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.
The polar circumference of the Earth is any great circle that includes both poles. It is shorter than the equatorial circumference because the Earth's spin makes it bulge at the equator, while it is flattened at the poles. The polar circumference at MSL would be 40,008 km, compared to the equatorial circumference of 40,075 km.The term "polar circumference" can also refer to the Arctic and Antarctic circles, which are roughly 66.56 degrees N and S latitude.
Nope. both of the nitrogens have equal pulls so the bond would be non-polar
Generally polar solute dissolve in polar solvent.KI & water both polar.when KI react with water due to hydrogen bonding & solvation(i.e.K&I ions are surrounded by water molecule) KI dissolves in water.
Both Polar Regions, North and South Poles.
hydrogen forms the molecule H2 which is non-polar as both atoms must have the same electronegativity. if a single hydrogen atom were to exist on its own, it would also be non-polar.
Flour has both polar and non-polar molecules in it. However, most cooking flours have more non-polar molecules, which is why they distribute more evenly in non-polar liquids (like melted butter) than polar (water).
Both polar regions on Earth are frigid zones.
The polar circumference of the Earth is any great circle that includes both poles. It is shorter than the equatorial circumference because the Earth's spin makes it bulge at the equator, while it is flattened at the poles. The polar circumference at MSL would be 40,008 km, compared to the equatorial circumference of 40,075 km.The term "polar circumference" can also refer to the Arctic and Antarctic circles, which are roughly 66.56 degrees N and S latitude.
a polar satellite is a satellite that travels around the earth passing over both poles with every orbit. they are use for mapping and spying
Nope. both of the nitrogens have equal pulls so the bond would be non-polar
Both Polar Regions, North and South Poles.
Generally polar solute dissolve in polar solvent.KI & water both polar.when KI react with water due to hydrogen bonding & solvation(i.e.K&I ions are surrounded by water molecule) KI dissolves in water.
An entity above the nation-state would be commonly referred to a uni-polar. The United States and Canada are both uni-polar.
Both Mars and Earth have polar ice caps, cooler areas with reduced exposure to the sun. Those on Earth are mainly made from water ice, while those on Mars are mainly made from frozen carbon dioxide.
Sodium chloride is dissociated in water. The water solutions of sodium chloride and the melted sodium chloride can be electrolyzed because in these situations NaCl is dissociated.
Some are. They can be both.
The regions farthest north and south on the Earth are called the polar regions. Both the north and south polar regions have an icy coating. The north is called the North Pole and the south is called Antarctica. Antarctica is also a continent.