A doubling of CO2 produces 1C warming, so 8C warmer would require 128.000ppm we would all be dead long before that could happen.
present sea rise (there is some indication that the rise is slowing) is 180mm per year, going by tide gauges, so in a hundred years possible 1.8meters
I guess the problem for denier is they can't even do simple arithmetic
The level of CO2 in the pre-industrial world was 280ppm it is now 398ppm, I guess at the Heartland school of mafmatics, that is double, here in the real world it's a rise of ~40%.
The level of temperature rise during an interglacial is also about 8c but that has a number of other forces at work as well CO2 warms and as it does ice retreats the change in planetary albedo also plays a part in warming the planet (in a usual interglacial) and the rise in CO2 is usually ~100-120ppm and a longer period for it to work in ~8-10 thousand years.
We are already in an interglacial so there is far less ice to make a change in albedo, there will still be a change but it will be smaller, be we will easily make up for that in the amount of CO2, in a natural interglacial that rise of ~100ppm takes several thousand years and the ice, several thousand year longer to fully react. We have raised CO2 in 100 years (and in fact to a large degree, in just the last 50 years)
At the present rate of rise we will add another 165ppm by the end of the century, that will be the actual doubling kano tried to invent, now at that stage we will only be about 200 years into this and at present estimates temp rise by then will be at least 3-5c, not the one kano is trying to use for a doubling.
As for this "180mm per year, going by tide gauges, so in a hundred years possible 1.8meters"
What can I say, I guess I could say that the actual rise per year is 3.16mm,
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
or I could say that 180mm = 18cm and that if that was the rate of rise was happening we would get to 1.8m in ten years not 100, but kano's maths speaks for itself, oh dear.
As far as real science goes Greenland and the Antarctic are either at or near the poles, poles which are dark for a portion of the year, this slows any melt, it would at best take thousands of years for either to melt, and a look at the sea level rise estimates of the IPCC confirm that, they have a 1-2m rise by the end of the century (1m being the more likely) for that to happen both Antarctica and Greenland have to lose only a little over ~1.5% of their mass, there are no, longer term estimates, but a warmer planet will see ice continue to melt and as it does sea level will rise further. If we take the natural interglacials as a guide, there is a slow start which gradually accelerates, as things move back to equilibrium sea level rise slows and then stops, but that would be thousands of years from now, not 300 years.
If scientists where talking about a total melt of both glacail masses, then the number they would be using would be ~65m, as that would be the rise if and when we have a total melt, no scientist is talking about a number anywhere near that large.
Dear I think these are all myth, fictions and romance on atmosphere. Actually there is a circulation between climate changing like cold to summer , summer to cold which will still maintain these myths always.
Ohh, so crazy I want to take rebirth after 300 years.
Who will live for 300 years to see that... anyways,,, I don't think so it will happen,,, so don't worry...
umm from what the "scientists" are saying yah, it could so happen, but science is always advancing, i just dont know if it will be fast enough to always be there to solve the natural worlds on-going dissolving problems.
LOL, Got to love all of these alarmunists. They PRETEND they care about science, but do nothing to address that fact that the numbers told to you are entirely inaccurate. THey are scare-mongerers who misuse and abuse science for their own political gains.
Here are FACTS.
1.) The current sea level rise is 3 mm/year, up from the 1-2 mm/year rise since the end of the little ice age. So over the last 100 years with all the CO2 added to the atmosphere, the rate only increased by 1-2 mm/year. At this rate of increase, we should see about a 1 foot rise by 2100.
2.) Over the past 100 years, we have only seen a 0.8 degree rise in temps. Please note that the warmers themselves always use LINEAR regression to show past warming. LINEAR. SO if we model out linearly, then by 2100 the temps would rise by about 1 degree.
Fact is, the warmers try to scare you with models, so you would think you should be concerned with the model's accuracy. 97% of the climate models are overestimating. IF, however, they use a linear trend accounting for the PDO, then this more accurately models the current temps then almost all of their alarming exponential models.
And does this make sense? Well consider their argument. By doubling CO2, CO2 alone would cause an increase in temps of 1 degree. They are claiming that the positive feedbacks Their argument is that the positive feedbacks on Earth are so strong that for every 1 degree of rise caused by CO2, another 5-6 degrees of warming will occur. Now if feedbacks were that strong, then any small change to the Earth's cliamte would cause massive changes. This would mean that the Earth that has supported life for 3.5 billion years is unstable. Does that make any sense?
Now I am not saying we should not start to reduce our CO2 emissions. I completely agree that we should. We need to use intelligent methods, though. Not taxation during a recession or stopping 3rd world countries from having the power they need to get out of living in squalor. They are inducing panic to promote idiot solutions that will not work, whilst producing more fear about cost-effective solutions like nuclear power.
But let me be entirely clear here. 97% of their models are overestimating the warming. Even so: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Note that the IPCC report claims 3 degrees by 2100. They assume the large feedbakcs that I told you about. So when Alph ignorantly states that this is possible if we contine our burning of CO2, he is LYING!!!!
In fact, consider this. These warmers claim I am lying all of the time. They claim science is behind them. Now lets pretend that the IPCC is right and we ahve 3 degrees of warming by 2100. Who is closer to the truth? The person saying 1 degree or the person saying 8 degrees?
In other words, they are trying to scare-monger so much that they ignore that their models predict 3 degrees of warming (those same models of whcih 97% are currently overestimating) and almost triple the prediction.
You should live so long.
Most probable scenario, if you would live 300 years, you would see no or very minor changes compare to today's days. Unless some global cataclysm like supervolcano or giant asteroid would happened.
very likely in 200 years
I was told sea levels will rise 100 feet and temperatures would be 8 C warmer.
climate alarmists have said a lot of bad things about the climate were going to happen for the past 45 years. Barely any of it has ever been proven true.
Anything is possible. I find it funny how denialists love to point out the flaws in computer models, yet claim to know that AGW is not a threat.
ice free for the arctic ocean. There will still be ice on Greenland and Antarctica in 300 years. 100 feet sounds high as it's predicted to be 6-8 feet in the next 100 years.
8C is possible if emissions continue on current rise.
