Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double

"From the press release, we are seeing about 159 billion tons/year of ice converted to meltwater (unless it sublimates), so the effect on sea level would be 159 x 3 millionths of a meter, or 477 millionths of meter of sea level rise per year from this. (or in other words 0.47 mm which works out to 47mm/century or ~1.85 inches/century)"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/20/a ... ity-check/

Would you stop posting common sense explanations to raving doomsday rhetoric. It makes this new religion look as bad as the old ones.

Do you have any idea what the world would look like after a catastrophic two-inch rise in global sea levels?



Will you just LOOK at the chaos that kind of mayhem will cause? LOOK at the suffering!

Notice he finally got around to fixing that post after making a conversion error and being off by a factor of 1000. Then he fixes the error without admitting that he underestimated sea rise by a thousand and treats the number exactly the same.

The fact that he could be off by a factor of 1000 and not even notice that anything was amiss gives you an indication of the technical proficiency you're dealing with at WUWT.

Insetad of reading the press release, how about reading the study?

Well if all the doom and gloom of water rising happens I think I am about perfectly set for some beach front property. So let the water rise baby.

So it all belongs to the kids? Ever seen a kid's room?

No, but I was a kid once.

We do borrow the Earth from our descendants. If we leave them a poisoned planet, can they learn to eat money? I hate being the doom and gloom guy, but lets face it; if we don't give a shit what we and our ancestors did to the planet, what do we leave them?

Their kids with shitty diapers to change? I do so love being a Grand Father.

I know what you mean and we've talked in PM's about this. I still don't see it as being mostly humans fault for the Climate Change. To me it's been a natural occurrence that has repeated over and over or so science says it has. Now science says it's humans fault? I don't mind doing a things to help but when people are saying that the US should do more then what it already has I begin to scoff. China has leaped over the US as the number one polluter ... I think I read this a couple months ago or heard it on the radio. Yet no one is saying much about that part, it's still the same old BAD AMERICA your the problem. Thus I see it more politics driven then true concern. That in turns make me even more skeptical about how much we humans are truly at fault, if any fault is to be laid at all.

Translation: Everyone is always picking on me therefore climate change is a pile of crap.

Sorry, that doesn't wash with me. The two are separate issues.

Didn't say that I said I don't think the human factor is anywhere near as great as what science says it is. One of the reasons is science says this type of thing happens over and over. Then I point out that though China is the number 1 polluter everyone is still pointing the finger at the US thus it's political and not true caring about reduction of pollution. But wow Zipper way to disregard all of that.

So let me translate your response.

I don't have a answer to what Stratos said so I'll make it sound like he was saying something completely different.

If it's all natural then it makes no difference what China is emitting as far as CO2 goes. It's only once you think that CO2 emissions are a problem that China's CO2 emissions matter.

If it's all natural then it makes no difference what China is emitting as far as CO2 goes. It's only once you think that CO2 emissions are a problem that China's CO2 emissions matter.

True so why are most of the recriminations and demands for change being put on Europe and the Western Hemisphere? Not you per say but the AGW (?) as a whole. Shouldn't there be as much if not more demands and pressure put on China? Thus my conclusion that this is far more of a political deal then a truly lets save the earth deal.