• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why would the oceans overflow if the glaciers melt?

You are correct, in regard to the ice at the North Pole.

However, the ice in Greenland and Antarctica are on top of the land, not floating in the water.
 
Maybe it's because some glaciers are on land masses and not in the water. If you actually meant icebergs a good portion of some of them is above water as well.
 
Are you sure? Did you put the ice in and then fill the glass to the very top of the glass......to the point where it would overflow if you put anymore in there? Of course, glaciers melting would be on a much more massive scale than a glass of water with an ice cube or two.........
 
First of all, the oceans won't overflow, but their levels will rise dramatically.
Next...with your glass of ice water analogy, dump a large bag of ice into a container that drains ONLY into your glass and let that melt...I'm sure the additional melting water WILL cause your glass to overflow. Since the glaciers are NOT currently submerged in the ocean, adding all the water they contain will raise the water level in the oceans.
 
The glaciers float the same way ice does... I don't think they would cause an overflow. The water doesn't gain or lose weight when it freezes, and therefore the water displaced by a floating glacier (or anything else) is equal to the weight of an equal volume of water, and since the glacier IS water, when it melts, it takes up the same amount of "water volume," the only difference being that it no longer sticks up out of the ground.

Unless there is some other reason that glaciers would flood- for example, if one was sitting on the ocean floor, then it would cause more water to enter.
 
If the ice bergs in the ocean melt, the water level will stay the same. If the glaciers and ice bergs on land melt... we'll have a problem. it's all dealing with the density of the ice and stuff.
 
Originally posted by: jcwagers
Are you sure? Did you put the ice in and then fill the glass to the very top of the glass......to the point where it would overflow if you put anymore in there? Of course, glaciers melting would be on a much more massive scale than a glass of water with an ice cube or two.........
Click to expand...

I don't know. My ice cubes are taking up about 20% of my glass. How much % of water do the ice-burgs and glaciers take up?
 
I don't know either. 🙁 It just seemed strange when you said it didn't overflow. I can see from the other posts what they're saying though...so you're probably right about the whole thing. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
Maybe it's because some glaciers are on land masses and not in the water. If you actually meant icebergs a good prtion of some of them is above water as well.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the size of the iceberg, as long as it's not resting on the ocean floor, it will displace a volume of water with the same mass as its own mass. (Archimedes principal). However, if you really want to be picky, you can deal with the differences in density due to the salt content in the ocean, as well as the mixing of the relatively fresh water composing the bergs.
 
Originally posted by: Scatterplot
The glaciers float the same way ice does... I don't think they would cause an overflow. The water doesn't gain or lose weight when it freezes, and therefore the water displaced by a floating glacier (or anything else) is equal to the weight of an equal volume of water, and since the glacier IS water, when it melts, it takes up the same amount of "water volume," the only difference being that it no longer sticks up out of the ground.

Unless there is some other reason that glaciers would flood- for example, if one was sitting on the ocean floor, then it would cause more water to enter.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're confusing glaciers with icebergs. Glaciers are on land...when pieces of them break off and fall into the ocean, they become icebergs...
 
Supposedly if enough fresh water ice melted into the ocean fast enough we could see a major disturbance in ocean currents (movement of warm and cool ocean water), causing major weather disturbances leading to another ice age. Global warming would cause a big freeze.
 
Everyone saying ice in the glass melting = overflow should stop and think before they talk. The ice, which is made out of water is displacing its weight in water... guess what that means???? once it melts, the water level DOES NOT change... it just fills the pocket that it was once displacing
 
Originally posted by: RGUN
Everyone saying ice in the glass melting = overflow should stop and think before they talk. The ice, which is made out of water is displacing its weight in water... guess what that means???? once it melts, the water level DOES NOT change... it just fills the pocket that it was once displacing
Click to expand...

Would water level not drop slightly?
 
1. Drop 10 ice cubes into a full glass of water.
2. slap yourself up side the head.
3. say "oooooohhhh, now I get it!".
 
Originally posted by: DaTT
Originally posted by: RGUN
Everyone saying ice in the glass melting = overflow should stop and think before they talk. The ice, which is made out of water is displacing its weight in water... guess what that means???? once it melts, the water level DOES NOT change... it just fills the pocket that it was once displacing
Click to expand...

Would water level not drop slightly?
Click to expand...

based on what he said, no. Its the ice on land that we have to worry about. When those ice melt, it will cause the world's ocean level to rise somewhat.
 
Hmmmm... on second thought...

Melting icebergs *will* raise the level of the ocean. Icebergs are fresh water with a lower density than salt water.
I'll demonstrate with approximate numbers:

Lets assume a 1000gram chunk of ice floating in fresh water with a density of 1.000 g/cm3. When it melts, it will take up 1000cm3, but since ice expands when it freezes, it has a volume of roughly 1100 cm3 (correct me if you wish, I'm not looking up the exact density of ice)
It will displace 1000 cm3 of water, which is less than it's own volume. Thus, about 10% would be above the water.

Now, that 1000 gram chunk of ice floating in salt water with a density of 1.1g/cm3 will still displace 1000 grams of the icewater. However, this is less than 1000cm3 of the water. Actually, 909 cm3 are displaced (assuming the 1.1 g/cm3 density, which I'm just taking a wild guess at; I'm sure it's lower, but it's still more than that of freshwater). So, when that 1000grams of ice melts, it will fill in the 909cm3 "depression" in the water, and have 91 cm3 left over. But, it's quite that simple. The freshwater isn't going to stay separate. It will, of course, slowly mix with the salt water, lowering the concentration of salt and the density of the water. Regardless, that water would have a lower density, same mass, and therefore, higher volume.


edit: regardless, the effect of the melting icebergs/polar ice at the North Pole is insignificant compared to melting glaciers, greenland, antarctica, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top