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).
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
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.
Raising the water level on Earth by one foot would require approximately 356,000 cubic kilometers of water.
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.
Melting the north polar ice cap would raise ocean levels very little, for the same reason ice cubes melting in a glass of water do not overflow the cup. Ice occupies more volume than the water it displaces, which is why it floats. There would be SOME increase from thermal expansion. The Greenland ice cap would add about seven meters (23 feet) to ocean levels. But when Antarctica melts (perhaps as little as a dozen centuries from now), ocean levels will rise 60 meters. Much of Hawaii is volcanic mountains well above sea level, but of lot of the area would be submerged. Low coastal areas around the world will flood.
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).
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
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!
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.
3%
yes it can. depending on how much the gold weight would be after melted down.
Icebergs do not have more heat than humans. Icebergs are typically much colder than humans because they are made of ice, which is at a lower temperature than the average human body temperature.
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