This article applies to Australia also.Just a short perusal of contour maps will give a fair idea of what areas are at grave risk of inundation.

My impression is that very little is being done by the appropriate authorities to plan for this virtually inevitable eventuality.One would think that the precautionary principle would apply at the very least.

The present course is the road to stupid.So what else is new?

A question: Australia is on a tectonic plate, that also has India on it, and we're moving North at around 2cm per year, are we also moving up or down?

Also, isn't India sub-ducting under the Himalayas, that may cause a tilt at the other end of the plate, say around the SE corner of Australia.

So claims that the SE corner of Australia is in danger of going under due to the climate changing, may not apply. It may actually start to rise - other parts of Australia not as much. As India dives under, the water level will rise for them.

Winners and losers, India gets smaller, Australia gets bigger.

We live in a very complex world, where people try to predict what will happen if this or that thing happens, it's often in isolation, or if they model, they use a "factor" to take account of things. Nature rarely subscribes to such methods, and is unpredictable.

Unfortunately, the same people, when their theories seem to be coming adrift tend to try to prop them up further rather than admit error.

Such is the pull of the mighty $ on all our sciences now, and the size of egos puffed up by the attention they get from the media.

I fully agree with the views expressed by the authors and having recently undertaken a simple study of the effects on sea level of melting land-based ice, I have reached the conclusion that average global sea levels are likely to rise by 0.9-1.1m by 2050 and by 2.1-2.4m by 2100. Thereafter, they are likely to continue rising by 2.0-2.5m per century for at least the next 1,000 years.

It is timely to remind the public that just over 70% of the world population lives on or near the coast, that most of its major cities are port cities and that all are exposed to the dangers of rising sea level. The authors identify some of the major cities and delta areas which will have to contend with rising sea level and flooding within the next 50-100 years.

They might have noted that this includes many of the great cities of northern Germany with Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck and Rostock being particularly vulnerable. And of course the significance of river delta’s being flooded is not only that they are heavily populated areas but, more importantly, they are major food producing areas on which a much larger population depends for sustenance. Loss of their productivity will see hundreds of millions deprived of access to the essentials of life, food and water.

Rising sea levels are not the only worry. We should also be concerned that ocean acidification is increasing and is a major cause of coral reefs dying. When they die, they expose coastlines to the full force of rising sea level and king tides, storm surges and high winds. This is a deadly combination, increasing sea levels significantly and exposing coastlines to far more potent erosive forces.

The increased speed with which the Greenland ice cap is melting and the potential for relatively rapid sea level rise were the underside of the West Antarctic marine ice sheet to separate from the sea-bed should increase our concern. Problem is, sea level rises so slowly that we tend to ignore its very real dangers.

The dire threat of sea-level rise is truly shocking ! If we do nothing for the next two thousand years, the sea-level will have risen more than fifty metres ! Millions of people will be drowned ! We must immediately teach all children to swim and plan for the re-location of cities before it is too late ! Already here in South Australia, a secret bi-party committee has ordered surveys of Mount Barker as an alternative site for Adelaide, and there is a rumour that the Sydney City Council is planning to shift its offices to Springwood and, in the meantime, build a fifty-foot sea-wall from Newcastle to Wollongong: but that would work for only a few hundred years. Clearly, the entire world is in deep trouble !

On the other hand ....

When I did Geomorphology back in the seventies, we learned that the Gangetic sub-plate was sinking in the east and tilting to the west, so that in time the Brahmaputra delta would suffer more flooding while the Ganges delta would rise. We also learnt that the building of the Aswan dam in the sixties was already having effects in the Nile delta, with less silt getting down the river, causing the sea to move in and submerge parts of the delta. And one of the causes of so much damage to New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina was reported to be the submergence of the entire Gulf Coast, due to the long-term action of removing oil and water from beneath the Gulf. And we have learnt that over-use of ground-water in Pacific Islands has allowed sea-water to seep into hitherto fresh-water pumping sites. And then we hear that there has been no sea-level rise in the Maldives !

Come on, all you beach-going oldtimers - how much has the sea-level risen in your time ?

So who do we believe - on the basis of evidence, not faith ? Or will schadenfreude trump common-sense yet again ?

Joe Lane

Isn't this fun!
Who can come up with the scariest legend? Manorina and Agnostic of Mittagong are real doomsday supporters aren't they?
My suggestion to the authors and those above is that you all continue with your medications.
Have you not heard of the Archimedes Principle?
Why not tell us that the IPCC proves that the glaciers in the Himalayas and Patagonia are all melting. Now that would be a hoot!
Don't listen to scientists such as Cliff Ollier in WA. He's an Academic so he isn't imbued with the faith.

'In the 20th century, sea level rise was primarily due to thermal expansion of ocean water.'

I wasn't all that hot in Physics in school, but I do recall that water doesn't expand when it gets warmer, but it DOES expand as it cools, from about 2 degrees C to below freezing. That's why ice floats on water. It's why milk-bottle tops are pushed out on a winter's day, or used to be before AGW. But it allows life in near-freezing waters, under the ice. This anomaly about water is the one reason why I might believe in a God because without it, there would be no life on earth. I like a God with a sense of the ridiculous.

So 'thermal expansion' ? Wave it at the hystericals all you like, but please don't pass it off as science. Or have I missed something ?

Joe

Loudmouth, warm water rises and cold water sinks, why would that be?

Yes, I do think you missed something. I suspect you are missing a lot of things.

Joe, you missed something. Water does indeed expand as it gets hotter. Somewhat counter-intuitively it also expands when it freezes. The curve is sort of linear until the phase change, when it reverses. Unlike most liquids, the solid form is less dense. Water is pretty weird in other ways too, for its molecular weight it "should" not be liquid at room temperature, but its polarised nature (& quantum weirdness) means it is an exception to the "rules" of molecule weight to boiling point ratio. Science is more about exceptions than rules! Rules are for management types with little imagination: good for controlling humans, but poor at modelling the world.
Continents are indeed tilting and moving about. The local strength of gravity also affects the local sea level, as does the bottom contour and currents. All of which is very interesting, but irrelevant if the average level rises by 2M or more.
I have sneaking suspicion that there will be feedbacks that re-instate the ice when it starts melting. Something like an ice-age may well occur in Europe if heat transfer currents break down, which may eventually stop the melting via albedo effects...but all this is probably takes thousands of years and we'll have to make soil and migrate our agriculture in the meantime.
Our economy is extremely unsustainable for many reasons. Sea level rise may actually prod us into actions that may ultimately save us.
Greedy Bankers, ignorance and mad priests are more dangerous to us now than sea level rise.

Interesting and well-researched article, from a US national perspective.

The final chapter of my new book on climate change in Australia, "Crunch Time" [Scribe], paints a detailed picture of an Australia in 2060 after a postulated one metre global sea level rise due mainly to Greenland continental icemelt, with the prospect of several more metres to come by 2100 based on growing Antarctic icemelt as well. It draws [in chapters 5 and 11] comparatively on recent work in the field by J. A. Church, James Hansen, W. T. Pfeffer, Stefan Rahmstorf, H. J. Schellnhuber, and by the US EPA and NOAA, and in Australia by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart [referenced in my book]. To envision such a realistically based sea level rise scenario is worth doing, to see what kind of Australia our grandchildren are likely headed for by 2060, if global apathy and policy inertia on moving away from a carbon-burning based economy continues to prevail.

There is one way to put a stop to all this hysterical nonsense.Let the betting agencies work out the odds and then the doomsayers can put their money where their mouths are.Get the doomsayers to do a prediction sea levels of say 5 yrs and then put on a bet.

Is it time to point out Australia that tectonic plate movement is on two different scales one in time and the other is in a different quantum.

Oh yes, have those nasty AGW supporters factored in the fact that water expands as it get warmer or did they just do a cubic conversion?

And Those same people are telling us that the rise in water won't be our only problem. Cyclones in Brisy and Sydney perhaps oh well no great loss well I mean Sydney with it's Labor govt. and Brisbane... well it is in Queensland.

Isn't it wonderful how so many people can concentrate on one issue at a time. Pity nature and the Climate, AGW, environment don't.
I mean with melting glaciers (fresh water for billions of people)... don't forget the hydrological changes, drying of ground water...water resources for another billion or so, desertification, salting, acidification of the seas all meaning less food etc.Who needs food& water if say 40% of the population a great lifestyle..

Seems to me the current nit picking process is ....well.....it does make some people "feel" more comfortable.....temporarily. Always praise the good points .

Why, you all worried about whether the green house effect, rising water levels. If we don't fix the environment, a few million social issues, stop all this religious bickering, racial violence and intolerance.

If we don't solve youth suicide, violence and stop them from driving drunk into trees by the car load. If we can't stop our infernal bickering, back stabbing greedy materialistic destruction of the entire planet. And if we have missed somewhere I am sure we will find something there we have to dig up.

If we dont stop trying to annihilate each other through wars and terrorism, it won't really matter.

If we had the balls to look at those problems, global warming and rising sea levels would be a piece of cake.

Notice how all the Global Warmers make predicitons so far in advance they can't possibly held accountable for them? Rudd's good at it too.
2100, 2050. I 'd like to hear something from a Global Warmer about 2012 but I won't of course because it can be tested they can be held accountable.

Hell, Al Gore says 20 ft and James Hansen says 25 metres. These guys are just amateurs at alarming people.

I want to buy a cheap house by the seaside right now. But I can't because no-one really believes this crap and prices remain high.

Atman: Spot on, ignore it and it will go away. What we don't know can't hurt us right.

Atman,
anytime you discover a problem with the now very old finding of Fourier, that certain gas mixtures absorb and retain more heat than "air", you be sure to tell all the major journals. In the meantime, beyond stupendous ignorance, what are you going on? Your own opinion? thought so.

Rusty

Arjay
We are already betting on it. Just the payoff (or loss) wont be in dollars.

If the deniers have their way and they are wrong the losses will be catastrophic with billions dead and suffering.
If the other side holds sway and they are wrong the losses will be a slight lessening of our headlong growth and progress and a few less billionaires.
If the deniers have their way and they are right the payoff will be .. well ... business as usual.
If the supporters of AGW get listened to and they are right then the payoff will be a much cleaner and sustainable world hopefully more equal and inclusive.

Looks like the logical bet is against the deniers no matter which way you look at it.

yes mikk, Pascal's wager, slightly updated, didn't work back then, won't work now.

Chanting little ditties, is not science, but understandable for people who don't care about the science and want to change the world to a different system, using whatever excuse is handy - socialism was tried and failed, you know, or maybe you don't.

Check out the guys who run the world, USA, and Europe, next is China, all capitalist societies - and no one even gets close to the US. Capitalism rules, OK!

You guys flip from economics to science to dogma and have no idea what you want, except, everything has to change.

Discovering your prophets are not trustworthy doesn't bother you all at all, what a surprise, since it's not about science anyway is it?

The sea levels rise and fall, no problem, we'll adapt we always will adapt.

So, on the one hand the IPCC is prepared to sound the alarm re the glaciers “very likely” vanishing by 2035, on the basis of a speculative comment dropped into a telephone conversation by one scientist (after being warned that the speculation was arrant nonsense); but on the other hand it wasn’t prepared to sound the alarm on “what is likely to be the most important source of sea level rise in the 21st century” the melting of Antarctica (which is presently increasing more rapidly in the east than it is decreasing in the west)?

So should we sign our means of livelihood over to UN administered serfdom to “solve” this alarming “problem”?

Hmm – I think rpg’s idea might be better, let’s keep our industries, agriculture, cheap energy and freedom, and deal with such problems that occur as they occur - that way we might have the freedom and wherewithal to handle whatever does actually happen as it happens: warming, cooling, rising, falling or whatever.

Hey Wybong,

I've stopped doing all those nasty things and so have most of the people I interact with... So I'll leave it up to the social engineers, warpped socialists and misguided social democrats to try to work out ways to control the way others choose to behave.

I personally think they and all the miscreants should just be allowed to continue with their self-destructive behaviours, and leave me alone to adapt to the conditions they create. So in doing such I will probably, with millions of others, just continue to enjoy my wonderfully peaceful and enjoyable existance.

Roll on warming/cooling ... who cares ... come dictatorships and the social gulags ... whatever ... I'll simply adapt.
Cheers.

I wonder if God is laughing or crying at the stupidity of these people who use pseudo science to try and push their agendas. The arrogance and pride of these 'scientist' know no bounds. The problem is that once these doomsayers were on the fringe. It seems with socialist Governments they are becoming more mainstream. Thankfully Obama has taken a decent hit in the US. Hopefully he will wake up to the real world instead of making rash promises he knows he can't keep,

Thanks Bugsy and Ozandy, I stand instructed. It appears (http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp) that thermal expansion in the last fifty years has contributed to sea-level rise by about one inch (25 mm), more than the rise attributed to the melting of glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets (IPCC).

So according to the IPCC, sea-levels have risen roughly two inches in fifty years ? My God, that's almost seven feet in two thousand years ! What are we going to do ?! What legacy have we left our great-great-...grandchildren ? Presuming of course, that no governments, no companies, capitalism in general, will do anything about it, ever. And presuming as well that ways won't be found to capture river flows (and Greenland run-off, etc.) for agriculture, industry and human purposes, so that none of it reaches the sea.

By the way, for comparison, the reported run-off from the Greenland ice-sheet in 2008 (over and above historical levels of net run-off ? I don't know) of about 1200 gigalitres was roughly equal to all the rains that fell over inland NSW and Queensland recently. How much of that will get to the sea, I wonder ?

Joe

Sigh (groan), Atman, johndawsonblog, keith, rpg and others.

AGW has nothing to do with international socialism or anything else like that. In reality....remember that there's the basic science. The provable observations. These sites contain actual Before and after comparisons and on the ground observations.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice check out "Green China option" while there.
Some 80 US glaciers gone in the 20th century 70 more going.
Andean, african and PNG (4th highest mountain in the world) are all decreasing at an unrepairable rate... the snow isn't replacing as fast as it melts.
Then refer to the results from satellite "G.R.A.C.E." that shows ground water is drying and hydrological cycles are changing. shows lessening depths of Antarctic/Arctic ice.
All this took 10000's of years to Accumulate and it disappearing at an unprecedented rate.
It doesn't take rocket science to see the writing on the wall.
Tell me what do you think will happen once the water in all the affectd rivers dry up or reduce dramatically? Even the three gorges dam hydro had to shut down for a year because of lack of water water flow.

2Billion angry Asians with not enough water or all those Indians, Bangalardeshees that will be displaced by rising sea water? you lot are worried about a few thousand ....what about the Millions that will try to come here.

Have you any idea of what sort o desalination, infrastructure and power will be required to deal with that? Apparently not. Consider the largest one in the world currently copes with a few million Arabs and costs a bomb.

Both Wbong and I are trying to make you aware of what is *visible and provable today*. Bugger rows over global temperature starting dates for measuring.

We must start preparing now.

The politics are between nations nobody is suggesting handing authority to a world government, that's in your heads.

Now let's do a little arithmetic.

The volume of ice in Antarctica is estimated at approximately 25,000,000 cubic kilometres, covering an area of about 13.72 million square kilometres.

The average temperature of Antarctica is minus 49 degrees Celsius. That's why there's so much snow and ice there: it doesn't melt.

Before ANY of that ice could melt (apart from short-term submarine volcanic activity, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it?) temperature has to rise at least 49 degrees Celsius.

Who's predicting that? Anyone?

Of course, these academics assume melting - hell, the scare gets another publication on their CVs, doesn't it? - but preface every significant statement with the biggest little weasel word in the English language - "if" - then slide into "will" with no shame at all.

Pigs might fly, if only they had wings.

The authors, either from ignorance or dishonesty, fail to mention that Tuvalu and the Carteret islands are subsiding, nothing to do with sea level rise, nor admit that others, such as Nils-Axel Morner, a renowned sea level researcher, say there is no substantial or unusual sea level rise.

Indeed, the process is moving in the opposite direction. There's more snow and ice in Antarctica than previously, as you would expect in a frozen desert.

To see for yourself, search Google images for "Mawson's hut, Commonwealth Bay" and see how much more snow is there now than when the hut was being built.

Worried by all those television images of ice crashing into the sea? Well, don't worry. That process has been going on for so long it's actually got a name: summer.

Notice they didn't mention the cost of doing what they recommend? And these guys quote Bruce Babbitt as an authority. I'm guessing Democrats.

Rusty Catheter - What statement of mine are you referring to? Your post is making little sense.

You should read what Fourier said before making such statements. His hypothesis that the atmosphere traps heat is accepted by everyone. He did not say CO2 causes the seas to rise. Personal abuse is the hallmark of alarmists with no facts to back up their argument.

Wybong - You forget that this is a computer generated hypothesis based on various climate models,not a 'fact'. Many scientists do not adhere to these models. It is also a highly open to interpretation, hence the widely varying predictions between mini and maxi alarmists.

If people generally accept this 'fact' why hasn't the price of seaside houses generally decreased?!

Atman,

Anytime you are able to demonstrate that Fourier's experiments did not indicate what I said about certain gas mixtures, you just let me know. I never said that Fourier himself said sea levels will rise, but he did establish a very sound scientific fact.

Once you grasp that, we can extend to the next step and deal consecutively with your misunderstandings.

Rusty

You can always depend on these warmists to put a false interpretation on things, if they either, have no idea, [likely] or think they can get away with it.

The reason for salt intrusion in islands, & in coastal areas of Oz, like Bundaburg in Queensland, is that too much ground water has been pumped out. There is only ever a layer of fresh, floating on the salt in all these places.

However the best tall tale, & untrue in this article, is that this is given as the reason for growing some crops in 44 gallon drums. [55 in their tale]

A mate of mine is king of Nugeria atoll, [it's a long story, & I've mentioned him before]. Nugeria in an atoll of 56 islands, about 130 nautical miles north of Bouganville, with a population of about 350 people of mostly polynesian descent.

Graham also owns a coco plantation on Annia Is, a high, [volcanic] island about 70 miles west.

As with all coral atolls the soil is basically calcium, from decayed coral. The only things of use that will grow, [due to the PH of this soil] are coconuts, & swamp taro. Graham has been carting volcanic soil to the atoll for years, so they can grow other produce. It is used in drums, or recently in large poly bags.

Even when a real effort is made to avoid it, the atoll water, & soil soon stuff this imported soil PH, & render it no better than the coral stuff. They can usually get 3 crops of bananas before this happens.

I'll bet our article authors could blame this on rising sea level, if they were given a chance. I wonder how many of our local warmists will be repeating this particular fairy tale?

KenH.

Antarctic ice covers land in the east and its coastline is exposed to relatively warm seawater which is largely responsible for melting the ice far quicker than it is being replaced by new snow/ice formation. The result: Ice loss is presently 55-60 gigatonnes/annum and increasing.

In West Antarctica (separated from the east by the Transantarctic mountains) the ice sheet largely rests on the seabed and on islands, the largest known as the Antarctic Peninsula. In summer, air temperatures over the latter are well above zero and result in rapid melting of glaciers and snow cover. The result: net ice loss is over 130 gigatonnes/annum and getting faster each year.

The real danger is that warm currents from equatorial parts of the Pacific will melt the underside of the vast ice sheet resting on the seabed. Were this to happen, the ice sheet would disintegrate and begin to float, displacing its weight in water. That would cause a relatively sudden rise in global sea level. Fortunately, the Ross and Ronner ice shelves continue to provide a formidable barrier to sudden disintegrationbut if they start melting - watch out!

The rate and magnitude of ice being lost in Antarctica has been confirmed by the GRACE satellites. Temperatures at the centre of the massive east Antarctic ice sheet may be -49 in winter but this does not prevent rapid melting at the fringes or summer melting in the west.

examinator, mikke: Some of these guys are hopeless. I for one have absolutely no idea whether global warming will occur or not.

I see all the detractors appear not to have a basic understanding of much more than the big money businesses propaganda.

Nothing talks louder than money. Giant cotton corporations, greedy lazy farmers (I was a farmer so don't say what do I know) all are more interested in the mighty profit. That is there god, as long as they have the dollars rolling in who cares about the grandchildren.

My first father in law was like that, how many times have you heard these sort of cretins saying. "I had to do it the hard way, why shouldn't they", "We have got through hard times and problems before, they can again".

Well for this reason amongst others I have given away my health career, I mean, people have got sick before, they got over it, when I was a kid there was no polio vaccine, lets let medicine go back a hundred years or so, why not, all us scientists are half baked morons, looking for nothing except ways to deceive people to rip money of them.

We are definitely not the benevolent despots that the big coal and oil companies are, thats why we charge more if you have a car accident over christmas, you know, when your at the beach. Scientists are working 24 hours a day to put these cretins back together.

All scientists should give up their careers, well they talk garbage, make up answers, rip people off.

We should open up mines and power stations. Then we will have their respect, no longer greedy money hungry lying criminals but good respectable business magnates.

I know where I can get a contract to dump a few million litres of toxic waste, I think Lane Cove National Park would be close. Don't want to waste money an fuel, it is most probably just lies about sulphuric acid being dangerous any way, it must be, I read it in a science text.

Agnostic,
This contradicts you : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/

As does this: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm

But thank you for your response, I'll do some more reading.

KenH,

Link to all the sites you want.

I worked for several years in a lab sending staff and students to Antarctica annually. I have absolutely no doubt about the integrity of those staff and their other colleagues way-down-under.

There is less ice, more is falling into the sea than is being deposited. Snowfall is low density and anticipated if warming is evaporating more equatorial water. The solid ice breaking off is old and dense.

The problem you half-describe is that sub-zero ice absorbs a lot of heat without melting, but will require a long time to cool back down. The further energy absorbed by phase-changes is enormous. Note that in a heated system with melting ice the liquid temperature does not rise much until the ice is depleted.

The melting of Arctic ocean ice is similarly serious business and not ignored by countries attempting to secure rights there.

Rusty

Wybong,

You might be onto something, probably all the deniers are being paid by Big Oil and Big Coal, and anyway none of them know all the science, and it's likely that they are all in the thrall of the Vatican as well. Maybe not.

Personally, I think it's all the machinations of the Swedes - have you heard a single reference to the Swedes in this whole debate ? No ! Exactly ! Such clever b*stards, they use the deniers, load the guns for them and let them pull the trigger, but keep their hands squeaky clean. And you'll never see any accusations in the press against the Swedes, they own all the banks and the media and can suppress whatever they don't like. So it's not just refrigerators and IKEA that they control, and infiltrate our society that way, it's their control of the very foundations of our society. And people can't see it ! Amazing !

Then again, maybe not, but I love a good conspiracy theory, espeically one with no holes in it. But as the postmodernists would say, in reference to global warming, all claims to the truth are equal, [although some are more equal than others], including Hansen's and Jones', and anyway AGW just shows that the capitalist narrative was always doomed, and there's nothing any of us can do about AGW, and it serves us right, so there.

Or maybe the real scientists are the 'deniers' - who try to adhere to scientific method, i.e. support for a null hypothesis until there is sufficient evidence to support an alternative theory. For this reason, it would be useful if the warmers could get their story straight, to give us sceptics something to work with.

Joe Lane

No one knows all the science Loudmouth, any one who says they do is a fool

I just think it is better to be safe then sorry, when really all we are asking to turn the speed down a bit,

every one is clawing for money, we are loosing our way to enjoy ourselves.

The footy, not a game any more, commercialised, and the violence at local games. We are all keyed up. Forget the warming not warming, lets slow a bit, build better to last longer, stop burring our resources in garbage dumps.

Just sit behind your car while the engine is running for 5 minutes, then multiply that millions of times, etc etc etc.

There is a thousand things we can do to make life better, less hectic, less stressful, and give us a cleaner environment, conservation, woodlands for our grand children, streams to play in, parks for young mothers to picnic with their babies. Is profit and business success and computers becoming obsolete within months better?

Yes I agree, Wybong, I'm all for the Precautionary Principle: switch to renewables, recycle, etc., cut down on the pollution of rivers and coastal waters and the air, and over-use of natural resources, stop pillaging the ground-water, let the Murray run free, eat less and better, exercise more. All good.

I want to be a believer, but if only the alarmists would get their story straight:

* how much has the Earth warmed in the last fifty years ? Two degrees ? Five degrees ? Half a degree ? Not at all ?

* how much has the sea-level risen in fifty years ? Five cm ? 20 cm ? Not at all ?

* How much of any warming (if any) is due to heat island effects ? How much to solar activity ? Some regular solar cycle or other that we non-scientists don't know about ? How much to other gases besides CO2, or to water vapour or particulates ? All of the above, and more ?

* How much of the sea-level rise (if any) is relative (say, in the Pacific Islands) to land subsidence, how much (say in Bangla Desh) to tectonic plate movement, how much (in many river deltas) to capture of silt upstream and intrusion by the sea ?

* And so on: snow-line retreat, glacial and ice-sheet melt, disruption of ocean currents and regular el Nino-la Nina patterns ?

And most importantly, where humans have been involved, what is being done and what else can be done, about all these factors ? Why aren't governments planting billions of trees to soak up CO2, for example ? Why not jack up pollution taxes ?

Jo