Human Induced Global warming is just another conjob for the ignorant.

Depending on how fast the Antarctic sheets go that could be 150 m (450 ft)

I was under the impression that if all of the ice on land melted then the seas would rise by about 200ft or 60m.

ProtoTypical writes: I was under the impression that if all of the ice on land melted then the seas would rise by about 200ft or 60m.

I thought I had read something simialr to that as well. The reason they stated was that many calculations included Sea Ice, which would have no visible effect on Ocean levels because it is already displacing water. However, I could definitely have been misinformed. I agree with most of what has been said int his thread, including that humans should address what aprts we do add to the problem as well as Coyote's idea that more research does need to be done to see what else we can do and the extent we can actually effect change with only human causes.

Why not do both?

It will make some rich folks poorer?

And the current atmosphere, in which global warming proponents literally demonize anyone who suggests that, is both unhealthy and unscientific.

So that's what's wrong with the atmosphere.

It will make some rich folks poorer?

And how is that bad for the rest (99%) of us?

http://gawker.com/...y-weather-predicted-for-enti-1502840883

quote:

---

As California Burns, Hot Dry Weather Predicted For Entirety of "Winter"

Here's some terrible news to mark the beginning of permanent fire season in California: It's going to stay like this, hot and dry, until May. The Climate Prediction Center says winter will come and go without the usual winter storms that provide the snowpack that provides all the water people use. Fire conditions will be awful until summer, when they will continue being awful until next winter, if winter ever shows up again.

With 2013 already on record as the driest year in recorded California history, the exact last thing we need is another winter without rain and snow. But that's what 2014 is forecast to be, at least through the crucial January-May rainy season.

---

Not good news.

I was under the impression that if all of the ice on land melted then the seas would rise by about 200ft or 60m.

I don't know the exact amount, but it is definitely going to go up. The ice is 2 miles thick on Antarctica, and I think Greenland has even more ice, even if it is a bit thinner at 1-2 miles thick. Sixty percent of the world's fresh water is tied up just in the Antarctic land ice.

Latest figures I saw were that close to 50% of all humanity lives within 50 km of ocean with most of that below 150 m.

In a bit of a paradox, AGW may have cancelled out the next glaciation cycle. While we may lose major population centers along the oceans, we may save other population centers from being destroyed by glaciers in the more distant future. I'm not trying to say that AGW is a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps there is a bit of silver lining in the oncoming storm.

One of the benefits of trying to reduce our role in AGW is that we are realizing the limits of fossil fuels. If we keep using fossil fuels at current rates we are going to run out. This is reason alone that we need to move ourselves off of fossil fuels in addition to AGW.

If we keep using fossil fuels at current rates we are going to run out.

We will not run out (at least not in time frames that are relevant). There are already countries (South Africa being one ) where a large part of the car fuel is produced from coal for example. There are immense reserves of that fossil fuel.

What will and is happening is that fuel will get more and more expensive. This is a very good thing but it isn't happening fast enough to help a lot with the climate change problem.

I was under the impression that if all of the ice on land melted then the seas would rise by about 200ft or 60m.

Now, you see, this is what happens when you don't check the sources of your sources.

I remember doing this some years ago, probably in EvC, and thought I'd learned. Guess not.

What this means is that my entire screed is a fuck up.

'Scuse me, I have to go do something.

Good catch, Proto. Thanks for the shout down. I will endeavour to do better ... sometime.

Thank you again.

In a bit of a paradox, AGW may have cancelled out the next glaciation cycle.

The last glaciation had ice thousands of feet thick along most of the northern US.

That is not a very good idea, as the various vegetation zones would all be moved far to the south as well. Mostly out of the US.

This is why it is a really good idea to figure out which way the frog should jump before we put all of our available wealth into one direction or the other.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

Solar activity plummeted i wonder what the people who say its all the suns fault will say when 2014 is again one of the top 10 hottest years ever measured?

This is why it is a really good idea to figure out which way the frog should jump before we put all of our available wealth into one direction or the other.

Then it is a damn good thing no one has ever suggested that.

I think you may have misunderstood my British understated, sarcasm.

'Scuse me, I have to go do something.

Oh, I didn't think that you had to do that. Just adjust your figures. 200 ft of SLR is still plenty to bring on the doom.

Here's a question for you knowers of things. What happens to the rotation of the earth when we redistribute the 32,000,000 km3 of ice at 1 billion kg/km3. Would our days get appreciably shorter due to having more weight at the equator?

... Would our days get appreciably shorter due to having more weight at the equator?

Would we?

Assuming this is true it would be like a spinning figure skater spreading their arms -- slower rotation rate.