Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Primitive Question: Volume

  1. #1 Primitive Question: Volume 
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    If you drop an ice cube into a glass of water the water level will rise but when the ice cube melts the water level of the glass remains constant. This is because the mass volume of a cube of ice remains contant as well regardless of its phasing from a solid to a liquid.


    Okay so, I know this is probably a very naive uneducated inquiry for most of you in this forum but my question is this: If the glaciers of our arctic oceans are in fact melting then how exactly will that cause an increase in volume of our planets sea level?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Because not all of the ice is floating in water. Some of it is on land.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    How much? Do you have any knowledge of what the ratio is?

    Earth sciences are definitely not my field which is why I ask. But I am still curious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    158
    Don't forget the effects of thermal expansion of sea water.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolt
    How much? Do you have any knowledge of what the ratio is?
    No but I think most of the south polar ice is on the continent of Antarctica.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Primitive Question: Volume 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolt
    If the glaciers of our arctic oceans are in fact melting then how exactly will that cause an increase in volume of our planets sea level?
    There are no glaciers in the Arctic ocean, only floating sea ice. Its melting will have minimal effect on sea level (there is a small volume change involved).
    The Greenland icesheet is also, apparently, melting. It will lead to an increase in ocean volume.
    The Antarctic is filled with glaciers. These are where the greatest potential problem lies. My recollection is that loss of the Greenland glaciers would raise sea level by around 5m or 6 m. The West Antarctic ice sheet would add about 10m and the East Antarctic ice sheet around 70m.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Well, for all I know the Antarctic ice sheet is just 270 km^3. Just do the math. Take the surface of all oceans and then with simple math compute how much the sea level will rise when you add 270*0.9 km^3 of water. But the numbers ophiolte gave you sound about right.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    So just to make sure, when you guys say "The Arctic/Antarctic Ice Sheet" you are referring to the water that has been frozen over land - correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The Arctic ice sheet is sea ice. Its melting, which is imminent and in progress, will have no significant effect upon sea level.
    The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is largely at sea, but grounded on a submarine shelf. The East Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are on land.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    In other words the arctic sea is around the north pole and antarctica is around the south pole. The north pole is made up of ice drifting on the water and the ice at the south pole is mostly located on top of the continent antarctica.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    In other words the arctic sea is around the north pole and antarctica is around the south pole. The north pole is made up of ice drifting on the water and the ice at the south pole is mostly located on top of the continent antarctica.
    Yup, but don't underestimate Greenland.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    were there not bigger climate changes in earth's past than global warming? i mean from cold to warmer, and excluding the warming period after the ice ages? could the current global warming episode not be explained by the mechanism that produced the earlyer heatings (if any)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Yes, there were larger changes in the past. Several such changes were associated with mass extinctions.
    The mechanisms that produced such changes are still at work, but the role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is central feature of the current changes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    but is carbon dioxide the main culprit? what about other greenhouse gasses like methane?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    but is carbon dioxide the main culprit? what about other greenhouse gasses like methane?
    Methane has, IIRC, more of an effect than carbon dioxide, pound for pound, but is at a lower concentration and is cycled out of the atmosphere more rapidly, so its net effect is less.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    by cycled out , do mean by solar radiation? i read in a post (can't remember where) that it gets destroyed by sunlight and that one of the products are H gas that leaves the atmospere. what was the other product again? i think it was by chinese ben.

    on a personal note: what is your profession, if i may ask? you seem to know quite a lot about a lot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    by cycled out , do mean by solar radiation?
    I'm not sure. I just seemed to recall that the destruction of methane was more rapid than carbon dioxide. For example, there are traces of methane on Mars. These traces indicate one of three things - recent (last 50,000 years) volcanic activity; recent impact by comet; current life.

    on a personal note: what is your profession, if i may ask?
    Training manager in an oilfield service company. Geologist by original qualification.
    you seem to know quite a lot about a lot.
    I've been around a long time. I never forget anything, it's just remembering it that is the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    I'm not sure. I just seemed to recall that the destruction of methane was more rapid than carbon dioxide. For example, there are traces of methane on Mars. These traces indicate one of three things - recent (last 50,000 years)
    Think of the different energies of the C=O and the C-H bonds (double vs. single bond etc.) Furthermore think high energy radiation. There you go.


    Training manager in an oilfield service company
    Offshore?? Or in safe distance to the oil riggs?
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    advertising hyperspace
    Posts
    149
    I get it.

    "Twannnnng"?????"guitar"???"guitar player"????etc etc etc?

    What I am really trying to say is that that I think the CIA is using me in some type of mind control experiment, offering a science forum questions, to ascertai the reaction speed, looking for codebreakers in this new world order of terrorism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    Offshore?? Or in safe distance to the oil riggs?
    I worked offshore in my youth, but now I merely suffer the perils of the office desk, the plant floor, or the classroom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I worked offshore in my youth, but now I merely suffer the perils of the office desk, the plant floor, or the classroom.
    WATCH OUT FOR THE PAPER CUTS!!!! They're fiendish

    And don't staple your finger to the desk.............
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •