Zoom in – and in and IN – on an Austrian glacier

By Phil Plait | September 6, 2012 11:00 am

This is so cool – photographer André vd Hoeven visited the Pasterze glacier in Austria and took quite a few pictures of it. Quite a few. He then stitched them together to make this astonishing 10,000 x 8600 pixel version that you can pan and scan and zoom:

[You may need to refresh the page if you don’t see the pannable and scannable image directly above this sentence.]

The scale’s a bit hard to grasp. So do this: go to the bottom left corner, where you can see a little splash of blue. That’s where the glaciers is breaking up, exposing cleaner ice. Zoom way in on that spot using the control buttons on the bottom right of the picture. See the people standing there near the open water? That’ll give you a sense of scale. Keep your eye on them, and then zoom back out.

Yikes. Das ist ein großer Gletscher!

This is actually only an 87 megapixel version; André told me his full-blown 185 megapixel shot was too big to upload!

If André’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he also created the amazing mosaic of the night sky in Cygnus I posted a couple of weeks ago. His skill is formidable.

I hope he keeps taking pictures of glaciers, too. I am honestly concerned there may not be a whole lot of time left to do so.

Image credit: André van der Hoeven.


Related Posts:

Incredible panorama of the summer sky
Greenland seeing unprecedented melting
Is it hot in here, or is it just global warming?
Enormous glacier calves in largest Arctic event seen in 48 years

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Cool stuff, Pretty pictures

Comments (59)

  1. shunt1

    But “global warming” will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and cause more snow to fall…

    Or did I miss something?

    BTW, fantastic image and I do enjoy seeing the wonderful views that our Earth can provide.

    ….

    I was told that these WWII fighters were buried under 100 meters of snow because of “global warming.”

    A World War II US fighter plane once entombed under 100 metres of snow and ice in Greenland is back in the skies to complete a mission it began nearly 65 years ago.

    Dubbed “Glacier Girl” after being recovered, the P-38 fighter left Teterboro Airport in the United States for another leg of a journey to Duxford, England, where it is scheduled to land on June 29.

    The plane was part of a group that became known as the Lost Squadron which was forced by foul weather in 1942 to crash land onto a glacier in Greenland.

    I really would appreciate it if y’all would make up your minds. It does get rather confusing.

  2. shunt1

    For more information about “Glacier Girl” please view this website:

    http://www.p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm

    Now, what was that about glaciers and how they are melting? Please explain how these aircraft were buried under 100 meters of snow since 1942.

    Remember, y’all are the ones telling us that the glaciers are melting in Greenland and that our oceans will rise because of it. Low lying land such as New York city will be flooded, etc, etc, etc…

  3. Jonathan

    Haha, people down in the lower lefter corner.. its like ‘Where’s Waldo’!

  4. Messier Tidy Upper

    On this the topic of capturing disappearing ice before its all gone, this movie :

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/06/trailer-chasing-ice/

    Looks like a potentially great one. Looks spectacular and terrifying and glorious combined.

    Meanwhile the Arctic sea ice extent is still falling already well below its record minimum :

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    The Arctic sea ice canary is also telling us that the IPCC and climatologists computer modelling has been at least in some areas has been underestimating the severity and speed of the problem. For instance, watch Greenman3610’s 2011 Arctic Sea ice minimum’ youtube clip :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0

    and note especially the graphic display from about the 2 minute 30 to 3 minute mark.

    ************************

    “Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, listens to no debates. It is not burdened by ideology and carries no political baggage as it crosses the threshold from solid to liquid. It just melts.”

    – Dr Henry Pollack, geophysicist, University of Michigan.

    Source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-wbzK4v7GsM

    “Watts Up with Sea Ice?” Youtube video by Greenman3610 1 minute 14 seconds to 1 minute 51 seconds marks.

  5. Rift

    First post is about global warming, on a blog post that doesn’t even mention it… *bangs head on wall*

  6. shunt1

    What was Phil’s last sentence?

    “I hope he keeps taking pictures of glaciers, too. I am honestly concerned there may not be a whole lot of time left to do so.”

    Now, which one of us was not paying attention?

  7. uudale

    @ #2:

    Well, Phil does sort of refer to it in the last sentence of his post.

  8. shunt1

    @ uudale #5

    Thanks for paying attention!

    I just try my best to keep Phil honest…

    That is why I have had such a problem with the climate computer models. They simply fail to explain known facts, such as the “lost squadron” from 1942.

    I “bang my head on the wall” all the time when I see Phil posting things that are so easy to contradict with actual physical evidence.

  9. Messier Tidy Upper

    So, Shunt1, what do you make of the record breaking Arctic sea ice minimum this year?

    When you look at this shrunken glacier disappearing before your eyes in the OP and look at all the global climatic trends, global annual temperatures rising consistently, glaciers melting, increased frequency of extreme weather events and all that sort of evidence – what goes through your mind?

  10. shunt1

    @Messier Tidy Upper #9:

    “So, Shunt1, what do you make of the record breaking Arctic sea ice minimum this year?”

    ….

    TRUE OR FALSE:

    Were the aircraft that landed on a Greenland glacier in 1942 buried under 100 meters of snow and ice?

    You do know that the Arctic is an OCEAN? That winds and currents will move the floating ice?

    What is the melting temperature for sea ice?

    You also know that our satellite derived knowledge of the sea ice extent in the arctic ocean only goes back to 1979?

    You also know that the British Admiralty recorded a sudden decrease of arctic sea ice around the 1820’s and sent out ships to investigate?

    If Phil removes the last sentence (that I objected to) of this topic, I would be more than willing to have all of my comments deleted also.

  11. It’s a pitty always this discussion comes up… I know that this glacier has melted a lot in the lost century. It lost several kilometers of length and few hundreds meters thickness…
    (you can find images here: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html)

    About Wally ( :) ) on the glacier are some markers, about the size of a man. They look like a tripod with a rotated stop sign on top. I found 4 myself. It’s a nice challenge to find them…

  12. shunt1

    Glaciers are formed by snow accumulating faster than it can melt.

    The theory of “global warming” is based upon an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will result in an increase of snow fall in locations and elevations that have a sustained temperature below the freezing point of water.

    When you show me images of glaciers retreating, all you have done is demonstrate that the increase of water vapor (as predicted by the computer models) has not happened, and there was an historical decrease of snow for that specific location.

    Those glaciers did not suddenly melt because it was too warm.

    So, were the aircraft of the “Lost Squadron” buried under 100 meters of snow and ice because of the increase of historical atmospheric water vapor or a decrease of temperature?

    Please make up your minds, because this does get very confusing.

  13. Chris A.

    @shunt1:
    “But “global warming” will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and cause more snow to fall…

    Or did I miss something?”

    You missed the fact that “snow fall” and “snow accumulation” are two different things. In order for a glacier to grow, fallen snow must remain over multiple seasons. Also, as glaciers melt, they tend to shrink more from their edges in, than from their tops down. So you can have, in principle, a glacier that is getting thicker in its middle, but still losing total volume as its areal coverage shrinks.

    Finally, there’s the fact that global warming does not produce monotonic change. Glaciers can fluctuate over short (decadal) time scales, but continue to show a long-term (multi-decade) trend towards overall reduction in size. It’s logic(?) like yours that gets the Rush Limbaughs in a snit every time there’s a cold snap, willfully ignoring the fact that, if the average temperature is steadily going up, what happens in a single season is not relevant.

    But you’d know all this if you had a genuine interest in climatology, and weren’t just using specious arguments to troll this blog.

  14. Chris

    Since it’s apparently troll feeding time, here is a paper to read which details the “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic.”
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf

  15. shunt1

    “Finally, there’s the fact that global warming does not produce monotonic change. Glaciers can fluctuate over short (decadal) time scales, but continue to show a long-term (multi-decade) trend towards overall reduction in size.”

    Like since 1942?

    Nice try, but use factual examples next time…

  16. shunt1

    @Chris #14:

    Did you view the website about “Glacier Girl?”

    Nope!

    Instead you called me a “Troll” for daring to show you something factual.

    This is how I evaluate things:

    Study and understand the conflicting scientific studies and see if there is a conflict with known information.

    With the bristlecone trees here in Colorado, I have invited Phil many times to check the raw data. All trees after the “Little Ice Age” should be new growth and easily dated when compared with their measured elevations. All of the older trees that were subjected to frozen soil during the summer months would have died.

    Way too simple!

  17. Matt B.

    @0 BA – If you want to visit a glacier that’s almost gone, there’s St. Mary’s Glacier in Colorado. Sorry, I don’t know exactly where, I’ve never driven the route myself, but you can make a day trip of it from the Denver-Boulder area. It’s very small and sliding into a lake. I’ve actually hiked past it up the mountain. (Have I mentioned this before?)

  18. Ted Hartley

    Bickering about global warming is such a waste of time. In 2-3 years it will be as useless as debating evolution, and smart folks will decide the people who are too ignorant to see the facts just need to be ignored, ala Dawson and the creationists. That being said, somebody figure out how to get the big version of this picture on the web!

  19. shunt1

    Yup!

    Just like:

    1) Ice age in the 1970;s.

    2) Acid rain in the 1980’s.

    3) Ozone hole in the 1990’s.

    4) Global warming in the 2000’s.

    Been there and done that. You know which side has ALWAYS been wrong?

    Item 1) Today, most of the historical records have been “deleted” or never converted into digital form. For those of us who were there, we read the NASA reports…

    Item 2) I knew that acid rain was false because the top of the mountains had the majority of trees die. If it was pollution related, then it would have been concentrated in the valleys.

    Item 3) When I was learning about military meteorology, I studied a training manual from WWII that talked about the ozone layer and how it would decrease toward the poles. That book also taught me about the “ozone donut” and why there was a very large increase of ozone around the Arctic circle which had long “twilights”. Ozone concentrations had everything to do with the inclination of the Sun for a specific location.

    Item 4) We will see, but this “old man” has learned many scientific lessons over the years.

    Trust but VERIFY!

    First clue:

    How many people will tell you about the theory of gravity almost daily?

    When people are trying to convince you of something (or even worse, ridicule), then ask a simple question: Why?

  20. shunt1

    Once again, if Phil would delete his last sentence, then I would not object in any way to his original posting.

  21. shunt1

    @Matt B. #17:

    I know and can drive to those glaciers in about one hour.

    Glaciers are formed when the total snowfall is greater than the melt in the summer months.

    So, was there a rapid increase of temperatures in the Rocky Mountains or a decrease in the amount of snow that year?

    Remember, snow melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

    How would this be measured?

    Heck, it is 87F at my home right now and I can still see snow and ice on Long’s Peak by simply looking out my back window.

  22. Heliantus

    *Comes in*
    *starts to scroll down the post*
    *doesn’t work – the mouse pointer was on this window with the small picture, and making it smaller*

    “Eh, I can also make the picture bigger. Silly me, it’s what Phil is talking about.”

    *Keeps turning the mouse wheel*
    *Eyes widen like saucers*

    “Oh. My. God. It’s full of ice!”

    *Finally moves the mouse away from the picture*
    *Scrolls down and see Shunt1 comments blathering about a plane entombed in snow and global warning should make more vapor and more snow (he forget rain)*
    *Mood ruined, goes away*

  23. shunt1

    @Heliantus #22:

    100 meters of new snow and ice on a glacier since 1942!

    Giggle, you did get me laughing:

    “(he forget rain)*”

  24. Chris

    @19 shunt1
    1) Ice age in the 1970;s.

    Convenient, the only remaining record is in your brain. Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896.

    2) Acid rain in the 1980′s.
    3) Ozone hole in the 1990′s.

    Umm, you do realize the reason we don’t have (or at least curtailed) those two problems now is because of environmental regulation. The adding of catalytic converters, to cars and scrubbers to powerplants to reduce the amount of NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/us-acid-rain-regulations_b_1507392.html
    And later we eliminated the CFCs which were harming the ozone layer.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png

    4) Global warming in the 2000′s.

    The scientists were right both times and industry which was tying to create doubt was wrong. So global warming in the 2000s must be right since that is what the scientists said.

  25. @Shunt1: I think you made your point by now. Can we get back to the real topic of the post which is the image… Because that’s what it’s about and not that last sentence…

  26. Chris

    The way shunt1 is focusing on this almost seems like seeing one tree survive a forest fire and shouting “Hey look everyone, this tree is OK, and everyone told you there was a gigantic fire”

  27. Fizz

    @26 Chris: That’s a nice analogy.
    Deniers / skeptics should read up on the recent work of Richard Muller. The short version: he is a physicist who was warming skeptic for a number of years. He set out to analyze the most commonly criticized problems with climate change models. After 3+ years of analysis, he has concluded that global warming is real, and largely the fault of humans. The ironic part is that he did all this with the funding of the Koch Foundation- long time deniers of global warming.

  28. shunt1

    @Shunt1: I think you made your point by now. Can we get back to the real topic of the post which is the image…

    Since nobody has been able to explain how those aircraft from WWII were buried under 100 meters of snow and ice on a modern glacier…

    Totally agreed!

  29. Fizz

    @28 shunt1:
    There are a number of possibilities.

    1) Perhaps they slowly sank under their own weight through the snow (snow and ice are constantly shifting after all). You can try this one yourself next winter.

    2) Or perhaps it simply snowed over them. No global warming prediction i know of says that it is going to stop snowing in the arctic.

    What global warming is doing is reducing the EXTENT of the glaciers. The glaciers are still quite frozen near the poles and at high altitudes.

    It’s the southerly EXTENT of the glaciers that are receding because that’s where it’s the warmest. That’s where the temperatures have risen from just below freezing to just above freezing, and hence the melt.

    Your buried planes are not evidence against global warming. It is a logical fallacy.

  30. Rift

    Britain has had the rainiest summer EVER.

    Vast swats of North America are in the worse drought for 50s years.

    I don’t believe the glacier girl story, i’ll look it up later (got better things to do to argue with deniers), Buried under 100s of feet of snow and perfectly preserved? But even if it is true, so what? One place on earth got more snow than the rest. BIG DEAL.

    We have a saying here- Too cold to snow. I could use your cockamamie glacier girl story as proof of global warming if i was as dishonest as the average denier.

    One story is just that one story. As opposed to the mountain of evidence.

    And you say I’m not paying attention! sheesh At least I have an excuse that it was early in the morning and i wasn’t wearing my glasses. What the heck is yours?

    Still, beautiful photograph. Thanks for posting it Phil.

  31. JRW

    My first inclination is to argue the interpretation of facts and logic with the GW denier, but realize I would also like to not waste time beating my head against a wall. It’s long past time to think instead more about how I and the rest of us are going to cope with a warmer Earth. Phil, how would you have phrased your last sentence differently if you were speaking to GW realists? As a declarative statement, not a conditional one, e.g.: “We won’t be able to do this much longer (with its implied “so I’m glad this photographer did this while he still could.”) We have many, many future problems to solve beyond the denialism.

  32. Brian Too

    Silverlight seems to be one of the best implementations I’ve seen of dynamically zoomable images. The best ones always have Silverlight as their implementation technology.

    This is why it bugs me when purists start on the “it’s not the best way” line. OK, it’s not standards based, we all get that. But when the standards just aren’t there, or are incomplete, or are not accepted by the broad web community… why not?

  33. shunt1

    Britain has had the rainiest summer EVER.

    Are you absolutly sure of that fact?

    Rather difficult to argue with people that are unable to present factual evidence.

  34. Liath

    shunt1

    I understand you want facts. I recommend RealClimate.org. The site is certainly worth your browsing time.

  35. Fizz
  36. Timothy

    @32 shunt1
    So you have direct evidence that they indeed went 268 feet (81m) into that ice? Which by the way, _not_ 100m like you reference. The number is directly from the website that you asked us to read.

  37. shunt1

    RealClimate.org

    You have got to be kidding!

    To me, that is like asking a Southern Church in Alabama about evolution.

    Once again, I love the image that Phil posted. Just delete the last sentence and I will be happy.

  38. SunnyD

    Can you all stop debating over global warming the second you get the chance? You’re all acting like YouTube commenters.

  39. @11. Andre vd Hoeven : I take it you’re the Andre vd Hoeven then? Cheers for that – & great work. Very impressive and I bet satisfying and fun to make too. :-)

  40. Duplicate copy again sorry, sticking submit button I guess ..:-(

    @2. Shunt1 :

    For more information about “Glacier Girl” please view this website:
    (Link snipped) Now, what was that about glaciers and how they are melting? Please explain how these aircraft were buried under 100 meters of snow since 1942.

    That is a great story and clip.

    It is also an anomaly, an atypical story like a batsman making a century in a team where no one else can score above ten runs in a test innings where the other nation’s eleven have three or four century makers and other batsmen all contirubuting so the that side wins comfortably. Dunno if you ever watch or know cricket but you get the idea I hope.

    How do we explain the snow over glacier girl? Well I think (#29.) Fizz has done a good job of explaining that.

    Global Overheating is a global phenomena, this (Southern Greenland) is a region which is unusual and not following the pattern because of local conditions – perhaps increased snowfall due to increased water in the atmosphere and wind patterns shifting as also explains the “Snowmogeddon” storms that have hit parts of the US and Europe. If you look at the sea ice maps you’ll notice that the patch around Greenland is retaining ice whereas other parts of the Arctic are losing it very quickly.

    Another point here the recovery of “glacier girl” also took place many years ago now :

    On July 15, 1992, fifty years to the day later, 74-year-old Brad McManus stood on the ice cap surrounded by the recovered pieces of his late friend Harry Smith’s P-38, as chronicled in the documentary “The Lost Squadron”…

    Source : P-38 National Association & Museum website : “Recovery Of Glacier Girl” page linked to my name here from your own link.

    That’s a whole decade ago now, Shunt1 – doesn’t time fly! ;-)

    I wonder if the situation even at that location is the same now especially given the rapidity of change in the Arctic region?

    So in summary you are cherry-picking here – taking one anomalous location, ten years ago and using that to ignore the much broader global trend, pointing at the one high-scoring batsman in a team whose other ten batsmen have failed and are then saying the team is doing well and doesn’t need to be changed.

    Great story, an exceptional one you could say – and you know the saying about exceptions proving the rule! ;-)

    @10. shunt1 asked :

    TRUE OR FALSE:
    Were the aircraft that landed on a Greenland glacier in 1942 buried under 100 meters of snow and ice?

    True – but see above.

    You do know that the Arctic is an OCEAN? That winds and currents will move the floating ice?

    Yes -and ..? I’m sure the climatologists studying the region are aware of that too. :roll:

    What is the melting temperature for sea ice?

    Around one degree or so I’d expect.

    You also know that our satellite derived knowledge of the sea ice extent in the arctic ocean only goes back to 1979?

    Yes, and ice cores records go back a lot further.

    You also know that the British Admiralty recorded a sudden decrease of arctic sea ice around the 1820′s and sent out ships to investigate?

    Not sure, but assuming that’s true, what does that prove and to what extent was the decrease back then compared to now? I know they searched for the NW passage but couldn’t make it through. Nowdays they might.

  41. Rift

    What can’t you google???

    And I mispoke, misunderstood my english fiancee. Wettest year in 100 years, in some places wettest since records started… Not wettest year ever, my apologies. But compared to the drought i’m having that’s a guldurn long time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/19433134
    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/910205-this-summer-wettest-in-england-and-wales-for-100-years
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-19424929
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/30/uk-weather-summer-wettest-rain-coldest_n_1842753.html
    http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1587662_greater-manchesters-wettest-summer-in-100-years

    Yes, I’m sure…

    Want my fiancee’s mother’s email address too?

    And I was just waiting for our Messier Tidy Upper to uncover the truth. Thanks Messier T. U. excellent job as always.

  42. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt 1 (8) said:

    I just try my best to keep Phil honest…

    You are a massive hypocrite.

    Start off by getting yourself honest, then you can look at other people’s honesty.

    On previous threads that have been about AGW, you trot out just about every single denialist talking point, irrespective of whether or not they are reliable, whether or not they are logical, and whether or not they are credible. And each one of them – and should you take the trouble to investigate, you would know this already – has been refuted.

  43. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (10) said:

    If Phil removes the last sentence (that I objected to) of this topic

    So, are you intending to present the grounds for your objection?

    ‘Cos, AFAICT, only one glacier in the entire world is actually growing in volume and those Antarctic glaciers that feed into floating sheet ice, while more or less the same size as they have been since records began, are flowing faster than they used to. All other glaciers are shrinking. Some, over the last 100 – 150 years have shrunk by more than a kilometre in length.

  44. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (12) said:

    Glaciers are formed by snow accumulating faster than it can melt.

    The theory of “global warming” is based upon an increase of water vapor in the atmosphere,

    Nonsense.

    The theory is based on fundamental physics.

    A prediction of the theory is that atmospheric water vapour content will increase.

    which will result in an increase of snow fall in locations and elevations that have a sustained temperature below the freezing point of water.

    This is an oversimplification, but the general trend of increased precipitation is indeed a prediction. However, there is no prediction that precipitation will fall in the same places at the same relative rates it has always (in recorded history) fallen.

    When you show me images of glaciers retreating, all you have done is demonstrate that the increase of water vapor (as predicted by the computer models) has not happened, and there was an historical decrease of snow for that specific location.

    Wrong. A single example of a retreating glacier could either indicate decreased precipitation or increased local temperature.

    However, the global picture of all glaciers retreating while average global rainfall is either within statistical variation of averages established by historic records or increasing slightly indicates something else. Couple this with the actual temperature record that demonstrates increasing average global temperature, and you have the answer.

    Those glaciers did not suddenly melt because it was too warm.

    No, they melted gradually because it has been getting gradually warmer.

    So, were the aircraft of the “Lost Squadron” buried under 100 meters of snow and ice because of the increase of historical atmospheric water vapor or a decrease of temperature?

    No. Your question is – to be generous – disingenuous. I am sure, shouyld you approach the question honestly, that you are prefectly capable of understanding the difference between local variations and global averages, and also capable of noticing that most of the warming in the last 70 years has occurred since 1970 (so there were at least three decades of “normal” conditions in which a large amount of snow and ice could accumulate).

    Please make up your minds, because this does get very confusing.

    How reliable is the figure you quote of 100 metres of snow & ice? Have you tracked it back to the original source? If so, a linky would help. If not, GOYA and do some work for your answers.

    There is no making up of minds to be done here. There is nothing in what you have pointed out that contradicts the models predicting the impact of AGW, and you have not refuted any of the hard data that support the conclusion that AGW is happening. In fact, you do not even acknowledge its existence.

  45. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (16) said:

    Instead you called me a “Troll” for daring to show you something factual.

    You are indeed being a troll.

    You have failed to put your isolated case into context. You have failed to consider the difference between an isolated instance and the global mean. You have failed to acknowledge the existence of the fluctuations over shorter timescales that Chris A points out in #14.

    As it happens, 268 feet is not quite 100 metres – it is more like 80 metres (well, 81.69).

    And you ignore the possibility that this depth did not need to accumulate directly through precipitation – a good proportion of it could have flowed over the aircraft as the glacier transported the plane (it was found more than a mile from the crash site).

    So, what you have is nothing. You have no evidence to support your objection to Phil’s last sentence. You have no argument. You have no credibility.

  46. Awesome image Andre!

  47. puppygod

    So this is the new denialist talking point? Some plane under ice? Sigh.

    Glaciers does move. Glacier flowed over plane. Glacier thawed. Next silly argument please.

  48. Ray Bellis

    What’s astonishing about 10,000 by 8,000 these days? That’s only a mere four or so frames of a modern 18 MP DSLR.

  49. @36. MTU :

    Another point here the recovery of “glacier girl” also took place many years ago now :

    On July 15, 1992, fifty years to the day later, 74-year-old Brad McManus stood on the ice cap surrounded by the recovered pieces of his late friend Harry Smith’s P-38, as chronicled in the documentary “The Lost Squadron”…

    That’s a whole decade ago now, Shunt1 – doesn’t time fly!

    Source : P-38 National Association & Museum website : “Recovery Of Glacier Girl” page linked to my name here from your own link.

    Yikes! Time flies much faster than I thought even when I thought it flew faster than I thought.

    Make that twenty years ago not just a whole decade – a whole two! :-o

    Think your example may be a bit out of date Shunt1?

  50. Sally

    How am I supposed to get my work done when you post cool stuff like this??

  51. Also HIRGO~wise folks may find this :

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3579042.htm

    Interesting. Aussie ABC-TV show Lateline interviews Heidi Cullen – the chief climatologist and a vice president of Climate Central, a media and research organisation focusing on climate change – on August 29th 2012 discussing the record Arctic sea ice melt this year, James Hansens’ latest studies and more.

  52. @Ray Bellis: First of all with 4 frames of a modern DSLR you will never catch this detail, believe me… Second the original was more than double of this, but it’s just to large for upload (110mb). With modern DSLR when doing the same exercise (60 images were used) you would get even more details… But well I don’t have that one…

  53. JRW

    Critiquing this is kind of fun, like solving a logic or critical thinking puzzle.
    “He forgot rain.” Yes, yes he did.
    He suggested that the Artic Ocean’s floating ice has moved with wind and currents. Well, where is the ice now?
    He did ignore the fact that “a rapid increase of temperatures in the Rockies” is not required, merely more time above freezing to increase the “melt in the summer months”.
    He did repeatedly fail to acknowledge the difference between” local variations and global averages.”
    And actually the Glacier Girl story supports GW when examined. Today there are lots of stories about bodies and things being found because glaciers are melting – and this airplane is included in one such list.

  54. JRW

    Oops -I got distracted by the GW argument and forgot to comment on the picture which is fantastic. Thanks to the photographer not only for creating it, but by making it interactive as well.
    And thanks to Phil for sharing it. I do regularly share photos from your blog with my students, and they find them amazing as well.

  55. Rift

    What annoys me is we’ve let one denialist, or some of us have, go off topic on a fantastic image.

    Oh, he’ll claim it was Phil’s fault for that last sentence. Which only had a link… which he didn’t have to click on.

    That’s the bad thing about trolls, hard not to feed them, and they derail a whole thread.

    Great photo Andre, I bet the original one was awe inspiring.

  56. CatMom

    There are some nice ice caves you can see in NW WA State, up past Granite Falls. Don’t know how they look this year, though. There was a lot of snow last winter.

  57. Nigel Depledge

    JRW (53) said:

    Today there are lots of stories about bodies and things being found because glaciers are melting – and this airplane is included in one such list.

    Not quite.

    The plane that the troll refers to was deliberately melted out of the ice, but this was done about 20 years ago.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »