Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in "imminent peril".
In a densely referenced scientific paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A some of the world's leading climate researchers describe in detail why they believe that humanity can no longer afford to ignore the "gravest threat" of climate change.
"Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures," the scientists say. Only intense efforts to curb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases can keep the climate within or near the range of the past one million years, they add.
The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming.
The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York.
In their 29-page paper, "Climate Change and trace gases", the scientists frequently stray from the non-emotional language of science to emphasise the scale of the problems and dangers posed by climate change.
Click here to read this article at The Independent.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 20, 2007]
Note: http://environment.inde...

Get some reasonable consensus to this question we could then ask what's melting and what isn't, because the great majority of Antarctica is getting cooler and the ice is getting thicker. This would narrow down the ocean's rise, reducing the condition's impact.
H.F. Wolff
Bush is wrong, and you are wrong for different reasons.
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.
Yesterday's scientist, is today's loonie.
That is incorrect. The majority of Antarctic ice is thinning. Some places along the coast are getting thicker due to the warmer temperatures creating higher humidity and therefore higher snowfall.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
If all the ice melted, then the temperature would have to be very hot, which means that the oceans will evaporate much more quickly than they do now, and that will offset a rise in sea level to at least some degree.
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling (of Antarctic surface) over the last 20 years. JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 13.
Side looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6000 years. SCIENCE 295.
Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but the sea ice has increased. SCIENCE 296.
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the earth was warmer than it is today. NATURE 399.
Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial. GEOLOGY 27.
Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31.
Trend toward more sea ice may be accelerating. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 24.
The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979. ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 34.
I left out the names of the authors of the foregoing because typing is not my schtick. The references are in CAPITALS.
H.F. Wolff
Very interesting references, thanks!
<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm</a><br />
<br />
NASA ICEsat monitoring sattelite data (2002 to present);<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icesat_light.html">http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icesat_light.html</a><br />
<br />
NASA SVS animation of actual data of Greenland's receding ice:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html">http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html</a><br />
<br />
Snow and ice data centre, Arctic sea ice shrinking:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html">http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html</a><br />
<br />
Spaceflight's animation of the Greenland ice sheets thinning:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0007/24greenlandice/">http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0007/24greenlandice/</a><br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
You know me by now Herr Wolfe
You are willing to spend billions of other people's money because of some climactic change over the last 7 years? When evidence points to the fact that the earth was much warmer a number of times during its 4.5 billion year history?
Would you not agree that any climactic occurrences over such a short period are insignificant compared to what the earth has been through? Even a thousand years pales in comparison to 4.5 billion years.
I remain convinced that climactic change is being used to hose the taxpayer once more.
Please note that I am not disagreeing that the planet is getting warmer, or cooler, if you like. I am simply stating "so what"? The climate is ALWAYS changing.
H.F. Wolff
Upon re-reading your and my earlier posts I find the first line and the next paragraph of my above post inappropriate to our debate. Kindly pass them over. Thanks.
H.F. Wolff
"Would you not agree that any climactic occurrences over such a short period are insignificant compared to what the earth has been through? Even a thousand years pales in comparison to 4.5 billion years."
Absolutely. 'Climate Change' IMHO is a misnomer, because it implies that our climate is static. But it does describe what evidence we are seeing in our environment.
"I remain convinced that climactic change is being used to hose the taxpayer once more."
As do I. My belief is that the Sun has entered a more enegetic phase, and there is little we can do about that. Nor do I think we should try. We should be concentrating our efforts on what we do best - adapting. Using this newfound energy to reduce our polluting the very environment we depend on for survival.
My only concern was that your assertion that Antarctic ice was thickening, when evidence shows it is (on average) thinning.
I believe in facts, no matter how inconvenient. And, as a wise man once said, 'I only trust the statistics I make up myself'.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.