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 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)
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.
2000 / 20 = 100 of them .
The Arctic Ocean surrounds the North Pole. It is the smallest and shallowest of the world's oceans, and is almost completely covered in sea ice for much of the year.
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.
When solid iron (like a block) is melted, it transforms into its liquid state without a change in mass. So, 50g of solid iron would produce 50g of liquid iron when melted.
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.
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.
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.