Try this:
http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/
"These java applets calculate the effect of a change in sea level on the topography for different regions of the world, such as Europe, Japan, the United States, South-East Asia or France.
Input a value for the change of sea level (negative values for a decrease in sea level, positive value for an increase) in the left entry, the program recalculates the map of the region of interrest and adjusts the color scale.
A full melting of the polar ice caps would imply a rise of about 70-80 meters. "
2006-12-29 06:54:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Yahzmin ♥♥ 4ever 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
The Arctic ice pack could completely melt without adding an inch to sea level. Floating ice displaces exactly the same amount of water as melt water does. As to the Antarctic pack, it depends on how thick the ice is there. And remember, it's expanded, so subtract 10%. Bottom line? Sea level would rise a FEW feet. Not enough for more than minor inconvenience.
2006-12-29 06:58:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
If the polar ice caps melted that's predicted the sea point might upward push 80 ft or greater. this might inundate hundreds of hundreds of sq. miles of coastal land. each continent may well be dramatically altered and a minimum of a million billion human beings displaced. devoid of the ice sheets which deflect photograph voltaic, the international warming already in result might upward push to super stages greater threatening all existence on earth with enormous droughts, vicious storms, and killing warmth.
2016-10-28 15:59:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There would be a lot less land for example most of Florida and Manhattan would be underwater and the maps would all be changed, but there would still be land.
2006-12-29 06:54:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by reggae superstar 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes- most of the ice cap is over water. Ice has move volume than water. That's why it floats.
2006-12-29 06:54:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by rlbendele1 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes yes, there would still be plenty of land left..."Waterworld" took things a bit too far. Don't know where you could find a map, though.
2006-12-29 16:41:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
parts of the rockies for sure - the himalayas too - better buy some real estate in one of those places - the carpathian mountains and pennies in europe - the ones in PA , USA and the Blue Ridge and Appalachian - Laurentian. Come to think of it there are alot of mountains you can live in if you are in canada or the us
2006-12-29 07:15:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes but not much.....most of the land would be flooded.
2006-12-29 08:00:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by FaerieWriter 1
·
0⤊
0⤋