From the article, much of the glacier is already underwater; its melting will have no effect on sea level.
If any of the glacier is resting on the bottom, this is not true. Obviously a sufficiently large piece of ice will overflow a glass of water when it melts.
Doesn't hysterical emotion count for anything?
Yeah, I notice everytime I have a beverage full of ice, when it melts, my glass oveflows.../S
Of course.
FYI the imagined rise is to come from the rain and snow that the glacier will no longer capture as ice when it’s gone. IE: that rain and snow will go to raise the level of the seas instead of being captured as ice.
An abstract of the report is here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n4/full/ngeo2388.html
A reasonable abstract of the abstract is “... may be...could...if... if...could potentially...may...”
But these looney “scientists” skipped class that day.
Whatever happened to that whole “displacement” deal?
Some poking around shows that the last 150 km of the glacier are already floating. The thickness of that floating ice starts at about 2.5 km at it's thickest, out to just 200 m at the calving edge. So a fair amount of that ice is already floating, already displacing water. Without some serious digging there's no way for us here to figure the actual volume of water/ice over land that could actually contribute to sea level rise. That is, if the entire thing melts.
Eggzackly! The beautiful property of H2O. Ice is less dense than water, that’s why it floats. And when floating ice melts, creates much less volume than if it were liquid.
so the sea levels will go DOWN!!