[muawiyah]

Antarctic consists primarily of TWO BODIES. If it were fully melted you'd have two large islands. Over time with the overburden of ice removed, those bodies would rebound.

So, think about what's happened since the Glacial Maximum ~ MILES of Ice have melted (one way or the other) and as that has happened the two islands have rebounded.

Prior to that, there was so much ice that Antarctica was actually a very large divot or "crater" compared to the normal curve of the Earth.

The melt simply took place faster than the rebound!

Given the scale I'm not sure you want to compare this to a Jökulhlaup where you have a given amount of meltwater at the base of a glacier, an icedam breaks, and then the covering ice ~ far more massive than the meltwater ~ simply presses the water out through the hole.

This is simply more like a very large ice dam on the order of thousands of feet in height that has a wide area collapse. The water behind the dam simply pours out as fast as gravity can sustain the project. Kind of like a Johnstown Flood on steroids.

[Gondring]

Over time with the overburden of ice removed, those bodies would rebound.

Of course...and the US is still recovering from the last glaciation (durn Canadians dumping the Great Lakes onto us!). Sure, there's isostatic forebulge and there's gravitational effects, but their magnitude are insufficient to support (literally and figuratively) an ice-dam situation for a more heavily glaciated Antarctica.

This is simply more like a very large ice dam on the order of thousands of feet in height that has a wide area collapse. The water behind the dam simply pours out as fast as gravity can sustain the project. Kind of like a Johnstown Flood on steroids.

Like Bretz flooding, right? Well, where's the support for this wall that the circumpolar circulation keeps frozen? Meltwater above and saltwater below?

And don't forget you're in a divergent (polar) condition, where an MLD of a given magnitude would rapidly disperse as it moved away from the point-source. The Channeled Scablands are...channeled. Without channeling, in the open ocean, you would be dispersing this pulse of excess water.

Where are you getting these hypotheses? Has any modeling (like Komatsu's) been done to estimate this? I'd be interested in any citations. I've been out of that literature for a while now.

Thanks.