By the end of this century Sea level could increase by 6 inches, global temperatures are currently falling, and the AMO will soon go negative which WILL cause MORE cooling, so its hard to imagine the Earth warming much by the end of this century. Climate model projections have failed to predict anything correctly yet, why would any sane person trust them? Because that's basically what you are believing when you put a number like 5.4 degrees F. out there, you are trusting a climate simulation that has already been proven that it does not work properly. Even If 1 Billion people believe that the Earth will warm by 5.4 degrees in 76 years it has nothing to do with reality. It's likely that the end of this century will see no major changes in climate because of warming, at least that's what the history books indicate.
You premise is not valid. Nobody and I mean nobody has scientifically proven CO2 to trap the heat, as you say. In fact the opposite is true. Unquestionably, the Earth's temperature has declined in over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Yet at this time the CO2 level has unquestionably gone up. Now does that prove out your premise? No. I didn't think so. You can let your mind wander and think of all kinds of scenarios, but are they realistic and scientific? If not it is just a worthless mind exercise and if stimulated by someone other than yourself, it usually means that you are being smooged into wrong thinking. Start all your logic with solid premises, otherwise you will go off on invalid tangents and worry over meaningless things. We have enough true things to worry about, not something that is not scientifically feasible.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
We were warned that this would happen due to the rise in Earth's temperature. And obviously, it did not come true. Yet teachers, people who call themselves scientists and mainly politicians all clamor for the you to believe in their unscientific and proven invalid theory and why is that.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ― and hence clamorous to be led to safety ― by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
Don't be a stooge by being manipulated by others into wrong thinking. The premise was wrong and the question should stop there.
However, a word of caution, if you tell the truth based on reason, you probably won't get a good grade.
A. The caps will melt. If Antarctica and Greenland melted, sea level would rise 220 feet. The North pole is floating ice. If it melted, it won't effect sea level but tell that to the polar bears.
B. Coastal cities would be inundated, particularly, Florida in the U.S.
C. Weather patterns would be erratic, floods, droughts and hypercanes.
B. There will be mass extinctions of wildlife. With mountain glaciers supplying most rivers with fresh water, people will be screwed as well. Potable water wars will be the norm.
Also, methane from methane hydrate (look it up, very interesting stuff... wrote a screenplay about it.) could erupt out of the oceans. Add methane to the mix, and the planet will cook.
Astrophysicists who use telescopes will tell you they see no back-radiation in the CO2 band, only in the water vapour and ozone band, and that CO2 has little effect.
Well lets have a look
Global sea ice extent at this moment this moment is 201,000 sq km above average http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/...
Antarctic sea ice extent reached a record ever recorded high this year of over 20 million sq km
Sea level rise is at 1.7mm per year (global tide gauges) no coastal city is in danger for at least a hundred years.
Hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are at a low.
CO2 plant fertilization has produced and increase in vegetation since 1980 of up 14% in some places (especially in arid semi desert regions) http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
So why don't you look at the evidence of what is happening, rather than listen to all those people who tell you what could happen (doom and gloom merchants)
Edit let me explain about the telescope thing, astronomers doing infrared astronomy obviously have problems with back radiation, it would mess up their view of the stars, but most report very little problems with radiation in the CO2 spectrum.
Edit I didn't mention volume, okay then read this from a rampant AGW supporter http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2014/10/p...
Edit
Unlike Jeff M it is not my intention of talking about long term trends, and showing out of date links.
I just wish to show what is happening NOW I don't have a crystal ball, Arctic ice volume according to piomass has increased even more than the extent has, nobody knows what Antarctic ice volume is the ice is 3 miles deep in some places how can you measure that.
There are two measuremnts of sea level tide gauges and satellites, I prefer tide gauges as none of the satellites agree with each other all have to be calibrated with some fancy algorithms and they are calibrated using tide gauges
I hate when kids use YA to do their homework, but I love answering good questions.
(A) The summer ice cap on the north pole will be gone in under a century, causing a lot of trouble for ice dependent mega-fauna (big animals) like Polar Bears and Walruses. Summer sea ice (ice floating in water) in the Antarctic Circle is dropping. Sea ice isn't really important at all down there, except for holding the southern ice cap on the land of the Antarctic continent. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting a lot faster than previously expected. Water flows down through cracks in the ice and lubricates the interface between rock and ice, making the glaciers flow faster. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has already started to flow into the ocean, which will raise sea levels. It can't be stopped.
(B) Because there the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already collapsing, sea level rise is now unavoidable and unstoppable. By the mid point of this century, coastal cities like New York, London, and San Fransisco, will start flooding regularly. There are several hundred cities world wide that may have to be abandoned because of rising sea levels before 2150.
(C) With more heat energy stuck in the atmosphere, and more water vapor to act as fuel, weather patterns will get more and more chaotic. Hot summers, freakishly cold winters, and more big storms in all seasons. Unexpectedly, the Atlantic Hurricane System has partially stalled. Hurricanes require differences in water surface temperature to form, and the ocean is warming a lot more uniformly than we thought possible. One big effect of global warming is that the Jet Stream (the big stratospheric air current) shifted north sometime around 2009, and has been weakening. Last winter, it weakened enough to allow massive amounts of arctic cold air to flow south over the Great Lakes region, in the form of those annoying Arctic Vortexes. Unless the jet stream regains its strength, Arctic Vortexes will become a normal part of winter in the Northern United States.
(D) The shifting of biome pattern (distribution of plant and animal life) will follow the shift of climate. Lower mid latitudes are already drying out, causing recurrent drought in America's farm belt. When the aquifers we're draining to water our crops runs out in a few decades, we'll have to shift our agricultural base north, toward Canada. Because of the warming climate, species that used to be dependent on subtropical temperatures are starting to move north. Invasive fire ants, for instance, may reach southern Illinois next year. The desert bands are expanding faster than any other biome worldwide. Peoples farms are being dried out and turned to dust, displacing hundreds of thousands already. The tropical forest band on either side of the equator may eventually expand, if we don't chop them all down.
Kano is very misleading. Quite a bit of what he says is not based on reality. Astrophysicists do not measure back radiation with telescopes (WTF?).
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface
under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
SURFRAD (Surface Radiation) Network - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfra...
It is also measured via satellite.
Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
What Kano states is not the truth.
Kanos claim that global sea ice extent is increasing (Which he basically states) completely ignores long term trends band instead is only based on the last two years of data. You can see this by looking at the very site he links to. He also does not mention that what he is posting is ice area rather than volume. It is a manipulative technique he appears to be using. Also note that he only mentions Antarctica which is indeed increasing in sea ice extent but decreasing in volume.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Sea level has been increasing at over 3mm per year. The increase in sea level is not to be worried about as much however as the more intense storm surges and flooding as a result. He fails to mention this and once again attempts to manipulate.
Exposure of developing countries to sea-level rise and storm surges - http://www.acpmigration-obs.org/sites/de...
Global warming and hurricanes: the potential impact of hurricane intensification and sea level rise on coastal flooding -https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/Papers...
He also states hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires are at a low. He does not tell you that hurricanes, as per actual science, are expected to decrease or remain static in number outside of variability due to natural cycles such as the PDO and related ENSO events but become more intense. And this is exactly what we see happening.
Increases in vegetation in some areas of the world is indeed a reality. However, there is more to it than just CO2 enrichment.
Why is plant-growth response to elevated CO2 amplified when water is limiting, but reduced when nitrogen is limiting? A growth-optimisation hypothesis - http://face.ornl.gov/Ross_FPB_2008.pdf
CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability - http://www.pnas.org/content/107/45/19368...
Nitrogen limitation constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2 -http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v44...
Kano: If it is not your intention in talking about long term trends why are you in the climate change debate?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/...
If you are talking about climate then I would suggest stop trying to manipulate others by talking about short term weather as that is what it seems you are doing. It has been estimated that between 30% and 90% of the Arctic sea ice decline is due to global warming while the rest is due to a combination of natural oscillatory cycles such as the PDO and AO. This means that sea ice may have it's ups and downs but the long term trend is still one of decline. You fail to mention this.
A. The penguins would lose their dance floor.
B. They'll flood, in part. So we'll lose some of our dance floors.
C. They'll change, causing widespread flooding, ruining more of our dance floors.
D. Seeing as the forest ecosystems and grassland ecosystems will be flooded, there will be widespread loss of ALL dance floors.
a. melting. reduced ice. more shipping and resource extraction.
b.slow rise of sea levels. more damage on coasts..including storm surges
c. changed.. some areas more droughts others more floods. jet stream changed so weather system patterns changed
d. southern species moving north. some diseases migrating to other regions.
EDIT..Kano is misleading. satellite do measure..
yes
The Earth's temperature reflects the degree to which infrared radiation, as heat, is trapped by carbon dioxide and water vapor in the lower atmosphere. This natural phenomenon is referred to as the greenhouse effect. However if carbon dioxide levels increase the greenhouse effects enhanced and global warming can occur. In the absence of any mitigating factors, global temperatures are predicted to increase by 5.4F over the next century.
What effects could global warming have on:
a)polar ice caps?
b)Coastal cities?
c)Weather patterns?
d)Distribution patterns of plants and animals?
