The sea level won't rise due to north ice cap melting

I personally think that the sea level won't rise at all if only the north ice cap melt down. My reason is that if the ice melted,  the melting water will take the space where there's ice. Apparently the ice is less dense than than water,so one unit mass of water will turn into a larger volume of ice, Reverse it, the big lump of ice will turn to less volume in form of water.
(key r= density of water, v1=volume of ice under water,
v2= volume of water when ice melting down)
buoyancy force=rgv1
the ice cap is floating
so buoyancy force=mg
so   rgv1=mg, m=rv
       rv1=rv2
     v1=v2
so the volume of ice underneath the water is same as the total volume of water when ice cap melting down.

can anyone  support me?

Ping wrote:

I personally think that the sea level won't rise at all if only the north ice cap melt down.

because the noth pole is a block of ice, whereas in south pole, it's land, so ice will fill into the sea directly. and global warming cause the snow in Himalayer melt, that all will seriously effect the sea level.
 Good question.

Ping wrote:

because the noth pole is a block of ice, whereas in south pole, it's land, so ice will fill into the sea directly. and global warming cause the snow in Himalayer melt, that all will seriously effect the sea level.
 Good question.

I wish I knew what to believe in this global warming issue.

I hear conflicting accounts of what is fact and what is fiction from differing sides.

Everyone has an agenda, god only knows what is truth

Google search brings up so many conflicting accounts:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-33,GGLJ:en&q=global+warming+myths

phreaks wrote:

I wish I knew what to believe in this global warming issue.

I agree with the global waring brings the disaster , and i don't like burning too much fossil fuels and deforestation. I only find it interesting that the ice floating on the water and water level is always balanced.
However, I don't know whether it's a problem to the tide.

Rossj wrote:



phreaks wrote: I wish I knew what to believe in this global warming issue.

Believe the scientists, don't believe the politically motivated lobby groups funded by petrol companies ...

WiKiPedia wrote:

Sea level has changed over geologic time. As the graph shows, sea level today is very near the lowest level ever attained (the lowest level occurred at the Permo-Triassic boundary about 250 million years ago). For this reason, sea level is more prone to rise than fall today, and small changes in climate can have noticeable effects during human lifetimes.

During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice in northern hemisphere glaciers. The majority of the glaciers had melted by about 10,000 years ago, but minor glacial melting has continued (with occasional reversals) throughout recorded human history. More detail about the changes in sea level for the past 140,000 years can be seen by accessing this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

Rossj wrote:

Believe the scientists, don't believe the politically motivated lobby groups funded by petrol companies ...

gabe19 wrote:



Rossj wrote:Believe the scientists, don't believe the politically motivated lobby groups funded by petrol companies ...

because scientists don't have agendas or financial backers?

I don't really know the facts either way on this issue either, but I think blind trust in scientists is not a good starting point.

gabe19 wrote:

I don't really know the facts either way on this issue either, but I think blind trust in scientists is not a good starting point.

W3bbo wrote:



gabe19 wrote: I don't really know the facts either way on this issue either, but I think blind trust in scientists is not a good starting point.

Blind trust is anyone is, but at least non-affiliated scientists have credentials.

It is well known that the north polar ice cap displaces it's weight in the water so when it melts it will not rise the sea levels; the south polar ice cap ice will cause a rise, but more importantly in some people's opinions is the ice in Greenland and Siberia. I recently watched a news buletin about this ice melting in Siberia that will release many tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere due to the time it was formed, it has started to melt for the first time since the ice age if I remember correctly and people are trying to figure out how to "catch" the Carbon Dioxide so that it will not go into the atmosphere.

Sea levels rising isn't the whole problem anyway, we need to worry about the decrease in salinity of the ocean water due to the massive influx of fresh water from the melting ice, this will cool the UK and surrounding countries down to temperatures that are similar to countries on their longitude; for example England could become much like Canada, giving a masive increase in snow fall, and decrease in temperature in winter.

Rising sea levels is however still a worry as it will put a lot of people in danger, and destroy millions of peoples homes; it is still a worry whether the north polar ice cap will contribute or not, as there are many places which will raise the sea levels.

Angus Higgins

phreaks wrote:



Aren't we all scientists here?

Read about the continuety of water molecules. It will rise sea level, but this might be offset by the horizantal spread of water to cover new land.

scienests predict that the gulf of mexico will be connected to the great lakes, as it once was before. so half of USA will be under water if global warming conginues in its current trend.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Read about the continuety of water molecules. It will rise sea level, but this might be offset by the horizantal spread of water to cover new land.

scienests predict that the gulf of mexico will be connected to the great lakes, as it once was before. so half of USA will be under water if global warming conginues in its current trend.

Ping wrote:

because the noth pole is a block of ice, whereas in south pole, it's land, so ice will fill into the sea directly. and global warming cause the snow in Himalayer melt, that all will seriously effect the sea level.
 Good question.

It's clear that the earth is in a warming phase, and while some debate still exists regarding the cause, I think we need to better comprehend the effects this warming will have on the ecosystem of the planet so we, as humans, can survive the changes.  I think that's more important that simply trying to find a way to stop global warming.  Change, even on a global scale, isn't necessarily a bad thing I think.  Humans are very adaptable and I think that we'll overcome this challenge like we have all the ones before.

I think we're already learning a lot from this, and I've even heard it suggested that we may some day apply what we've learned about global warming on Earth to planets like Mars, to make them more habitable.

One thing I don't hear mentioned very much is how global warming effects the growth of plants.  I would expect plants to grow more with slightly longer growing seasons.  After all, they call it the greenhouse effect.  This could mean more food to feed animals and people, and the oxygen production from the plants would naturally counteract the global warming effect by rebuilding the ozone layer. 

I almost wonder if we're too arrogant at times in thinking that we are the primary cause of global warming, or that we're capable of implementing a solution.