4 ms·
Replacing water with ice at the poles would mean more mass at the poles, not less, since ice is displacing water and is less dense. So he may have a plausible a
by bazzargh 14y ago
Replacing water with ice at the poles would mean more mass at the poles, not less, since ice is displacing water and is less dense. So he may have a plausible argument that it's the other way round, but I haven't done the calculations.
- Groxx 14y agoI don't know that that works - the south pole at least has ground, and a LOT of permafrost that isn't displacing any water.
- zhoutong 14y agoIt doesn't work like that. The mass of water displaced is equal to the mass of the floating ice itself. Melting a piece of ice has no change on water level. so yeah, nothing changes.
- FreeFull 14y agoBoth the southern polar cap and the Greenland ice mass rest on ground rather than float in the ocean, which means any melting will cause the ocean levels to rise.
- zhoutong 14y agoI was talking about the displacement only (which the parent thread discusses). I of course acknowledge the common sense that not all ice is floating on water.
- bazzargh 14y agoDoh, of course you're right. The mass of water displaced is only greater if the ice is submerged.