Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Makalakumu]

There was more than just emails in the original zipfiles. The Climategate packets contained emails, databases, and programming code. The other thing to keep in mind is that the original place where the zipfiles were released crashed shortly after they were released. Then, over the subsequent weeks, the packets were released on mirror sites all over the internet. Since I had the original packets, I thought nothing of it. Then, on a hunch, I downloaded a couple of the "copycat" packets. Those packets were different. They did not contain the same material.

Perhaps the Guardian wrote their story based on an altered packet? Who knows which data set was actually analyzed to see if there was any wrong doing. How sure are you that superfluous data wasn't injected into the system in order to intentionally muddy the water and misdirect?

 

[Makalakumu]

So Maka, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck.
:asian:

Or maybe people could be more careful about stating what might or might not have been leaked without having actually seen the leak. I've read the emails. Those are actually the easiest part to get through. All of the data and computer code...well that's another story...and over my head.

And over a lot of other people's heads...since the focus seems to be on the emails in most of the internet chatter. Needless to say, there is far more to the Climategate leak than people know.

 

[K-man]

So Maka, if you have time to read a thousand emails and two thousand documents, plus associated research data, in the hope you will find something that the skeptics missed, go for it. Good luck.
:asian:

There was more than just emails in the original zipfiles. The Climategate packet contained emails, databases, and programming code. The other thing to keep in mind is that the original place where the zipfiles were released crashed shortly after they were released. Then, over the subsequent weeks, the packets were released on mirror sites all over the internet. Since I had the original packets, I thought nothing of it. Then, on a hunch, I downloaded a couple of the "copycat" packets. Those packets were different. They did not contain the same material.

Perhaps the Guardian wrote their story based on an altered packet? Who knows which data set was actually analyzed to see if there was any wrong doing. How sure are you that superfluous data wasn't injected into the system in order to intentionally muddy the water and misdirect?

As I posted above, there were a thousand emails and two thousand documents etc. I have no intention of looking through those bits as I am sure that those who are intentionally muddying the waters have extracted everything available to back their arguement which has since been discredited anyway. I wouldn't have the first clue what was in the zip files or whether it was altered. Why would it have been altered anyway? I suspect that the files are sure to be original. If they were doctored I am sure the legitimate owners of the files would have pointed it out very quickly. But the files are old and have no information relevant to this discussion anyway.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

And over a lot of other people's heads...since the focus seems to be on the emails in most of the internet chatter. Needless to say, there is far more to the Climategate leak than people know.

Then if that is the case you have a wonderful opportunity to make a name for yourself on the World stage. Go for it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Now there is no way I am going to research all 3000 of these guys but I looked at one from New Zealand first up.

So what is his position?

Chris de Freitas, B.A. (Hons), University of Toronto, Canada; M.A. University of Toronto, Canada; Ph.D. Climatology, University of Queensland, Australia (1979); Deputy Dean of Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Head of Science and Technology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, New Zealand; Pro Vice Chancellor University of Auckland, New Zealand; Vice President, Meteorological Society of New Zealand; Founding Member, Australia New Zealand Climate Forum; Former Editor, Climate Research Journal; Executive Board, International Society of Biometeorology (1999-2001), Science Communicator Award, New Zealand Association of Scientists (1999, 2001), Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1995, 2001), Associate Professor, School of Environment, University of Auckland, New Zealand

It is true most climate scientists would agree that rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use could affect global climate. The basic physics is there to support this view.

...

Climate warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. The evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused warming and natural warming. This has not been done.

...

From the results of research to date, it appears the influence of increasing carbon dioxide on global warming is almost indiscernible. Future warming could occur, but there is no evidence to suggest it will amount to much.


One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence, one way or the other, is no reason for complacency. I will concede that.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10886282

:asian:

i would be curious to know how old this person's position is. the data and information on global climate change gets updated and the reality is found over and over to be more severe than models anticipated, that his position, if more than a couple years old, could very well have changed since then. i would be interested to know the most current thoughts of someone like this example, who is a legitimate and active scientist with relevant knowledge and experience.

excellent post, sir.

 

[billc]

Well, at least their is room for debate...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

And these open minded seekers of truth...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/MPs-Seek-to-Silence-Climate-Change-Sceptics

The BBC should give less airtime to sceptics of man-made global warming, and any government minister who questions climate change orthodoxy should "shut up or leave", according to a committee of MPs.

A report by the Commons Science and Technology says that too much airtime is given to climate change sceptics, and calls for them to be either silenced or given "health warnings" when they appear on shows.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ok so are these fact true or not?

The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.

from NOAA Climate website, pretty recent info, from November 2013... http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

...

The long-term trend—change over the course of a century or more—is what defines “global warming,” not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. Rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution explain most of the overall warming trend over the past century, and the rate of emissions has not slowed significantly in the recent past.

...

Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents.

...

The deep ocean may have been able to "hide" excess heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases, contributing to the warming “pause” in the last decade, but scientists know that heat energy doesn't just disappear. Eventually, natural ocean circulation may bring some of the extra heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface, which can happen during an El Niño event, for example.
...

Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate change—melting ice in Greenland, theretreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level rise—continue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming. Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade.

i invite you, of course, to read the full report and it is fairly complex, the forces that influence global climate. the short answer is, while there has been an observed "pause" in temperature, an understanding of these influencing global forces tells us that the earth continues to warm. this "pause" phenomenon is being used as a tool by climate deniers to sow doubt about it, but once again, the full story is not presented. It is a half-truth deliberately used and designed to lead the reader to a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth. as such, it is fraudulent and is a lie, plain and simple.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, at least their is room for debate...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/

And these open minded seekers of truth...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/MPs-Seek-to-Silence-Climate-Change-Sceptics


​

and the existence of those with strong, even extreme beliefs, disproves global climate change exactly how?

 

[billc]

global climate change

No, man made global climate change...and the point is, if they are wrong and the science is so locked down, there is no need to demand jailing or silencing them...but of course that is easier than having to listen to dissenting points of view...

And if the science is locked down...why this...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The paper was published on February 24, 2014.
The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”
“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”
The paper conclusions read in part: “This article offers a rationale for the phenomenon of climate change accentuation or exaggeration on the part of the international mainstream media or other pro-environmental organizations.” — ‘We show that the aforementioned exaggeration of climate damage may alleviate the problem of insufficient IEA participation.”
“In fact, our key result—that overpessimism alleviates the underparticipation problem—implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to the society,” the authors conclude on page two, footnote #5.

 

[billc]

And of course this scientist must be an idiot...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/

Another Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – Top Prof. Declares: ‘Global warming is nonsense’

Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher, dissented on man-made global warming. Woodcock declared there was “professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world” when it comes to man-made climate change claims. Woodcock, who received his PhD from the University of London, (Full Bio here - [email protected]) is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of Molecular Simulation, and a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, has more than 70 published journal papers, explained: “The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis’ – water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04% – ‘Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.”
Woodcock continued: “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.

And to some of the damage caused by believers in man made global warming...

He adds: “Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.”

Yeah, I thought mercury in the home and in garbage dumps was a bad thing...but I guess if the green gods demand it...

And a funny story like this...

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html

Power plants that burn wood to produce electricity emit comparatively more pollution than modern coal-fired power plants, according to a group that advocates tougher rules on the growing biomass-power industry.

The issue is relevant in Kentucky because of a proposed wood-burning power plant near Hazard, called ecoPower Generation, the state's first.
In a study released early Wednesday, the Massachusetts-based Partnership for Policy Integrity said wood-fired plants are not as clean as advocates claim, putting more carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere than coal or natural-gas plants when judged on the ratio of pollution to energy produced.
For example, biomass plants emit nearly 50 percent more carbon dioxide — which traps heat in the atmosphere — per megawatt hour of electricity produced than coal plants, the study concluded.
One reason is that wood doesn't burn as hot as coal, so the same level of emissions produces less power. Another is that wood contains a lot of moisture, so it is a less efficient feedstock than coal or gas.
The study also said loopholes in regulations governing biomass plants mean lax controls on what goes out their smokestacks, even though they emit many of the same pollutants as fossil-fuel plants, according to the study by Mary S. Booth, director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/02/3174184/report-wood-burning-power-plants.html#storylink=cpy
​

 

[Flying Crane]

i guess i need to ask again.

and the existence of those with strong, even extreme beliefs, disproves global climate change exactly how?

 

[billc]

No, the lack of an ability to actual show man's lead role in raising global temperatures vs. the influence of nature disproves the man made global warming theory...add to that the fact that the models used can't predict climate activity in the past...and that pretty much disproves the theory of man made global warming...

So can we have our old light bulbs back?

 

[Flying Crane]

And of course this scientist must be an idiot...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/

Yet another winner of a resource, brought to us by BILLC: from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot

ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."[SUP][1

...

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobilFoundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].
Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008 [2].[/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

No, the lack of an ability to actual show man's lead role in raising global temperatures vs. the influence of nature disproves the man made global warming theory...add to that the fact that the models used can't predict climate activity in the past...and that pretty much disproves the theory of man made global warming...

So can we have our old light bulbs back?

Billc's personal fantasy world.

so we can agree that the point you brought up, those with extreme positions, is a strawman argument. thanks!

 

[billc]

As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...

As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change

When models are used to provide information about more localised parts of the climate – for example, over a particular country or region – the results become more uncertain. However, the quality of regional models is improving, increasing the confidence with which they can

predict local features such as rainfall.

But sure, let's hand over all this power and money to these guys based on their "science."

And more on climate models...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I’m seeing a lot of wrangling over the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.
These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.
I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH):

Whether humans are the cause of 100% of the observed warming or not, the conclusion is that global warming isn’t as bad as was predicted. That should have major policy implications…assuming policy is still informed by facts more than emotions and political aspirations.

And if humans are the cause of only, say, 50% of the warming (e.g. our published paper), then there is even less reason to force expensive and prosperity-destroying energy policies down our throats.
I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.
Yet, that is the direction we are heading.
And even if the extra energy is being stored in the deep ocean (if you have faith in long-term measured warming trends of thousandths or hundredths of a degree), I say “great!”. Because that extra heat is in the form of a tiny temperature change spread throughout an unimaginably large heat sink, which can never have an appreciable effect on future surface climate.
If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter.

 

[Flying Crane]

As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...

As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change



But sure, let's hand over all this power and money to these guys based on their "science."

And more on climate models...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

regarding roy spencer, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

[h=3]Climate change[edit][/h]Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[SUP][25][/SUP][SUP][26][/SUP] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[SUP][27][/SUP] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[SUP][28]

...

[h=3]Intelligent design[edit][/h]In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[SUP][40][/SUP] In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[SUP][41][/SUP]
Climatologist Patrick Michaels has defended Spencer, arguing that his religious beliefs have nothing to do with his climate change research.[SUP][42][/SUP]

not a scientist i would want working on my team.
[/SUP]

 

[Flying Crane]

As opposed to the scammers at the IPCC...The U.N....right...they have no agenda or reason to advance the myth of man made global warming...they are just a bunch of great guys...

As to climate models...they apparently can predict climate hundreds of years from now...but local weather...not so much...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/04/computer-models-predict-climate-change

i gotta ask: did you actually read the article? 'cause it really supports the use of scientific models in climate change.

this is really funny, bill.

and nobody but you seems to think that global climate change is about predicting the local weather. Funny stuff!

 

[ballen0351]

from NOAA Climate website, pretty recent info, from November 2013... http://www.climate.gov/news-feature...s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade



i invite you, of course, to read the full report and it is fairly complex, the forces that influence global climate. the short answer is, while there has been an observed "pause" in temperature, an understanding of these influencing global forces tells us that the earth continues to warm. this "pause" phenomenon is being used as a tool by climate deniers to sow doubt about it, but once again, the full story is not presented. It is a half-truth deliberately used and designed to lead the reader to a conclusion that is the opposite of the truth. as such, it is fraudulent and is a lie, plain and simple.

So basically the weather isn't following the "were all going to die" plan so anyone that uses the FACT that temps haven't been rising in the last 2 decades is "a lie plain and simple.". Got it. So I either believe as you do or else huh lol ok

 

[ballen0351]

not a scientist i would want working on my team.
[/SUP]

Right because he doesn't agree with you. Only people that walk lock step with you get to be on the team

 

[billc]

Dr. Spencer on global warming...

[h=2]About[/h]

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.
Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.

5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming? Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels? I must confess, I don’t pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty.

11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.
13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.