Why do people think that the arctic melting will cause flooding?

Question

The north pole is already in the water and has no land it is simply a huge piece of ice. If you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water and watch it melt you will notice the water level will be no different than what it was when the ice was still intact. Why don't all the doomsday people ever mention the fact the south pole(Antarctica) is not melting at all?? Why do people wanna believe the world is going to end?

Answer 1

The floating ice is not the problem.  There are enormous amounts of ice on Greenland, in Antarctica, and elsewhere on land which will raise sea level when they melt.  And rising seas are not the only problem.  A large influx of fresh water near the poles will interrupt the ocean currents which distribute heat around the globe (the gulf stream is one example).  This could have devastating effects on our climate.

Answer 2

nobody in his right minds thinks that the melting north pole will raise water levels

Antarctica,Greenland ,the glaziers will

http://multiply.com/gi/ecowellness:video...

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Answer 3

For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales!

But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior.

With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems.

National sovereignty? Democracy?

Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.

Answer 4

There is a lot more ice at the poles than there is within your drink

answer mine

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 5

Arctic Canada has very little ice on it. We have what we call a dry cold desert in most of our north. There is a lot of ice in western Alaska (not northern Alaska)  and Greenland, some in Norway, and a bit across Asia. Take a look at the satellite images and you see only 2 really significant land based ice: Greenland and  west coast of Alaska.

Odd as it may seem Alaska has more ice close to the pacific than close to the Arctic. Ice does deposit where there is heavy snowfall, not in the far north.

When I was a young man I marveled at the fact that we had glaciers coming down to the shore close to Ketchikan but none close to the arctic

But the northern hemisphere would have negligible  sea rise effect.

Antarctica to date is getting enough snowfall to offset its melting losses on all but the peninsula. So to date ocean rise is not noticeable from Antarctica. But Antarctica appears to be getting more snowfall as time goes on. The warmer oceans appear to be supplying a lot of extra water vapor. We could see either a reduction in ocean levels as a result of increased snowfall, or, if the snowfall  changes to rain we could have significant water added to the oceans. As of now it appears to be approximately as much snow falling as glacier melt, and both of those are for now increasing.

The Antarctic peninsula has mostly lost its ice. It is not getting nearly the amount of snow as it has had melt away. That has been because, while snow fall has come partly as rain, mostly it has been melting faster. But that is not true on the main continent. most of the glacier movement is accounted for by extra snow falling on top of the glaciers.

Answer 6

Antarctica may melt (and glaciers are already melting) which would cause sea level rise.

Besides, whilst the Arctic ice cap melting won't directly cause a sea level rise it will lower the albedo of the Earth (since sea water doesn't reflect as much light as ice) thereby leading to a temperature increase which may cause further melting of other ice.

Answer 7

They don't understand that almost all the ice is already in the water.  And when it melts, it takes up much less space than  as a solid.  What there is in Greenland might add a tiny amount to sea level were it to all melt, but not enough to be measurable.  That's assuming that the polar region ice does all melt.  It won't...it's another crazy scare tactic from the luniatic left trying to influence your life.  Most of the land masses in northern Canada are ice and snow free for part of the year.  Geese lay eggs here, and they sure as heck aren't going to lay eggs in the snow.  People need to educate themselves instead of following everything that Al Gore tells them.  But some of them are truly too stupid to realize how stupid they are.

Answer 8

Lets take this step by step.

One, we know that all the ice covering the Canadian and Greenland coasts melts.

Two, we know that the Ice at sea level melts also.

Three, we know that ice on the tops of mountains does not melt because its always below freezing up there.

Four, we know that for every 1000 ft there is a change of 4.6 degrees.

So what we can assume is that if the average temperature rises 4.6 degrees, 1000 ft of ice that did not melt may possibly melt.

The thing is that the majority of the ice (especially in greenland) will still be above the freezing level. The majority of greenland is up at like 15k feet, and the freezing level in summer is in the mid 1000's. That Ice is safe.

Answer 9

Actually, you are incorrect on both of your statements.  As soon as I can find my links, I'll provide you with the explanation.

The area known as the Arctic is not all ocean. There is a significant amount of land-based ice in that region as well (including: most of Greenland, northern Canada, part of Alaska, northern Russia, and parts of northern Europe).  So any ice melt from that significant land base would indeed have a sea-level rise effect.

But even current floating ice, when melted has a very slight sea-level rise effect. If you try your same glass experiment using salt water, you can see it yourself.  The density difference of fresh and salt water is the reason.

As far as Antarctica not melting at all, I'd have to ask where you heard that? The most recent studies have shown a significant ice mass loss in Antarctica.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environ...

While clearly not the end of the world (I've never seen anyone with any serious understanding of the science make such an extreme statement), it is clearly something that warrants serious concern.

Edit:

Jay - glacier (n) - a large body of ice moving slowly down a slope or valley or spreading outward on a land surface.  (Merriam-Webster)

Please don't tell me you're actually claiming there aren't any glaciers in Alaska?  And please explain how my factual answer of there being a significant amount of land-based ice in the Arctic, doesn't demonstrate the erroneous premise of your question? If you can do that without name calling and insults, I'll be duly impressed.

Answer 10

the floating ice that melts is not a problem it is the huge land areas like greenland canada etc.. which will apparently melt in the coming years and cause many parts of the world to dissapear

Answer 11

there wont be a north pole by 2012  

Answer 12

The problem ice is the land based stuff in Greenland and northern Canada.  And central Antarctica is not melting, but the coastal areas of Antarctica are.

Scientists don't think the world is going to end.  But global warming will cause some very costly problems along coasts and to agriculture.

It's far cheaper to reduce global warming than it is to deal with those.

Answer 13

It is in the hope that flooding will solve some problems in South Florida

Answer 14

THE arctic melting will cause flooding, because as you said it’s a huge block of ice. As it melts, it will add a lot of excess water into our oceans, thus raising the levels of water. Becasue this is on a much larger scale that a ice in a cup of water, it will definitely impact. And by the way, us "doomsday people", have been mentioning the face that Antarctica is melting, and it’s pretty well known that is... There have been movies, papers, and even poems on it... My guess is that you never really looked into it, thus you're not fully aware of all the consequences we are trying to advice the public about. By the way, out of all us "doomsday people" out there, I’m pretty sure that lost of costal lands is not our biggest concern, there are bigger things such as the extinction of many species, the loss of many lives, a major s***w up in the Eco. System... I can go on...

By the way, like you, we also do not want to believe that the worlds going to end. But one can believe as much as one wants to... Dreaming, and hoping, does not change reality. I can dream endlessly about passing my physiology exam and on getting a 3.8 GPA, but unless I snap out of the dream, and actually study for the exam, it won't happen.

Answer 15

Okay, do this simple experiment:

Take a basketball, kickball, whatever, and hold a piece of ice on top of it.  Melt the ice with a lighter or hair dryer or something.  See how the water goes down all over the ball?

The water on Earth works the same way.  All the ice is trapped up there, a lot of it ABOVE WATER.  That part above water, if melted, will cause major flooding.  If it was all underwater we wouldn't have to worry because the entire volume of the ice is already in the water, but that's not the way it works, see?

Did I make any of that understandable?  It's easier to explain in person.

Answer 16

Most people who think that arctic melting will cause flooding are ignorant of the situation and/or the science. As you rightly point out, arctic sea ice will not cause an increase in sea levels (although there are other affects).

Ironically, the people you label "doomsday" are usually the AGW proponents who are the least likely to make this incorrect statement. Fact is, the only time I hear this claim made, it is from an AGW doubter who is trying to set up a strawman argument in order to create outrage and incredulity thus undermining legitimate claims - in other words, being alarmist!

As I said, it's ironic...

Unfortunately, this form of "ignorance alarmism" detracts from the real science and facts. "The Arctic" is not synonymous with "the North Pole"; you have - either through malicious intent or plain ignorance - made a common 'doubter's mistake by confusing terms.

The Arctic contains a lot of land based ice (e.g. 3.5m cu. km in Greenland alone) - if this melts, it will raise sea levels.

You demonstrate this attempt to mislead or ignorance with your edit:

"there is no ice cover in Alaska" - what, then, is the Hubbard Glacier ("the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent") http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubb... or Glacier Bay (http://www.nps.gov/glba/) just for starters...

The fact that you can say that there hasn't been any ice cover in Alsaka "in at least 100 years to my knowledge" says more about your knowledge than the ice cover!

Answer 17

South Pole is over land; Greenland glaciers are over land.    Also, water like most matter expands as temperatures increase.   "The Day After Tomorrow" is not real, is not going to happen, really cannot happen.    It's a science fiction movie similar to Independence Day.    But warming, whatever the cause, would cause some sea level rise.    A millimeter and a half per year, but some sea level rise.