Some basic physical science…
When water freezes, it forms ice. It also expands. Therefore, the amount of ice UNDER the water level is larger than the amount of water it would become when melted. However, you also have an incredibly massive amount of ice ABOVE the water level that would also melt. As I recall, the water level would not raise so much to wipe out all life forms on the planet, if that ever happened.
I suppose that the big concern is:
Considering the current temperatures in the Polescompared with the current temperatuer everywhere else, if the temperature rose in the Poles enough to melt all of that ice. Than what about the temperature rise in the rest of the world? I believe that it was the Twilight zone or Maybe One Step Beyond, or Maybe the Outer Limits, did a show on excessive heat, once.
That should scare you. But I agree that the world has gone through several cycles of cold and hot, it could just be a part of the cycle, who knows. I do not expect to see any drastic changes in the ambient temperature in my life time, excluding a nuclear blast, of course.
The north polar icecap (IIRC) ‘floats’, the southern pole is on rock (basically), so in terms of water-level it’s mainly the south pole you gotta watch.
For those of us in the Northern Hemisphere the greatest effect of the ice caps melting will be huge disruption of sea currents and the associated change in climate this would bring with it.
In the UK, for example, our mild climate is in part a product of the warmth of the Gulf Stream - add lots of cold ice-water to the Atlantic and this warmth gets chilled, and this in turn leads to a lot of very chilly Brits.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has an interesting summary of the whole issue of global warming - this might be a good place to start, Psycho_Aquarius.
This is what they have to say about the icecaps:
Personally, I hope all the dinosaurs frozen in the icecaps are really just in suspended animation and will make a big comeback when things warm up 
– Quirm
So according to the EPA the sea level could rise by 3 feet? What is the total surface area of the oceans? Multiply that by 3 feet. That is a huge volume of water! Much greater than the volume of water frozen on land in Antarctica, I would think. Is anyone willing to look up the numbers?
The three feet is the maximum expected rise over the next century. I expect that not all of it is from melting ice as there will be some expansion of ocean water due to warming.
Note also the text that Quirm quoted about the potential collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. That’s actually just a part of the ice in Antarctica; the East Antarctic ice sheet has the bulk of the ice and is much stabler, fortunately.
If all the glaciers on Earth were to melt, they expect that the oceans would rise some 65 meters (around 200 feet). That’s no where near enough to cover all the land, but many coastal cities would be submerged.
It may seem like there’s not enough ice around to raise the sea level that much, but consider that the ice in Antarctica is 3 to 4 kilometers thick. And in Greenland, the ice is about the same thickness, I think.
More basic science…
Achimedes showed that a body immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. So, the amount of water displaced by floating ice is exactly equal to the amount contained in the ice itself - i.e. the melting ice would not cause the sea level to rise at all.
Ice at the South Pole, on the other hand, is mainly on land, so it’s melting would of course raise sea levels, as Coil said.
Did a Google search on antartic temperature.
According to this site the average annual temperature in Antarctica is between -3C (at the northern peninsula) to -48C at the pole.
The temperature in the Antarctic would have to go up quite a lot for all that ice to melt and if the temperature were to rise by that much I think we would have a lot of more pressing problems than melting ice.
/Coil
Thanks dtilque, you answered something I have wondered about many times after seeing Waterworld. I suspected the Waterworld senerio was not based on science. I am surprised that the sea level would rise as much as you say but it still means Waterworld is “BS”.
There is a considerable amount of land in northern Canada, Greenland, and Russia covered by thick ice. The northern ice cap would have some effect on sea level if it melted.
And the parts that are over land are the parts that would melt early, being the most southerly.
i seem to recall the old movie/pilot version of the 60s(?) TV show “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” had a plot about something like this. There was some sort of runaway global warming, and the brave crew did something with missiles to stop it just before it pasteurized the planet.
Payne:
That was because the van Allen belts had caught fire. Different scenario entirely…
sail, it’s safe to assume that any “science” in Hollywood SF is totally bogus until someone proves otherwise.
It might be interesting to you that during the ice ages, when much of North America and Europe (but not Asia) were covered with glaciers 1.5 Km thick that the sea level was some 100 meters (about 300 feet) below current levels.
Is the bulk of what we hear today about melting ice caps just the EPA trying to scare us and keep us from adding to global warming?
To Slick USA,
Interestingly enough, I just finished reading over an article in “New Scientist” referring to the Artic Circle problems. see: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climate.jsp?id=23154500
In that article they mention how the ice is thinner now than before, the snows are coming later, the igloos are actually melting and no longer providing the insulation causing people to move into real homes instead, and other problems. May I suggest that you check it out? You will be glad that you did.
Personally, though, I have never given much credence to the thought that we are the sole responsible parties. I still think that maybe there is a natural cycle at work here, as well.
Next Thursday. It’s going to happen next Thursday.
Picking up on RoyJWood’s comments above, can anyone authoritative or resourceful comment on the speculation of a few years back that it is when the Arctic Ocean becomes open (i.e., ice-free or at least largely not frozen over) that glaciers advance, due to the increased available water vapor in the polar air precipitating as it moves south. (That’s a rough summary of a complex concept, so don’t take it as a total cause-and-effect scenario, just a quick summary of something that did make sense.
I doubt there would be enough time if all life were wiped out except for whatever it would take to evolve once more into creatures that could be seen without microscopes. The sun often is described as being in comfortable middle age. To grow intelligence equal at least to humanity’s would take as long as it has all over again. The sun would be dead or in it’s expanded death throes and unable to sustain life, wouldn’t it?
Besides, evolution is a crap shoot. One small, missing item that was present a zillion years ago that led to us wouldn’t be the next time around, and a zillion of such small, missing items with a zillion different ones would be the rule.
The only sure thing is that all life on this planet is a temporary thing. Come to that, a “living” universe is temporary, too. Being dead, though, has always been more popular if you check the creature population count of the two groups.
It’s time to turn on cartoons.
Check out the Jan 2002 National Geographic article on the South Pole. There, coal and petrified wood were found; these findings allude to much warmer climates in the past. When? Who cares?
Whaddayagonna do? Worry? It isn’t worth it; you and I have about as much input to these cyclical events as a gnat does when bothering an elephant.