|
First of all, what is a polar ice cap? Polar ice I get, but what's a cap?
Second of all, I had this discussion with some friends the other day about global warming and all that jazz, and I got a brainwave about the polar ice.
People wail and go on about how the polar ice will melt and drown the world like in Waterworld with Kevin Costner, that movie where he hits a naked chick in the head with an oar. I'm questioning this assumption.
Granted, there is a lot of ice on the poles. When ice melts, it becomes water, and if enough ice melts, the water levels rise, right? But have you ever tried filling a swimming pool with water? Even a little blow-up one? It takes fucking forever to raise the water level even a centimeter. It takes huge amounts of water to increase the level in a swimming pool, so I went on a limb and just assumed that it would take a really, really, really huge amount to raise the water level of the world's oceans.
I suppose you might say "well, there's a really, really, really huge amount of ice at the poles". But if you finished preschool you would know that when water freezes into ice, it actually increases in volume. If you watch discovery every now and then, or if you have someone in your life who like to make cryptic claims about hidden information, you would also know that as far as icebergs go, 90% or so is underneath the surface of the water. Basically the ice takes more room frozen than if it were melted into water. So shouldn't the world's ocean levels in fact recede if the polar ice caps melt?
Just a thought, anyone here good at volumes and geography? Or with any kind of higher learning beyond preschool?
 
|
United States24801 Posts
Yes this misconception has been brought up many times. Much of the ice we are talking about is not floating.
|
Even so, is there really enough ice to raise the water level of the entire world by any significant degree?
|
|
|
The major problem with polar ice caps melting is that the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) decreases, because ground and water absorbs more radiation than ice. With the ice caps gone, land and ocean would have increased surface area, meaning they would warm up faster.
Ultimately, the major component of rising sea levels is not due to more water with the ice caps gone. It is due to the thermal expansion of water. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands, and the higher the sea levels will be.
|
Just a note. British Antarctic survey tells us that western Antarctica sea ice is cracking off!!!! yet in the eastern Antarctic the ice is expanding`!!!!!
"(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."
|
it depends if the ice is floating or if it's a giant mass under the ocean.
another reason is that the floating ice is fresh water because it came for precipitation, and the others are salt water, which displaces more water when melted.
something like that, i remember very little after doing a little paper on it this semester.
|
On December 23 2009 07:42 arcticStorm wrote:
The major problem with polar ice caps melting is that the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) decreases, because ground and water absorbs more radiation than ice. With the ice caps gone, land and ocean would have increased surface area, meaning they would warm up faster.
Ultimately, the major component of rising sea levels is not due to more water with the ice caps gone. It is due to the thermal expansion of water. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands, and the higher the sea levels will be.
Thank god someone pointed this out, because apparently half the world fucking failed 7th grade physical science and never drank any beverage with ice in it, the displacement is already there.
|
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
|
On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol
|
On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster.
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW
|
On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol
1 cm = 10 mm
0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm
Units people, units. ;]
|
On December 23 2009 07:31 Osmoses wrote:
Or with any kind of higher learning beyond preschool?
Nope.
|
What about coastal cities like vancouver, new york, florida etc. All of the major port cities that are located at sea level will flood. 20cm is over a foot of water. Having a foot of water flood all of those major cities will be a huge disaster. I can predict sewer systems all along the coast being overfilled and backing up, and tons of contaminated water to deal with at the very least, let alone all of the structural damage it would cause to the cities and all of the sinkholes / mudslides / electricity problems it would cause.
Do you build a Dam all the way around the coast of the world? 0o
|
On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;]
Hahaha oh dear 
On December 23 2009 07:55 LordWeird wrote:
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW
Assuming this went on for like another 1000 years, 2 meters higher sea level, the ice ought to be pretty damn gone by then :p I mean I only just learned its actually the thermal expansion that's the biggest factor here, but come on, you think in 1000 years the water level will be a concern at all? If global warming exists and it gets hotter that might be bad, breathing poisonous fumes might be bad, but surely the rising water levels is the least of our problems?
edit:
On December 23 2009 08:02 eXigent. wrote:
What about coastal cities like vancouver, new york, florida etc. All of the major port cities that are located at sea level will flood. 20cm is over a foot of water. Having a foot of water flood all of those major cities will be a huge disaster. I can predict sewer systems all along the coast being overfilled and backing up, and tons of contaminated water to deal with at the very least, let alone all of the structural damage it would cause to the cities and all of the sinkholes / mudslides / electricity problems it would cause.
Do you build a Dam all the way around the coast of the world? 0o
In a hundred years those cities will be atolls.
No but seriously the entire world coast is not at sea level. If the New York Harbor is in fact juuust 20 cm over sea level then not only does some city planner deserve to get fired, but his successor needs to put one more layer of brick on the coastline and they'll be all donesies.
|
On December 23 2009 08:03 Osmoses wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;] Hahaha oh dear Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:55 LordWeird wrote:
Yeah, long-term isn't important. Let's focus on the NOW Assuming this went on for like another 1000 years, 2 meters higher sea level, the ice ought to be pretty damn gone by then :p I mean I only just learned its actually the thermal expansion that's the biggest factor here, but come on, you think in 1000 years the water level will be a concern at all? If global warming exists and it gets hotter that might be bad, breathing poisonous fumes might be bad, but surely the rising water levels is the least of our problems?
Well, that projection is based on the assumption that the rise in sea level is linear with respect to time. But if the rate of ice melting is increasing, as it may be, then sea levels could rise substantially quicker and higher.
|
Ifs and buts, I'm thinking the sea level would have to rise pretty damn fast to cause any significant problems.
|
On December 23 2009 07:55 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2009 07:54 ShroomyD wrote:On December 23 2009 07:51 Osmoses wrote:
OK so from wikipedia I got that the sea level appears to be rising at about 2mm per year. Which means that in about 100 years it will have risen about 20cm? I guess that sucks for those paradise islands that are only like a meter above sea level (though anyone could surely figure out a solution or build a small dam even in 100 years?) but for the rest of the world I really don't see how its a disaster. ummmm i think it's 0.02 x 100 :S so it'd be 2cm? am i even right? lol 1 cm = 10 mm 0.2 cm x 100 = 20 cm Units people, units. ;]
hahaha.....ooooopppppssss ^^;;;;;;
|
Do you really think that the scientists behind the global warming research would make such critical mistakes?
|
On December 23 2009 08:46 Alur wrote:
Do you really think that the scientist behind the global warming reasearch would make such critical mistakes?
But they might fix data to support their research. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
