Actually, the sea level would not rise appreciably--at least, not at first. Arctic ice is floating in water, and when melted, takes up less volume than ice does. This is an oversimplification, though, since the climate changes accompanying the increased amount of seawater--which would then evaporate in larger volumes, resulting in increased rainfall, etc.--are harder to predict.
It is the ice that is sitting on land that is important. Melting of continental ice sheets acts to raise sea-levels.
According to the Third Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change, the ice contained within Greenland Ice Sheet represents a sea-level rise equivalent of 7.2 metres (24 feet).
The ice contained within the Antarctic Ice-sheet represents 61.1 metres (200 feet) of sea-level change.
That is, if both the Antarctic Ice-Sheet, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet were to melt, sea-level would rise by 68.3 metres (224 feet).
In its 2011 report the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), based in Norway, found that the Greenland ice sheet is melting four times as fast as it was ten years ago. "Sea levels will rise higher and faster than the United Nations predicted just four years ago."
"The past six years have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic."
The report states that sea levels are projected to rise by 0.9 meters to 1.6 meters by 2100, and that "the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution". (In 2007 the IPCC put the projected rise at 59 centimeters by 2100)
The report goes on to say that each centimeter of sea level rise translates into one meter of beach erosion, meaning that the Coastlines will move about 160 meters further inland.
If small icebergs happen to melt, the level of the sea wouldn't be likely to rise significantly. If all of Antarctica happened to melt, sea levels would rise much more dramatically, but would only cover up a negligible area of landmass.
icebergs in the ocean = ice cubes in a glass of water. they don't do anything to affect the level of the water when they melt. when they get placed in, is when the water level get's affected.
No.
North Pole sea ice floats in the sea. When it melts the sea level remains the same as floating objects displace an amount of water equal to their own weight.
For the sea level to rise as a result of melting ice, the ice would have to be on land such as on the South Pole (Antarctica) and the ice covering Greenland.
The volume of water frozen in ice sheets on land would be added to the ocean's volume of water. Thus sea levels would rise.
Ice melting from sea ice (the Arctic) and icebergs is already in the water, so this melting will not raise sea levels.
Floating Arctic ice will not change the sea level if it melts.
Any ice on land, like the Greenland ice cap and the Alaskan glaciers will cause a rise in sea level if they melt.
the sea level will be so high, The Netherlands will be underwater,including the Philippines!!(as long as you're on top of a mountain, you're good)
The sea level would rise. It would also rise if the ice sheets covering Greenland were to melt. However, if the ice over the north pole melted, sea level would not rise appreciably.
Icebergs are already floating. If they melt the sea levels do not change. Only melting glaciers and land ice raise the sea levels.
Sea ice has no direct effect on sea level because ice that is already in the ocean cannot displace additional water (Archimedes Principle).
Yes, there are many glaciers in the Arctic. They exist in places like Canada, Alaska, and in the mountains of many countries. Greenland, for example, is mostly covered by an ice sheet.
2000 / 20 = 100 of them .
it depends when you put it and depends that on how much you could put the water to what level it would be
what country extends from the arctic ocean to the black sea
If the two polar ice caps on Mars' surface were to be melted, it would release enough water to cover the entire planet with approximately 11 meters of water.
if a 50 g of iron gets melted how much liquid does it produce
There isn't much rainfall in the arctic, about 6 to 10 inches a year including melted snow. Some of the worlds greatest desert get more rainfall than that. Much of the arctic has rain and fog in the summer. Even though there is very low rainfall the arctic lands can be very wet underfoot because the moisture evaporates very slowly and the drainage conditions are poor. :D
A real gold dollar from the 1800s would be worth at least $125 melted down, but would probably bring much more if sold to a collector. A modern Sacajawea or Presidential "golden" dollar is really made of brass. Melted down it would sell for about 15 cents!
6 inches would be about .6 inches of water when melted usually 1 inch of rain = 10 inches of snow
963.586.36963
yes it can. depending on how much the gold weight would be after melted down.
Much of arctic ice sits above the level of the ocean. When this ice melts it adds to the volume of the ocean without subtracting any ice volume.
There are no reindeer in Antarctica, only in the Arctic. You would be much more likely to find reindeer near the Arctic. It is logically impossible to find a mammal living in the Antarctic Circle. Although reindeer would be able to survive in the Antarctic Circle, they would soon develop hypothermia.
i would say that there is not much flora but what there is would not be too exiting cause it would be cold
Yes, there are many glaciers in the Arctic. They exist in places like Canada, Alaska, and in the mountains of many countries. Greenland, for example, is mostly covered by an ice sheet.
Melted snow is water. Water, because it is a liquid, is hard to weigh as you normally only weigh solids. Liquids would have to be measured litres or gallons. So the answer to that question would depend on how much snow had actually melted- eg. 12% ice and 78 % is water and 10% is debris caught in the snow as it fell
Yes, it would be the same.