NASA's twist on global sea ice loss

NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased

Greenland’s Riviera – their green southwest. Will another Maunder minimum

grip the region in cages of ice again, or will bells ring in the portside squares,

as they did in the 1300’s before that cooling came, and ships sailed the fiords?

(Source: NASA)

Excerpt:

Washington Post correspondant Juliet Eilperin, in her 12-26-08 report entitled “New climate change estimates more pessimistic,” dutifully surveys the latest bleak findings of the climate change community. Her primary source is a recently released survey comissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program – expanding on the findings of the 2007 4th IPPC Report on Climate Change. Apparently this “new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.” One of Eilperin’s primary examples of alarming new data is reported as follows:

“In one of the reports most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as 4 feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.”

Three years ago what NASA quantified as an alarming loss of annual ice loss from Greenland was easily demonstrated at that time to be an insignificant loss, and today NASA’s updated data appears to suggest the annual rate of global polar ice loss has actually decreased since then.

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/12/26/pessimistic-reporting-optimistic-data/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Retired Engineer

The link says that even with the higher value of 40 cu. mi./yr, it gives a rise of 2 inches per century. Isn’t that about half of what the Royal Navy has observed for the last two hundred years?
So much for my dreams of oceanfront property in Colorado.

Bill Marsh

Hey, if it bleeds it leads. If the guy was reporting that the ice loss was no big deal, the article would never see print, so he reports impending disaster. Simple enough concept.

Pierre Gosselin

All these sea level claims are stupid.
Ask this Eilperin bimbo to put her money where her big mouth is.
€1000 ($1400) annual average sea levels will not rise more than 2.5 cm in the next 5 years (i.e. 50 cm in 100 years).
Heck,
Ramstorf says 7 cm in the 5 years,
Gore says 30cm in the next 5 years! (LOL!)
It ought to be a sure thing for these alarmists!
Fact is: you won’t find one single scientist, no matter how alarmist, who will bet money on his/her alarmist drivel.
C’mon Eilperin! Let’s bet on it!

Pierre Gosselin

Let’s write up a contract for an official bet and distribute it to the alarmists.
You aint gonna find one who will sign it.
Awhile back I offered the bet to Gavin and his other big-mouth colleagues – not a single one even dared to negotiate it. Those blowhards wouldn’t touch their own projections with a 10 foot pole!

Steve Keohane

What planet do these people live on? Have not the latest satellite measurements shown sea levels not rising, ocean temperature not increasing? Where is the warming, where is the water from the melted ice? Oh, right, it is increased water vapor causing more precipitation, except water content of the atmosphere has gone down. Sounds like a bunch of desk jockeys who need to get a real life, and some honest scepticism. They certainly are not scientists.
Atmosperic H2O http://i39.tinypic.com/2j31onm.jpg
Sea Level: http://i39.tinypic.com/2u4q13o.jpg

fred houpt
Mike Bryant

Pierre,
I didn’t know that you had offered this wager to anyone. I find it hilarious that the alarmists would not bet a paltry 1400 bucks on their own projections!
Mike

Odd.
If temperature change continues to accelerate as it has the past ten years, by the year 2100, Hell (well, every Great Lake, the Salton Sea, Dead Sea, Great Salt Lake, and the English Channel at least) will have frozen over and the IPCC would STILL be predicting that glaciers in Greenland would begin melting at ever-increasing rates.
Do the writers (the reviewers ?) even look at data any more?
A “scientist” in NZ recently claimed that Koala bears may be endangered in NZ because ecalyptus trees will be harmed by increasing CO2 – thus, the bears will be killed on the ground when they leave one (dead) tree to get the next (dying ?) tree as they escape starvation. Well, http://www.co2science.com has 4 research articles alone that sow ecalyptus trees growing as much as 26% FASTER with increasing CO2.
Do the AGW extremists even read their own subject’s basic research reports?

MartinGAtkins

“It’s unlikely that we’re going to see an abrupt change in methane over the next hundred years, but we should worry about it over a longer time frame,” said Ed Brook, the lead author of the methane chapter and a geosciences professor at Oregon State University. ”
Over the course of the next thousand years, he added, methane hydrates stored deep in the seabed could be released: “Once you start melting there, you can’t really take it back.”

Are there any more vacancies at the rubber room hotel for this poor self absorbed fruit cake?

Pierre Gosselin

Mike Bryant,
That’s how I shut em up at parties, or whereever.
They all like to pontificate about AGW and SLR etc…until, that is, you ask them to put money down. Often they say they have to think about it, go home a check real data, and then you never hear from them again.
A lot of money could be made here. Enough people are totally brainwashed and convinced, so it should be possible to get a few thousand suckers to bet.

Pierre Gosselin

And what the heck,
I just e-mailed the following to MS EILPERIN:
———
Dear Ms Eilperin,
– Al Gore says: 20 ft sea level rise in about 100 years (i.e. 12 inches every 5 years).
– Prof Stefan Ramstorf of the Potsdamer Institute in Germany says: 4ft 8in by 2100. (i.e. 2.5 inches every 5 years).
I say that the average annual sea level will not increase more than 1.25 inches in the next 5 years. Far below what you and the two above mentioned gentlemen are warning.
So, being the generous guy I am, I’m asking you to bet $1,500.00. If the average sea level is more than 1.25″ higher in 5 years (2013) than it is in 2008, then I’ll pay you $1500. If it is less, then you pay me $1500.
What are you waiting for? The overwhelming consensus says you will win the bet!
———————-
Anyone think she’ll respond?
Bet she doesn’t.

Ed Scott

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
“…on May 21, headed “Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts” , reported that the entire Alpine “winter sports industry” could soon “grind to a halt for lack of snow”. “…on December 19, headed “The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation” , reported that this winter’s Alpine snowfalls “look set to beat all records by New Year’s Day”.
“First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.”
“Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.”
“Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month’s Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and “environmentalists” gathered to plan next year’s “son of Kyoto” treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for “combating climate change” with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.”

Olimpus Mons

Pierre Gosselin ,
I will add my €1000 to it.
It’s part of the “psicological thing” that an alarmist does not relay his believes to himself, does not create a straight line between what his/her believes are and personal life — It’s all a “conceptual thing” that should not be brought to themselves personally but be thrown at everybody else. Obviously on principle that it will not affect them.
Doing what you did is, and always will, be the only way to test an alarmist believes. — The contract idea is just great.

I find it proof of the AGWers’ hypocrisy and lack of credibility how seldom — as in not once, so far as I can tell — any of them mention the all-time record Antarctic sea ice extent of 2007. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Granted, the 1979-2000 mean is meaningless, pretty much, but it is what’s used, and 2007 is clearly the maximum sea ice extent in the satellite era. How come these climate experts get to decide that the record minimum of 2007 in the Arctic is significant but the record maximum in the Antarctic is so insignificant as not to merit a mention?
You can tell people who don’t follow these things the way those of us on this site do that Antarctica hit its record maximum sea ice extent in 2007, and they look at you like you are out of your mind. They would have heard about it, if it were true — right? Right?
Ummm, wrong!!
Meanwhile, we are sitting within a hair’s breadth of the zero-anomaly line for global sea ice extent. Further proof of the sudden new warming bringing about the end of time any second now. OK, ten more seconds. Come on, ten more! Just give me a few more seconds. And now, the end of time….
(Ten more seconds.)

pablo an ex pat

Robert Cook PE
While I am in complete agreement that AGW is a bunch of hooey in deference to my antipodean friends I must point out that Koala’s don’t live in New Zealand, they’re native to Australia. That they are Australian doesn’t hurt your point that they’re not endangered by AGW it just gets the country right.

JP

The Alarmists just seem to bounce all over the place. First it was summer heat waves and mild winters (winters were forecasted to be snow free by 2025 for most of NAmerica); then it was Tropical Cyclones. For the last 15 months the melting Artic and Antartic was all the rage. For half a decade, the Alarmists have been in the weather forecasting business. They’ve used every seasonal and monthly climatological extreme to thier benefit. It is incrediable how quickly they can churn out thier “studies” of doom. Hansen’s tipping points are just around the corner. NOAA can’t even forecast the weather 1 month out, or a predict a major change in ENSO but they can say with a straight face what our global climate will be 50 years out.
The Alarmists, stung by the recent neutral to a slightly cooling globe, have reverted to predictions of doom 100 years out. Just 2 years ago Hansen set they year of 2017 as the point of no return. Once again they wax ecstatically about hydrates, methane, blah, blah, blah. In the mean time people are hit with huge heating bills, life threatening cold and snow.

Roger Sowell

Robert A. Cook, and Retired Engineer,
As an engineer myself (chemical), something seems wrong in the numbers given. I calculated a 40 cubic mile per year addition to the Earth’s oceans should result in a sea level rise of 3.6 inches after 100 years. Data input is Earth diameter 7926 miles, and ocean percent of surface area is 70.7 percent.
Yet, the link says 2 inches per century at 40 cubic miles per year melt.
What do you think? Something is not right!

Guy Skoy

Pierre,
I’ll bet $1,500 that Ms Eilperin won’t take your bet….
😀
GS

taphonomic

I once participated in a decision analysis to determine which studies on a project would give the most info for the cost. As part of this analysis, and as an introduction to the process of decision analysis, the analyst ask all the scientists involved to provide a range of values for a parameter that they were 90% sure would include the actual value of the parameter after more studies. While this parameter had been investigated, there was still doubt on the actual value. After each member the group had all provided a range, the analyst reached into his shirt pocket and pulled out a $100 bill. He then ask how many of the group would bet $900 against his $100 (as they had indicated that they were 90% confident) that the actual value fell within their predicted range. The vast majority of the group wanted to increase their ranges.
If the climate scientists and Al Gore are as sure as they claim, they should not only be willing to cover bets, they should be willing to give odds.

Neil Hampshire

Are NASA changing their tune?
The last NASA information I have stated that “In Antarctica there had been a 1% rise in snow and ice for each decade over the past 30 years”
Is this new information talking about sea ice or the total snow and ice down in Antarctica?

Scott Gibson

Roger:
Because the oceans are not surrounded by cliffs, increases in ocean water volume do not only go to sea level rise, but also to increasing the surface area coverage. Did you allow for this?

tty

Re 2 or 3.6 inches/century
48 cubic miles is exactly 200 km^3 (suspiciously round figure that)
Density of ice at zero centigrade 0.9167
Density of seawater (average) 1.03
So 200 km^3 ice makes 178 km^3 seawater
Area of the Worlds oceans 360.7 x 10^6 sq km
Sealevel rise per year 178/360.7 x 10 to minus 6 kilometers = 0.49 mm
Sealevel rise over 100 years = 49 millimeters = 1.93 inches.
Actually this whole thing is a joke. You simply cannot measure such a small change in the Greenland and Antarctic ice. Yes, one can measure the altitude of the top of the glaciers to within a few millimeters from satellites, but how do you measure the bottom? Because for such small changes the eustatic changes of the ground under the ice become important. Remember that areas that were ice-covered at the end of the last glaciatian 10,000 years ago are still rising up to 1 mm per year. Nobody knows for sure whether the ground under the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps is rising or sinking. Most likely both depending on how the ice-thickness has evolved during past millenia. Notice that 200 km^3 spread out over Greenland and Antarctica means a thickness change of about 1.25 centimeters (1/2 inch) of an average ice thickness of about 2 kilometers.

tty

Correction, land rise from the last glaciation is up to 1 centimeter a year.

Retired Engineer

Roger Sowell (09:02:05) :
You are probably right, I just reported what was printed without checking. A cubic mile of ice would be about 10% less in volume when melted, so perhaps 3.3 inches.
Still no beach front property.

Novoburgo

Roger Sowell (09:02:05) :
Could it be that 40 cu miles of ice/snow doesn’t equal 40 cu miles of water?

As an engineer myself (chemical), something seems wrong in the numbers given. I calculated a 40 cubic mile per year addition to the Earth’s oceans should result in a sea level rise of 3.6 inches after 100 years. Data input is Earth diameter 7926 miles, and ocean percent of surface area is 70.7 percent.
Yet, the link says 2 inches per century at 40 cubic miles per year melt.
What do you think? Something is not right!
I get ~1.8 inches.

paminator

First, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all here. I just dropped a donation to Anthony in appreciation for the entertaining 2008 year at WUWT. Keep up the great work!
Here are some numbers to keep in mind whenever this type of ‘news’ drivel comes out. You will note the lack of context in these stories.
48 cubic miles per year is 200 cubic km per year of melt.
Polar caps contain 33 million cubic km of ice.
Ocean contains 1300 million cubic km of water.
Glaciers contain 0.2 million cubic km of ice.
Lakes contain 0.1 million cubic km of water.
Annual precipitation worldwide is estimated at 0.2 million cubic km.
I consider it a remarkable claim that satellite measurements of gravitational anomalies over the poles are accurate enough to even see a change in ice of 200 cubic km per year, since this is roughly a 6 ppm change in ice volume. Never mind that the typical error in these measurements is on the same size (5 – 10 ppm). Indeed, the number 33 million cubic km is not even agreed upon! I predict several ‘surprising’, ‘unexpected’ discoveries by cryosphere specialists in the coming years as we learn more about how ancient ice and the geological structures beneath it behaves.

George Bruce

Yeah, that’s the ticket. High CO2 levels during the Cretaceous did this once before. After millions of years, the heat build up caused all the methane hydrates to melt in a matter of months. Then, one day, a dinosaur scrapped a claw against a piece of flint and the whole planet lit up. That would not have been too bad, but the intense heat set off the methane in the gut of plant eating dinosaurs. All of a sudden you then had the skies filled with flying, multi-ton herbivores. That explains the mass extinction of that time.
So, we now know our own fate. Given enough CO2 and enough time and we will all be done in by rocketcows.

Re: sea rise calculation
TTY’s calculation is probably the most accurate – my 1.8 figure used very rough estimates.

old construction worker

‘Guy Skoy (09:29:59) :
Pierre,
I’ll bet $1,500 that Ms Eilperin won’t take your bet…’
another sucker bet….

Roger Sowell

TTY, Retired Engineer, and others,
Thanks for the responses, and the civility! (not so common on other sites…)
No, I did not account for additional ocean area due to rising water. The gross numbers do not justify such fine-tuning, IMHO. Using a global diameter of around 8000 miles, and a rough value for water coverage of the surface of 70 percent or so, the numbers would not be that different unless an awful lot of land gets submerged.
But, getting a different number by a factor of 2 is a big difference. Even allowing for ice shrinkage as it melts into water (the roughly 10 percent given above) will not account for the numbers in the article.
My point? It is seldom a good idea to believe anything reported in the news. The list of factual errors that I have spotted over the years is rather long.
Also, TTY, it appears you are using planar geometry to get the 1.93 inches. I used spherical geometry.
On a related topic, has anyone seen (anywhere published) the contribution to sea level rise from water formed from combustion of hydrocarbons? Taking into account coal, oil, natural gas, and wood, there has been roughly 7 cubic miles of water created from such combustion in the past 100 years.
However, plants split water into hydrogen and oxygen during photosynthesis, thus somewhat decreasing the sea level. Does anyone know what the balance is between these two? My suspicion is that combustion creates more than plants destroy.

mark pilon

A little off topic – but I noticed one comment in this posting regarding SSTs so I thought I would add it:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

crosspatch

Oh, just tell them that more CO2 means more photosynthesis which is an endothermic reaction and cools the planet.

Mike Monce

Ms. Eillperin, and her cohorts, have only one mission: to convince everyone they are right, and therefore to promote their political agenda. Despite the FACT, that her story is direct contradiction with the observations means nothing. The motivation is the old technique: “A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.”
This is not a case where rational discussion of science facts will change any minds as long as these people have control of the press, etc. This is purely a political battle, not a scientific one, unfortunately. Yes, reality will win out eventually, but my worry is that won’t occur until after all the political/economic damage is already done. At that point the AGW’ers won’t care because they will have accomplished what they set out to do.

Patrick Henry

Britain should brace itself for a New Year ‘big freeze’ as forecasters predict temperatures plunging to as low as -13C (8.6F). At least two weeks of widespread frosts are expected as a cold front sweeps in from Siberia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3999747/Britain-braces-itself-for-New-Year-big-freeze.html

Graeme Rodaughan

Pierre Gosselin (07:50:47) :
Let’s write up a contract for an official bet and distribute it to the alarmists.
You aint gonna find one who will sign it.
Awhile back I offered the bet to Gavin and his other big-mouth colleagues – not a single one even dared to negotiate it. Those blowhards wouldn’t touch their own projections with a 10 foot pole!

A damning indictment indeed!
Personally I would love to see a high profile bet taken.

Graeme Rodaughan

Steve Keohane (07:57:08) :
Atmosperic H2O http://i39.tinypic.com/2j31onm.jpg
Sea Level: http://i39.tinypic.com/2u4q13o.jpg

WRT the second graph – is that rate of increase of sea level on the vertical axis?
If so, that would indicate that the rate of increase in sea level has flatlined over the last two years and is possibly starting to trend down. A very inconvenient fact for the AGW Alarmists.
However the sign is still positive, and the sea level is still rising – just that the rising is decelerating.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the graph (possible) the statement “latest satellite measurements shown sea levels not rising” is somewhat hyperbolic.
Although I really get where you are coming from…

@tty (10:15:43) :
Thanks, somehow i was not sure about my claim of 400 km^3 of melted ice that would raise the average sealevel by 1 mm.

Graeme Rodaughan

Robert A Cook PE (08:16:15) :
Odd.

Do the writers (the reviewers ?) even look at data any more?

Do the AGW extremists even read their own subject’s basic research reports?

If you work in a field where
(1) data is blithly manipulated to tease out “the man made global warming signal”
(2) data and methods are not routinely archived and published to allow for independent verification.
(3) the result of “man made global warming” is assumed prior to the research being conducted.
(4) data is trumped by the fictions of computer modelling.
(5) Alternative explanations (i.e. natural variation) for climatic change are not funded or researched.
and
(6) Non-consensus scientists are vilified, and if possible – denied employment.
There is nothing “Odd” about ignoring the data.

Aussie John

On Kangaroo Island in South Australia there are approx 3,000 (yes, thousand) ‘excess’ koalas that are in danger of being culled due to dwindling food supplies. They are breeding too fast to keep up with the gum trees rather than losing food through AGW.
This has been an extremely emotional discussion over here due to them not being able to be easily relocated as they are very particular about the type of gum leaves they will eat.
They are also often on the ground when they move between trees so this is not an increase in danger for them, regardless of why they are not still in their cosy tree forks, stoned out of their little brains on eucalyptus leaves.

Retired Engineer

The True Believers always hedge things, “could”, “up to”, “may”.
No money on that bet. If things turn out different, well, the model ‘predicted’ it, especially after a slight adjustment.
Oceans: about 131,000,000 sq mi
40 cu mi melt x 100 years, about 253,000,000 inches / sq mi
Got off my duff and came up with 1.9 inches like tty, not allowing for ice to water shrinkage. Sphere and planer will come very close for a thin layer. Seems to me that this is much less than what we have observed in the past 30 years.
They’ll need a lot more than this to scare folks properly.

MartinGAtkins

Robert A Cook PE (08:16:15)
“A “scientist” in NZ recently claimed that Koala bears may be endangered in NZ because ecalyptus trees will be harmed by increasing CO2”
pablo an ex pat (08:49:40)
“While I am in complete agreement that AGW is a bunch of hooey in deference to my antipodean friends I must point out that Koala’s don’t live in New Zealand, they’re native to Australia.”
While we are about educating our antipodean friends, perhaps it’s worth pointing out that the Koala is a marsupial and not a bear.

Kum Dollison

Sorry to be repetitious (I posted this on another thread) but there IS one industry that is betting Billions of Dollars on the next decade’s climate. The Seed Companies. Any ideas on how they’re betting?

david

>€1000 ($1400) annual average sea levels will not rise more than 2.5 cm in the next 5 years (i.e. 50 cm in 100 years).
I’m guessing you would be less cavalier if you were one of the about 200 million people who will be displaced by a sea level rise of 50cm. A rate of 2.5cm in 5 years would be huge and nearly double the current rate of rise.
As for bets, why don’t you collectively underwrite the costs for a small island state if you are wrong?

Mike Bryant

David you said:
“I’m guessing you would be less cavalier if you were one of the about 200 million people who will be displaced by a sea level rise of 50cm. A rate of 2.5cm in 5 years would be huge and nearly double the current rate of rise.”
David did you even read the NASA numbers?

King of Cool

To my mind there is only one thing left to the AGW believers and that is the melting of the Arctic sea ice.
You can forget about urban heating, satellite measurements of the troposphere, different sources of graphs, temperature gauge positioning, record snowfalls and the number of Koala and Polar bears – what happens to the Arctic sea ice next summer will be the key.
I would like to know why the Arctic ice extent has suddenly dipped down:
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
But so far, no-one has given me a satisfactory answer. In the last topic on ‘Blizzards in India’ I asked the question about volcanic activity affecting ice extent but this is also unanswered.
If there has indeed been a decade of global cooling, the oceans eventually must reflect this followed by the Arctic ice extent. If summer ice melt continues to increase then global warming is continuing but no loss of argument for the pro CO2 lobby. But if the Arctic summer ice increases from now on then Al Gore is doomed.

Graeme Rodaughan

david (13:04:42) :
As for bets, why don’t you collectively underwrite the costs for a small island state if you are wrong?
If I was a betting man (and I’m not) I would offer a bet that the UK will be facing rolling blackouts by 2013.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article5404061.ece
Continued lack of investment in effective baseload power has very real consequences and will happen far sooner than a 50cm rise in sea levels.
Especially given that sea level rise appears to be flatlining or even decelerating. http://i39.tinypic.com/2u4q13o.jpg

davidc

kum,
Can you give more details? I think this kind of information is very significant in view of the misinformation from the IPCC etc. The seed companies have a vested interest in getting it right while Big Green has a vested interest in alarmism.
For example, for those who are uncertain about whether it is correct that life will be unsustainable when CO2 exceeds 450 ppm, but don’t feel confident about delving into the science themselves, could look at this site:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
This is from the Ontario govt and recommends CO2 supplementation in greenhouse production to around 1000 ppm. If that’s wrong, and the 450 ppm is right, all greehouse production in Ontario will have stopped. If that has happened, wouldn’t someone have noticed?

david

>David did you even read the NASA numbers?
Stern has previously provided estimates of people at risk.
How about that collective underwriting of the risks faced by even just one little country. It’s easy being a “sceptic” when there are no consequences for being wrong.

Kum Dollison

davidc,
I don’t have a clue what they’re doing. I suspect there’s some proprietary knowledge involved. I was kind of hoping that an employee of one of these companies with some knowledge along these lines might respond in some general way.
I know what my “suspicions” are, though.