Just for the hell of it; Murphy's law on the melting on polar ice. All of it melts including all glaciers world wide. How much would the sea levels rise?
Ice melts raise ocean levels when they start on land. Ice in the ocean has already contributed to sea level and can't be counted. That means the entire North Pole doesn't count.
So, that leaves Iceland, Greenland, Antarctica and parts of Canada like Baffin Island (which has its own icecap). Greenland is the real threat since measurements have proven the recent mobility and melting of its icecap ... which itself seems rather responsive to so-called Global Warming. If it melts at least halfway, ocean levels would rise about 10 feet:
Antarctic ice shelves have been letting go recently, but since those are largely oceanborne, they also don't contribute to a rise in ocean levels. However, those icebergs are providing an increasing hazard to shipping.
Name:
4tran2007-08-20 20:54 ID:TgFWYjXT
>>2
OP was asking about the worst case of all the ice melting, not a realistic scenario of some of the ice melting. It is true that a large amount of antarctic ice is already over water, but the vast majority of the ice is on solid ground. Most of antarctica is several miles deep in ice; for it to all melt would be catastrophic. I last recall ~ 100m rise in sea levels if all of antarctica were to melt.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-21 6:45 ID:s2xkJvn/
since the icecaps on the north pole are already in the water, they would not rise much, anyways, their frozen because they are the furthest away from the sun, not because the tropics are warming up dumbass, wake the fuck up and look at studies, their is NO OZONE IN THE SOUTHERN POLE OR THE NORTHERN POLE, how the fuck can they warm up to a point where it all melts?
answer: IT CAN'T, who ever came up with this theory that because the huge ozone in the middle of the planet is depleting, the places that already have no ozone are going to melt is a fucking retard.
Not much, really. Ice melts raise sea levels but only on small time scales, since the ice on land that melts and goes into the ocean to raise the sea level obviously came from the ocean in the first place, so averages on longer time scales wouldn't raise or drop that much.
Carl Sagan said that if the polar ice caps melted, the sea level would actually lower a small amount since H2O expands as it freezes and most ice is below sea level, but that was ten years ago and he didn't create the scenario of all sea and land melting at the same time.
Ice on land is definably not in the ocean and is above sea level. Melting it will increase ocean mass, which averaged across the world will mean a rise in ocean level. You might think a 10FT rise in ocean level is not much, but with shore slopes averaging 1 foot per mile, that's 10 miles inland that the new shore will be. Most of the area of most coastal cities will be underwater; those that raise dikes to stop the flood will be a tiny minority since such systems are very expensive (i.e. we cannot accommodate more than 1-2 more New Orleans in the USA before going bankrupt).
Although it's true that the Antarctic is depressed slightly from the weight of all those miles of thickness of ice on top of it, those miles still become vast volumes of water in the ocean with will inundate the coastal areas of the rest of the world (which will NOT rebound like Antarctica will).
And finally, there's simply no way Carl Sagan said that melting the polar caps would result in lowering ocean level. True, the north polar cap is essentially all on water, so melting it won't change ocean level. However, Antarctica's ice can raise ocean levels a LOT, for the reasons I stated above. According to the wiki:
... Antarctica contains enough ice that when melted it will raise ocean levels by 61m (203ft). Since inland slopes can get more abrupt than shore slopes, say, perhaps 3ft/mile, then we can see that an Antarctic melt can send the ocean inland about 60 miles ... WORLDWIDE! All coastal cities will disappear, since no system of dikes can hold back 200ft of water around a city-sized region. All of Florida would be gone -- as part of the underwater continental shelf. The East Coast would retreat most of the way to the Alleghenies. Etc.
>>12
As long as the melting doesn't also affect Greenland and the Antarctic, since that will raise sea levels, and inundate many coastal areas, hence strongly countering that "better place" crap you're pushing.
The difference between wit and stupidity is that one usually recognizes a form of sarcasm with which to counter. Unfortunately you have not learned this.
>>15
Responding with the truth regardless of what the original intent was, is neither a display of wit or stupidity. It's just the truth. That is something that YOU apparently need to learn.
Your inability to consistently remark with full regard to none but the current situational implication leads me to believe that you are also incapable of facilitating intelligent variation. I guess this just gets proved every time you post.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-23 17:34 ID:KlfHOXDu
"In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.
The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced."
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-23 18:20 ID:1rl3Za/q
Sea level is relatively stable since there are so many balancing factors.
For instance, when the sea level rises, it goes inland, creating more surface area of the ocean for more water to evaporate, so more of it is evaporated and brought inland. The extra clouds from this process would also reflect more sunlight outward, reducing global warming and therefore reducing the amount of melting ice.
Holes in the ozone themselves are much more of a potential threat than sea levels or higher temperatures.
Name:
4tran2007-08-23 19:34 ID:qwnq0H4H
>>12
Right, but Antarctica will also be mostly flooded.
>>18
I think we can do an experiment with this: 2 100mL beakers, 180mL of fresh water, 2 10g blocks of ice (assuming water is 1g/mL), a little bit more ice, and lots of salt.
Pour 90mL of water in each beaker, and saturate one of them with salt. Place 10g of ice in each. The one without salt will be full, while the one with salt will not be full. Add ice to the saturated beaker until the beaker is full. Wait until all the ice melts. I suspect that the salty one will overflow (since it has more water content, while salt doesn't appreciably affect its volume).
>>18
Alright, that sounds plausible. I was off by a few percent and I'll make a note of that for future use.
>>19
Taking in a few more miles of sea surface along the shore doesn't compare significantly to the existing ocean surface. If "global warming" melts enough ice to produce that rise, there's not going to be some sort of huge surge in evaporation rates to create enough clouds to perform the reflection as you proposed.
>>20
If for some bizarre reason Antartica does shed its ice cap, the land will rebound significantly. Miles of ice compress the continent below it to some degree. So, there will be less flooding of Antarctica than you think. {google pause} Hmm, it's more than I thought. Parts of Greenland have been compressed below sea level from the weight of up to 2 miles of ice on top of it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 13:29 ID:u57TvyL9
we must invade greenland and antarctica to prevent them from using their weapons of melty ice
>>10
"Wiki-fiddling is no substitute for an expert's knowledge," and went on to describe Wikipedia as "secondrate reference material" and "the refuge of the lazy professional or the amateur bumbler". "not one of 'factual accuracy'
especially given the time constraints everyone is under - to just 'cut and paste' ... and say silly things like: 'Oh, that must be factually accurate' - as if everything was a matter of facts!"
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-24 20:22 ID:Bzc4K97n
Wikipedia is a plague and blessing of internet intellectualism. RedCream is just a plague of internet intellectualism.
It sure sounds like we have some dissenters about how much the oceans will rise when on-land ice melts. Since wikipedia is being accused of something or another, then it only remains for those dissenters to start citing some books that support their case. For example, it was claimed here that Carl Sagan once said that melting ice would cause ocean levels to DROP. Gosh, it would sure be nice to have a citation for that quote. Take your time sourcing it up; I can hike on over to my local library and obtain that very book to see if you're right.
>>33
Check. I'll get the book tomorrow. (Some "scribd" site had it available, but that required enabling Flash on my Firefox, and I'll be fucked before I let that happen. I'll get the paper version.)
I now have the book "Billions and Billions" in hand, you bitches, and considering the following from p.112, chap. 11 ("Ambush: The Warming of the World"), it appears that Sagan said no such thing about no change to the ocean level:
"As the Earth warms, sea level rises. By the end of the next century, sea level may have risen by tens of centimeters, and, just possibly, by a meter. [...] As time continues, sea level rises still more."
It looks like you bitches look fairly fucking stupid right now. So now admit you're morons, or point out the page number (in the book that I'm now holding) for Sagan doubting ocean rise from global warming.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-25 21:26 ID:e5V1Y/Qb
>>you read an entire book to prove someone wrong on the internet and you're seriously trying to say the joke is on anyone else?
You can tell a lot of 4channers are American: they laugh when people actually obtain a BOOK. Americans are too busy surfin' pron and mounting their sisters to bother with BOOKS. That's probably why they're losing their sick fucking empire to the Chinky-Chinks. Oh well. It looks like millions of laughingboys will have to crank out their lulz around mouthfuls of ChinkCock, as if they somehow will retain their (questionable) dignity.
>>42
The books was produced by his last wife, Ann Druyan. The copyright says "The Estate of Carl Sagan". The first chapter has the same name as the book title. It's unknown if he intended to select that title.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 3:51 ID:JAJHcCSw
>>You can tell a lot of 4channers are American: they laugh when people actually obtain a BOOK. Americans are too busy surfin' pron and mounting their sisters to bother with BOOKS. That's probably why they're losing their sick fucking empire to the Chinky-Chinks. Oh well. It looks like millions of laughingboys will have to crank out their lulz around mouthfuls of ChinkCock, as if they somehow will retain their (questionable) dignity.
Theres a difference between not reading and not willing to read an entire book to continue an internet discussion, especially one on 4chan. Im not laughing at you because you obtain a book (I obtain thousands). I'm laughing at you because you seriously went through that effort. I'm laughing because it was seriously that worth it to you.
>>44 FAIL. You are laughing at confirmation of erring information on a public forum. That marks you as contemptuous of learning, regardless of "thousands" (yeh, like you read even a book a month -- pull the other leg, bullshitter!) of books obtained. What, do you work in a bookstore and are assigned making the orders? That's about the primary thing that would match your attitude to an otherwise specious claim of being bookish.
I assume you're trying to be smart, but you'll find nobody with an IQ above 135 that has an ego as large as yours. Whoops. That makes you average, sorry.
>>49
The point is to win, not to be the one laughing at the person who won or lost. You sound like the two-time loser who is so used to losing that laughing at others for petty reasons is just about the only way you put off the day of eating a bullet. And that just about sums up a few more of you chanfags.