But, the more infrastructure you have in place (at least, relative to your capacity to build same), the more you'll be hurt by changes in climate. If you have no infrastructure, then climate change is relatively easy to deal with--just pick up and move to somewhere better. As long as the population is low enough that you're not clashing too badly with other people living in the place you want to move to, no harm no foul.
But, as soon as you have possessions you can't pick up and carry (or load on a horse or dog sled or cart or whatever), you lose them if you have to move.
And, well, the problem is not what temperature it is, so much as how fast it's changing. If we lived in some alternate reality where excess CO2 caused atmospheric cooling, I'd be equally concerned about that. We build our societies around things being pretty much as they have been, and when that's not the case... we have problems.
It depends on outcome of the Great Battle of the True Scientists versus the Reptilian Illuminati and their Greenie Global Warming Alarmunist Fellow Holographers.
Just because there were devastating forest fires caused by lightning millenia ago, does that mean arson today doesn't matter?
You might think, no. But you might not realize that shape-shifting interstellar Reptilians control your thoughts, perceptions, and regulate the impurities within your precious bodily fluids.
You might think if your variable rate mortgage increases from 5% to to 7%, that the interest portion of your monthly payment will go up by 40%. But that's just your People's Republic of Telegraph Avenue bias. True Scientists here could tell you in less time than it takes to collect spare change that the interest you owe is only up by 2%. See how much better off you'd be if you quit panhandling for Obama and get a job.
Only Primitive street people worry about doomsday droughts. Governor Moonbeam won't stop Highly Technical True Scientists from beaming aboard anywhere they need to go.
I suspect global warming will ultimately have more effect on a technological society - at least, one like ours that seems to be doing nothing to either prevent or prepare for it.
A local disaster, high-tech tourists can just fly home. A slower global change, hunter-gatherers could just walk to somewhere better carrying all their stuff. We've built a lot of infrastructure where it's exposed to rising sea levels or changing climate, and we can't cheaply move it. Abandoning it might trigger an economic collapse, and we can't feed ourselves without technology and a global economy.
The temperature today is consistent with nature and nobody has proven otherwise.
As to the dry spell in California, that is a matter you have to take up with the greenies. There is an old saying, "Waste not. Want not." The greenies are too slow to catch on to this concept but the general public sure is. They are paying through the nose for the greenie waste and the greenie's pot growing usage of water.
You are more than willing to use surrogate data from the past for determination of the climate sensitivity, but want to ignore the rest of what the past tells us? What sense does that make?
Sure we can be concerned about the future, but making some wild claim about crop destruction being a certainty, when the past shows higher CO2 and temps saw MORE plant growth not less, makes your case pretty darn weak. If you want to ignroe the past, then lets have at it. Drop all the climate sensitivity information from teh past and try to make a claim about future warming without it.
And lets talk about the "cali drought" shall we.
4 times the amount of crops that were lost to the cali drought, were lost to ethanol prodcution from the ethanol mandate. THEREFORE one should be able to conclude that the ethanol mandate has 4 times the effect on the cost of food as the Cali drought.
And while we are on the topic of the Cali drought, please prove you link of the Cali drought to AGW. You warmers CONTINUALLY say that 5 years is weather, INCLUDING YOU, in response to Jello's query about the future 5 years from now. You are dealing with LESS time in CALI. Further, when confronted with US data beign problematic, you say "GLOBAL" and you say "US is only 2% of the Earth". If the US is only 2% of the Earth, I am going to take a wild guess and say that Cali is less than 2%!!!!
So talking global and enough time to amount to climate not weatehr, by YOUR VERY OWN STANDARDS!!!! There has been no increase in the droughts globally over the last 60 years.
As far as your question of which societies are more impacted by climate changes. Less technologically advanced ones are by far.
As far as th number of people affected... That is just plain dumb. Clearly there has been population growth, so you compare rates not numbers.
Of course not, but it does prove that a few degrees of warming is not dangerous, in fact it proves that a few degrees warming is probably benefical, during the past warm periods, Roman period, Medieval period, humans and civilisations thrive, during the cold periods they struggled to survive.
The earth was warmer in the past BECAUSE of CO2. It is study of the past, as well as study of Venus of other planets, that we learn what to expect from increasing atmospheric CO2.
The temperatures in the past did not happen by magic any more than now.
Earth was also hit by asteroids in the past.
it certainly does with 7 billion people
No.
Does the survival of primitive societies indicate that we don't need to worry about global warming?
What requires more consistency in environment?
Highly technological societies?
Primitive societies?
It appears that there's a reasonable chance that Calif will face another year of drought. That will put many farmers out of business. That will increase the cost of food for people across the country.
Does climate change affect more people in primitive societies?
Or does climate change affect more people in highly technical societies?
yes it do!
