"A 2 degree rise (2 degrees is on the LOW side of the estimate) in temperature (IGNORING ALL MELTING OF ICE) Would lead to an increase of 11cm in ocean levels, or 4.5 inches."

You do realize, it takes a while for oceans to warm?

And I believe as I recall, 1.2 C in a century was the low side.

[Btw, do you believe there is a 100 years of fossil fuel?]

"(I will post how to do a simple back of envelope calc to check that the IPCC numbers are in the low end of the range and CERTAINLY in the ballpark). The conservative IPCC numbers including melt show a rise of as much as .88 meters by 2100. "

I would like to see this.

But of course, even if global temperature were to rise significantly, one could possibly have more snow, not less.
And they seem to think glacier flying into the water is more likely a cause then melting snow- not that I think that's more likely [unless we get significantly more volcanic activity].

And as far as melting snow, wouldn't we see glaciers below the arctic circle melt away before any significant melting of snow on Greenland? For instance, pick some big glacier in Alaska, what it's average temperature as compared to Greenland?
Is it possible it's current average temperature is say somewhere around 4 C warmer- and generally has been for last Century? [or 4 or 10 or last 20 centuries]

"This alone would be disasterous, but its the other predictions, again backed by good science, are far more troubling for us."

.88 meters would be disaster?
I don't think a meter would be.
I think a meter in 50 years time, say from 2050 to 2100 might a problem, but even then one could simply require all new construction to be a meter above the present allowable height. No one should be building so close to ocean that it doesn't allow for storm surge of a few meters anyhow.

"If all the greenland ice sheet were to melt, that would give a rise of 7.2 meters, the south pole ice melting would be 60 meters, again I will do the numbers for you."

You don't need to do these numbers for me.

Do you think all Greenland ice could melt within 200 years? Even with the highest IPCC numbers?
And do you think we have 200 years of fossil fuel?

"Gore, in an 'inconvienient truth' does not say that the ocean will rise by 10 meters in the next century, although what he DOES say is misleading and could give that impression."

Of course, and there is nothing wrong with Gore trying to make some money off of the idiots.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a fact, even your own president has admitted it- it has no place being treated as a political issue. It is a scientific issue with very serious implications for us."

The question has been about how much.
Obviously I have stated over and over again that UHI is quite measurable and very significant affect. And obviously some portion of this warming will have some affect upon global temperatures.
So for me [and Tom for that matter] it's a strawman to say that "Anthropogenic global warming is a fact".

Now, I don't think the rise in global temperature over the last Century has caused any harm- btw, no one is saying it's all been caused by human.
And I don't think a similar rise over the next Century would cause any harm.
But this isn't what the debate is about- we would need to see a doubling of this rate to meet the lowest IPCC estimate for next Century. And the highest is what? 7 or 8 times instead of 2 times?

Btw, what would cause more harm? An increase of temperature over next Century of .6 C or decline of temperature over next Century of .6 C. If you say a decline, you are crazy to say the increase of last century has been harmful. And what about decline of say, 2 C?

What if you could wave a magic wand and cut CO2 levels by 1/2- would you wave that wand? Without some thought of what that would mean?

How much did the increase in CO2 over last Century do in regard to crop production?
You want to kill a billion people or perhaps it's merely 100 million people?
{actually if you halved 380 you get 190 and plants can barely live at those levels- so it would be like 3 billion people- so say, lowered by 90 ppm.}

Now, do you actually think that a warming ocean can absorb CO2 [not cyclically but in net balance]?
Isn't this a claim?
And don't some say the ocean will at some point *soon* get saturated?
If global warming causes CO2 to be released from the ocean, And we have had a Century of global warming [not to mention the 100 centuries], hasn't there been any CO2 which has been released from the Ocean in last Century?
Or the arctic which apparently has been warming significantly?
And with arctic warming so much, should there not be some methane released from the warming we have had so far?
What have the global methane levels been for last couple of decades?