Climate change affects big Antarctica Iceberg. Did it cause a big earthquake? You decide.

[Cleita]

Back on February 6, 2009 Discover Magazine postedthis: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/02/06/antarctic-ice-melt-would-shift-earths-axis-further-changing-sea-level/

Antarctic Ice Melt Would Shift Earth’s Axis, Further Changing Sea Level

The collapse of an ice sheet in West Antarctica would not only threaten coastal areas of North America and nations in the southern Indian Ocean, but would also cause a shift in the earth’s rotation axis, researchers report in Science.

If the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses and melts, as some scientists feel is likely due to global warming, the earth’s rotation would shift an approximate 500 meters from its current position. Rather than cause a uniform rise in sea level, this would result in a 30 percent greater increase in certain areas—about 21 feet for Washington, D.C., for example, compared with the uniform 16 to 17 feet already predicted. The researchers say the melting would change the balance of the globe in much the same way that tsunamis move huge amounts of water from one area to another .
Because the gravitational pull of an ice sheet on the ocean is reduced when it melts, water then moves away from it. The net effect is that the sea level actually falls within 2,000 km of a melting ice sheet, and rises progressively further away from it. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, sea level will fall close to the Antarctic and will rise much more than the expected estimate in the northern hemisphere because of this gravitational effect . In addition the sheer weight of ice is forcing down the land underneath it and having an impact on the Earth’s spin. When the ice is removed up bounces the land and the Earth moves .

No need to panic about drowning next week, however. It’s a time scale of hundreds of years , said Jerry X. Mitrovica, one of the authors of the study. If you really want a preview, digital animation is available to see what potential scenarios of changes in sea level would look like.

So fast forward to February 26, 2010 and Reuters reports this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61P15H20100226

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - An iceberg the size of Luxembourg has broken off from a glacier in Antarctica after being rammed by another giant iceberg, scientists said on Friday, in an event that could affect ocean circulation patterns.

The 2,500 sq km (965 sq mile) iceberg broke off earlier this month from the Mertz Glacier's 160 km (100 miles) floating tongue of ice that sticks out into the Southern Ocean.

The collision has since halved the size of the tongue that drains ice from the vast East Antarctic ice sheet.

"The calving itself hasn't been directly linked to climate change but it is related to the natural processes occurring on the ice sheet," said Rob Massom, a senior scientist at the Australian Antarctic Division and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania.

Both organizations, along with French scientists, have been studying existing giant cracks in the ice tongue and monitored the bumper-car-like collision by the second iceberg, B-9B.

more at link

So Chile, the only country besides Argentina that is really close to Antarctica gets a really huge earthquake on February 27, 2010, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/28/world/la-fg-chile-earthquake28-2010feb28. I'm not a scientist and I can see how they don't want to commit to a possibility until they subject it to the scientific method, but doesn't this seem all a little connected?

[aquart]

1. The melting has redistributed weight on some of those tectonic plates

Don't you think? Might make 'em testy.

[XemaSab]

2. It's not connected

n/t

[HeresyLives]

3. It's ALL connected.

[XemaSab]

6. It's really not connected

There were massive megathrust quakes in the area before Europeans crawled out of their caves, and before Asians mastered the use of fire.

Besides, the ice was floating on the sea, and it weighs the same whether it's solid or liquid.

[HeresyLives]

10. Yeah it is.

The earth's crust has been settling for millions of years, and pressure in one place is vented anywhere there is a weakness. Ice has come and gone, and come and gone again.

And the movement of large masses at any given time is bound to do something.

Geologically speaking, it's a small planet, and very interconnected.

[XemaSab]

17. In the new-age sense, sure, it's connected, whatever

In the geology sense, the movement of one plate diving under another plate is INFINITELY GREATER than the tiny amount of isostatic rebound (or depression) occurring in Antarctica.

[HeresyLives]

26. Oh don't try the new age razzmatazz with me. LOL

I know you're trying to sound learned, but if you are unaware everything on the planet is connected GEOLOGICALLY, you're not 'learned' at all.

[XemaSab]

33. Tell me, where did you get YOUR earth sciences degree?

I got mine from Humboldt State University, right near the Mendocino Triple Junction.

And yes, we DID have awesome field trips out looking at faults and other earthquake features. :D

[HeresyLives]

40. Oh, pissing contest eh?

Mine are in space sciences, hon.

Whole earth, ya know?

[XemaSab]

49. Like, woo-woo new age space?

:shrug:

[HeresyLives]

50. Snobby scientists are killing themselves

with the woo-woo routine.

Then they wonder why they have such a denier disaster on their hands.

Off the high horse, nose out of the clouds, and try to act with the manners I assume your mother taught you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

58. Specifically what area?

Just out of sheer curiosity.

[Political Heretic]

87. I'm curious too

[Cleita]

30. You apparently have a scientific background, but it does you no good if

you don't recognize how everything is connected. I have lived long enough to see how scientific knowledge has changed. Let's talk about climate. When I was a kid and we traveled on ships and propeller type airplanes, climate science was really primitive. I hate to tell you how many storms I weathered both on the sea and air because the knowledge was limited of what we would be hit by. Today that craziness can be circumvented. Nowadays everyone knows what the weather will be and can plan for it. Back then they couldn't. No satellites. No one really knew. But the big revelation was that no one knew back then that what was happening way off in the South Pacific, or the Arctic or the Atlantic streams could affect storms and climate conditions thousands of miles away. If anyone had suggested it, they would have been laughed at.

[HeresyLives]

38. Well see your aerosol deodorant can affect the ozone hole,

But one earthquake can't affect another...nor can a humongous chunk of ice breaking loose affect anything at all. :eyes:

[winyanstaz]

100. You are correct...This is only one planet and it is ALL connected...

We just were not as aware of what was going on all over the world back in my youth either...nothing like todays news.
We only had to worry about our own little corner of the world...now we have to stress about the whole planet...no wonder people are jumpy.

[JVS]

73. It's teh Indigo Children, they have gas.

Woo woo woo!

[Teaser]

11. everything's connected, but...

a lot of times the coupling coefficient between events is so small as to be negligible, making events essentially independent.

[HeresyLives]

15. LOL or not.

[HeresyLives]

4. Like post-glacial rebound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

[Teaser]

9. unlikely

if this was the result of collision with another iceberg, than this body of ice was already on the water, and there wouldn't have been any rebound.

[HeresyLives]

12. Took a huge chunk off a land mass.

Of course it would have an effect.

[Teaser]

18. it wasn't on a landmass.

this probably broke off an ice shelf, which extends out over water. there isn't any land under the shelf to compress.

See this image:


http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20100226&t=2&i=67190641&w=460&r=2010-02-26T125754Z_01_BTRE61P100T00_RTROPTP_0_US-ANTARCTICA-ICEBERG

that is clearly overwater. no exposed land mass.

[HeresyLives]

28. Ice mass or land mass...still a mass.

[Teaser]

35. Do you really know what you are talking about?

or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Imagine a huge weight on top of a land mass. It pushes it down. Ice melts, the land rebounds because the material has a certain elasticity and compressibility. hence changes in parameters of the earth's crust, axis, etc...

however, a huge block of ice displaces a volume of water. but, the volume of water displaced is exactly the same mass as the ice, and the water simply redistributes around the ice. nothing rebounds, and the earth's crust doesn't notice the difference.

[HeresyLives]

41. Yes, so enough with the patronizing.

[Teaser]

45. demonstrate

explain to me how an ice cube floating over water causes a rebound effect in a land mass it isn't touching.

the closest I could come is that some shearing forces are transmitted, via contact, through the sea ice to overland ice, and there is some shear stress or strain transmitted to the land mass, along with friction, but that is a force that runs parallel to the surface of the crust, and would not cause any radial displacement (necessary for a rebound force).

clearly you have a model of how this is working. let's hear it.

[XemaSab]

48. No, not engineering!

That involves numbers and math and science and all that junk! :scared:

[HeresyLives]

51. Yes, none of which you'd understand.

So try and focus on the original question, and be polite.

[Teaser]

55. But I would

and I would very much appreciate some clarity regarding the model you are proposing.

[HeresyLives]

59. You are still being snobbish.

Basically you're saying 'oh yeah, oh yeah?? well yer mother wears army boots!'

You're just doing it in better language. The sentiment is the same.

[Teaser]

65. No, I am asking you to support your contention

that isn't snobbery. It is how science gets done. I get challenged all the time at conferences. It doesn't offend me. It's part of the process of testing ideas. If my tone has grown short, it is simply because I have asked you several times to explain your arguments more completely, and those requests have been ignored, or so it seems to me.

As of this moment, I don't understand your ideas. I would like you to explain them to me. Consider this a very polite request.

[HeresyLives]

70. No, you've reverted to the schoolyard.

Which is where you will stay until you learn how to conduct yourself.

You are on a public chatsite, not at a scientific conference. Try to keep that in mind.

[Teaser]

72. I am very sorry for offending you

and I hope with that unpleasantness behind us, you could help me understand the model for crustal rebound you're talking about.

[HeresyLives]

80. LOL you need a PR firm all by yourself.

You know very well what rebound after a weight is removed means.

And you know about compression when a new large weight is applied...like the dam in China.

And had you not been inclined to toss in 'new age' and 'woo woo' we could have had an interesting discussion.

Perhaps you could step outside the next conference, and talk to people in the street.

The ones that fund scientific work.

You're losing them.

Personally, I intend to add some weight to my bed.

G'nite.

[Teaser]

81. Dude, I never used "new age" and "woo woo"

that was another user, Xemasab, I believe.

and now I have to finish my lecture, really.

[HeresyLives]

83. LOL so go finish your lecture

You've killed your chances here.

[Teaser]

90. thank you for this entertaining interchange

it will liven up an otherwise workaday morning in the lab for us.

[SidDithers]

93. No. Theres a huge difference between ice on a land mass...

and ice already floating in the water.

Sid

[Tumbulu]

5. very interesting - thanks for posting (nt)

[Teaser]

7. doubtful

This was likely sea ice, and not overland ice. As such, its "breaking free" wouldn't have resulted in any rebound of underlying land mass (as there was none).

[Codeine]

8. Neither of the plates involved with the Chilean quake

are the Antarctic plate.

Besides, you're comparing events the article states would result in water levels rising 21 feet in parts of the world with a chunk of ice calving off. Ain't the same thing.

[HeresyLives]

13. Plates affect each other.

Currently the Pacific one is bumping into the Americas.

[Codeine]

20. More accurately

the Pacific one is sliding beneath the South American one. On an entirely different plate (the Antarctic plate) some sea ice has calved off -- not only is that on a different plate, it wasn't land ice and thus would have had little to no effect on the total ice weight on the plate to begin with.

[XemaSab]

23. The Nazca plate is subducting under the South American plate

;)

[Codeine]

24. I've said the Pacific plate like eighty times too!

Bad Codeine! :spank:

[XemaSab]

25. Hey, you get props for knowing what a plate is

and how plates generally work. :D

[HeresyLives]

34. Next he'll throw in the teacups,

and think he's amusing.

[XemaSab]

21. 1. There are several American plates.

2. The Pacific plate is moving in a right-lateral strike-slip motion to the North American plate.

3. The Pacific plate doesn't come anywhere near Chile.

[Cleita]

68. Plates, plates, etc. What makes the plates move?

I'm the person who moves plates on my table. I have a feeling the planet does the same thing. Energy moves them. I believe it's climate. The fact that we can get energy from the wind, from the movement of the ocean means that they influence the movement of mass. Call me crazy and uneducated, but think about it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

75. How do plates move?

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/how_plates_move.html&nl=7l

[Amonester]

77. A few answers there: (provided link)

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_4.asp

It's possible to start reading at the beginning and navigate through the pages at the end of each one.

[Cleita]

14. You guys just can't get off this plate thing can you?

The plates are secondary to the real event. Start thinking.

[Codeine]

16. Wait?

Plates are secondary to plate tectonics? :spray:

Wow.

[Cleita]

19. Hahahahaha.

Please don't look stupid in print.

[Codeine]

22. You have completely lost it.

This always happens when the evidence piles up against you, like in the lunar/menstrual/moon bombing thread -- you just start the name calling.

Oh well -- still entertains the shit outta me!

[Cleita]

36. Do you have a problem with menstruating? I don't. I'm an old broad.

You should wish me a happy birthday. I turned seventy recently.

[Codeine]

43. Aside from all the arguing,

the fact that you're seventy and an active participant in vibrant online discussion is pure, unadulterated awesome. :hi:

[Cleita]

44. Awww!

:hug:

Don't think I'm going to adopt you though.

[winyanstaz]

101. you are kinder than I am to varmets :)....

I usually dont adopt them either. ;)
Great thread by the way.

[SidDithers]

103. What's a "varmet"?...nt

Sid

[winyanstaz]

105. Its what country folk call critters that come around pestering you...

Its just a slang my mom used to use back in Wyoming.

[Political Heretic]

27. "I'm not a scientist....." I stopped caring after that statement.

[Teaser]

29. well, if I preface such things by "I am a scientist"

it annoys people too.

[Political Heretic]

88. Only when you don't tell them what field you are in

Otherwise, I'd be happy to know in fact.

[HeresyLives]

32. Well a science snob would DO that.

it's how scientists get into trouble...high priests guarding the holy grail, and sneering at anyone who asks a simple question.

It's apparently beneath your dignity to give her a polite explanatory answer...without the equations and attempts to show off.

[Teaser]

37. I've given you one, and you're ignoring it

.

[HeresyLives]

42. No, I'm ignoring the snobbery.

[Teaser]

46. clarify

point out the snobbery in my posts. I have simply stated facts.

[HeresyLives]

52. Woo-woo.

[Teaser]

57. I have no idea what this means

and as such cannot address it.

[HeresyLives]

61. And that's your problem in a nutshell.

[Teaser]

66. indeed.

.

[winyanstaz]

102. well now...woo-woo dude....

you sure impressed the heck out of me with your posts :P
hahaha...woo-woo dude! You crack me up...you silly goose. :)
Is that really how grown-ups debate? hahahaaaa

[Political Heretic]

47. Ummmm.... I'm not a scientist either. So, not sure where that rudeness was coming from.

I do however, listen to the empirical findings of peer-reviewed research.

It's the best method for attempting to get at objective facts we have, though no method is perfect. It has more fault-tolerance built into it than any other method.

Science doesn't "get into trouble." It finds its troubles and corrects them, through a process of peer review, tests, research, and experiment. Nothing has a better track record for accurate understanding of our world.

So, when I say to you that I'll wait for the science... I'm proud to do so. I'll wait for objective evidence, backed by peer-reviewed scholarship.

I'm not sure why you'd mock anyone for doing so. :)

[HeresyLives]

54. Sorry, that wasn't directed at you. My bad.

But yes, science gets into trouble all the time.

It takes ages for anyone to believe any of the pronouncements, because of the constant snobbery.

[Political Heretic]

86. What snobbery? Can you explain what you're talking about?

[obliviously]

31. It wasn't climate change!

It was my sister in-law. The new Years resolution didn't work, she rolled out of bed and hit the floor causing the earths axis to tilt and the plates to shift. we are really sorry.

[Cleita]

39. Haha!

Best answer on this thread yet.

:thumbsup:

And the most intelligent. My apologies to all the Phds or whatever they are.

[Ozymanithrax]

53. No...

It was a quake along the subduction zone, miles under the earth, where global warming is not a problem.

[HeresyLives]

56. Global warming is a problem in the oceans,

and in the atmosphere, and it's affecting everything on the planet.

[Ozymanithrax]

62. But it doesn't affect the natural process of subduciton,..

where one plate slides over the other. This is a constant slow process. Eventually, a plate slips and a big earthquake happens.

I also disbelieve earthquakes are a warning from God that Jesus is coming back.

[HeresyLives]

63. Oh really? And you know that, how?

Well now you've done the 'large words', the 'new age', and the 'woo-woo' gimmicks, I see you're into religion....in spite of my obviously being atheist.

[Ozymanithrax]

67. No, I'm an agnostic...

But all the evidence I've seen point to a quake along the subduction zone where one plate moves over an other.

[Cleita]

60. Yes, so we have heard over and over again.

The conservative, lets not question the fact that we have been having some really weird global climatic and geological events, until we decide to subject them to the scientific method and make a decision about it, oh in a decade, is kinda lame right now.

[Ozymanithrax]

64. Look, global warming is proven by sound, scientific evidence...

But it doesn't cause everything. There is no global warming at the depths these types of earthquake happen. It is part of a natural process that continues no matter what state our tenuous atmosphere is in. Tectontic plates move. Where they move over each other, they occassionaly cause big earthquakes. This is also settled science.

[HeresyLives]

71. Then you would know ocean temps have changed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. But deep ocean temperatures have changed very little, so far

They react far slower than the surface temperatures:

Based on ocean temperature observations, the thermal expansion of seawater as it warms has contributed substantially to sea level rise in recent decades. Climate models are consistent with the ocean observations and indicate that thermal expansion is expected to continue to contribute to sea level rise over the next 100 years. Since deep ocean temperatures change only slowly, thermal expansion would continue for many centuries even if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilised.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-4.html

The Chile quake was centered about 35km below the ocean surface - http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2010/03/the-chilean-earthquake-the-pla.html . The warming in the top of the ocean is very unlikely to have directly affected this, when the deep ocean isn't warming at the speed of the top.

However, there is a hypothesis that sea level changes due to seasons or El Nino can affect the timing of earthquakes:

The researchers focused on the Easter microplate - the tectonic plate that lies beneath the ocean off the coast of Easter Island - because it is relatively isolated from other faults. This makes it easier to distinguish changes in the plate caused by climate systems from those triggered by regional rumbles. Since 1973, the arrival of El Niño every few years has correlated with a greater frequency of underwater quakes between magnitude 4 and 6.

The team is confident that the two are linked. El Niño raises the local sea level by a few tens of centimetres, and they believe the extra water weight may increase the pressure of fluids in the pores of the rock beneath the seabed. This might be enough to counteract the frictional force that holds the slabs of rock in place, making it easier for faults to slip. "The changes in sea level are tiny," says Day. "A small additional perturbation can have a substantial effect."

Small ocean changes can also influence volcanic eruptions, says David Pyle of the University of Oxford. His study of eruptions over the past 300 years with Ben Mason of the University of Cambridge and colleagues reveals that volcanism varies with the seasons. The team found that there are around 20 per cent more eruptions worldwide during the northern hemisphere's winter than the summer (Journal of Geophysical Research, DOI: 10.1029/2002JB002293). The reason may be that global sea level drops slightly during the northern hemisphere's winter. Because there is more land in the northern hemisphere, more water is locked up as ice and snow on land than during the southern hemisphere's winter.

The vast majority of the world's most active volcanoes are within a few tens of kilometres of the coast (see map). This suggests the seasonal removal of some of the ocean's weight at continental margins as sea level drops could be triggering eruptions around the world, says Pyle.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true

And we are in an El Nino period now.

[winyanstaz]

104. I guess you are not keeping up with the news....

The head scientist over all this global warming bull crappy just testified the other day that they did not release all the data..they hide facts and misrepresented the problem.
In fact, in Europe these frauds that call themselves global warming scientists are being sued..for fraud.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming. (this means they lied)


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html#ixzz0hEuHzrzK


here is a link...there are a lot more out there because this is breaking news all over europe...do try to keep up :)

[HeresyLives]

69. Well you won't get an answer from these guys.

They're too busy playing schoolyard games to actually discuss something, and use manners. But basically they have no idea how it all works. All of these sciences are just in their infancy.

I hope you're impressed with them. They are. :eyes:

[Teaser]

74. There really isn't that much abnormal about the earthquakes

earthquakes can be pretty nicely explained by a model system of interconnected springs under tension, with friction (modeling the tendency of faults to stick, then slip). One finds oscillations (earthquakes) distribute themselves oddly throughout such a system. Sometimes there are long periods with only minimal oscillation/earthquake amplitudes, and other times you get sequences of large quakes all bunched together, so that there appears to be some kind of pattern. But it's simply the result of the dense correlations between the springs/fault lines that create this kind of distribution.

[HeresyLives]

76. No one said there was.

We have earthquakes every day.

The OP was asking about a sudden redistribution of weight on the earth, and how that would affect things.

What she got was the runaround.

[Teaser]

79. "we have been having some really weird global climatic and _geological_ events"

my post was in reply to the underscored statement. Specifically I am noting that recent geological events are not particularly weird, appearances to the contrary.

You will pardon me for being brief, as I have a lecture to finish. Good night.

[HeresyLives]

82. Well climate scientists say they are, and there'll be more.

Perhaps you lot should get together sometime and thrash this out amongst yourselves eh?

[defendandprotect]

78. Pentagon in its "Warning re Global Warming" to Bush mentioned earthquakes ...

as one of the complications of Global Warming --

No one knows how all of this will compound --

The most drastic is, of course, a polar shift --

Meanwhile, we also don't give very much consideratio to the Ozone holes as

also being a factor in Global Warming -- there's an actual hole, if I recall

this correctly when the damage to the ozone layer exceeds 50% to 75% ...

however, much of the ozone layer is damaged at 50% and less --

[HeresyLives]

84. Yeah, many scientists have.

The 'science people' on here haven't heard of that tho.

[defendandprotect]

96. The Pentagon "Warning" to Bush . . .

was scrubbed of that reference to increased earthquakes --

I remember, however, checking that reference and rechecking it a number of times --

I no longer have the original article/memo, however --

Can't save everything!!


You may know this, as well . . . more than 15 years ago now, probably, the

NY Times ran an article -- not in their Science section which reported that

"The dams and reservoirs built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the last 50 years

were impacting the rotation of the earth."


!!!

No longer have that article either!!

:)

[HeresyLives]

85. Nite all.

[Jax]

89. kick

Cleita.

Thank you for the informed questions you ask here, everyone benefits.


Want to know the answers myself.

Alyce

[SidDithers]

92. Your two articles are completely unrelated...

the first one is talking about what might happen if ice on land melted, the second reports on the breakaway of an iceberg already in the water

Sid

[elmstreetschool]

94. on the other hand…

Although there doesn't seem to be any evidence for climate change causing seismic activity, the opposite may be true:

from http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_20.asp
But now a new theory on the origins of El Nino has been proposed and, surprisingly, it has very little to do with the atmosphere or the sea. The new theory suggests that the primary mover behind El Nino is hot magma welling up between tectonic plates on the Pacific sea-floor. The upwelling magma heats the overlying waters enough to affect the ocean surface, initiating the cascade of events that brings on the wrath of El Nino.

interesting

[northernlights]

95. interesting...

that possibility had occurred to me just the other day. Not an earth scientist (studying medical laboratory science), but the thought popped up. It's entirely possible -- actually probable -- that I read something about it a while back, and it just came back as a memory versus an insight, lol.

[Cleita]

98. One predicts what could happen a year ago and voila it happens in the second article.

a year later. I don't know how an iceberg breaks if it isn't in the water. I was up in Alaska not too long ago watched glaciers "calve" as it's called. The glaciers up there are disappearing quickly because of global warming too. They have to be in the water first for the icebergs to break off. This was a really huge iceberg that broke off a huge ice shelf that was in the water. If you go to the article there is a satellite picture of it.

[SidDithers]

99. No, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has not melted...

it's still there, sitting atop the land mass of Antarctica. What happened in the second article, was that a huge chunk of the ice shelf broke off and is moving away from the rest of the ice shelf. This pic clearly shows the difference between an ice sheet and an ice shelf.




Think about chunks of ice in a bathtub full of water. The ice shelf is already floating on/in the water, so big chunks breaking into smaller chunks and floating around doesn't change anything. It certainly doesn't affect the level of water in the tub.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is like a giant chunk of ice sitting above and outside of the bath tub. If it were to melt into, or slide into the tub, it raises the level of water in the tub. It's new ice and water being added to the tub. That's the situation described in your first article. That's why they're discussing massive rises in sea level - because billions (trillions?) of cubic meters of ice and water that are currently on land could potentially, eventually, end up in the ocean. And if the weight of the WAIS were no longer pressing down on the land it's sitting on, then you'd see the isostatic rebounding mentioned by others in this thread.

Edit: to add graphic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Yes, this is called isostatic rebound.

It causes the earth to move. Slowly. Over millions of years.

It's one of the things you'd learn about if you took geology classes. You know, one of those things that teaches you about how earthquakes work.

You know, classes. Not just having dreams about things and thinking they're real.