I scanned the related research link page, curious if any artifacts have been uncovered indicating exposure in the distant past but the content seems to not cover that question or I missed it.

I didn't read every word of the PDF, but I didn't see a definition of coastline derivation. See the Coastline Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox

They're using satellite photography and a resolution of 10m to measure.

Only 1500 miles? Obviously they didn't measure it precisely.

A 350 foot high tsunami? Wouldn’t that be one of the biggest ever recorded?

According to Wiki[1] and UC San Diego's website[2], this was actually a 650 ft tsunami. The location probably helped for the wave's height. Per the same article, it's far from the biggest ever theorized but in a good position in the biggest ever recorded.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami

[2] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/climate-change-triggered-lands...

Lookout for that stray dog

>Scientists say that retreating glaciers are revealing stores of precious metals

Easily mined ? That is a shame for those areas, no wonder Trump wants to invade the Arctic Areas :(

The mineral and gas resources are one thing, but it's a pittance compared to the real reason America wants it.

With a melted Arctic sea route, control over the Arctic becomes incredibly strategic. It becomes most optimal shipping route in the world and quickly connects Europe, Asia, and North America. You really want to have your navy there.

China covets Taiwan because of naval strategy more than any other reason. This is the same reason America wants Greenland. It isn't Trump that wants it so bad, it's the DoD.

Look at China's posture on and dealings with Greenland. They really want to be there, and for good reason.

The way you are pumping this up, it almost makes me wonder if it is big enough for Bond Villain level shenanigan's?

"Hmmmm, what if we cause global warming and melt the ice". It's been a plot all along.

It's no question that some countries benefit immensely from global warming. Russia's gains in particular are incredible: unblocking of their naval fleet, easy transportation (water is vastly superior to land), reconnection of eastern and western Russia, easy access to massive amounts of new resources, increase in stable and dwellable land. It's insane how much they stand to gain.

Every hear of treaties ? The US has/had a great relationship with Denmark/Greenland until Trump opened his fat mouth.

We already have bases on Greenland and had them since at least WW2. Trump is doing everything he can to alienate our long term allies.

I expect eventually Denmark will tell us to remove all our bases from Greenland before Trump is gone.

That is only a small part though. Russia has a lot more access, as does Canada. However between Greenland and Alaska the US would control shipping by controlling the choke points everyone needs to go through. (Canada and Russia would also have plenty of control).

Though it makes more sense to be friends with whoever controls Greenland.

The US already controls the most important Arctic chokepoint. What's the point of a Northwest passage that doesn't go through the Bering strait? The only other Arctic chokepoint of any mercantile significance (the Labrador sea) is already patrolled by the US coast guard as part of ice patrols with Canada, in addition to US bases in the high Arctic and any US planes in Iceland.

That'd be Denmark but perhaps you're allowing for that to change?

I'm not comfortable with empires. I don't want the US to control Guam (I'm not sure about just having a navy base), Hawaii, or other Pacific islands. I don't want France to have a land border with Brazil, and I don't want Denmark to control Greenland. I don't want the US to control Greenland though (they can either be independent or join Canada).