Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

That is precisely my point. There are all sorts of things that could happen over the next 200 - 1000 years which cause the prediction to become inaccurate. It could easily turn out to be 100 years or it could turn out to be 2000 years.

If you are projecting something hundreds of years into the future then you only need a tiny error in measurement, calculation or assumptions, compounded over a few centuries, to be way off the mark.

Just don't think your on the mark here Smurf. The analysis of the glaciers we are talking about indicates a break with the underlying land and a rapidly increasing movement to the sea. And there is nothing that can physically stop the flow. It's all down hill. Further increases in temperature will just accelerate the movement

In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.

As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probabaility of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.

http://www.latimes.com/science/environment/la-sci-0513-antarctic-ice-sheet-20140513-story.html

 

[burglar]

Just don't think your on the mark here Smurf. The analysis of the glaciers we are talking about indicates a break with the underlying land and a rapidly increasing movement to the sea. And there is nothing that can physically stop the flow. It's all down hill. Further increases in temperature will just accelerate the movement

In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.

As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probabaility of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.

http://www.latimes.com/science/environment/la-sci-0513-antarctic-ice-sheet-20140513-story.html

Not in any way, shape or form has any part this post refuted any part of Smurf's!

Onya Smurf

 

[trainspotter]

And all we need is another Mount Pinatubo to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. Ipso facto ... global cooling

 

[Ijustnewit]

Fantastic graphic time line graph TS , guess it put things into perspective. Considering Hobart Tassie has just broken another 100 warm record yesterday. This was also on top of the hottest day on April records , the last couple of years Hobart has broken nearly all record heat maximums.
Lets hope as the graphic shows , what goes up must come down. Just hope I'm still around to see it , Im running out of summer clothes .

Cheers IJN

Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?

 

[Smurf1976]

In engineering terms consider a new super dam that has been built. Suddenly the engineers realise the builders used weak cement and didn't properly install the foundations.

As it fills the dam starts to leak from the bottom and perhaps the middle. You know that it will go and that as the dam fills and the pressure rises the probability of an earlier collapse increases dramatically.

Predicting structural failure when it is imminent isn't that difficult since you know that it's about to happen. You have actual proof that the structure isn't sound since the effects of this are clearly visible.

But predicting something 200 to 1000 years into the future is way beyond the abilities of civil engineering. Sure, you can make a prediction based on what is known today but there is a huge risk that this will end up being inaccurate over that length of time. You only need a slight change in the rate of degradation, compounded over a very long time, to end up being wrong in your forecasts if they go that far into the future.

External factors are also a major influence. Eg the Tasman Bridge was opened in 1964. I'm not sure of the actual design life, but it would likely be a century or so for a bridge like that. Then a ship rammed into it in 1975 causing a partial collapse. Needless to say, whilst it was always possible for such an event to occur nobody could have accurately predicted the timing unless by chance.

Or take the coal mine at Yallourn (Vic). Circa 1920 they took samples and used these as the basis for designing the boilers at the first Yallourn power station (Yallourn A). The power station was built and the mine developed. Just one problem - the samples they took turned out to be different to the coal from the mine that was actually developed to the point that the coal wouldn't burn in the boilers. End result = various attempts to modify the boilers and the SECV had to operate a second mine close by, which had coal of the type in the samples, in order to make use of the power station they'd just built. A simple mistake but a real one that was actually made.

Now, can anyone tell me that we know exactly all relevant information relating to this ice? No, you can't say that because there are uncertainties. And with uncertainties comes the possibility of error. And there will be external influences too - whilst it might be given that the ice has become detached and will eventually melt, the rate of melting would almost certainly change if the temperature changed. And there is a definite possibility that the water temperature won't be constant for the next 200 - 1000 years. Even without the man-made climate issue, natural variation alone is almost certain to result in a change over that time either up or down.

I am not an engineer but I know a few and none of them would be willing to make any definitive statements that far into the future about something as uncertain as naturally occurring ice without stating that they are estimates only, are based on current knowledge which is likely to be imperfect and are subject to ongoing revision as more data becomes available.

 

[Smurf1976]

Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?

Walking around in T-shirt in May in Hobart just doesn't sound right. It's unusually warm weather that's for sure.

As for the heating, well power demand is only just above normal Summer levels so it's safe to say that not a lot of heating is being used. Some yes, but nowhere near as much as would normally be the case this time of year.

 

[basilio]

Fantastic graphic time line graph TS , guess it put things into perspective. Considering Hobart Tassie has just broken another 100 warm record yesterday. This was also on top of the hottest day on April records , the last couple of years Hobart has broken nearly all record heat maximums.
Lets hope as the graphic shows , what goes up must come down. Just hope I'm still around to see it , Im running out of summer clothes .

Cheers IJN

Ps Smurf , how about this weather , are we saving on heating or what ?

I wouldn't be quite so enthusiastic about accepting the evidence of the graph that TS posted.

Few points

1) The meteorologists who posted the graph are quite upfront about recognising that human activity with producing CO2 as well as deforestation ect will significantly increase temperatures. They do also point to volcanoes and solar activity as contributors to temperature changes.

However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.

2) I chased the origins of the graph to see exactly what was being measured. Turns out it's totally misrepresents the last 150 years . How? It seems to be based on the work of Don Easterbrook who relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures. That in itself should send a message of concern. Using only one indicator for global temperatures is not a good look.

But there another quite fatal flaw. The final reading on the graph is in fact 1855 not 2000. I'll quote what he did.

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 ”” a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

This is Easterbrook’s main sleight of hand. He wants to present a regional proxy for temperature from 155 years ago as somehow indicative of present global temperatures. The depths of his misunderstanding are made clear in a response he gave to a request from the German EIKE forum to clarify why he was representing 1905 (wrongly, in two senses) as the present. Here’s what he had to say:

"The contention that the ice core only reaches 1905 is a complete lie (not unusual for AGW people). The top of the core is accurately dated by annual dust layers at 1987. There has been no significant warming from 1987 to the present, so the top of the core is representative of the present day climate in Greenland."

Unfortunately for Don, the first data point in the temperature series he’s relying on is not from the “top of the core”, it’s from layers dated to 1855. The reason is straightforward enough ”” it takes decades for snow to consolidate into ice.

Check it out..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

[noco]

What has the QU got to hide?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...climate-research/story-e6frgcjx-1226920713818

 

[basilio]

Still wondering if/when the penny will drop with regard to the collapse of the east Antarctic Ice shelf and the implications of that.

Somehow people are trying to take comfort from the possibility it might be wrong, "that it is a long way off" or "that anything can happen in the future". Frankly you are better off saying a few Hail Marys because at this stage it will require an absolute miracle to stop that has now been put into motion.

The glaciologist who headed the research team has outlined the depth and breadth of research that was used to come to the view of his team. It is not a flimsy story.

I wonder what the response would be if other scientists announced they were 95% sure that an asteroid would hit the earth sometime in the next 200 years unless we did something "magical " ?

Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next?
Last week saw a 'holy ****' moment in climate change science. A landmark report revealed that the collapse of a large part of Antarctica is now unstoppable

Eric Rignot
The Observer, Sunday 18 May 2014 05.30 AEST

Last Monday, we hosted a Nasa conference on the state of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which, it could be said, provoked something of a reaction. "This Is What a Holy **** Moment for Global Warming Looks Like," ran a headline in Mother Jones magazine.

We announced that we had collected enough observations to conclude that the retreat of ice in the Amundsen sea sector of West Antarctica was unstoppable, with major consequences – it will mean that sea levels will rise one metre worldwide. What's more, its disappearance will likely trigger the collapse of the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which comes with a sea level rise of between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide.

Two centuries – if that is what it takes – may seem like a long time, but there is no red button to stop this process. Reversing the climate system to what it was in the 1970s seems unlikely; we can barely get a grip on emissions that have tripled since the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to hit reduction targets. Slowing down climate warming remains a good idea, however – the Antarctic system will at least take longer to get to this point.

The Amundsen sea sector is almost as big as France. Six glaciers drain it. The two largest ones are Pine Island glacier (30km wide) and Thwaites glacier (100km wide). They stretch over 500km.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa

 

[burglar]

... unless we did something "magical " ...

Asked a vineyard owner the other day, "How high are you above sea level?"
"105 feet", was his very, very casual reply!!

If I live to see the ice melt, I will be moving to high ground.









How's that for something "magical"!

 

[trainspotter]

Still wondering if/when the penny will drop with regard to the collapse of the east Antarctic Ice shelf and the implications of that.

Somehow people are trying to take comfort from the possibility it might be wrong, "that it is a long way off" or "that anything can happen in the future". Frankly you are better off saying a few Hail Marys because at this stage it will require an absolute miracle to stop that has now been put into motion.

The glaciologist who headed the research team has outlined the depth and breadth of research that was used to come to the view of his team. It is not a flimsy story.

I wonder what the response would be if other scientists announced they were 95% sure that an asteroid would hit the earth sometime in the next 200 years unless we did something "magical " ?

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa

My money is on an asteroid the size of a football field to hit Earth prior to the ice shelf collapsing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ast-Earth-tomorrow-YOU-watch-live-online.html

 

[basilio]

My money is on an asteroid the size of a football field to hit Earth prior to the ice shelf collapsing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ast-Earth-tomorrow-YOU-watch-live-online.html

Well THAT is a gloomy view!! Perhaps it will come around the next time Tony Abbott is believed again..

But anyway just to add more light to the leaps and bounds science has made with regard to understanding what is happening in the Antarctic check out the following read.


Doubling of Antarctic ice loss revealed by European satellite

Continent shedding 160 billion tonnes a year, CryoSat-2 shows, just days after warning over western ice sheet's collapse


Damian Carrington
theguardian.com, Tuesday 20 May 2014 02.08 AEST
Jump to comments (241)


Antarctica is shedding 160 billion tonnes a year of ice into the ocean, twice the amount of a few years ago, according to new satellite observations. The ice loss is adding to the rising sea levels driven by climate change and even east Antarctica is now losing ice.

The satellite measures changes in the height of the ice and covers virtually the whole of the frozen continent, far more of than previous altimeter missions.

......CryoSat-2 collected five times more data than before in the crucial coastal regions where ice losses are concentrated and found key glaciers were losing many metres in height every year. The Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers in west Antarctica were losing between 4m and 8m annually.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite

 

[trainspotter]

Maybe because it was a record HIGH prior to the melt?

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.

Increased ice cover in Antarctic continues to be at odds with falling Arctic ice levels, where the summer melt has again pushed levels well below the average extent for 1981-2010. The centre said while the rate of *Arctic-wide retreat was rapid through the first half of April, it had slowed.

The April Arctic minimum was 270,000sq km higher than the record April low, which occurred in 2007. The Antarctic sea ice extent anomalies were greatest in the eastern Weddell and along a long stretch of coastline south of Australia and the southeastern Indian Ocean. The centre said the increased ice extent in the Weddell Sea region appeared to be associated with a broad area of persistent easterly winds in March and April, and lower-than-average temperatures.

Changing wind patterns are increasingly cited to explain the expanding Antarctic sea ice.

Research suggests that the changes in Antarctic sea ice, both where it is increasing and where it is decreasing, are caused in part by the strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-record-levels/story-e6frg8y6-1226913708208#

But but but it is melting ... no wait ... this happens EVERY year

The Tasmania-based Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre has just released a new "position analysis" of the brain-achingly complex issue of southern hemisphere sea ice.

It's got a lot of science in it.

Antarctica's sea ice goes through dramatic swings from year to year.

Between September and October, the amount of sea ice can reach as much as 19 million square kilometres – an area one and half times the size of the continent. By the end of the summer melt season, there's only about three million square kilometres left.

The annual change, the ACE CRC reports, is "one of the biggest natural changes" observed anywhere on Earth.

The ACE CRC's report says that since 1979, the amount of sea ice coverage around Antarctica has been rising by about 285,0000 square kilometres every decade.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...1/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition

"Collapse" is such a strong word:-

So where's the 'collapse'?

The collapse refers to this glacial retreat, but that doesn't mean there'll be a catastrophic splash of ice sheets into the sea anytime soon. In fact, The New York Times' Andrew Revkin takes issue with the word "collapse" because it implies a sudden, catastrophic breakdown. Ice is being lost. However, the computer models suggest that one of the ice sheet's key glaciers, Thwaites Glacier, won't disappear for another 200 to 1,000 years.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...k-antarctic-meltdown-rising-sea-level-n104616

Computer modelling is wrong:-

Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent 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).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/r...lobal-warming-models-are-wrong/#ixzz32J1lLqkj

Ho hum ... back to the coal face (pun intended)

 

[wayneL]

The only collapse currently in progress is the reputation and credibility of UQ, Nuccitelli and Cooke, regarding the data fiasco of their consensus project.

The plot continues to thicken.

 

[basilio]

TS how about trying to discuss the same question rather than going in a totally different, irrelevant direction ?

The Antarctic research that has caused this major concern is about the rapid melt and retreat of glaciers and Antarctic land ice. Global satellites can now very accurately determine the thickness of ice and the movement over time.

Sea ice changes have absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Zip . Zero. Anyone quoting such material is just trying to distract with irrelevant dribble.

However having said the above when one actually reads the story from The Guardian you realise their point is that the sea ice story in fact is part of changes in the climate around Antarctica. Did you actually read the full story to find that out ?

And as far as climate modelling being wrong regarding temperature rises.? Just BS and completely irrelevant to glaciologist measurement of rapid changes in the size of Antarctic land ice

But hey why start looking at reality now ? It's too late to change what has/is happening and you wouldn't believe it anyway would you ?

 

[trainspotter]

TS how about trying to discuss the same question rather than going in a totally different, irrelevant direction ?

The Antarctic research that has caused this major concern is about the rapid melt and retreat of glaciers and Antarctic land ice. Global satellites can now very accurately determine the thickness of ice and the movement over time.

Sea ice changes have absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Zip . Zero. Anyone quoting such material is just trying to distract with irrelevant dribble.

However having said the above when one actually reads the story from The Guardian you realise their point is that the sea ice story in fact is part of changes in the climate around Antarctica. Did you actually read the full story to find that out ?

And as far as climate modelling being wrong regarding temperature rises.? Just BS and completely irrelevant to glaciologist measurement of rapid changes in the size of Antarctic land ice

But hey why start looking at reality now ? It's too late to change what has/is happening and you wouldn't believe it anyway would you ?

OOOOOeeeeeerrrrr maybe if you read my posts you would realise that I am talking about the same thing

Your second post is to do with 160 billion tonnes of ice melting into the ocean. Happens every year as it is cyclical. I was pointing out the large thaw is due to the sea ice being at it's largest level in years. A record they claimed.

Your first post and subsequent post dribbles on about a "collapse" ... sells newspapers and nothing more and from the same newspaper you quoted I quoted the same thing that Smurf1976 pointed out ... a lot can happen in 200 - 1000 years. You are stating this as a fact rather then a computer model which is "predicting" this to happen.

But hey ... let's not be alarmist about this now shall we :frown:

 

[basilio]

OOOOOeeeeeerrrrr maybe if you read my posts you would realise that I am talking about the same thing

Your second post is to do with 160 billion tonnes of ice melting into the ocean. Happens every year as it is cyclical. I was pointing out the large thaw is due to the sea ice being at it's largest level in years. A record they claimed.

Your first post and subsequent post dribbles on about a "collapse" ... sells newspapers and nothing more and from the same newspaper you quoted I quoted the same thing that Smurf1976 pointed out ... a lot can happen in 200 - 1000 years. You are stating this as a fact rather then a computer model which is "predicting" this to happen.

But hey ... let's not be alarmist about this now shall we :frown:

TS get it right.

Sea ice freezes and melts every year in a cyclical fashion.

160 billions tons of ice melting from the glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica are NOT sea ice.

By the way that research report was carried by hundreds of papers around the world. I chose to use the report posted in News Ltd just to "show" it wasn't a beat up from the usual suspects.

But whats the point ? If you can't/won't recognises the simple differences between cyclical sea ice and the rapid melt of long term glaciers theres little sense in discussion.

 

[basilio]

Are we experiencing more extreme weather events that are way outside long term records ? And what effect ares having on countries, economies and people ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/serbia-floods-threaten-biggest-power-plant
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/california-major-wildfire-mostly-contained-firefighters
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...change-global-warming-miami-floods-hurricanes

 

[trainspotter]

TS get it right.

Sea ice freezes and melts every year in a cyclical fashion.

160 billions tons of ice melting from the glaciers and ice caps on Antarctica are NOT sea ice.

By the way that research report was carried by hundreds of papers around the world. I chose to use the report posted in News Ltd just to "show" it wasn't a beat up from the usual suspects.

But whats the point ? If you can't/won't recognises the simple differences between cyclical sea ice and the rapid melt of long term glaciers theres little sense in discussion.

So the sheet ice is "collapsing" (read catastrophic event) or is it slowly melting (nature at it's best) and comparing it with such select time lines is a moot point:-

The data collected from 2010-2013 was compared to that from 2005-2010.

Whose to say from 2015 - 2019 it might start freezing over again ? 160 billion tonnes of water is raising the sea level 0.45mm per annum so ten years will make the sea rise 4.5mm ??? Hardly a devastating affect. Like I said previously, only need a Mt. Pinatubo effect on the global climate and hey presto ... global cooling.

You, yourself is the first person to say "You can't cherry pick the data/timeline as it is too small a quotient to sample to come up with a plausible thesis." I also referred to "computer models" as the NASA scientist analysed 90 papers and found them to be 95% INACCURATE and overstated the actual position of global warming.

However, the computer models suggest that one of the ice sheet's key glaciers, Thwaites Glacier, won't disappear for another 200 to 1,000 years.

So please desist in trying to paint me as a neophyte who has no grasp of the written word. Perhaps you should try comprehending what I am writing and you might, just might get a grip on what is really going on.

Stop being such an ALARMIST !!!!!!!!!!

 

[basilio]

Please yourself TS as to how accurately you read information. The fact that you repeatedly confabulated the melting of glaciers and land ice with the ongoing melt and freezing of sea ice doesn't give me confidence in your judgement.

I also wonder just how much you accurately read all of the reports as distinct from picking the bits you feel are most useful for your argument. For example you quoted figures from 2005 to 2013 as somehow the most relevant examples. This came from information gleaned from the Cryo Sate 2 satellite which has only been up for a few years. What this report offered was a remarkably accurate analysis of the amount and rate of ice melt in the past 8 years.

The satellite measures changes in the height of the ice and covers virtually the whole of the frozen continent, far more of than previous altimeter missions.

CryoSat-2 collected five times more data than before in the crucial coastal regions where ice losses are concentrated and found key glaciers were losing many metres in height every year. The Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers in west Antarctica were losing between 4m and 8m annually.

The main papers however indicated that the retreating glaciers had been monitored for 40 years

The two studies, by Nasa and the University of Washington, looked at the ice sheets of western Antarctica over different periods of time.

The Nasa researchers focused on melting over the last 20 years, while the scientists at the University of Washington used computer modelling to look into the future of the western Antarctic ice sheet.

But both studies came to broadly similar conclusions – that the thinning and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has begun and cannot be halted, even with drastic action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

...One of those glaciers, Pine Island, retreated 31km at its centre from 1992-2011. Rignot said all six glaciers together contained enough ice to add an additional 1.2m (4ft) to sea levels around the world.

The two teams of scientists used airborne radar and satellites to map the layers of ice down to the sea bed, and to study the rate of glacier movement. The Nasa team also drew on observations stretching back 40 years.

Even so, Rignot said he was taken aback at how fast change was occurring.

“This system, whether Greenland or Antarctica, is changing on a faster time scale than we anticipated. We are discovering that every day,” Rignot said.

Scientists are also finding that the causes of the ice loss are highly complex – and that it is not just due to warmer temperatures causing surface melting of the ice.

Both papers said the contact between the glaciers and the relatively warmer water at the ocean depths was the main driver of the slow-motion collapse.

Then you go on to suggest that somehow a Mt Pinaturbo eruption (or similar ) could reverse climbing temperatures.

Really ? Really ? Ok lets accept that a major volcano eruption will lower (or stabilize) world temperatures for 1 -3 years because of the particulates in the atmosphere. In no way will that have any longer term effects on global warming. When the dust settles temperatures will resume their upward path. And there is no chance that somehow the extra 3-4 degrees of warmth in the southern oceans will disappear because of one eruption. (Unless it takes everything out...)

And finally you suggest that it is alarmist to be concerned about a long term threat to every coastal installation less that 3 meters above sea level. How about posing that question to a Insurance actuary and see what they say ?

Lloyd's calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk
Extreme weather as global climate alters demands a longer view and more action to avoid financial losses, says insurance firm

Julia Kollewe
The Guardian, Thursday 8 May 2014

Lloyd's of London, the world's oldest and biggest insurance market, has for the first time called on insurers to incorporate climate change into their models.

The call to action comes a day after a landmark US report, named the National Climate Assessment, which has warned that climate change is wreaking havoc across the US.

Lloyd's says damage and weather-related losses around the world have increased from an annual average of $50bn in the 1980s to close to $200bn over the last 10 years.

...A new report by Lloyd's, which consulted the world's largest catastrophe modelling firms, says a 20cm rise in the sea level at the southern tip of Manhattan Island increased Superstorm Sandy's surge losses by 30% (up to $8bn) in New York alone.

...Lloyd's made a £516m loss in 2011 after paying out the largest catastrophe claims on record – caused by earthquakes in Japan and New Zealand, storms in the US, and floods in Thailand and Australia. The area flooded in Thailand was the size of Birmingham and it remained under water for a couple of months.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...account-climate-change-extreme-weather-losses

______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...et-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite