Wouldn't melting ice = lower sea levels ?

I'm no expert on any of this stuff.. but we've all been taught that ice expands when it freezes. So all the ice flows, ice shelves, icebergs, etc, if they melted, wouldn't the oceans water levels DROP? My girlfriend didn't believe me about water expanding as it freezes... (i thought everyone knew this) so I took a glass, filled it to the top with ice, and then poured in water until it reached the brim. Once the ice melted to water, it no longer reached the lip of the glass. Why wouldn't the earth be the same? I know ice on mountaintops and stuff could melt and eventually go to the ocean.. thus that water is now in the ocean instead of the mountaintop.. raising the oceans level.. but wouldn't melting ice thats already IN the ocean counteract the raising levels somewhat? It just makes NO sense to me that water levels would RISE by icebergs and shelves melting.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by njspeed]

You know what, I think you're right as far as the levels staying the same, but I don't know about it lowering. It sounds feasible to me, but I'm certainly no scientist. There might be other contributing factors that you haven't thought of yet.

Peace

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by njspeed
I'm no expert on any of this stuff.. but we've all been taught that ice expands when it freezes. So all the ice flows, ice shelves, icebergs, etc, if they melted, wouldn't the oceans water levels DROP?

No, because they are not floating in water. But if all the ice in water melted, then sea level should drop.

Only if the icebergs were floating. If say a landlocked iceshelf were to melt and drain into the ocean it would decrease salinity and add volume. Not sure how much ice there is on land vs. on sea but I think the land based Iceshelfs outnumber those floating by a large margin. I personally do not think the oceans will rise that much, but it really doesn't need to, when you think about how low some very densly populated area's are. Some are even BELOW sea lvl, like Venice, if the Ocean lvls rise more then it could render large tracts of land uninhabitable including Venice...

I think a longer version of "The Day After Tomarrow" is looking very likely, just slow down what happens in the movie by like 1,000 - 10,000 times as it was based on real science. In order for them to make it sell tickets they speeded up the sequence of events(or so I'm told, I have not seen the movie but it has been discussed so much on this site)

Here is a site you might find interesting..

www.cicero.uio.no...

DAM Nygdan beat me to it

[edit on 2-3-2005 by sardion2000]

actually, the water level wouldn't be the only concern. The ice is fresh water, the ocean is salt water, the more ice that melts, the less salinity of the ocean waters.
Most of the fish in the ocean like the salt water, not fresh water, and well, the salt in the oceans helps regulate the current. Having less salt would also make it easier for the oceans to freeze later, when it is cold.

Isostatic rebound counteracts glaciers on land. The weight of a glacier causes the land mass to sink into the mantle, then when the ice melts, it rises back to normal. The majority of Greenlands land mass that is covered by glaciers is below sea level. If the ice melted the land would rise over time. Hudson bay in Canada is gaining 3-4cm every year due to isostatic rebound. There used to be a glacier there. The artic ice sheets are mostly floating and would cause the sea level to drop if they melted. So ha environmentalist doomsdays whacko's. The Earth doesn't operate on a human time scale.

PLUS the increase in freshwater would actually dilute all the pollution man has dumped into the ocean. Na Na Na NA HA.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by BattleofBatoche]

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Isostatic rebound counteracts glaciers on land. The weight of a glacier causes the land mass to sink into the mantle, then when the ice melts, it rises back to normal. The majority of Greenlands land mass that is covered by glaciers is below sea level. If the ice melted the land would rise over time. Hudson bay in Canada is gaining 3-4cm every year due to isostatic rebound. There used to be a glacier there. The artic ice sheets are mostly floating and would cause the sea level to drop if they melted. So ha environmentalist doomsdays whacko's. The Earth doesn't operate on a human time scale.

So if something caused the ice to melt very quickly, and the isostatic rebound didn't happen at the same rate as the ice melting, only then might we have a disastrous scenario. Correct?

Peace

------------------
PLUS the increase in freshwater would actually dilute all the pollution man has dumped into the ocean. Na Na Na NA HA.
---------------

it would also kill off alot of the sea life, wouldn't it???

Originally posted by dawnstar
------------------
PLUS the increase in freshwater would actually dilute all the pollution man has dumped into the ocean. Na Na Na NA HA.
---------------

it would also kill off alot of the sea life, wouldn't it???

It would also disrupt the various currents that transport heat to Europe, it is already measurably weakening...

NOPE! Saltwater species have been swimming up the Amazon River, The St. Lawrence sea way which is mixed from sea water & fresh water from the great lakes. The major rivers in India have salt water sharks swimming in them, so do river systems connected to the ocean in America. There have been documented cases of Great whites swimming in lakes connected to the ocean by rivers. The most biologically diverse ecosytems in cold water are near glaciers where fresh water from iceberg melting causes photo sythesisis plankton blooms. This feeds the penguins, whales, seals, small fish, medium fish, bigger fish, crabs, etc. It is an actual benefit to the animal population. To bad nobody ever checks the facts when leftwing nut jobs start shooting their mouths off about the environment.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by BattleofBatoche]

Heh you are assuming that all species in the Ocean are similiar when they are not. If I remember what you stated earilier your specialty is geology right? I would rather hear that from a Marine Biologist.

To bad nobody ever checks the facts when leftwing nut jobs start shooting their mouths off about the environment.

Look whos talking.. Who's shooting whos mouth off now(without providing any links in the process...)? I am trying to have a discussion but you seem very determined to short circuit anything that remotely resembles one. To think I gave you a way above earilier...

I'm sorry, I can't belive you gave "me" a way above vote. Thanx.
I did take some oceanography classes, studied hydrothermal vents but I'm not an expert.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by BattleofBatoche]

Only if the icebergs were floating. If say a landlocked iceshelf were to melt and drain into the ocean it would decrease salinity and add volume.

This pretty much hits upon the crux of the issue...

Also, say you have a huge piece of ice floating in the water. (thus displacing a certain amount of water). Now, a large piece from the top breaks off and then melts into the sea. The iceberg is still displacing about the same amount of water, but the part that broke off is now adding to the water level. Sure, if ALL the floating ice melted, it wouldn't be an issue, but it's the ice shelves breaking off that are the real issue....

Ice melting = higher sea levels. Thats why the oceans are rising.

Ice formation = lower sea levels. Like it was during the last ice age.

Here is a great explanation from USA Today:

www.usatoday.com...

keep in mind 1/5th of iceburgs are above the waterline, that and the majority of the ice is on the antartic continent which, if it melts, would raise the sea levels enough to take out most coastal areas (at leat 50-100 meters)... the majority of the worlds infastructure and civilisation is at this level... so even though the race wont be wiped out... it will be greatly affected by the destruction of most of our cities

also... when ice forms it sucks up alot of moisture thus lowering the sea levels...

There are nearly a million cubic miles of ice in West Antarctica alone. If it were to melt, just that tiny portion of the worlds ice, we would definitely see sea level changes in the neighborhood of 15-16 feet, world wide (you can check my facts with Robert Thomas at NASA, or Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey).

If the other ice sheets melted, as Larssen B is doing now, coastal areas would be inundated for miles inland, on every continent. I live in the mountains, so I've been rooting for it.

Those left wing nut jobs you're talking about may be obnoxious (not to mention they reek of patchouli), but they're generally well intentioned, and despite the obvious reasons not to, they have been trying to save you ass-hats for decades. Way to show your appreciation.

I myself am neither a wing nor an ass, but a head. That's what allows me to think.

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
NOPE! Saltwater species have been swimming up the Amazon River, The St. Lawrence sea way which is mixed from sea water & fresh water from the great lakes. The major rivers in India have salt water sharks swimming in them, so do river systems connected to the ocean in America.[edit on 2-3-2005 by BattleofBatoche]

Try an experiment. Run down to Petco, or your local equivalent. Purchase a bag full of saltwater fish and place them in a standard freshwater acquarium. Let us know how long the fish prosper.

I've talked to people who have tried to keep salt water fish alive at home. it doesn't even have to be pure fresh water, if what they say is right. All that is needed is a little change in the ph level for them to die...
many of the people just quit trying.