The IPCC psychic predictions:
1. Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea-level rise.
Sea level is rising about 3 mm per year. In 100 years, you get 300mm of rise. The IPCC reportedly put a range of 28 to 98 cm by 2100. So 3 feet in 80 years. Don’t see people fleeing like refugees from that rate. Plus, there is a lot of uncertainty in the prediction. Not to be a killjoy, but coastal zones are always hit with storms and flooding. Humans have lived near coasts and dealt with this for 100′s of years. With better technology and resources, it should be at least as doable as any other time in history.
2. Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.
First, “in some areas” is just exactly what a psychic would use. Totally lacking in detail and will positively happen. With or without the AGW theory being correct. Note it does not say “increased risk”.
3. Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.
Again, not statement of an “increase”, just “risks”. Humans have to deal with extreme weather all the time. If there’s more extreme weather, humans have dealt with it. We have managed even though more people are affected. Critical services and infrastructure are lost frequently. People cope. Should we make improvements to our infrastructure and homes–sure. Warming or no, the storms will keep coming.
4. Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.
Interesting they say “working outdoors in urban or rural areas”. Climate change believers tend to be nitpickers on language and you would have thought they would have realized this actually reads that people in semi-rural or semi-urban areas are not included. How did that one get past the editor? Why not just say “outdoors”?
Extreme hot and extreme cold can kill, now and in the future. Cold kills fewer people in the US in part due to “snowbirds”–people who move from one climate to another, kind of like migratory birds, only the migration occurs in cars, rather than walking or flying. Perhaps people will improve on that system. Also, people who like hot gravitate to hot, same for people who like cold.
For centuries, people have worked outside in extreme heat and extreme cold.
5. Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.
Again, nothing new. Drought and famine have existed for the entirety of human history. It has alway s been harder on the poor. They failed to mention cooling causes famine also–the Irish potato famine comes to mind. There is absolute certainty that some of these things will happen. No real predictions short of what has always happened will continue to happen.
6. Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.
I believe this describes the dust bowl–that pre-global warming disaster that changed the way we farm. Same old thing humans have always contended with. Only now we have more advanced technology and better ways to deal with this. Poorer nations will catch up as they always have.
7. Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.
The “risk” is that systems will change, not be lost. That is exactly what nature has always done–change, adapt. Is is fascinating that the same scientists who may heartily espouse evolution can be the same one shouting loudest that nothing should change or that the change can be “too fast”. As for livelihoods, buggy whip manufacturers were displaced by cars, furriers put out of much business by the PC animal rights crowds, machinery replaced humans in many areas. The world went on.
8. Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.
Loss and movement of water systems is nothing new. The ecosystems will change, not be lost (unless you argue that every time there is an evolutionary change, it’s bad because something is lost–that evolution is bad). Yes, some species will be lost, no matter if the planet warms or not. It’s call survival of the adequately fit. Nothing new.
The IPCC report reads like what a carnival psychic would say–vague predictions many of which are going to happen with or without AGW. It’s sad that pseudoscientific vague predictions have been called science when discussing the climate.
Several places I read on the report said:
“there is no new science in this report, which assesses recent science since the previous IPCC report in 2007″
No new science but an increase in likelihood that humans are causing climate change? How does that work? Same way a psychic does–by saying whatever you think someone wants to hear and hoping no one asks about the details.
Another interesting statement in the report:
“Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.”
Translation: Nature or human caused, it matters not so far as what we try to scare you with. If we separated them, you might see that nature really is a lot more dominate than we admit. No need for those pesky details.
There is talk of adaptation in the document, but not in many of the press releases. It’s fascinating how science gets trampled all to death in the name of saving the planet, which we have little evidence needs saving. Perhaps they changed to the psychic method because actual predictions of melting glaciers, hotspots and Arctic ice were so problematic in the past. It appears there’s much, much more to learn about natural climate change, CO2 and modeling before we can move past the psychic predictions.