Maybe some Freepers can clarify something for me.
This ice is *already* in the water. Ice is less dense than water so it has a higher volume. So, per Archimedes principle of displacement - when it melts wouldn’t the sea level *lower*???
How is it different than filling a glass to the top with ice, then fill with water to the top...and when the ice melts the water mark falls?
aw come on now...you’re not “playing fair”
This ice is *already* in the water. ....BECAUSE, you unscientific ignorameous. We say it will happen and it will, IF you believe us.
There are two types of ice in Antarctica. There are glaciers which are on land, and pack ice floating on the water. Some of the glaciers are resting on what would normally sea floor, so it gets a little confusing.
Suffice it to say the concern is with glacial melt, not with pack ice. There is some really good info on the wattsupwiththat web site, but in any case the process is very slow and a lot can happen in the next few centuries so it’s useless to get worked up like the media seems to think necessary.
I nominate you to call Algore to tell him to turn off the global warming. lol
Actually, because some of it sticks out of the water, (but the mass equals that of the water it displaces, and it is water, after all), sea level will be very close to the same level.
There will be a negligible rise as the ice is fresh water and less dense than seawater, so the volume will be slightly higher, just not enough to make any change in ocean level beyond a fraction of a millimeter. Locally, there will be a drop in salinity as the fresh water mixes with seawater.
Your thought crimes and offenses to gaia have been reported to the holy Goreacle.
Antarctica is a landmass covered in ice...not free floating ice. However if all the ice melted the land should rise up due to the weight being removed. should offset and rise associated with meltoff.