50 million climate change refugees by 2010

[theprestige]

I'm confused: Isn't it a bit late to predict how many climate change refugees we'll have in 2010?

 

[icerat]

I'm confused: Isn't it a bit late to predict how many climate change refugees we'll have in 2010?

???

Here's the 2005 paper

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Here's the 2005 paper this is based on -

Environmental Refugees: an emergent security issue

Note that it states that the last assessment, in 1995, already calculated an estimated 25 million climate refugees -

As far back as 1995 (latest date for a comprehensive assessment), these
environmental refugees totalled at least 25 million people, compared with 27 million
traditional refugees (people fleeing political oppression, religious persecution and
ethnic troubles). The environmental refugees total could well double between 1995
and 2010

It was not a "global warming" paper other than to state that it will get worse when it's effect become apparent.

Reading the paper, I'd say the OP is wrong. The prediction has almost certainly come true.

You are saying that "environmental" refugees are the same as "climate change refugees"?

They are quite different: Unless of course one wrongly (mischeviously, dishonestly?) ascribes all droughts, floods, poverty, over population, war etc to climate change.

 

[icerat]

You are saying that "environmental" refugees are the same as "climate change refugees"?

Not entirely, but if you take "climate change" to mean "changes in the climate", then it would cover the vast majority of environmental refugees, yes.

Are all relevant "changes in the climate" driven by AGW? No.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You are correct, the answer is "No".

 

[icerat]

You are correct, the answer is "No".

Nice to have your approval.

The original page and image doesn't attribute it to AGW either.

The OP is the one implying it's a "global warming" claim, I'm guessing because some idiots somewhere else have been keeping straw suppliers busy.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sorry dude, it seems we were coming from the same place. My bad.

 

[carlitos]

Nice to have your approval.

The original page and image doesn't attribute it to AGW either.

The OP is the one implying it's a "global warming" claim, I'm guessing because some idiots somewhere else have been keeping straw suppliers busy.

I'm using the wayback machine to try and find the original paper, with no luck. One, the obvious question would be why these guys hid the paper on the very day that conservative bloggers found it. Two, what non-AGW "climate change" is causing these refugees. If not AGW, what is causing ocean rises, desertification and drought? If you can post a link or two, I will read and comment. Thanks.

 

[casebro]

The ocean rise to date is diddle, like one cm.?

There have been some low lands evacuated, but the problem was that the land/island was sinking. So no GW involved.

 

[icerat]

I'm using the wayback machine to try and find the original paper, with no luck. One, the obvious question would be why these guys hid the paper on the very day that conservative bloggers found it. Two, what non-AGW "climate change" is causing these refugees. If not AGW, what is causing ocean rises, desertification and drought? If you can post a link or two, I will read and comment. Thanks.

I posted a link to the waybackmachine copy of the page, and to the missing original image, as well as a copy to the paper that the web page and image were based on.

The paper states in it's intro -

There is a new phenomenon in the global arena: environmental refugees. These are people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems

While these issues can arise from climate change caused by AGW, they can also arise from other issues, including natural variability, farming practices, water management etc etc.

The paper mentions (briefly) that if AGW takes hold it will get worse, but the paper is not about AGW and does not base it's predictions of a doubling of climate refugees by 2010 on AGW. The "doubling" (ie to 50 million) only required an average of 1.7 million climate affected refugees per year, and as has been pointed out, there were at least 10 million such refugees in Pakistan and 15.2 million in China last year alone.

 

[carlitos]

I posted a link to the waybackmachine copy of the page, and to the missing original image, as well as a copy to the paper that the web page and image were based on.

The paper states in it's intro -

There is a new phenomenon in the global arena: environmental refugees. These are people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems

Ah. I see - you linked the page, but not the paper.

Respectfully, can one credibly claim that environmental refugees are a "new phenomenon?" That's absurd.

While these issues can arise from climate change caused by AGW, they can also arise from other issues, including natural variability, farming practices, water management etc etc.

Gotcha.

The paper mentions (briefly) that if AGW takes hold it will get worse

It's like the last ever New York Times headline - "world ends; women, minorities hardest hit."

, but the paper is not about AGW and does not base it's predictions of a doubling of climate refugees by 2010 on AGW. The "doubling" (ie to 50 million) only required an average of 1.7 million climate affected refugees per year, and as has been pointed out, there were at least 10 million such refugees in Pakistan and 15.2 million in China last year alone.

Right. Short-term population shifts due to disasters are a huge deal, and the UN should be working on this. Flooding has been happening since before the Gilgamesh was written, and "climate change" is what drove man out of Africa 70,000 years ago, right? Surely this flooding isn't being claimed to be due to AGW?

 

[pipelineaudio]

What if Guam flips over?

 

[icerat]

Ah. I see - you linked the page, but not the paper.

The paper I linked to earlier

Respectfully, can one credibly claim that environmental refugees are a "new phenomenon?" That's absurd.

I thought the same initially, but if you put the emphasis on "global" then they might have a point.

Surely this flooding isn't being claimed to be due to AGW?

Well, there is some evidence to suggest AGW might be influencing monsoons, but that's really a different discussion.

What this thread is really about is that AGW denialists are sprouting this (now removed) UNEP page as a failed over the top AGW prediction. Reviewing the actual page and the paper it's based on shows it wasn't an AGW prediction at all, and didn't fail either.

 

[carlitos]

The paper I linked to earlier

Ah, sorry. Will read tomorrow.

 

[Nosi]

I compare it to Y2K. There's no question that there was a Y2K problem, however some of the more dire predictions (planes falling out of the sky, for example) were a little out there.

Planes falling out of the sky were really UP there dontcha think?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Respectfully, can one credibly claim that environmental refugees are a "new phenomenon?" That's absurd.

I think the transportation technology that facilitates large scale migration in response to environmental distress is relatively new. In the past they would have died in place or been referred to as "conquerors" not refugees.

 

[jayh]

There is the problem that climate changes anyhow. Droughts, floods, etc are as old as humans. People always tend to move from where conditions are worse to where they are better, but this is one of the good things about humans as a species. We dynamically optmize our situation.

Now there seems to be a tendency to use the loaded word 'refugees' because of its apocalyptic connotations. There is often a kind of dishonesty, too, in selection bias. Negative things as tallied, wherever possible to AGW, positive changes are not. There is nothing sacred about the current CO2 levels or the current climate. Nature is much more neutral, every change has some advantages and some disadvantages.

 

[Nosi]

The American Southwest is and will be hit hard by climate change. We are not however turning into "climate refugees" We are turning into "tech refugees". We are turning our bodies into little water bags via toilet-to-tap technology as things get drier and more people move in. This technology makes those extra people assets.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I'm not sure what your link is supposed to mean or allude to?

We have had heaps of rain lately; the dams are full or filling across the eastern states. So much for doomsday predictions of eternal droughts.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma is experiencing the worst drought we've had since before the dust bowl. It usually rains every day for weeks in March and April, all my life. It hasn't rained here now in almost 5 months. Winter had a freak blizzard, but for over half the winter we had spring and sometimes summer temperatures. I love winter and feel robbed myself.

Global Warming isn't going to cause mass dry deserts, it's going to effect extremes in weather, in all areas of climate. And we're seeing unusual weather all over the place. While this isn't evidence to base an argument on, it's reason to let you know not to offer anecdotes like that as if it's an argument either way.

 

[Warmer1]

The American Southwest is and will be hit hard by climate change.

Studies of tree ring growth of the old Bristle-cone pine trees indicates that we just experienced an abnormally wet period in the SW and things may be returning to normal drier conditions. The article was in an issue of National Geographic which has the Black Pharaohs on the cover. Sorry that I don't have links to the study.

As mentioned climate models also predict a drier SW in the future.

Lake Mead is predicted to rise around 20 feet this season due to a larger than average snow pack and resultant runoff. At least that's a temporary relief.