Buterfly effect

[sfalexi]

With this in mind - I am scared of global warming because Houston is 8-42 feet about see level. We would all die if this was to happen.

So you mean if the water level were to rise 250 feet we'd finally be rid of texas and all that reside there? Anyone have a giant magnifying glass?

Actually the water level would stay the same. According to Archimedes' principle of floatation (I think it's his principle), 90m kg of displaced water would result in an upthrust that would hold up 90m kg of ice. Thus the ice berg is actually 90m kg heavy so it would generate 90m kg of water when melted. So the space taken up by the ice at first would just be filled up exactly by the water resulting from the melted iceberg. However, due to impurities, there might be a slight increase/drop as opposed to the expected constant sea level.

Yup. Forgot about that. You're fun! You think this would result in a slight lowering of atmospheric pressure since there would be less icebergs sticking up in the air for those molecules to bounce off of (which when there is more "bouncing" and less space in the atmosphere, there's more pressure?)

Rod Steele

[BillyGalbreath]

So you mean if the water level were to rise 250 feet we'd finally be rid of texas and all that reside there? Anyone have a giant magnifying glass?

Only about 40% of Texas - maybe 50% - would be submerged. The rest is mountains.

Yup. Forgot about that. You're fun! You think this would result in a slight lowering of atmospheric pressure since there would be less icebergs sticking up in the air for those molecules to bounce off of (which when there is more "bouncing" and less space in the atmosphere, there's more pressure?)

And about the air pressure - thats a good question - never really thought or heard of it before. My logic tells me that the pressure would remain constant also. For one, the amount of atmosphere vs. iceberg tips is WAY different, the pressure wouldn't change if the icebergs were removed. Second of all, gravity holds the atmosphere down, thus creating pressure. If the icebergs were gone, the gravity would pull the atmosphere to fill in the space and the outwer atmostphere would seem to "go away", thus making the pressure stay at a constant ~14psi. But I could be wrong - I never researched this before...

[GBRaul]

Atmospheric pressure should increase a little bit I THINK. I'm not so sure, but to me since pressure = force divided by area with force remaining constant but area decreasing slightly since there are no more "bumps" caused by ice bergs now, pressure should increase. Though the surface area of the Earth would not be affected too much just by the ice bergs melting (and thus the pressure would not be affected much too).

Anyway, the thing Billy pointed out about ice on land is true. Which is why like I said in an earlier post people should be more worried about Antarctica melting rather than the North Pole melting unless up till now they still believe in Santa.

p.s. I think Singapore should get some rich guy to get a ship (or ships) to drag ice bergs to Singapore to cool us down lol. (actually you can just ignore this comment, it's utter crap )

[sfalexi]

Atmospheric pressure should increase a little bit I THINK. I'm not so sure, but to me since pressure = force divided by area with force remaining constant but area decreasing slightly since there are no more "bumps" caused by ice bergs now, pressure should increase.

You're thinking 2D (dimensionally). THEN the pressure = force divided by area. You have to think 3D for this one. In which case I would think the formula would follow something more along the lines of pressure = force divided by volume. Since there's MORE volume in the atmosphere, it'd ever so slightly decrease.

Second of all, gravity holds the atmosphere down, thus creating pressure. If the icebergs were gone, the gravity would pull the atmosphere to fill in the space and the outwer atmostphere would seem to "go away", thus making the pressure stay at a constant ~14psi.

Now THERE'S that high IQ brain at work! Nice argument Billy! I can't seem to find something wrong with that statement!

Rod Steele

[GBRaul]

Can't you just think along the lines of surface area? I am not very sure cos I'm not exactly THAT into physics, I'm more into mathematics