Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
Greenland is nowhere near as big as Australia, and only looks that way on a planar projection map. (Google "Mercator projection" to read more.) Look at it on a world globe and you will see that it isn't quite so massive. My understanding is that if it had not been settled very early by voyagers from Iceland and Norway, it probably would have been grabbed by the British at some point, and would today in all likelihood be part of Canada. That appears to make geographical sense, as only a small body of water separates Greenland from Canada's very large islands above the Arctic Circle.
|
Correct.
The forth north you on a map, the grater the distortion gets. Even Alaska is much smaller that it looks on a planar projection map.
Also, I've read that much of the interior of Greenland is actually under sea level. I think the center of Greenland has been scooped out and pressed down by the enormous glacier that covers Greenland. If it all melted, you would be left with a ring of islands that surround the location where Greenland was. So maybe that is why it is not a continent?
Here is an article:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/greenland.asp
Key quote:
"The Greenland ice sheet covers roughly 85% of the land surface of the island and rises to an average height of 2.3 km (1.6 miles). The immense weight of the ice sheet has pushed the center of the island roughly 300 meters (1000 ft) below sea level. The icy expanse of Greenland, like the rest of the Arctic, not only represents an important climatological indicator, it also is critical to future global climate. Were all of Greenland's ice to melt, global sea level would rise 7 meters (23 feet). Greenland's ice sheet is slowly melting due to warming temperatures, and there is great concern that this melting will accelerate and contribute to sea level rise of several feet later this century."
However, if the glacier DID melt, over the course of centuries, the center of Greenland may rise back up. Here is another article:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/envi...aterworld.html
Key quote:
"Both Greenland and Antarctica, free of ice, have areas that would be below sea level. However, with the weight of this ice removed, Greenland and Antarctica would rise higher--this phenomena is called isostatic rebound. This rebound lags behind the removal of the ice (by thousands of years). Eventually, most of Greenland would probably be above sea level. However, significant portions of Antarctica would remain underwater."
Why isn't.....
