Tony153, this is the main reason I don't put any faith in 'experts'. One mob say one thing then another mob completely destroys the first mobs theories. So I don't know where the guy you mention is going to get all this water, because it is not coming from mother earth. You only have to have a quick look at the map of the world, to get an idea of how big the ocean is compared to the size of the ice and snow areas. As a realist I believe it is unrealistic to quote the kind of numbers you say will be the oceans rise.

Yes almost all of Hansen's predictions are correct, especially if you ignore all the one's that were hopelessly wrong. The loyal army of flying monkeys exemplified by (an)Tony do indeed ignore such errors without thinking.

But Hansen is quite smart. For example, he made three predictions about future temps in 1988 - a high, a medium and a low. Then he and his loyal followers spent decades only talking about the high scenario as though it were fact. Then when the data came in and the pause screwed with their scare, they pivoted, without blinking, to saying his low forecast was right and was really the one he favoured all along. But (an)Tony won't know about this because it doesn't suit the faith.

If you really want to be scared by Hansen's little horror video, its best to watch it on a hot day with the air-conditioning turned off....http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/1988-james-hansen-and-tim-wirth-sabotaged-the-air-conditioning-in-congress/

"What role should the West play to assist many tens of millions of climate refugees?"

Well the role of the west and the UN is to continue to pretend that there are climate refugees....http://www.thegwpf.com/un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees/

Just while we're talking about melting this and heating that, I found this interesting t'other day...http://www.archaeology.org/issues/105-1309/letter-from/1165-glaciers-ice-patches-norway-global-warming

I tried to explain the logic of this to (an)Tony previously but it went over his head. But the point is that if melting is revealing artefacts from 3400 yrs ago, then obviously the region was at least as warm then as now. Warming that occurred without the help of those nasty capitalists. This sort of thing is happening regularly. Last year I linked here to a region in Sweden where old forests that had been overwhelmed by previous cooling about 1000 yrs ago, were being revealed again as part of the cyclic warming/cooling phases of the earth's climate.

Altrav
A very easy excursion into Wikipedia will find a graph showing sea level variations as the earth moves from interglacial to another: between 200m and 300m.

So 6 to 9 meters relatively small.

Dont forget that what we are doing to our earh in a hundred years or so is a thousand (many thousands?) times faster that Mr Milachovic and his cycles.

You should consider the rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion of the water. My memory needs validation, but todays sea level rise is 60% thermal.

Take a look at Miami where much work to restrain constant flooding of roads because of sea level rise.

Mhaze
From a position of steep ignorance, you besmitch someone you do not underdstand.

One simple concept you do not understand. Simple really!

Changing climate is changing climate, no matter whenever it happens,
with the horrendous difference berween now and then:

BEING RATE OF CHANGE

Mentioned often, unable to comprehend, often

Bye

mhaze, I have made the point you mention about finding flora and fauna, (including people) in such cases before and I said the exact same thing you have. For all this evidence to now become exposed by the melting? of ice and snow means they were there before or probably, because, of the cooling of that environment or location at some time in the past. So it is reasonable to assume that the earth has always been having weather changes or cycles.
Tony153, I take your point about changing climate and rate of change. These are all relevant. What I and others are saying is that the changing climate or global warming or whatever is the latest name for it is in fact occurring because of natural 'growing pains' of the Earth. These phenomena have been going on since the earth was born. I believe that the amount of baddies the human race has produced is not enough to effect something the size of the earth. I'm not suggesting we have not produced some bad emissions, but not so many as being the main or major culprit of any wrong doing. I will cautiously agree to your suggestions of thermal expansion. I realise water expands when heated and expands when cooled, but not to the extent or extremes you are suggesting. I would consider, wind, tide and other natural events to be be the most likely culprits for these extreme oceanic events.

ALTRAV
Why have you ignored the gradual build up of climate understanding in the 1800s, culminating in calculations by a Nobel Laureate in the late 1890s which showed that a doubling in atmospheric CO2 woud cause a 4C to 6C increase in average global temperature?

Your current “knowledge” seem to have very little to no grounding in science.