In 2016 Munich Reinsurance stated that 175 billion dollars were lost through catastrophic disasters; some relating to extreme weather, some being through earthquakes.

https://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/press-releases/2017/2017-01-04-press-release/index.html

The New York Times has had an article about how sea level rise is having an impact on Tasmania's Port Arthur historic area through erosion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/climate/tasmania-global-warming-shoreline-erosion.html?_r=0

Katharine Hayhoe speaks about renewable energy in Texas, she says it is the State that is hit hardest by climate change in the US. Katharine Hayhoe speaks about billion dollar extreme events happening regularly in Texas:

https://www.klru.org/blog/2017/01/katharine-hayhoe-global-weirding/

In another clip in her series on Global Weirding, Katharine Hayhoe gives a history of climate change science which goes back to the 1820s.

There is something like 12,000 peer reviewed articles published in Science Journals every year about climate change (Powell), a one page essay without any references to science is not going to make any difference to what is happening in the real world.

Mark might look at concilience in relation to a number of science disciplines that support climate change; for example, changes in environment for various creatures and plants (eg Redmap).

You did not run away and hide this time, Reflux, you just ignored the questions about your lack of science to justify your baseless position.
Just a reminder of the science which you attempt to ignore:
“Given that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas (albeit a mild and diminishingly effective one at currently increasing levels of atmospheric concentration), and that some human-caused emissions accrue in the atmosphere, the question of dangerous warming was a good one to raise back in the late 1980s. Since then, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation."
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/5/a-dozen-global-warming-slogans/
Not surprising when you consider that CO2 from human sources is 3% against nature's 97%.
This is what Reflux has to answer, which is why he runs away and hides or gives untruthful answers like the above.

In the Munich Reinsurance reference given earlier, it was stated that extreme events had cost 175 billion dollars for 2016. The reference had indicated for 2012 the costs of extreme events had been 180 billion dollars. El Nino impacts had been identified for 2012 and 2016, it has been predicted that 2017 could be impacted by El Nino also.

Peru has already been hit by what has been termed a localised El Nino event in 2017. The Pacific waters off Peru had been very warm.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-peru-floods-idUSKBN16O2V5

Oceans and the atmosphere have been warming allowing for more water vapour to be carried.

There are a lot of benefits for Australia if there is more global warming, especially in agriculture. Not only does the ambient temperature rise, allowing longer growing seasons, but rainfall increases, especially right across the North. So the areas under crops, such as sugar or cotton, can be greatly extended, enabling higher consumption at home and greater export revenue.

If we can only develop all those massive coal deposits and export it to India, to help to lift the Indian standard of living to our level, with ample electricity fueled by coal - and provide a huge boost to our employment levels for perhaps a century until thorium energy production kicks in - then it seems to be a positive factor all-round.

It's barely ten degrees here in Adelaide. Can't wait for Summer !

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Flippancy, contrariness and willful ignorance can be a heady mix, especially for those of our vintage, but please understand why a younger person might take umbrage. The dice you are happily rolling might not land in your life time but it will undoubtedly land in theirs.

Hi Steele,

As a climate change agnostic, I recall working in 46 degrees picking apricots: they were still green on the outside but boiled mushy on the inside. But that was back around 1981. It hasn't quite reached that again. But as you suggest, it might, some time in the distant future.

Yes,we should be prepared for whatever the distant future holds, and we should be mindful of what our children and grandchildren will inherit. Of course we should minimise CO2 production or work to find ways to reduce its presence in the atmosphere below harmful levels, to below what Gaia can handle, whatever that may be.

But it's highly probable that scientific research and technology will resolve some of these issues: our children and grandchildren may well look back and ask, 'What was all the fuss about ?'

3-D human organs are barely a decade away, crop species research will probably develop varieties which love CO2, cheaper desalination processes will make much more water available across Australia. Meanwhile, more can be grown in our North thanks to global warming and higher rainfall. It's not something I lose sleep over, Steele :)

Cheers,

Joe