Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

spot wrote:
There is a spectrum of possibilities between: "The end of all human life as we know it" and: "no effect whatsoever.".

If we are at all interested to know what will happen we should start listening to those who base there views on evidence, I am certain people like Brian Cox have a better understanding then Malcolme Roberts.

Also; 10 million people dying every year due the actions of green/communists seems alarming, we can't have alarmists so I was wondering if there is any evidence for this? or are they like those volcanoes in Antarctica.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Because I see no way that a 2 foot sea level rise over the next century will overwhelm any city all of which will do stuff to stop it. They will do so at a cost less than they spend on traffic lights as well.

Similar to the way I don't see the prospect of being invaded by the North Koreans as something to actually worry about.

Holland has lots of land below sea level. Lots of this land was drained of sea water before mechanical diggers were about. Now it is much easier to build sea defences.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
There is a spectrum of possibilities between: "The end of all human life as we know it" and: "no effect whatsoever.".

If we are at all interested to know what will happen we should start listening to those who base there views on evidence, I am certain people like Brian Cox have a better understanding then Malcolme Roberts.

Also; 10 million people dying every year due the actions of green/communists seems alarming, we can't have alarmists so I was wondering if there is any evidence for this? or are they like those volcanoes in Antarctica.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26478#.V7c1yTWsJww

This one says a 30% rise in food prices but I have seen 70% and that seems more believable.

How many deaths do you think happen when food prices rise by this much when the poorest billion people live on less than a dollar a day?

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
There is a spectrum of possibilities between: "The end of all human life as we know it" and: "no effect whatsoever.".

If we are at all interested to know what will happen we should start listening to those who base there views on evidence, I am certain people like Brian Cox have a better understanding then Malcolme Roberts.

Also; 10 million people dying every year due the actions of green/communists seems alarming, we can't have alarmists so I was wondering if there is any evidence for this? or are they like those volcanoes in Antarctica.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26478#.V7c1yTWsJww

This one says a 30% rise in food prices but I have seen 70% and that seems more believable.

How many deaths do you think happen when food prices rise by this much when the poorest billion people live on less than a dollar a day?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Because I see no way that a 2 foot sea level rise over the next century will overwhelm any city all of which will do stuff to stop it. They will do so at a cost less than they spend on traffic lights as well.

Similar to the way I don't see the prospect of being invaded by the North Koreans as something to actually worry about.

Holland has lots of land below sea level. Lots of this land was drained of sea water before mechanical diggers were about. Now it is much easier to build sea defences.

A 2 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century is towards the bottom of the range of predictions; expected is between 0.5 and 1.5 metres. In any case, though, the sea will continue to rise after that, eventually reaching around 20 meters even if we were to stop CO2 emissions today. If we continue to burn all the coal left in the ground, pushing CO2 levels to over 1,000 ppm, then the all the ice at the poles will likely melt and raise the sea level by some 65 metres. That may not be for us to worry about, but future generations won't thank us.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Because I see no way that a 2 foot sea level rise over the next century will overwhelm any city all of which will do stuff to stop it. They will do so at a cost less than they spend on traffic lights as well.

Similar to the way I don't see the prospect of being invaded by the North Koreans as something to actually worry about.

Holland has lots of land below sea level. Lots of this land was drained of sea water before mechanical diggers were about. Now it is much easier to build sea defences.

A 2 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century is towards the bottom of the range of predictions; expected is between 0.5 and 1.5 metres. In any case, though, the sea will continue to rise after that, eventually reaching around 20 meters even if we were to stop CO2 emissions today. If we continue to burn all the coal left in the ground, pushing CO2 levels to over 1,000 ppm, then the all the ice at the poles will likely melt and raise the sea level by some 65 metres. That may not be for us to worry about, but future generations won't thank us.

The IPCC says otherwise.

Can you explain any actual mechanism for you drivel idea of the temperature rising by enough to melt the Antarctic ice where a hot summers day on the coast is -20c or the high altitude Greenland ice sheet at a similar temperature?

I'll give you a clue don't look in science for it 'cause there is no such mechanism.

You are lying.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Because I see no way that a 2 foot sea level rise over the next century will overwhelm any city all of which will do stuff to stop it. They will do so at a cost less than they spend on traffic lights as well.

Similar to the way I don't see the prospect of being invaded by the North Koreans as something to actually worry about.

Holland has lots of land below sea level. Lots of this land was drained of sea water before mechanical diggers were about. Now it is much easier to build sea defences.

A 2 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century is towards the bottom of the range of predictions; expected is between 0.5 and 1.5 metres. In any case, though, the sea will continue to rise after that, eventually reaching around 20 meters even if we were to stop CO2 emissions today. If we continue to burn all the coal left in the ground, pushing CO2 levels to over 1,000 ppm, then the all the ice at the poles will likely melt and raise the sea level by some 65 metres. That may not be for us to worry about, but future generations won't thank us.

The IPCC says otherwise.

Can you explain any actual mechanism for you drivel idea of the temperature rising by enough to melt the Antarctic ice where a hot summers day on the coast is -20c or the high altitude Greenland ice sheet at a similar temperature?

I'll give you a clue don't look in science for it 'cause there is no such mechanism.

You are lying.

No, you are lying, as even the most cursory research shows. With regard to Antarctic coastal temperatures, for example:

British Antarctic Survey - Temperatures

Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in the summer (December-February) months, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula.

I don't understand why you feel the need to make stuff up.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Very few people deny that human activity has an effect on the world's climate.

The debate is over how much of an effect that is and if that is a problem.

If only that were true, Tim. Unfortunately many are still stuck at first base, including politicians like Malcolm Roberts and Donald Trump as well as our very own IBdaMann and Into The Night.

For practicle purposes of public policy the difference between there being no AGW and it not being a problem is zero.

The big problem is that the green/communist human haters are hyping a none-problem up to be a vast catastrophy. This is currently killing at least 10 million people per year due to the use of food as fuel.

It'd be interesting to hear why you consider the prospect of, for example, many of our coastal cities and agricultural plains vanishing beneath the waves to be a "none-problem".

Because I see no way that a 2 foot sea level rise over the next century will overwhelm any city all of which will do stuff to stop it. They will do so at a cost less than they spend on traffic lights as well.

Similar to the way I don't see the prospect of being invaded by the North Koreans as something to actually worry about.

Holland has lots of land below sea level. Lots of this land was drained of sea water before mechanical diggers were about. Now it is much easier to build sea defences.

A 2 foot rise in sea level by the end of this century is towards the bottom of the range of predictions; expected is between 0.5 and 1.5 metres. In any case, though, the sea will continue to rise after that, eventually reaching around 20 meters even if we were to stop CO2 emissions today. If we continue to burn all the coal left in the ground, pushing CO2 levels to over 1,000 ppm, then the all the ice at the poles will likely melt and raise the sea level by some 65 metres. That may not be for us to worry about, but future generations won't thank us.

The IPCC says otherwise.

Can you explain any actual mechanism for you drivel idea of the temperature rising by enough to melt the Antarctic ice where a hot summers day on the coast is -20c or the high altitude Greenland ice sheet at a similar temperature?

I'll give you a clue don't look in science for it 'cause there is no such mechanism.

You are lying.

No, you are lying, as even the most cursory research shows. With regard to Antarctic coastal temperatures, for example:

British Antarctic Survey - Temperatures

Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in the summer (December-February) months, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula.

I don't understand why you feel the need to make stuff up.

With the exception of the Antarctic peninsular the temperatures on the coast of Antarctica are generally at -20c on a warm day in summer.

Doers that help???

Can you find any science which shows a mechanism that would melt all the ice at the poles????? You will not, short of an orbital bombardment by space aliens.

Find another doomsday cult.

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. According to the British Antarctic Survey, temperatures are generally close to freezing around the coasts of Antarctica in the summer months. Freezing is 0C, not -20C, and it is the temperature at which ice melts and water freezes.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. According to the British Antarctic Survey, temperatures are generally close to freezing around the coasts of Antarctica in the summer months. Freezing is 0C, not -20C, and it is the temperature at which ice melts and water freezes.

So how much temperature rise are you suggesting? Due to what? Citing what science?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. According to the British Antarctic Survey, temperatures are generally close to freezing around the coasts of Antarctica in the summer months. Freezing is 0C, not -20C, and it is the temperature at which ice melts and water freezes.

So how much temperature rise are you suggesting? Due to what? Citing what science?

This is the 2013 paper I was looking at with regard to CO2 concentrations and long-term sea levels. It details the methods that the authors have used to estimate prehistoric CO2 concentrations and sea levels and hence determine the relationship between these variables. From this data, they estimate that the current CO2 concentration of 400 ppm will cause the sea level to rise by between 9 and 31 metres, while a CO2 concentration of 1,000 ppm would ultimately result in all the polar ice melting and a sea level rise of around 70 metres.

Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales

spot wrote:
The high altitude ice in the polar regions is on top of ice,

spot wrote:
very simply put once the lower ice melts it will no longer be high enough to protect it from melt.

spot wrote:
If temperatures are high enough for long enough it will go, its basic physics.

spot wrote:
Increases of CO2 concentration cause warming, its basic physics.

spot wrote:
Of course it's a lot of ice and it will take a long time.

spot wrote:
But thermal expansion

spot wrote:
and melting ice that is vulnerable will and is causing sea level rises,

spot wrote:
not only that but climate change causes other effects besides sea levels.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. According to the British Antarctic Survey, temperatures are generally close to freezing around the coasts of Antarctica in the summer months. Freezing is 0C, not -20C, and it is the temperature at which ice melts and water freezes.

So how much temperature rise are you suggesting? Due to what? Citing what science?

This is the 2013 paper I was looking at with regard to CO2 concentrations and long-term sea levels. It details the methods that the authors have used to estimate prehistoric CO2 concentrations and sea levels and hence determine the relationship between these variables. From this data, they estimate that the current CO2 concentration of 400 ppm will cause the sea level to rise by between 9 and 31 metres, while a CO2 concentration of 1,000 ppm would ultimately result in all the polar ice melting and a sea level rise of around 70 metres.

Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales

And as anybody with any imagination who is not 100% wedded to the AGW hype machine will automatically know that this is bollocks.

Just because previous times of high CO2 had high sea levels says little about future situations.

The ice we have at present was not there previously because of reasons of the position of the continents and the fact that the ice has been building up for a very long time with no capacity for it to leave Antarctica of the highlands of Greenland.

The AGW hypothesis is a chain of reasoning which goes;

1, Increased CO2 will increase temperatures. This is at a level of 3.6 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 or about +1c.

The overall effect of the changes resulting from climate forcing determine a key characteristic of the climate system, known as the "climate sensitivity" – this is the amount of climate change (as measured by the equilibrium change in globally-averaged surface temperature) caused by a given amount of climate forcing. It is often quoted (as will be the case here) as the temperature change that eventually results from a doubling in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times, and is calculated to cause a climate
forcing of about 3.6 Wm-2.

From https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

There are then some debatable positive feedback effects that the IPCC et al want to add which seem increasingly unlikely.

But even frpom this basic understanding you must see that an increase to 1000ppm would not be that big a temperature rise although how long you think it would take for that has to be a lot. 600 years???

2, Then the hypothesis says that this will cause significant melting of land ice. It didn't for a while, they were talking about the expansion effect of the world's oceans as they warmed up but then the IPCC made the mistake of commissioning some mechanical engineers to tell them how much this would be and it's F.all. About 7cm for a +1c over a century. So now they have returned to the ice melt.

Ice melt does not work because it is very easy to tell where the ice will retreat to for a given temperature change. Each +200m will be 1c colder. So for a temperature rise of 4c (where the hell that's coming form, ask the alarmists) the ice will eventually retreat to 800m above it's present teminal position.

This will however be very gradual. Ice cannot absorb radiaent energy very quickly at all. The Alps always have sunbathers on ice pockets being photographed each summer.

The ice in Antarctica is vertually entirely safe from this so they have invented the idea of some sort of warming of the ocean beneath the ice to allow some melting then some sort of ice sprint tumbling into the sea after that. The southern ocean is always going to be cold. It is bounded by the fact that it is a cold ocean and the waters to the North of it are warmer. If the general temperature goes up a bit it will simply shrink a bit.

3, If you are projecting CO2 levels to 1000ppm you are predicting human industry into the next millenium. Given that the economic and social consequences of the anti CO2 measures we have taken so far have resulted in the use of food as fuel thus killing many many millions of people and maintaining the utter impovrishment of the world's poorest couple of billion people I don't think we should react to this supposed worry untill we have some data that actually supports the alarmist side. the last 17 years of data have supported the do nothing side.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Sorry, but you are quite simply wrong. According to the British Antarctic Survey, temperatures are generally close to freezing around the coasts of Antarctica in the summer months. Freezing is 0C, not -20C, and it is the temperature at which ice melts and water freezes.

So how much temperature rise are you suggesting? Due to what? Citing what science?

This is the 2013 paper I was looking at with regard to CO2 concentrations and long-term sea levels. It details the methods that the authors have used to estimate prehistoric CO2 concentrations and sea levels and hence determine the relationship between these variables. From this data, they estimate that the current CO2 concentration of 400 ppm will cause the sea level to rise by between 9 and 31 metres, while a CO2 concentration of 1,000 ppm would ultimately result in all the polar ice melting and a sea level rise of around 70 metres.

Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales

And as anybody with any imagination who is not 100% wedded to the AGW hype machine will automatically know that this is bollocks.

Just because previous times of high CO2 had high sea levels says little about future situations.

The ice we have at present was not there previously because of reasons of the position of the continents and the fact that the ice has been building up for a very long time with no capacity for it to leave Antarctica of the highlands of Greenland.

The AGW hypothesis is a chain of reasoning which goes;

1, Increased CO2 will increase temperatures. This is at a level of 3.6 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 or about +1c.

The overall effect of the changes resulting from climate forcing determine a key characteristic of the climate system, known as the "climate sensitivity" – this is the amount of climate change (as measured by the equilibrium change in globally-averaged surface temperature) caused by a given amount of climate forcing. It is often quoted (as will be the case here) as the temperature change that eventually results from a doubling in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times, and is calculated to cause a climate
forcing of about 3.6 Wm-2.

From https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

There are then some debatable positive feedback effects that the IPCC et al want to add which seem increasingly unlikely.

But even frpom this basic understanding you must see that an increase to 1000ppm would not be that big a temperature rise although how long you think it would take for that has to be a lot. 600 years???

2, Then the hypothesis says that this will cause significant melting of land ice. It didn't for a while, they were talking about the expansion effect of the world's oceans as they warmed up but then the IPCC made the mistake of commissioning some mechanical engineers to tell them how much this would be and it's F.all. About 7cm for a +1c over a century. So now they have returned to the ice melt.

Ice melt does not work because it is very easy to tell where the ice will retreat to for a given temperature change. Each +200m will be 1c colder. So for a temperature rise of 4c (where the hell that's coming form, ask the alarmists) the ice will eventually retreat to 800m above it's present teminal position.

This will however be very gradual. Ice cannot absorb radiaent energy very quickly at all. The Alps always have sunbathers on ice pockets being photographed each summer.

The ice in Antarctica is vertually entirely safe from this so they have invented the idea of some sort of warming of the ocean beneath the ice to allow some melting then some sort of ice sprint tumbling into the sea after that. The southern ocean is always going to be cold. It is bounded by the fact that it is a cold ocean and the waters to the North of it are warmer. If the general temperature goes up a bit it will simply shrink a bit.

3, If you are projecting CO2 levels to 1000ppm you are predicting human industry into the next millenium. Given that the economic and social consequences of the anti CO2 measures we have taken so far have resulted in the use of food as fuel thus killing many many millions of people and maintaining the utter impovrishment of the world's poorest couple of billion people I don't think we should react to this supposed worry untill we have some data that actually supports the alarmist side. the last 17 years of data have supported the do nothing side.

If you actually bothered to read the paper I cited, you'd see that continental drift is indeed considered. However, the authors conclude from the data that CO2 concentration has been a more significant driver of global climate over the last 40 million years.

I can see though that it's a waste of time discussing this with you. How am I supposed to have a rational argument with someone who simply dismisses any scientific evidence that counters their claims and invents their own figures?

Just because there is a scientific paper on something does not make it right.

Leafsdude wrote:

Just because there is a scientific paper on something does not make it right.

Of course not, but if you don't have a scientific paper to support a scientific claim, then there's no evidence it's right.

What scientific papers provide is more credence to a claim.

So do you disagree with the figure for thermal forcing that the Royal Society uses?

Tim the plumber wrote:

And how am I supposed to debate with somebody who will not at all discuss the mechanism of such a temperature rise or the mechanism of the supposed ice melt or account for the lack of such ice melt in precious warmer times?

Just because there is a scientific paper on something does not make it right.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

And how am I supposed to debate with somebody who will not at all discuss the mechanism of such a temperature rise or the mechanism of the supposed ice melt or account for the lack of such ice melt in precious warmer times?

Just because there is a scientific paper on something does not make it right.

The mechanism of the temperature rise is almost certainly the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increasing CO2 levels, and the mechanism for the ice melt is the fact that temperatures along the coast of the Antarctic, for example, regularly reach freezing point in summer (not the -20C figure you pulled out of your ass).

The ice did melt in previous warmer times - that's the whole point! For example, there's evidence that the Greenland ice cap was substantially smaller at the height of the last (Eemian) interglacial period than it is today. Furthermore, satellite measurements show that Greenland is currently losing mass at an average rate of about 269 billion tonnes per year.

Surface Detail wrote:
1) 269 billion tons of ice a year melts to produce 269 billion tons of water a year, which is roughly 269 billion cubic metres of water a year. The total surface area of the oceans is 361 million square kilometres, or 361 trillion square meters. Greenland's melting ice therefore contributes 269 x 10^9 / 361 x 10^12 = 7.5 x 10^-4 m or about 0.75 mm per year. By itself, Greenland's melting ice would therefore raise the sea level by 84 x 0.75 = 63 mm by 2100 at its current rate.

However, it's not just Greenland's ice that is melting; Antarctic ice is also melting and contributing to sea level rise. These are not currently the main cause of sea level rise though; the main contribution to the currently observed sea level rise of about 3.4 mm / year is the thermal expansion of sea water. Note also that the melting rate of Greenland's ice isn't constant, but has been accelerating rapidly over the last couple of decades and is likely to continue accelerating.

2) The ice lost from Greenland shows up as a drop in the height of the ice covering the continent. Indeed, the rate of ice loss is actually derived from satellite measurements of the height of Greenland's ice plateau. Note again though that Greenland hasn't been losing this much ice for the last 20 years; the rate of ice loss has accelerated during that time and is expected to continue to do so.

So, no surprises there. I was already aware that thermal expansion of sea water is currently the main contributor to sea level rise, but that melting ice is likely to make an increasingly large contribution in the future.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
1) 269 billion tons of ice a year melts to produce 269 billion tons of water a year, which is roughly 269 billion cubic metres of water a year. The total surface area of the oceans is 361 million square kilometres, or 361 trillion square meters. Greenland's melting ice therefore contributes 269 x 10^9 / 361 x 10^12 = 7.5 x 10^-4 m or about 0.75 mm per year. By itself, Greenland's melting ice would therefore raise the sea level by 84 x 0.75 = 63 mm by 2100 at its current rate.

However, it's not just Greenland's ice that is melting; Antarctic ice is also melting and contributing to sea level rise. These are not currently the main cause of sea level rise though; the main contribution to the currently observed sea level rise of about 3.4 mm / year is the thermal expansion of sea water. Note also that the melting rate of Greenland's ice isn't constant, but has been accelerating rapidly over the last couple of decades and is likely to continue accelerating.

2) The ice lost from Greenland shows up as a drop in the height of the ice covering the continent. Indeed, the rate of ice loss is actually derived from satellite measurements of the height of Greenland's ice plateau. Note again though that Greenland hasn't been losing this much ice for the last 20 years; the rate of ice loss has accelerated during that time and is expected to continue to do so.

So, no surprises there. I was already aware that thermal expansion of sea water is currently the main contributor to sea level rise, but that melting ice is likely to make an increasingly large contribution in the future.

Your math is incorrect. Water from melted ice added to the oceans should be calculated against the volume of the ocean, not its surface area.