/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15733286
>Unless you think land in south america is somehow being weighed down by ice sheets in greenland
They effectively are:
"The direct raising effects of post-glacial rebound are readily apparent in parts of Northern Eurasia, Northern America, Patagonia, and Antarctica. However, through the processes of ocean siphoning and continental levering, the effects of post-glacial rebound on sea level are felt globally far from the locations of current and former ice sheets."
literally all you had to do to not look retarded is read the first paragraph in the wiki page. Not only does Greenland lower South America's relative sea level, it is still doing so by a measurable yearly amount thousands of years after. They actively account for this because it adds up to almost 10mm per decade.
Greenland is an archipelago with the majority of its glacial volume having sea level - sub sea level lowest points, meaning they are displacing the ocean. Infact, there is the least amount of glacial volume where ever high points of land are.
This is all even more true for Antarctica. Nearly all of its ice sits below sea level. most having their bottoms over 500 meters below sea level while one is 2500 meters below sea level. With the vast majority of the remaining glacial volume not being ontop of any land, but directly above sub-sea level ice. Look up a elevation map of Antarctica to compare and you will see I'm not lying. The thickest glacier on the planet, at 5000 meters, sits ontop of the ocean with a large portion below sea level. If you were to melt the ice in Antarticia below sea level, which is nearly half of it, ocean levels would decrease by a significant amount, purely from filling the previously displaced volume.
If the rest of the ice melted according to worse case estimates over the next 500 years, the glacial rebound and freed ocean volume from Greenland and Antarctica could potentially lower sea levels, not raise them.