At least a few hundred years. Hard to say
It is necessary to mention some facts concerning the future in order to understand why the global warming can be considered a disaster for the whole planet. Certainly it is not possible to know the future climate on Earth precisely, but some data are certain: every century brings the increase of the temperature of 1-2C. It is enough for Greenland and Antarctica to start melting, thus some part of northern areas could become a farmland and Sahara might become bigger. Storms can be stronger. Some countries like Bangladesh and Netherlands are luckily to vanish because of the ocean level rise up to 5 meters.
The term "climate forcing" is often used though it is hard to give its precise definition. To define it simply - this is an event that influences global climate. At this point it is necessary to mention that the weather and climate are different things, the weather is described with the help of variations of dryness or wetness, cold and heat. They do not play a great role for the whole picture on the Earth, but climate can be influenced by forcing, like for example a volcanic eruption can cool the climate on the whole Earth. Such forcing is called a short term forcing. An example of long term forcing may be continental drift which within millions of years changes the path of ocean currents. To anthropogenic forcing belong fossil fuel burning and agriculture. Not all forcing of humans result in global warming, sulfur dioxide from coal burning produces aerosols and they result in cooling.
These were the main negative influences on the climate that cause the global warming. They are rather serious and need urgent steps taken by people in order to avoid the catastrophes in the world of nature, to which we by the way also belong.
So the climate of the Earth should be an international concern and not only of scientists and ordinary people, but also of those who hold power in their hand and are able to make the politics work not only for money, but also for the future of the whole mankind. Unfortunately, these are mostly beautiful words and promises when elections are in the future as soon as they are over the real situation changes. Not a single national leader has come out publicly and said that the recent spate of hurricanes was the result of global warming, this is a part of conventional wisdom of environmentalists that they should not frighten the public, but should focus their interest on technical solutions, like for example hybrid cars and so on.
Global warming is such a problem that it is necessary to deal with all its aspects, which includes the politics. When politicians formulate their policy they need inputs from many disciplines and from science as well. But unfortunately global warming has become an absolutely political issue and politicians do their best to influence even science.
Regarding Antarctica:
"The first indication of probable glacierization at sea level is in the form of isolated gravel and terrigenous sand grains, which indicate ice-rafting from middle Eocene time at c. 45.5 Ma" -- (1)
If the entire thing melted, sea level would rise about 70 meters (2). Here is an interactive map if you are inclined to see what sea level rise could do (3).
Edit @Salim: "... every century brings the increase of the temperature of 1-2C."
The data only supports an increase of 0.63 Kelvins for the global temperatures in the 1900s (4), and a decline in global temperatures for the 1800s (5).
"Storms can be stronger."
This has not been seen in the data despite the apparent recent global warming. Why is this? Is it because the recent global warming is not significant enough to worry about, or because this theory (of warming = stronger storms) needs to be reexamined? (6)
"Bangladesh and Netherlands are luckily to vanish because of the ocean level rise up to 5 meters."
At the current rate of a foot per century (7), that would take more than 17 centuries assuming that the upward trend continues, [unlikely (8)] and nobody builds any more dykes. Even if so, according to my Sea Level link below (3), a 5 meter rise in sea level will not come close to making those countries vanish.
It's not possible to say with certainty, but if it was all to melt, it would take many centuries.
I think the most likely scenario is that, as AGW, progresses, Antarctica will see further loss of ice mass, but the bulk of it will remain.
This doesn't mean AGW isn't a problem; it could sill be catastrophic in human terms.
As long as Antarctica is at the pole, it cannot melt, in earths prehistory Antarctica had a temperate climate with trees, but that was before plate tectonics moved it to it's present location.
As long as we have a major land mass at one or both poles the Earth will be subject to ice ages.
It could be hundreds or thousands of years or never? So what if not all the ice in Antarctica melts. Only some of it has to melt to flood millions of square miles of land.
I didn't realize that it was melting away.
Did Al Gore visit your school?
Antarctica isn't melting.
In fact Antarctic Sea Ice Extent hit an All Time Records in 2012 and I believe it's still gaining.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2012/...
When Al says so.
Don't cry for Antarctica. At the present time it is increasing in ice.
at -85F I'd say 2 years
How many years?
Alot of years we will be dead
