Bill,
Water is one of the few substances that expands when going through a phase
transformation from liquid to solid. That's why ice floats and aquatic life
is possible in temperate climates. An old trick is to "melt" a wire through
a block of ice by hanging weights from the wire. But you probably know all
that.
Is it possible that the same principle caused the planes to sink deeper into
the ice? I don't know if the pressure of the planes was sufficiently high
to cause melting of the ice under the planes but there was lots of time.
Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Payne [mailto:bpayne15@juno.com]
Sent: Monday January 15, 2001 10:18 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Plane ice from Re: Creation Ex Nihilo
Jonathan,
Thank you for the informative post.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:39:17 +1100 Jonathan Clarke
<jdac@alphalink.com.au> writes:
> However, this does not mean that all is clear about the glaciology
> of the site. With the described accumulation on site and the
> compaction rate from the Camp Century ice core, the
> aircraft should be buried to a depth of about 5 m. Clearly the
> aircraft are much deeper than they should be. I don't know why this
> is the case. [snip]
> Possibly snowdrifts accumulating round the aircraft were a factor.
This might be a factor initially, but I would think after the planes were
buried a few meters the drifts collecting because of the interference of
the planes would disappear.
> As you suggest, most likely some glaciological/meterological process is
the
> answer. it could involve flow, lower compaction ratios, or higher
> than average accumulation. What it might be I have no idea.
If 2 m of snow accumulate per year, and the planes were down from 1942 to
1992, then 2 m * 50 years = 100 m of dry snow with a density of 0.01. In
a year and at a depth of 2 m the dry snow becomes firn with a density of
0.4, which becomes glacial ice with density of 0.8 at 60 m and 0.91 at
100 m. Let's say the average density of the snow/ice from 0 to 80 m is
0.6. Then the snow with a density of 0.01 compacts 60 times to become
ice with an average density of 0.6 (0.01/0.6 = 60). So in 50 years we
should get 100 m of snow which compacts 60 times to 1.7 m in 50 years. I
think you said there should be 5 m of cover instead of 1.7 m. What did I
do wrong? Or were you just ballparking the number?
If the rate of burial *were* to be found to be accurate ("higher than
[recent] average accumulation"?) at 82 m per 50 years, then ice builds at
about 1.5 m per year, and the 3000 m ice sheet took only 2000 years to
form. No wonder the YECs like this one.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 15 2001 - 23:59:39 EST