No.

No, but most of Antarctica is really earth.

 

Only if the nuclear device was delivered on a treadmill.

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns)	39.8 kilometres
Air blast radius (widespread destruction)	19.4 kilometres
Air blast radius (near-total fatalities)	7.4 kilometres
Ionizing radiation radius (500 rem)	5.5 kilometres
Fireball duration	17.3 seconds
Fireball radius (minimum)	1.4 kilometres
Fireball radius (airburst)	1.8 kilometres
Fireball radius (ground-contact airburst)	2.3 kilometres

It would put a dent in it, but not enough to raise sea levels. Drop in the bucket as far as the ocean's volume.



Unless of course it's a Haliburton weapon, in which case not only will it raise sea levels 300 feet, it'll also create nuclear winter––but only if Dick Cheney ordered it.



ETA:  And for a sense of scale:  the explosion of Mt St Helens weighed in at about 25 Mt.

Antarctica with ice:



Antarctica without ice:

No.

Provided that the dry land does not sink very much, or that we do not lose it to subduction*, the sea level will never rise more than a few feet.

*Subduction is where tectonic plates slide under, or slide over other tectonic plates.

Remember, almost 95% of all climate change "facts" are pure bullshit...at best.



LOL, there is a 14th or 15th century map floating around out there that shows the almost EXACT shape of Antarctica without snow/ice.

So, either it was much warmer a few hundred years ago, or that map was made by aliens a long, long time ago.

well, since the bomb wouldn't do it....
What about all the hot fucking air in DC along with Al Fuckin' Gore....

I bet that BS would melt the entire Ice Cap

If it gets hot enough to melt ALL the ice in Antarctica, the oceans will be boiling at the equator.

Might not raise sea levels, but mushroom clouds look cool so lets do it

If someone just has to get their bomb off, I would appreciate they do it in a place with less worth like Haiti or certain parts of Africa, possibly France,..when Obama's visiting.

Nope........not enough thermal energy to make much difference.

Look at all that land. Lost continent.

We should start arfcom land there,USA 2.0. It would only be for the hardcore. But it would be the freest most industrious badass place ever. As long as you like beans in Chili

Then it would never get airborne!  

Do you have any idea how big Antarctica is?

The ice would be instantly vaporized into various isotopes and float off into space. Water from the sea would then be converted into snow to fill in the hole that the vaporized water left and the sea levels would actually decrease.

In the grand scheme of things, our most powerful nuclear bombs are really, really tiny. Every single nuclear bomb mankind has ever made wouldn’t be enough to put a dent in the Antarctic ice sheet.

NO, but you'll end up with millions of blind penguins roaming around Aimlessly

What you did there, I see it.

I would think that the ice would just re-freeze.  Even the largest nukes aren't going to have much of an effect on a continent-size ice mass.  Ex:  Full-yield Tsar Bomba at 100 megatons releases approximately 4 X 10^17 Joules of energy.  That's enough to melt about 6 X 10^14 grams of ice at Antarctica's average -60 Fahrenheit temperature.  That's 600 million metric tons of water, or six hundred billion liters, or a hundred and sixty billion gallons.  Spreading out over a continent at ninety degrees below freezing, that's almost nothing.

Just 'cause it pisses off the global warming folk, here's the USS Skate surfaced at the other side of the planed (North Pole) in 1959. Note the lack of ice.

Water levels would raise 300-400 meters.

Glow in the dark Penguins would be cool

Massive fail.

Jeebus, for the last time; melting ice caps do NOT cause the seas to rise...

Same thing goes for ice in a tea glass. When the ice cubes melt does the glass overflow?

NO!

Please, go take an intro to Geology class, people.

Melted ice from glaciers/caps supported by LAND will raise sea levels.  They are not floating in the sea.  Where is that remedial class for you to sign up for?

 

Antarctica is a continent that is covered in ice. The ice isn't floating in the oceans it's sitting on land. If that ice got melted and ran into the oceans then the levels would rise.

That means SO much coming from a non-member with a low post count.

I am so not going to the prom with you now. Got bored with DUh? They still believe that crap over there.

Actual land mass above sea level.

Rising up
Study: More land above sea level captured more ice in Antarctica millions of years ago

By Peter Rejcek, Antarctic Sun Editor
Posted September 11, 2009

Scientists Douglas Wilson and Bruce Luyendyk  haven’t found the lost continent of Atlantis, but their discovery that far more of West Antarctica may have existed above sea level millions of years ago could help solve one of the great mysteries in the climate history of the continent.

In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, the University of California Santa Barbara  researchers suggest that at least twice as much land existed in West Antarctica than today, increasing the total landmass of Antarctica by 10 to 20 percent.

The idea not only inserts an intriguing chapter into the geologic evolution story of Antarctica but also provides new insight into how much ice the continent may have held as the so-called greenhouse world suddenly flipped — in geologic time — to an icehouse Earth about 34 million years ago.

In about 100,000 years, Antarctica went from relatively ice-free to hosting the sort of huge continental ice sheets that exist today. However, until now, many scientists believed most of the ice accumulated on East Antarctica, which sits mostly above sea level even today. In contrast, modern West Antarctica is an archipelago, and the base of its marine-based ice sheet sits on bedrock that is below sea level in many places, which makes it more susceptible to climate change.

Such topography 34 million years ago would have taken far longer for ice to build up into a heavyweight ice sheet in the west — about 20 million years more based on current models, according to the Wilson and Luyendyk. The problem is that the estimated sea level drop near the Eocene-Oligocene transition suggests more ice existed than what scientific models predict based on using the present topography for the early icehouse Earth.

The mystery of the missing ice becomes less of a mystery with a larger landmass in West Antarctica, according to the UCSB scientists.

“If you jack up that whole area by several hundred meters, you have a huge increase in land area where ice can accumulate,” Luyendyk explained. “A lot of the things discussed in the paper are not terribly surprising — and I think mildly controversial — but what I think we’ve done is just put it all together. Everything was higher in the past, and it’s subsided since then.”



Photo Credit: UCSB
The static view of Antarctica, left, with only the ice sheet removed and the new reconstruction, right, with the additional landmass.
In other words, the land started to slide into the sea, like a hillside road that crumbles and falls off the slopeside.

The reconstructed topography includes more land not only in the deep interior of West Antarctica but also where today the hundreds-of-meters-thick Ross Ice Shelf  floats.

“The ice sitting there will move much more slowly,” Wilson said of the ancient landmass. “Not only will you have ice there, but that will cause ice on the rest of the continent to back up a little bit. Between the two effects, that creates potential for quite a bit more ice that can affect global sea level on the order of 10 to 20 meters.”

Wilson said it appears the western subcontinent has been particularly active over the last 100 million years, undergoing a great amount of horizontal stretching — what geologists refer to as extension — that created large basins. Eventually, the extension ended, the crust cooled, and subsidence began, as the land began to shift down and submerge under water.

“It’s a really big change based on a hundred million years of geology,” Wilson said.

In addition to subsidence, large glaciers did their slow if efficient job of erosion, though Luyendyk said they need more data to constrain, or determine, how much land those rivers of ice grinded away.

One key piece of evidence for the theory comes from a sediment core drilled into the seafloor in 1973. Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP)  site 270 contained sediments about 25 to 30 million years old, the oldest being beach sediments above hard continental rock, according to Wilson.

“What that sediment record tells us is that we had something that was above water, and some time after the continental glaciers started in Antarctica, it went from above sea level and it sank to being flooded by the ocean,” he said. “That’s an important check on what’s going up and what’s going down.”

David Pollard , a senior research scientist at Pennsylvania State University , and Robert DeConto  at the University of Massachusetts , have previously modeled ice sheet growth at the Eocene-Oligocene (E-O) transition 34 million years ago. The work by the UCSB scientists will have a bearing on their modeling efforts.

“The main goals were to understand the timing and amplitude of this transition in the Antarctic ice sheet, and to establish the ranges of climate forcing for major growth and decay,” Pollard explained via e-mail. The key icehouse driver in their simulation, he said, was a decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas of today.

Some scientists also believe a major ocean current started around the same time — perhaps initiated by the opening of ocean gateways such as the ones between South America and Antarctica or Australia and Antarctica — helping to isolate the continent from warmer waters to the north.

Pollard, who is collaborating with Wilson and Luyendyk, but was not an author in the AGU paper, said the idea of larger landmass in West Antarctica bolsters the E-O ice sheet model.

“An outstanding mismatch in our E-O simulations was the total volume of Antarctic ice after the transition, with data suggesting a much greater volume than modeled,” he said. “The extra land surface above sea level in the new reconstruction supports greater area and volume of ice, and so helps to reduce this discrepancy.

“The new topography is important not only for the initial growth at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, but is the first step in incorporating evolving topography and its interactions with ice sheets over millions of years through the later Cenozoic,” he added.

Wilson and Luyendyk said they’re interested in finding additional evidence like that from DSDP site 270 to fill in more details about the geologic evolution of West Antarctica. Antarctic sediment drilling programs like ANDRILL and SHALDRIL may offer an opportunity for additional data points — sites to confirm and refine their theory — if proposals receive funding in the future.

“A study like this, which is going to have a major impact on the evolution of Antarctic ice sheets, just serves to remind us that there are lots of things to be found out,” Luyendyk.

NSF funded research in this story: Bruce Luyendyk, University of California-Santa Barbara, Award No. 0639006 .

Those 12,000 or so posts haven't done anything to thicken your skin, little girl.

Granted, a lot of Antarctica and even Greenland have the landforms (ice cap bottoms) below sea level, but they still have an awful lot of ice directly supported directly by continental mass directly.   Arctic Sea ice, and the periphery Antarctic sheets  are of course floating, and melting them will not raise sea levels.

That would be the Piri Reis map of the early 1500s showing the northern Antarctic coast without the ice. He also admitted compiling the maps from source data early as the 4th century BC. If true, it shoots down the theory that Antarctica has been covered in ice for millions of years.
Some will not have their world view challenged, their brains are not flexible enough to accept anything they have not been told.

So who mapped Queen Maud Land maybe 6000 years ago on a gazelle skin?

Big plans for the weekend?

This question had GOT to be in the archive somewhere.  I know someone asked it earlier last year.



 

Not any more.

Wouldn't the water just fill in the space where the ice was?

We'll need a ton of slushy  mix

I've read a bit on the map; it tends to be discussed on "mystical documents" websites a lot.   It's pretty easy to determine the age of an ice sheet simply by coring it.  Those sheets are more than 2400 years old.   And yes, they move laterally, but unless you've got some mechanism for melting a shit ton of ice, pushing the edge of the ice back hundreds of miles, and then growing the glacier back, all in a geological instant, I'm going to go with "some other explanation for the map."

Some will do anything to challenge the accepted world view with no proof.  As stated here constantly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If the ice is sitting in an indention in the ground it could make a lake but if it's just sitting on top of the ground above sea level and there's nothing to impede it's path it'll run into the ocean.

I would assume that the blast would make a crater in the ice, and that a good portion of the melted/vaporized water would condense and accumulate into said crater and refreeze fairly quickly at those temps.  What wouldn't stay within the crater area would probably condense and freeze in the atmosphere before it got too far away and would probably fall as snow on the continent somewhere, raising the ice level in the surrounding area before contributing much to the ocean.  This is, of course, assuming that the event happened near the center of the continent.  If it was closer to the coast, it's anyone's guess.

     Radioactive snow cones FTMFW!