Okay.

When we last talked I was puzzled by the notion of how a 200-300 ft thick slab of ice, covering an area 1/129th the size of the planet's oceans, could possibly raise the sea level 22-27 feet. The numbers were all there and one could easily do the math.

So I dug further. I figured there had to be something more to it if a guitar-playing potter with a DSL connection could confound all of modern science (or at least that half of modern science bought and paid for by the fear industry and Greenpeace .....JUST KIDDING!!!!!!).

Anyway, I found that, though the Humboldt Glacier is only about 200 ft thick on average, Encyclopedia Britannica online says that the Greenland ice sheet (of which the Humboldt Glacier is a large part) is actually said to be 5000 ft thick……. AVERAGE!!!

Well, when I read that I sure felt shot down, I'll tell you. I stopped my Nobel Prize-winning research paper right then and there (the paper wherein I bring the world of science to its knees, begging me for but a taste of my "mythology"), sat down and played a couple of AABB's of "Nail That Catfish To A Tree" (a fiddle tune I've been learning to play fingerstyle. MAN is that a fingerbuster!).

And then it hit me.

Not the catfish. The catfish is just part of that fiddle tune and more or less fictional. What hit me was..........5000 feet .........AVERAGE?!!!!!

?

So I got to thinking about the implications of a 5000ft AVERAGE thickness to this ice sheet. And it dawned on me that that would imply that – not just the peaks, but the entire elevation of Greenland would be nearly as high as the highest peaks of the Appalachian Mountain range. Said another way – if the Greenland ice sheet AVERAGES 5000 feet thick, that means that if you could fit all that ice neatly into your freezer, your icecube tray would have to be 5000 ft tall (a shade less than a mile high – almost as high as anything in the Appalachian range) and three times the size of the State of Texas.

That is, pardon me, a shitload of ice.

And then the implications further grabbed me. The Humboldt Glacier (remember it? …the biggest glacier in the Northern Hemisphere) is part of that ice sheet and at 100KM wide (I've searched high and low for length and cannot find it) is only 200-300 feet think. That is a SERIOUS chunk out of a 5000 foot AVERAGE. I mean, it's like that damn F on the test you were too lazy to study for. Just TRY to get that grade back up to an A average once you've failed one stupid test. A 300 ft thick swath taken out of the 5000 ft average thickness means that there has to be some SERIOUS ice thickness makeup goin' on in Greenland. So now we're talking thicknesses that have to approach 6000, 7000 feet in order to bring the average thickness back up to the purported 5000 ft average.

But that's not the half of it.

Remember we're ONLY talking about ice thickness of Greenland. We've not even broached the subject of ground topography yet. Yikes. That means that WITHOUT anything but flat land, Greenland's upper elevation is 5000 ft.

From that I concluded (smart guy that I am) that Greenland, though I was unaware of it, must have mountains that are AT LEAST as big as the peaks of the Rocky Mountain Range. And because the 5000 ft thick ice is an average ice thickness, those mountains could be entirely ice.

They're not.

I was right. Greenland has peaks of 12,000 ft, 11,000 ft and at least two that are 9,000 feet. Depending on what you need to prove though, the bad news is that those peaks are not solid ice. They are rock.

So that means that in order to come back up to that 5,000 ft ice average, one is going to have to find some serious area to house it because it's not sitting atop those peaks – it's resting down in their crevices. Crevices that don't leave enough cu ft area for a block of ice a mile thick and three times the size of Texas.

Oh, did I mention that I think you actually do need pretty much that whole 5000 ft average thick block of ice to come up with the nearly 30 ft of sea level rise that the global warming scientists have predicted is going to come rushing our way in the next few years ??? Yeah, it's that 5000 ft average that gives those huge sea level rise numbers.

Wanna hear another bummer? (I mean, a bummer if your fighting for your right to believe in apocalypse)…

Apparently scientists in very warm clothing (or sitting in very cushy labs observing satellite data) have observed that even with the melt that is occurring at the lower elevations of Greenland, Greenland is still experiencing a net GROWTH of ice because of the gains it is having in its upper elevations (and as we've established…..MAN, has Greenland got UPPER elevations!!!!!). They are even speculating that it may be warming conditions that are causing MUCH more snowfall in the upper elevations of Greenland.

Ain't Mother Nature a bitch?!!