Jump to content

Talk:Greenland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Madchester (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
The issue of independence
Line 45: Line 45:


Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? --[[User:Madchester|Madchester]] June 29, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? --[[User:Madchester|Madchester]] June 29, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

== The issue of independence ==

Someone should write about the issue of Greenland's independence please.

Revision as of 16:25, 21 August 2005

The Greenland archipelago?

If the Greenland ice cap were to completely melt away, Greenland would most likely be an archipelago instead of an island-continent like Australia.

It are not correctly, because the land wil do grow up, if weight of the ice do disappear.

That's probably correct but in the meantime it would be a bunch of islands (it would take centuries if not millenia for the land to rise to a "normal" level I would think). -- stewacide

it would take 20.000 years to melt the Greenland away. and the land never rise to a "normal" level, but rise quickly in start and slovly slow later.

New map of the rocky ground show as Greenland is one island today.

Haabet 18:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's still a bit of a toss-up. Presumably raised sea-levels concomitant with the loss of the ice sheet would make at least some islands from parts of greenland, but one would need to see that sub-ice topographic map to know at what sea level this would break Greenland up altogether. Post-glacial rebound is, as stewacide says, not an immediate issue. Scotland is still rising from relief the weight of the Devensian glaciation, which was entirely gone 10 millenia ago. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


STOP CHANGING IT!!!!

Please stop changing the new Greenland format to the old one. You can add on to it, please don't revert it.

'Australia Considered One'

It is the world's largest island (if continents are excluded and Australia is considered one). Wording is vague: when I read that, I presume that Australia is to be considered an island. Anyone else struck by the same? If not, ignore the ignorance, but if so rewording may be in order. Tolo 14:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • That's not the worst of it. Someone here considers Greenland a continent. Hey, Mic! Look at a map! It's part of the same island group as the Canadian Arctic Islands. Greenland is in North America, not a continent in its own right.-----------Kelisi 2005/2/4
The first examination (by ca. 50km uncertainty) of the land under the ice say Grenland is two Isles

but many later more precise examination say its is one island. But the first result is ineradicable.

  • I don't think that Australia should be excluded as being an island. Granted that "Australia" is considered a continent, but I think the continent is made up of more than one island or country (Australia, New Zealand).----------Mark, 7 April 2005

NATO but not EU

I think that it's worth adding that Greenland is a member of NATO but unlike Denmark, not of the EU.--JBellis 22:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Australia is technically not a continent on its own.

Australia is part of the continent of Australasia (now known as Oceania) which includes other island nations like New Zealand, Fiji, Soloman Islands and others aswell as mainland Australia and Tasmania.


Greenland part of North America?

If Greenland is part of North America then Cape Spear is not the easterly point on the continent, as some have suggested in recent debate. CBC News

Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? --Madchester June 29, 2005 15:46 (UTC)

The issue of independence

Someone should write about the issue of Greenland's independence please.