Would the new level eventually make it’s way into the great lakes?
If it’s on the average for this thread, then no. If it’s on the high end for this thread, then I’m not sure considering it would still be lower than the top of Lake Ontario, but perhaps lower than the bottom of its outlet at the St. Lawrence (I don’t know how deep the St Lawrence is, or if the situation would allow for some intermixing.)
But at any rate it wouldn’t make it beyond Lake Ontario.
I’d be about a half-mile from the water, instead of being about a half-mile from the water.
Oh, wait.
Not sure if this applies but the north pole is now a lake…
The way I understand it the north pole melting will have no effect on sea levels because it just pack ice thats already floating on the artic sea so melt water will displace the same amount of seawater as the ice floating on it. the melting of the Greenland and south polar ice caps will raise sealevels due to there being on solid ground and melt water running off into the sea.
Peace
LIONsob
When I first heard of the 60M rise, I was skeptical – after all, I guessed the area of land-borne ice had to be less than say 1/20 of the globe, so say less than 1/15 of the oceans. So, the average ice depth would have to be more than 60 * 15 = 900 meters deep!
oh wait, they ARE. 
My guesses were off by about a factor of two, and the average ice cap is over 2km.
That’s a hoot. I like this quote in particular:
“Some youngsters” including virtually all national science academies, and significant relevant international scientific associations.
Major societies that disagree? [Crickets]
I say we round up those teachers and toss 'em in jail!
Seriously, statements like that lead me to take the rest with a huge grain of salt. If someone can’t do sufficient research to realize and admit that they’re voicing the minority opinion, they’re not very credible. It’s evidence of either sloppy scholarship or lunatic fringe mentality.
Yes and no. Yes, the northern icecap is floating on an ocean and any melting of that cap results is basically zero rise in sea level.
But remember sea ice reflects about 50-70% of incident light (albedo ~.5 to .7) while the open ocean reflects about 5% (albedo ~.05).
So lets say we get 80W/m[sup]2[/sup] across the northern ice cap which is/was 3,000,000 km[sup]2[/sup]. With ice 96x10[sup]12[/sup] watts are absorbed but open water sees that jump to 225x10[sup]12[/sup]. That winds up aggravating other sources impacting sea levels.
What land we lose to rising water levels might be offset by an expanded ice sheet? 
The polar caps melting would have a huge impact on ocean currents.
I read somewhere the ocean currents stalling would make weather systems more stable, which ordinarily might be regarded favorably, but after the first two centuries of draught might start getting a little old…
Drought poses a larger problem than draught, but I agree that two centuries of either would grate on ones nerves.
that’s the thing you’re looking for, but in reverse. Maybe ask Randall?
:smack: Yes, two centuries would be quite the bender…
I thought you had a particularly leaky house and was concerned about constant wind.
Yes, and over all, we’ll have about the same amount of habitable land, good soil for crops etc. The problem is really the RATE of change. If this was natural, it’d be happening over tens of thousands of years (or more) and it wouldn’t be a huge issue. Sure, many current citys would be underwater, but we’d have new places to live.
True, but the flip side of this is that the landborne ice doesn’t actually need to melt to cause problems: If a sheet of ice were to slide off the edge of Antarctica into the sea as a solid chunk, it would cause the same amount of sea-level rise as if it melted. Which means that sea-level rise can potentially happen very quickly, if that solid sliding is accelerated.