Most asteroids large enough to cause an "extinction event" have been found and future orbits calculated for hundreds of years. What might hit are smaller asteroids and long period comets. There is almost nothing we could do with a large long period comet. While we might get several years of warning, there is almost nothing that could be done. Smaller asteroids we would get no warning on most of the time. There is a lot of sky, and only a tiny fraction of it is searched by something big enough to see a "city killer" a month away. A week's warning is more likely, even a day's warning is less than 50%. The most likely first warning would be a bright spot in the sky as the asteroid starts to hit the top of the atmosphere... Seconds before impact. To get warning of city killers would require putting up some specialized sky survey satellites. Unlikely, in today's political environment.
You mean like giving pointers to climate data and climate models that you claim are not public? Or pointing out that this isn't an new theory?
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.
Ah yes. A little warmer might very well be better. You have a point. The problem is that we are unlikely to stop at a little warmer.
--
This is not a sig. If this was a sig, the "--" would be closer. If it was a sig, it would say something witty. If it was a sig, it would be meaningful. If it was a sig, it wouldn't be nearly this long.
And blasting it into little pieces would most certainly have an effect, since smaller pieces have more drag, they would be more likely to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere (same total energy, much wider dispersion).
For a small object, yes.
For a object big enough to seriously worry about, no. Think of it this way. Take a rock the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs. It had roughly 300 million nuclear weapons worth of energy. Break it into a million equal size pieces, and there are a million rocks with 300 times the energy of a nuclear weapon, each of which would be more than large enough to punch through the atmosphere. The damage would be more focused on the surface of the Earth, and less would be "wasted" on deep layers of rock.
Small explosions are much more effective at destroying things than large explosions. That's why cluster bombs were invented.
Amusing. I was once asked to move to a "work space" in a hallway. My reply was that the reason why I was in an office with a lock was the assorted test equipment I was using they wanted locked up so it didn't walk away. Not only that, I was currently doing audio echo cancelation work, which required the use of speakers and microphones. At volumes ranging from quiet (needed to be quieter than the hallway would allow), to thunderous. Did I mention that this "work space" was right outside upper level managers offices. My boss's boss's boss's boss's boss, and his boss. Bet I never would have been allowed to do a second test run at 120 dB in the hallway. They didn't move me.
Wonder why?
I work with CAD problems that often require 64 bits. That being said, as 32 bit software runs faster, fits in less memory, anytime I think that there is a chance a job will run in 32 bits I start there. 64 bit software takes more memory (pointers and such are twice as large), the more memory used fills up cache faster which slows down the job, and takes more expensive machines that there are fewer of and harder to get.
Multicore CAD isn't there, and is years away from being meaninfully speeded up. So multicores are mostly not of interest. But every application is different, and software to utilize multiple cores is something that people are thinking about and working on now.
For any place on the Earth, there is a global average temperature that will make that place the best it can be. For Germany, I wouldn't be the slightest bit amazed if that global average temperature was one, two or even more degrees (C) warmer for Germany. Sweden, home to Svante Arrhenius, probably even warmer. There are other places that would probably be better with a lower global average temperature. If we tried to some sort of average, there would be some sort of global optimum temperature, which might well be higher than today's.
However, why would global warming stop at the optimum, for Germany, or for Sweden, or for the world?
Even if we recognized the optimum temperature when we reached it, overshoot seems very likely. Once we decide to stop warming the planet, it would take decades to change to non-carbon power sources. There would be more decades of warming already built into the increased CO2 levels, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Very much warmer temperatures are very likely to less than optimum.
Don't you think you should at LEAST get the models working to the point that they actually track the historic record of global temperature before taking draconian measures based on their predictions of the future?
Done. Decades ago.
Don't you think you need to actually do enough research to have some confidence in the results before instituting such costly measures?
I wonder exactly what you would think is "enough research".
How about them cursing you for having trashed the economy so their standard of living is far below that of your time - and no resources are available for solving whatever the REAL problems of their day are - while instituting a global totalitarian repression to accomplish the "better safe" goals?
Fossil fuels are finite. On a timescale of hundreds of years, we will need to change to other energy sources. Burning the last lump of coal and then asking what's next would be omgd stupid. I think we can figure out how to change energy sources without resorting to "global totalitarian repression".
It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
The article you quoted doesn't really support your statement. Sure, the ice has been getting thicker in some areas, and has been getting thinner in other areas. That is not the same thing as the total of the ice increasing! For a total, look many other articles, such as this later article in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/580 3/1286.
"From 2003 to 2005, the ice sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigaton/year, with a gain of 54 gigaton/year above 2000 meters and a loss of 155 gigaton/year at lower elevations. The lower elevations show a large seasonal cycle, with mass losses during summer melting followed by gains from fall through spring."
"Mass changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet are of considerable interest because of its sensitivity to climate change and the potential for an increasing contribution of Greenland ice loss to rising sea level. Observations and models have shown that in recent years Greenland has experienced increased melt (1), thinning at the margins (2-4), and increased discharge from many outlet glaciers (5). At the same time, the ice sheet has been growing in its interior (3, 4, 6)."
Get over it, Greenland's ice is melting. Now for the news that you might think is better. Because the center of Greenland is a large plain mostly surrounded by mountains, it will take at least several centuries for much of the ice to melt, even in a much warmer world. The edges will melt faster.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil.
Fossil fuel reserves are for economically producable oil and coal. There is roughly enough economically producable coal to take the CO2 level to very roughly 2400 ppm from the current 380 ppm. There is lots more fossil carbon that isn't economically producable, at least with current technologies. Like oil shales.
..how come nobody complains that we're using up all the oxygen?
Because most of the rest of us can do math. To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm. Or 2 parts per thousand. Or from about 20.9% to about 20.7%. Complete non-issue.
... when CO2 is a very small part of the overall picture; Methane has a far greater effect, as do many other things.
CO2 is the central climate gas. No, it doesn't have the largest warming effect; water does, nor the largest effect per molecule; SF6 is the current leader with 22,200 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. CO2 is the central climate gas because it is the reason why the Earth's climate has been mostly stable over geologic history.
CO2 is released by volcanic action, and removed by rock weathering. Rock weathering is a temperature dependant process. If the climate is warmer than the equilibrium temperature, more CO2 is removed by rock weathering, cooling the climate. Volcanic activity varies somewhat, which changes the equilibrium temperature. Human releases of CO2 are about 150 times that of current volcanic activity. The good news is that there is only enough fossil fuels to continue such releases for a few hundred years, far shorter than the effective lifetime of free carbon (as CO2 in the atmosphere, carbon in living and dead plants, etc), so the climate will not reach the equilibrium temperature.
Water acts to magnify climate change, as warmer temperatures mean more water vapor, and less snow cover. Methane is the joker in the pack, but probably not a good disaster movie. SF6 is produced in such tiny amounts as to be almost a non-issue, yet with a lifetime of about a million years, tiny amounts will add up.
Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.
RTFA: "Five times in the past 500 million years most of the world's life-forms have simply ceased to exist." Only one of these extinctions has a huge crater and other convincing signs of a killer asteroid. Perhaps there are even some events that might be harder to cope with than a killer sized asteroid. But H2S bubbling out of the oceans probably wouldn't make as good of movie as "Deep Impact".
--
This is not a sig. If it was a sig, it would say something witty.
The United States was modeled on the Roman Republic. Rome did not stay a republic, as perhaps you might have heard.
There are clearly trends in the United States that might suggest that the same might happen to the USA. We wouldn't have someone called the Emperor, however, we would likely call the absolute boss "President". We would likely still have a Congress and Senate, however any laws they passed that were not "requested" by the President would be repealed by a "signing statement". Or just ignored.
This is not a weather prediction. This is a fine grain climate prediction.
Chaos limits weather prediction to around a few weeks. A weather prediction is specific: such as clear today, clouding up overnight and raining tomorrow.
Chaos does not limit climate prediction. Chaos means that a tiny difference in starting state will grow to a large difference, however, the starting state does not change the statistics of the future states. A climate prediction is not specific: 33% chance of rain on this date.
The same weather model could be used for both weather prediction and climate prediction. If I did 100 runs of a model starting with 100 slightly different guesses as to the current state of the weather system, the answers would be very similar for about 1 week (that's weather), and if the model is fairly good as modern models are, then the real weather would be fairly close as well. By four weeks all the model runs would be fairly different, and only. If I continued the 100 runs for 30 years of modeled time and collected the statistics, I would have a statistical climate prediction.
Of course, I could also look at the real climate for the past 30 years and also have have the statistics of climate. So why would I use the computer? The answer is that the climate is changing now, and will be changing faster in the future. It would be valuable to have an idea of the regional impacts of this change. Should London be planning for 40C every summer by 2035? Or 45C?
We libertarians for years have been trying to tell you that corporations cannot legally act without the law being on their side. We have been trying to tell the left-wing "enlightened" that if you want to stop corporate abuse like this, that you have to pull the government out of the equation. If the government is limited, it can't grant them favors like software patents! There's a high correllation between politicians who want the government to feed you, clothe you and house you when you're down and politicians who will be sympathetic to "other groups' concerns."
In the course of human history, the people who have risen to power and want the government to be active in public life are almost always greedy, power-hungry, very easily corrupted people. I'm sick of the idealists who believe that we're going to change that. If you can't change basic facts about social organization, including the propensity to corruption in government and law, in the past 5,000 years, you can't change it in the next 5,000 years.
Abolish every aspect of law and government that isn't strictly needed to keep people from killing each other or others from invading if you want a government that might actually be run by people who will say to Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc. "not my job to promote your business." The very reason that we have fights over things like software patents is that the federal government got so powerful that there was major influence to peddle. Get rid of the power, you get rid of a significant avenue by which corporations can legally shaft you.
Corporations are created by law. We could easily get rid of corporate abuse of power by getting rid of the laws that create corporations. The resulting depression should be enough to explain why laws were passed to create corporations.
The only way found in the long sad course of human history of limiting the damage from greedy, power-hungry and corrupt people is to spread power out, to limit it. Now if we the people decided to restrict government as you propose, but leave corporate power alone, then the center of power would shift to corporate hands. Power-hungry, greedy and easily corruptible would seek corporate office as they do today. Or did you notice the stock option backdating? What would limit their power? Not fair competition, as that is currently enforced by anti trust law. Not accounting standards, as these are also currently enforced by law. What would set the limits of corporate power if not government?
There are many examples of "natural monopoly". The oldest is irrigation water. The owner of a natural monopoly has power by right of ownership of the monopoly. Question to libertarians: how can the power of natural monopolies be limited?
And think about this: Suppose you went into a time warp and found out that 100 years from now the governments of the world were limited what was "strictly needed to keep people from killing each other or others from invading", but that MegaSoftXP owned the Internet, world wide. To connect to the Internet you needed to buy a computer with a HexiumXP processor running Doors4XP, all MegaSoftXP products. MegaSoftXP selected judges, required that governments pass specific laws, owned most real estate, electric power, water, railroads, roads, buildings, houses, farms, mines, airlines, and controlled most media other than a crazy guy trying to pass out papers on the street corner until MegaSoftXP security arrested him for trespassing and littering. Governments might be limited, but MegaSoftXP isn't. Compete with MegaSoftXP? Exactly how?
Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion, has anyone actually tried calculating the total amount of future "damage" possible to do by burning all of what's feasibly left to use?
Oil is at about the half way point, but there is enough coal to take the CO2 level to roughly 2000 ppm to 3000 ppm. Call it roughly eight times the pre-industral level.
The best way to get off the list is to listen to the sales talk, and then answer with a question:
"Do you like chocolate? I do. They let me have some every day. I like getting phone calls from people. Do they let you have chocolate? They let me go outside after lunch some days, if the sun is shining. Do you like chocolate? I do. (Keep babbling along this line until you hear the click.)"
Gets you get off the calling list as well. Even before the days that you could expect to be removed from the calling list by just asking.
The difference in density between ice and water is manifested in the ice that is above the water line. Grab yourself a tall clear glass, fill it half way with water and add a big ice cube. Mark the water line. Come back in an hour once the ice cube melts and check the water line. It will be in exactly the same place.
Then do the same experiment with saltwater rather than fresh water. This is closer to the real situation. The ice, by melting to fresh water, will reduce the density of the salty water and cause it to fill slightly (about 2% of the ice volume for sea ice and ocean water) more space.
Of course, the ice on land is the major player. There is enough ice on land to raise sea levels by about 70 meters.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are my Mod points when I need them? CTO should be out the door. +5
Power supply with half of components from junk. Plywood box, later upgraded to scavenged ALTAIR box.
TV for display. Wrote editor, assembler, debugger, and programmed into 2708 EPROMs
Most asteroids large enough to cause an "extinction event" have been found and future orbits calculated for hundreds of years.
What might hit are smaller asteroids and long period comets. There is almost nothing we could do with a large long period comet. While we might get several years of warning, there is almost nothing that could be done.
Smaller asteroids we would get no warning on most of the time. There is a lot of sky, and only a tiny fraction of it is searched by something big enough to see a "city killer" a month away. A week's warning is more likely, even a day's warning is less than 50%. The most likely first warning would be a bright spot in the sky as the asteroid starts to hit the top of the atmosphere... Seconds before impact.
To get warning of city killers would require putting up some specialized sky survey satellites. Unlikely, in today's political environment.
So most of 'them' must be much older than a hundred plus years... Global warming has been around since 1895 or older.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
They demand the power to do this, but they refuse to release their data.
This should do for a start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
They refuse to publish the code for their computer models
Really. Did you try SourceForge? And why not??
http://sourceforge.net/projects/climate-model/>
And this one has been public since 1983. 1983 was a long time ago...
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/
They refuse to rationally refute skepticism.
You mean like giving pointers to climate data and climate models that you claim are not public? Or pointing out that this isn't an new theory?
They refuse to address the question of whether warmer may be better than colder.
Ah yes. A little warmer might very well be better. You have a point. The problem is that we are unlikely to stop at a little warmer.
--
This is not a sig. If this was a sig, the "--" would be closer. If it was a sig, it would say something witty. If it was a sig, it would be meaningful. If it was a sig, it wouldn't be nearly this long.
For a small object, yes.
For a object big enough to seriously worry about, no. Think of it this way. Take a rock the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs. It had roughly 300 million nuclear weapons worth of energy. Break it into a million equal size pieces, and there are a million rocks with 300 times the energy of a nuclear weapon, each of which would be more than large enough to punch through the atmosphere. The damage would be more focused on the surface of the Earth, and less would be "wasted" on deep layers of rock.
Small explosions are much more effective at destroying things than large explosions. That's why cluster bombs were invented.
Yes. As long as it includes the children of the rich and powerful.
Jenna and Barbara with M16's, valuable.
Letters to home, priceless.
Why does the cable charge more for digital cable than analog if they want analog cable to go away?
Amusing. I was once asked to move to a "work space" in a hallway. My reply was that the reason why I was in an office with a lock was the assorted test equipment I was using they wanted locked up so it didn't walk away. Not only that, I was currently doing audio echo cancelation work, which required the use of speakers and microphones. At volumes ranging from quiet (needed to be quieter than the hallway would allow), to thunderous. Did I mention that this "work space" was right outside upper level managers offices. My boss's boss's boss's boss's boss, and his boss. Bet I never would have been allowed to do a second test run at 120 dB in the hallway. They didn't move me.
Wonder why?
You forgot MicroSoft Bob. Better than Windows ME.
Watch out for the Gnome with the Wand of Death.
http://www.nicolaas.net/dudley/index.php?f=20051025
Funny, my interest did the exact opposite after reading the following: "Proprietary firmware on closed system prevents hacker access"
Two hours, tops.
Missing or corrupted sig file.
Abort, Retry, or Cancel?
Multicore CAD isn't there, and is years away from being meaninfully speeded up. So multicores are mostly not of interest. But every application is different, and software to utilize multiple cores is something that people are thinking about and working on now.
--
This is not a sig.
However, why would global warming stop at the optimum, for Germany, or for Sweden, or for the world?
Even if we recognized the optimum temperature when we reached it, overshoot seems very likely. Once we decide to stop warming the planet, it would take decades to change to non-carbon power sources. There would be more decades of warming already built into the increased CO2 levels, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Very much warmer temperatures are very likely to less than optimum.
Done. Decades ago.
Don't you think you need to actually do enough research to have some confidence in the results before instituting such costly measures?
I wonder exactly what you would think is "enough research".
How about them cursing you for having trashed the economy so their standard of living is far below that of your time - and no resources are available for solving whatever the REAL problems of their day are - while instituting a global totalitarian repression to accomplish the "better safe" goals?
Fossil fuels are finite. On a timescale of hundreds of years, we will need to change to other energy sources. Burning the last lump of coal and then asking what's next would be omgd stupid. I think we can figure out how to change energy sources without resorting to "global totalitarian repression".
-- Sig failure, no sig in search path.
It seems the ice has been getting thicker in Greenland over the past decade or so.
The article you quoted doesn't really support your statement. Sure, the ice has been getting thicker in some areas, and has been getting thinner in other areas. That is not the same thing as the total of the ice increasing! For a total, look many other articles, such as this later article in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/580 3/1286.
"From 2003 to 2005, the ice sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigaton/year, with a gain of 54 gigaton/year above 2000 meters and a loss of 155 gigaton/year at lower elevations. The lower elevations show a large seasonal cycle, with mass losses during summer melting followed by gains from fall through spring."
"Mass changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet are of considerable interest because of its sensitivity to climate change and the potential for an increasing contribution of Greenland ice loss to rising sea level. Observations and models have shown that in recent years Greenland has experienced increased melt (1), thinning at the margins (2-4), and increased discharge from many outlet glaciers (5). At the same time, the ice sheet has been growing in its interior (3, 4, 6)."
Also see http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/g reenland/melt2005/
Get over it, Greenland's ice is melting. Now for the news that you might think is better. Because the center of Greenland is a large plain mostly surrounded by mountains, it will take at least several centuries for much of the ice to melt, even in a much warmer world. The edges will melt faster.
--
Is this a sig? Why, or Why not?
The above post is a troll.
Well, of course we won't dig up all the coal and burn all the oil.
Fossil fuel reserves are for economically producable oil and coal. There is roughly enough economically producable coal to take the CO2 level to very roughly 2400 ppm from the current 380 ppm. There is lots more fossil carbon that isn't economically producable, at least with current technologies. Like oil shales.
Because most of the rest of us can do math. To take the CO2 level up by 2000 ppm will indeed bring the O2 level down by 2000 ppm. Or 2 parts per thousand. Or from about 20.9% to about 20.7%. Complete non-issue.
--
Error 696. Missing sig.
CO2 is the central climate gas. No, it doesn't have the largest warming effect; water does, nor the largest effect per molecule; SF6 is the current leader with 22,200 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. CO2 is the central climate gas because it is the reason why the Earth's climate has been mostly stable over geologic history.
CO2 is released by volcanic action, and removed by rock weathering. Rock weathering is a temperature dependant process. If the climate is warmer than the equilibrium temperature, more CO2 is removed by rock weathering, cooling the climate. Volcanic activity varies somewhat, which changes the equilibrium temperature. Human releases of CO2 are about 150 times that of current volcanic activity. The good news is that there is only enough fossil fuels to continue such releases for a few hundred years, far shorter than the effective lifetime of free carbon (as CO2 in the atmosphere, carbon in living and dead plants, etc), so the climate will not reach the equilibrium temperature.
Water acts to magnify climate change, as warmer temperatures mean more water vapor, and less snow cover. Methane is the joker in the pack, but probably not a good disaster movie. SF6 is produced in such tiny amounts as to be almost a non-issue, yet with a lifetime of about a million years, tiny amounts will add up.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
Aside from all that, we'll cope with whatever comes our way, anyway. We always have; we always will. Barring asteroid impacts, of course.
RTFA: "Five times in the past 500 million years most of the world's life-forms have simply ceased to exist." Only one of these extinctions has a huge crater and other convincing signs of a killer asteroid. Perhaps there are even some events that might be harder to cope with than a killer sized asteroid. But H2S bubbling out of the oceans probably wouldn't make as good of movie as "Deep Impact".
--
This is not a sig. If it was a sig, it would say something witty.
The United States was modeled on the Roman Republic. Rome did not stay a republic, as perhaps you might have heard.
There are clearly trends in the United States that might suggest that the same might happen to the USA. We wouldn't have someone called the Emperor, however, we would likely call the absolute boss "President". We would likely still have a Congress and Senate, however any laws they passed that were not "requested" by the President would be repealed by a "signing statement". Or just ignored.
--
Warning, .sig file missing or unreachable.
Chaos limits weather prediction to around a few weeks. A weather prediction is specific: such as clear today, clouding up overnight and raining tomorrow.
Chaos does not limit climate prediction. Chaos means that a tiny difference in starting state will grow to a large difference, however, the starting state does not change the statistics of the future states. A climate prediction is not specific: 33% chance of rain on this date.
The same weather model could be used for both weather prediction and climate prediction. If I did 100 runs of a model starting with 100 slightly different guesses as to the current state of the weather system, the answers would be very similar for about 1 week (that's weather), and if the model is fairly good as modern models are, then the real weather would be fairly close as well. By four weeks all the model runs would be fairly different, and only. If I continued the 100 runs for 30 years of modeled time and collected the statistics, I would have a statistical climate prediction.
Of course, I could also look at the real climate for the past 30 years and also have have the statistics of climate. So why would I use the computer? The answer is that the climate is changing now, and will be changing faster in the future. It would be valuable to have an idea of the regional impacts of this change. Should London be planning for 40C every summer by 2035? Or 45C?
-- Sig mirror rorrim giS
In the course of human history, the people who have risen to power and want the government to be active in public life are almost always greedy, power-hungry, very easily corrupted people. I'm sick of the idealists who believe that we're going to change that. If you can't change basic facts about social organization, including the propensity to corruption in government and law, in the past 5,000 years, you can't change it in the next 5,000 years.
Abolish every aspect of law and government that isn't strictly needed to keep people from killing each other or others from invading if you want a government that might actually be run by people who will say to Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc. "not my job to promote your business." The very reason that we have fights over things like software patents is that the federal government got so powerful that there was major influence to peddle. Get rid of the power, you get rid of a significant avenue by which corporations can legally shaft you.
Corporations are created by law. We could easily get rid of corporate abuse of power by getting rid of the laws that create corporations. The resulting depression should be enough to explain why laws were passed to create corporations.
The only way found in the long sad course of human history of limiting the damage from greedy, power-hungry and corrupt people is to spread power out, to limit it. Now if we the people decided to restrict government as you propose, but leave corporate power alone, then the center of power would shift to corporate hands. Power-hungry, greedy and easily corruptible would seek corporate office as they do today. Or did you notice the stock option backdating? What would limit their power? Not fair competition, as that is currently enforced by anti trust law. Not accounting standards, as these are also currently enforced by law. What would set the limits of corporate power if not government?
There are many examples of "natural monopoly". The oldest is irrigation water. The owner of a natural monopoly has power by right of ownership of the monopoly. Question to libertarians: how can the power of natural monopolies be limited?
And think about this: Suppose you went into a time warp and found out that 100 years from now the governments of the world were limited what was "strictly needed to keep people from killing each other or others from invading", but that MegaSoftXP owned the Internet, world wide. To connect to the Internet you needed to buy a computer with a HexiumXP processor running Doors4XP, all MegaSoftXP products. MegaSoftXP selected judges, required that governments pass specific laws, owned most real estate, electric power, water, railroads, roads, buildings, houses, farms, mines, airlines, and controlled most media other than a crazy guy trying to pass out papers on the street corner until MegaSoftXP security arrested him for trespassing and littering. Governments might be limited, but MegaSoftXP isn't. Compete with MegaSoftXP? Exactly how?
--- sig? what is a sig? --
Oil is at about the half way point, but there is enough coal to take the CO2 level to roughly 2000 ppm to 3000 ppm. Call it roughly eight times the pre-industral level.
I don't expect to learn about biology, DNA or dinosaurs from science fiction. Or climate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
"Do you like chocolate? I do. They let me have some every day. I like getting phone calls from people. Do they let you have chocolate? They let me go outside after lunch some days, if the sun is shining. Do you like chocolate? I do. (Keep babbling along this line until you hear the click.)"
Gets you get off the calling list as well. Even before the days that you could expect to be removed from the calling list by just asking.
Gasp! EMACS is what God intended.
--
Sig? What sig?
Then do the same experiment with saltwater rather than fresh water. This is closer to the real situation. The ice, by melting to fresh water, will reduce the density of the salty water and cause it to fill slightly (about 2% of the ice volume for sea ice and ocean water) more space.
Of course, the ice on land is the major player. There is enough ice on land to raise sea levels by about 70 meters.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html
---- Sig or not to sig, that is the question.