Questions from Cheryl
According to National Geographics we can expect 24 metres of water [not 14] which I imagine will make a substantial difference to the affected coastlines. If the poles melt in 3 years and not a couple of decades as originally thought we had better start to do something about it to save the lives of people in dicey areas. What difference would the extra water make? Can we work that out please. I come from Qld and they are starting to do something about the Sunshine Coast now.

Answeer from Jon Sumby …

I DON”T think so. Most estimates put sea level rise at around a metre in a century. It is not possible to melt the poles in the next three years, physics would tell you the amount of heat needed to melt cubic kilometres of ice in Antarctica in three years would kill life on Earth.

The real issue is storm surges (Gold Coast), erosion and beach retreat, again over a period of a century. We have to stop emissions now for the sake of our grandchildren.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/opinion/14fri4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

On sea level rise start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Future_sea_level_rise

Haven’t heard anything about Tassie flooding; John Church is the sea level guy at UTas and from memory there will be receding beaches but little effect on rocky shores. The site below is animated, zoomable and you can choose the sea level rise, at 14m, Sandy Bay vanishes, as well as half of Hobart but little effect on the Domain.

When you go to the site, choose ‘satelite’ view or ‘hybrid’ if you want place names etc (buttons in top right corner)

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-27.8390,138.1640&z=13&m=7