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).
The lowest point of the Arctic would be sea level. Much of the Arctic is ocean.
it would rise 10000 feet
Around 61 metres
Floating ice, sea ice and icebergs, doesn't raise the sea level when it melts.
Melted Chocolate weighs as much as it did when it wasn't melted.
Two degrees Celsius of warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic and sea-level rise in the tens of meters.
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
No crops are grown in the Arctic Circle. The growing season is much too short and the permafrost level much too high to be considered ideal for growing crops.
If you measure the water level before adding the ice, the level will increase. If you measure the water level after adding ice, there might be a slight increase, but not much after it melts.
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
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)
yes it can. depending on how much the gold weight would be after melted down.
i would say that there is not much flora but what there is would not be too exiting cause it would be cold
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.
the arctic region has lots of icebergs you would find.
Yes, it would be the same.
If all of the Greenland icecap melted it would contribute about 7.4 meters (24 feet) to sea level rise. Perhaps, however, it might be noted that expectations of this happening are not likely anytime soon. I reminds some readers of a question of Why did the ancient ice age happen and what would have happened if it not recede, which it did. So without human intervention, the ice age came upon the earth and in reverse it went away, leaving as part of its legacy the Great Lakes.
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
Half a cup of melted butter.
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.
Antarctica is a continent, the Arctic is not.
The desert fox (fennec fox) is a very small animal and would be no match for the much larger arctic fox. They would never meet for such an encounter in nature. The arctic fox is found north of the Arctic Circle and lives in the tundra while the fennec lives in the Sahara.