2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

Jon, you may or may not be right about the value of solar, wind etc. They may or may not be more economic than coal, oil and gas.But we all better hope that the renewables get adopted one way or the other.To simplify the issue:
If we keep producing CO2 at anything anywhere near the current rate or even a fraction of it the ice will melt. I'm not saying when that will happen but it will .What is the current value of New York, all of florida, San Franciso, Portland and much else? If the ice doesn't completely melt in a century the present value can be discounted to a decreased loss in current dollars. If it doesn't melt for a millennium the current value is much less.Somebody better calculate that value for various time frames though. Even if the ice doesn't completely melt for 1,000 years the value might still be in the many hundreds of billions of dollars. If the ice melts fast then we are talking about trillions of dollars in loss.Suddenly some dollars "wasted" on solar panels starts to seem like a bargin.The is 216 feet of ocean raise locked up in ice that will melt.
National Geographic - 404

I agree that this may turn out to be a far worse thing for our survival than a little thing like many of the world's cities disappearing. However it is hard to say with total certainty just what will happen. It may involve our total extinction but we can't say for sure.What we can say for sure is that the sea will rise by 200 ft if we carry on.

That is so simple you can get a rough answer all by yourself. It is easy to get a rough approximation to the volume of ice sitting on Antarctica. The area of the continent by a km or two of ice depth. It works out to waay over 100 ft.The 216 foot is given by the link I gave you and I have read it in numerous sources.That is why I like this. It is extremely simple. Anyone can check the volume and the physics is dead simple and obvious.So in answer to your question: everyone who is competent is predicting that, if we melt all the ice. Edited by NosyNed, : fixed spelling

No one is predicting that we will melt all the ice and I didn't say that. I emphasized the if.However, there is no good reason to think we are not going to. Continuing as we are now and arguing about the cents per KWH of solar vs coal will push us past the point of no return and up the water will come.We are making that decision now. I don't see a lot of reason for optimism. If we continue then the ice will melt. The physics is very clear.

Me. You. This is so easy you and I can reach a solid conclusion on this.About solar power you may be right I just hope that solar, plus wind, plus geo, plus nuclear, plus... can supply what we need. If we keep going in the current direction we will find out that it certainly does matter how high the water gets.

Jon, CO2 is a green house gas yes?Enough CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature of the globe to pretty much any temperature you want to worry about. Yes?Those are the facts.
So if we keep adding CO2 eventually (some decade, century, millennium) the ice will melt is the conclusion.What problem do you have with this?

It is not ruled out. It is just that they have short time horizons. If we put out enough CO2 the ice will melt. It has before.

The way this can come to pass is if we just keep doing what we are doing now. Since we are doing it I'd say you'd have to call it a reasonable possibility. Continuing to dump excess CO2 is all that is needed.In addition, this as I"ve been presenting it is not a a worst-case scenario at all! In fact it is best case. That is the rise will take place over centuries and not faster. I'm saying we don't know how long it may take and that centuries are the likely time-frame giving us time to move entire cities if we get started on it.The worst-case scenario for sea level rise involves unknown tipping points where positive feedback loops take over and produce ever accelerating warming and rise. Methane release from sinks of it for example. There are a lot of things we don't know and we are playing with it all very carelessly.

I don't know. Do you? Should we keep going like this when we don't know the answer to that?

Exactly what is irrational about fearing that we might continue as we are right now?I for one think that (for now) nuclear is absolutely essential. But there is no reason to make it the only solution.

How can that be? You said the 216 foot scenario was irrational, unlikely etc. But if we generate the majority of our energy from fossil fuels then the 216 feet are a certainty.

It doesn't matter how much it takes. We know, from past times in earth's history that burning all of it is too much.So we know that if we keep going this way the ice will melt. It is melting now.What I don't know is how long it will take. And until we know that you should be very, very concerned. Unless of course you are absolutely sure it won't be in 30 years and you don't give a shit about the next generations to follow us.

Right now we transmit power to NYC from the middle of Quebec. The losses would be less if the power was generated closer.

Your honour, I am not guilty of murdering my 20 year old brother. It was a mercy killing since he was dying.
Science tells me he was going to be dead of old age in less than 80 years.