Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

If The IceBergs Melted

NavyDave

By NavyDave
in The Tailgate

Make it count!!Who will be in the FINAL 4?(Sudden Death Overtime!)  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Make it count!!Who will be in the FINAL 4?(Sudden Death Overtime!)

    • Matchup#1)AC/DC=EersSkins05(Highway To Hell)
      20
    • Matchup#1)Art Of Noise=Kosher Ham(Moments In Love)
      2
    • Matchup#2)Audioslave=Phoward12(Cochise)
      5
    • Matchup#2)America=China(Sandman)
      9
    • Matchup#3)A Tribe Called Quest=jrockster21(Oh My God)
      10
    • Matchup#3)Aerosmith=GibbsforPrez(Sweet Emotion)
      15

Recommended Posts

PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Is this a serious question?

I believe the definition of an iceberg (vs. lets lay a glaciar) is that it is in the water and as it is in the water there will be no change in the level water.

Melting glaciers are a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FunBunch7

FunBunch7

Posted
Posted
If the icebergs melted, no, because max water displacement is already achieved when the icebergs are in the water.

Only the part of the ice berg that is already in the water...the part that is above the water would indeed cause the sea level to rise...how much? dunnow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reic

Reic

Posted
Posted
Only the part of the ice berg that is already in the water...the part that is above the water would indeed cause the sea level to rise...how much? dunnow...

lol, no it wouldn't.

Icebergs don't have two different masses, they have one mass, and when they are in the water, max water displacement is achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xameil

Xameil

Posted
Posted
Only the part of the ice berg that is already in the water...the part that is above the water would indeed cause the sea level to rise...how much? dunnow...
lol, no it wouldn't.

Icebergs don't have two different masses, they have one mass, and when they are in the water, max water displacement is achieved.

very true...the level should stay the same due to displacement....however I have seen some models that show flooding, but I believe that would be dur to the glaciers that are on land.

But a flood would not happen if only the water ice melts...if you don't believe it, do an experiment...put an ice cube in water...and check the level when the ice melts

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reic

Reic

Posted
Posted
very true...the level should stay the same due to displacement....however I have seen some models that show flooding, but I believe that would be dur to the glaciers that are on land.

But a flood would not happen if only the water ice melts...if you don't believe it, do an experiment...put an ice cube in water...and check the level when the ice melts

Bingo.

Fill a glass with ice and fill it to almost to the rim with water, let the icecubes melt completely and see if there is any spillage.

There will be none :)

Now, if it got warm enough for the icebergs to melt, that would mean the glaciers would be melting as well, so there would be a rise in sea levels, but that would not be due to the icebergs at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted
lol, no it wouldn't.

Icebergs don't have two different masses, they have one mass, and when they are in the water, max water displacement is achieved.

Cut him some slack.

He's from Arizona and probably doesn't know what an iceberg is. :silly:

Of course, even the polar bears, walruses and seals living on the icebergs being displaced into the water wouldn't result in a net rise either. :silly:

As to the OP, no, icebergs melting wouldn't raise sea levels, but if they melt it's reasonable to assume that the land next to the icebergs which are covered by ice and snow will deposit a fair amount of water into the oceans, leading to flooding in some places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reic

Reic

Posted
Posted
Cut him some slack.

He's from Arizona and probably doesn't know what an iceberg is. :silly:

Of course, even the polar bears, walruses and seals living on the icebergs being displaced into the water wouldn't result in a net rise either. :silly:

As to the OP, no, icebergs melting wouldn't raise sea levels, but if they melt it's reasonable to assume that the land next to the icebergs which are covered by ice and snow will deposit a fair amount of water into the oceans, leading to flooding in some places.

Ok, I'm done :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NavyDave

NavyDave

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Excellent I pointed out the water displacement exercise years ago.

Greenland had its ice drilled into not to long ago and there is evidence of trees and other plants which makes me wonder if Fred, Barney Rubble and the Raptors had to wear knee high rubber boots back in the day in Bedrock, N.J. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. S

Mr. S

Posted
Posted

to supplement, ice has a lighter density than water, so it takes up more room for the same amount of matter since it expands.

The displacement would be the same. Glaciers and the entire North Pole on the other hand, if they melted...:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GibbsFactor

GibbsFactor

Posted
Posted
Cut him some slack.

He's from Arizona and probably doesn't know what an iceberg is. :silly:

Of course, even the polar bears, walruses and seals living on the icebergs being displaced into the water wouldn't result in a net rise either. :silly:

As to the OP, no, icebergs melting wouldn't raise sea levels, but if they melt it's reasonable to assume that the land next to the icebergs which are covered by ice and snow will deposit a fair amount of water into the oceans, leading to flooding in some places.

What about fatter sharks?

:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
very true...the level should stay the same due to displacement....however I have seen some models that show flooding, but I believe that would be dur to the glaciers that are on land.

But a flood would not happen if only the water ice melts...if you don't believe it, do an experiment...put an ice cube in water...and check the level when the ice melts

The predictions of Global Warming flooding aren't from melting (floating) ice.

They're from the thermal expansion of water, because the temperature of the water goes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corcaigh

Corcaigh

Posted
Posted
The predictions of Global Warming flooding aren't from melting (floating) ice.

They're from the thermal expansion of water, because the temperature of the water goes up.

Good luck calculating accurately the expansion of the oceans due to a small change in the temperature of surface water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...