What if GREENLAND Melted? 

I'm hijacking your top comment to tell everyone about the one BIG issue Atlas Pro haven't talked about this subject which is the Global Warming Potential (GWP): all the toxic gas (like methane) contained under the ice today that will be liberated and will inexorably faster the Global Warming. People needs to urgently inform themselves about that because it could be what will kill us all, even in our lifetime.

@@maxencebarre3833 Chaotic good

@@VisboerAnton underreated commnet

Please, don't woooosh me, i just want to explain why greenland is called "green" and not "ice". The vikings who lived in iceland went to greenland because it was more arable since the climate in south greenland was warmer

@@mallorcamapping4274 I heard they called it "Green" partially as a propaganda tool to get migrants to settle there in the first place. (Also anyone going r/wooosh outside of reddit is just a 12 year old dork.)

Belgium is fucked as well 😅

Well boys we did it Florida is no more

@@AXELVISSERS I'm pretty sure, nothing can drown the Dutch now

@@farmervillager8651 Well at least something good will come of this I guess

@@farmervillager8651 Ex-Florida Man Arrested for Attempting to Rebuild Lost State out of Alligators

You are both strong and old!

@@johnDukemaster lol

@@paddy3002 ok paddy

And you're in New York.

Same here! Or at least a sizable glacier.

haha

Just like in the Viking era

Well actually it would become ice land lol

Well, one problem... All soil has been scraped away by the ice. There will only be stones left. Not a healthy environment for vegetation.

Wrong, there are several hundred kilometers of ice free areas now, as in the norse (viking) era, so still today many plants grow there, up to small trees in Southern Geenland. And by the way; south Greenland is geographically way south of Iceland, so Iceland IS a colder, and darker climate, there compaired to South Greenland

except greenland's coast line, they'll have post glacial rebound (the km deep ice was very heavy... with it gone, the land masses rise.... still happening in Scandinavia since all the ice from the last ice age melted)

more like, Coastal Areas: *not breathing* you know, being drowned and all

Then They will go to Greenland to live there

I’m literally 3 minutes from the ocean... I’m also settled in an area similar to southern Rhode Island. (chuckles) I’m in danger

Gibson Gold 3 minutes by car or? I'm 1 minute by foot.

Damn you, you made me laugh.

*Dutch Penguins: OH FUCK*

Dutch people just grow taller and survive.

@@erik2811 the year is 2080. Dutch people are now 200 metres tall with giraffe necks and artificial circulation systems

@@SplitWasTaken LMAO

It would not only be several meters but several hundret meters, but over a long term. Scandinavia is still in the process of rebound although most of the ice is gone for more than 10.000 years. If the ice melts extremely quickly the rebound would be up to multiple centimetres per year, if not then still a few milimeters. So depending on how quickly the ice melts there will either be no inland sea in the first place or it will be cut off the ocean after a several decades/centuries.

@ShadeyBladey Rebound would not be minimal, they weight of the ice is huge and the thickness of the continental crust in greenland is not significantly smaller then elsewhere and even thicker than north canada. The facts said in the video are only correct if the ice melts at an immense rate, but then as I said at least the connection to the ocean gets cut off in a few hundret years at most.

@ShadeyBladey I mean I have a masters degree in physical geography and to all of my knowledge the postglacial rebound would be significant enaugh. So I could not be bothered spending time to factcheck that claim, to me it looks like a quick excuse after people pointed it out, but if you find a reliable source about it I will be happy to check it out.

@ShadeyBladey Wrong, North America is still rebounding from the last Ice Age

@@StAngerNo1 You are correct sir

like a gamer!

So if you watch from 3:47 onwards, he shows a map(4:02) with red parts that go under water, but because of isostatic rebounding, those would not go under water.

Thought this was a joke but learned something new

It'd probably be a good idea to calculate how much sea levels would rise if all pole caps and glaciers would melt off, then calculate how much polar landmasses would rise (and how much temperate landmasses would sink), then estimate what the climate then would roughly be and only then predict how each place would look like. I'm pretty interested to know what a greenhouse earth right now would look like.

read the description bitch

Maybe it is a toy helicopter. ;)

WOAH, good catch! I didn't even see it.

Damn I didn't see it... When i did... *Surprised Pikachu face*

No its not its the dry season this happens every year stop panicking.

Mike Powell No, climate change has drastically affected these dry seasons by making them hotter and drier. This isn’t something that happens every year, this is the hottest it’s ever been and if this was “normal” then Iceland wouldn’t be hosting a funeral for a glacier because it’s the first time EVER that one of their glaciers has melted entirely. But sure, keep on insisting that this is normal. It’s idiots like you who deny climate change that make it difficult for us to restore the planet.

Casey Greyson you’re pretty dumb if you think all of the amazon is gonna burn away, all these fires are gonna stop within a month or two. Besides, as someone who comes from a place in Canada that’s on fire all summer, forest fires can be quite healthy for forests and simply trying to prevent them at all causes only delays the inevitable. It’s not the trees that burn but the undergrowth, all the decaying plant matter and various shrubs and bushes that live underneath the canopy. Trees themselves are surprisingly resistant to fires.

Ara Era Forest fires can be healthy, but they’re not part of the Amazon’s ecosystem

Its mostly farmland burning. NASA said that the fires isnt unusual and actually below the average. Even NYT ran a story about it.

Denmark: *S I N G K*

@@aoaoaaoaoao889 Denmark: **BlUrUbLMlbrlbrllb**dies** (Denmark would sink in this scenario

*S T I N K S*

Denmark Let be viking again.

@@cinamontoast2555 not all of Denmark but a large chonk of it will be

Hahahahahah nice

USA: Time to bring some freedom to Greenland.

@@overbeb "You are being liberated. Please do not resist."

Denmark like "Greenlandic self-government referendum? Never heard of it"

overbeb sorry but were in nato sooooooooo

Karis Greynland.

@Karis Blyatland

Shuckle Wuckle was called Greenland by the vikings because at that time was mainly green not ice and snow

@@Whatever_dude thats wrong. Iceland was always the greener of the two and they were named the opposite of the way the landscape was to discourage people from going to Iceland. It was to trick people because if something was called Greenland and you'd never seen it before, sounds like a nice place you'd wanna go see, right? and Iceland would sound cold and barren if you had no idea what it looked like, right?

It still wouldn’t be green, it’d be gray and brown lol

Watch the last videooooo

it's not a fact but it's a potential scenario that could happen

That’d be great, I’d be perfectly fine going back to my childhood temperatures here in Finland.

@@topiheimola69 FR, I've been feeling like Finland has gotten A LOT warmer while I've been alive, and I'm 19. I feel like winters would end almost 3 weeks later when I was little

@@eVill420 Same. I'm 21. Winters are both warmer and shorter, although this one has been pretty good apart from a few +1 celsius days.

@@topiheimola69 even this one was a lot warmer than they used to be, -30C weather used to be pretty common where I live, but this year it barely reached that for a few days. we just happened to get a ridiculous amount of snow so that kind of extended the winter (and to be honest that might also be a symptom of climate change). it's almost impossible to believe that just 30 years ago it was fully possible for temperature to drop below 0 in june. Finland is really close to the arctic so our temperatures are warming a lot faster than in other places. Luckily, it was so cold before that it's not very destructive for us.

But sea level is rising at the same time... Does it make differences?

@@NoName-ze4qn of course

Lmao 💀

Isostatic rebound takes a lot longer than the melting is likely to take. Scandanavia is still rising and it has been 12000 years.

@@Micklemoose I think he might have ignored it for that reason. The rebound takes so long, on human scales it might as well be forever.

A thiccer greenland

7 meters down? thats almost enough to expose the temple off the coast of japan.

*THICCER*

A thicc one

Then we solved global warming..?

Australia?

@saeed alhomsi Island Continent

Is 2 times larger than madagascar

New Guinea is largest

Thanks be to God 🙏

You should try watching it 'live' while high 😉 - you'd go berserk 😁

Noeraldin Kabam genuinely interested in what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

That's what you think once the "device "is completed I will be able to melt whatever I want. I'm going to start with the canary islands. Mwahahahaha

LOGIC

Best comment lol

**Greenland becomes a supervolcano and melts away** **Surprised pikachu face**

*UNLIKE ICELAND*

Greenland's name was a marketing ploy from the get go.

One reason the glaciers are receding is many are not getting the amounts of snowfall that replenishes them.

It does, in summer, in the right places.

I knew a guy who was stationed there during ww2. He said they would play baseball and if the wind changed and came out of the north. It would quickly get very cold.

@@skeletons2500 drone

I don't think its mini.

Just a normal-sized helicopter, the one where people could fit in.. :P

@@Bobbie_1999 no its a mini helicopter in the ground lol

Lol that just ice shaping i saw it loL

The Netherlands will just flip off the water and the water will retreat in shame.

Me too, and I would love to see what the (drop in) sea levels and subsequently lands would look like after BOTH Antarctica and Greenland have lost all their ice AND both have totally REBOUND (risen by meters above today's elevations).

Given the rebound estimates of Antarctica and the 2000m thick Greenland ice sheet, I’d certainly think it would uplift by at least 1-2m. However, that rebound will take thousands of years after the hypothetical melt. For example, the North American region surrounding the Great Lakes is STILL uplifting from the last ice age. I did not notice that he accounted for this in the video.

And the same about your profile pictures. :)

I always wonder just how different history would have been if things like this happened. Imagine the whole world was the same temperate climate. The Greenland islands would be a HUGE trading power

Summer vacation :D

This is no game, sadly. The melting of the ice caps are gonna disrupt weather systems, food production, water supply and societal stability globally within the coming decade, and severely. We are in for a collapse of the current civilization one way or the other, but we may still have a chance of transforming it to a sustainable one. That would require an unprecedented global social movement for climate and social justice. Now is the time to act, or perish.

Check the description

The glacial growth is not keeping up with glacial loss. One glacier is growing, but all other are not.

i guess the freezing months won't be as cold and shorter than average and the melting/summer times are hotter and longer so the melting will be quicker than it freezing by a long run

Maybe but dunno

Yes it would, I'm from the High Coast in Sweden which used to be covered in 3km of ice which is pretty similar to Greenland. Here the crust was pressed down 1000m. By the time the ice was gone there had already been a rebount of 500m and since then it has continued to rebound making the former coastline 286m above sea level. It took around 10,000 years for the ice to melt and it's been 10,000 years since then. The faster you melt the ice the more extreme the rebound will be, here the rebound peaked at 10cm per year but if Greenland's ice is lost during the course of a 2k year period instead of a 10k year period it will surely far exceed that. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Greenland would lose it's ice without atleast 200m of post glacial rebound which would put nearly all of the bedrock above sea level. There wouldn't be an inland sea at all but they might very well get the 2nd largest lake.

Just as it was before when the Vikings lived there. They had crops and livestock.

And with a higher level of CO2 it would even be greener .

I think someone copied your. Comment

WHAT who did it

sherry kumar me ;)

denmark already owns greenland

No thanks

@@itsfinnickbitch63 nah

Jaer

vad förväntar du dig från en amerikan? De vet inte alls hur andra människor lever i världen....

I mean he is just stating the facts, not pushing any agenda.

good point

Can I join? My character is a Shy wood elf

No. Australia is a continent.

The Island Continent.

Yes

Australia is a island not a continent. Australia is in the continent of oceana

Australia doesn't exist bruh

Ayy fellow indonesian

@*S U C T I O N* at this point you taking us back to the colonies is just gonna give your country more problems trust me you are better without

@@brassinstruments4384 We know😅

@Cheater500k I just don't get why he would use footage of some random island in Norway in a video about Greenland.

@Cheater500k That didn't really look like Greenland but ok.

*It works if you don't know where it is*

Why the fuck are you people taking this so goddamn seriously?

@@Debre. The video is about how Greenland _would_ look if all the ice melted. It's quite difficult to film that _on_ Greenland when the ice is still there. The ice-free, barren islands around the Arctic ocean - including Lofoten - are the best ways of picturing how it might look. That's why these pictures are used.

totall bullshit. Actually last winter the land ice on greenland expanded more than ever before.

Not according to Masie on both points! According to them the amount of land ice has been increasing (over all) for the last 5 years. Also only the land ice would add extra volume to the sea level. As ice takes up more volume than water, if you melted the sea ice it is likely you would see sea levels drop. Unless I missed this point in his argument he was factoring in all the ICE ( both land and see). Additionally if Greenland was to totally melt so would the Artic ( which is sea ice) which would cause the sea levels to drop due to the reduction in volume.

The sideways pull of Mt. Everest is measurable, but small relative to the pull towards the center of the earth. My unscientific guess would be a sea level change from that loss of a force vector of fractions of a centimeter to a centimeter. Edit: okkkkk, so I guess I may have underestimated physics. The ice sheet weighs 3,000 trillion tons, and as you suspected, sea levels would indeed drop along the adjacent coasts - estimated to be somewhere between 20 and 50 METERS!!! This is according to a 2016 article by Jerry Mitrovica on the online Harvard Magazine. Moreover, this effect extends out to some 2000km, to where the sea level change ‘zeroes’ out. This displacement will seek to raise sea levels (amount indeterminate from article) outside this 2000 If Greenland’s ice sheet melted entirely, sea level would fall 20 to 50 meters at the adjacent coast.

To be fair the ice on Greenland represents only 6,7% of the world's fresh water differently than 70% of Antarctica's so i don't think it would matter alot. Or you can just take the number of how much Antarctica's going to rise from the other video and divide it up to 6-7 however there are many different variables so you won't get perfect results but it's something to start off if you're curious.

@@deceptionception that would only make sense if the greenland ice sheet was the same size as the antarctic one but less thick, which is not the case.

@@AO-xc8mz yes that's why i said there are many variables. That's also why i think the guy in the video decided not to mention this. Maybe i might be wrong or he has just forgotten about it. Who knows.

This is actually one of the factors which may be leading to GRACE's mal-reporting of Greenland's Ice density- evidently, an independent teem of scientists discovered the GRACE team wasn't calculating for that. Heller cites/ brings that up. I noticed that GRACE doesn't agree with Altimetry Satellites. www.theclimaterecord.com/greenland-and-smb

He did mention it, and so have many others in the comments, which neither you nor they read.

Given the rebound estimates of Antarctica and the 2000m thick Greenland ice sheet, I’d certainly think it would uplift by at least 1-2m. However, that rebound will take thousands of years after the hypothetical melt. For example, the North American region surrounding the Great Lakes is STILL uplifting from the last ice age. I did not notice that he accounted for this in the video.

@@knarf58 but they had no more ice

Mr. Atlantist02 r/woooosh Iceland is green and Greenland is icy. That’s the joke god damnit

A lot later, though. Rebounding is slow, so it will take a long time before it has a visible effect on its coastline.

.... this aged quickly

Depends on the size of the nuke. Generally, with the bigger nukes you'd need fewer of them. I'm not fully qualified on building nukes though so you should check that with an expert.

350, if all are 200kt strong, but is not ideal cuz it will leave many radioactive lakes and ratiation

its not Greenland, but in Antarctica you could nuke Antarctica every day for a year and it would have barely any effect on the amount of ice that melts. So divide Antarctica's size by Greenlands for the ratio and you'll get the picture of how many nukes it will take

Sins of omission. Media is in the bag. electroverse.net/younger-dryas-rewind-and-repeat/

The smoke cools the Earth, but the loss of 20% of the Earth's Oxygen production is a problem... combined with the plastic, pollution, and radiation harming the oceans, and ongoing deforestation, Oxygen production on Earth is taking significant losses. We live in a biosphere and dependent on our O2 producers. There is no 'Planet B' to escape to when Earth runs out of air.

There was a wildfires this year on Greenland

SeaJay Oceans The Amazon doesn’t produce 20% of the Earth’s oxygen, that’s a myth

@@Unberable It's ok, you are not allow to know the Earth is dying... just go back to sleep. You never saw this, it doesn't matter anyway. There 's nothing you can do about it. So, go watch some videos of cats or something... just, just forget about it... sleep. sleep. sleep. obey. conform. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E9U9xS4thxU.html

Do some research before you say things like that www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/why-amazon-doesnt-produce-20-percent-worlds-oxygen/

I would love to see what the (drop in) sea levels and subsequently lands would look like after BOTH Antarctica and Greenland have lost all their ice AND both have totally REBOUND (risen by meters above today's elevations).

The natural cycle

except by the end of it most species will have died, great

Also, average temperatures are ok I guess, but the biggest number of average days a year where it's 18° is probably more useful

Brilliant.

Someone needs some “freedom”

No

Just saying, Australia is not a island, but a continent.

ThirdPartyEJ Jul it’s an island and a country too

Infinite Abyss i forgot to include that it’s both

@@acyllia5311 Yeah - and Pluto was a planet...

Leftatalbuquerque 😔

Are they rivers if they are below ground? Usually rivers are considered those on the surface.

@@BlackViperMWG yes. Underground rivers are called subterranean rivers* underground lakes are called aquifers or springs. *Mexico has 3 underground rivers. Xcaret Park.. is one park that offers access Remember when it rains 100% of the water do not evaporate. it sinks down to the aquifer. Its been raining for millions of years on earth.

Fresh water below the surface are called aquifers and they contain far more fresh water then all surface freshwater putt together. All the rivers and lakes don't add up to a large percentage, about 2% in total. Though the Great Lakes are large, they are not too deep.

@@BlackViperMWG Technically, yes there are some underground rivers. Not like the sci-fi torrential flowing Amazon types, but they do exist

Iceland isn't mostly green though.

The vikings it called it that to mislead people

Sneaky vikings...

@@lucianosarni no they called it that because where they landed in Iceland it was icy and where they landed on Greenland it was more green

@@dresdi ah ok

Australia doesn't count as an island officially 😉💁‍♂️ That's why Greenland is the biggest island. I mean, you could count Eurasia as an island too 🤷‍♂️

​@@fabianreusch4870 bro shut Australia is a island

@@Spino2722 as I said, doesnt count as an island officially. I mean, it's a whole continent too. Otherwise Antártica could count as an island too...

The media would do a lot better if they didn't hate every single thing Trump does and says no matter what it is. Buying Greenland is not crazy.

LET'S DOOO THIIISSS

@@Arigator2 Its part of their narrative. Make everyone think that UnElecting Trump will make the problem go away.

@@Arigator2 Correct buying Greenland is not crazy, selling it is.

@@mathiaskjeldgaardpetersen5926 - I agree with that. But those things have happened. An interesting thing is that the President who bought Alaska from Russia got roasted by the media. They called it 'Seward's Folly'.

Gaven Prather we are🤪

Link please! Qujanaq ( kalaallisut Greenlandic for thank you!)