Until you define "catastrophic", your question is meaningless. I have never said that I believe in "CAGW", and I don't think anyone else has either. If you define catastrophic to mean that unchecked AGW will cost trillions of dollars and thousands to millions of human lives, I would say yes, I believe in "CAGW."
I completely agree with the sentiment that "Catastrophic" was tacked onto the front of "AGW" so that people can deny the importance of AGW without sounding like complete idiots.
I don't know how many climate realists still believe that AGW will have a catastrophic impact on mankind but there have been some talking about it. On a personal level, I wouldn't call myself a climate realist or a 'warmer' per se, but "catastrophic" implies (to me) in this context an abrupt change in climate that a substantial population cannot adapt to and dies as a result. One might localize that and try to quantify it, apply a term of years to differentiate it from, say, a shorter term drought or extreme weather cycles that disrupt food production-I recently heard that weather extremes in India in the recent past had upset the food supply and 20,000 people had died; I can't substantiate that, it was just a passing reference, but I would consider something like that catastrophic IF it could be firmly linked to AGW and the predicted regional weather extremes. I don't think anyone would argue that a single weather event like a hurricane or another type of disaster like an earthquake that claimed 20,000 lives would be anything other than catastrophic. In general, though, I think 'CAGW' is a manufactured term that is linked to extremists and alarmism rather than really descriptive of a scientific concept, and that it is designed as an arguing point as the concept of AGW becomes more accepted-the argument now seems to be shifting to OK, mankind's activities do have an influence on climate, but it is insignificant-nothing catastrophic that we can't handle is going to happen, so climate science is wrong about that and we don't have to change anything that we do. More subtle and nuanced than the arguments that were put forward earlier...a refinement, perhaps-and less reflective of the state of denial. More skeptical-the position that the opposition view to the realists/warmers want to occupy to advance their argument.
I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I'm not likely to be around long enough to find out which side of the argument is closest to reality. I think measured and well thought out actions to address the environmental issues we are currently facing regardless of the cause is needed-for example, the depletion of major water supplies in the U.S. in a seven state area that is not being replenished, additional protection in coastal areas for increased flooding during storms-is very important, but actions to mitigate those problems will also help us adapt should these weather patterns continue and become...Climate Change. The question is how long are we going to wait to acknowledge there is a long term trend going on and getting more severe? I can't answer that question-but it gives us another acronym, at least. SAGW. Severe Anthropogenic Global Warming. Or how about RRBAGW? Really Really Bad Anthropogenic Global Warming.
" Catastrophic is a denier term attempting to ridicule the science"
This seems to be the common "realist" position.
Well, it's easy to start with some examples of alarmism from fairly prominent climate scientists. Kevin Trenberth: "Growth of these disasters into a major catastrophe, war and strife, is something to be avoided if at all possible, but it is likely where we are headed." Michael Mann referring to James Hansen: "emissions from fossil fuel burning must be reduced rapidly if we are to avert catastrophic climate change."
Further, I just had to Google catastrophic climate change. The results start with Wiki Runaway Climate change article. From there we have:
- The Guardian: "Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown"
- Greenpeace (to be expected although the Greenpeace and WWF scientists who worked on the IPCC reports are completely objective)
- Scientific American: "The risk of catastrophic climate change is getting worse"
- Oxford journals: "Fat-Tailed Uncertainty in the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change"
The first mention of skeptics was on page 3 with the recent Onion article. I looked for a few more pages but couldn't find any skeptics or denier blogs. I will admit though that it's not really the scientific community making these statements but rather the media and outliers like Joe Romm and James Hansen.
In a lot of cases, the line is very blurry like this Telegraph article which states: "Catastrophic climate change could happen with 50 years, five decades earlier than previously predicted, according to a Met Office report." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthne... Did the Met Office actually state those words or did the author assign them? Would you expect the public to know the difference?
But the real story is the irony from the "realists" around here. They shout from the mountain tops that "deniers" are the ONLY ones using the word catastrophe but at the very same time use the term "deniers" even though 97% of them agree the Earth has warmed and man has had some influence.
If somebody wants to call me a "denier" the yes, I deny that we are headed for catastrophic climate change. Get your terminology right and your definitions accurate. Otherwise, you're just full of hot air.
As long as there is money to be made, Al Gore will believe it.
Seriously, all you have to do is go to some Alarmist website and you will find plenty of catasrophe talk. I found one called "Planet Extinction" which claims we have eight years to stop using fossil fuels (globally) or life will go extinct.
Still waiting for "more frequent and intense" hurricanes
Maybe Gary thinks this site is a plant by deniers to make it look like "climate realists" are talking about catastrophe when they really are not.
From previous, similar questions, I inferred that no-one thought it would be catastrophic.
There was some discussion about what catastrophic meant exactly, however.
So, at one end we have the scientists saying that greenhouse gases can trap some photons and at the other armies of so-called environmentalists wanting to outlaw CO2 before it destroys the world. The chasm in between has never been satisfactorily bridged, in my view.
The thing is, the notion of Catastrophic global warming is a term almost exclusively used by skeptics. Do a search on the internet and virtually every reference is from the skeptics.
You can also do a search of Answers. I did and looked at the first 50 results that were returned, not once was did a ‘realist’ ask a question about CAGW. The skeptics did, including you.
The reality (and I know skeptics really hate reality) is that very few ‘realists’ even use the term let alone believe in it.
This is very typical of the skeptics – make something up and accuse the ‘realists’ of having said it. Why do they need to make things up? Because in the real world they have very little to work with.
Please find examples of ‘realists’ having stated that global warming is ‘catastrophic’. There are a few but they’re vastly outnumbered by false accusations from skeptics, as you’ll find out for yourself when you conduct some critical and objective research.
- - - - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO RAISIN CAINE
Are you using GoogleSkeptic or something? Try using Google.com instead.
A search for the exact phrase “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” turns up infinitely more skeptic references than realist ones. One the very first page of search results we have Junk Science, Watts Up With That, Hockey Schtick, Joanne Nova and two lesser known skeptic sources. Of the remaining four search results on page one, there’s an acronym and dictionary definition, a forum discussing the origin of the term (it’s from a skeptic website – what a surprise) and just one site from the side that supports the global warming theory.
Search instead for ”CAGW” and amongst the references to Citizens Against Government Waste it’s again the skeptics that dominate and again the likes of Watts, Goddard, Heartland, Nova etc that top the list.
If you failed to see that then you’re clearly not being remotely objective.
Could you also point out one single occasion when someone has asked if global warming will be catastrophic (or anything to that effect) where I haven’t corrected them and told them that it won’t be.
Here’s the most recently asked question to that effect (will the world end because of global warming). My very first sentence was “The world will not, and can not, end as a consequence of manmade global warming.” You can’t get much clearer than that. Again, a complete lack of objectivity on your part it seems.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
The evidence for AGW is as certain as is scientifically possible. Science stopped investigating the existence of AGW years ago. Research - and the available research funding - now is focused on investigating the specifics of how it works and the potential consequences,
Catastrophic is an ill-defined term that has become popular among Deniers who realize that the outright denial of AGW they have always preached is too stupid to sustain. AGW will certainly - and may already, have been catastrophic for some people. In any case, AGW will alter world geopolitics in ways we cannot anticipate. How "catastrophic" that becomes depends on how successful Deniers are in promoting their Pro-stupid political agenda.
========
Raisin Caine –
One study is an examination of the statistical properties of economic structural uncertainty under LOW PROBABILITY, high-impact events. They used climate change as an example because it was
“theoretically” possible.
The second one is a headline-grabbing media story. No where in the article does it report the IPCC or any scientist said anything about “catastrophic” global warming.
And, the third uses the term to refer to “Threats—ranging from the destruction of coral reefs to more extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts and floods—are becoming more likely at the temperature change already underway: as little as 1.8 degree Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in global average temperatures.”
By that usage, I agree that there will be catastrophic consequences.
Even if the articles were about whatever meaningless, what is convenient-at-the-moment Denier-defined “catastrophic” warming, it would not mean that it was a core part of AGW theory – it would just be another example of a Denier using cherry-picked anecdotal faux evidence in a dishonest attempt to attack something that know nothing about based entirely on their subjective and emotionally-based mythological political beliefs.
The realist are sticking to the ambiguous claim that bad weather is consistent with what you'd expect from AGW and that deniers made it up.
You are such a denier. Alarmists NEVER said that climate change will be catastrophic (I'm not really sure why they want to fight climate change if they don't think it will be catastrophic but that's completely besides the point).
They NEVER said it would lead to any catastrophes. NEVER.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuess...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/g...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/1...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/07/2...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
http://www.theclimatecoalition.org/gover...
860 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1980 and not much has changed in the "catastrophe" column that can be attributed to higher CO2 levels. The tropics are as cool as they always have been. http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/07/tropi...
still believe in CAGW, and that catastrophic is a true discription.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
Got to love Alph and Gary F. Here are 3 articles using "catastrophic" frequently that are NOT "deniers" yet here we have Gary F and Alph with their conspiracy theories.
Yeah Gary, completely made up by the "deniers". Good thing we have unbiased people like yourself steering the science.
Trevor,
Don't ask people to do a google search unless you know what they will find. Why? Because catastrophic is thrown around a lot by people who are nowhere near "deniers". Not only is the word thrown around, but the idea of changes that will destroy mankind.
Your entire argument is that WHEN the warmers go off the deep end and start exaggerating to the point of absurdity, NO ONE should be pointing this out. This is why I view you as biased. And you, Gary F, Pegminer being as biased as you are, yet being climate scientists gives credence to my concern that your field is being overly biased by politics.
http://www.vice.com/read/near-term-extin...
Trevor,
Try googling catastrophic climate change and see what you get. Sure skeptics are more likely to use global warming, but that says nothing about the catastrophic portion.
BTW, I find it funny that skeptics are using AGW and warmers are using climate change. After all AGW means something, whereas climate change is entirely meaningless. If you disagree, would you care to tell me one time the climate was not changing. In fact, anthropogenic climate change is meaningless given that small changes can affect a chaotic system like the climate, so one can assume taht as long as man has existed, we have caused some change, even if it was not measurable.
Linlyons,
If we did not frequently have people here wondering whether the world was going to end from climate change, I might agree with you.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/...
Here is Greenpeace on their website saying the same thing as they blame both floods and droughts in the SAME LOCATION (southern France) on the current "dangerous climate change".
Are you outraged that they would make such a claim about the climate whilst talking about weather??? OR am I free to say that the cold winter in my neck of the woods proves no warming???
Trevor,
I run a google search on the phrase a warmers would use, "Catastrophic climate change" and it gives a many results with very few skeptic sites. As to you correcting the belief that the world is going to end, at least you are doing that.
But test your bias for a second here.
Overall the temps have increased by 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years.
A "denier" would say 0 temp increase by 2100, right?
The IPCC 3 degrees by 2100??? (the IPCC is currently overestimating)
How many degrees needed to destroy the earth or end humanity??? My bet is much more than a 10 degree increase.
So is correcting the absolutely absurd LINKED TO JUDGEMENT FROM GOD, a bragging point? Sure it makes you better than most warmers here. But you represent more than just a warmer, dontcha. You are a climate scientist. Should the Greenpeace website not erk you more than WUWT??? Does it?
And while discussing bias, you will note that I frequently tell people to RRR as well as many methods to reduce their power consumption. I say AGW is occurring. I say we do need to reduce our CO2 output.
Now keeping in mind that I am NOT a climate scientist, would you conclude that I am unbiased on this matter?
Gary F,
You claim "deniers" are the ones using "catastrophic"... I show many cases of warmers using "catastrophic". An anlysis of the articles does not change the fact that WARMERS ARE USING "CATASTROPHIC"!!! I can supply a thousand articles and we can go through debating the articles, but it doesn't change the fact that WARMERS ARE USING "CATASTROPHIC".
It is interesting that alarmists like to pretend all sorts of catastrophic things are going to happen and that is why we need to enact their political agenda but when you call them on it, they don't like to admit that they ever made any failed predictions. I am glad the alarmists are finally agreeing that CO2 isn't going to cause anything catastrophic and we don't therefore have to enact their ruinous solutions.
If you really mean AGW then any climate scientist still able to read and think accepts it (unless paid to lie about it). If you start modifying the term AGW by adding stuff to take it beyond what real scientists are studying (what about aAGW, bAGW.... zAGW) then who cares? It's not science, just made up lobbyist speak to feed the stupid, ignorant and gullible.
Catastrophic is a denier term attempting to ridicule the science
