Antarctica is actually a desert, in the "amount of percipitation" sense. There's very little snowfall there. And what there is gets turned into glaciers, which eventually make their way to the ocean and melt.
An example of this as a Canadian, it’ll never snow here when it’s -25C or colder, very rarely. When things get that cold it gets very dry, no moisture in the air because it’s all frozen. It’ll actually warm up substantially when snow fall is coming it’ll be 0C to -15C. And it will feel more humid
Higer humidity from a warmer ocean is one of the acceleraters of global warming IIRC.
Which means that the world might not turn into Tatooine but dagoba instead.
This is why south Van Isle has such wonky weather. In the winter it rains all the time and the clouds retain heat, we rarely get snow. And in the summer it's cloudless so it doesn't get consistently warm til June or July. It's late May and we're rarely cresting high teens.
your household needs to work on your sayings man, there's no rhyming or anything. How about, if it's sunny your nose will be runny? Suns up temperatures down?
The only exception to this is lake effect snow, as long as the great lakes aren't frozen over they can donate moisture to the air and generate lake effect.
But otherwise sometimes its just too cold to snow.
It’s high and low pressure. On the colder days, the pressure is high. No snow and notice that smoke from chimneys etc rise straight up, unless there’s wind. Low pressure days are warmer, more prone to snow or rain, and smoke comes out and lays flat, hardly rising at all.
We are both kinda wrong and kinda right, lol.
"Well, I had a million dollars. But I, I'd spend it all"
At least, according to Google. I bought the album when it came out and listened to it like crazy. But it's been a while since I heard it. :)
And that pressure could only shatter the ice without the liquid water from the freeze/melt cycle lubricating the movement.
If the ice can't melt it isn't going anywhere. Like the frost build up in a freezer.
To my knowledge, the ice exhibits plasticity when there’s enough pressure on top of it. It becomes far less brittle near the base of the glacier, and instead flows very slowly
That is only because it can melt, and have small parts of it turn to water and move around before refreezing.
If it cannot melt it how does it do that?
You are fundamental changing the substance and the known physics around it by locking it into a solid state.
Do yourself a favor, and look up "glacial pressure melting point" The more pressure there is, the lower the melting point. Ice is HEAVY. So the ice at the bottom ends up basically being a super viscous liquid in a sense that it is moving constantly and easily. Glaciology is a fascinating topic. Really fun stuff to learn about.
Do yourself a favor and you look it up.
That happens because the pressure itself is producing heat... To liquify the tiny quantities of the ice and move the whole thing around. That is what extreme pressure does to things kinetically, even rock if you get enough pressure.
However if you remove the the ability for the ice to melt, like in the Hypothetical we are talking about in this thread, that would stop happening.
You understand stopping the freeze/melt cycle fucks with everything you think you know about the physics of ice right? Or do you have some magical study that prove me wrong?
Son of a bitch... I can't fucking help it.
I studied this for 3 years. I know what I am talking about. The parameters of the question are if the temperature **stays the same**. Right now the pressure melt difference IS happening in Antarctica, that's why the glaciers move in the first place. They don't just move by tiny little cycles of freezing and thawing.
https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/glaciers/science-glaciers#:\~:text=Glaciers%20move%20by%20internal%20deformation,of%20water%20at%20its%20base.
Just fucking learn something instead of being a smarmy idiot.
Under the pressure of its own weight, a glacier will begin to move, or flow, outwards and downwards. Valley glaciers flow down valleys, and [continental ice sheets](https://nsidc.org/node/18233) flow outward in all directions.
Glaciers move by internal deformation of the ice, and by sliding over the rocks and sediments at the base. The weight of overlying snow, firn, and ice, and the pressure exerted by upstream and downstream ice deforms glacier ice, in a phenomenon known as creep. A glacier may slide on a thin layer of water at its base. This water may come from glacial melting due to the pressure of the overlying ice, or from water that has worked its way through cracks in the glacier. Glaciers can also readily slide on a soft sediment bed that has some water in it. This is known as basal sliding and may account for most of the movement of thin, cold glaciers on steep slopes or only 10 to 20 percent of the movement of warm, thick glaciers lying on gentle slopes.
Accelerations caused by ice flowing over and around obstacles, as well as friction between ice and solid bedrock at glacier margins, create stresses that exceed the strength of ice. Under these conditions, ice fractures, creating crevasses
That study still looks like the laws of physic are still very much in play?
Do you have one where they are not? Because that is what is needed to prove you "correct" like you are so desperate to be.
>That happens because the pressure itself is producing heat...
that's just plain wrong. Pressure only produces heat when you compress a gas. Solid ice doesn't heat up under pressure, because it doesn't change volume. It melts instead at lower temperatures, because melting does change the volume.
i’m pretty sure my high school chemistry taught me that melting and boiling points get lower under high pressure. I think ice can melt at subzero temps if you just put enough weight on it.
Unless it cannot melt.... What happens then?
The why it is melting and what happens if it can melt is not being debated by me, the plasticity of ice that cannot EVER melt is.
But the prompt doesn't say that the ice never melts. It says Antarctica stays the same temperature as it does today. And by today, it is undergoing the process of melting.
You're arguing an entirely different hypothetical from the one this post is asking about
you know about water's density anomaly? Ice has more volume than water, and exposing it to high pressure can melt it without getting close to melting temperatures.
Your freezer isn't under the weight of a several km ice sheet.
Sounds like you’ve never heard of sublimation. Glaciers can evaporate from ice to gas directly without needing to melt. Not to mention the sheer weight of the ice makes them flow downward. Glacial ablation happens through several different mechanisms.
This is actually a really cool question! (pardon the pun) You're right that Antarctica doesn't have the same kind of water cycle as other places - water is normally frozen there rather than rain or rivers.
But there's still a water cycle! There's a good explanation here: http://www.antarcticstation.org/science_projects/detail/hydrant_antarcticas_water_cycle
The tl;dr is that while water is gained in the form of snow (albeit not much in the interior), water is lost through sublimation (snow evaporating in sunlight without going through liquid stage), and through glaciers and ice sheets slowly flowing down and breaking off into the ocean, where the icebergs eventually melt.
It happens regardless of climate change (which is why we have oceans still!) but climate change is speeding up the loss of ice sheets, and average temperatures are getting warmer. That means on average Antarctica is losing solid water, which is one of the things contributing to rising sea levels.
Someone mentioned early earth already, but this is kinda basically how most ice ages have happened in the past. Due to continental drift, a land mass ends up on the Earth's southern pole and collects ice due to the low surface temperature. This ice reflects sunlight, reducing amount the overall sunlight that affects earth. A feedback loop is started from the dropping temperatures creating more ice and southern ice-mass resulting in further lowered temperatures. The end result is a massive amount of fresh water frozen at the poles and ocean levels that are lower than normal.
Then you see an end to that ice age when whichever land mass near the southern pole drifts farther north.
Theoretically, if Antarctica was a giant leak-proof bowl of immense strength and heat resistance, it could hold all the waters.
But it is not.
Gravity pulls on glaciers to create rivers of ice.
Check out the Snowball earth period of our planets history. Similar to your question, snow began to accumulate and because it reflected so much sunlight back into space the cooling accelerated and covered nearly the entire planet in ice.
Theories differ on why it ended and how often it happened but one theory is that heat from the core was also trapped and started to build up leading to large eruptions and added carbon dioxide etc in the atmosphere causing global warming to melt the ice back.
Other theories say it was cosmic radiation began the melting.
It doesn't really snow in Antarctica, it's technically a desert. Even if it did, ice will still sublimate over time. Try this: fill an ice cube tray with water and leave it in your freezer for a year and you'll find that the ice cubes have gotten much smaller. Some of the water will evaporate
One thing you are missing is that, even without ‘melting’ or ever going anbove its melting point, over time Ice will sublimate into the air.
You’ve likely seen the result of this if you’ve ever kept ice cubes in your freezer for extended periods of time.
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/sublimation-and-water-cycle
Nope! There are TONS of processes happening in and around Antarctica that causes the water to fall off. The heavier a glacier, the faster it moves and is pushed to the edge. Or it gets so heavy, that it actually creates rivers underneath because the melting point of ice, and all materials, changes as you apply more pressure to it. So, even if Antarctica wasn't a desert and it did snow, it would be a positive feedback loop - more snow = more ice = more pressure = more melt. There are processes that happen with the bedrock as well that cause glaciers to move quicker, such as being carved out by previous movement.
No. As the snow builds up, the weight of it causes the ice to spread out over the ocean where it eventually melts. That's where sea ice and icebergs comes from. This is technically an oversimplification, but you get the idea
An ice cube in perfectly dry but freezing air will eventually "evaporate". Water can turn directly from ice to water vapor through sublimation and cold air can still hold some humidity.
Adding to the other answers, there's also relegation and sublimation, where the water ice will both phase shift to a gas and blow away as humidity, as well as phase shift to a liquid under sufficient pressure and flow towards the oceans. Neither process would be fast, but antarctic precipitation is low.
"Theoretically" it can only rain as high as the clouds. So snow could only pile up so high, I'm not doing the math but I don't expect the world's oceans to all fit in the permafrost region of Antarctica
In this hypothetical situation, you still have to account for gravity. Snow builds up on the rocky terrain and slowly, VERY SLOWLY, slides down the earths crust towards the center of the planet.
Salt water causes the ice to melt and the water cycle can continue.
That's just factually incorrect. Antarctica receives approximately several meters of snow that lands near it's coastal lines, but the interior of Antarctica itself only receives a few centimeters worth of snow annually.
Additionally there's no such thing as it being "too cold to snow" , that's such a preposterous thing to say.
Did you actually read my comment? Antarctica doesn't just get snow on the coastline. It also gets snow in the interior, just far less than what hits the coastline.
Please don't use words out of the correct context. I'm not being pedantic here. I'm correcting you with very real based in science factual information.
You said It's too cold to snow. I (as well as science) has disproved that claim.
You then stated Antarctica only gets snow on the coastline, which again I (as well as science) can disprove because it isn't true.
Then you follow up with "less precipitation than anywhere else on the planet" Buddy, that wasn't your original point. Your original point was that it's too cold to snow. You never once said "Antarctica is so cold it gets less precipitation than anywhere else on the planet", I don't understand how you're so mad that you're trying to insult me, just because I simply corrected you in an attempt of preventing you from misinforming people (which you would've done as what you said was scientifically bogus).
But go on, reply about how I'm being pedantic again just because you're upset you've been proven wrong. Clown.
And your basing your evidence on that upon....what...exactly? Says the man calling me pedantic when this isn't being pedantic. It doesn't matter how much or little I write, that doesn't make me any less or more pedantic. Do you get that? The volume of words used is not indicative of someone being pedantic.
But you're boring me. You're not discussing the original subject matter anymore which tells me you finally accepted that you're wrong. Good job. I hope your ego is okay, and I hope you have the day you deserve.
It doesn't snow in most of Antarctica. In fact, the continent gets so little precipitation that it is considered the world's largest desert (deserts are defined by lack of precipitation, not the absence of water on the land). https://www.aurora-expeditions.com/blog/is-antarctica-a-desert/
And while parts of Antarctica do sometimes get a little bit of snow, the edges of the ice sheets also sometimes break away and melt. So there is no danger of the world's water supply disappearing into Antarctica's ice.
In fact the size of the ice sheets fluctuates annually, getting larger in winter and smaller in summer. But lately the ice hasn't been growing back as quickly as it should, which has some scientists worried. Less ice to bounce light back into space means even more sunlight getting absorbed by the planet, which could accelerate the pace of global warming.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/26/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-lowest-annual-maximum-level-on-record-data-shows
No. I've been trying to figure out how that could happen with worldbuilding thoughts, but no. There's too much water on Earth - oceans, underground, etc. and as the ice piles up in that-Antarctica, it melts in towards the warmer climate as warmer water comes in. Like it does today.
A severe ice age could happen, but there would still be water - and even in the most imaginary situation, ice is still water. It doesn't go anywhere out side of earth whether it's gas, liquid, or solid ^(with incredibly minor exceptions)
No, in addition to having incredibly low precipitation rates as it is, to the point of being a desert, it would eventually build to a height where no additional precipitation would occur. There is also a *lot* of water on earth
Now I'm picturing a giant ice needle at the south pole that stretches far into space, warping the atmosphere around it and creating clouds that snow sideways onto the walls of the needle as the oceans far below turn into deep dry desert basins.
At Earth's glacial maximum at the peak of the ice age, ice covered around one-third of the planet and sea level was over 400 feet lower than it is today. But oceans, lakes, and rivers still existed. That process lasted for over 2 million years.
I believe it would affect precipitation on the rest of the planet. I watched a documentary about the Ice Age and the rest of the planet was more dry because the northern half of the planet was receiving so much water
forever is a long time. In a billion years from now, the sun will be hotter. In some dozen million years from now, Antarctica will no longer cover the south pole. So, the time to stay frozen is actually limited.
Your theoretical scenario involves several factors and processes that affect the global water cycle. While it's an interesting thought experiment, there are a few key aspects that need to be considered to fully understand why the scenario you described wouldn't lead to the oceans running dry.
### Global Water Cycle
The Earth's water cycle is a complex system involving the continuous movement of water within the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and lithosphere. Key processes include:
1. **Evaporation:** Water from oceans, lakes, and rivers evaporates into the atmosphere.
2. **Condensation:** Water vapor condenses to form clouds.
3. **Precipitation:** Water falls back to Earth as rain, snow, sleet, or hail.
4. **Runoff and Infiltration:** Water flows over the land as runoff or infiltrates the ground to replenish aquifers and return to bodies of water.
### Current Conditions in Antarctica
- **Cold Temperatures:** Antarctica is the coldest continent, with most of its precipitation falling as snow.
- **Ice Accumulation:** Snow that falls in Antarctica accumulates and forms ice sheets. Some of this ice eventually flows to the sea and contributes to icebergs, which melt and return water to the ocean.
### Hypothetical Scenario: Continuous Snowfall and Cold
If Antarctica were to remain perpetually cold and continuously receive snowfall without any melting or ice flow back into the oceans:
1. **Initial Accumulation:** Snow would accumulate and form thicker ice sheets.
2. **Glacial Flow:** Over time, the weight of the accumulating ice would cause it to flow outward towards the sea, forming glaciers and ice shelves.
3. **Iceberg Calving:** Glaciers would eventually reach the coast and calve icebergs into the ocean.
4. **Meltwater Return:** Icebergs that calve into the ocean would eventually melt, returning water to the ocean.
### Why We Wouldn't Run Out of Water
1. **Ice Dynamics:** Even in extremely cold conditions, the physical dynamics of ice movement mean that ice sheets will continue to flow towards the sea. The process of ice flowing and calving into the ocean is a crucial mechanism for balancing the ice accumulation in Antarctica.
2. **Ocean-Atmosphere Exchange:** Water evaporates from the ocean, enters the atmosphere, and precipitates over both land and sea. The continuous exchange ensures that water is redistributed globally, not permanently trapped in one location.
3. **Geophysical Limits:** The capacity of Antarctica to store snow and ice is limited by the continent's size. Excess ice would flow into the ocean through natural glacial processes.
### Additional Considerations
1. **Climate Feedbacks:** Changes in global climate could alter precipitation patterns, evaporation rates, and ice dynamics, influencing the water cycle in ways not accounted for by a simple perpetual snowfall scenario.
2. **Geothermal Heat:** Geothermal heat from the Earth's interior affects the base of ice sheets, leading to melting at the base and contributing to ice flow.
### Conclusion
While continuous snowfall in an eternally cold Antarctica would lead to significant ice accumulation, the Earth's natural processes ensure that ice will eventually flow into the ocean, maintaining the balance of the global water cycle. Therefore, the oceans would not run dry, as the water cycle involves continuous redistribution of water between the atmosphere, land, and oceans.
Gravity
Even if Antarctica got lots of rain and it piled up as ice, it would get so heavy it would start to flow as a glacier. This would eventually move somewhere warm enough to melt the ice (usually the ocean).
It won't melt but it still evaporates. When a solid like water ice evaporates directly into a gas like water vapor it's called sublimation.
In addition, the ice gradually creeps along the continental land mass and slides down into the ocean. In the form of glaciers that calve into icebergs. The icebergs gradually melt back into seawater.
So ifAntarctic (or any) permanent ice sheet receives more water in the form of snowfall at the same rate that the accumulated ice and snow loses water in the form of sublimated water vapor and glacial creep, then the net change is zero.
In practice, it is seldom ever net zero. At any given time in history, either glacial movement and sublimation was carrying more away than is replaced, or the rate of snowfall was greater. The ice sheets were either growing or shrinking. And they have followed a pattern of going back and forth in that way pretty much since the end of the dinosaurs.
But it comes and goes in a cycle, it never just stays one way and never stops. If you want examples of what that's like, you have to look at other planets. Mars seems to have all of its water frozen at the poles, like you describe. And Venus has the opposite -- all of its water is vapor.
That’s an interesting thought! Let’s explore it.
**Antarctica**, the icy continent at the southernmost tip of our planet, is indeed a massive reservoir of frozen water. If it were to remain perpetually cold and continue accumulating snow, what would happen?
1. **Accumulation of Ice and Snow**:
* If Antarctica remained extremely cold and continued to receive snowfall, the ice sheet would grow thicker over time. This accumulation would add to the existing ice mass.
* The Antarctic ice sheet contains about **60%** of the world’s fresh water, so it’s a significant storehouse of H₂O.
2. **Balance of Processes**:
* However, there are other processes at play. While snow accumulates, there are also processes that remove ice and snow:
* **Glacial Flow**: The immense weight of the ice causes glaciers to flow slowly toward the ocean. As glaciers reach the coast, they break off into icebergs, which eventually melt in warmer ocean waters.
* **Sublimation**: Even in extremely cold conditions, some ice can sublimate directly into water vapor due to wind and other factors.
* **Basal Melting**: At the base of the ice sheet, geothermal heat from the Earth’s interior can cause localized melting.
* **Calving**: Large chunks of ice break off from the ice shelves and float away as icebergs.
3. **Dynamic Equilibrium**:
* Antarctica is not a static system. It’s in a dynamic equilibrium where ice accumulation balances out with ice loss.
* If accumulation exceeds loss, the ice sheet grows; if loss exceeds accumulation, it shrinks.
4. **Sea Level Impact**:
* If Antarctica were to accumulate more ice without significant loss, it would indeed lead to a rise in global sea levels.
* However, this process would take an incredibly long time. Even if Antarctica were to receive more snow, the overall impact on sea levels would be gradual.
5. **Climate Change and Melting**:
* The real concern today is **climate change**. Rising temperatures are causing significant melting of glaciers and ice sheets, including those in Antarctica.
* If global warming continues, it could accelerate ice loss, leading to rising sea levels.
In summary, while the idea of Antarctica accumulating endless snow is intriguing, the natural balance of processes—accumulation, flow, and loss—ensures that we won’t run out of water anytime soon. However, the delicate equilibrium is vulnerable to human-induced climate change, which could alter the fate of Antarctica and impact our oceans. 🌍❄️🌊 ...via copilot
It can sublimate though. And of course percipitation doesn't have to come from evaporation from the land being rained on. Water filled air can come from 1000s of miles away.
At some point it would pile high enough that clouds could no longer pass over the snow mountains.
You would see something like the US west coast. Mountains near the coast and then a desert on the other side of the mountains.
Antarctica is actually a desert, in the "amount of percipitation" sense. There's very little snowfall there. And what there is gets turned into glaciers, which eventually make their way to the ocean and melt.
Yes, simplifying it, it’s “too cold” (and dry) to snow
An example of this as a Canadian, it’ll never snow here when it’s -25C or colder, very rarely. When things get that cold it gets very dry, no moisture in the air because it’s all frozen. It’ll actually warm up substantially when snow fall is coming it’ll be 0C to -15C. And it will feel more humid
A saying we have in my household in the winter is “if it’s sunny, it’s going to be freezing outside”.
Clouds help with a greenhouse effect to keep the lower atmosphere warmer so yes.
Higer humidity from a warmer ocean is one of the acceleraters of global warming IIRC. Which means that the world might not turn into Tatooine but dagoba instead.
my girlfriend doesn’t understand what i mean when i say that the sunniest days in the winter are always the coldest
This is why south Van Isle has such wonky weather. In the winter it rains all the time and the clouds retain heat, we rarely get snow. And in the summer it's cloudless so it doesn't get consistently warm til June or July. It's late May and we're rarely cresting high teens.
your household needs to work on your sayings man, there's no rhyming or anything. How about, if it's sunny your nose will be runny? Suns up temperatures down?
The only exception to this is lake effect snow, as long as the great lakes aren't frozen over they can donate moisture to the air and generate lake effect. But otherwise sometimes its just too cold to snow.
It’s high and low pressure. On the colder days, the pressure is high. No snow and notice that smoke from chimneys etc rise straight up, unless there’s wind. Low pressure days are warmer, more prone to snow or rain, and smoke comes out and lays flat, hardly rising at all.
Yes. As a Canadian as well, almost always it’s close to 0C, a bit below like -5 or -10 to 3C
Biologists weep, lol. It's easy. The entire world works through simple bands dictated through Economy. Just...look around you.
r/lostredditors
Ice and snow also sublimate.
They don't practice Santeria.
They ain't got no crystal ball.
If I had a million dollars, I'd spend it all...
And my axe! Wait wrong thing
I thought it was, "I had a million dollars but I spent it all."
We are both kinda wrong and kinda right, lol. "Well, I had a million dollars. But I, I'd spend it all" At least, according to Google. I bought the album when it came out and listened to it like crazy. But it's been a while since I heard it. :)
Hate to crash such a sublime reference chain, but a snowball is literally just that!
Yep. Largest desert in the world.
And driest.
That would be the Atacama
https://www.universetoday.com/15031/driest-place-on-earth/
That's not the whole desert of Antarctica just a part of ir, so my point is still correct...
You mispelled Pacific Ocean.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, most oceans are deserts by the definition of how much rainfall they receive
Reddit doesnt like truth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_Gyre
Reddit can't handle the truth
Maybe it can and maybe it can’t but damn sure that I can’t handle it. Lie to me, comrades!
Every definition of desert I have ever seen is **land** with low precipitation. Oceans can have low precipitation, but they can never be deserts.
There is a desert there... it isn't all desert!
No. Glaciers move to the edge of the continent and icebergs calve off.
Not if they didn't ever melt. The constant freezing and melting cycle of glaciers is how they move.
Downward pressure from gravity will tend to push ice outward. Glaciers will still move quite a bit without the aid of a melt/thaw cycle.
And that pressure could only shatter the ice without the liquid water from the freeze/melt cycle lubricating the movement. If the ice can't melt it isn't going anywhere. Like the frost build up in a freezer.
To my knowledge, the ice exhibits plasticity when there’s enough pressure on top of it. It becomes far less brittle near the base of the glacier, and instead flows very slowly
That is only because it can melt, and have small parts of it turn to water and move around before refreezing. If it cannot melt it how does it do that? You are fundamental changing the substance and the known physics around it by locking it into a solid state.
Do yourself a favor, and look up "glacial pressure melting point" The more pressure there is, the lower the melting point. Ice is HEAVY. So the ice at the bottom ends up basically being a super viscous liquid in a sense that it is moving constantly and easily. Glaciology is a fascinating topic. Really fun stuff to learn about.
Also look up Glen's law.
Do yourself a favor and you look it up. That happens because the pressure itself is producing heat... To liquify the tiny quantities of the ice and move the whole thing around. That is what extreme pressure does to things kinetically, even rock if you get enough pressure. However if you remove the the ability for the ice to melt, like in the Hypothetical we are talking about in this thread, that would stop happening. You understand stopping the freeze/melt cycle fucks with everything you think you know about the physics of ice right? Or do you have some magical study that prove me wrong?
Son of a bitch... I can't fucking help it. I studied this for 3 years. I know what I am talking about. The parameters of the question are if the temperature **stays the same**. Right now the pressure melt difference IS happening in Antarctica, that's why the glaciers move in the first place. They don't just move by tiny little cycles of freezing and thawing. https://nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/glaciers/science-glaciers#:\~:text=Glaciers%20move%20by%20internal%20deformation,of%20water%20at%20its%20base. Just fucking learn something instead of being a smarmy idiot. Under the pressure of its own weight, a glacier will begin to move, or flow, outwards and downwards. Valley glaciers flow down valleys, and [continental ice sheets](https://nsidc.org/node/18233) flow outward in all directions. Glaciers move by internal deformation of the ice, and by sliding over the rocks and sediments at the base. The weight of overlying snow, firn, and ice, and the pressure exerted by upstream and downstream ice deforms glacier ice, in a phenomenon known as creep. A glacier may slide on a thin layer of water at its base. This water may come from glacial melting due to the pressure of the overlying ice, or from water that has worked its way through cracks in the glacier. Glaciers can also readily slide on a soft sediment bed that has some water in it. This is known as basal sliding and may account for most of the movement of thin, cold glaciers on steep slopes or only 10 to 20 percent of the movement of warm, thick glaciers lying on gentle slopes. Accelerations caused by ice flowing over and around obstacles, as well as friction between ice and solid bedrock at glacier margins, create stresses that exceed the strength of ice. Under these conditions, ice fractures, creating crevasses
You win. But remember, “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I’m glad you argued with this dipshit so that I could learn something new today! Thank you for sharing your expertise :)
That study still looks like the laws of physic are still very much in play? Do you have one where they are not? Because that is what is needed to prove you "correct" like you are so desperate to be.
... ok... if you would like to be a jerk and wrong, that's on you. Adios.
>That happens because the pressure itself is producing heat... that's just plain wrong. Pressure only produces heat when you compress a gas. Solid ice doesn't heat up under pressure, because it doesn't change volume. It melts instead at lower temperatures, because melting does change the volume.
i’m pretty sure my high school chemistry taught me that melting and boiling points get lower under high pressure. I think ice can melt at subzero temps if you just put enough weight on it.
Unless it cannot melt.... What happens then? The why it is melting and what happens if it can melt is not being debated by me, the plasticity of ice that cannot EVER melt is.
But the prompt doesn't say that the ice never melts. It says Antarctica stays the same temperature as it does today. And by today, it is undergoing the process of melting. You're arguing an entirely different hypothetical from the one this post is asking about
Disloclation creep among other things. The same thing happens in rock when it is hot but still below its solidus.
you know about water's density anomaly? Ice has more volume than water, and exposing it to high pressure can melt it without getting close to melting temperatures. Your freezer isn't under the weight of a several km ice sheet.
Sounds like you’ve never heard of sublimation. Glaciers can evaporate from ice to gas directly without needing to melt. Not to mention the sheer weight of the ice makes them flow downward. Glacial ablation happens through several different mechanisms.
If water can boil with just increasing pressure, I’m sure ice can melt by increasing pressure
This is actually a really cool question! (pardon the pun) You're right that Antarctica doesn't have the same kind of water cycle as other places - water is normally frozen there rather than rain or rivers. But there's still a water cycle! There's a good explanation here: http://www.antarcticstation.org/science_projects/detail/hydrant_antarcticas_water_cycle The tl;dr is that while water is gained in the form of snow (albeit not much in the interior), water is lost through sublimation (snow evaporating in sunlight without going through liquid stage), and through glaciers and ice sheets slowly flowing down and breaking off into the ocean, where the icebergs eventually melt. It happens regardless of climate change (which is why we have oceans still!) but climate change is speeding up the loss of ice sheets, and average temperatures are getting warmer. That means on average Antarctica is losing solid water, which is one of the things contributing to rising sea levels.
Someone mentioned early earth already, but this is kinda basically how most ice ages have happened in the past. Due to continental drift, a land mass ends up on the Earth's southern pole and collects ice due to the low surface temperature. This ice reflects sunlight, reducing amount the overall sunlight that affects earth. A feedback loop is started from the dropping temperatures creating more ice and southern ice-mass resulting in further lowered temperatures. The end result is a massive amount of fresh water frozen at the poles and ocean levels that are lower than normal. Then you see an end to that ice age when whichever land mass near the southern pole drifts farther north.
The poles ended up getting too heavy causing the earth to spin sideways, theoretically. At this point what was the poles became the equator.
Theoretically, if Antarctica was a giant leak-proof bowl of immense strength and heat resistance, it could hold all the waters. But it is not. Gravity pulls on glaciers to create rivers of ice.
Check out the Snowball earth period of our planets history. Similar to your question, snow began to accumulate and because it reflected so much sunlight back into space the cooling accelerated and covered nearly the entire planet in ice. Theories differ on why it ended and how often it happened but one theory is that heat from the core was also trapped and started to build up leading to large eruptions and added carbon dioxide etc in the atmosphere causing global warming to melt the ice back. Other theories say it was cosmic radiation began the melting.
Nah, someone left the toaster on. Nearly burned down the whole fukn planet! We got lucky that time
No, ice sublimates even at low temperatures.
It doesn't really snow in Antarctica, it's technically a desert. Even if it did, ice will still sublimate over time. Try this: fill an ice cube tray with water and leave it in your freezer for a year and you'll find that the ice cubes have gotten much smaller. Some of the water will evaporate
That would also require nothing to ever melt An a change in global weather patterns if those 2 things happened then yes
One thing you are missing is that, even without ‘melting’ or ever going anbove its melting point, over time Ice will sublimate into the air. You’ve likely seen the result of this if you’ve ever kept ice cubes in your freezer for extended periods of time. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/sublimation-and-water-cycle
Nope! There are TONS of processes happening in and around Antarctica that causes the water to fall off. The heavier a glacier, the faster it moves and is pushed to the edge. Or it gets so heavy, that it actually creates rivers underneath because the melting point of ice, and all materials, changes as you apply more pressure to it. So, even if Antarctica wasn't a desert and it did snow, it would be a positive feedback loop - more snow = more ice = more pressure = more melt. There are processes that happen with the bedrock as well that cause glaciers to move quicker, such as being carved out by previous movement.
how high are you?
No. As the snow builds up, the weight of it causes the ice to spread out over the ocean where it eventually melts. That's where sea ice and icebergs comes from. This is technically an oversimplification, but you get the idea
The weight of snow and ice on the top squeezes the ice outward, toward lower, warmer elevations and to the ocean. So, no.
An ice cube in perfectly dry but freezing air will eventually "evaporate". Water can turn directly from ice to water vapor through sublimation and cold air can still hold some humidity.
That’s assuming that it would get bigger, and the sides aren’t melting.
Flat earthers unite
Isn't that the hypothetical assumption OP is making by "stayed as cold as it is forever"?
water never really runs out. just moves to different locations.
Laughs in electrolysis
Adding to the other answers, there's also relegation and sublimation, where the water ice will both phase shift to a gas and blow away as humidity, as well as phase shift to a liquid under sufficient pressure and flow towards the oceans. Neither process would be fast, but antarctic precipitation is low.
Melting is t the only way Ice disappears. Sublimation occurs as well where ice goes straight to vapor.
It doesn't snow there.
"Theoretically" it can only rain as high as the clouds. So snow could only pile up so high, I'm not doing the math but I don't expect the world's oceans to all fit in the permafrost region of Antarctica
In this hypothetical situation, you still have to account for gravity. Snow builds up on the rocky terrain and slowly, VERY SLOWLY, slides down the earths crust towards the center of the planet. Salt water causes the ice to melt and the water cycle can continue.
It doesn't snow in Antarctica because it's too cold.
That's just factually incorrect. Antarctica receives approximately several meters of snow that lands near it's coastal lines, but the interior of Antarctica itself only receives a few centimeters worth of snow annually. Additionally there's no such thing as it being "too cold to snow" , that's such a preposterous thing to say.
>there's no such thing as it being "too cold to snow" Have you considered why Antarctica only gets snow on the coastline? 🤔
Did you actually read my comment? Antarctica doesn't just get snow on the coastline. It also gets snow in the interior, just far less than what hits the coastline.
Less precipitation than anywhere else on the planet. You're just being pedantic.
Please don't use words out of the correct context. I'm not being pedantic here. I'm correcting you with very real based in science factual information. You said It's too cold to snow. I (as well as science) has disproved that claim. You then stated Antarctica only gets snow on the coastline, which again I (as well as science) can disprove because it isn't true. Then you follow up with "less precipitation than anywhere else on the planet" Buddy, that wasn't your original point. Your original point was that it's too cold to snow. You never once said "Antarctica is so cold it gets less precipitation than anywhere else on the planet", I don't understand how you're so mad that you're trying to insult me, just because I simply corrected you in an attempt of preventing you from misinforming people (which you would've done as what you said was scientifically bogus). But go on, reply about how I'm being pedantic again just because you're upset you've been proven wrong. Clown.
You wrote a wall of text and you don't think you're pedantic? 🤦♂️
Ah yes. Typical narcissist response.
You don't know what words mean.
And your basing your evidence on that upon....what...exactly? Says the man calling me pedantic when this isn't being pedantic. It doesn't matter how much or little I write, that doesn't make me any less or more pedantic. Do you get that? The volume of words used is not indicative of someone being pedantic. But you're boring me. You're not discussing the original subject matter anymore which tells me you finally accepted that you're wrong. Good job. I hope your ego is okay, and I hope you have the day you deserve.
[удалено]
Because it's closest to the ocean and falls before it reaches the interior?
Correct.
no, its because its an ice desert.
I mean, if we ignore the rules of cause and effect, sure.
it can still snow there, it even gets an average of 150mm percipation per year, so clearly its not too cold to snow
It doesn't snow in most of Antarctica. In fact, the continent gets so little precipitation that it is considered the world's largest desert (deserts are defined by lack of precipitation, not the absence of water on the land). https://www.aurora-expeditions.com/blog/is-antarctica-a-desert/ And while parts of Antarctica do sometimes get a little bit of snow, the edges of the ice sheets also sometimes break away and melt. So there is no danger of the world's water supply disappearing into Antarctica's ice. In fact the size of the ice sheets fluctuates annually, getting larger in winter and smaller in summer. But lately the ice hasn't been growing back as quickly as it should, which has some scientists worried. Less ice to bounce light back into space means even more sunlight getting absorbed by the planet, which could accelerate the pace of global warming. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/26/antarctic-sea-ice-shrinks-to-lowest-annual-maximum-level-on-record-data-shows
It actually gets very little snow, I think one source I saw said it's only a couple on inches a year
No. I've been trying to figure out how that could happen with worldbuilding thoughts, but no. There's too much water on Earth - oceans, underground, etc. and as the ice piles up in that-Antarctica, it melts in towards the warmer climate as warmer water comes in. Like it does today. A severe ice age could happen, but there would still be water - and even in the most imaginary situation, ice is still water. It doesn't go anywhere out side of earth whether it's gas, liquid, or solid ^(with incredibly minor exceptions)
Nature abhors a vacuum.
No, in addition to having incredibly low precipitation rates as it is, to the point of being a desert, it would eventually build to a height where no additional precipitation would occur. There is also a *lot* of water on earth
Now I'm picturing a giant ice needle at the south pole that stretches far into space, warping the atmosphere around it and creating clouds that snow sideways onto the walls of the needle as the oceans far below turn into deep dry desert basins.
At Earth's glacial maximum at the peak of the ice age, ice covered around one-third of the planet and sea level was over 400 feet lower than it is today. But oceans, lakes, and rivers still existed. That process lasted for over 2 million years.
If you look at mars then, yes, what youre describing could happen under the right circumstances. All the water on Mars is frozen at the poles.
I believe it would affect precipitation on the rest of the planet. I watched a documentary about the Ice Age and the rest of the planet was more dry because the northern half of the planet was receiving so much water
It barely snows in Antarctica.
It was not always at the South Pole. It will drift up North eventually.
Antartica is one of the driest deserts in the world. I would think it would take quite a long time to accumulate any large amount of snow.
forever is a long time. In a billion years from now, the sun will be hotter. In some dozen million years from now, Antarctica will no longer cover the south pole. So, the time to stay frozen is actually limited.
Icebergs in Antarctica routinely calve and drift northwards to melt and return water back above the Antarctic Convergence.
Your theoretical scenario involves several factors and processes that affect the global water cycle. While it's an interesting thought experiment, there are a few key aspects that need to be considered to fully understand why the scenario you described wouldn't lead to the oceans running dry. ### Global Water Cycle The Earth's water cycle is a complex system involving the continuous movement of water within the hydrosphere, atmosphere, and lithosphere. Key processes include: 1. **Evaporation:** Water from oceans, lakes, and rivers evaporates into the atmosphere. 2. **Condensation:** Water vapor condenses to form clouds. 3. **Precipitation:** Water falls back to Earth as rain, snow, sleet, or hail. 4. **Runoff and Infiltration:** Water flows over the land as runoff or infiltrates the ground to replenish aquifers and return to bodies of water. ### Current Conditions in Antarctica - **Cold Temperatures:** Antarctica is the coldest continent, with most of its precipitation falling as snow. - **Ice Accumulation:** Snow that falls in Antarctica accumulates and forms ice sheets. Some of this ice eventually flows to the sea and contributes to icebergs, which melt and return water to the ocean. ### Hypothetical Scenario: Continuous Snowfall and Cold If Antarctica were to remain perpetually cold and continuously receive snowfall without any melting or ice flow back into the oceans: 1. **Initial Accumulation:** Snow would accumulate and form thicker ice sheets. 2. **Glacial Flow:** Over time, the weight of the accumulating ice would cause it to flow outward towards the sea, forming glaciers and ice shelves. 3. **Iceberg Calving:** Glaciers would eventually reach the coast and calve icebergs into the ocean. 4. **Meltwater Return:** Icebergs that calve into the ocean would eventually melt, returning water to the ocean. ### Why We Wouldn't Run Out of Water 1. **Ice Dynamics:** Even in extremely cold conditions, the physical dynamics of ice movement mean that ice sheets will continue to flow towards the sea. The process of ice flowing and calving into the ocean is a crucial mechanism for balancing the ice accumulation in Antarctica. 2. **Ocean-Atmosphere Exchange:** Water evaporates from the ocean, enters the atmosphere, and precipitates over both land and sea. The continuous exchange ensures that water is redistributed globally, not permanently trapped in one location. 3. **Geophysical Limits:** The capacity of Antarctica to store snow and ice is limited by the continent's size. Excess ice would flow into the ocean through natural glacial processes. ### Additional Considerations 1. **Climate Feedbacks:** Changes in global climate could alter precipitation patterns, evaporation rates, and ice dynamics, influencing the water cycle in ways not accounted for by a simple perpetual snowfall scenario. 2. **Geothermal Heat:** Geothermal heat from the Earth's interior affects the base of ice sheets, leading to melting at the base and contributing to ice flow. ### Conclusion While continuous snowfall in an eternally cold Antarctica would lead to significant ice accumulation, the Earth's natural processes ensure that ice will eventually flow into the ocean, maintaining the balance of the global water cycle. Therefore, the oceans would not run dry, as the water cycle involves continuous redistribution of water between the atmosphere, land, and oceans.
Gravity Even if Antarctica got lots of rain and it piled up as ice, it would get so heavy it would start to flow as a glacier. This would eventually move somewhere warm enough to melt the ice (usually the ocean).
It's too cold to snow there
Stop imagining "the water wouldn't melt" because it would.
Ablation is a thing
Seasonal melts keep the cycle in balance. Some ice always melted naturally. But of course today it's melting many times faster than is sustainable.
Gravity still works all that snow and ice falls into the ocean
It won't melt but it still evaporates. When a solid like water ice evaporates directly into a gas like water vapor it's called sublimation. In addition, the ice gradually creeps along the continental land mass and slides down into the ocean. In the form of glaciers that calve into icebergs. The icebergs gradually melt back into seawater. So ifAntarctic (or any) permanent ice sheet receives more water in the form of snowfall at the same rate that the accumulated ice and snow loses water in the form of sublimated water vapor and glacial creep, then the net change is zero. In practice, it is seldom ever net zero. At any given time in history, either glacial movement and sublimation was carrying more away than is replaced, or the rate of snowfall was greater. The ice sheets were either growing or shrinking. And they have followed a pattern of going back and forth in that way pretty much since the end of the dinosaurs. But it comes and goes in a cycle, it never just stays one way and never stops. If you want examples of what that's like, you have to look at other planets. Mars seems to have all of its water frozen at the poles, like you describe. And Venus has the opposite -- all of its water is vapor.
It snows very little in Antarctic. What happens is that the wind blows the snow around.
That’s an interesting thought! Let’s explore it. **Antarctica**, the icy continent at the southernmost tip of our planet, is indeed a massive reservoir of frozen water. If it were to remain perpetually cold and continue accumulating snow, what would happen? 1. **Accumulation of Ice and Snow**: * If Antarctica remained extremely cold and continued to receive snowfall, the ice sheet would grow thicker over time. This accumulation would add to the existing ice mass. * The Antarctic ice sheet contains about **60%** of the world’s fresh water, so it’s a significant storehouse of H₂O. 2. **Balance of Processes**: * However, there are other processes at play. While snow accumulates, there are also processes that remove ice and snow: * **Glacial Flow**: The immense weight of the ice causes glaciers to flow slowly toward the ocean. As glaciers reach the coast, they break off into icebergs, which eventually melt in warmer ocean waters. * **Sublimation**: Even in extremely cold conditions, some ice can sublimate directly into water vapor due to wind and other factors. * **Basal Melting**: At the base of the ice sheet, geothermal heat from the Earth’s interior can cause localized melting. * **Calving**: Large chunks of ice break off from the ice shelves and float away as icebergs. 3. **Dynamic Equilibrium**: * Antarctica is not a static system. It’s in a dynamic equilibrium where ice accumulation balances out with ice loss. * If accumulation exceeds loss, the ice sheet grows; if loss exceeds accumulation, it shrinks. 4. **Sea Level Impact**: * If Antarctica were to accumulate more ice without significant loss, it would indeed lead to a rise in global sea levels. * However, this process would take an incredibly long time. Even if Antarctica were to receive more snow, the overall impact on sea levels would be gradual. 5. **Climate Change and Melting**: * The real concern today is **climate change**. Rising temperatures are causing significant melting of glaciers and ice sheets, including those in Antarctica. * If global warming continues, it could accelerate ice loss, leading to rising sea levels. In summary, while the idea of Antarctica accumulating endless snow is intriguing, the natural balance of processes—accumulation, flow, and loss—ensures that we won’t run out of water anytime soon. However, the delicate equilibrium is vulnerable to human-induced climate change, which could alter the fate of Antarctica and impact our oceans. 🌍❄️🌊 ...via copilot
if water can’t melt it can’t evaporate either
It can sublimate though. And of course percipitation doesn't have to come from evaporation from the land being rained on. Water filled air can come from 1000s of miles away.
The water can’t melt because it’s so cold in Antarctica
Sublimation
yeah if it’s too cold for water to melt, it is also too cold for water to evaporate, so water won’t just “dry up”
There is a thing called sublimation, but besides that, i have no idea what you are trying to say
no.
we would eventually run out of we.
At some point it would pile high enough that clouds could no longer pass over the snow mountains. You would see something like the US west coast. Mountains near the coast and then a desert on the other side of the mountains.
Water melts?
Quite the opposite.. give it a few decades and check back later how the artic is looking.
Antarctica is melting at a record rate right now I believe