this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
264 points (97.1% liked)

politics

20700 readers
5377 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It's still, like, a quarter of the US landmass (eyeball measurement), which is big

[–] [email protected] 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The total area of Greenland is 2.1 million km², but where other countries have usable land and maybe some lakes, Greenland has 1.7 million km² of ice. There's some land under there, but much less than you might think:

Topographic map of Greenland (Wikipedia)

The US has 9.1 million km² of actual land, so if we're counting the ice, a quarter is about right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

oh wow, there's a whole pond in the middle ! wonder if it's salty

[–] grue 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

there’s a whole pond in the middle

Well yes, but actually no.

That part in the middle is land that has a miles-thick pile of ice on top of it. There's probably not any significant amount of liquid water on that land under the ice right now, and (in the long term) there probably still wouldn't be any liquid water on it because isostatic rebound would cause the land to lift if the ice were removed. I haven't found any sources that definitively claim whether the magnitude of the rebound would be enough to get all of it above sea level, but my guess is that it would.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago

That's mad, thanks for the link. Simply fascinating