Alarmists, are you saying that AGW won't be catastrophic now?

It's clear already from the first two answers that "catastrophic" needs interpretation only when discussing this issue amongst those who are all too familiar with the issue.

When it comes to what the general public think, well if "catastrophic" is part of the vernacular then all the better (for the "cause").

We all know that "catastrophic" is frequently a term used in the media and even by scientifically orientated sources but nobody seems to ask for a "definition" during those instances do they?

How about Harvard? "On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change" http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3693423...

How about Scientific American? "Peak Oil May Keep Catastrophic Climate Change in Check" http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peak-oil...

Anybody writing to these institutions and asking them to define "catastrophic"?

I recall asking a similar question and some answers included a theory that "deniers" are the ones who "made up" the term "catastrophic AGW". Unbelievable.

__________________________________________________

@Dawai: "It's a potentially vague word.."

Exactly the point of my answer. And to re-emphasize, many who are pro-AGW use vagueness of words and terms to their advantage. "Catastrophic" is a classic example.

Chemflunky. Currently billions are being spent on AGW. Further, currently billions are being spent to continually improve solar power in its efifciency and cost. We are literally driving solutions that will eliminate most of the CO2 production in the next 50-60 years without doing anything else.

Wherein lies the problem. It seems the warmers are screaming apocalypse to get through taxation measures that are an anathema to many.

Where we currently stand and the level of risk that I beleive you can truly justify, I really don't think you can justify any more spending. I place my solution there, that are jsutifiable assuming up to 4-6 degree of potential warming in the next 100 years, because they literally reduce the time of lessening fossil fuel consumption by 20 years.

I don't beleive the carbon tax solution will reduce the time to get off of fossil fuels by more than 20 years AND it is costly. In conjustion with my plan, it migth reduce by another 10 years, btu the cost woudl be so great that you really should be able to show a good reason to beleive in the potential for >7 degrees of warming in the next 100 years.

Now I am sure warmers will call me a liar, but consider the price reductions in solar power. Consider the fact that we are regulating cars to increase their fuel efficiency. Consider that we have nearly a 0 population growth. Consider that the US CO2 production is down to 1995 levels.

How many years do you really think it will take to reduce our CO2 production to one quarter of what is currently is doing nothing else but what we are currently doing? Consider that if the cost of solar panels decreases by 50%, it will be very advantageous for people to place these panels on their homes, as it will only take 7-8 years to make back their investment. How long do you give it? Further, consider your methods of improvement, their cost and how much they will reduce this business as usual timeframe.

As several people have said before me, define "catastrophic".

Do I think AGW is likely to lead to, say, the extinction of humanity? No.

Do I think AGW is likely to lead to at least some human deaths and economic damage? I think it already *has*, and it's only going to get worse.

Do I see a wide range between "is going to kill us all" and "isn't worth worrying about"? You betcha.

It's a big planet. Unless something is nigh unto universal in its impact, one person's catastrophe is another person's mildly interesting distant news event. Or are you saying that you are, for example, personally devastated by every news report of a mass shooting, a hurricane, an earthquake, or any other event in which many lives are lost?

I do agree that we should be asking sensible questions about our spending on AGW. For example, "Is this the most economically efficient way to reach our goal", "What negative impact will this action cause", et cetera. But if the answers are, respectively, "yes", and "Less than the negative impact of not taking that action", then you damned betcha we should go ahead with that action.

Like Dawei, I have noticed a lot of black-and-white thinking among "skeptics". Either AGW is "catastrophic" or we shouldn't be spending *any* resources on it. Either CO2 entirely explains every climate change for the past 100 years, or it has no effect on climate. Either scientists' predictions are completely accurate in every respect, or they're completely useless and should be ignored. Y'all seem to have a bit of a problem with the concept of, well, middle ground.

Allegedly, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry challenged global warming skeptics on Thursday at a Congressional hearing: Kerry explained that if skeptics are wrong and nothing is done, “life on the Earth can literally end.”

I think that sounds like it could be catastrophic.

It is interesting that you seems to have alarmists flummoxed. They call CAGW an invention of yours and a fake. It is comical really. Ottawa Mike got it right. It is fine as long as it is for the cause but if you pin them down, they don't like to admit it. If AGW isn't catastrophic, then why would would alarmists be so irrational unless it really isn't about the warming? Why do we need to change our light bulbs and make our cars more dangerous? Why the carbon tax? Why do we need to double our energy costs? I don't like making little symbolic sacrifices so idiots can feel they are saving the planet. If they want to live in their cult, I don't care, as long as they don't affect me. The problem is they have. They have harmed science and they have harmed our economy. I also don't like turning so many people into sheep but that can back fire on them. Even the sheep may begin to see so many failed predictions. I suppose some sheep are smarter than others, however.

You Hippy AGW Alarmists are shameless.

YOU are the folks who encouraged and perpetuated the notion of "Catastrophy" if Man did not alter his way of life.

YOU are the ones who "found" that Poles and glaciers will disappear, land masses would be submerged, famine, war, disease.....ad nauseum......unless we stopped eating beef, using gasoline.....etc.

YOU (Alarmists) are now backing away from the very thing that YOU created.....now that your greed-induced lies have been exposed.

You people are something else!!

Deniers do love to attack words, as they do like to continue to pretend there was some sort of name change from GW to CC, while ignoring the name of the UN agency charged from day 1 with investigating CC, the IPCC which was never called the IPGW.

Whether you like the word "catastrophic " or not, a 1-2m rise in sea level and a loss of Arctic Summer sea ice is not a good thing by any measure. At the current rate of rise (which has already increased once) we are already on our way to over half a meter by the end of the century, not the 8in inch's those like kano try to invent, which simply doesn't add up even using the current rise rate.

Another rise similar to that seen in the early 1990's would see us easily make the 1m IPCC estimate, the amount of rise depends on the future input of melting glaciers which so far have only made up about half of the rise as they start to melt faster the rate will increase.

These two things alone could be considered very bad even "catastrophic" many think the economic outcomes will be worse than the great depression, which certainly was catastrophic.

They can measure foliage increases along with CO2 increases and they are both in the 10% range in many places yet they only connect slight temperature increases across the Planet with the "massive" CO2 increases. How curious!

Antarctic ice, your math is just horrible. I'm counting 86 years. So 500mm in 86 years is 6mm per year. We are not on a pace of 6mm per year. Are you using a different start point?

For those of us who are not fortunate enough to be intimately familiar with your personal cat fights, can you please explain what the hell you are talking about, or what quote you might be referencing? Otherwise I'll have to make my own assumption on what you mean by "catastrophic", and I fear that venturing a guess into what's going on in your mind would be very dangerous.

EDIT:

Okay, let's try again. You said "Are you saying that AGW will NOT be catastrophic (ie lead to catastrophe)? "

Why did you say that? And what is your personal definition of the word "catastrophic"?

EDIT:

Mike the point is that there seems to be this very nonsensical--yet extremely common-- black/white sentiment among many people that if AGW is not, in fact, capable of ultimately destroying every individual of every species of life on Earth, then it must therefore be totally benign and not worth any attention whatsoever. If this 'total extinction of all life' definition is the definition of "catastrophic" that they are referring to, then it is obviously a totally stupid red herring.

However, if 'catastrophic' simply means that it will be a significant problem capable of causing hardship to human civilization, then yes, AGW has the potential to be 'catastrophic'. That's why I asked the OP to clarify the definition of "catastrophic". It's a potentially vague word, for which different people can have very different definitions, and so it is pointless to discuss whether or not it will be "catastrophic" without first establishing a common understanding on what it actually means.