Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?

Page 1 of 3  
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here.
An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark?
In my case, it didn't.
R1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In typed:

Here is an alternate, and probably more appropriate, test that you could try.
Start with a rectangular fish tank. Place dirt and rocks in it such that the dirt and rocks are high up on one end and have the dirt and rocks slope down toward the other end to where they are at zero height on the other end.
Then, fill it half way with water and place ice in the water and also on the dirt/rock "hillside" that is above the water line. That would more accurately replicate the way that glaciers are on earth -- meaning that the glaciers are both on top of the ground/dirt/rocks and also partially in the ocean where the ocean meets the ground/dirt/rocks.
Wait until the ice in the fish tank melts. Let us know if the water level rises in the fish tank as the ice melts.
Wanna take a guess as to what will happen to the water level?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In

Yes, and depending on who the co-pilot is, and what his mental state at the time is, you might get a really close-up view of the icebergs and glaciers; at least for a few seconds before the crash.
What? Too soon?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rebel,
You're focusing on the North Pole where everything is floating in the ocean. Think about the South Pole where much of the snow and ice is on land and will run into the oceans as it melts.And of course there's lots of snow and ice on North America, South America, Europe, and Asia. As you can see I don't think much of your ice cube experiment.
Dave M.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/2/2015 6:25 PM, David L. Martel wrote:

Good point.
R1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rebel1" <> wrote in message

When the ice began to float, the contents reached equilibrium. The small amount of ice above water line would suggest that the level would rise as it melted. Not so. The ice crystal structure is larger than the liquid therefore it will float because the weight per volume is less. As the ice melts it goes back to the liquid structure which is smaller. Therefore, the water line you marked won't change. Make sense? phil k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Rebel1:

I'm no geologist but AFIK, the glaciers are not floating in the ocean. I think that's what icebergs are. Glaciers are sitting on land, so that when they melt their water is added to the ocean. ref:
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-glaciers-melt/
Sounds to me like the math/physics are pretty straightforward assuming that the volume of the oceans and the volume of the glaciers are known but the wild card seems to be how fast the glaciers are melting. viz: <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted/
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/2/2015 7:39 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

What kind of toast do you put in your toaster?
Good catch, Mr. Cresswell.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Stormin Mormon:

Mainly bagels from the day-old shelf...
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/2015 10:21 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 1:21:08 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

...to reheat or make it darker. (don't make French toast in it)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going to pass the cost on to the consumer.
And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar. Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy field too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many?
food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues.
and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop
and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:

Your central argument appeared to be that companies don't want to do anything about global warming because of profits. I'm just pointing out that while there are indeed companies on one side of the battle, there is plenty of profit motive and big business for those on the other side too.
As to global warming costing everyone, seems rather unlikely. Just as there are people that will be negatively affected by it, there are others that will likely be positively affected.
Ignoring it will only have negative consequences if:
1 - The prevailing scientific view is correct and global warming continues for many decades
2 - It's actually caused by manmade CO2.
3 - That we can slow it down substantially or reverse it by steps that enough world govts can all agree on. With folks like China, the largest emitter, saying screw you, how likely do you think that is going to be?
And if anyone of the above is not true, then we will have poured God knows how many trillions down a rat hole.

Sea levels have risen about 6" in the last 100 years. Currently, they are rising about twice that rate. Seems like the prospect of Americans fleeing the coast, if it happens, is still a long way off. If it happens, IDK who will pay for it, but I won't be alive by then to worry about it. Venice has been battling flooding for centuries and somehow they've managed to maintain a city built on water.

Maybe they will. But food prices for the world have already soared because of the massive diversion of crops to alcohol in pursuit of clean energy. Just look at a box of cornflakes or a loaf of bread.

You're mixing apples and oranges. CO2 is a normal component of the earth's atmosphere and isn't a carcinogen.

There weren't hurricanes and tornadoes until now? And even if you're suggesting that they are somehow worse now, there have been periods in past where hurricane activity was increased. They sometimes increase for a decade or two, then decline again. I don't even see most meteorologists trying to claim that global warming is responsible for hurricanes and tornadoes.
I'm not opposed to reasonable, cost effective steps that can reduce CO2 emissions. Higher efficiency furnaces, more insulation in new homes, LED lighting, for example are all good things. But going too far, too quickly, driving up costs everywhere, putting the US at a disadvantage to places like China and India, I don't think that's a good idea. And then you have to contend with the fact that the forces that most want to limit CO2, are also dead set against much of what could be used. For example, the hippies won't allow a nuke to be built. In my world, you can't have it both ways. If global warming is caused by CO2 and 40% of Americans are going to have to flee the coast, then shouldn't we be building nukes? Instead, we're closing them down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 14:51:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

China is an obvious target but India, Africa and South America are the populations that will be contributing to global warming the most.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In other words, "The sky is falling!"
There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These gullible maroons and useful idiots for the power brokers actually think they are going to control the earth's climate. (I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.) This is probably rooted in the old Soviet idea that the State would become so powerful that it would control the very weather. That political ideology has now been enhanced in scope in order for the State to take on the Earth's climate as a whole.
It is instructive to look at the predictions made by Warmists and other environmentalists over the last 15 or 20 years. (Or the last 40+ years for that matter.) How many of their dire predictions have actually come to pass?
To really understand the phenomenon of human-caused "global warming," "climate change," or whatever they choose to call it next week you have to follow the power and the money, same as always. It's really about separating you from your money, your property, and whatever is left of your freedoms.
"Global warming is a bunch of hooey." -- Prof. Reid Bryson, father of scientific climatology
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...and Iran has recovered it on our 1 yard line.
Our fearless leader has probably dismissed the aide with the football so he wouldn't "photo bomb" up any selfies for the prez.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and most of Florida. It is still a long ways off and lots of other things are far more likely to occur between now and then. I suppose you could start investing in beach front property in Orlando but your great grandchildren will still not be dipping their toes in the ocean there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.