Does iceberg melting cause a rise in sea level? Then what about Archimedes principle?

Question

According to Archimedes principle, weight of object in water = weight of water displaced.
Thus when the weight of iceberg = the weight of the water its has displaced. We know that ice float due to its smaller density. Thus when ice melt, it will become water and just occupied the volume it displaced. Then how does the melting of iceberg cause the increase in sea level?

Answer 1

Archimedes principle applies to the North Pole, where the ice is floating.

It does not apply to the South Pole, where the ice is on top of a land mass (the continent of Antarctica). If that ice melts, the ocean levels *will* rise.

To quote my source below: "The present Antarctic ice sheet accounts for 90 percent of Earth's total ice volume and 70 percent of its fresh water. It houses enough water to raise global sea level by 200 ft. if completely melted."

Of course, even global warming will not melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet, but even a rise of 5 feet would be deadly, and 10 feet would be catastrophic for all shorebound cities and humans.

Answer 2

You're basically correct: the global warming problem with rising sea levels is not due to the melting of floating ice, it's icesheets that are currently over land, such as in Greenland.

These are very thick, and will cause significant sea level rise when they melt and the run off ends up in the oceans.

Answer 3

Melting icebergs do not contribute to sea level rises, it's just a popular misconception.

Land-based ice melting can contribute, but ice that was already floating will not.

Answer 4

also an evaporating level increase so if you think about it many wetlands were saw as a wasteland and people did not see there tru benifit so they filled them in and some areas are stagnet because of some unusable canals and heavy snags in ditches and other places that could use alittle depth for nurserys for fish were do you think the waters are going to go i know of a state that has 98 percent of the wetlands destroyed and 3 percent is the very last stands you see its going to go to new areas or maybee places it had been in the past but you would think that we need some safe areas to contain our flood waters some people they dont git it you need some thing that makes a serious impact the restoration of the everglades which will take 30 years is a start but even after a flood some people people dont seem to catch on you would think they would go into lots of areas and use heavy machinery git like lots of recycle bins and part out what they find along the way and keep restoring for miles from were the water is at they should go up stream but the job needs to be done the right way you cant just keep burying stuff you find along the way and not put it back into circulation and pay less for a job to git done you git what you pay for and a steep price you would think would mean a great job but when the price for restoration is way less your gonna git less of a job i know that getting a half of a cheak done of a job will hold a half of a cheak of the flood waters yes heavy machinery does make some smog action but would you join in on shoveling by hand that might help to do something about the flood waters knowledge of how to fix a problem and wanting to do something about it is a real start

Answer 5

10% of the iceberg was above the sea. This 10% do make a different.

Answer 6

it's not just about icebergs, it also about the ice cover in the Antarctica and ice from glaciers which isn't supported by water.
God bless,
gabe

Answer 7

Did you forget the part of the ice that is above the water?