In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com says... > > In sci.physics Lynn McGuire <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > On 6/4/2014 6:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > ... > >> Further, get your facts straight. The Greenland icecap would raise sea > >> levels by 7 meters. Antarctica would raise it by about 60 meters. To > >> put this in perspective, the normal sea level difference between an > >> interglacial and a glacial maximum is about 120 meters. > > Isn't there about 100 meters of water in the North > > Sea? > > Wasn't the North Sea dry land during the last > > glacial maximum? > > The math for your interglacial and glacial math > > needs a few more meters. > ... > > I think the age for Greenland also needs a recount. :) > > The last I heard the soil under the sheet has been dated to ~2.7 mn y > and the sheet is characterised as "having survived the coming and going of > recent ice ages".
There is a discrepancy between the soil age and the ice core data. The ice cores from Greenland show roughly 100,000 years worth of ice, indicating that either Greenland ice melts very rapidly compared to Antarctic ice or it melted off almost completely during the last interglacial.
> Pollen from the soil indicates Greenland was a tundra-like landscape > from 100 ky to 1000 ky before the ice covered it.
Perhaps that particular location remained ice covered. Remember, the cores are taken at specific spots. A hundred miles away the results might be quite different. Same for the soil sample--they didn't sample all the soil everywhere under the Greenland icecap, they sampled it under the highest part of the ice sheet. > > Of course, I haven't checked these conclusions with creationist > websites, so they are provisional. ;)