Talk:Isostasy

message: Isostatic effects of plate tectonics is quite clear and consistent with the other headings. Isostasy and plate tectonics as a heading would have important historical connotations not covered in the section. Vsmith 03:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The three models should really be a part of a wider group of models, namely that of 'Topographic Isostasy' and 'Flexural Isostasy'.  Though Pratt and Airy are used individually to explain the principle of topographic isostasy, the flexural isostasty model was not solely developed by Vening Meinesz, but also Jeffreys, Gunn and Walcott - when refering to flexural isostasy you would not just refer to the 'Vening Meinesz' model, but rather the 'flexural isostasy' model.  I think that both 'Topographic Isostasy' and 'Flexural Isostasy' should be used as headings with the relevant authors names referenced within them.  I will not change the article at the moment, as I would like to hear other people’s opinions... -- 139.222.236.67 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model Categorisation  

message: An iceberg has 2/3 of its mass below sea level and 1/3 above.  What are the comparable numbers for the continental crust? For the average oceanic crust, taking into account the ocean above it?  This would seem very basic to the idea of isostacy. 96.252.103.113 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I realizes this is an old comment, but: The discussion of the Airy model now gives the figure as roots five times deeper than the overlying mountains. Will call this out in the lead. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Actually the density of Ice is around 90 % of the density of water, so 90 % of an iceberg is under water, and 10 % is above water, assuming the ice does not have too much air trapped inside it. 98.245.219.152 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the discussion: how much down, how much up 

message: The second image seems to represent the light concentrated to a point by a circular lens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CraigNGC/subpage_PSF
It may have no place in the field of isostasy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.199.21 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second image is wrong 

message: The term "mm/a" is used in the article, but no mention of what it means or what value it represents is provided. Can an explanation of what this means be provided? Terms and formulas that are not in common use or easily figured out by an ordinary reader should be avoided as much as possible. I studied geology, chemistry, and physics in college, and this term still remains a mystery to me. 
The paragraph where "mm/a" appears is in Eustasy and relative sea level change:
"A second significant cause of eustatic sea level rise is thermal expansion of sea water when the Earth's mean temperature increases. Current estimates of global eustatic rise from tide gauge records and satellite altimetry is about +3 mm/a (see 2007 IPCC report). Global sea level is also affected by vertical crustal movements, changes in the rotational rate of the Earth, large scale changes in continental margins and changes in the spreading rate of the ocean floor." 
Thanks! Linstrum (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pipe linked the mm/a to millimetre/annum, although the annum is just snob speak for year. Vsmith (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfamiliar term 

message: It has been suggested that Lithospheric flexure should be merged here. I'm not convinced that the article couldn't be substantially expanded - there's a wealth of source material describing its importance in a variety of tectonic environments. Mikenorton (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing; no merge, given the lack of support. Klbrain (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Lithospheric flexure