I think alarmists should be called "non-realists" myself. They frigging HATE reality. Reality always interferes with their catastrophic predictions.
LOL
"Climate Change"...yeah...very likely some...a certain rate.
And now...back to the Pizza and other Self-Indulgences.
I have a feeling the person in question is talking about all of the ice not just within 100 years or so. Antarctica alone holds fresh water that can increase sea levels by 70 meters. That is roughly 26.5 cubic km of ice.
Bedmap - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
Bedmap2 - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research...
To this you will also have to add the Greenland ice sheet and every other glacial mass. This does not include thermal expansion. Below you can find the equation for thermal expansion.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...
How do you come to the conclusion that he is wrong?
Edit: I just saw the question. Your claim that ice shrinks when it melts is flat out wrong.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...
It's reaches it's maximum density at 4C. After it shrinks upon melting and reaches 4C it begins to expand again. You are misrepresenting the truth and not telling the full story. Most of the rest of your post in that question is rubbish.
http://ppg.sagepub.com/content/30/3/285....
And here is your 'global sea ice recovery' from the other thread.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
I have told you time and time again it's the 'trends' that matter. Do you think that the trend in Antarctic sea ice concentration has suddenly changed from one where there was slow sea ice growth to one where there is rather fast sea ice growth? Or do you think the sea ice growth over the past few years is just a blip in the trend? Maybe you should stop putting so much weight on what Watts and similar blogs say as they often manipulate the truth.
Edit: So by 'most studies' you mean 'National Geographic'. If we are going to be posting magazines here's one for you.
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/11/...
The most recent updates put sea level rise approximately where you state. However, the person in question is obviously placing it according to prior estimates. In order to see why the differences occurred between the two you would have to go to the site itself and look into it. I can't seem to find the section of the USGS site that states the updated numbers though. All I can find is the numbers from the site I gave you.
Edit: The graphs I posted go up to the present. Nice try. They break the sea ice down between Arctic and Antarctic. Is global sea ice, at present, equal to the averaged trend? Yes. But there is a reason for that as I emphasized. Look at both my graphs again. Do you notice how the Antarctic takes a large swing upward over the past couple years?
Of course there is. Most people involved on both sides couldn't care less if global warming is real. even if they do the carbon tax isn't going to climate issues anyway.
Remember the lottery goes to pay for education :)
War on drugs = more drugs
War on poverty=more poverty
War on education=honesty in advertising
You want truth? YouTube Michael reanolds "garbage warrior" if the government was really trying to organize anything "for the planet" why aren't they screaming this guy's name? Instead of trying to put him in jail. Same with Joe salatin "everything I want to do is illegal" "this aint normal"
ICE shrinks when it melts , fill a glass with water and ice to the top after the ice melts the level will have gone DOWN
A realist here has posted that if the ice melted the oceans would rise 80.32m this came from and old flawed study, and most studies agree on 60plus meters or 216ft.
He goes on to say with thermal expansion that could be 150m or 200m which in totally unbelievable.
Now this poster is knowledge and intelligent so I cannot believe this was a mistake.
However I could be wrong myself, so if that person was to present convincing evidence backing his claims I will apologize.
