM

Approved by AdminSylas

---

Good links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
To comment on moderation, go to General discussion of moderation procedures

Ned, my Googling mentioned in the Birkeland post you linked to turned up a pdf in Danish that listed snow accumulations, as water equivalent, in the 150 to 247 cm/year range. This would translate tp about 135 to 225 g/cm^2/yr - still 6 to 10 times as much as on top of the cap, where the cores were drilled.There's another coring project completed in Greenland, too: NGRIP, which goes back to 123,000 years ago in an area with precipitation of 19 cm ice per year. Nature, v431, pp147-151 (2004) has the report, and Surprise! - it correlates with other records back through time.

I thought this thread could be kept clean and tidy and used the next time someone brings up the lost squardron yet again.Perhaps Bill's post should be copied here too.

One other thing to remember is that the plane would have settled into the snow or ice simply through heat transmission. For fun simply set an object on a block of ice and leave it for a while. The object will melt the surrounding ice and settle into the block.It's always been a really weak example anyway.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The issue isn't how deep they are but how many annual layers they are under.That hasn't, as far as I know, been independently measured. Afterall why bother since we know when they crashed landed there. Over that short s time it wouldn't add a very useful calibration to the ice cores either.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-24-2004 01:19 PM

It would seem a fair test of whatever the hypothesis is concerning what consitutes an annual deposit.

Of course, we should be able to detect how far down it melted into the ice, right? It seems like that would make SOMETHING different in the surrounding ice. Then we could examine the non-melted deposits upward (the ice/snow deposited after the crash).

Though I don't know I doubt that it would sink very far. It should reach the ambiant temp once it is covered completely. That should be the end of the melting.The object has to have a source of heat for that too work or apply enough pressure.