Geez, after reading through the comments it becomes clear what problem is... most people do not understand basic physical principals. Here we go: 1. Ice floating on water is buoyant because the ice-crystalline structure is less dense than liquid water. 2. Liquid water will displace the same amount of any given objects density and weight by rising ( being pushed out of the way) Example: A 20 ton ship displaces 20 tons of water. This is the Archimedes principal. 3. As an iceberg melts (or in this case ice block) the water around it does NOT rise. This is because the water has already risen in response to the ice. It has already been displaced and therefore rose due to being pushed out of the way. 4. The majority of polar ice is NOT on land. And what ice is on land, is land locked by sea ice surrounding it. Conclusion is that Sea Ice melt DOES NOT MAKE OCEAN LEVEL RISE. The total amount of land/glacial ice falling into the oceans is minuscule compared to the total volume of our oceans. Why does no one entertain the theory that 1. The areas observed are losing shoreline to.....erosion. And 2. More possible that observation of plate tectonics would yield a better understanding as to why ocean levels rise in som places and fall in others. Or a combination of the two. Think People... don't just rattle off the first "scientific conclusion" the mass media shoves down your throat. There are other, more viable options. Here's to all the arm-chair scientists out there that are saying, "90% of polar ice is on land"... more like 70% but anyway. What percent of that land based ice actually ends up in our oceans? Do you know? Less than 1% per year falls into the oceans. That it. And the process by which glaciers more faster is NOT global warming. It is due to more pressure pushing against the previous ice sheet to move it. That added pressure comes from...... increased snow pack! The temps at a glaciers base remains at a constant. In other words, it does not matter the temperature of a few degrees at the surface, THAT is not going to make a glacier travel faster. Only more pressure can increase the speed of a glacier's decent. Now, there are some different things happening at the calving face once it gets close to the sea. But it has to get there before it can break off. Antarctica absolutely does not fit the media narrative, as it has been increasing its sea ice shelf for several years now. That's why you don't hear as much about it as in the past. Over the last 10 years it has also been increasingly difficult to tour or make a stay there. The waiting lists have gotten longer and the requirements have gotten more stringent to go there. (Once such requirement is the removal of your appendic)
@@crunchymuncher6771 An object in water will displace the same volume of water equal to the weight of the object. Take a 10lbs bowling ball. Throw it in water and it sinks. It will have displaced 10lbs of water. Now, if you put the bowling ball in a very small boat, the water line rises up on the boat. Still the volume of water displaced will equal 10lbs. Cool? Why does a steal cruise ship float? It's made of steel, and is very heavy. But it does float because the size of the vessel (volume/density) displaces enough water to equal the total weight of the vessel. The water stops being displaces at that point and the vessel can float on it. Take yourself an aluminum canoe. Weigh it. Now, if you had a ball of aluminum that equaled the weight of your aluminum canoe, the ball would sink like a stone, while the canoe would float. This is because the shape of the canoe displaces enough water to equal the weight of the canoe. But so does the ball even though it sinks. Now, fill your canoe with water, and it sink too just like the ball of aluminum. This is because the canoe is no longer displacing enough watsr to keep it afloat. Getting it yet?
@@Silverbugle2005 does that mean that if I had my toes in the deep end of a pool the water would rise by the entire weight of my body or my foot even if it was just my toes in there
This guy seems earnest enough, but he missed a few things. He never says he's talking about the impact of glaciers melting on sea levels, but the topic and photo behind him, and his mentioning of "iceberg" suggest that. 1 - Fresh water ice (which icebergs are made of) DOES add to the level of a body of salt water it's in. This guy's experiment is probably using fresh water for both. 2 - Glaciers are on land, not IN the ocean so when they melt their water ads to the amount of ocean water. 3 - When part of a glacier breaks off and falls into the ocean becoming an iceberg it clearly adds to the water level. You can see that happen in his video at 0:26. 4 - Icebergs don't form in the ocean out of ocean water. The crust on the top of the ocean may freeze, but that's negligible. Icebergs start as land glaciers or frozen above sea level. So technically he's correct that melting fresh water ice in fresh water doesn't change the level. But adding a ice to existing water does. And melting saltless ice in the ocean does.
When I got home I tried an experiment of melting ice in salt water and it did not change the water level either. So your full of it buddy. Yes the water did rise when I dropped the fresh water ice in the glass of salt water. But the level water never changed whole it melted. Remember the ice is in the water already not on land and then falls in the water. Video uploading soon.
@@MrHydroguy Ur a Denier and an ignorant fool. Land based ice when it melts, goes into sea, it raises the sea level. Greeland, Antarctica are lands. Glaciers in the mountains are land based. Icebergs in the sea do not change as shown in the expt.
@Barrett Lee of course it will go up. All he is saying is: It doesn`t matter if you add ICE or water in fluid form. What gets added is almost the same amount. Looking over the comments, makes my head hurt. Most have no common sense what so ever..
I've got a relevant experiment for you to try, professor. Fill a glass of water and position a block of ice outside of it, directing the melting runoff into the glass.
Right, much of the longtime ice that has been frozen over many generations of time, is supported by land mass, sitting under it, and doesn't sit in water, floating, like shown in video. This is why we have massive flooding in spring run off every spring, and the rivers run higher than normal, till water finally reaches it's proper levels again. The main problem is the ice and snow that has land sitting under it, holding it up out of the water. Take all that ice and snow, and place it in the ocean, and the levels will rise, because they are now sitting in water, not on land mass, that's now supports it, instead of water...… Fill the bowl to it's brink, then let a large block of ice melt into that bowl, and it will spill over. Your point is now quashed.
@@waynedavies3185 good reasoning but both off you need to remember the question of CONTEXT !! Yes on mainland UK we suffer from severe spring floodings when melted ice and snow thaws and runs downhill unless it is already at the foot of the elevation and floods a gulley or a valley or if the meltdown reaches a river then latterly the sea there can be swollen rivers and flooding but no more than as during a storm and is called seasonal flooding which comes and goes and is not a permenant increase in water levels which is clearly what you are talking about !! The chap in the video is talking about ice in the ocean !! Therefore to disprove him you will have to find out if there is solid land mass under the ice at the poles or if they are icebergs !?
@@jimking3288 … I wrote you a reply. Yes, there has to be vast hidden land mass under both the Artic, and Antarctic poles. It can't be any other way, or all that ice would be floating, and floating towards the equator, due to the warm water current flows. Land has to be under those poles, to keep the ice sitting where it now sits. That means plenty if ice is being supported by hidden land mass under the north and south poles. Have you never heard of icebergs flowing towards the equator, travelling past Labrador, New Foundland, and Nova Scotia? Same thing happens at both earth poles. If hidden land were not under either pole, all that ice would flow towards the equator, and not remain where they have been since we have known them to be where they now are. Ice is, being supported by land mass hidden under each pole. It has to be there. Can't be any other way.
@@waynedavies3185 according to geographers and geologists there is a land mass under the Antarctic AKA South Pole however at the Arctic AKA the North Pole it is an iceberg which could move around a bit but does seasonally "shrink" and "swell" but does not move towards the Equator !!
@@waynedavies3185I would assume floating icebergs would melt the closer it got to the equator if they did drift away from the poles. (Although they always say never to assume). This video and the comments has answered my curiosity though, I never considered any ice on land melting into the sea before, I just only thought about ice on water as what we were taught in school, makes much greater sense
They keep saying that sea levels are rising an' all this. It's nowt to do with the icebergs melting, it's because there's too many fish in it. Get rid of some of the fish and the water will drop. Simple. Basic science.
Icebergs float in salt water, but they are formed from freshwater glacial ice. Melting icebergs will cause sea level to rise. Icebergs are already floating in the ocean, so melting will not raise sea level. Melting of land-based ice (such as glaciers) will raise sea level.
The premise is totally wrong !!! The ice is not melting! --------------------- This is NASA EXPLAINING THE ICE SHEETS ARE STAYING ABOUT THE SAME. Some melt some grow. www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
However... glaciers and other ice that's mostly above the ocean will add to the water when melted because it's currently not displacing the water. Ice that's already displacing water of course won't add to it the volume when melted.
no, it won't. because the VAST majority of the ice s under water, and will be less dense when melted. sea ice is still forming, and will continue to form. it changes year to year because the Earth is not a square on a piece of paper.same reason communism does not work- people are not little squares on pieces of paper. liberals tend to forget this because they do not value human life, independence, autonomy, self sufficiency, success, reality, physics, science, history, biology, or logic fact theory and evidence in general.
@@immuneimmunity9212 i'm not a sheep, or an unintelligent or uninformed person- if you were intelligent and informed, you could challenge my assertions instead of my character..
@@SteveB-nx2uo You jeopardized your character the moment you singled out only the liberals. I didn't need to do shit. They're two sides of the same coin. You're set in your beliefs and brainwashing that you'll call out one side and dig your head in the sand like some ostrich for the other. I'm not gonna keep trying on an obvious lost case. But hopefully I can prevent people from listening to and believing a madman like yourself. Last time I checked, our own FBI told us that right wing extremists like yourself are responsible for over 70% of terror attacks on US soil. But yes continue to blame the liberals for violence while your cult literally kills more Americans than every other terrorist group COMBINED. COMBINED MY MAN. What? You're gonna tell me you somehow know more than our own Federal Bureau of Investigations? Really dude? I'm no fan of the liberals either but you are concrete proof of the brainwashing and propaganda that the right employs. If you actually cared so much, you'd stop treating our politics like it's a fucking sports game and that one side is infallible. If you were half as informed as you think you are, you wouldn't be spreading your bullshit propaganda. It's literally impossible for me to attack your character if it was absent from the get go. Also you say you're informed and you can't be bothered to look up satellite imaging that literally and visually show our ice sheets melting, that our water levels are literally rising, and that ice isn't forming anywhere fast enough to replenish what's melting. I literally had to waste all this time to tell you something obvious to anything who did a lick of research. So yeah, attacking your made up character is much simpler. That's literally what you did in your liberal rant after all.
According to Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) it doesn’t because the principle refers to weight and not volume. The salt in sea water raises its density from about 1000 kg/m3 for salt free water to 1026 kg/m3 for normal sea water. The ice however is nearly salt free because of a process called “brine rejection” (the salt from sea water doesn’t enter the crystal structure of ice). When the ice melts then this is a kind of freshening of the ocean and the overall salinity is lowered. The lower salinity, the lower density and the larger volume. The melting of sea ice therefore doesn’t increase the mass but it increases the volume and therefore causes the water level to rise. After Noerdlinger’s and Brower’s calculations the volume of the meltwater is about 2.6% larger than the displaced sea water. But what is the actual relevance of this effect? Does is contribute significantly to sea level rise? Before answering this questions we should deal with an objection raised by Jenkins and Holland (2007). They are arguing that a huge amount of energy is required to melt the ice. They find that the energy comes from the ocean, as the albedo (reflectivity) of ice is very high, it doesn’t absorb much solar energy. Hence the ocean will cool a bit, causing the density of the briny water to increase (It should be noted that fresh water exhibits the peculiar behavior that its density increases as the temperature falls almost all the way to freezing; but just before freezing, the density is reduced. Briny water does not exhibit that reversal). The cooling therefore offsets the density decrease at least partially in the words of Jenkins and Holland. As they put it, Noerdlinger’s and Bower’s result is a good first approximation in cold waters where most floating ice is found. The density of cold water is mainly determined by its salinity while for warmer water temperature is also an important factor. Therefore in warmer water the cooling effect matters. Back to the question, if this effect contributes to sea level rise in a relevant way. Shepherd et al 2010 examine this. They combine satellite observations for an assessment of the loss of floating ice. According to this 743 km3/yr floating ice was lost in average between 1994 and 2004. They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice. This is not very much compared to other sources. However the authors assert that this effect should be considered for future assessments of global sea level rise.
Ask Al gore and Obama (the biggest global warming preaches ) why they bout houses in the sea cost?? Looks like they knew the supposedly melting ice cap was a complete BS
@@halleffect5439 If it's true you should be able to repeat it in a demonstration- put a bunch of salt water in a cup. freeze a bunch of salt water into ice cubes. dump the cubes into the cup- I bet my life the cup wont overflow once the ice melts. go ahead and do it. post the video and send us all the link when you're finished (assuming you agree with the idiot above us)
Notice how at 0:25, when he puts the ice block into the water, the water level rises? Sea level rise is caused by melting ice sheets that are not already in the water.
Lol.... It's an iceberg... The water already rose when he put it in the water... Like an iceberg that breaks off of a glacier... This experiment shows what happens when ice caps melt.. it's EASY to understand... The second he dropped the ice into the bowl, the water rose.. That's what happens as glaciers ABOVE GROUND melt and break off into the ocean... It rises
Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater; so the floating ice cube displaced less volume than it contributed once it melted. When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise.
Glaciers are formed after the accumulation of snow on land (snow doesn't sit on water). Sea levels do rise not when floating ice melts, but when ice breaks off a glacier and ends up floating in the ocean.
want to try again. You made 2 mistakes in your statement. #1- Snow as in a glacier does sit on water, which is why glacier move downward. #2-you said"Sea levels do rise not when floating ice melts" When ice from a glacier breaks off what does it become? Oh right floating ice. Maybe you should pay attention to people like don no who explains the science of it all. Oh and not all glaciers calve into the oceans. Most just melt and that in turn runs into a river that may or may not flow into the ocean.
actially ONLY 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, when you take into consideration the earth is 2/3rd water, then remove the areas that don't get ice, the amount of runnoff from land based glacial ice is still minimal
Have any scientists done the math on what the peak ocean level would be after all land glaciers melt? The mainstream vision resembles the Waterworld movie and doesn't seem realistic
To all the people bring up land glaciers...what has been observed is that while the edges of ice sheets are shrinking the height up the glaciers are growing at a faster rate. The melting causes more evaporation which leads to more snowfall within the center of the ice sheets so now, the sea levels are not rising.
Look at the hydrological table... Water is the same as it ever was. It ALL stays within the earth's environment in one form or another. Melting glaciers will go into subterranean cavities, until it is needed...
ONLY 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, when you take into consideration the earth is 2/3rd water, then remove the areas that don't get ice, the amount of runnoff from land based glacial ice is still minimal
@@chrishillier647 It's not about land area, it's about total mass (kg) of ice in glacier form. Each kilogram of glacier ice will become a liter of ocean water, if the glacier melts.
For goodness sake please look at the hydrological table... I tried to post a link but it vanished... Easy to find... All the water that earth started with is still here in one form or another... Coastlines will not rise more than a tiny fraction that will not be noticeable...
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaactually... The Earth originally had very low levels of surface water, but that grew over time from comet impacts and volcanic eruptions. That aside though, what matters isn't the total volume of water on the surface of the Earth, but its distribution. For example, it's well documented that during the last ice age, when the polar caps were much, much larger, sea levels were substantially lower. In Massachusets for example, the coastline was over a hundred miles further east than it is today. If ice that's still locked up in glaciers melts, it will add to the volume of water in the ocean (because it's not already there) which will then rise.
@@BenGreen1980 Now do some proper research, check evaporation levels of oceans too... There is still the same amount of water on the earth it didn't grow or diminish as it cannot get through the earth's atmosphere, hydrogen can but not water... There will not be more water and sea will not noticeably rise at all...
@@Rozrr Since the start of the satellite sea level record in 1993, the average rate of sea level has been about one-eighth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms.
@Stu Redman Ahh yes....except C02 is a gaseous by-product of living and organic processes...so it's levels do change over time. It can be reverted to C2 and O2, be recombined to 2C0 and 02 and be combined into organic compounds. So it's levels have changed. Water generally remains as water...it is either steam, liquid or solid...but still water. It maybe locked into organisms...and is released when it dies...and is still water. Water neither combines with other chemicals to become something else. It remains...well....it remains water.
@@PaulHock "thermal expansion of seawater as it warms." Warm water shrinks, mate. Water expands when colder. Water ONLY rises when warm, if it is boiling and becoming a gas. The physics are clear in that sense and the phenomena is clearly and easily observable. "the average rate of sea level has been about one-eighth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year." Do you realize how small 3.1mm per year is? And do you realize that if the oceans are rising, it means that the planet is entering a new ice age, because the water levels initially rise, due to gained density, until it freezes over and gets to its more expanded state?
Oceans will rise, if ice and snow (supported by land mass) melts, and runs into the ocean. Many ice masses around the worlds is supported by the land mass under it. It doesn't sit in the water as shown in video.
Marián Tomašec ok but think about it did god just add ice to the ocean cause he felt like it no and it will be the same no matter what so what is your point
@@sleepy1967 … What ever ice is sitting on land, is not sitting in water. That amount sitting and supported by land mass, is like taking the bowl this guy has, with the ice already sitting in it, and adding more ice on top of it. The ice he has sitting in the bowl, will sink, and the extra ice its added, therefore, the water will overflow the rim of the bowl, once the extra ice is added. Now, start getting your thinking cap on, because I am right, and you are not. I know, I have tried this out in a bowl here ate the house... Now tell me the ocean will not rise, if ice that is supported on land mass, is added to what is already sitting and floating in the ocean, will not rise.
Listen, take a glass and add a fair sized ice cube, with the water level, sitting at the very crest of spilling over the glass lip. Now, take another fresh ice cube of the same size, or slightly larger(representing Ice that is supported by land mass), and add it to that very same glass of water, with the ice cube sitting in it. What happens? It spills over the lip. That's because what ice that is supported by land mass, is not sitting in the ocean, but once it's added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It has to. It can't do anything else but rise.
Bcz when ice melts, the volume decreases. And in the container, ice has already occupied its space. So after melting, the overall level will decrease not increase.
THIS is of course TRUE. BUT when he put the lump of ice into the water the level of water did rise. Which is what is happeneing the world over, much ice that has collected on land is now falling into the sea, in large quantities, and the sea level rises. When ice melts its apparent volume does decrease. Ice at 0C has more volume than Water at 0C. BUT as the temperature of the water rises its volume increases. So the sea levels will rise a) because huge volumes of ice are falling into the sea b) the water temperature is rising
@@victorforzani3433What on earth are you getting at? This is facts; facts that most children will be taught in school. I most certainly haved not got a PHd. Not clever enough! Everyone KNOWS that ice floats. something only floats if the volume of water displaced is more dense than the object floating. That is why icealways forms on the top of ponds.
@@juamart448 What on EARTH are you asking. no one in particular, just actual 100% TRUE FACTS. IF you add ice to water, the water level RISES. How could it not. If you pot a 100 Ton Boat on water the water level rises. so 100Ton block ice does the same. Ice is water. So if you add ice to water ir rises. 100% PURE COMMON SENSE. Try it yourself and see.
Indeed. But then again not the continental South Pole cap is melting, only the ice on Greenland is . Even drastically, they claim. As melting continental ice has an immediate effect on the sealevel: can jou give me the number on how much sealevel has risen the last decades, due to drastically melting of the Greenland ice during lthat time? Last summier there was again the hysterical news that the ice of Greenland was melting with a dramatic speed. They even get people so deluted that they don't even wonder anymore why those messages always come in summer...
Riddle me this ? There are ancient civilizations from thousands of years ago found under water. That would indicate at one point this was dry land, correct me if I am wrong. So thousands of years ago something melted and raised the water levels of the seas. There were no fossil fuel power plants or automobiles then so what made the water levels rise ? Or did the land sink?
@@philduyck3523 Sinkholes on the sea floor, earthquakes can change the shape of the land, volcanoes erupting can also change the land. It wasn't the water levels rising, it was the land dropping that caused the cities to wind up under water.
@@philduyck3523 They recently discovered a lost continent that subducted under Europe. The tectonic plates moved in such away that an entire continent practically disappeared under the Mediterranean.
People forget the law of conservation of mass. Be it currently in liquid, solid or gaseous form, there is exactly the same amount of water on the planet as there was a million years ago.
What about the water in the urine that man has left in space? I know that isn't much compared to the amount of water on earth, but some water has definitely left earth.
I think that law only applies at the atomic level, not the molecular level. For example, in the carbon cycle water is regularly split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The hydrogen atoms combine with carbon atoms to make simple and then more complex hydrocarbon molecules. For a time, if there is a great amount of plant growth the amount of "water" on the planet might be reduced. But then when the hydrocarbon material is again oxidized, the water magically reappears on the earth. Could this process potentially change the amount of water in the oceans or raise the sea level? I suspect not in a material way, put possibly. There are often fascinating interrelated actions that occur that seem to keep things in balance over time.
Too bad the ice is getting thicker!! Gezz, the is the second coming of climate change, happened in midivil times too. Exploded the population!! I think Al Gore save us back then too!!
Sure like the sea level is higher in the summer because the sea get warmer water dense ... But when you go by the sea in the winter the sea low or high tide winter is higher then the summer high tide 😂
Sorry English is my second languages ... But your believes are wrong .. to think that the warmer water expend ...is like thinking that putting a glass of water in a microwave will get the water to rise in the glass 😅 how stupid ... Your the kind of people who thinks the sea level is lower in the winter and spring ... When people like me know from thier eyes that the beach a go walk in the summer are not beach anymore in the winter ... And the spring is when all the snow melt on the land to the river that goes to the sea ... And you still think what you read is true ... But you won't accept someone who can see from his eyes 😅
@@Pacificrebel87 Water expands about four percent when heated from room temperature to its boiling point. sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1pcac2.pdf The seasons don't have an effect because it is not an even over all heating. So before you call someone stupid maybe learn some basic science.
You say warm water expend and cause sea rising .. yet you cant put a full bottle of water in your freezer without it to explode .. but you can let melt a fully freeze glasse of water without it to spill over ... That only shows you can only learn What you told to without never experience any of it ..
It does contribute to rising sea levels when the ice is over land and the runoff flows from land into the ocean. Also there is the problem of adding all that fresh water which can shut off the gulfstream. Not to mention the conversion of that reflective white surface area to a heat absorbing dark surface area.
The real trick is making lefties understand any real science. PBS Says a me Street all through college all the kids are fed is the relentless Commie anti western (white man ) fiction as truth. The media is compromised at the top too especially what passes as news. The referees are bought bribed black mailed sexually personally ..the ones who are allowed to advance in the swamp club. Schools and Media, the experts are making the kids dumb and insane. The only way white boys are accepted are as gay drag victims, other wise automaticly blamed for WW2 Slavery and women oppressors by the bird brain white girls and union bitch teachers.,Inner city schools are sick, worse than prison. Thug run, criminals are encouraged and pampered. Every one fails the reading and math there! Why? Communist racists run the cities, they are gonna kill your kids. Big Bang out of nothingness, cells split? Why? So much lies. Gender fluid non sense. Term limits on public workers especially teachers.
What he says is true to a point. He supported an ice cube fully in water. Now take a tray, with another ice cube sitting on it and allow it also to melt ( this represents the ice that is supported by land mass under it, and is not sitting, or supported in the ocean. When the ice cube on the ray melts, along with the ice cube that's sitting in the water, he will have an over flow. That's because the ice sitting in the tray runs into the full container, and adds more water than the container will hold. In other words the water level rises. That's why the oceans rise when the land supported ice melts into the ocean, so don't be fooled here. Don't believe me, then try it out for yourself, and you'll see I'm right.
The result of ice cap melting can be seen by paying attention to what happens to the water level when he puts the chunk of ice into the water in the container... That is what happens when the LAND BASED icecaps break off. The rest of his demo is fine for modelling the results of an ice berg melting, but has nothing to do with ice caps or other sea ice.
I don't think this is the question. The question is transferring the ice from land into the sea. His experiment is over before it starts. As soon as he puts the "Iceberg" in the container it increases the volume by about another 20%. & doesn't recede as it melts.
@@CryptoDiveInsights Perhaps it depends on how much ice falls into the ocean then melts? or melts and runs down into the sea? The Antarctic ice cap alone is estimated to contain about 90% of earth's fresh water and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice that, if all melted, would raise global sea levels by more than 60m. And if all land-based ice melted seas would rise by about 70 m. Do you consider that "little difference"? Or did you make that statement without having any information to speak of? That is, did you pull it out of your ass? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Wrong: the Antarctic ice cap alone contains about 90% of earth's fresh water (as ice, of course) and the Greenland ice cap contains much of the remainder, with most of the rest being in glaciers, rivers, and lakes. Sea ice is very thin compared to the Antarctic ice sheet whose mean thickness is 2.16 km and whose maximum known thickness is 4.776 km (Terre Adélie). Antarctic sea ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. See the difference? And compare a recent image of the polar ice sheet with the area of Antarctica.
@@aaronsrod7987 And do you have any comparison of how much the land rebounds compared to how much the sea rises when a given large volume (and weight) of ice on land falls into the sea or melts and flows down into the sea? Without such a comparison your comment is interesting but not much use in the present discussion.
What would happen if the container was 100% full and THEN the ice is added? Wouldn't it overflow then? This is what happens when a glacier out of the water breaks off and enters the ocean.
Not at all. The mass of the ice and the law of displacement come into play. The frozen ice displaces the exact amount of water as it becomes when melted. Therefore, no rise in level whatsoever
@@charliedavid319 Please reread my comment. If you have a two gallon container that is 100% full of water and THEN you add another frozen ice cube that is one gallon of water, where will the additional gallon of water go? This is what happens when a glacier that is on land falls into the ocean and melts. It is MORE water being added to a vessel that is already full. The ocean will rise.
Add the land based ice on Greenland and Antarctica to that beaker and see what the levels are like. The ice sheet on Antarctica averages over a mile in thickness. The ice sheet over Greenland is over 2 miles thick at its maximum.
I see many point out that it is land ice that is melting and flowing into the ocean. Ice in the water (ice bergs) are formed when they break off of land glaciers. Land ice is formed by snowfall, not the ocean freezing (its salt water)
@@oogway73 Condensation forms on a particle of dust and as it falls to the ground, it freezes into a water crystal. and then the snow compacts and stays stored on land. Keeps the moisture out of the ocean.
do you know how cold it is in the upper atmosphere? So water that evaporates and condenses in the extreme cold and turns into a crystal then lands on earth to be compacted and after years of weight, compresses into a glacier.@@oogway73
@@tlamiczka Heres what unclear about the experiment: He only shows ice that is underwater. He did NOT show ice above water, flowing into the sea, and since its not displacing the water, it raises the sea level. Oh, and yes, he can read.
legit question. if the iceberg was vertical out of the bowl 12 inches, would the bowl overflow? in the same way, is the entire artic only a few feet above sea level or are there much higher altitudes of ice?
The far left knows that the average person is an inferior moron lacking in basic commonsense and does not have the ability to put 2 + 2 together to figure out that the melted ice did not overflow their soda cup.
Its almost as if people have never seen ice on land... (i get that most wont, but you hopefully understand my point, which is, that land ice does not displace water, thus nit counteracting the water not being added, raising the sea level)
The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.
Technically yea but the density difference between both would not be responsible for a catastrophic rise in levels. If everything melts, then we would need to worry about other things.
That doesn't explained why google says that sea level is higher in the winter and spring ... Yet I go walk 4 seasons by the sea and the winter sea level either high or low tides is always been higher then the summer high tide ... Now you can read on internet as you went ... But when you go there is see it from your eyes youll questions yourself about what you read 😉
It is not the sea ice that poses a problem, because as you demonstrated in terms of sea levels this does not have much of an effect because floating ice already displaces roughly the same amount of water as it would produce when it melts, so the net effect would be negligible. However 95% of earth's ice is LANDBASED and mostly contained in enormous ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica where there are enormous mountain ranges almost as big as the alps, completely covered in ice. The total amount of frozen water on earth is 30 million cubic kilometer, 95% of this amount is landbased and if all this ice melts, the sea levels, measured from the coasts, will rise about 70 meters. Half of the world's population lives on sea coasts. A rise of 70 meters will make some of the biggest cities like New York, Tokyo, Sao Paolo, Mumbai, Jakarta, Shanghai uninhabitable.
As the weight of ice on land decreases, land masses have been shown to actually rise because there is less force pushing down on it, and because the soil will absorb water creating underground water tables.
Look I actually have the honor of knowing somebody who is in Antarctica right now it's my best friend's son who is on a coast guard vessel. They have been taking measurements and Antarctica for years. And the snow is increasing. On the western side there is a slightly warmer current which has been breaking off some of the water-based ice. But the rest of Antarctica has been increasing. At least according to the last 30 years worth of Records. This is coming from my best friend's son who is there right now.
OK, now repeat that experiment by covering a land mass with a block of ice, in the middle of your little pool. You know, to simulate a continent with an ice sheet over it, like we have in the real world.
Surely once the ice on the land melts then there is more land freed up. It’s just an ongoing cyclic change that always happens. There is a finite amount of water and land here so there will always be the same amount of each but it will always shift and change position. Things like the tectonic plates under the oceans moving will cause the same effect .
Watch at 0:24 when he puts the ice in the water. There's the sea level rise caused by land ice calving into the ocean or melting into it (Antarctica, Greenland and the Himalayas are all ice on land, not ice floating in water).
I did see a little bit of spillage but the principal still works out. floating icebergs have a lower density than water so when it melts It will decrease the waterlevels rather than increase it. The only way the waterlevels may rise.....is when ice that lays on top of solid ground ( like with antarctica) melts and gets into the ocean. But from research we can see that antarctica is playing even atm, which means it doesnt attribute. So the only way the ocean can get to higher levels....is due to temperature of the water....if it gets warmer it can expand a little bit.
It does raise water levels when it comes from land.. The experiment is biased in that it shows one thing and infers that that the result disproves a proven and logical fact. Melting ice caps, glaciers and other Ice sources on land, when melted will find a way to the sea and will raise sea level. The experiment is based on the fact that the ice is approx 1.1 (or 10% bigger) when frozen due to the crystalline nature of ice. When it melts it goes back to 'normal', which is less volume.. that is true... the problem with the claiming that the ice caps and glaciers melting has no impact is that the melting is net new in the Oceans.. by that I mean it is not ice 'in water' that is melting and effectively remaining neutral, it is ice from land mass and that is entirely new and additional to the sea - hence rising tides. People need to be aware that there is a seriously well funded anti-climate change program at work to fool the population in to using oil and fossil fuels.. don't be fooled. Check the facts!
@spikedpsycho It shows MANY signs of acceleration. An dthe ice age didnt end 300 years ago!!! It died down 10,000 years ago, (but didnt end since we are still in the ice age, its just not as strong as before)
The real trick is making lefties understand any real science. PBS Says a me Street all through college all the kids are fed is the relentless Commie anti western (white man ) fiction as truth. The media is compromised at the top too especially what passes as news. The referees are bought bribed black mailed sexually personally ..the ones who are allowed to advance in the swamp club. Schools and Media, the experts are making the kids dumb and insane. The only way white boys are accepted are as gay drag victims, other wise automaticly blamed for WW2 Slavery and women oppressors by the bird brain white girls and union bitch teachers.,Inner city schools are sick, worse than prison. Thug run, criminals are encouraged and pampered. Every one fails the reading and math there! Why? Communist racists run the cities, they are gonna kill your kids. Big Bang out of nothingness, cells split? Why? So much lies. Gender fluid non sense. Term limits on public workers especially teachers.
@spikedpsycho "Except that the ice that's melting, Arctic ice, is predominantly sea ice" No--the Antarctic ice cap is melting too and so is the Greenland ice cap--and much faster--and both are on land so both increase sea levels somewhat. And glaciers (based on land) are melting too...
Put two buckets side by side, one is half filled with water, and the other is half full of ice. Put them in a room at room temperature. A day later the bucket with the ice is now partly full with melted ice water. Pour the ice water from the one bucket into the first half filled bucket of water. Does the half filled bucket of water have its water level rise when the bucket full of ice water is poured into it?
@@joesmoe3481 Man: makes point person: shows flaw in point another person: cnn watching cwy babyyy!!! im gonna ignore your point about his point and send adhominem fallacies reeeee!
Does this mean that Glacial periods should see an initial increase in water levels if glaciers fall into the sea? Sort of like when you initially push the frozen block into the water and it raises in the bowel? Would this not mean that sea levels should be HIGHER in the Wisconsinan Glacial period between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago? Some claim the water level was lower due to growing glaciers.
Precisely! It initally rises, but when the fusing process becomes fast enough, they drop considerably, due to the lack of water to sustain such masses.
Yes, we know, archimedes principle. Basic physics. Nothing happens to the water level if the ice in the water melts, and is floating. However, there's whole other story if we talk about the sea level here of earth. Then we have to include the ice on land which plays the biggest role and also the increase of temperature in the water which makes it expand.
*makes it expand TO A GAS. Ice on land does not play the "biggest role". It will form puddles, which, with time, will evaporate and become rain, which will pour down, mostly around the poles, in form of snow, due to the low temperatures of the poles. Cooling up the oceans is what makes them "freeze" and increase in "volume", for a short period of time. A gas ocupies a larger volume, yes, but it resides on the surface of the water, not UNDER it, to make it increase in volume. Water does not increase in volume when it heats, it LOSES volume when it heats. It is when it COOLS DOWN that it increases in volume, up to the point of becoming a solid and occupiying the biggest volume it can, and by sheer amount of mass, displacing the water under the ice and thus creating a "rise" in its levels. When it vapourizes, it will lose volume too, even more so than when it fuses.
@@sombraarthur "Ice on land does not play the "biggest role". It will form puddles, which, with time, will evaporate and become rain, which will pour down, mostly around the poles, in form of snow, due to the low temperatures of the poles." How big a puddle do you suppose is formed when the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt? Have you not watch any videos of them melting? And it's along the margin between the ice sheet and sea that they melt most quickly so they "puddle" almost directly into the sea, causing it to rise.
@@simonp37 Because some limited thinking people believe when ice melts it expands. And when you tell them it doesn't, their next excuse is because its not salt water ice. Atleast thats what im assuming, based from my own experience
The weight of the ice in a small glass bowl caused it to rise at first. But when it melted it did cause the water to rise. But it was equal to the weight of the ice in a "SMALL GLASS BOWL"
The experiment isn’t measuring the initial increase caused by the ice being submerged. The experiment is to see if the water level would increase once the ice melted.
No, it’s called displacement. The most viable theory is Post Glacial Rebound Effect. Water doesn’t rise it finds its level, and by doing so displace land mass. Ie: huge crevices opening up, shifting tectonic plates etc.
all bull shit. ice in the water will obviously not increase levels due to displacement, but ice melting on the land and going into the sea will increase the level. He should fill the container to the full mark and then melt the ice into it and see what happens
What the guy fails to mention is that the water is the densest at around +4°C. When it heats up - it expands the same way it expands when it freezes into the ice (an other special property of the water). The experiment omits the thermometer in the water to indicate the temperature, adds time warp and stops at the exact moment of end of melting. It would totally overflow if the water was left to heat up an other 5°C. The way the oceans work is that once water is liquid it flows to Russell level aground the globe. Once that happens - the melted water heats up in any area closer to the equator beyond the poles and that in turn expands it. An other catch is that the frozen ice is quite a distance above sea level, so if you melt a 1km of pole caps above sea level and dump it down - stuff's gonna go up a bit.
except that about 1000 meters down from the ocean the average temperatures drops to less than 4 degrees, given the specific heat capacity of water it'll take a heck of a lot to heat up the entire ocean to the point where it expands. But even if heat the entire ocean to just before it boils its volume would only expand by 4%. yes rising sea levels would be a problem, but I suspect if the ocean is at boiling point we would have a bigger problem than losing beachfront properties...
expansion of ice is not a increase of ice or water its the deconstruction of the molecules that cause it to expand but theres still the same amount of molecules as before it doesnt really change.......for example mars has frozen water if we melt the frozen water on mars we wont create more water in fact theres a higher chance we might decrease the water do to evaporation you see this is the contradiction
Your arguement falls apart when you state that the polar regions bear ice formations above earth's ocean's height as it seems you've never seen the expanse of Antarctica's environment, and noting that the arctic region itself is entirely submerged and disjointed ice, having no supporting landmass to uphold ice structures which you assumptiously or misguidedly presume as "above sea level". Although there exists some ice-based structures that have formed above ocean-level in Antarctica, yet they are few and far between and would not melt to such an extremity as to create substantial routes in which rapid water would course and eventually outpour into the sea. It should be worth pointing out that an equal number of scientists have countered those which have touted the radical and ominous theory of global warming. ~Steadily employing fear-mongering tactics while they continually invest in beachside properties, and their reign carries on unopposed.
Worst case scenario if all the land ice on earth melted and it all ended up in the ocean which is very very unlikely the sea level would rise by just under 3 meters. Terrible no doubt but it's not going to happen, even if the worst predictions about global warming were to happen it would take centuries for all the ice to melt.
Even if it melts our sea still warms its gonna start killing sea creatures more dead things equal more carbon into the ocean then makes it way to the surface. Less trees means less oxygen
The water rises when he put the ice in, displacement reduces as the ice melts that’s why the water level doesn’t appear too rise it does as the ice melts and the displacement reduced simultaneously.
@Anthony B No, because then you'd have to add in evaporation rates and distances that would be nearly impossible to make accurately with a model. This is just making one point.
Brando right... because the evaporation doesn’t fall back to earth as precipitation does it? Shit... and here I was thinking the amount of water on earth was effectively constant. Science leading me astray again?
@Anthony B Then doesn't your own observation effectively leave the water levels at a constant or at least not rising beyond what we have already seen? Please don't mock, I'm still learning.
Brando no because a lot of the world’s water is land based. Most of the ice in Antarctica and the arctic is on land masses. When it melts and flows into the ocean the sea level rises. Further, when water heats it expands so the warming earth affects sea levels in two ways.
@@brando3342 Suppose the ice is the Antarctic ice cap that's 98% on land and when it melts it flows into the Arctic sea with very little evaporation because the air is cold and travels only as far as necessary to spill off the ice cap. And consider that that ice cap contains about 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice. In this silly trivial experiment, he should place the ice chunk on a table and hold the container under the edge of the table where the water will flow down as the ice melts. As others have noted, this will produce almost exactly the same water level rise as he did when he placed the ice chunk into the water in the container.
But isn't that basically what he did? He took the "glacier" from a different source, added it to the water, simulating the glacier breaking off and falling into the water. Then added more water to the body of water, and waited to see once the melt was complete. And still, no overflow.
@@laurelkrause3606 Except for that to be true he would have had to fill the bucket first, then suspended the ice chunk and let it melt into the bucket. Glaciers either melt over land and run into the water, or break off and fall into the water. If you want to see how sea levels rise when a body of ice is dumped into them, all you have to do is watch @0:26 to see how much the water in his dish rises as he puts the ice chunk into it.
random question came up in my mind while watching cafe vlogs, putting lot of ice and water instead of actual menu in the plastic cup and pack it up.send it to the delivery men. I search it up and I don't know if this ice bergs explanation is same goes to my question dose the ice melt in the bottle full of water.?
Yachts and ships etc are of greater density (heavier) than water, and therefore cause an increased displacement of water. In the experiment, the water and the ice block are assumed to be of the same density, hence the result.
Or global man made global warming melting the polar ice caps and raising water levels. You don't know how many times I have heard this BS on the Weather Channel! What idiots.
Your own experiment can be easily done by taking a terrarium with half bein a body of water and the other half being dry land. Put ice cubes on the dry side. Measure the water level before and after the ice melts
It's a straw man argument and ignores the reality of the situation. It's the glaciers on land that are melting into the ocean, plus as the oceans warm they experience thermal expansion because the molecules have more energy.
The volume of ice is actually GREATER than its volume after it melts, because water EXPANDS when it freezes, so the volume DECREASES as it melts... but the change in volume is exactly equal to the volume of ice which had been above the water level, so the two balance out, which is why the water level doesn't change.
An increase in water vapor in the sky due to warmer temperatures will increase cloud cover which will cool the environment. Don't worry about them melting, they'll form massive glaciers the next time the globe cools.
Icebergs will reflect sunlight, while the ocean absorps a lot of solar radiation. So once icebergs have melted, we lost some natural sun reflection capacity.
And why we plant more trees were also causing spots for the sun to absorb also solar panels they absorb Sun so maybe all these trees that we keep planting and solar Panels we can't bringing up are melting icebergs
If you think about it it might make sense putting a large object in water causes the water level too rise and as the object or the ice melts the water level simultaneously drops and rises.
@@MrBears25 Well it does in a way, most of it is already underwater and ice is less dense than water. Still not a good analogy because it doesnt represent the situation IRL
Sebastião Mendonça I thought it did because ice burgs float on the water but apparently if you do the same experiment with salt water the water level does rise
The laws of nature itself determine that the will not have increased ocean levels also part of solar laws help too. The cycle of water where sun heats up water. Water vaporizes and makes clouds. Clouds fall down as rain and snow. Snow slides down mountains over hundreds of years processes. Ice from mountians breaks off into ocean and melts and starts process over again. Another is the laws of conversion of mass, if a Ice berg falls into oceans water that has already vaporized hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and melts it is only helping to keep a equalized amount of water in said ocean. There for not having anymore or any less.
Isn't it beautiful, the water cycle of our planet? It is teached in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and yet, those parrots keep talking all the time about "climate change" and "the melting of the ice caps and sea rises"... All should have been learnt back in their elementary school time, but they don't.
@@sombraarthur You realize people can easily interfere with the water cycle right? Have you literally never heard of acid rain? Also are you actually trying to use the water cycle, something taught in school, to disprove global warming/climate change? SOMETHING ALSO TAUGHT IN SCHOOL? You literally have access to satellite images that show ice sheets are melting faster than they're being replenished. Those same satellites can also track the rising sea levels too. I don't understand how people can be so out of touch with reality.
@@immuneimmunity9212 "Have you literally never heard of acid rain?" PFFFFFFTTTTTHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA That 70's feelings... "Also are you actually trying to use the water cycle, something taught in school, to disprove global warming/climate change? SOMETHING ALSO TAUGHT IN SCHOOL? " Yes. Because the Water Cycle OF THE PLANET does disprove the "global warming/climate change. "You literally have access to satellite images that show ice sheets are melting faster than they're being replenished." And? They have been MUCH higher in the recent past, in an age where the planet was WAY COOLER. CO² is a thermal ISOLATOR. One of the best you can get. The heat in the core of the planet is DAMN LESS than the heat up in the sun, through radiation (WOW, LOOK, WE ARE BEING IRRADIATED EVERY DAY! SOMEONE SHUT THE SUN DOWN!), so MORE CARBON at the atmosphere means that the planet WILL COOL DOWN. In fact, that is how the LAST ICE AGE began. This is also taught in schools. The good ones, you know?
@@immuneimmunity9212 I do. Leftists have lost their touch of reality DECADES ago, and yet, they are still here, demanding the Carbon Taxes and that we should cut up the emissions too, when in a mere 30 years ago, we were all talking about how we all would die because of the new ice age... Than 20 years ago it all changed to "global warming" and that we would be all dead by 2010. Then 2010 came, nobody died, and then they changed the scam once again to "man-made climate change", and they were all saying that we would all be dead by 2050... Which they said that they have "missed the correct period" and it became by 2100... Do you REALLY think that if the "man-made climate change" were A REAL THREAT, the BANKS would have been dealing SHIT TONS of loans for people who want to BUY BEACH HOUSES, and pay it in 30, 40 or more years? Get out of here with your bullshit.
The water level does not increase from melted ice in the ocean. But from melted ice the land. The part of the ice that is above sea is minimal. But the ice that is in the land is significant to increase the sea level.
@@izzymaxpower every glacier on the planet is on top of land. Presently, 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
That's only if the ice is below the surface of the water. Because H20 is the only molecule that compacts when it freezes, if the ice is above the surface of what ever is containing the water, then the rest of the ice that is above the surface will add more to the container. Because that isn't not took into consideration to the total amount of water being held in the container since it technically floats, water displacement.
That's when you freeze fresh water into ice cube and FLOAT it in FRESH water. Replace the water in the tank with salt water, it overflows when ice melts. Add another ice cube on top of this existing one, it overflows when they both melt.
@@bjrn-erikmichalsen2825 The ice in antarctica is not salty. Salt does not evaporate from the oceans, it stays in them. The ice on antarctica is mainly accumulated snow which does not contain significant amounts of salt.
Well if your argument is about water level, on the planet. Then he should fill the bowl to the top and place an ice block on a separate platform(platform is the land that supports the melting ice) but direct the melted water into the bowl of water THEN we can see where the “we’re all going to be under water in 10 years” argument😉
@@59Fif Well you can make the calculations yourself, at my University i had an argument with a chemist (he made a stupid comment on how he had to buy a Tesla otherwise we are under water...) about it. We got the thickness of the ice sheet of Greenland at its thickest ( during winter) and converted the volume of ice into an area with only one meter thickness. The results: In order to raise the level of water of all connecting oceans by juste one meter, you need Greenland maximum ice volume twelve times, to completely melt... A few nukes would be required but i guess everything possible these days. My chemist of 4.1 GPA did not like to be tutored by a guy in biology on the basics.
@@michaelgimenez4032 so the water level did rise. And also lets not limit to JUST Greenland let it be all the glaciers and all the ice in Antarctica too. To your point saying the water level did not rise is because there was a missing key part of the experiment and that was water from ice being added to the full bowl of water. Anyways im going to bed so GN
@@59Fif Ahh ok now i see your point. My original comment was purely on the parameters of the experiment, so floating sea ice was the topic. You are right sea level can rise but it is far, far, very far from what they try to make us believe. Took me a while to understand your point but you are right water level do rise, now by how much its a different story.
With all respect, you forgot the glaciers (the ice over land) that is melting. The info is definitely half true (you are showing the Archimedes principle here) and doesn't prove your intentions.
actually it does prove the point wonderfully, as liberals are fear mongering about "arctic SEA ice" and not "glaciers" not many of which are even around today.....
@@SteveB-nx2uo 00:25 into video... water level rises significantly. the guy debunks himself if he was trying to rally against sea level rise concerns. NO? Is it my liberal eyes or did you miss that?
@@Arekinable Then why does every climate alarmist graph show and talk about "sea ice" and only show the ice forming on a body of water? also unless you calculate the land exposed by melting vs lost by flooding, you dont even have an argument. for all you know, the new arable inhabitable land could easily double potential flood planes.
My theory is that the level should drop. I would like to see this done again with a long marked tube to see how the level changes. I assume ice is a larger expanded volume. Yes? No? What? This seems like 3rd grade science and I can't understand how this can still be a question? Seriously.
the level should drop... seriously? despite you saying this is 3rd grade science I'm interested as to how you came to this conclusion, can you please explain?
I know this is old, but the explanation is that, while the ice DOES have a lower density, this makes a portion of the ice float above the water level. THAT is the water that keeps it exactly level.
It is, but the morons forgot those basic sciences, and therefore try to explain their obsession and their hate of a form of trade in any fashion possible. Ice is a larger expanded volume of water, yes. Therefore, when it solidifies, it expands and get heavier. If you drop this large chunk of ice into the water, the levels WILL rise, due to the added mass above the water. The catch here is that it will ONLY rise the levels temporarily, and IF they came from land, and ONLY until it melts up. When it melts up, the levels will go down, once again. And water in the same oceans will have been evaporated enough to keep the water at the same levels it has been.
The problem with this experiment is that salt water are dense, causing freshwater (ice) to float. When you put that in a large scale, let’s say 35% of the iceberg is stick out of the water and covering air volume. When the bottom starts melting the iceberg starts to shrink, increasing water volume. That air volume the iceberg covered is now being transferred to water volume, thus increasing sea level slowly.
The density of ice is less than that of water ( It occupies less space) therefore it floats on top of wate... but if this illustration tries to explain that the water level of Earth would not rise if all the ice collected on the poles melt, it would not apply as there is a lot more water in the Ice on top of the poles and on top of the high mountain ranges so that when the average temperatures on Eart rise and the icecaps start to melt...the water level of the sea will rise. It is happening now at a rate of more than 3.4 mm per year. In the early '90s the rise was less ( 2.5 mm per year) :)
@@homergetsthejoke4414 If this shit was true, no bank would ever lend money for beachfront properties as they would know those properties are worth 0 under water. Or would at least have a stipulation in there saying so. theres nothing.
The problem is you took water out to give that glacier a position, fill up the entire thing of water then put the glacier in and see what happens. Glaciers are over land they don’t float in the water.
Yet we're shown icebergs crumbling into ocean on news ME-DEAR followed by a FRET of rising sea levels would result if whole iceberg crumbled And this guy just highlighted that it won't, icebergs are the largest ice mass and they're all already in the water ... CLIMB-ATE HOKES The GOVE-URN-MINT are COIN-TROLLING your mind
Yeah, that's right. Melting ice *IN* water does not increase the water level. That's because the mass was already in there all the time. But in reality there is also a lot of ice *OVER* the water, just as you can see in the background. Please retry with an ice block the same size, but with a lower bowl.
@@ПераЖдера-н6э Then the water level should have been lower at the end of the video. Science 101 is that water freezes at 0°C, but has its lowest volume at +4°C. If you want to be exact you'd need the temperature of the ice and water before the experiment starts, the temperature of the water right after the experiment ends and the exact amount of ice and water before, after and - ideally - during the experiment.
@@RST9413 Just watch this video: th-cam.com/video/Y9lunxBLpQI/w-d-xo.html You can see that the water level stops rising right after all the ice is covered with water, but before that it rises.
It is important to distinguish that quite a chunk of world ice is NOT floating in oceans...hence, all the ice from Antarctica and from the mountain tops are eventually melt and increase level of the oceans.
Geez, after reading through the comments it becomes clear what problem is... most people do not understand basic physical principals.
Here we go: 1. Ice floating on water is buoyant because the ice-crystalline structure is less dense than liquid water.
2. Liquid water will displace the same amount of any given objects density and weight by rising ( being pushed out of the way) Example: A 20 ton ship displaces 20 tons of water. This is the Archimedes principal.
3. As an iceberg melts (or in this case ice block) the water around it does NOT rise. This is because the water has already risen in response to the ice. It has already been displaced and therefore rose due to being pushed out of the way.
4. The majority of polar ice is NOT on land. And what ice is on land, is land locked by sea ice surrounding it.
Conclusion is that Sea Ice melt DOES NOT MAKE OCEAN LEVEL RISE. The total amount of land/glacial ice falling into the oceans is minuscule compared to the total volume of our oceans.
Why does no one entertain the theory that 1. The areas observed are losing shoreline to.....erosion. And 2. More possible that observation of plate tectonics would yield a better understanding as to why ocean levels rise in som places and fall in others. Or a combination of the two. Think People... don't just rattle off the first "scientific conclusion" the mass media shoves down your throat. There are other, more viable options.
Here's to all the arm-chair scientists out there that are saying, "90% of polar ice is on land"... more like 70% but anyway. What percent of that land based ice actually ends up in our oceans? Do you know? Less than 1% per year falls into the oceans. That it. And the process by which glaciers more faster is NOT global warming. It is due to more pressure pushing against the previous ice sheet to move it. That added pressure comes from...... increased snow pack! The temps at a glaciers base remains at a constant. In other words, it does not matter the temperature of a few degrees at the surface, THAT is not going to make a glacier travel faster. Only more pressure can increase the speed of a glacier's decent. Now, there are some different things happening at the calving face once it gets close to the sea. But it has to get there before it can break off.
Antarctica absolutely does not fit the media narrative, as it has been increasing its sea ice shelf for several years now. That's why you don't hear as much about it as in the past. Over the last 10 years it has also been increasingly difficult to tour or make a stay there. The waiting lists have gotten longer and the requirements have gotten more stringent to go there. (Once such requirement is the removal of your appendic)
Excellent comment
where did you get the percentages like 1% per year. I'm interested and would like to do further reading please and thankyou
Water should only be displaced by the size of an object, not it weight
@@crunchymuncher6771 An object in water will displace the same volume of water equal to the weight of the object.
Take a 10lbs bowling ball. Throw it in water and it sinks. It will have displaced 10lbs of water.
Now, if you put the bowling ball in a very small boat, the water line rises up on the boat. Still the volume of water displaced will equal 10lbs. Cool?
Why does a steal cruise ship float? It's made of steel, and is very heavy. But it does float because the size of the vessel (volume/density) displaces enough water to equal the total weight of the vessel. The water stops being displaces at that point and the vessel can float on it.
Take yourself an aluminum canoe. Weigh it. Now, if you had a ball of aluminum that equaled the weight of your aluminum canoe, the ball would sink like a stone, while the canoe would float. This is because the shape of the canoe displaces enough water to equal the weight of the canoe. But so does the ball even though it sinks. Now, fill your canoe with water, and it sink too just like the ball of aluminum. This is because the canoe is no longer displacing enough watsr to keep it afloat. Getting it yet?
@@Silverbugle2005 does that mean that if I had my toes in the deep end of a pool the water would rise by the entire weight of my body or my foot even if it was just my toes in there
This guy seems earnest enough, but he missed a few things. He never says he's talking about the impact of glaciers melting on sea levels, but the topic and photo behind him, and his mentioning of "iceberg" suggest that.
1 - Fresh water ice (which icebergs are made of) DOES add to the level of a body of salt water it's in. This guy's experiment is probably using fresh water for both.
2 - Glaciers are on land, not IN the ocean so when they melt their water ads to the amount of ocean water.
3 - When part of a glacier breaks off and falls into the ocean becoming an iceberg it clearly adds to the water level. You can see that happen in his video at 0:26.
4 - Icebergs don't form in the ocean out of ocean water. The crust on the top of the ocean may freeze, but that's negligible. Icebergs start as land glaciers or frozen above sea level.
So technically he's correct that melting fresh water ice in fresh water doesn't change the level. But adding a ice to existing water does. And melting saltless ice in the ocean does.
Prove it.
When I got home I tried an experiment of melting ice in salt water and it did not change the water level either. So your full of it buddy. Yes the water did rise when I dropped the fresh water ice in the glass of salt water. But the level water never changed whole it melted. Remember the ice is in the water already not on land and then falls in the water. Video uploading soon.
@@MrHydroguy Thanks
@@MrHydroguy Ur a Denier and an ignorant fool. Land based ice when it melts, goes into sea, it raises the sea level. Greeland, Antarctica are lands. Glaciers in the mountains are land based. Icebergs in the sea do not change as shown in the expt.
Total rubbish.
This applies to icebergs but not ice on land.
It applies to all ice. Takes up less room when melted. Expands when frozen, contracts when melts.
@@brhanson2 Come on sir, this is basic logic... You should read again.
You have to understand there is no "ice on land" glaciers and 99% of the ice are submerged in the ocean
@Barrett Lee of course it will go up. All he is saying is: It doesn`t matter if you add ICE or water in fluid form. What gets added is almost the same amount. Looking over the comments, makes my head hurt. Most have no common sense what so ever..
Ice on land is in the south
I've got a relevant experiment for you to try, professor. Fill a glass of water and position a block of ice outside of it, directing the melting runoff into the glass.
Right, much of the longtime ice that has been frozen over many generations of time, is supported by land mass, sitting under it, and doesn't sit in water, floating, like shown in video. This is why we have massive flooding in spring run off every spring, and the rivers run higher than normal, till water finally reaches it's proper levels again. The main problem is the ice and snow that has land sitting under it, holding it up out of the water. Take all that ice and snow, and place it in the ocean, and the levels will rise, because they are now sitting in water, not on land mass, that's now supports it, instead of water...… Fill the bowl to it's brink, then let a large block of ice melt into that bowl, and it will spill over. Your point is now quashed.
@@waynedavies3185 good reasoning but both off you need to remember the question of CONTEXT !! Yes on mainland UK we suffer from severe spring floodings when melted ice and snow thaws and runs downhill unless it is already at the foot of the elevation and floods a gulley or a valley or if the meltdown reaches a river then latterly the sea there can be swollen rivers and flooding but no more than as during a storm and is called seasonal flooding which comes and goes and is not a permenant increase in water levels which is clearly what you are talking about !!
The chap in the video is talking about ice in the ocean !!
Therefore to disprove him you will have to find out if there is solid land mass under the ice at the poles or if they are icebergs !?
@@jimking3288 … I wrote you a reply. Yes, there has to be vast hidden land mass under both the Artic, and Antarctic poles. It can't be any other way, or all that ice would be floating, and floating towards the equator, due to the warm water current flows. Land has to be under those poles, to keep the ice sitting where it now sits. That means plenty if ice is being supported by hidden land mass under the north and south poles. Have you never heard of icebergs flowing towards the equator, travelling past Labrador, New Foundland, and Nova Scotia? Same thing happens at both earth poles. If hidden land were not under either pole, all that ice would flow towards the equator, and not remain where they have been since we have known them to be where they now are. Ice is, being supported by land mass hidden under each pole. It has to be there. Can't be any other way.
@@waynedavies3185 according to geographers and geologists there is a land mass under the Antarctic AKA South Pole however at the Arctic AKA the North Pole it is an iceberg which could move around a bit but does seasonally "shrink" and "swell" but does not move towards the Equator !!
@@waynedavies3185I would assume floating icebergs would melt the closer it got to the equator if they did drift away from the poles. (Although they always say never to assume). This video and the comments has answered my curiosity though, I never considered any ice on land melting into the sea before, I just only thought about ice on water as what we were taught in school, makes much greater sense
We need to drink more water and pee less so the sea levels stay low....this is obvious answer
Lol.
They keep saying that sea levels are rising an' all this. It's nowt to do with the icebergs melting, it's because there's too many fish in it. Get rid of some of the fish and the water will drop. Simple. Basic science.
@SmaCk You d1cK Clearly you didn't catch the reference, and all I have to say is "are came not".
acommonspat were did u get this from
@@conacher7998 Karl Pilkington
Icebergs float in salt water, but they are formed from freshwater glacial ice. Melting icebergs will cause sea level to rise. Icebergs are already floating in the ocean, so melting will not raise sea level. Melting of land-based ice (such as glaciers) will raise sea level.
Cynthia Powers
Do you have any idea how many it would take to actually raise the sea levels? Yeah ... not possible. Keep trying!
icebergs float in ANY kind of water. Just sayin.
@@ShadeTheDark424 www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/will-the-world-ever-be-all-under-water
The premise is totally wrong !!!
The ice is not melting!
---------------------
This is NASA EXPLAINING THE ICE SHEETS ARE STAYING ABOUT THE SAME. Some melt some grow.
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Icebergs formed from freshwater glacial ice? That means we've had "global warming" for eons. We're still here!
However... glaciers and other ice that's mostly above the ocean will add to the water when melted because it's currently not displacing the water. Ice that's already displacing water of course won't add to it the volume when melted.
no, it won't. because the VAST majority of the ice s under water, and will be less dense when melted. sea ice is still forming, and will continue to form. it changes year to year because the Earth is not a square on a piece of paper.same reason communism does not work- people are not little squares on pieces of paper. liberals tend to forget this because they do not value human life, independence, autonomy, self sufficiency, success, reality, physics, science, history, biology, or logic fact theory and evidence in general.
@@SteveB-nx2uo
I've never seen a sheep describe himself so perfectly. Good on you Bobb.
@@immuneimmunity9212 i'm not a sheep, or an unintelligent or uninformed person- if you were intelligent and informed, you could challenge my assertions instead of my character..
@@SteveB-nx2uo
You jeopardized your character the moment you singled out only the liberals. I didn't need to do shit. They're two sides of the same coin. You're set in your beliefs and brainwashing that you'll call out one side and dig your head in the sand like some ostrich for the other. I'm not gonna keep trying on an obvious lost case. But hopefully I can prevent people from listening to and believing a madman like yourself. Last time I checked, our own FBI told us that right wing extremists like yourself are responsible for over 70% of terror attacks on US soil. But yes continue to blame the liberals for violence while your cult literally kills more Americans than every other terrorist group COMBINED. COMBINED MY MAN. What? You're gonna tell me you somehow know more than our own Federal Bureau of Investigations? Really dude?
I'm no fan of the liberals either but you are concrete proof of the brainwashing and propaganda that the right employs. If you actually cared so much, you'd stop treating our politics like it's a fucking sports game and that one side is infallible.
If you were half as informed as you think you are, you wouldn't be spreading your bullshit propaganda. It's literally impossible for me to attack your character if it was absent from the get go. Also you say you're informed and you can't be bothered to look up satellite imaging that literally and visually show our ice sheets melting, that our water levels are literally rising, and that ice isn't forming anywhere fast enough to replenish what's melting. I literally had to waste all this time to tell you something obvious to anything who did a lick of research. So yeah, attacking your made up character is much simpler. That's literally what you did in your liberal rant after all.
@@immuneimmunity9212 ...Wow ...you got all that about a person from his one use of the word liberal
All true, but misleading. Glaciers on land are not yet in the oceans. When glaciers not yet in the oceans melt, the ocean levels rise.
Glaciers melting added to the Oceans, would be like adding a cup of water to a swimming pool
hey, dodo bird his rock-solid piece of ice was not connected to the container of water so it would be same as a glacier!!
Yes... Notice when he takes the block of ice and drops it into the bowl.. the water rises.. like a glacier melting and breaking off into the ocean
@@thulette3316 drop the same block in a lake to see if it raises
It would literally rise
According to Noerdlinger and Brower (2007) it doesn’t because the principle refers to weight and not volume. The salt in sea water raises its density from about 1000 kg/m3 for salt free water to 1026 kg/m3 for normal sea water. The ice however is nearly salt free because of a process called “brine rejection” (the salt from sea water doesn’t enter the crystal structure of ice).
When the ice melts then this is a kind of freshening of the ocean and the overall salinity is lowered. The lower salinity, the lower density and the larger volume.
The melting of sea ice therefore doesn’t increase the mass but it increases the volume and therefore causes the water level to rise. After Noerdlinger’s and Brower’s calculations the volume of the meltwater is about 2.6% larger than the displaced sea water.
But what is the actual relevance of this effect? Does is contribute significantly to sea level rise? Before answering this questions we should deal with an objection raised by Jenkins and Holland (2007). They are arguing that a huge amount of energy is required to melt the ice. They find that the energy comes from the ocean, as the albedo (reflectivity) of ice is very high, it doesn’t absorb much solar energy. Hence the ocean will cool a bit, causing the density of the briny water to increase (It should be noted that fresh water exhibits the peculiar behavior that its density increases as the temperature falls almost all the way to freezing; but just before freezing, the density is reduced. Briny water does not exhibit that reversal). The cooling therefore offsets the density decrease at least partially in the words of Jenkins and Holland.
As they put it, Noerdlinger’s and Bower’s result is a good first approximation in cold waters where most floating ice is found. The density of cold water is mainly determined by its salinity while for warmer water temperature is also an important factor. Therefore in warmer water the cooling effect matters.
Back to the question, if this effect contributes to sea level rise in a relevant way. Shepherd et al 2010 examine this. They combine satellite observations for an assessment of the loss of floating ice. According to this 743 km3/yr floating ice was lost in average between 1994 and 2004. They further conclude that 1.6% of current sea level rise (about 3.1 mm per year) is caused by loss of sea ice. This is not very much compared to other sources. However the authors assert that this effect should be considered for future assessments of global sea level rise.
That's a long way to say complete bs
Ask Al gore and Obama (the biggest global warming preaches ) why they bout houses in the sea cost?? Looks like they knew the supposedly melting ice cap was a complete BS
No argument@@Onikag
@@halleffect5439 If it's true you should be able to repeat it in a demonstration- put a bunch of salt water in a cup. freeze a bunch of salt water into ice cubes. dump the cubes into the cup- I bet my life the cup wont overflow once the ice melts. go ahead and do it. post the video and send us all the link when you're finished (assuming you agree with the idiot above us)
@@halleffect5439move to ukraine
Notice how at 0:25, when he puts the ice block into the water, the water level rises?
Sea level rise is caused by melting ice sheets that are not already in the water.
I don't know if its a joke '-'
Please, be a joke
Lol.... It's an iceberg... The water already rose when he put it in the water... Like an iceberg that breaks off of a glacier...
This experiment shows what happens when ice caps melt.. it's EASY to understand...
The second he dropped the ice into the bowl, the water rose..
That's what happens as glaciers ABOVE GROUND melt and break off into the ocean... It rises
Yes, indeed! He does not talk about the rise of water when he put the iceberg into the bowl! dah.
But the ice is already on the planet.
But the ice is already on the planet.
But the ice is already on the planet.
The iceberg then gets proportionally lighter.
Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater; so the floating ice cube displaced less volume than it contributed once it melted. When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise.
Glaciers are formed after the accumulation of snow on land (snow doesn't sit on water). Sea levels do rise not when floating ice melts, but when ice breaks off a glacier and ends up floating in the ocean.
the only person with common sense on this fucking shithell post.
want to try again. You made 2 mistakes in your statement. #1- Snow as in a glacier does sit on water, which is why glacier move downward. #2-you said"Sea levels do rise not when floating ice melts" When ice from a glacier breaks off what does it become? Oh right floating ice. Maybe you should pay attention to people like don no who explains the science of it all. Oh and not all glaciers calve into the oceans. Most just melt and that in turn runs into a river that may or may not flow into the ocean.
actially ONLY 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, when you take into consideration the earth is 2/3rd water, then remove the areas that don't get ice, the amount of runnoff from land based glacial ice is still minimal
Or a new lake is created as most glaciers tend to be inland, not hanging over the ocean like these special ed students on here are claiming.
Have any scientists done the math on what the peak ocean level would be after all land glaciers melt? The mainstream vision resembles the Waterworld movie and doesn't seem realistic
and that is why obama bought a mansion on the sea shore.
As did Al Gore.
Oh look the Obama freak is here.
And Al Gore also owns a beachfront home.
To all the people bring up land glaciers...what has been observed is that while the edges of ice sheets are shrinking the height up the glaciers are growing at a faster rate. The melting causes more evaporation which leads to more snowfall within the center of the ice sheets so now, the sea levels are not rising.
So basically a cycle
Melting ice from a GLACIER will increase water level. Glaciers unlike icebergs aren't floating. They are supported by bedrock.
Look at the hydrological table... Water is the same as it ever was. It ALL stays within the earth's environment in one form or another. Melting glaciers will go into subterranean cavities, until it is needed...
@@Rozrr That is so wrong that there isn't even a word created yet to describe it.
Matter can not be destroyed or created it changes from one form to another. Something that proves Darwin was out of his nut.
ONLY 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, when you take into consideration the earth is 2/3rd water, then remove the areas that don't get ice, the amount of runnoff from land based glacial ice is still minimal
@@chrishillier647 It's not about land area, it's about total mass (kg) of ice in glacier form. Each kilogram of glacier ice will become a liter of ocean water, if the glacier melts.
For goodness sake please look at the hydrological table... I tried to post a link but it vanished... Easy to find... All the water that earth started with is still here in one form or another... Coastlines will not rise more than a tiny fraction that will not be noticeable...
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaactually...
The Earth originally had very low levels of surface water, but that grew over time from comet impacts and volcanic eruptions.
That aside though, what matters isn't the total volume of water on the surface of the Earth, but its distribution. For example, it's well documented that during the last ice age, when the polar caps were much, much larger, sea levels were substantially lower. In Massachusets for example, the coastline was over a hundred miles further east than it is today. If ice that's still locked up in glaciers melts, it will add to the volume of water in the ocean (because it's not already there) which will then rise.
@@BenGreen1980 Now do some proper research, check evaporation levels of oceans too... There is still the same amount of water on the earth it didn't grow or diminish as it cannot get through the earth's atmosphere, hydrogen can but not water... There will not be more water and sea will not noticeably rise at all...
@@Rozrr Since the start of the satellite sea level record in 1993, the average rate of sea level has been about one-eighth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms.
@Stu Redman Ahh yes....except C02 is a gaseous by-product of living and organic processes...so it's levels do change over time. It can be reverted to C2 and O2, be recombined to 2C0 and 02 and be combined into organic compounds. So it's levels have changed. Water generally remains as water...it is either steam, liquid or solid...but still water. It maybe locked into organisms...and is released when it dies...and is still water. Water neither combines with other chemicals to become something else. It remains...well....it remains water.
@@PaulHock "thermal expansion of seawater as it warms."
Warm water shrinks, mate. Water expands when colder. Water ONLY rises when warm, if it is boiling and becoming a gas.
The physics are clear in that sense and the phenomena is clearly and easily observable.
"the average rate of sea level has been about one-eighth of an inch (3.1 mm) per year."
Do you realize how small 3.1mm per year is? And do you realize that if the oceans are rising, it means that the planet is entering a new ice age, because the water levels initially rise, due to gained density, until it freezes over and gets to its more expanded state?
You are so right - melting ice does not increase the water level. Adding ice does :)
Oceans will rise, if ice and snow (supported by land mass) melts, and runs into the ocean. Many ice masses around the worlds is supported by the land mass under it. It doesn't sit in the water as shown in video.
Marián Tomašec ok but think about it did god just add ice to the ocean cause he felt like it no and it will be the same no matter what so what is your point
@@sleepy1967 … What ever ice is sitting on land, is not sitting in water. That amount sitting and supported by land mass, is like taking the bowl this guy has, with the ice already sitting in it, and adding more ice on top of it. The ice he has sitting in the bowl, will sink, and the extra ice its added, therefore, the water will overflow the rim of the bowl, once the extra ice is added. Now, start getting your thinking cap on, because I am right, and you are not. I know, I have tried this out in a bowl here ate the house... Now tell me the ocean will not rise, if ice that is supported on land mass, is added to what is already sitting and floating in the ocean, will not rise.
Listen, take a glass and add a fair sized ice cube, with the water level, sitting at the very crest of spilling over the glass lip. Now, take another fresh ice cube of the same size, or slightly larger(representing Ice that is supported by land mass), and add it to that very same glass of water, with the ice cube sitting in it. What happens? It spills over the lip. That's because what ice that is supported by land mass, is not sitting in the ocean, but once it's added to the ocean, the ocean will rise. It has to. It can't do anything else but rise.
Bcz when ice melts, the volume decreases. And in the container, ice has already occupied its space. So after melting, the overall level will decrease not increase.
I need that ice for my brandy and coke, seemed like it was never gonna melt
Gerard Jordaan try to find ice block makers. The surface area of the cube is what allows it melt slower.
THIS is of course TRUE. BUT when he put the lump of ice into the water the level of water did rise. Which is what is happeneing the world over, much ice that has collected on land is now falling into the sea, in large quantities, and the sea level rises. When ice melts its apparent volume does decrease. Ice at 0C has more volume than Water at 0C. BUT as the temperature of the water rises its volume increases.
So the sea levels will rise a) because huge volumes of ice are falling into the sea
b) the water temperature is rising
you must have a phd or your argument is coming from thew little girl from Europe ha..
@@victorforzani3433What on earth are you getting at? This is facts; facts that most children will be taught in school. I most certainly haved not got a PHd. Not clever enough! Everyone KNOWS that ice floats. something only floats if the volume of water displaced is more dense than the object floating. That is why icealways forms on the top of ponds.
@@christopherphillips8063 who's facts
@@juamart448 What on EARTH are you asking. no one in particular, just actual 100% TRUE FACTS. IF you add ice to water, the water level RISES. How could it not. If you pot a 100 Ton Boat on water the water level rises. so 100Ton block ice does the same. Ice is water. So if you add ice to water ir rises. 100% PURE COMMON SENSE. Try it yourself and see.
sea ice doesn't raise water levels but ice on land is another story
Indeed. But then again not the continental South Pole cap is melting, only the ice on Greenland is . Even drastically, they claim.
As melting continental ice has an immediate effect on the sealevel: can jou give me the number on how much sealevel has risen the last decades, due to drastically melting of the Greenland ice during lthat time?
Last summier there was again the hysterical news that the ice of Greenland was melting with a dramatic speed. They even get people so deluted that they don't even wonder anymore why those messages always come in summer...
Riddle me this ? There are ancient civilizations from thousands of years ago found under water. That would indicate at one point this was dry land, correct me if I am wrong. So thousands of years ago something melted and raised the water levels of the seas. There were no fossil fuel power plants or automobiles then so what made the water levels rise ? Or did the land sink?
@@philduyck3523 Sinkholes on the sea floor, earthquakes can change the shape of the land, volcanoes erupting can also change the land. It wasn't the water levels rising, it was the land dropping that caused the cities to wind up under water.
The Great Flood, perhaps?
@@philduyck3523 They recently discovered a lost continent that subducted under Europe. The tectonic plates moved in such away that an entire continent practically disappeared under the Mediterranean.
dislikes are from climate change crazies who think the water should've overflowed out of the container.
People forget the law of conservation of mass. Be it currently in liquid, solid or gaseous form, there is exactly the same amount of water on the planet as there was a million years ago.
Not if we sent some of it into space...which I imagine is likely.
What about the water in the urine that man has left in space? I know that isn't much compared to the amount of water on earth, but some water has definitely left earth.
And how is this relevant? Ice melting doesnt mean water coming from thin air.
No, there isn't. Conservation laws do not specify the location of water. Water is added to Earth by cometary impacts.
I think that law only applies at the atomic level, not the molecular level. For example, in the carbon cycle water is regularly split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The hydrogen atoms combine with carbon atoms to make simple and then more complex hydrocarbon molecules. For a time, if there is a great amount of plant growth the amount of "water" on the planet might be reduced. But then when the hydrocarbon material is again oxidized, the water magically reappears on the earth. Could this process potentially change the amount of water in the oceans or raise the sea level? I suspect not in a material way, put possibly. There are often fascinating interrelated actions that occur that seem to keep things in balance over time.
Too bad most of the world's ice is actually in land, not in the ocean.
Omfg 😂🤣
Too bad the ice is getting thicker!! Gezz, the is the second coming of climate change, happened in midivil times too. Exploded the population!! I think Al Gore save us back then too!!
Totally wrong
It isn't only melting land ice that causes sea levels to rise but also the oceans getting warmer that results in the expansion of the water
Sure like the sea level is higher in the summer because the sea get warmer water dense ... But when you go by the sea in the winter the sea low or high tide winter is higher then the summer high tide 😂
@@Pacificrebel87 No. Plus your grammar is terrible.
Sorry English is my second languages ... But your believes are wrong .. to think that the warmer water expend ...is like thinking that putting a glass of water in a microwave will get the water to rise in the glass 😅 how stupid ... Your the kind of people who thinks the sea level is lower in the winter and spring ...
When people like me know from thier eyes that the beach a go walk in the summer are not beach anymore in the winter ... And the spring is when all the snow melt on the land to the river that goes to the sea ... And you still think what you read is true ... But you won't accept someone who can see from his eyes 😅
@@Pacificrebel87 Water expands about four percent when heated from room temperature to its boiling point.
sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1pcac2.pdf
The seasons don't have an effect because it is not an even over all heating. So before you call someone stupid maybe learn some basic science.
You say warm water expend and cause sea rising .. yet you cant put a full bottle of water in your freezer without it to explode .. but you can let melt a fully freeze glasse of water without it to spill over ... That only shows you can only learn What you told to without never experience any of it ..
It does contribute to rising sea levels when the ice is over land and the runoff flows from land into the ocean. Also there is the problem of adding all that fresh water which can shut off the gulfstream. Not to mention the conversion of that reflective white surface area to a heat absorbing dark surface area.
The real trick is making lefties understand any real science. PBS Says a me Street all through college all the kids are fed is the relentless Commie anti western (white man ) fiction as truth. The media is compromised at the top too especially what passes as news. The referees are bought bribed black mailed sexually personally ..the ones who are allowed to advance in the swamp club. Schools and Media, the experts are making the kids dumb and insane. The only way white boys are accepted are as gay drag victims, other wise automaticly blamed for WW2 Slavery and women oppressors by the bird brain white girls and union bitch teachers.,Inner city schools are sick, worse than prison. Thug run, criminals are encouraged and pampered. Every one fails the reading and math there! Why? Communist racists run the cities, they are gonna kill your kids. Big Bang out of nothingness, cells split? Why? So much lies. Gender fluid non sense. Term limits on public workers especially teachers.
What he says is true to a point. He supported an ice cube fully in water. Now take a tray, with another ice cube sitting on it and allow it also to melt ( this represents the ice that is supported by land mass under it, and is not sitting, or supported in the ocean. When the ice cube on the ray melts, along with the ice cube that's sitting in the water, he will have an over flow. That's because the ice sitting in the tray runs into the full container, and adds more water than the container will hold. In other words the water level rises. That's why the oceans rise when the land supported ice melts into the ocean, so don't be fooled here. Don't believe me, then try it out for yourself, and you'll see I'm right.
But is the rate of land ice melting into the ocean significantly increasing the volume each year?
I have doubts
The result of ice cap melting can be seen by paying attention to what happens to the water level when he puts the chunk of ice into the water in the container... That is what happens when the LAND BASED icecaps break off. The rest of his demo is fine for modelling the results of an ice berg melting, but has nothing to do with ice caps or other sea ice.
I don't think this is the question.
The question is transferring the ice from land into the sea.
His experiment is over before it starts.
As soon as he puts the "Iceberg" in the container it increases the volume by about another 20%. & doesn't recede as it melts.
@@CryptoDiveInsights Perhaps it depends on how much ice falls into the ocean then melts? or melts and runs down into the sea? The Antarctic ice cap alone is estimated to contain about 90% of earth's fresh water and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice that, if all melted, would raise global sea levels by more than 60m. And if all land-based ice melted seas would rise by about 70 m. Do you consider that "little difference"? Or did you make that statement without having any information to speak of? That is, did you pull it out of your ass?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet
Land Ice (diminish) = oceans (rise), evaporation = oceans (fall), rain fall = land ice (increase). Rinse repeat.
When glaciers melt, isostatic rebound or post-glacial rebound of the land occurs. The land actually rises when the weight is gone.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 AND MOST OF THIS SEA ICE IS ICE FLOWTING ON THE SEA AND ABOVE SEA LEVEL
How does rain fall = land ice when its hot enough to raise the ice temperateure above freezing point, meaning the rain fall cant freeze into land ice?
@@inharmonywithearth9982 Wrong: the Antarctic ice cap alone contains about 90% of earth's fresh water (as ice, of course) and the Greenland ice cap contains much of the remainder, with most of the rest being in glaciers, rivers, and lakes. Sea ice is very thin compared to the Antarctic ice sheet whose mean thickness is 2.16 km and whose maximum known thickness is 4.776 km (Terre Adélie). Antarctic sea ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. See the difference? And compare a recent image of the polar ice sheet with the area of Antarctica.
@@aaronsrod7987 And do you have any comparison of how much the land rebounds compared to how much the sea rises when a given large volume (and weight) of ice on land falls into the sea or melts and flows down into the sea? Without such a comparison your comment is interesting but not much use in the present discussion.
What would happen if the container was 100% full and THEN the ice is added? Wouldn't it overflow then? This is what happens when a glacier out of the water breaks off and enters the ocean.
Not at all. The mass of the ice and the law of displacement come into play. The frozen ice displaces the exact amount of water as it becomes when melted. Therefore, no rise in level whatsoever
When the broken piece falls off - the iceberg rises to offset the weight of the piece that fell off.
@@charliedavid319 Please reread my comment. If you have a two gallon container that is 100% full of water and THEN you add another frozen ice cube that is one gallon of water, where will the additional gallon of water go? This is what happens when a glacier that is on land falls into the ocean and melts. It is MORE water being added to a vessel that is already full. The ocean will rise.
Loool
I love the grafix that shows a mountain of ice above the sea level
Add the land based ice on Greenland and Antarctica to that beaker and see what the levels are like. The ice sheet on Antarctica averages over a mile in thickness. The ice sheet over Greenland is over 2 miles thick at its maximum.
all of the ice would have to melt at the same time in a record speed in order to have any affect.
your point is irrelevant.
Land ice levels are increasing...hey but lets not let facts spoil your rant
I see many point out that it is land ice that is melting and flowing into the ocean. Ice in the water (ice bergs) are formed when they break off of land glaciers. Land ice is formed by snowfall, not the ocean freezing (its salt water)
And where do you think the snow comes from?
@@RussianBotLvl the sky
@@peterfreeman7369 And how does the sky produce the snow?
@@oogway73 Condensation forms on a particle of dust and as it falls to the ground, it freezes into a water crystal. and then the snow compacts and stays stored on land. Keeps the moisture out of the ocean.
do you know how cold it is in the upper atmosphere? So water that evaporates and condenses in the extreme cold and turns into a crystal then lands on earth to be compacted and after years of weight, compresses into a glacier.@@oogway73
Do you know how much water is above ground?
Less than what was there during the ice age we are still coming out of...
Title of the video "Melting ice in water does not increase the water level".
What's unclear about this? Can you read? :-)
ice* not water
@@tlamiczka Heres what unclear about the experiment:
He only shows ice that is underwater. He did NOT show ice above water, flowing into the sea, and since its not displacing the water, it raises the sea level. Oh, and yes, he can read.
@@dallasburnworth And how is that relevant?
legit question. if the iceberg was vertical out of the bowl 12 inches, would the bowl overflow? in the same way, is the entire artic only a few feet above sea level or are there much higher altitudes of ice?
Sea ice was never the concern
Leto Verheij no, Leto...
It's as if people have never had a glass of ice water...
@Shane O'Neal Yeah.. It needs electrolytes.
I learned this in 4th grade, not sure why anyone over 12 wouldn't know this.
billybassman21 too bad you critical thinking skills haven’t progressed.
The far left knows that the average person is an inferior moron lacking in basic commonsense and does not have the ability to put 2 + 2 together to figure out that the melted ice did not overflow their soda cup.
Its almost as if people have never seen ice on land...
(i get that most wont, but you hopefully understand my point, which is, that land ice does not displace water, thus nit counteracting the water not being added, raising the sea level)
The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.
prakajr2
False. Keep diggin..
@@ShadeTheDark424 bro at least say something to disprove it 😭 mf just said no and left fr
Technically yea but the density difference between both would not be responsible for a catastrophic rise in levels. If everything melts, then we would need to worry about other things.
Arent the ice caps made of salt water?
That doesn't explained why google says that sea level is higher in the winter and spring ... Yet I go walk 4 seasons by the sea and the winter sea level either high or low tides is always been higher then the summer high tide ... Now you can read on internet as you went ... But when you go there is see it from your eyes youll questions yourself about what you read 😉
It is not the sea ice that poses a problem, because as you demonstrated in terms of sea levels this does not have much of an effect because floating ice already displaces roughly the same amount of water as it would produce when it melts, so the net effect would be negligible.
However 95% of earth's ice is LANDBASED and mostly contained in enormous ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica where there are enormous mountain ranges almost as big as the alps, completely covered in ice. The total amount of frozen water on earth is 30 million cubic kilometer, 95% of this amount is landbased and if all this ice melts, the sea levels, measured from the coasts, will rise about 70 meters. Half of the world's population lives on sea coasts. A rise of 70 meters will make some of the biggest cities like New York, Tokyo, Sao Paolo, Mumbai, Jakarta, Shanghai uninhabitable.
The land based ice on Greenland and the Antarctica has been increasing. A downed WW2 plane in greenland was found intact 200 feet down in the ice.
Thanks Christoph för explaining this! Was wondering how the sealevel would rise, now i know much better :)
As the weight of ice on land decreases, land masses have been shown to actually rise because there is less force pushing down on it, and because the soil will absorb water creating underground water tables.
Look I actually have the honor of knowing somebody who is in Antarctica right now it's my best friend's son who is on a coast guard vessel. They have been taking measurements and Antarctica for years. And the snow is increasing. On the western side there is a slightly warmer current which has been breaking off some of the water-based ice. But the rest of Antarctica has been increasing. At least according to the last 30 years worth of Records. This is coming from my best friend's son who is there right now.
What about if it's on land and slides into the sea?
Then it becomes an ice berg
@@stuart_smoll1731 And makes the water level rise. You can see it in this video: the water level obviously rises when he adds the ice to the water.
OK, now repeat that experiment by covering a land mass with a block of ice, in the middle of your little pool. You know, to simulate a continent with an ice sheet over it, like we have in the real world.
Surely once the ice on the land melts then there is more land freed up. It’s just an ongoing cyclic change that always happens. There is a finite amount of water and land here so there will always be the same amount of each but it will always shift and change position. Things like the tectonic plates under the oceans moving will cause the same effect .
@@OriginalWMT lol.
Yes, Ice on land WILL raise the water level.
But ice in water will NOT... and that is what the experiment was all about,
How much ice is on land in comparison to in water? 10% on land? Less perhaps?
Loooooool braindead
Watch at 0:24 when he puts the ice in the water. There's the sea level rise caused by land ice calving into the ocean or melting into it (Antarctica, Greenland and the Himalayas are all ice on land, not ice floating in water).
just thinking even large calving is a Mere thimble full
But we are not concerned with the waves (insignificant). We are concerned with the level.
A lot of meltwater from land based ice would remain landlocked. Glaciers recede from south to north in the northern hemisphere.
@@sheraklassen4163 That's because their southern ends melt, so the water flows south
I did see a little bit of spillage but the principal still works out. floating icebergs have a lower density than water so when it melts It will decrease the waterlevels rather than increase it. The only way the waterlevels may rise.....is when ice that lays on top of solid ground ( like with antarctica) melts and gets into the ocean. But from research we can see that antarctica is playing even atm, which means it doesnt attribute. So the only way the ocean can get to higher levels....is due to temperature of the water....if it gets warmer it can expand a little bit.
It does raise water levels when it comes from land.. The experiment is biased in that it shows one thing and infers that that the result disproves a proven and logical fact. Melting ice caps, glaciers and other Ice sources on land, when melted will find a way to the sea and will raise sea level. The experiment is based on the fact that the ice is approx 1.1 (or 10% bigger) when frozen due to the crystalline nature of ice. When it melts it goes back to 'normal', which is less volume.. that is true... the problem with the claiming that the ice caps and glaciers melting has no impact is that the melting is net new in the Oceans.. by that I mean it is not ice 'in water' that is melting and effectively remaining neutral, it is ice from land mass and that is entirely new and additional to the sea - hence rising tides. People need to be aware that there is a seriously well funded anti-climate change program at work to fool the population in to using oil and fossil fuels.. don't be fooled. Check the facts!
@spikedpsycho Yes, the ice is on the sea, but did you consider how high above sea level the ice sheets are? The ice sheets get VERY, VERY big.
@spikedpsycho The rates that antarctic is shrinking/growing arent even. the rate at which it is melting is going to surpass the rate iy is growing.
@spikedpsycho It shows MANY signs of acceleration.
An dthe ice age didnt end 300 years ago!!! It died down 10,000 years ago, (but didnt end since we are still in the ice age, its just not as strong as before)
The real trick is making lefties understand any real science. PBS Says a me Street all through college all the kids are fed is the relentless Commie anti western (white man ) fiction as truth. The media is compromised at the top too especially what passes as news. The referees are bought bribed black mailed sexually personally ..the ones who are allowed to advance in the swamp club. Schools and Media, the experts are making the kids dumb and insane. The only way white boys are accepted are as gay drag victims, other wise automaticly blamed for WW2 Slavery and women oppressors by the bird brain white girls and union bitch teachers.,Inner city schools are sick, worse than prison. Thug run, criminals are encouraged and pampered. Every one fails the reading and math there! Why? Communist racists run the cities, they are gonna kill your kids. Big Bang out of nothingness, cells split? Why? So much lies. Gender fluid non sense. Term limits on public workers especially teachers.
@spikedpsycho
"Except that the ice that's melting, Arctic ice, is predominantly sea ice" No--the Antarctic ice cap is melting too and so is the Greenland ice cap--and much faster--and both are on land so both increase sea levels somewhat. And glaciers (based on land) are melting too...
Put two buckets side by side, one is half filled with water, and the other is half full of ice. Put them in a room at room temperature. A day later the bucket with the ice is now partly full with melted ice water. Pour the ice water from the one bucket into the first half filled bucket of water. Does the half filled bucket of water have its water level rise when the bucket full of ice water is poured into it?
it does if it slides off of the land into the water
at the same time water is evaporating into the air, into you know, clouds!
Just except the fact! or go watch CNN and cry alone...
@@joesmoe3481 Man: makes point
person: shows flaw in point
another person: cnn watching cwy babyyy!!! im gonna ignore your point about his point and send adhominem fallacies reeeee!
@@eenelso Those 2 rates are disproportionate. Its coming in more than it is leaving.
@@eenelso And then raining, mostly into the oceans--about 71% of it.
Does this mean that Glacial periods should see an initial increase in water levels if glaciers fall into the sea? Sort of like when you initially push the frozen block into the water and it raises in the bowel?
Would this not mean that sea levels should be HIGHER in the Wisconsinan Glacial period between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago? Some claim the water level was lower due to growing glaciers.
Precisely! It initally rises, but when the fusing process becomes fast enough, they drop considerably, due to the lack of water to sustain such masses.
Yes, we know, archimedes principle. Basic physics.
Nothing happens to the water level if the ice in the water melts, and is floating.
However, there's whole other story if we talk about the sea level here of earth. Then we have to include the ice on land which plays the biggest role and also the increase of temperature in the water which makes it expand.
*makes it expand TO A GAS.
Ice on land does not play the "biggest role". It will form puddles, which, with time, will evaporate and become rain, which will pour down, mostly around the poles, in form of snow, due to the low temperatures of the poles.
Cooling up the oceans is what makes them "freeze" and increase in "volume", for a short period of time. A gas ocupies a larger volume, yes, but it resides on the surface of the water, not UNDER it, to make it increase in volume.
Water does not increase in volume when it heats, it LOSES volume when it heats. It is when it COOLS DOWN that it increases in volume, up to the point of becoming a solid and occupiying the biggest volume it can, and by sheer amount of mass, displacing the water under the ice and thus creating a "rise" in its levels.
When it vapourizes, it will lose volume too, even more so than when it fuses.
@@sombraarthur "Ice on land does not play the "biggest role". It will form puddles, which, with time, will evaporate and become rain, which will pour down, mostly around the poles, in form of snow, due to the low temperatures of the poles."
How big a puddle do you suppose is formed when the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt? Have you not watch any videos of them melting? And it's along the margin between the ice sheet and sea that they melt most quickly so they "puddle" almost directly into the sea, causing it to rise.
@@waynebrehaut7183 physics.
You know them?
I cant believe nobody has pointed out that you have ALREADY increased the water level when you added the ice in...
I have have added salt to freshwater many times mixing water for my aquariums. The water level doesn't seem to increase.
Why would salt increase sea level? Who ever claimed that?
its bc of volume
the water from ice occupies the ice volume while melting
It's called a solution. That's the solution to your curiosity.
@@simonp37 Because some limited thinking people believe when ice melts it expands. And when you tell them it doesn't, their next excuse is because its not salt water ice. Atleast thats what im assuming, based from my own experience
The weight of the ice in a small glass bowl caused it to rise at first. But when it melted it did cause the water to rise. But it was equal to the weight of the ice in a "SMALL GLASS BOWL"
The experiment isn’t measuring the initial increase caused by the ice being submerged. The experiment is to see if the water level would increase once the ice melted.
! All the Democrats own beach front properties, but push this propaganda!
all of them, wow you did quite the research huh - youre amazing
melting ice frome land will raise water level that is common sence first grade science I hope you do know that
This:
www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/whats-causing-sea-level-rise-land-ice-vs-sea-ice/
No, it’s called displacement. The most viable theory is Post Glacial Rebound Effect. Water doesn’t rise it finds its level, and by doing so displace land mass. Ie: huge crevices opening up, shifting tectonic plates etc.
Read this!
skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-rise-due-to-floating-ice.html
It's not propaganda!!! The sea levels will rise beacause of salt-water
all bull shit. ice in the water will obviously not increase levels due to displacement, but ice melting on the land and going into the sea will increase the level. He should fill the container to the full mark and then melt the ice into it and see what happens
I agree with what you say . but the ice on land is not what scientists are counting when they predict sea level rise..
What the guy fails to mention is that the water is the densest at around +4°C. When it heats up - it expands the same way it expands when it freezes into the ice (an other special property of the water). The experiment omits the thermometer in the water to indicate the temperature, adds time warp and stops at the exact moment of end of melting. It would totally overflow if the water was left to heat up an other 5°C. The way the oceans work is that once water is liquid it flows to Russell level aground the globe. Once that happens - the melted water heats up in any area closer to the equator beyond the poles and that in turn expands it. An other catch is that the frozen ice is quite a distance above sea level, so if you melt a 1km of pole caps above sea level and dump it down - stuff's gonna go up a bit.
except that about 1000 meters down from the ocean the average temperatures drops to less than 4 degrees, given the specific heat capacity of water it'll take a heck of a lot to heat up the entire ocean to the point where it expands. But even if heat the entire ocean to just before it boils its volume would only expand by 4%. yes rising sea levels would be a problem, but I suspect if the ocean is at boiling point we would have a bigger problem than losing beachfront properties...
expansion of ice is not a increase of ice or water its the deconstruction of the molecules that cause it to expand but theres still the same amount of molecules as before it doesnt really change.......for example mars has frozen water if we melt the frozen water on mars we wont create more water in fact theres a higher chance we might decrease the water do to evaporation you see this is the contradiction
Thank you
Your arguement falls apart when you state that the polar regions bear ice formations above earth's ocean's height as it seems you've never seen the expanse of Antarctica's environment, and noting that the arctic region itself is entirely submerged and disjointed ice, having no supporting landmass to uphold ice structures which you assumptiously or misguidedly presume as "above sea level". Although there exists some ice-based structures that have formed above ocean-level in Antarctica, yet they are few and far between and would not melt to such an extremity as to create substantial routes in which rapid water would course and eventually outpour into the sea. It should be worth pointing out that an equal number of scientists have countered those which have touted the radical and ominous theory of global warming.
~Steadily employing fear-mongering tactics while they continually invest in beachside properties, and their reign carries on unopposed.
Excellent. I love it! But what about the effects of evaporation?!
But water raises when snow melts on land then goes to the ocean.
Worst case scenario if all the land ice on earth melted and it all ended up in the ocean which is very very unlikely the sea level would rise by just under 3 meters. Terrible no doubt but it's not going to happen, even if the worst predictions about global warming were to happen it would take centuries for all the ice to melt.
Icebergs aren't on land are they. Arctic isn't land its sea and the thesis for climate alarmists is melting icebergs
Even if it melts our sea still warms its gonna start killing sea creatures more dead things equal more carbon into the ocean then makes it way to the surface. Less trees means less oxygen
The water rises when he put the ice in, displacement reduces as the ice melts that’s why the water level doesn’t appear too rise it does as the ice melts and the displacement reduced simultaneously.
Ok Dr Strawman. Now can you build land masses around the container and let the ice melt off that into it?
@Anthony B
No, because then you'd have to add in evaporation rates and distances that would be nearly impossible to make accurately with a model. This is just making one point.
Brando right... because the evaporation doesn’t fall back to earth as precipitation does it? Shit... and here I was thinking the amount of water on earth was effectively constant. Science leading me astray again?
@Anthony B
Then doesn't your own observation effectively leave the water levels at a constant or at least not rising beyond what we have already seen? Please don't mock, I'm still learning.
Brando no because a lot of the world’s water is land based. Most of the ice in Antarctica and the arctic is on land masses. When it melts and flows into the ocean the sea level rises. Further, when water heats it expands so the warming earth affects sea levels in two ways.
@@brando3342 Suppose the ice is the Antarctic ice cap that's 98% on land and when it melts it flows into the Arctic sea with very little evaporation because the air is cold and travels only as far as necessary to spill off the ice cap. And consider that that ice cap contains about 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice. In this silly trivial experiment, he should place the ice chunk on a table and hold the container under the edge of the table where the water will flow down as the ice melts. As others have noted, this will produce almost exactly the same water level rise as he did when he placed the ice chunk into the water in the container.
Can you believe we're still dealing with this level of ignorance in a day and age of free public education?
Yep. I guess he does not know that glaciers are land based.
But isn't that basically what he did? He took the "glacier" from a different source, added it to the water, simulating the glacier breaking off and falling into the water. Then added more water to the body of water, and waited to see once the melt was complete. And still, no overflow.
Laurel Krause 🤣 hey, I’ve got a bridge to sell you! 😂
@@laurelkrause3606 Except for that to be true he would have had to fill the bucket first, then suspended the ice chunk and let it melt into the bucket. Glaciers either melt over land and run into the water, or break off and fall into the water. If you want to see how sea levels rise when a body of ice is dumped into them, all you have to do is watch @0:26 to see how much the water in his dish rises as he puts the ice chunk into it.
Water evaporates you doughnut.
@@trevor19qhshe and then it falls again... as rain
random question came up in my mind while watching cafe vlogs, putting lot of ice and water instead of actual menu in the plastic cup and pack it up.send it to the delivery men. I search it up and I don't know if this ice bergs explanation is same goes to my question dose the ice melt in the bottle full of water.?
Yes, this is the level of stupid we're dealing with from the deniers.
Does the precipitation count? as over spillage.
Yachts, cruise ships boats and all personal watercraft raise the sea level !
Not true
Yachts and ships etc are of greater density (heavier) than water, and therefore cause an increased displacement of water.
In the experiment, the water and the ice block are assumed to be of the same density, hence the result.
@@ourfolders4779 So is what bob wadas says true'?
@@notofficialpickles507 I’m sorry but I’m not familiar with that person.
So where did the water to make the icebergs come from?
Amazon? :p
This is why I support applied science, not theoretical.
:))))
Or global man made global warming melting the polar ice caps and raising water levels. You don't know how many times I have heard this
BS on the Weather Channel! What idiots.
This is applied science . . . to an inactive ice block in a bowl of water. - - But YOU live on a dynamic planet with a thing call weather.
Does this mean islands like the Maldives are not in danger?
Stu Redman so ice is not the cause for sea level ur saying and they are talking bull shit
Its unbelievable how many people take this into account. Go back to school.
What about the ice that isn't currently sitting in the ocean (glaciers, ice on mountain tops)?... That wouldn't affect the water level?
same volume same weight, it will not.
Your own experiment can be easily done by taking a terrarium with half bein a body of water and the other half being dry land. Put ice cubes on the dry side. Measure the water level before and after the ice melts
Makes perfect sense. When it was "ICE" it had volume...but the volume doesn't increase when it changes for from a solid to a liquid.
It's a straw man argument and ignores the reality of the situation. It's the glaciers on land that are melting into the ocean, plus as the oceans warm they experience thermal expansion because the molecules have more energy.
The volume of ice is actually GREATER than its volume after it melts, because water EXPANDS when it freezes, so the volume DECREASES as it melts... but the change in volume is exactly equal to the volume of ice which had been above the water level, so the two balance out, which is why the water level doesn't change.
Greenland and Antarctica are both on land.
Wit a whole lot of ICe on top. It is melting slowly!
@@Mindsettoprosperity right. So when it melts it will raise sea levels.
An increase in water vapor in the sky due to warmer temperatures will increase cloud cover which will cool the environment. Don't worry about them melting, they'll form massive glaciers the next time the globe cools.
@@Jarheads4Yeshua Cool can you please link the scientific article where you got that information?
Jarheads4Yeshua wait they melt and grow is what ur saying
In fact, the water will shrink a little, as its temperature is naturally pulled down by the ice. Water is densest at +4C (not zero!).
Icebergs will reflect sunlight, while the ocean absorps a lot of solar radiation.
So once icebergs have melted, we lost some natural sun reflection capacity.
And why we plant more trees were also causing spots for the sun to absorb also solar panels they absorb Sun so maybe all these trees that we keep planting and solar Panels we can't bringing up are melting icebergs
WHOA !
I love the constant cuts during the time lapse. Very clearly tampered with.
If you think about it it might make sense putting a large object in water causes the water level too rise and as the object or the ice melts the water level simultaneously drops and rises.
@@MrBears25 Well it does in a way, most of it is already underwater and ice is less dense than water. Still not a good analogy because it doesnt represent the situation IRL
Sebastião Mendonça I thought it did because ice burgs float on the water but apparently if you do the same experiment with salt water the water level does rise
The laws of nature itself determine that the will not have increased ocean levels also part of solar laws help too. The cycle of water where sun heats up water. Water vaporizes and makes clouds. Clouds fall down as rain and snow. Snow slides down mountains over hundreds of years processes. Ice from mountians breaks off into ocean and melts and starts process over again. Another is the laws of conversion of mass, if a Ice berg falls into oceans water that has already vaporized hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and melts it is only helping to keep a equalized amount of water in said ocean. There for not having anymore or any less.
Isn't it beautiful, the water cycle of our planet?
It is teached in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, and yet, those parrots keep talking all the time about "climate change" and "the melting of the ice caps and sea rises"... All should have been learnt back in their elementary school time, but they don't.
If only that were true...
@@sombraarthur
You realize people can easily interfere with the water cycle right? Have you literally never heard of acid rain?
Also are you actually trying to use the water cycle, something taught in school, to disprove global warming/climate change? SOMETHING ALSO TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?
You literally have access to satellite images that show ice sheets are melting faster than they're being replenished. Those same satellites can also track the rising sea levels too. I don't understand how people can be so out of touch with reality.
@@immuneimmunity9212 "Have you literally never heard of acid rain?"
PFFFFFFTTTTTHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
That 70's feelings...
"Also are you actually trying to use the water cycle, something taught in school, to disprove global warming/climate change? SOMETHING ALSO TAUGHT IN SCHOOL?
"
Yes. Because the Water Cycle OF THE PLANET does disprove the "global warming/climate change.
"You literally have access to satellite images that show ice sheets are melting faster than they're being replenished."
And? They have been MUCH higher in the recent past, in an age where the planet was WAY COOLER. CO² is a thermal ISOLATOR. One of the best you can get. The heat in the core of the planet is DAMN LESS than the heat up in the sun, through radiation (WOW, LOOK, WE ARE BEING IRRADIATED EVERY DAY! SOMEONE SHUT THE SUN DOWN!), so MORE CARBON at the atmosphere means that the planet WILL COOL DOWN.
In fact, that is how the LAST ICE AGE began. This is also taught in schools. The good ones, you know?
@@immuneimmunity9212 I do.
Leftists have lost their touch of reality DECADES ago, and yet, they are still here, demanding the Carbon Taxes and that we should cut up the emissions too, when in a mere 30 years ago, we were all talking about how we all would die because of the new ice age... Than 20 years ago it all changed to "global warming" and that we would be all dead by 2010. Then 2010 came, nobody died, and then they changed the scam once again to "man-made climate change", and they were all saying that we would all be dead by 2050... Which they said that they have "missed the correct period" and it became by 2100...
Do you REALLY think that if the "man-made climate change" were A REAL THREAT, the BANKS would have been dealing SHIT TONS of loans for people who want to BUY BEACH HOUSES, and pay it in 30, 40 or more years?
Get out of here with your bullshit.
The water level does not increase from melted ice in the ocean. But from melted ice the land. The part of the ice that is above sea is minimal. But the ice that is in the land is significant to increase the sea level.
Correct, but all the ice on land causes the water to rise duh!
Vinz Slapu ok where are you talking about?? Greenland? Because the most people saying global melting are taking about the poles. Which are just ice
@@izzymaxpower one word: antartida
@@izzymaxpower Greenland and Antarctica are landmasses covered in ice, ie noy submerged in water
Israel Soto Antarctica is ice on top of land!!!!!
@@izzymaxpower every glacier on the planet is on top of land. Presently, 10 percent of land area on Earth is covered with glacial ice, including glaciers, ice caps, and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.
That's only if the ice is below the surface of the water. Because H20 is the only molecule that compacts when it freezes, if the ice is above the surface of what ever is containing the water, then the rest of the ice that is above the surface will add more to the container. Because that isn't not took into consideration to the total amount of water being held in the container since it technically floats, water displacement.
In this case the half inch that sticks out above the water's surface isn't enough to make that much of an impact on the water level
Next ice age will bring temperatures back down and all the ice youre worried about melting will freeze back up
The next ice age? We are still in the middle of an ice age.
And then Miami will reappear.
You are missing the point...
...hopefully.
That's when you freeze fresh water into ice cube and FLOAT it in FRESH water.
Replace the water in the tank with salt water, it overflows when ice melts.
Add another ice cube on top of this existing one, it overflows when they both melt.
Because when ice melt the ocean get less saltier and fresher water have greater volume??. But what if the ice in Antarctica are salty ice?
@@bjrn-erikmichalsen2825 The ice in antarctica is not salty. Salt does not evaporate from the oceans, it stays in them. The ice on antarctica is mainly accumulated snow which does not contain significant amounts of salt.
@@davidsommen1324 yes. And then the ocean get less salty
I think this is one of the first things I've learned in chemistry.
Yet were all going to be uh underwater in 10 years lol.
I hope you're right; then all the elites like Obama, buying mansions on ocean front property, sink into the abyss.
Well if your argument is about water level, on the planet. Then he should fill the bowl to the top and place an ice block on a separate platform(platform is the land that supports the melting ice) but direct the melted water into the bowl of water THEN we can see where the “we’re all going to be under water in 10 years” argument😉
@@59Fif Well you can make the calculations yourself, at my University i had an argument with a chemist (he made a stupid comment on how he had to buy a Tesla otherwise we are under water...) about it.
We got the thickness of the ice sheet of Greenland at its thickest ( during winter) and converted the volume of ice into an area with only one meter thickness.
The results: In order to raise the level of water of all connecting oceans by juste one meter, you need Greenland maximum ice volume twelve times, to completely melt...
A few nukes would be required but i guess everything possible these days.
My chemist of 4.1 GPA did not like to be tutored by a guy in biology on the basics.
@@michaelgimenez4032 so the water level did rise. And also lets not limit to JUST Greenland let it be all the glaciers and all the ice in Antarctica too. To your point saying the water level did not rise is because there was a missing key part of the experiment and that was water from ice being added to the full bowl of water. Anyways im going to bed so GN
@@59Fif Ahh ok now i see your point.
My original comment was purely on the parameters of the experiment, so floating sea ice was the topic.
You are right sea level can rise but it is far, far, very far from what they try to make us believe.
Took me a while to understand your point but you are right water level do rise, now by how much its a different story.
Ice floats so a large portion of it remains outside the water so yes the container will overlfow when it melts
With all respect, you forgot the glaciers (the ice over land) that is melting. The info is definitely half true (you are showing the Archimedes principle here) and doesn't prove your intentions.
actually it does prove the point wonderfully, as liberals are fear mongering about "arctic SEA ice" and not "glaciers" not many of which are even around today.....
@@SteveB-nx2uo 00:25 into video... water level rises significantly. the guy debunks himself if he was trying to rally against sea level rise concerns. NO? Is it my liberal eyes or did you miss that?
@@SteveB-nx2uo Most arctic sea ice is where? OH YEAH, also above land. About 2.5 million square miles of it at minimum, at about 6-9 ft thick.
@@joshuagarcia6134 thats because he adds the giant chunk of ice to the water dip shit.
@@Arekinable Then why does every climate alarmist graph show and talk about "sea ice" and only show the ice forming on a body of water? also unless you calculate the land exposed by melting vs lost by flooding, you dont even have an argument. for all you know, the new arable inhabitable land could easily double potential flood planes.
I have a question?
If you have a full filled cup with juice and ice and the ice melts does the cup overflow ?????
I need a answer ?
My theory is that the level should drop. I would like to see this done again with a long marked tube to see how the level changes. I assume ice is a larger expanded volume. Yes? No? What? This seems like 3rd grade science and I can't understand how this can still be a question? Seriously.
the level should drop... seriously? despite you saying this is 3rd grade science I'm interested as to how you came to this conclusion, can you please explain?
I know this is old, but the explanation is that, while the ice DOES have a lower density, this makes a portion of the ice float above the water level. THAT is the water that keeps it exactly level.
It is, but the morons forgot those basic sciences, and therefore try to explain their obsession and their hate of a form of trade in any fashion possible.
Ice is a larger expanded volume of water, yes. Therefore, when it solidifies, it expands and get heavier.
If you drop this large chunk of ice into the water, the levels WILL rise, due to the added mass above the water. The catch here is that it will ONLY rise the levels temporarily, and IF they came from land, and ONLY until it melts up.
When it melts up, the levels will go down, once again. And water in the same oceans will have been evaporated enough to keep the water at the same levels it has been.
The problem with this experiment is that salt water are dense, causing freshwater (ice) to float. When you put that in a large scale, let’s say 35% of the iceberg is stick out of the water and covering air volume. When the bottom starts melting the iceberg starts to shrink, increasing water volume. That air volume the iceberg covered is now being transferred to water volume, thus increasing sea level slowly.
What happen if the temp. of water (where the ice float )at 0°c and 4°c and above 4°c ??
Same thing will happen nothing change this result is idenpendent of density of water
The density of ice is less than that of water ( It occupies less space) therefore it floats on top of wate... but if this illustration tries to explain that the water level of Earth would not rise if all the ice collected on the poles melt, it would not apply as there is a lot more water in the Ice on top of the poles and on top of the high mountain ranges so that when the average temperatures on Eart rise and the icecaps start to melt...the water level of the sea will rise. It is happening now at a rate of more than 3.4 mm per year. In the early '90s the rise was less ( 2.5 mm per year) :)
Three hundred twenty five bartender fans dislike the facts demonstrated in this video.
I've always been wondering about this.... does this logic apply to sea level and iceberg? Because I feel like it does, no?
It does. But take into consideration that ice melting, that is not in the water, will cause the water level to rise. for example glacier and snowpack.
Sea levels at my beach are still the same 30 years after they said it would rise.
And this is proof that another prediction is false?
@@homergetsthejoke4414 according to my beach it is.
ikr, in portugal nothing changed at all
@@homergetsthejoke4414 If this shit was true, no bank would ever lend money for beachfront properties as they would know those properties are worth 0 under water. Or would at least have a stipulation in there saying so. theres nothing.
@@dre04mach the house is still worth while while it aint. Global warming isnt a global flash flood. There will be plenty of time.
The problem is you took water out to give that glacier a position, fill up the entire thing of water then put the glacier in and see what happens. Glaciers are over land they don’t float in the water.
you should teach this for all climate change politicians
Does this mean if I put ICE in my body, I will get higher?
Not smarter at least, thats for sure
Did you see how the water level is flat?! This experiment also proves that the Earth is Flat!!! /s
This is up there with the guy taking a spirit level on a plane
Yet we're shown icebergs crumbling into ocean on news ME-DEAR followed by a FRET of rising sea levels would result if whole iceberg crumbled
And this guy just highlighted that it won't, icebergs are the largest ice mass and they're all already in the water ... CLIMB-ATE HOKES
The GOVE-URN-MINT are COIN-TROLLING your mind
@@amanhumbled194 If I had to guess which of us was being mind controlled, it'd be the guy spelling like he's having a stroke. Loon.
Yeah, that's right. Melting ice *IN* water does not increase the water level. That's because the mass was already in there all the time.
But in reality there is also a lot of ice *OVER* the water, just as you can see in the background. Please retry with an ice block the same size, but with a lower bowl.
you can say that volume of water decrease when ice melts into water. primary school, science 101.
Dude u are braindead. He show u how melting ice don t rise the water level.
@@ПераЖдера-н6э
Then the water level should have been lower at the end of the video.
Science 101 is that water freezes at 0°C, but has its lowest volume at +4°C.
If you want to be exact you'd need the temperature of the ice and water before the experiment starts, the temperature of the water right after the experiment ends and the exact amount of ice and water before, after and - ideally - during the experiment.
@@RST9413 Just watch this video: th-cam.com/video/Y9lunxBLpQI/w-d-xo.html
You can see that the water level stops rising right after all the ice is covered with water, but before that it rises.
It is important to distinguish that quite a chunk of world ice is NOT floating in oceans...hence, all the ice from Antarctica and from the mountain tops are eventually melt and increase level of the oceans.