This would only seem to be a problem if one of the newly discovered “islands” is uninhabited. There are towns, or at least small settlements, all around the coast of Greenland, aren’t there? If there are, then the situation wouldn’t be any different than if a meteor suddenly hit Orlando and caused southern Florida to become a large island. As long as people continued to inhabit The Big Florida Island, US sovereignty would be untouched.
Yes, somewhere I have an old reference book that lists ice as a mineral. There are plenty of minerals that will turn to liquid if it gets hot enough.
If all that ice melts we may have to redefine Greenland as multiple islands. The same thing can happen to islands topped with loose material that can wash away, I recall some river islands have formed that way as a channel of water forms around them. And the opposite must happen as channels fill with silt and attach islands to the mainland.
And my usual note about the funny island I live on that is not completely surrounded by water. Sometimes the water can even be imaginary.
Is this something like the Danish island of Fyn?
That appears to be an actual island. I live in Rhode Island, known as the Ocean State for no good reason. Narragansett Bay runs up the middle of the state, the southern border could be said to border on the open ocean, but it is bordered by land to the east, west, and north.
Isostatic rebound will take thousands and thousands of years. Large parts of North America that were glaciated still haven’t rebounded above sea level, that’s what Hudson Bay is. Same with the North Sea and the Baltic Sea over in Europe.
So don’t expect Greenland or Antarctica to sproing back into equilibrium right after the ice sheets melt. Typical rates are more like 1 cm per year.
The Wikipedia article on Greenland’s Grand Canyon has a nice sans ice map of Greenland.
There’s a large inland lake but with three near links to the outside. Depending on more precise numbers, these might divide Greenland up into 3 main, large islands.
(I hope that by being terse, I didn’t upset anyone.)
I’m confused – to me, Greenland doesn’t actually look like three islands in the maps that show how much of the bedrock is currently below sea level (like the one here). I just see a big island with a bunch of water in the center. What parts are supposed to be the three islands?
I may find your science questionable, but I like your sig. Do carry on.
Rhode Island is an island. The mainland part is Providence Plantations.
The name Ocean State came about, I believe, because Rhode Islanders didn’t like the nickname Little Rhody.
Add in sea level rise (say, from the Greenland and other ice caps melting + heat expansion), and some of those parts will likely be light blue, not dark green any more. Specifically, the “spongy” bit at the SW of the inland sea, and the NW and NE dark-green bits. Although I make it out as 4 islands that would result, not 3.
Don’t forget to account for isostatic rebound.
Actually, the entire north east of Greenland is designated Northeast Greenland National Park which, if it were a country, would apparently be the 30th largest in the world! Almost the only people there are seasonal scientists, etc. Since a mine closed, subsequent censuses show the population as zero.
However, I’m not sure if that would make one ‘island’ unpopulated, or if the land mass extends south of the park’s boundaries to include more southerly settlements.
As far as i know, the Danish navy also patrols their territorial waters and I’m sure I’ve read about military training going on in the far north as well.
As indicated by Lemur upthread, isostasy’s a multi-millennial process on a much longer timescale than sea level rise would be.
Although isostatic rebound is very slow today (1 cm/year, cited above), initially (8000 years ago when the glaciers first melted) it was much faster. It’s an exponential decay, with a very long slow tapering off. I’m not sure how fast the rebound was at first, but possibly on the order of 1 meter/year.
It should also be noted that some areas are going down as a result of glacial rebound. While the area under the ice was depressed, the land surrounding the glaciers was pushed up. That land is now rebounding downward. That includes much of the east coast of the US, BTW.
Cite?
So what? If you’re assuming that the ice sheet is gone, you may as well assume pre-ice conditions.
Why? I’m assuming natural processes, not “magic ice removal”.
Ah yes, now I get it. Would be interesting to import that map into the global sea level rise app that I used to visualize how the earth would look at different parts of Stephen Baxter’s book Flood. If I can still find the code…
Well if the ice had magically been removed when this thread had been created, then Greenland would have risen 4 cm already!