Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Greenland's Melting

unfortuantely that chart only goes back a short ways. it does not show the fact that it is near the end of the little ice age (which coincidently, coincides exactly with the last large solar minimum). it does not show the tempature of things during the last solar maximum. at that time things were about 1 degree hotter than they are now.

The article I referenced quoted scientists. What is the problem with that? Did you even read the article?

jmr, who is that post directed to?

If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).

Im at apx 30 ft above sea level this means that I will not need to travel so far to get to the beach then.

something good can be found if you look for it.

think of the gas I will save in beach travel expenses also this should decrease my contributions to global warming.

greenland isnt a seperate entity when it goes or is going there will be the antartic and artic ice going also so when I consider all the melting ice I find myself needing a boat if I want to stay in this same location.

I think it is an apx 60 ft rise total.

I always wanted to live in the mountains it was just that it would be so far to travel to get to the beach , maybe this will solve that problem.

actually it would not rise that far. the heavier weight on the sea floor would push up the land a little bit. some, such as greenland will be pushed up a lot.

the earths crust below the sea floor in most places other than along the edges of the plates is relatively thick upwards of 50 - 100 miles thick.
unlike the now ( due to global warming ) thickness of the earths crust under the yellow stone national caldera ( park ) - less than 3 miles thick...

I am not certain about the stress factors of solid rock but I presume that it is something like 3,000 psi such as concrete but probably even higher.

you can stack 1 foot in height of water and only get .0361 psi per inch. = 12 * .0361 = .433 psi

so a 60 ft rise = 60 * .433 = 25.99 psi

I could support that with a properly folded tissue paper...

not to mention or take into consideration the extra coolness of the bottom of the ocean floor due to the extra depth of the water...

which should by all means translate into a even thicker crust...

have you even considered the depth of the mid pacific / atlantic oceans when the moons gravity is pulling it outwards which causes the high and low tides.

just how much of a buldge does that translate into?
could it be as much as 60 ft?
or more?
Im not sure and its late I'll check later.

this buldge happens 2 times everyday...
does the land heave up and down everyday?

your talking about one inch. how about the extra weight on the entire ocean. that gets a good bit more weight. Add to that that the weight of greenland would be dropped by several times as much per inch.

http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Publications/Huy9999a_abstract.html

as you can see from this one, the ice is currently pushing the bedrock down as it gets thicker in the interior. The bedrock on the outer edges is rising due to the decrease in ice on the fringe. It appears to me that people discussing the melt off of greenland, fail to mention that the interior is getting thicker. the ice is between 250 meters and 1400 meters. exactly how much weight stress do you think this causes.

I believe that you are mixing things up just a little.

greenland sits on top of magma.
magma is supporting greenland.
if greenland becomes lighter then the supporting magma will push greenland upwards slightly.

it is not only that the water weight on the ocean floor will cause greenland to rise it is that greenland has become lighter , the ocean is vast and water seeks its own level so the small amount of rise in greenland due to the water released from the melting ice into the oceans will be
relatively miniscule compared to the rise from
the upheaval of the supportive or load bearing structure in this case the magma under greenland.

heres a simple experiment to show what will happen.

get a large bowl.
and a large balloon.
stretch the balloon over the bowl.
place a single ice cube in the center.
pour water on top of the balloon.

let greenland melt...
what happened?

I believe that the balloon will push upwards.
even if the water is removed as it melts.

now you do have me mixed up.

first you say that greenland will not raise because of the weight of the water on the seabed and the loss of that same weight on greenland.

then you say it will.

this is what ive been saying all along. The heavier ice on greenlands interior is pushing it down now, but when it melts the water will add to the weight on the sea floor, and the loss of weight of the ice on the land combined will cause the land of greenland to rise. I beleive the same will happen at the south pole too.

something to consider about the people that are concerned about the arctic ice shelf melting. ice is not as dense as water, but the weight of the ice above the sea, causes much larger amound of water below to be replaced by ice. when the ice above the water melts, so will the ice below the sea. ice increases in size about 9 percent. only about 10 percent of it is above sea level, which means that when it ice sheets melt, the resulting water will take up the same or less space. the colder the ice, the more space it takes up (on this im going on what i remember, but have not seen the data- i could be wrong here).

excuse me if I confused you.

I didnt say that greenland would not rise , I said that the weight of the water would not really cause greenland to rise.

the weight of the extra water would be exerted evenly throughout the oceans floors.
thus any pressure derived from this extra weight upon the oceans floors would be exerted evenly to the underside of the earths crust to such a small degree that the rise to greenland would be miniscule compared to the rise due to the loss of greenlands weight.

we can expect a little more volcanic activity due to the extra pressures.

your right that is why ice floats on water.

it isnt really the melting of the ice sheets that will cause a major sea level rise.
it is the ice that is supported by the ground that we are mostly concerned with.

melting of ice sheets can actually cause a sea level drop.
once they are gone and serious melting of the ice above ground takes hold then we will begin to see distinct sea level rises.

this is the first time that ive heard anyone that talked about global warming from that point say that it would not cause a rise in sea level. that has been a hot topic here before.

the thing about the land rising after the ice melts, is that it will do so from the pressure of the magma underneith it that magma will come from somewhere. with the weight of the water increasing the pressure on the magma there, it will try to move somewhere. with a low pressure in one area and a high pressure in another, the magma will move in the general directions of from the sea to the land. The result would be a dropping of the sea bed by few meters while the land under the ice would rise several hundred meters. The result would be that the sea would rise a small amount.

"with the weight of the water increasing the pressure on the magma there, it will try to move somewhere. with a low pressure in one area and a high pressure in another, "

If all the ice on the earth melted in 1 year
and flowed into the oceans , the melted water would dispence evenly to the oceans.
there would not be a high and low pressure area applied to the magma concerning the added weight to the earths oceans.

the added pressure to the magma will also be distributed evenly.
if greenland rises due to its loosing weight then it only does that due to the supporting magma
and that rise will be proportional to the pressure of the magma exerting its force to the underside of now less weighing greenland.

all hell will break loose ( literaly ) if the supporting magma is incapable of moving greenland.

and that hell may occur anywhere where there is less resistive force to meet the magmas pressures.

or it may thrust greenland up all of a sudden when resistance is less than force , when the rock breaks or gives way to the force of the magma.

think of the earth as a balloon and the magma as the air in the balloon , if you keep pumping the balloon with air it will burst at its weakest point.

that will most likely be along the fault lines or plate lines.

or volcanoes or very weak old volcanoes and calderas.

spooky...

dehammer:

I've noticed you try to generalize things localy instead of backing away from what you are looking at and getting a more complete picture of the subject.

I noticed this when you try to reduce the number of galaxies , and your thoughts of what greenland will do , greenland is just a part of the earth that is above water it is attached to a massive plate , a part of the earths crust.

try looking at the whole picture not just the pixels in question because if 1 pixel changes then the whole picture has changed.

If the ice melting in one year then yes the magma would not be able to move with any hope of reaching greenland. but it will not melt in one year, it will melt (if it does at all) over a century). Each year the weight will grow a little bit more in the ocean and the weight will grow a little bit less under greenland. this will create a small bit of difference between the pressure on the magma under the ocean and the pressure on the magma under iceland. Since magma is a liquid, it will move from higher pressure to lower pressure. This means that each year a compairatively tiny amount would move from the indian ocean to the pacific, and a little bit more would move from the pacific to under the us (which has not changed) and the same amount would move from under the us to the atlantic, and then a good bit more would move from there to underneith greenland.

here is an test. take a fairly large space (such as a kiddy pool, and fill it with water about half way. seal it with a tarp or piece of plastic large enough to go all around. now fill the top of the pool with water, and put sand in places like the continents of the world, including greenland. Once its stablized, measure the hight of the water. take a picture of how the water is on the land. then take some of that water and freeze it and put in on top of the area named iceland. what you will see is the ice pushing the sand called iceland down and the rest of the place where the land, and oceans are, up. then watch as the ice melts. if you can see the water below, as the ice melts it flows underneith the lighter area, and away from all the other areas. now the weight of the water will make the areas the water covers heavier, which will make the water below that (seperated by the plastic sheet) go more than the areas under the land that did not have the ice. There will be some change in the hight of the water to land, but most of the difference of the weight will push the other water forcing it to go under the area that had the land and ice.

as far as the part about the galaxy, you need to read that again. I did not say there were fewer of them, i said that if god only wanted to give us light in the darkness of space, he could have made more stars nearby. I said there was no need to have more distant galaxies since by the time we could hope to reach them, all the stars would have died of old age, as would all their decendants. What is the use of distant galaxies if we cant learn anything from them. Science is not about god. nor has astronomy proved his existance. better read that thread again.

In otherwords, im not the one that is not looking at the big picture.

Dehammer:
If you need a little visual help with your subject matter then here it is.
If greenland becomes lighter then the magma will be pressing upwards on the entire plate not just on the part under greenland.
notice the position of california on the graphical representation / tectonic plate map.
if your not sure where greenland is on the map then it is inside the light brown section of the map located between the two green sections and slightly to the right of top center as you look at it.

If the plate rises where greenland is
then what would happen where california is?

if you have any type of mental visualization capabilities then you should have no problem with this.

If not take a 12 inch by 12 inch by 1 inch thick board , fill your bath tub with water , float the board on the water , place ice cubes on one end of the board.

this will represent present day positioning of the board in reference to the water.

this will represent present day positioning of the tectonic plate in reference to the magma.

now let the ice melt.

what happens to the positioning of the board relative to the water?

now that I have backed you away from your localized focusing , you can visualize what I am sudgesting to you.

• If the ice melting in one year then yes the magma would not be able to move with any hope of reaching greenland.
• pressure on the magma under iceland.
• This means that each year a compairatively tiny amount would move from the indian ocean to the pacific
• what you will see is the ice pushing the sand called iceland down and the rest of the place where the land

have you browsed for tectonic plate activity in iceland lately?

have a look.

the plate cuts iceland in half.

///////////////////////////////////
as far as the part about the galaxy, you need to read that again. I did not say there were fewer of them
////////////////////////////////////
I never said you said there were fewer of them this is what I said.

• I noticed this when you try to reduce the number of galaxies

what I was (((( TRYING )))) to do was show you how you localize things.
ie...when you should be looking at the entire plate you are looking at only greenland.

also I may have disturbed your cognitive powers by sudgesting a balloon , the earths crust is hardened " ROCK " not a balloon or " SAND " as you choose to use as a reference.

Dehammer: think about dense , density.

--------------------
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
--------------------

I think I understand what you mean by your footnote now , and once again you are localizing.
If man would "LEARN" then he would "KNOW".

If a man is resisting "KNOWLEDGE"
then he is resisting "LEARNING"

your problem is that you think of a plate that is so solid it does not change. (like a board). but in reality it does. one area, esp one one side of it, can rise while the rest drop, or not move. The plates are not completely solid, instead they are like playdo: they stick together but they can flex. when rock is under the kind of pressure that the plate is under, it is almost like a liquid. Its still solid, but not as solid as rock on the surface is.

perhaps you can explain why the land under the fringes of greenland are moving up, while the land under the interior is dropping. read that link i gave about greenland earlier. it says its already been proven to be happening.

you missed the quote that i gave completely.
man has learned that the everytime he answers a question, it poses a several more questions. that means that the more that he learns (as a race, not an individual), the more he finds that he needs to learn.

OK..

heres a good reason.

greenland ice has melted many times in the past.
I expect than underneath the ice there are old channels where water from melted ice once flowed as the old ice melted.
these channels were completely frozen but now
these channels are reopening and becomming mushy as the ice and the ground temperature is warming and melting or preparring to melt and flow once again.
the mushy ground underneath greenland is being pushed aside by the weight of the land and the ice inland of greenland.

the reason the land along the fringes as you call it is rising is because the land beyond the fringes is not mushy.
and this not mushy land provides a resistance to the mushy land and so the mushy land rises upwards.

you asked so there it is.

I have seen these channels in clay and kaolin sedementary deposits and they are verry abundant
there is one at least every 12 inches or so and the size of the ones I have seen range from apx 1/8 inch to 1/2 inch in diameter some even greater and these are mostly feeder streams or channels.
further down they would grow in size as these feeders feed pressurized water into other channels the pressurized water would wash away the sides of the channels.

there is no telling how mushy the land will get.
but it probably resembles a sponge filled with frozen water.

also as the earth cools down again the water in the channels will re-freeze and push the ground up once again.
because freezing water expands.

as I said a few years ago , on this list , a few degrees of surface temperature goes a long way where magma meets rock.
and since heat transfers perhaps the extra heat the magma now has is melting the ice in the sponge under greenland.

ok so where is the proof that the land is mushy and being pushed aside by the land. its not moving to the side, it moveing up. which means there is some pressure underneith it that is pushing upwords. being pushed aside would mean it was being pushed into the sea.

please prey tell how are these soft soil channels not being pushed around by the glacers. it the soil is soft it gets pushed away to the sea by glacers, not pushed upwards.


save that the ice is melting, and that means it will be carrying away any soft soil that is left. the ice will take up 9 percent more space than the water, so the water will not be pushing up the land, the ice might, but not the water.

now the problem is that the ice will push the land up, when it freezes the problem is that were talking about a global warming and melting off of the ice, not the freezing of it.

there is no indication that the land under greenland is any warmer than any part of land else where. If you have indications of it, please show them. the problem your not seeing is that iceland is a huge glacer. it scourse the ground of any soft soil. there is no soft spongy material to expand when it freezes, which would have no effect anyway since its suppose to be thawing. thats why the glacers are disappearing, they are melting, and the land is rising as the weight drops.

what you are not seeing is this is not a conjector of what might happen, its a proven fact that it happens.

1) in the us when the ice melted off, the land under it rose several meters.

2) as the glacers of canada melt off, the land is rising.

3)on the fringes of greenland the ice is melting and the land is rising. in the interior the reverse is happening.

if your going to come up with a theory at least have it explain the known facts.

the only doubt about what is happening, is how much of the magma will push up the land. since the weight changes will be on greenland and the ocean that is where the changes will take place.

and which direction will the retreating glaciers push the soil as it is melting , I suppose that the melting glaciers are just melting uphill and venus and mars are in conjunction with greenlands glaciers due to the gravity of pluto and because pluto is no longer a planet the glaciers melting volcanic pumice has deteriorated into solent green thus the land where the solent green is at is greenland.


some obstacles are just too high to overcome.
dehammer have you ever painted your barn red?
and didnt like the color but you just kept painting anyway.
then you complained about it everyday until the barn needed painting again.

the other colors of paint are cheaper now so why did you buy more red paint?