It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
That is correct. Not sure if the effect would override the overall rise in sea level though.
originally posted by: pteridine
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: pteridine
If the entire ice sheet melts, the water level around Greenland will drop tens of meters.
I understand the gravitational effect, but would it really be tens of meters?
I'll look for my reference.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
It is where it is now because of the mass [MASCON?] of the ice.
Partially.
An intact ice sheet also has a noticeable gravitational pull, which attracts water to the region. No ice means that water will rush away. Both of those effects actually add up to lower sea levels in the area right around the former ice sheet, Mitrovica said. When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: pteridine
When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters.
I find that rather... shall we say, incredible? Is there any peer reviewed sources?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
So...
How much does gravitation have to do with the proposed relative sea level in Greenland as opposed to isostatic rebound?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pteridine
Water vapor content is temperature dependent. CO2 content is not.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: pteridine
When Greenland melts, places as far away as Norway and Scotland could actually see the sea level fall by as much as 50 meters.
I find that rather... shall we say, incredible? Is there any peer reviewed sources?
Fame of the academic variety came early to Mitrovica and mushroomed about a decade ago, when he reminded people what happens to local sea levels in the vicinity of a melting ice sheet, like those covering Greenland and Antarctica. The effect was first described a hundred years ago, but “people had forgotten how big it was,” he says. “It’s big.” If Greenland’s ice sheet melted entirely, sea level would fall 20 to 50 meters at the adjacent coast. That’s counterintuitive, but the ice sheets are so massive (Greenland’s ice, one-tenth the size of the Antarctic ice sheets, weighs on the order of 3,000 trillion tons) that two immediate effects come into play. First, all that ice exerts gravitational pull on the surrounding ocean. When an ice sheet melts, that gravitational influence diminishes, and water moves away from the ice sheet, causing sea levels to drop as far as 2,000 kilometers away. (The drop is most pronounced close to the glacier, because gravity’s effects dissipate with distance.) But because the sea level has fallen where the ice sheet melted, it rises everywhere else beyond that 2,000-kilometer boundary, and on distant shores this rise is far greater than the global average.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: D8Tee
50 meters is absolutely ridiculous. Someone dropped the ball proofreading. Anything above 50 micrometers is laughable, and I would expect something like 50 nanometers.
Things like this being taken seriously is exactly why I discount the whole theory.
TheRedneck