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).
2000 / 20 = 100 of them .
Glaciers are not typically considered part of the Arctic tundra biome. The Arctic tundra is defined by cold temperatures, a short growing season, and a layer of permanently frozen subsoil known as permafrost. Glaciers, on the other hand, are massive sheets of ice that form from the accumulation and compaction of snow over long periods of time in mountainous regions.
No ocean covers the North Pole. The North Pole is an imaginary point on the Arctic Ice cap that covers the Arctic Ocean. SHORT ANSWER- Arctic Ocean
After the ice age, much of the water and ice from melting glaciers drained into the oceans, raising sea levels. Some water also returned to the atmosphere through evaporation and precipitation. Additionally, some ice melted and formed rivers and lakes.
The ocean around the North Pole is known as the Arctic Ocean. It is the smallest and shallowest of the world's five oceans, located mostly north of the Arctic Circle. The region is covered by sea ice for much of the year and is home to unique ecosystems, including polar bears, seals, and various species of whales.
if a 50 g of iron gets melted how much liquid does it produce
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!
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
For every inch of snow, it roughly equates to about 1/10th of an inch of water once melted. Therefore, if there were 6 inches of snow, it would result in approximately 0.6 inches of water once melted.
Yes, it would be the same.
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
The Arctic receives around 6-10 inches (150-250 mm) of precipitation annually. This mostly falls as snow due to the cold temperatures, with minimal rainfall during the summer months. However, this can vary by region within the Arctic.
If the population increased, there would be a decrease in the populations of prey items, such as lemmings and hares. If the prey items decreased too much the Arctic fox populations would also decrease with the limited food available.