If global warming is going to melt ice and flood the world, why does melting ice not overflow a glass of water

The funny thing is that even the famous IPCC does not

claim the world will be flooded from melting icebergs

or glaciers. Only the completely ignorant main stream

media puts out that misinformation. The IPCC claims

the flooding will occur because of the expansion of

the oceans due to warming. And even that is laughable.

Of course, I do not hear these AGW fanatics (IPCC

members) coming out and correcting this

misinformation. Could it be they like hearing the

stories of glaciers melting because it suits their

cause?

Here are some good stats for you. All these numbers

come directly from the IPCC 4th report, Chapter Five,

page 419 (graph at bottom of page).

NOTE: Before examining the data, please retrieve a

metric ruler for reference (if you have any). The

smallest increments are mm, and that is what all the

following measurements are in. If you do not have a

metric ruler, then note that 1 mm equals about 1/32 of

an inch, or about 25 mm equals 1 inch

Total sea level rise from 1961-2003 due to:

Thermal Expansion .42 mm

Glaciers and Ice Caps .50 mm

Greenland Ice Sheets .05 mm

Antarctic Ice Sheet .14 mm

Sum 1.1 mm

Observed 1.8 mm

Total Sea level Rise from 1993 -2003

Thermal Expansion 1.6 mm

Glaciers and Ice Caps .77 mm

Greenland Ice Sheets .21 mm

Antarctic Ice Sheet .21 mm

Sum 2.8 mm

Observed 3.1 mm

For this discussion, all glaciers, Ice Caps, Greenland

Ice Sheets, and Antarctic Ice Sheets have a combined

contribution to sea level rise of:

From 1961 to 2003 .69 mm sea level rise. Yes, that

is .69 mm rise, or less than 1/32nd of an inch. This

is roughly the THICKNESS of 6 thin sheets of paper, 3

regular sized staples, > 1 corrugated cardboard, 2

envelopes, and 1 DVD +R disks (all items found on my

rather messy desk).

During this same time period, 1961 to 2003, the total

of all sea level rise is about 1.8mm. For examples,

take the above listed items and double them.

From 1993 to 2003, the data gets more sinister. The

levels have been rising even more out of control than

during the 1963 to 2003 time period (the sea must have

retreated from shore during 1960 to 1980's).

For 1993 to 2003, the rate of increase of sea levels

due to all glaciers, Ice Caps, Greenland Ice Sheets,

and Antarctic Ice Sheets in millimeters (a really very

small increment for us Americans) is 1.19 mm. WE ARE

ALL GOING TO DIE!

Does everyone realize that in 10 years of the worst

global warming ever, the melting glaciers, etc have

contributed 1.19 mm to sea levels. My God! People that

built roads and houses right on the waters edge ten

years ago will be swept out to sea by this massive

1.19 mm rise in sea levels.

Just for fun, lets take the 1.19 mm and see what

happens in:

100 years: 119 mm or just over 4.5 inches. Oh the

inhumanity of it all. All that expensive

infrastructure washed away over night.

200 years: 9 inches. Human life will cease to exist.

500 year: 22 inches. How will my Great, great, great,

great, great, great grandchild ever evolve to have

gills and fins within this short period of time? My

family name will cease to exist. Of course, I forgot

the 9 inches increase within 200 years would have

killed everything off already. My bad.

Remember, THESE NUMBERS ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE

IPCC 4TH REPORT, Chapter 5, page 419.

There are several problems with your thesis. A) The ice in question is on land, and some is on sea, but if you change the temprature of your water it expands and overflows the cup. When seawater raises in temprature it's mass expands. B) It's not rising seas that cause the big problems with global warming models. Desalinization of seawater can cause bigger problems with the way sea currents rotate and cause climate shifts, like the desertification of the American mid-west. C) Nobody claims that the rising seas will climb more than 30 feet. Even the most doomsday models (that might be far fetched, but they exist) have a total of a 30 foot increase in sea level. Most models claim lower shifts of anywhere from 1 to 10 feet. D) The biggest problems in most global warming models are more of food production and climate problems. Rising seas, while could cause costal areas more problems, aren't the big deal here. No matter what you think of the Global Warming situation, information never hurt anybody. For the lazy, Tom Brokaw is doing a special on Discovery Channel this Sunday night, probably a good Idea to watch it.

Ice, when melted, looses about 10% of its ice volume. Icebergs will not have an effect on sea rise, most of an iceberg is underwater already. As most people have pointed out in the previous answers, it is the land bound ice that is the problem. On Antarctica alone there is enough ice on the land to make the surface of all the oceans combined rise about 250ft. Only until very recently (last 15 years) has the permanent land ice started melting on Greenland and Antarctica. This melting will speed up like a train gaining momentum.

Ice is less dense than water, so floats. In a glass it displaces more volume of water as ice than as water so as it melts the total volume shrinks.

The ice they are worried about is on land not floating. Most especially, the Antartic Ice cap is up to two miles thick in spots. Glaciers are in all the high mountains worldwide and apparently total a large volume of ice worldwide.

Last I heard, the total possible sea level rise from these sources is about 50 feet. It doesn't sound like much, until you look at elevation maps and realise we lose most of the world's seaports, quite a lot of the islands and large chunks of our major states in the USA. I've never bothered to look at the other continents.

Still, I live in the Rockies, so that's one of the few physical changes that I don't really care about. (Surf Nebraska? Possible bumper sticker) Actually I think Nebraska's average elevation is above 250 feet.

As far as the arctic goes I think what they are worried about is that deep ocean current that flows around the world and is apparently driven by sinking cold water coming off the poles. If that stops the weather patterns could go crazy, not to mention what would happen if that caused all methane hydrate on the ocean floor to break loose and melt on the surface. (probably burn)

Regarding the glass analogy, melting ice will overflow your glass if it has the ice a mile thick on top of it, above water level, like Greenland does.

"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objectha...

So much for the people saying "What's the big deal about a few millimeters"? Apparently they think they're better informed than all of the scientists studying the problem.

Just curious... did you happen to get that bit of misinformation about the ice/glass analogy that has popped up many times here from one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil, of from Fox News, which gladly accepts material from them?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations...

That's where nearly all of the propaganda seems to come from that the so-called "skeptics" offer.

No one has claimed that melting ice would flood the world. It's also not the water itself that will harm you. Rising seas may however effectively destroy global financial systems as the world's major coastal cities go underwater. If food is no longer delivered to your grocery store or hyperinflation makes your currency effectively worthless, can you outcompete a couple million of your neighbors, plus refugees from other cities, to obtain enough food to survive?

When water becomes ice it's mass increases and it's density decreases, therefore it can float. Ice in a glass actually takes up more area than the water needed to create the ice.

Global warming is partially true and partially a myth made up by scientists. Global warming will raise the ocean's level because of all of the ice that is above the water, eg; snow in the mountains glaciers etc. When that ice melts the levels will rise. Yes we are causing warming to happen faster but, if the rising levels were just because of cars and industry, please explain why so many old cities have been found under water, eg Cleopatra's palaces etc. We need to do what we can to not cause this to happen any faster than necessary but the ice is melting, and it's been happening for far longer than scientist will admit.

Because your glass is 4000mi from the melting ice. If you were to move your glass to the polar regions you would be able to set it under a melting glacier and see it overflow. Well at least until a polar bear comes along and drinks it.

Campbel2000 is exactly right. Only Ice on land could raise the sea level. Even the most hysterical global warming doomsday cultist couldn't rationally claim even the likely possibility of all the ice on the poles melting anytime soon. The cultists like to show ice melting in the arctic sea as some sort of catastrophe when in fact it doesn't hurt anything at all except perhaps reducing the range of seals and polar bears.

the arctic ice and icebergs are not the issue, you're right, their mass is accounted for in the water. the problem lays with the Greenland ice sheet and the antarctic, both of these massive ice volumes are land bound but will flow into the oceans as they melt thereby causing rising sea levels.

Melting ice that is floating in the sea will not make the sea rise. But melting ice that is on land so that the melted water runs down to the sea is adding more water to the sea. There is enough ice on land in Greenland and Antarctica to make the sea go up a few hundred feet, if it all melted. But the sea ice at the north pole could all melt without making the sea go up at all.