Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
Something that came up in discussions about deserts was the one on Greenland. This is, like Antarctica, an example of an all-wet landscape (ice) that doesn't get much of the substance that made it so (snow). Greenland is there because snow falls but doesn't melt, so just builds up. But how much is 'not much'?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl wrote: | Glacier Girl is a Lockheed P-38 Lightning, World War II fighter plane, restored to flying condition after being buried beneath the Greenland ice sheet for over 50 years.
On 15 July 1942, due to poor weather and limited visibility, six P-38 fighters and two B-17 bombers were forced to return to Greenland en route to Great Britain and made emergency landings on the ice field.
All the crew members were subsequently rescued, but Glacier Girl, along with the unit's five other fighters and the two B-17's, were eventually buried under 268 feet of snow and ice that built up over the ensuing decades. |
Actually that's not much. 268 feet of snow is the equivalent of twenty-two inches of rain. Spread over fifty years that is certainly desert-proportion precipitation. [Desert: land receiving ten inches of rain or less, annually.] But look at it another way:
* 268 feet in fifty years is hellishly fast growth, despite a bit of iceberg-spawning on the coast.
* Orthodoxy regards Greenland as a kind of permanent northern hemisphere Antarctica and pays it no mind.
* Our own theories say Greenland shouldn't exist, given the accepted theory of geomorphological prime movers
* But is merely a grounded iceberg, the product of pole shifts in the quite recent past.
Who d'ya reckon is right given the history of Glacier Girl?
|
|