Skip to main content
added 177 characters in body
Source Link
uhoh
  • 6.9k
  • 2
  • 32
  • 101

The anomaly at Hudson's Bay is actually about 0.005% - or 1/200th of a percent. That tiny difference is likely caused by both the additional convection of molten rock underneath the area and the "crushing" of land due to the higher weight of a glacier presence in the depression back in the last ice age - the latter a temporary issue from which it has yet to rebound, but will in ~5000 years.

enter image description here

Credit: Mark Simons / California Institute of Technology, 1997 / Science Photo Library

The anomaly at Hudson's Bay is actually about 0.005% - or 1/200th of a percent. That tiny difference is likely caused by both the additional convection of molten rock underneath the area and the "crushing" of land due to the higher weight of a glacier presence in the depression back in the last ice age - the latter a temporary issue from which it has yet to rebound, but will in ~5000 years.

The anomaly at Hudson's Bay is actually about 0.005% - or 1/200th of a percent. That tiny difference is likely caused by both the additional convection of molten rock underneath the area and the "crushing" of land due to the higher weight of a glacier presence in the depression back in the last ice age - the latter a temporary issue from which it has yet to rebound, but will in ~5000 years.

enter image description here

Credit: Mark Simons / California Institute of Technology, 1997 / Science Photo Library

Post Migrated Here from astronomy.stackexchange.com (revisions)
Source Link
Kyle
Kyle

The anomaly at Hudson's Bay is actually about 0.005% - or 1/200th of a percent. That tiny difference is likely caused by both the additional convection of molten rock underneath the area and the "crushing" of land due to the higher weight of a glacier presence in the depression back in the last ice age - the latter a temporary issue from which it has yet to rebound, but will in ~5000 years.