tsunami

[trevorjohnson83]

could the ice in the north arctic create a tsunami that doesn't go back out to sea because of the added mass to the ocean? I'm thinking the tsunami from ice entering the ocean would be different than traditional tsunamis?

ChatGPT said:​

The scenario you’re imagining—huge Arctic ice entering the ocean and sending a one-way surge—is interesting, but it works a bit differently from a classic tsunami. Here’s how the physics breaks down:

1. Sudden vs. gradual input​

• Tsunamis come from sudden displacements of water (undersea quakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions).
• Sea-ice melt or breakup is generally slow. Even a massive iceberg calving is spread over minutes to hours, so the water has time to flow around it and equalize, producing only small, local waves.

2. Added mass and sea level​

• If a huge amount of land-based ice (like Greenland’s glaciers) melted, it would raise global sea level permanently.
• That’s a gradual rise, not a traveling wave. The ocean simply finds a new equilibrium level worldwide.

3. Big ice collapse into water​

• A truly sudden slide of an enormous ice mass—like a glacier face or ice shelf collapsing—can create a local megatsunami, similar to a rockslide plunging into a fjord.
• But that wave radiates outward and eventually reflects, disperses, and sloshes back just like other tsunami waves; it doesn’t just stop because more mass is present.

4. “One-way” surge?​

• Water must conserve momentum and mass. Even if an iceberg adds mass, the surrounding water still oscillates until friction and seafloor drag dissipate the energy.
• So you’d get local flooding and a series of retreating/returning waves, not a permanent outward-only wall of water.

---

Summary:

• Gradual Arctic ice melt → sea-level rise, no tsunami.
• Sudden gigantic calving/slide → localized tsunami, but it still propagates and reflects like any other.
• The extra mass of meltwater changes long-term sea level, not the basic back-and-forth physics of a tsunami.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No because the ice is already floating IN the ocean waters.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

No because the ice is already floating IN the ocean waters.

has a large rise in sea ever been responsible for an extinction?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes—several major extinction events in Earth’s history are closely tied to large, relatively rapid rises (or falls) in sea level. These changes often reshaped habitats and ocean chemistry, stressing ecosystems worldwide. A few key examples:

---

1.​

• What happened: Massive volcanism (the Siberian Traps) drove huge CO₂ release, rapid global warming, and melting of polar ice.
• Sea-level effect: Thermal expansion and melting ice caused a major transgression (global sea-level rise).
• Impact: Shallow-marine environments were drowned or became anoxic (oxygen-poor). Roughly ~90% of marine species disappeared.

---

2.​

• Sea-level changes: Pulses of sea-level rise and fall—linked to glaciations and tectonic shifts—repeatedly flooded and exposed continental shelves.
• Impact: Reef systems collapsed; many fish and invertebrate groups went extinct.

---

3.​

• Drivers: Massive CO₂ from Central Atlantic Magmatic Province volcanism.
• Sea-level effect: Global warming and associated sea-level rise reduced oxygen in the oceans and disrupted coastal habitats.

---

4.​

• Not a mass extinction of the “big five,” but a rapid warming event that raised sea level several meters in a few thousand years.
• Impact: Significant turnover in marine microfauna and migration/extinction of some deep-sea species.

---

Mechanisms of harm

• Loss of shallow-water habitats (reefs, coastal shelves).
• Anoxia in deeper waters as circulation changed.
• Ocean chemistry shifts (acidification) from massive CO₂ release.

---

Bottom line:
While sea-level fall (regression) has also triggered extinctions by draining shallow seas, sudden or geologically rapid sea-level rise has indeed been a major factor in several global extinction events, most dramatically at the end of the Permian.

 

[Cassandro]

No because the ice is already floating IN the ocean waters.

That is true of icebergs, but not of landlocked ice. I think the OP was pointing out the difference between displacement (tsunamis) and augmentation (change in sea level).

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is true of icebergs, but not of landlocked ice. I think the OP was pointing out the difference between displacement (tsunamis) and augmentation (change in sea level).

I was responding to this:

could the ice in the north arctic create a tsunami that doesn't go back out to sea because of the added mass to the ocean? I'm thinking the tsunami from ice entering the ocean would be different than traditional tsunamis?

He wrote North ARCTIC, which is why I stated it is floating ice thus can't generate a tsunami.

 

[Sunsettommy]

has a large rise in sea ever been responsible for an extinction?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes—several major extinction events in Earth’s history are closely tied to large, relatively rapid rises (or falls) in sea level. These changes often reshaped habitats and ocean chemistry, stressing ecosystems worldwide. A few key examples:

---

1.​

• What happened: Massive volcanism (the Siberian Traps) drove huge CO₂ release, rapid global warming, and melting of polar ice.
• Sea-level effect: Thermal expansion and melting ice caused a major transgression (global sea-level rise).
• Impact: Shallow-marine environments were drowned or became anoxic (oxygen-poor). Roughly ~90% of marine species disappeared.

---

2.​

• Sea-level changes: Pulses of sea-level rise and fall—linked to glaciations and tectonic shifts—repeatedly flooded and exposed continental shelves.
• Impact: Reef systems collapsed; many fish and invertebrate groups went extinct.

---

3.​

• Drivers: Massive CO₂ from Central Atlantic Magmatic Province volcanism.
• Sea-level effect: Global warming and associated sea-level rise reduced oxygen in the oceans and disrupted coastal habitats.

---

4.​

• Not a mass extinction of the “big five,” but a rapid warming event that raised sea level several meters in a few thousand years.
• Impact: Significant turnover in marine microfauna and migration/extinction of some deep-sea species.

---

Mechanisms of harm

• Loss of shallow-water habitats (reefs, coastal shelves).
• Anoxia in deeper waters as circulation changed.
• Ocean chemistry shifts (acidification) from massive CO₂ release.

---

Bottom line:
While sea-level fall (regression) has also triggered extinctions by draining shallow seas, sudden or geologically rapid sea-level rise has indeed been a major factor in several global extinction events, most dramatically at the end of the Permian.

That is a classic failed post since it didn't address my correct reply at all which was that nearly all of the ice in the North Arctic is already in the water to start with.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

That is true of icebergs, but not of landlocked ice. I think the OP was pointing out the difference between displacement (tsunamis) and augmentation (change in sea level).

This is what I was getting at, don't know what Sunsettommy means

 

[westwall]

could the ice in the north arctic create a tsunami that doesn't go back out to sea because of the added mass to the ocean? I'm thinking the tsunami from ice entering the ocean would be different than traditional tsunamis?

ChatGPT said:​

The scenario you’re imagining—huge Arctic ice entering the ocean and sending a one-way surge—is interesting, but it works a bit differently from a classic tsunami. Here’s how the physics breaks down:

1. Sudden vs. gradual input​

• Tsunamis come from sudden displacements of water (undersea quakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions).
• Sea-ice melt or breakup is generally slow. Even a massive iceberg calving is spread over minutes to hours, so the water has time to flow around it and equalize, producing only small, local waves.

2. Added mass and sea level​

• If a huge amount of land-based ice (like Greenland’s glaciers) melted, it would raise global sea level permanently.
• That’s a gradual rise, not a traveling wave. The ocean simply finds a new equilibrium level worldwide.

3. Big ice collapse into water​

• A truly sudden slide of an enormous ice mass—like a glacier face or ice shelf collapsing—can create a local megatsunami, similar to a rockslide plunging into a fjord.
• But that wave radiates outward and eventually reflects, disperses, and sloshes back just like other tsunami waves; it doesn’t just stop because more mass is present.

4. “One-way” surge?​

• Water must conserve momentum and mass. Even if an iceberg adds mass, the surrounding water still oscillates until friction and seafloor drag dissipate the energy.
• So you’d get local flooding and a series of retreating/returning waves, not a permanent outward-only wall of water.

---

Summary:

• Gradual Arctic ice melt → sea-level rise, no tsunami.
• Sudden gigantic calving/slide → localized tsunami, but it still propagates and reflects like any other.
• The extra mass of meltwater changes long-term sea level, not the basic back-and-forth physics of a tsunami.

No

 

[ReinyDays]

1/8 inch per year ... is that what you're afraid of? ... just pathetic ... letting AI do your thinking ...

 

[Cassandro]

Wow, the nastiness sure came out on this thread. As to Arctic ice, not all of it is floating. A rapid melting of ice on top of Greenland and Canada could create flooding in localized areas, including those already subject to large tidal surges. It is also theoretically possible that an ice dam across the Bering Strait could also create tsunami-like conditions if it suddenly broke.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wow, the nastiness sure came out on this thread. As to Arctic ice, not all of it is floating. A rapid melting of ice on top of Greenland and Canada could create flooding in localized areas, including those already subject to large tidal surges. It is also theoretically possible that an ice dam across the Bering Strait could also create tsunami-like conditions if it suddenly broke.

Now you expanded to include Greenland and Canada, it appears you are starting to go in circles. This is your first post:

could the ice in the north arctic create a tsunami that doesn't go back out to sea because of the added mass to the ocean? I'm thinking the tsunami from ice entering the ocean would be different than traditional tsunamis?

You never read of CALVING icebergs which happens every year..... LOL

Greenland Ice Sheet's Distinct Calving Styles Are Identified in Terminus Change Timeseries​

LINK

NO Greenland is mostly too cold for it and as Polar Portal shows it is just around the margins if the Island that melts and slowly.

LINK

There is no possible Tsunami as there simply not enough sudden impact to build with.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wow, the nastiness sure came out on this thread. As to Arctic ice, not all of it is floating. A rapid melting of ice on top of Greenland and Canada could create flooding in localized areas, including those already subject to large tidal surges. It is also theoretically possible that an ice dam across the Bering Strait could also create tsunami-like conditions if it suddenly broke.

Maybe because your proposition of a tsunami is preposterous in the Arctic region where the only region of land ice is 2/3rds of Greenland that melts around the margins and calved in a few place yearly with small waves in the water that never leaves the region of the coast and Canada has negligible land ice available that melts out during summers.

The Ice dam proposition is silly since the Bering's straight melts out EVERY SUMMER!

LINK

 

[trevorjohnson83]

1/8 inch per year ... is that what you're afraid of? ... just pathetic ... letting AI do your thinking ...

I think this group of you who are anti chat gpt look like they have practice at binding together to re enforce their personal nonsense beliefs, example everything ReinyDays has ever said to me...... So since I don't remember a thing you've said yet because it was all personal nonsense, what do you think is the cause of the north warming again?

 

[ReinyDays]

I think this group of you who are anti chat gpt look like they have practice at binding together to re enforce their personal nonsense beliefs, example everything ReinyDays has ever said to me...... So since I don't remember a thing you've said yet because it was all personal nonsense, what do you think is the cause of the north warming again?

For someone who relies on AI to do their thinking ... then I can see where basic science would seem like nonsense ...

You're confusing two things ... it's warming in the South, specifically under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet ... if this were to collapse, and I'm not saying it will, then it would an all-basin tsunami ... and for several days perhaps weeks ...

Maybe when you reach high school you can expand your horizons a bit ... or better, go out and discover girls ...

 

[trevorjohnson83]

it's warming in the South,

the south arctic?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

For someone who relies on AI to do their thinking ...

way to use the little dots in this brilliant statement. I simply plugged my logic into AI and it has been able to build off that logic for simple questions. Does better than you will ever anyways.

 

[Cassandro]

I think this group of you who are anti chat gpt look like they have practice at binding together to re enforce their personal nonsense beliefs

There is a group on this forum who like to be oppositional because they have little else to contribute and, in some cases, are resentful about having been proven wrong in other threads. As a result, their posts are often difficult to decipher.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It appears that posts #11&12 have been established with no opposition to the sourced details.

Cheers.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

There is a group on this forum who like to be oppositional because they have little else to contribute and, in some cases, are resentful about having been proven wrong in other threads. As a result, their posts are often difficult to decipher.

well I'm just glad my side of things exists now and is out there and will be in the future and will improve with time and so on. More recently people have been giving me the thumbs up than before so.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

It appears that posts #11&12 have been established with no opposition to the sourced details.

Cheers.

them some pretty pictures you posted there