All but the climate change deniers know the sea-level is going to rise and flood (up to 200+ feet) the continental coastal areas.
BUT, what else will happen when the massive weight of the ice, now concentrated at the poles, spreads evenly around the rest of the world? I haven't seen any articles on that potential catastrophe.
While there are glaciers at the south pole, the north pole hasn't got much land to be carrying ice on it.
But in any case, do you know that the great lakes area is still rising slowly, rebounding from the loss of glaciers in the last ice age? That could happen, but it would seem to me that tectonics could also play a large part; if a glacier is removed from a fault line the time line might be a little different.
I think a lot more than flooding is going to take place if all the snow on earth melts. To put it bluntly, the effects will make truthtellers our ot all the end-of-the-world fanatics; that Revelations is now a reality. It was 30 million years ago when the earth was more or less ice free and the earth was on the move. Plate tectonics were still rather active.
If the ice left again, would earth, I mean the physical land, become unstable; will plate tectonics pick up again? I think so. Right now, the shape of the earth is sort of squished partly due to the weight of the ice at the poles. As the ice melts and its weight becomes distributed more evenly around the globe things will have to change, and I doubt for the better. Consider the current pressures, and the directions from which they come, on something like the San Andreas fault in California. What happens as the shape of the earth changes due to global warming?
Are you sure? It would seem there is far more mass under the Andes, Rockies or Himalayas than Antarctica or the northern regions. The "squishing" is more due to the angular momentum than mass, I suspect.
Yeah, because Greenland, Northern Canada, and the Antarctic are also massive land masses with big mountains. They have the added feature of ice, which is quite heavy. Also note that the Himalaya's are at 45 degrees North and the Alps, etc are even further North, so even they have a squishing effect.
In fact, until 1997, Earth was returning to a more "round" shape due to the melting ice. Since then, it has been squishing again for unknown reasons. Their best guess at the moment has something to do with changes in the major oceanic currents.
ummm. When it unsquishes we know enough to say it was from ice melting, but when it resquishes we can't blame it on ice so it remains unknown? I'd have to question that one. I'd even question if more liquid isn't going to naturally "migrate" to the equator, making the oblateness more pronounced.
I don't know of any major mountain ranges in Northern Canada - what might they be called? The Rockies go up the West side, but kind of peter out before getting to the arctic circle. Same with the Appalachians, or what is left of them (mostly big hills) And Greenland does have some good sized mountains, meaning there is that much less ice to melt.
And the Alps and Himalaya's are both squishing already; removing the small amount of snow and ice from upper elevations (if it warmed that much) isn't going to do much. Same thing with Antarctica; it's pretty doubtful we would ever warm enough to melt the top half of the mountain snowpack, at least without a major continental drift or axis change.
Yeah, I know, it is a conundrum., but apparently weight alone isn't the only cause; although I need to research more to see why ocean currents would have that effect.
Northern Canada may not have mountains, but it does have a lot of snow and ice sitting on it that will melt. Even the more or less landless Arctic will have an impact as all of that ice gets redistributed. While it may not contribute to sea level rise, it is nevertheless massive and concentrated in one spot, so to speak.
Keep in mind, the presumption is "all the snow melts" which was nearly a reality 30 million years ago; so it can happen, especially with the knowledge that CO2 levels are higher now than they were then.
Just thinking here, but if Arctic ice is floating independent of land it has displaced it's own weight in water, driving that water to equalize throughout the world. That being the case, melting arctic (North, of course) ice and snow will do exactly nothing to the depth of the oceans anywhere. Or, possibly, result in a decrease in volume as ice is less dense than water (have to think about that one!).
No, weight alone isn't the only answer. Obviously, the rotation of the earth is a MAJOR factor - considering the shape of the giant, rapidly turning planets I'd have the say the biggest one. Density likely plays a part and ocean currents vary in salt level and thus density. And (although it's a weight consideration) the force of gravity varies all over the world.
Hmmmm, I considered the fact the ice is floating relative to rising sea levels but you raise an interesting point about what I suggested ..... I think you are right. If the ice melts, then the same amount of weight in water replaces the volume the ice formerly took up rather than spread evenly around the globe.
The article I read mentioned gravity, but discounted it because not enough ice is melting to change the field sufficiently to account for what they are seeing. Also under consideration was movement in the earth's core changing the gravitation field, but again the effect is too small. What's left is the change in the ocean currents due to global warming; so they are studying that.
Yes, ocean currents will change, and likely the one (can't think of the name) that takes north arctic water down, then south (leaving warm water nearer the surface), around south America and back north (humboldt at that point). The current which, I understand, controls the weather on the planet as a whole and makes much of it habitable. Without which we would have a very different climate everywhere.
Well, I've been told that I'll own some seafront property, here in the hills of Arkansas, and Gordon Michael Scallion's map seems to put Little Rock right on target. LOL. Seriously, I wonder just how much of the earth will be under water. From what I've seen predicted, part of Florida and the East Coast will be covered with water. The Mississippi River will split the United States into two parts and the states bordering it will be under water, in whole or in part, including Louisiana, South Arkansas, and parts of Mississippi and Tennessee. Colorado will border the Pacific Ocean. OK, this is not a scientific certainty, but a prediction, but it makes sense if you look at the terrain. If you want more on this prediction, look up Gordon Michael Scallion. He has mapped out his predictions, and his maps are displayed on the web. Now whether or not his predictions will come true is anyone's guess. He has some worldwide maps, but only the continental U.S. interests me at this point.
Regardless, it is certain that many species will be wiped out, probably including polar bears and other arctic animals. The bears are already starting to get hungry, or so some articles say. I also wonder about the commingling of fresh water with ocean water. How many kinds of fish and water creatures will die.
I look at Scanlon and think his maps, if I looked at the right ones, overstate the result quite a bit. I think the figure currently being tossed around is 216' or 261' foot rise in sea level if all of the ice and snow on earth melted; it would be more near the equator and less at the poles because of the moon's gravity and thermal expansion of water.
The map I saw did have the coast being on a line between Hot Springs and Little Rock before dropping down to the FL-GA-AL border; my current home would be under about 120' of water. CA's San Joaquin Valley would become an inland sea from South of Bakersfield to South of Reddings.
Las Vegas is well above 300' so it would stop encroachment from the South, but the Great Salt Lake would swell from runoff from the surrounding mountains, and would flood mostly to the SW and S for a while.
The Great Lakes would rise less than 205' but I think the land rises sort of quickly when you get a few miles away. If the Mississippi to cut the country in half, then that means the rivers elevation doesn't rise more than 200' from New Orleans to its Northern extreme; and I think it does.
Interesting, please explain your last statement about the Mississippi River. Does that mean you think it will flood more land than Scallion thinks it will? I'm not sure of Scallion's background, so I'm not sure that his explanation is a scientific one.
The Arkansas River runs into the Mississippi River and the eastern half of it would be obliterated by the Mississippi. I think (hope) the hills in our area would be above the flooding, but with a rise like you described, they might not be.
So long as your elevation is above 270', then you will be high and dry but you may own beachfront property.
The Mississippi at New Orleans is at 0' elevation. For the river to flow Southward, the beginning must be higher than that when it starts. The Mississippi is at about 300' at the TN, AR, MO border. Little Rock is around 280'; hope you don't live East of it.
I live on one of the ridges overlooking the Arkansas River surrounded by I-40, I-430, and I-30. Folks living below these ridges may be flooded out. I say "may" because our elevation is purported to be 335 feet. The area just east of I-30 is the beginning of what they call the "Grand Prairie" and the Delta. Those folks are smack dab in the middle of the predicted flood. I'll either have seafront property or an atoll. I really don't think I'd like an atoll. So maybe I'd better consider moving back home to the Ozarks.
Interestingly commenting on one of your first comments about tectonic activity influencing the terrain, the whole area south of the New Madrid fault is subject to liquefaction. We were told in an earthquake preparedness class that the earthquake probably wouldn't get us, but liquefaction would, so don't drop our earthquake insurance.
by Michael Willis7 years ago
I am interested in the people here on Hubpages that are in Arkansas. I have met a few, but I believe there are probably more than I have met. I am not asking for your exact location (I respect Privacy), just looking for...
by Deforest16 months ago
I am not saying that none of the candidates gathered the 207 electorate votes. I am just stating that a majority of the US citizens vote blank. Will the majority rule?
by DON BALDERAS6 years ago
Was Japan's earthquake and tsunami experience a resolve to population explosion issue?
by Kathleen Cochran13 months ago
"One of the many underappreciated legacies of the Obama administration has been its widespread implementation of pro-consumer policies. Under the outgoing president’s leadership, multiple executive branch...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.