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).
68.3 metres (224 feet)
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.
(Arctic ice is sea ice, floating on water, so, like icebergs, its melting will not change sea levels.)
So, if both the Antarctic Ice-Sheet, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet were to melt, sea-level would rise by 68.3 metres (224 feet).
Floating ice (sea ice and icebergs) will not raise the sea levels when it melts, but any ice on land will.
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).
Glaciers melting in other places would add another 2 metres (6 feet) making the total about 70 metres (230 feet).
Floating ice, sea ice and icebergs, doesn't raise the sea level when it melts.
The Greenland Ice Sheet holds almost 3 million cubic kilometres of ice (684,00 cubic miles). If it all melted sea levels all over the world would rise by 7.2 metres (24 feet).
it would rise 10000 feet
you die
6 inches would be about .6 inches of water when melted usually 1 inch of rain = 10 inches of snow
well the temperature of the earth is rising, and since icebergs are pretty much big chucks of frozen water, when they melt were stuffed 'cause it'll end up with probably half the earth underwater
Somewhere at the bottom of the Marianas Trench you would find the oldest rock of the oceanic crust. Somewhere else, however, there are older rocks on the ocean floor--those deposited by icebergs that have broken off of glaciers. Those erratic rocks could be much older than the oldest oceanic crust.
Since most of the northern polar cap is already floating, this would cause little effect. But if the Greenland caps melt, as appears to be happening, then this will contribute to sea level rise. But this will be partly counterbalanced in the long run by isostatic rebound of that landmass.But as rock is several times as massive as ice, there will accordingly be a lesser volume of land rise than that mass of ice that melted. [Archimedes strikes again!] The isostatic rebound would take centuries - Scandinavia is still rising in response to melting at the end of the last ice-age .The southern polar cap is mainly above the land mass of Antarctica, and could contribute as much, in an extreme position, as a 4% rise in sea level. (~160m)But since the seas would flow over low lying land, the maximum credible sea level rise would be less than one half of that. The Antarctic Continent would also rebound, but once again, the time scale is centuries.With the removal of the ice mass, and the rebound of the landmass, a greater and different space would be available for the magma, and the possibility of volcanic action is non-zero.
Yes. Much of Seattle and the surrounding area are at the edge of the ocean, or sea level.
I think that the sea owns the icebergs because no one can call dibs on the icebergs because they move around so much that they are in no mans land for much of their lives.
if a 50 g of iron gets melted how much liquid does it produce
Icebergs float, so their melting will not make much difference to sea levels. They are made of fresh water, and fresh water is less dense than salt water, so sea levels will rise, but only slightly.Ice caps (sitting on land) and glaciers, however, if they melt (Greenland and Antarctica) will raise sea levels by 200 feet or more (60 metres).
Not much. Icebergs are already floating in the oceans, so any melting will not raise sea levels. Melting icebergs add fresh water to the oceans, but this will only matter if huge amounts of ice melt.
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
3%
yes it can. depending on how much the gold weight would be after melted down.
3 shillings and 1 sixthpence
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.
68.3 metres (224 feet)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.(Arctic ice is sea ice, floating on water, so, like icebergs, its melting will not change sea levels.)So, if both the Antarctic Ice-Sheet, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet were to melt, sea-level would rise by 68.3 metres (224 feet).