Oh my! Climate change threatens to cause ‘trillions’ in damage to world’s coastal regions

From the University of Southampton  and the department of potential assorted threats and sundries, comes this claim.

Aerial views during an Army search and rescue mission show damage from Hurricane Sandy to the New Jersey coast, Oct. 30, 2012

New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.

Yes, and a asteroid could hit us, and some errant jihadist might get a nuke and set it off. I worry about those things more than I worry about coastlines and the affluent who build there, especially since Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows.

According to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, global average storm surge damages could increase from about $10-$40 billion per year today to up to $100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.

The study, led by the Berlin-based think-tank Global Climate Forum (GCF) and involving the University of Southampton, presents, for the first time, comprehensive global simulation results on future flood damages to buildings and infrastructure in coastal flood plains. Drastic increases in these damages are expected due to both rising sea levels and population and economic growth in the coastal zone. Asia and Africa may be particularly hard hit because of their rapidly growing coastal mega-cities, such as Shanghai, Manila and Lagos.

“If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author. In 2100, up to 600 million people (around 5 per cent of the global population) could be affected by coastal flooding if no adaptation measures are put in place.

“Countries need to take action and invest in coastal protection measures, such as building or raising dikes, amongst other options,” urges Hinkel. With such protection measures, the projected damages could be reduced to below $80 billion per year during the 21st century. The researchers found that an investment level of $10 to $70 billion per year could achieve such a reduction. Prompt action is needed most in Asia and Africa where, today, large parts of the coastal population are already affected by storm surge flooding.

However, investment must also occur in Europe as shown by the recent coastal floods in South West England. Professor Robert Nicholls from the University of Southampton, who is a co-author of the paper, says: “If we ignore sea-level rise, flood damages will progressively rise and presently good defences will be degraded and ultimately overwhelmed. Hence we must start to adapt now, be that planning higher defences, flood proofing buildings and strategically planning coastal land use.”

Meeting the challenge of adapting to rising sea levels will not be easy, explains Hinkel: “Poor countries and heavily impacted small-island states are not able to make the necessary investments alone, they need international support.” Adding to the challenge, international finance mechanisms have thus far proved sluggish in mobilising funds for adapting to climate change, as the debate on adaptation funding at the recent climate conference in Warsaw once again confirmed.

“If we do not reduce greenhouse gases swiftly and substantially, some regions will have to seriously consider relocating significant numbers of people in the longer run,” adds Hinkel. Yet regardless of how much sea-level rise climate change brings, the researchers say careful long-term strategic planning can ensure that development in high-risk flood zones is appropriately designed or avoided. Professor Nicholls says: “This long-term perspective is however a challenge to bring about, as coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.”

###
About these ads

98 thoughts on “Oh my! Climate change threatens to cause ‘trillions’ in damage to world’s coastal regions

  1. Wow, what glittering generalities! I missed a prediction of how much the sea level will rise sometime in the distant future. One of the things they seem to ignore is the fact that humans have adapted to real climate change for 200,000 years. If the worry is the water rising over the next 86 years, I bet even a fat old man like me can walk or wheel his way ahead of it.

  2. If Jochen Hinkel ever needs another job, he could write copy for National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service (gov’t radio and gov’t TV in the US.) Hinkel’s work sounds exactly like some of their programming.

  3. Interesting numbers they have. 60,000,000 people affected? 5% of the population? Thats 12 billion people.

    100,000 billion damages? Thats 20% of total GDP by then.

    The IPCC, in its projections (which Castles and Henderson showed to fatally flawed), had global population at 7 billion in 2100. GDP is 522 trillion.

    Wow. Talk about inflation. These guys need Bernanke to control it.

  4. At least this study is calling for improved infrastructure to protect against flooding and storm surge. Such steps would have real value, even if the frequency of flooding remains where it is today. By comparison, many carbon schemes have virtually no value at all. The amount of CO2 reduction would have negligible effect even if the catastrophic models are correct.

  5. Hmmm…does Barbara Streisand have government flood insurance? Who pays if her beachfront is flooded?

  6. Duh! You built at the ocean edge and then act surprised when ocean storms rage and floods y’all? But the bad news – obviously this was the first time the UK ever experienced storms in their long history? Oh – you’re flooding over there because you built on low level former swamp, and your government never dredged the rivers. But they did collect all your green taxes – for the climate change people doing this study – how’s that for bang for the buck?

  7. Man, this is a really BAD cookie-cutter alarmism presentation. How many time have we heard this, nearly word-for-word? Reduce it to a dull roar, won’t somebody…Puh-leeeeeez

  8. Sandy is the best-named storm in history, moving around goodly amounts of sand that beach-lovers chose to build on. Ship captains don’t typically build their homes on sand. Why is that?

  9. In areas that may be prone to flooding they should build floor levels higher than the expected high water level.

    This simple plan of mine will save 600,000,000 lives and possibly save the human race from extinction.

  10. Beaches are great and who wouldn’t want to have a home on a great beach in a nice warm location.

    So yeah, these homes are expensive because most people want to own one and, every now and again, a storm from the ocean or the lake comes in and does damage to them.

    Why isn’t insurance coverage based on this risk? Its not like the people who can afford these expensive homes and real estate cannot afford to pay much higher insurance premiums.

    If some people think those premiums should be even higher because of global warming or sea level rise then so be it.

    It is not more complicated than that.

  11. My Real Science comment:
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 1960s
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 1970s
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 1980s
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 1990s
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 2000s
    “We are on the brink of disaster. Urgent action by the government is needed.” -Econuts and Democrats, 2010s

  12. Did they just say we could lower the damages from $100 Billion to $80 Billion a year if we just spent up to $70 Billion a year to fix things?

  13. WIthout Global Warming, cavemen would still be isolated around the equator, so I guess the cost is non-existent. No people, no damage. More people, more damage.

  14. It might be helpful if these people put a sock in it and started paying attention to the REAL experts who have been working on these problems for decades/centuries. With some success in many places. Even if these expectations were realistic, the changes would take decades to be apparent. (Of course,”stop building near the coast” provides no answer to what is already built too close.)

  15. Oh, my mistake. That was $100,000 Billion, not $100 Billion a year. I didn’t catch that since it’s a patently ridicules number.

  16. I was laid back in a lounge chair on my neighbor’s nice dock, drinking an excellent English tea he smuggles in past the gaggle of government agents from his family back in Yorkshire. The subject of AGW came up as he’s a greenie believer. I told him to simply look across the Ashley River to the 1820′s steamboat cypress dock that used to deliver rich Charlestonians from downtown to Magnolia Gardens Plantation’s mansion when it got too hot in Summer back then. “Take a picture with your digital camera, once a year, from now on at ebb tide when all the flow stops.”, I told him. “Make it a closeup of where the water level is on the closest cypress leg, then compare all the pictures from all the years.” We’ll see in a few years if it changes…..

    “You’re really lucky, you know.”, I quipped. “You’re dock is a floating dock so we can have our teas out here for a few more years, at least!”….(c;]

  17. Flew into SFO yesterday and noticed that the San Mateo bridge is mostly a causeway at just above sea level. If the US gov’t or CA state were that worried about sea level rise, they would be raising it up well above sea level.

  18. And sun-caused skin cancers will cause millions of deaths and trillions in health care expenses over coming decades. Oxygen-caused damage to humans will cause DNA mutations, premature deaths and cost trillions over coming decades. Oxygen-caused damage to fresh foods like fruits and vegetables will cost food producers billions to mitigate over coming decades. Coastal flooding, sun, oxygen and oxidation; all part of life on earth. Deal with it and stop putting arbitrary and meaningless price tags on it.

  19. love this bit: “That some are planning to get rich from the warming world only underscores the reality of climate change”:

    3 Feb: Time: McKenzie Funk: The Big Business of Global Warming
    Corporations are betting on climate change — and primed for a big payday when things really heat up
    (McKenzie Funk writes for Harper’s, Outside, National Geographic and Rolling Stone, and is the author of Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming (The Penguin Press, 2014).)
    The pharmaceutical giant Bayer has made a remarkable — and lucrative — discovery. Allergies are on the rise…
    Bayer mentions this in its annual response to the watchdog CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project, which surveys the greenhouse-gas emissions of the world’s largest corporations…
    One of Bayer’s latest products is “a new generation of mosquito net,” the LifeNet. It also has two advanced bug sprays in the pipeline. These will be lucrative because mosquitoes and the disease they carry are expected to thrive in a warmer world, leaving another 40 million to 60 million people at risk of malaria in Africa alone. “In light of an expected climate-change-related increase of malaria incidents in further regions of the world (e.g., Northern Europe), we expect a growing demand for Bayer mosquito nets,” the company writes…
    Bayer is not alone in seeing opportunities in a hotter planet. In Australia’s climate-stressed bread belt, the Murray-Darling basin, and its analog in the American West, the Colorado River basin, hedge funds have bought up millions of gallons worth of water rights. Other funds, convinced that commodity prices can only keep rising, are part of a new scramble for Africa in which as many as 100,000 sq. mi. of farmland — an area larger than the U.K. — have been leased or purchased by foreign investors…
    In the Netherlands, the stock of the seawall-building company Arcadis jumped by 6% the moment New York City — a potential client — was struck by Hurricane Sandy…
    That some are planning to get rich from the warming world only underscores the reality of climate change: its impacts, though mostly bad for most people in most places, are deeply uneven…
    This unevenness suggests that self-interest, however rational, may never be enough to jump-start real climate action in the wealthy countries where it’s most needed. It’s hard to scare people into cutting emissions if they’re not actually all that scared…

    http://ideas.time.com/2014/02/03/the-big-business-of-global-warming/

  20. In 1870, 70-80 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture. As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment

    When people realized that there was no future in agricultural rural America, they moved away. If people see no future living near the ocean then sometime in the next 100 years, they will move away. Problem solved and no taxpayers were harmed.

  21. “10 to 40 billion today up to 100 billion by the end of the century.” Interesting for what it doesn’t say. How much of that monetary increase is from inflation?- things will just cost more 85 years from now. And how much is from more people living in those areas?

  22. ilma630 says at 5:24 pm
    Flew into SFO yesterday and noticed that the San Mateo bridge is mostly a causeway at just above sea level. If the US gov’t or CA state were that worried about sea level rise, they would be raising it up well above sea level.
    ————– ————————- ———————– ———–
    There’s so much stuff like that, things just barely above sea level and the owner or governments aren’t the least bit concerned. And what about the Malibu Colonies and celebrity mansions? There’s been no rise in front of their estates in at least four decades. The beach is just the same as it ever was. And what about Al Gore’s Montecito (CA) seaside mansion he bought in 2009? Is he even slightly concerned? He doesn’t seem to be.
    I can feel it: over the next several decades to come there’s going to be no sea level rise. None. And that’s the main aspect of the doomers’ scare mongering. And here’s a video where Nils-Axel Morner shows, with a tree in the Maldives, that there has in fact been zero, or even negative, sea level rise in the last 5 decades:

  23. Yet regardless of how much sea-level rise climate change brings, the researchers say careful long-term strategic planning can ensure that development in high-risk flood zones is appropriately designed or avoided.“. Well, that tells you how much to spend on cutting CO2 emissions. Zero. Now, about the long term planning: how about we leave that to the people doing the development – (a) private or (b) elected or (c) dictating – if they get it right everyone wins, if they get it wrong then (a) they lose or (b) they get thrown out or (c) the public loses. Conclusion : avoid dictatorships.

  24. What a load of baloney. A long rant and nothing more. Meanwhile here in the US the climate zombies are threatening ugliness if the Keystone pipeline is approved.

    Radicalization could have some very positive benefits for society. Get the nuttiness into plain view where it can be observed by the public. They are civilized as long as the process is going their way. Now we may come to the heart of the matter.

  25. “If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author.

    People have been ignoring the problem of settling in flood areas since they first found that crops grow better in fertile river valleys.

    Does Herr Hinkel also realize that if we continue to ignore the widespread poverty and hunger that this environmentalist obsession with the climate is causing that there will be even more dire consequences much sooner than the next century?

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

  26. Ummmm, did I miss any reference to susidence and or building in flood plains or landfill construction on the water?

    What percentage of the population lives near the water (any water) globally. Is it really 80%.

    Perhaps I dont see how one can complain when most water threats are really an elective choice made by those who made that choice in the first place.

    Just sayin……….

    Ignorance and greed is no excuse.

  27. One hundred trillion dollars? That’s a lot of money – we had better take this seriously!

    /sarc

    Is there a metric for ‘scare dollars’? This is getting out of hand. Soon it will exceed the value of all known and future wealth.

  28. Professor Nicholls says: “This long-term perspective is however a challenge to bring about, as coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.”

    Maybe the Dutch should have done a multi-century modelling exercise on sea-level impacts before founding New Amsterdam in the 1620′s. Maybe all our ancestors should have done this, world-wide, but then again, port cities tended to be close to the ocean.

  29. At some point in the distant future someone deciphering our ancient English will mistranslate asteroid epidemic for hemorrhoid epidemic and a new search will begin.

  30. Eric Simpson says:
    February 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    I can guarantee you that if you take a mal dive YOU will be sinking. Be careful out there.

  31. @pat -

    Here’s how people are really getting rich from global warming;
    1. Global warming scare leads governments to demand development of “renewable” energy.
    2. To cover the excessive cost of that “renewable energy,” so that “investors” in it can make a profit, electric rates are raised (doubled here in California, as a direct response to the renewables mandate) and big taxpayer subsidies for it are provided.
    3. Low- and middle -income people pay those higher rates, so that billionaire “investors” (translate: scam artists) can get richer.
    A perfect case of wealth redistribution: from poorer to richer.
    Why does anyone think some (not all – a few do have scruples and/or know better) wealthy “investors” support renewable energy? There’s your answer – another opportunity to rip off ordinary folk.

  32. OK, just posting that I wrote Prof. Nichols with the below in an e-mail to him ( it was my ‘new years resolution’ to this more, and I am beginning to . . )

    We are TIRED of the GLOBAL WARMNG/CLIMATE CHANGE GARBAGE ! ! ! ! ! that supposed ‘academics’ like you are trying to peddle on the world. Referece your shameless article: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2014/feb/14_19.shtml

    I don’t buy any of this garbage, and you need to know your article was posted on Anthony Watts’ site :

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/oh-my-climate-change-threatens-to-cause-trillions-in-damage-to-worlds-coastal-regions/#more-102669

    I have followed the ‘global warming’ movement since the 2007 IPCC report, and I am tired of the ‘alarmism’.

    I am writing to you to ask you to PLEASE STOP THIS DRIVEL .

    I know that sea leve rise IS NOT ACCELERATING per the University of Colorado website:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    There are a LARGE number of people in the WORLD that are tired of this. I have no idea if more people than me are letting you know this, but is is true.

    I can only assume that some ‘funding’ you may have been promised is the reason for your PATHETIC paper.

    Please prove me wrong, and reply to me. Tell me WHY your really think people are at risk. OH, please don’t use the excuse , ” . .because people are building near the shore line . .”: NO, BASE IT ON YOUR ‘SEAL LEVEL RISE ‘ comment in your article, and PROVE TO ME THAT ‘GREENHOUSE GAS emissions ( that is, CO2 primarily ) are causing SEA LEVELS to rise.

    I eagerly await your SCIENTIFIC BASIS for this.

    Martin C
    USA
    Mechanical/Aeronautical Engineer, 1982.

  33. “From $10 – 40 Billion to $100 Billion…”

    I think these guys are waaay understating the case. That’s only a 2.5 to 10 times increase. Based on the last 86 years, the Dollar should lose more value than that by 2100… maybe even another 30 times. If they’re right, then in real Dollars, such catastrophic losses are due to decrease.

  34. “prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future” … you mean like AlBore?

  35. It is amazing how short peoples memories are. Sandy is always to be brought up as a an example of more server storms do to global warming but there were many stronger and more destructive storms in the past, always ignored. For the New Jersey shore the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm is a perfect example. Compare the picture of the Jersey shore at the beginning of this article to some picture of the 1962 storm and decide which is worse.

    http://www.lbiviews.com/about/history/march-1962-storm.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday_Storm_of_1962

    You build a house on a big sand bar an this is what happen every 50 years or so.

  36. Where and by whom have these clowns got their basic mathematic education? That they forgotten all doesn’t make their case stronger.

  37. Anyone who wants to pay for relocating all those poor and rich folks, just send me your money and I will see to it that your wealth is redistributed.

  38. “If we do not reduce greenhouse gases swiftly and substantially, some regions will have to seriously consider relocating significant numbers of people in the longer run,” adds Hinkel.

    ===

    A statement which carefully avoids pointing out that EXACTLY the same thing will be true if we do “reduce greenhouse gases swiftly and substantially”.

  39. For a tiny fraction of the money wasted on trying to prove CO2 causes global warming, they could prevent a very real potential human extinction happening, namely, another Carrington Event. For a half billion they could protect the power grid and attached nuclear reactors from getting knocked out/melted down by a once in 500 year super solar storm.

  40. Matthew 7:24-27

    New International Version (NIV)
    The Wise and Foolish Builders

    24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

    I can only conclude Jesus Christ was a man-made climate change denier and understood perfectly natural climate change consequences.

  41. It would be an interesting exercise to compare press release and paper.

    The paper finds that sea level rise is a big issue if we keep coastal protection standards as they are today; and that sea level rise is a small issue if we coastal protection standards evolve in line with their historic trends.

  42. New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.

    Yes, and a asteroid could hit us, and some errant jihadist might get a nuke and set it off

    investment must also occur in Europe as shown by the recent coastal floods in South West England

    Or the western flank of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma, Canary Islands may suddenly slide into the ocean, evoking a dreadful megatsunami, utterly destroying South West England along with the entire Eastern seaboard of the US and all coastlines of the Atlantic in general, no matter what conceivable defenses are built.

    Unfortunately moving inland is not an option either, because there are dormant supervolcanoes on both continents and elsewhere, like the Yellowstone caldera, Wyoming, US or Campi Flegrei, Naples, Italy which could instantly wipe the human mold off of the face of Mother Gaia. It is certainly worse than we thought, be very afraid, we’re all gonna die.

  43. Just like watching a game of Ping-Pong.

    We are doomed, we’re not doomed, we are, no we’re not, yes we are, don’t be stupid, don’t you call me stupid, I didn’t call you stupid, yes you did, no I didn’t, so I’m not stupid?, I didn’t say that, why not? , , , , , , , , ,

    Me, I have thoughts in both directions and can’t make my mind up.

    There’s a brief post (less than 350 words) which may clarify climate change for some . . .

    http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/the-final-chapter/

    Cheers
    Mick

  44. Monty Python’s argument sketch courtesy of http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

    The Cast (in order of appearance.)
    M= Man looking for an argument
    R= Receptionist
    Q= Abuser
    A= Arguer (John Cleese)
    C= Complainer (Eric Idle)
    H= Head Hitter

    M: Ah. I’d like to have an argument, please.
    R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
    M: No, I haven’t, this is my first time.
    R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
    M: Well, what is the cost?
    R: Well, It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
    M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
    R: Fine. Well, I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
    Pause
    R: Mr. DeBakey’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory.
    Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
    M: Thank you.

    (Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

    Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
    M: Well, I was told outside that…
    Q: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
    M: What?
    Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
    M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
    Q: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
    M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
    Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
    M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
    Q: Not at all.
    M: Thank You.
    (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

    (Walk down the corridor)
    M: (Knock)
    A: Come in.
    M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
    A: I told you once.
    M: No you haven’t.
    A: Yes I have.
    M: When?
    A: Just now.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: You didn’t
    A: I did!
    M: You didn’t!
    A: I’m telling you I did!
    M: You did not!!
    A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
    M: Oh, just the five minutes.
    A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
    M: You most certainly did not.
    A: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
    M: No you did not.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: You didn’t.
    A: Did.
    M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
    A: Yes it is.
    M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: It is!
    A: It is not.
    M: Look, you just contradicted me.
    A: I did not.
    M: Oh you did!!
    A: No, no, no.
    M: You did just then.
    A: Nonsense!
    M: Oh, this is futile!
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: I came here for a good argument.
    A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
    M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
    A: It can be.
    M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
    A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
    A: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn’t!

    A: Yes it is!
    M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
    (short pause)
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: It is.
    A: Not at all.
    M: Now look.
    A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
    M: What?
    A: That’s it. Good morning.
    M: I was just getting interested.
    A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
    M: That was never five minutes!
    A: I’m afraid it was.
    M: It wasn’t.
    Pause
    A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
    M: What?!
    A: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
    M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
    A: (Hums)
    M: Look, this is ridiculous.
    A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
    M: Oh, all right.
    (pays money)
    A: Thank you.
    short pause
    M: Well?
    A: Well what?
    M: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
    A: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
    M: I just paid!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: I DID!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
    A: Well, you didn’t pay.
    M: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
    A: No you haven’t.
    M: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
    A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
    M: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
    A: No you haven’t.
    M: Oh Shut up.

    (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

    M: I want to complain.
    C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I’ve only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
    M: No, I want to complain about…
    C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
    M: Oh!
    C: Oh my back hurts, it’s not a very fine day and I’m sick and tired of this office.

    (Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

    M: Hello, I want to… Ooooh!
    H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
    M: uuuwwhh!!
    H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
    M: No.
    H: Now..
    M: Waaaaah!!!
    H: Good, Good! That’s it.
    M: Stop hitting me!!
    H: What?
    M: Stop hitting me!!
    H: Stop hitting you?
    M: Yes!
    H: Why did you come in here then?
    M: I wanted to complain.
    H: Oh no, that’s next door. It’s being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
    M: What a stupid concept.

  45. of hubs and sub-hubs:

    5 Feb: Reuters: Jeff Mason: U.S. to launch ‘climate hubs’ to help farmers face climate change
    President Barack Obama’s administration will announce on Wednesday the formation of seven “climate hubs” to help farmers and rural communities adapt to extreme weather conditions and other effects of climate change, a White House official said.
    The hubs will act as information centers and aim to help farmers and ranchers handle risks, including fires, pests, floods and droughts, that are exacerbated by global warming.
    The hubs will be located in Ames, Iowa; Durham, New Hampshire; Raleigh, North Carolina; Fort Collins, Colorado; El Reno, Oklahoma; Corvallis, Oregon; and Las Cruces, New Mexico, the official said.
    Additional “sub hubs” will be set up in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico; Davis, California; and Houghton, Michigan.
    The hubs are an example of executive actions Obama has promised to take to fight climate change…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-usa-climate-hubs-idUSBREA1408120140205

    ——————————————————————————–

  46. The hubs will act as information centers and aim to help farmers and ranchers handle risks, including fires, pests, floods and droughts, that are exacerbated by global warming.

    Not to mention cooling and blizzards.

  47. 4 Feb: Gizmodo: Geoff Manaugh: Will Smallpox Reemerge In Siberia As Corpses Thaw From Climate Change?
    In an article primarily about the potential folly of holding onto stockpiles of smallpox virus for research purposes — a now-eradicated plague that humans no longer have natural immunity to and that would very likely cause a worldwide catastrophe should it escape from the lab — the BBC includes one awesomely horrible detail. Could the frozen bodies of smallpox victims in Siberia, now thawing because of climate change, re-release the virus into the environment and thus start a global pandemic?…
    Writing for Science back in March 2002, for example, in an article straight-forwardly entitled “Is Live Smallpox Lurking in the Arctic?,” author Richard Stone describes a scene that he likens to the Blair Witch Project. It’s both stomach-turning and awesomely macabre…
    The idea of long-frozen things coming back to life — or, at least, emerging once again into fresh air — was also raised last week by Smithsonian‘s look at one of my favourite stories of recent times: the blood-red “waterfall” that has emerged in Antarctica as the glacier above it melts…

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/02/will-smallpox-reemerge-in-siberia-as-corpses-thaw-from-climate-change/

    31 Jan: BBC: Rachel Nuwer: Smallpox: Last refuge of an ultimate killer
    In the past, some researchers and news outlets speculated that smallpox in the frozen graves of former victims might remain in suspended animation, ready to begin a new cycle of infection should those bodies ever be dug up and unthawed…
    “No one feels there’s a serious chance that global warming will melt the permafrost and unleash an epidemic,” says Michael Lane, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) smallpox eradication programme from 1970 until 1981, when it was declared a success and shut down…
    So how do we know that additional smallpox samples are not also hoarded away in some terrorist hideout, or stuck in an old vial in the back of a forgotten freezer? “We don’t,” Lane says. “There’s no way to prove a negative.”…
    (CLICK ON THE WRITER’S NAME: Rachel Nuwer is a science journalist who contributes to venues such as The New York Times, Scientific American and Smithsonian. Her website is rachelnuwer.com and you can follow her on twitter at @rachelnuwer. She lives in Brooklyn)

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140130-last-refuge-of-an-ultimate-killer/all

    BBC – why omit UEA?

    About Rachel Nuwer
    In 2010 Rachel returned to Southeast Asia to investigate illegal wildlife trade and natural resource use in Vietnam for her ecology master’s thesis at the University of East Anglia, England. She published that research in the scientific journal Oryx…
    She writes for venues such as The New York Times, Smithsonian, Scientific American, the New Scientist, Wired UK, Audubon Magazine, Slate, Popular Mechanics, ScienceNOW, OnEarth, NOVA, Scholastic, Edible Magazine, and others, and blogs for Smithsonian. She also publishes a column, Last Place on Earth, on BBC Future. She lives in Brooklyn.

    http://rachelnuwer.com/about/

  48. oops, should have included this line from About Rachel Nuwer:

    In 2011, She earned a second master’s degree at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Writing Program (SHERP).

  49. Curious George says: ‘Why aren’t Dutch people alarmed?’
    We have here some engineers who keep an eye on it.

  50. Latest news.. Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to chair a meeting of the government’s emergency committee, Cobra – the first time this year he has taken on that role – to discuss the impact of the storms.

  51. I look at old pictures of my community which has a medium-sized river running through it. In the older pictures, before there much development and fewer trees, one can clearly see 3 different levels of flood plain along the river.

    Normal spring-melt run-off flood plain, once in 10 year flood plain, once in 25 year flood plain. Where did the early pioneers build their structures? Above the third level of course because people are not dumb.

    Since then, some new developments got built on the first flood plain or the second. What happened? Right they got flooded several different times. Then large berms were built along the river and the flooding in developed areas stopped.

    But there is no building in the flood plains anymore. People are not dumb of course. At least, not more than once in 25 years. After which, a new development will be allowed in the flood plains once again.

  52. The study, led by the Berlin-based think-tank Global Climate Forum (GCF) and involving the University of Southampton, presents, for the first time, comprehensive global simulation results on future flood damages to buildings and infrastructure in coastal flood plains………..

    “If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author.

    This is just a computer ‘stimulation’ carried out by circle jerkers. Munch Re insurance company is at it again.

    I also see Global Climate Forum one of whose members is Jochen Hinkel who is a member of PIK.

    Institutional Members
    Companies
    ABB (Anders Nordström)
    Alstom (Martina Kurcz-Jenn)
    Deutsche Telekom (Ignacio Campino)
    MunichRe (Peter Höppe)
    NEC (Makoto Tsukakoshi)
    Thema1 (Guido Axmann)

    http://www.globalclimateforum.org/index.php?id=members

    The Global Climate Forum initiates and performs innovative research on climate change and related global challenges. We are an association of institutes, companies, NGOs and individual researchers.

    http://www.globalclimateforum.org/index.php?id=about

    And the tangled mess can be seen below.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/19/the-local-munich-re-profiteering-from-climate-change-scare-stories-based-on-quasi-scientific-reports/

  53. If what Hinkel chicken-littlish says does come true (which it won’t), maybe more corals will form in inland Florida. The Coral Castle was built using inland coral that at something like 40′ above sea level, IIRC.

    Wasn’t there suppose to have been 4.5 billion people displaced by global warming by now? Has there been even one (excluding the AGW advocates)?

  54. Perhaps only one (but my “big” favorite) paper – for get you “good” started:

    Soelen (2012, http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/28/0959683611434226.abstract): “Throughout the record, indications for storm activity can be recognized as coarser grained layers consisting of quartz sands or shell debris. These layers are rare during the mid Holocene [warm period], but between 3.2 and 2 kyr BP [cool period], their numbers increase, suggesting an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    There are also a lot of work on a significant increase in the number of hurricanes, storms, cyclones in … LIA …

    Knutson, (2012, http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/publications/ksvgzkbthv_12_zetac.pdf)
    “The projection of more frequent intense hurricanes is statistically significant for the CMIP3 ensemble climate change, but only nominally positive, and not statistically significant, for the CMIP5 ensemble.”
    “… intensity projected for the Atlantic basin showed relatively small changes in some studies, ranging even to negative values for some individual models that were analyzed….”

    Currently, solar activity decreases and thus: “… action and invest in coastal protection measures, such as building or raising dikes, amongst other options …” always be useful …

    H. von Storch (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html):
    “There are certainly still people who almost ritualistically cry, “Stop thief! Climate change is at fault!”
    “Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another.”
    “Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency under the title “Sie erwärmt sich doch” (“The Earth is getting warmer”).”
    “I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes.

  55. semczyszakarkadiusz says: @ February 5, 2014 at 4:11 am

    “I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You might want to look at my comment when it gets out of moderation.

    It is the other side of the argument, and I do not mean the CO2 sensitivity argument.

  56. New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.
    ——————-

    As usual, they got it ass-backward in order get their “fear factor” in it, ….. because it is not the CAGW that will get them “storm surge” flooded, ……. it’s the Global Cooling that will, to wit:

    THE LITTLE ICE AGE IN EUROPE – Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples.

    During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

  57. “Why isn’t insurance coverage based on this risk? Its not like the people who can afford these expensive homes and real estate cannot afford to pay much higher insurance premiums.”

    Ah, now here you hit the nail on the head! The reason is that, at least here in the good old U S of A, the Federal Government subsidizes (and in some cases provides) ALL flood insurance in coastal areas. The reason for that is that private insurers calculated the costs, and the large number of people living their complained, along with the businesses, and as the coastal states are heavily populated, Congress agreed to subsidize all of it since that helped a whole lot of Congressman, from BOTH parties, get elected.

    “now cynics claim a little of the cash has gone astray,
    but that’s not the point, my friends!!!”

    – “Evita”, lyrics of “And the money kept rolling in”

    So even though we are supposedly “worried” about coastal flooding, are government provides massive subsidies yearly to encourage both people and businesses to both move into those areas, and to build more, and more, and more.

    Our government in action. If you suggest this isn’t right, well then you are just one of those nasty anti-government types who no respectable people like to talk to.

  58. Obama launches ‘climate hubs’ to help farmers and communities

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197487-obama-launches-climate-hubs-to-help-farmers-communities-battle-climate

    The Obama administration will announce the establishment of regional hubs focused on mitigating climate change on Wednesday.

    The hubs are the first-ever regional centers that will focus solely on risk adaptation and climate change solutions at seven locations across the country.

    “On the heels of passage of the farm bill, the administration will take executive action to help farmers, ranchers and rural communities combat climate change and adapt to extreme weather and other damage it causes,” a White House official said in an email ahead of Wednesday’s announcement…

    …The seven designated locations for the hubs will service the surrounding region with climate change information and outreach.

    The new climate hubs will be established in Iowa North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon New Mexico.

    There will also be three sub-hubs in Michigan, Puerto Rico and California.

  59. Building along the coasts during a 30-year lull in cyclical patterns = Massive increase in damage. Quick make that prediction as a result of climate change so people will think the damage is a result of climate change when they’re concluding that “something must be done.” Transparent, yet always at least partially effective. Especially when politicians are behind you.

  60. There seems to be a new industry of scaring the heck out of people and then offering to help by selling them mitigation strategies. Here in South Florida we have a couple of pundits saying that 4ft of SLR is probable. When asked about their numbers, they blabber-on about catastrophic acceleration of west Antarctic glaciers…. I’m trying to think of my own strategies to mitigate the BS, but the PR films of calving glaciers are hard to compete with.

  61. Google search string: ” hit a tipping point of uncontrollable retreat ” brings up about 24,000 hits… reference is to a glacial retreat, but the author’s implication… that glaciers might otherwise be controllable?

  62. What does expanded flood risk have in common with Obamacare? … one of the biggest lobbying efforts on earth, by insurance companies.

  63. Brian says:… reference is to a glacial retreat,

    OT but I can’t count how many times I’ve challenged the whole meme by asking the simple question – which kind of glacier provides more water for rivers to support life downstream, ones that are melting and retreating – or – ones that are staying frozen and advancing?

  64. Mike M which kind of glacier provides more water for rivers to support life downstream, ones that are melting and retreating – or – ones that are staying frozen and advancing?

    Mike, even Glaciers which are advancing melt at their terminal giving rise to glacial meltwater. Glaciers which have a increased bulk have more potential ice to melt into water. Glaciers which are retreating do produce lots of water, but only for a limited time. As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.

  65. People, this is simple math. “…$100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.” That’s $100 trillion, which is greater then the GDP of planet Earth.

    So, on an annual basis, all production on the planet and then some will be lost due to “storm surge damages”. This is dire news indeed! Immediate action must be taken!

    But for the low, low cost of ~$40b, we can reduce the damage to ~$80b, which has an ROI of almost 2,500 to 1. Now, I want to know where I can invest my $1 and get a return of over $2,000.

    We need to promote this story far and wide. It’s such good fodder. Any 4th grader should be able to see the idiocy of this claim.

    Eric

  66. Easy fix to the problem. Encourage people to take responsibility for their own decisions. I would not object to our government financing the posting of 10,000 signs along all of the possibly affected coastlines (probable cost of about $1million at $100 per sign). The signs would read:
    “WARNING! The IPPC and government paid scientists have predicted that in combination with the observed 1.8mm/yr rise in sea levels and their failed climate models, that sea level rise will quite likely lead to CATASTROPHIC flooding. Build in this area at YOUR OWN RISK”.
    This is cheap, the truth and forces people to accept responsibilities for their own actions.

  67. Gareth Phillips says:

    My question asked which kind produced more water not more “potential” and your “limited time” (which you conveniently do not quantize), is not necessarily true if a warmer atmosphere produces more precipitation in the mountains which will eventually be coming down as “pre-melted glacier” (aka – rain).

    So, to your “As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.” – bollox. THE source is precipitation itself so even when the glacier is completely gone – the precipitation will continue.

  68. @ Mike M. My question asked which kind produced more water not more “potential” and your “limited time” (which you conveniently do not quantize), is not necessarily true if a warmer atmosphere produces more precipitation in the mountains which will eventually be coming down as “pre-melted glacier” (aka – rain). So, to your “As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.” – bollox. THE source is precipitation itself so even when the glacier is completely gone – the precipitation will continue.

    Thanks you for your considerate and civil response.
    I can see you are a but rusty on this issues of hydrology so I’ll try and keep it simple.
    1) When precipitation falls on a mountain, it runs downhill, water generally follows that behaviour. 2) When it stops raining for a few months, the water has mostly run off into the sea.

    1) Now imagine if you can a mountain range where is rains heavily for half the year, but not for the other half.
    2) The half a year when it is dry leaves people liable to drought. The other half leaves them liable to floods and landslides ( are you still with me?)

    So how do we address this challenge of evening out the water supply?

    Well what we do in developed countries is build reservoirs or dams. The water reserve fills up in the rainy season, and it is gradually dispensed over the dry season when it is needed.
    However, in many countries such as India or Pakistan, they don’t have this infrastructure, however what they do have is a natural reservoir of water, known as a Glacier.

    What happens is this, the precipitation falls as snow, which does not immediately run off downhill, it takes a while to get down to lower levels, years in fact, then melts at a much slower rate at the terminus of the glacier.
    This runoff from the melt is remarkably steady, it does not cause floods, and will continue to run even when the in the middle of the six month drought period. So considering the above points, ask yourself these questions.
    1) What happens to the water supply if the glacier disappears?
    2) Will the precipitation you mention be just as useful without a glacier?

    Complex stuff I know, and it is far easier to shout and swear instead of thinking it through, but hang in there and let me know if you get stuck. I’ll be marking your homework on Friday.

  69. Well on average, tropical storm Sandy didn’t really do much damage.

    Even when it was out in the ocean on its way from Africa, and even reached hurricane status at some point, it just stirred up a bunch of water, which just settled right down behind it after it was gone, and didn’t harm a thing; not even the fishes that had to swim faster to keep up with it.

    It’s only if you cherry pick the data, and select only the portion of TS Sandy’s life, spent near humans, that anything got bent.

    If you only judge by the occasional breakage of some stuff, and ignore the rest of the ho hum boredom of being even a large hurricane for part of your existence, you can be mispead; but on average, not much is happening.

  70. the only equation to model here:
    more population + more development + high tide + storm = more damage = more cost

  71. Well, never mind the “trillions” (that’s just a modern evaluation of property values on the coast). It’s real simple, as it’s been for eons, if you want to avoid storm damage to your seaside property, move away from the coast! TaaDaa! What idiotic blather.

  72. The ocean continues to try and erode all the land! Steps must be taken! Laws must be passed! Taxes must be raised! How can anyone doubt this?

  73. Follow the source. Always follow the source.

    In this case, it’s the Global Climate Forum. A quick check of their where site tells us that Carlo C. Jaeger is the Chairman. Carlo and the GCF are all about Sustainable Development…

    “to deal with ongoing changes in society in an evolutionary manner so as to influence these ongoing changes in terms of speed and direction:”

    “the search for governance for sustainability, and by reflecting on the role of science in sustainability transitions.”

    The role of science in changing society. They need climate change to be catastrophic in the minds of society to create policy changes….

    Always follow the source…trust me, it always comes back to Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals…including with all the big players ie: Hansen, Schmidt, Pachauri, Sachs and Soros that can all be linked to the Earth Institute out of Columbia…..which NASA GISS is part of. Look up their mission and look up their Board of Advisors and look up Sach’s Bio….it’s all there….and spreads out everywhere. Others: RealClimate part of Fenton Communications, ProPublica and on and on….in all aspects of governance, education and society. It’s the big picture folks.

    Here’s link to book Carlo Jaeger edited…

    http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-19202-9_7

  74. Gareth Phillips says: “2) When it stops raining for a few months, the water has mostly run off into the sea. ”

    Yeah right, just like we see happening with all the NON glacial fed rivers in the USA every year… (ever hear of aquifers?)

    And besides – it could STILL snow every winter and then all melt throughout the summer resulting in there being no glacial formation but nonetheless represent the same ‘reservoir-like’ release of water as a glacier.

Comments are closed.