Climate change returns!

Icebergs might be two-thirds underwater, indeed. But that still leaves one third on top of the sea level. So I ask you, did you ever look at an atlas, and see how goddamn big Antarctica is?

That's a whole lot of meltwater.

There have been exxagerations, though, it's not like the entire world would be overrun with water. But the sea-level would rise enough to coat certain coastal areas.
Click to expand...
*sigh*
You're not listening. I propose you do a test. You take a bunch of sea-water and put an iceberg in it, make the proportions correspond with antarctica. if you do it correctly, you will see that when the icebergs (icecaps, whatever) melt, the water level will not rise.
 
Sander said:
*sigh*
You're not listening. I propose you do a test. You take a bunch of sea-water and put an iceberg in it, make the proportions correspond with antarctica. if you do it correctly, you will see that when the icebergs (icecaps, whatever) melt, the water level will not rise.
Click to expand...

No, YOU'RE not listening.

You take a glass, and fill it almost to the top. Then, put a piece of ice into it so that 1/3 of the ice remains on top of the water, and the water level reaches the top of the glass.

Then, when the ice melts, you will see the glass overflow.
 
So what happens to all the water? What, conservation of mass got your tongue?
 
Ice expands beyound the water size it used to have. In other words if you freeze water it will still way the same only itll be bigger. Every wondered just why you dont freeze stuff in glass containers? It cracks due to the Ice getting bigger in mass than the water originally was.

And Jebus I think Sander means that all the ice under water wont affect the water lvl, it will actully decrease due to water taking less space.
 
*Sigh*

Ice indeed has a bigger volume then water, but not 1/3 bigger.

Therefore, more volume will be added to the sea than the melting of those 2/3's removed.


And I am so getting tired of this discussion. THINK, people!
 
Well think about it, theres 2/3 of it underwater in its large volume, the 1/3 of the iceberg above the ocean also has a larger volume than water, maybe when it all melts it sorta breaks even. Well i cant prove anything till I know just how much ice expands, salt ice that is.
 
I never understood that either. Water in ice-form does indeed take up more space than the same amount of water in liquid form. So yeah, I never grasped that part of the doomsday prediction either.

I don't have any icecubes in the freezer right now, but what happens if you fill up a glass with water and with, let's say, 3 icecubes in it, and you fill that glass to the top. Does the waterlevel rise once the icecubes have melted (so that the glass overflows) or does the waterlevel drop a tiny little bit?

I know Jebus said it would overflow, but does it really? Anyone have any icecubes in the freezer? Anyone keen on household experiments? :roll:
 
Sander said:
You're not listening. I propose you do a test. You take a bunch of sea-water and put an iceberg in it, make the proportions correspond with antarctica. if you do it correctly, you will see that when the icebergs (icecaps, whatever) melt, the water level will not rise.
Click to expand...
Sander's right guys.
Think about displacement.
The iceberg will displace an amount of water with a mass equal to it's own. As, when the iceberg melts, it will be water, the level will not increase.

The problem with this is that not all the ice on the planet is floating.
The ice at the North Pole is, but the ice at the south pole is not. There is a landmass beneath the ice at the south pole, this means that the ice at the south pole (not to mention glacial ice and surface ice in cold climes) is not displacing any seawater. The sea levels will rise if global temperatures get too high.
 
Big_T_UK said:
Sander's right guys.
Think about displacement.
The iceberg will displace an amount of water with a mass equal to it's own. As, when the iceberg melts, it will be water, the level will not increase.

The problem with this is that not all the ice on the planet is floating.
The ice at the North Pole is, but the ice at the south pole is not. There is a landmass beneath the ice at the south pole, this means that the ice at the south pole (not to mention glacial ice and surface ice in cold climes) is not displacing any seawater. The sea levels will rise if global temperatures get too high.
Click to expand...

Thank you Big_T_UK. Because water forms a lattice structure when the force of kinetic energy due to heat is overcome by the polar bonds, ice has a much lower density than water. Water has a density ratio of roughly 1:1 (g/ml) and ice has a much lower value, so it floats. It doesn't matter what this value is but a floating iceberg will displace an amount of water with a mass greater than it's own and therefore melting ice will cause levels to fall. But that doesn't account for the Antarctic ice cap and the glaciers etc. so levels could rise. What we really need to know is how much water is locked in ice above landmasses.

If Antarctica is still above water in a worst case scenario, Australia gets a new state! :P

A more serious problem put forward by scientists according melting caps is the affect on the 'sea conveyor', a current supposedly instrumental in determing weather patterns. Ice is fresh watre at the poles and when this melts it throws off the salt content in the northern seas, causing the warm N current to stop instead of sinking down deeper and continuing the cycle S. The different densities of water disrupt the current.
 
Wait, I'm confused.

In this undersea world, will it be like The Little Mermaid, Alpha Centauri's unerwater city system, or Waterworld? Because Waterworld was fucking ghey.

If it's like Alpha Centauri, I call Belivers!
 
Confused about what? We don't know what will happen eventually, but we do know that we can survive without gills for a few more years at least.
 
quietfanatic said:
Confused about what? We don't know what will happen eventually, but we do know that we can survive without gills for a few more years at least.
Click to expand...

I think it's kind of absurd that you use the words "a few".


"Hey, how long have the Smiths ruled?"
"A few years."

You see, you just start sounding silly. We have a few decades even by fanatiacal (ie Green PArty) people.


Sander's contempt of just talking about stuff is kind of silly. If we don't know the problem, or even if there is a problem, then the only way to fix the problem is to know what the problem is, and if there even is one.

IMHO, the best way to do it is free trade. "OMFG CCR YOU NAZI!"

I know, it seems odd, but countries with a vast amount of rain forest, like Brazil, or countries that pollut more then they should, like China, simply need to industrialize. People forget that in both cases pollution occurs due to a simple lack of money involved to be green friendly.

Though, IMHO, there is no excuse for how much gas we consume.
 
ConstinpatedCraprunner said:
quietfanatic said:
Confused about what? We don't know what will happen eventually, but we do know that we can survive without gills for a few more years at least.
Click to expand...

I think it's kind of absurd that you use the words "a few".


"Hey, how long have the Smiths ruled?"
"A few years."

You see, you just start sounding silly. We have a few decades even by fanatiacal (ie Green PArty) people.
Click to expand...

Do you want us to add /humour to all (hopefully) amusing comments CCR.

Lighten up! :P
 
quietfanatic said:
Thank you Big_T_UK. Because water forms a lattice structure when the force of kinetic energy due to heat is overcome by the polar bonds, ice has a much lower density than water. Water has a density ratio of roughly 1:1 (g/ml) and ice has a much lower value, so it floats. It doesn't matter what this value is but a floating iceberg will displace an amount of water with a mass greater than it's own and therefore melting ice will cause levels to fall. But that doesn't account for the Antarctic ice cap and the glaciers etc. so levels could rise. What we really need to know is how much water is locked in ice above landmasses.

If Antarctica is still above water in a worst case scenario, Australia gets a new state! :P

A more serious problem put forward by scientists according melting caps is the affect on the 'sea conveyor', a current supposedly instrumental in determing weather patterns. Ice is fresh watre at the poles and when this melts it throws off the salt content in the northern seas, causing the warm N current to stop instead of sinking down deeper and continuing the cycle S. The different densities of water disrupt the current.
Click to expand...

True on all account, as far as I know. There's a hell of a lot on land in Antartica and while the rise of sea levels might not be super dramatic, countries like Holland, Bangladesh and coastal cities in general will probably be fucked. The real problem would be the addition of fresh water changing the saline levels of the oceans, possibly screwing with things like the Oceanic Conveyor which would cause some drastic climat changes. While we in Scandinavia have pretty warm summers now, a lot of that if thanks to the Gulf Stream, should that shift, hello ice age. It doesn't take that much for another ice age after all, the winters just need to get a little longer and colder and the summers a little shorters so that more ice is created each year than what melts.
 
as a little extra disasterthingie:

you know those little spanish islands off the african coast? one of em is very slowly splitting in half (already split about 2 meters apart, made a nifty little hole).

if it EVER should really split, half the island will fall into a pretty deep abyss, creating a kind of huge tsunami that would reach New York and pulverize the mofo.

would be pretty spectacular although we probably be long dead before that happens :P

(PS: no i dont wanna kill americans :wink: but i wouldnt say no to a smartbomb on G.W. Bushez head...)
 
No, YOU'RE not listening.

You take a glass, and fill it almost to the top. Then, put a piece of ice into it so that 1/3 of the ice remains on top of the water, and the water level reaches the top of the glass.

Then, when the ice melts, you will see the glass overflow.
Click to expand...
Ehh...no, it won't.

Goddamnit, I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this.
Okay, the reason why things float in water, is because they displace water. Whenever water is displaced (or any other substance, for that matter), it generates a force on the object displacing it. Now, if the force is just as large as or greater than the gravitational force on the object, the object stays where it is, or even floats to the surface.
Now, let's look at ice and water, shall we?
The ice displaces an amount of water large enough to make it float. Because of the way ice and water are composed, about two-thirds of the ice will remain under water to provide the necessary force to have the ice remain floating. ("to" is the wrong word, it's not purpose, it's just a simple balance which comes into effect naturally). Now, when that ice melts, it will decrease in volume, but not decrease in mass (this is a unique "ability" of water).
Now, because the ice before only displaced enough water to keep it floating, the volume of water which was equal to the mass of the ice will have been displaced. When the ice melts, therefore, it will be the volume of water which was equal to the mass of ice, and that is, in effect, the same volume which the ice before held in the water. Therefore, the water level will not rise.

Now, there are two explanations why the water level will rise if the ice melts:
The first is that the ice is not salt, but sweet water, and therefore will have to displace less water (because it doesn't contain salt which would make it "heavier"), and thusly it would indeed take up more "space" if it would melt.
The second is what Big_T said. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
No! No!

That can't be! It's all lies! LIES I TELL YOU! LIES!


Goddamn I hate physics.
 
Big T UK is correct.

If the poles melt, sea levels will rise.

How much?

Check out this page at askJeeves.com: how much will the ocean rise?

In short, only the melting of the antarctic ice cap will affect ocean levels. And the ocean would rise ~60 meters if it did.

Is that alot? Only if you consider that most of the world's population lives within 60 vertical meters of the oceans...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top