“Jagged mountains the size of the Alps have been found entombed in Antarctica’s ice, giving new clues about the vast ice sheet that will raise world sea levels if even a fraction of it melts, scientists said.”
Well then, these scientists are idiots.
Fill a glass nearly full with water. Add enough ice cubes to float above the lip of the glass. Leave it out and watch to see if it overflows the glass when it melts.
Antarctica is a continent, so the ice is on land, not in the water. If all of it melts, it will in fact increase the sea levels substantially. Ice that is floating will not affect sea levels, even if it melts. Sorry, but in this case the scientists are not idiots.
Sorry to inform you that you are totally and completely wrong ( in the case at hand).
Your analogy does not work because the ice in question is located on land and not floating in water as in a glass. You are correct that ice in water displaces exactly the same amount of water as it will add to the glass when melted.
But the ice in question is not floating in the ocean but is located on land. If it melted it would run off the land and in to the ocean adding to the volume of water in the ocean.
Unrelated another thing would also happen as the weight the ice lessened on the land would cause what is known as rebound. The mountains would grow as a result of the ice no longer pressing down on them.
You said — “Fill a glass nearly full with water. Add enough ice cubes to float above the lip of the glass. Leave it out and watch to see if it overflows the glass when it melts.”
Ummm..., while I do not agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), one must be careful when stating facts to argue against it.
In this case, you’ve stated something wrong, which doesn’t help the credibility of the case against AGW. What you’ve said is true with ice that is built up in water (i.e., the oceans). If it melts, the oceans don’t gain in height (as in your example of the water glass with ice in it).
BUT, in this particular article, we’re not talking about a mass of ice that is submerged and floating in the water. Here in this article, it’s on land (it’s not like the Arctic, which is “sea ice”. This is “land ice”.
And — in that case — it *would raise sea level* — without a doubt. This is certain.
So, what you say is true with Arctic ice (already on water), but it is not true with Antarctic ice (the part which is over land).
Here’s a map of the geography of Antarctica...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/AntarcticBedrock.jpg
Antarctica is above sea level. Melting ice WOULD raise the sea level.
