LOLZ, Attempted coverup, U.N. "50 million climate refugees in 2010" epic fail, moved to 2020

[BethesdaWX]

As is usual, the goalposts get moved further & further.

The UN claimed there will be 50 million climate refugees in 2010.....it was proven false with a simple Census count, and now it had been attempted to be deleted, & moved to 2020 only problem is google cache!

When we get to 2020, it will be moved to 2030 if AGW hypothesis is still alive.

http://wattsupwithth...mpt/#more-38006

[Clifford]

Interesting...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9climat.png

I think the problem is that people's timelines are way to fast.

If the sea level continues to rise by about 2mm per year, then in a decade, we'll get about a 2cm rise. In a century, we'll get about a 200mm rise, or 20cm rise. Very few places are at such a tenuous state to be unable to cope with a 20cm rise.

Areas with higher sea level rise such as New Orleans and Venice have problems due to land subsidence due to pumping oil and water from underground, and building an infrastructure incompatible with natural silt deposition cycles. It isn't a climate problem.

Isn't Western Australia, marked for desertification, one of the areas that is currently experiencing very high rainfall?

The map is pretty ambiguous about whether permafrost melting is of harm or benefit. Is ALL of Greenland marked for Permafrost melting? When you have a 2-3 km thick ice sheet, what does it mean for the permafrost to melt?

If we have a century long warming trend, and a century long sea level rise trend, then it is possible that by the end of the century, areas including India and Sub-Saharan Africa that will have increased in population by over a billion people might actually generate 50 million "climate refugees".

[skierinvermont]

Interesting...

http://wattsupwithth...1kap9climat.png

I think the problem is that people's timelines are way to fast.

No timeline is given for the above map. It simply highlighting the most at risk areas in the future which may be 50 years, 100 years or 300 years. Making linear extrapolations of sea level rise, as you have done, is unlikely to be accurate because few things act in a linear way over extended periods. The best estimates of sea level rise by the ends of the century are probably .5-1.5m.

[skierinvermont]

I don't see any mention of the 'goalposts' being moved to 2020, so your title is incorrect. It seems that the page was simply deleted not that goalposts were moved.

It also says "climate refugees" not "climate change refugees." In essence they are counting everybody that has been forced to move by any type of weather phenomenon. This would include all the refugees from the Pakistani flood, the Russian fires, African droughts, etc. It estimated there were already 25 million of these "climate refugees" by 1995, I would not be surprised if their were 50 million today due to a combination of population growth and changing climate.

Regardless of climate change, there are always climate refugees. Over time, we would expect the number of 'climate refugees' to go up, due to climate change. However I think this is a rather unclear way of presenting the issue because the causal relation between these refugees and climate change is not made clear.

[BethesdaWX]

Skier, are you Stupid? Come on now, this is what Happens when you don't read.

A census count was Taken, and there is no Evidence of any Refugees relating to climate change. There are always refugees, but there has been NO increase Relative to population growth.

Moved to 2020 http://www.care2.com...ental-refugees/

Weather isn't Climate Skier, none of these "events" you describe are related to Climate Change, because 1) There is no proof that the current warming is Anthropogenic, and 2) Disasters happen all the time.

Natural disasters happen, and there is no connecting them with AGW which is a Hypothesis.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't say environmental refugees are related to climate change.. in fact I said the causal relation was weak at best.. but go ahead and put words in my mouth whatever who really cares.

It's a lot of fun to construct strawmen and then throw rocks.

And yes, there is very strong empirical proof that most of the warming is anthropogenic. The earth is rapidly gaining energy and this imbalance is directly attributable to the atmosphere's increasing opacity to LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

Also funny that you say "a census count was taken." Many of the countries that face the worst humanitarian and environmental situations lack official censuses. Just goes to show how oblivious you are to the political and ecological reality of this world. As if a straightforward google search for "census" could answer a complex question like this.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't say environmental refugees are related to climate change.. in fact I said the causal relation was weak at best.. but go ahead and put words in my mouth whatever who really cares.

It's a lot of fun to construct strawmen and then throw rocks.

And yes, there is very strong empirical proof that most of the warming is anthropogenic. The earth is rapidly gaining energy and this imbalance is directly attributable to the atmosphere's increasing opacity to LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

No, and either way regardless, you miss key factors.

1) The change in radiative imbalance due to increased CO2 from humans is so small it cannot be measured with todays satellites, it is applied theoretically...note I did not say CO2 in general, but the excess applied by humans. So really, No, you're wrong.

2) Even if it were measurable, Climactic Feedbacks are what will determine whether AGW occurs or not...there is significant evidence that the climate system is loaded with Negative feedbacks rather than positive...in this case, AGW may be unmeasurable.

Unless warming can be tied directly to CO2, AGW remains a Hypothesis, as it is.

[Clifford]

No timeline is given for the above map. It simply highlighting the most at risk areas in the future which may be 50 years, 100 years or 300 years. Making linear extrapolations of sea level rise, as you have done, is unlikely to be accurate because few things act in a linear way over extended periods. The best estimates of sea level rise by the ends of the century are probably .5-1.5m.

You apparently didn't follow the links and read the captions that were with the map.

http://webcache.goog...=www.google.com

PDF of the original page:

http://probeinternat...ics-at-UNEP.pdf

In the "broken link" hole for the map:

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010 (map/graphic/illustration)

In the caption below the image.

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.

Norman Meyers, referenced in the above UNEP page has published many documents on "Environmental Refugees".

Here is the original chart:

http://www.agassessm...port%20(English).pdf

Image is on page 20, with the caption:

Figure SR-P2. 50 million climate refugees by 2010

It isn't directly discussed there, but later:

Page 49:

An estimated 25 million people per year al-

ready flee from weather-related disasters; global warming

is projected to increase this number to some 200 million

before 2050, with semiarid ecosystems expected to be the

most vulnerable to impacts from CLIMATE CHANGE REFUGEES

[Global Chapter 6]. In addition, CLIMATE CHANGE combined

with other socioeconomic stresses could alter the regional

distribution of hunger and malnutrition, with large negative

effects on sub-Saharan Africa.

(also on page 416: http://www.agassessm...port%20(English).pdf )

Norman Meyers, Environmental Exodus, An emergent Crisis in the Global Arena, 1995, A 200+ Page document discussing the environmental Exodus issue, with discussion of "GLOBAL WARMING" in several places. Discusses 2010, and later dates.

http://www.climate.o...al%20Exodus.pdf

Norman Meyers, ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES:AN EMERGENT SECURITY ISSUE, 2005

http://www.osce.org/eea/14851

This is the document discussed in source for the UNEP page.

I've seen reference to this document (I haven't found it on the WWW).

Myers, N. (1993): ‘Environmental refugees in a globally warmed world’, Bioscience, 43 (11): 752-761.

Norman Meyers, Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century (2001)

http://www.nicholas....s/myers2001.pdf

Richard Black, however, has written a critical article on the "Environmental Refugee" issue.

Richard Black, Environmental refugees: myth or reality?

http://www.unhcr.org/3ae6a0d00.pdf

While Meyers does refer to Sea Level Rise, Global Warming, and etc.

Several of the recurring issues in his documents are:

1. Population Growth, estimated to be several times the number of "Environmental Refugees".
2. Environmental Destruction.
3. Deforestation
4. Desertification (poor agricultural practices)?
5. POVERTY
6. famine
7. WAR
8. Water Availability

If we do have overall warming, it is possible that underlying issues could be aggravated. However, the underlying issues need to be treated.

A lot gets back to population control which is a global issue far more serious than CO₂ emissions.

[skierinvermont]

What's your point Clifford? The chart went with the article.. but the chart doesn't specifically say that these places are going to be underwater by 2010. It is simply highlighting vulnerable areas, and that SOME of these areas may have climate-related environmental issues by 2010. If you honestly believe that the chart was meant to indicate that these places would be underwater by 2010 well then I really don't know what to say as that is completely preposterous.

Moreover.. you bolded "Climate change" as if to say the refugees were ALL supposed to be related to "climate change." I don't know if that was your intent or not, but if you read the whole paragraph it is quite clear that the refugee number is related to all weather/environmental issues, and that climate change may make an existing problem worse.

I had already read all the things you posted, and my original post was completely consistent with them, and I really don't know what you are pointing out by posting them again. They just reaffirm what I said in the first place.

This is another non-issue being huffed up by Anthony Watts. That's what happens when your primary source of information is an obsessed blogger (and not a very bright one at that).

[BethesdaWX]

What's your point Clifford? The chart went with the article.. but the chart doesn't specifically say that these places are going to be underwater by 2010. It is simply highlighting vulnerable areas, and that SOME of these areas may have climate-related environmental issues by 2010. If you honestly believe that the chart was meant to indicate that these places would be underwater by 2010 well then I really don't know what to say as that is completely preposterous.

Moreover.. you bolded "Climate change" as if to say the refugees were ALL supposed to be related to "climate change." I don't know if that was your intent or not, but if you read the whole paragraph it is quite clear that the refugee number is related to all weather/environmental issues, and that climate change may make an existing problem worse.

I had already read all the things you posted, and my original post was completely consistent with them, and I really don't know what you are pointing out by posting them again. They just reaffirm what I said in the first place.

This is another non-issue being huffed up by Anthony Watts. That's what happens when your primary source of information is an obsessed blogger (and not a very bright one at that).

As clifford said, you seem to be confused on What the UN meant, meaning, people Evacuate & Leave their homeland permanently due to either rising sea levels, or simly based on the fact that the areas that were once livable are no Longer.

[Clifford]

It also says "climate refugees" not "climate change refugees."

Moreover.. you bolded "Climate change" as if to say the refugees were ALL supposed to be related to "climate change." I don't know if that was your intent or not, but if you read the whole paragraph it is quite clear that the refugee number is related to all weather/environmental issues, and that climate change may make an existing problem worse.

Unlike your first assertion, they are using the terms "Environmental Refugees", "Climate Refugees", and "Climate Change Refugees", somewhat interchangeably.

The map does discuss hurricanes (which frequently cause temporary displacement of people) rather than sea level rise, although sea level rise is discussed in some of the articles and related notes.

I do believe that Myers is somewhat balanced in his speculation, tending towards anthropogenic issues of multiple causes, largely local in nature.

However, when his work is quoted elsewhere by the ALARMISTS, the story completely changes.

Here is an alarmist headline drawing on the same work.

http://m24digital.co...illion-in-2050/

Global warming will cause migration of 200 million people by 2050

Later in that document they state:

a sea level rise of two meters would – assuming current populations densities – flood the homes of more than 14.2 million people and submerge half of the region’s agricultural land,” Ehrhart adds.

Other documents also discuss sea level rise by 2050.

But, this is clearly misleading.

Other than land subsidence, the sea level is currently rising by about 2mm per year.

Over a century it could rise by about 20 cm.

A 2 meter rise might be 1000 years in the future, if the current rate goes unchanged.

Here is another Alarmist document:

http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/UNHabitat_2011_risky_cities.pdf

By 2050 there could be as many as 200 million climate change displaced people

[...]

• As many as 200 million people will be displaced by climate change by 2050.

• It is predicted that sea-level rise and its associated impacts will, by the 2080s, affect five times as

many coastal residents as they did in 1990.

• In coastal North African cities, a 1-2 degree increase in temperature could lead to sea level rise

exposing 6-25 million residents to flooding.

There has been lots of discussion about West Antarctica and Greenland, but ice sheets over a mile thick will not suddenly melt overnight.

Clearly different reporters are selecting various different dates, 2010, 2025, 2050, 2070, etc, but their conclusions still are very much accelerated,

There have always been people displaced by Environmental Calamities. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, there were thousands, or millions of people displaced. When the recent earthquake hit Japan, there have been thousands or millions of displaced people.

One of the points that keeps coming up is that more people will be at risk to Environmental Calamities due to building in poorly sited locations, extreme population growth, and non-environmentally friendly resource management.

[tacoman25]

The original U.N. statement in 2005 was misleading, it made it sound like most of the refugees would be due to climate change. Clearly, that hasn't been the case thus far.

[skierinvermont]

Unlike your first assertion, they are using the terms "Environmental Refugees", "Climate Refugees", and "Climate Change Refugees", somewhat interchangeably.

The map does discuss hurricanes (which frequently cause temporary displacement of people) rather than sea level rise, although sea level rise is discussed in some of the articles and related notes.

I do believe that Myers is somewhat balanced in his speculation, tending towards anthropogenic issues of multiple causes, largely local in nature.

However, when his work is quoted elsewhere by the ALARMISTS, the story completely changes.

Here is an alarmist headline drawing on the same work.

http://m24digital.co...illion-in-2050/

Later in that document they state:

Other documents also discuss sea level rise by 2050.

But, this is clearly misleading.

Other than land subsidence, the sea level is currently rising by about 2mm per year.

Over a century it could rise by about 20 cm.

A 2 meter rise might be 1000 years in the future, if the current rate goes unchanged.

Here is another Alarmist document:

http://www.pacificdi...isky_cities.pdf

There has been lots of discussion about West Antarctica and Greenland, but ice sheets over a mile thick will not suddenly melt overnight.

Clearly different reporters are selecting various different dates, 2010, 2025, 2050, 2070, etc, but their conclusions still are very much accelerated,

There have always been people displaced by Environmental Calamities. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, there were thousands, or millions of people displaced. When the recent earthquake hit Japan, there have been thousands or millions of displaced people.

One of the points that keeps coming up is that more people will be at risk to Environmental Calamities due to building in poorly sited locations, extreme population growth, and non-environmentally friendly resource management.

No it doesn't use the terms interchangeably. Even in the sections you quoted and then bolded the phrase "climate change" it is quite clear that the refugees are caused by weather phenomenon, but that this will become exacerbated by climate change in the long run.

You conveniently decided to bold "climate change" as if none of the rest of the quote even existed.

And as I've said before, linear extrapolations of sea level rise are silly. Nobody expects sea level rise to occur linearly.

[BethesdaWX]

No it doesn't use the terms interchangeably. Even in the sections you quoted and then bolded the phrase "climate change" it is quite clear that the refugees are caused by weather phenomenon, but that this will become exacerbated by climate change in the long run.

You conveniently decided to bold "climate change" as if none of the rest of the quote even existed.

And as I've said before, linear extrapolations of sea level rise are silly. Nobody expects sea level rise to occur linearly.

There are not any more "refugees" now then there were in the 1990's, relative to population growth, that is.

[skierinvermont]

There are not any more "refugees" now then there were in the 1990's, relative to population growth, that is.

If you say so. Looks like Watts looked at the census of a few island nations to prove this. Very impressive research.

[Clifford]

No it doesn't use the terms interchangeably. Even in the sections you quoted and then bolded the phrase "climate change" it is quite clear that the refugees are caused by weather phenomenon, but that this will become exacerbated by climate change in the long run.

You conveniently decided to bold "climate change" as if none of the rest of the quote even existed.

Absolutely,

You had said that it was "Climate Refugees" and not "Climate Change Refugees". Yet, the articles discuss "Climate Change Refugees" as well as stating that "Global Warming will cause the Migration....".

What is a "Climate Refugee" unless it has to do with Changing Climate... which the Alarmists paint as gloom and doom.

And as I've said before, linear extrapolations of sea level rise are silly. Nobody expects sea level rise to occur linearly.

Of course.

Another topic has pointed out that the sea levels have either plateaued, or are dropping in 2010 & 2011.

[skierinvermont]

Absolutely,

You had said that it was "Climate Refugees" and not "Climate Change Refugees". Yet, the articles discuss "Climate Change Refugees" as well as stating that "Global Warming will cause the Migration....".

What is a "Climate Refugee" unless it has to do with Changing Climate... which the Alarmists paint as gloom and doom.

Of course.

Another topic has pointed out that the sea levels have either plateaued, or are dropping in 2010 & 2011.

The section you quoted was quite clear that the refugees were caused by weather, but the number of refugees was expected to increase over time due to climate change. That's what I said originally, and that's what the section you quoted repeated.

The best estimates of sea level rise are not made by your silly linear extrapolations of trends, although I see you have stepped it up a notch and are not insinuating a linear extrapolation of a 1 month trend for 100 years. The best estimates are bade by scientists using a working understanding of how ice will melt over time, and how the oceans will expand. I can provide you with such estimates if you are interested. If you would prefer to go on making linear extrapolation of 10 year and 1 month trends 100 years into the future, go right ahead.

[BethesdaWX]

The UN says "climate change refugees" , not "climate refugees".

[skierinvermont]

The UN says "climate change refugees" , not "climate refugees".

Yes those words appear in the quoted paragraph. What is your point?

The paragraph is quite clear.. there are a large number of weather related refugees every year. Over time this number is expected to increase. This increase, in effect, constitutes "climate change refugees." There weren't supposed to be 50 million climate change refugees by 2010, there were supposed to be 50 million climate refugees. I don't know for sure, but it's quite possible 50 million people were living as refugees due to weather phenomenon in 2010.

The headline repeated over and over is "climate refugees" not "climate change refugees."

[BethesdaWX]

Because ite misleading, and there is no correlation. There are no more refugees now than there were in the 1990's relative to population growth. Who says any of these events are related to CC?

No proof, no correlation, no data.

Case Closed.

[skierinvermont]

There are no more refugees now than there were in the 1990's relative to population growth.

Link?

[BethesdaWX]

Link?

You can do it yourself

1) Find the numerical increase in Global population

2) Find where the refugees were/are using a census count

3) Find the increase in population in the affected areas where refugee #s have increased & decreased.

Calculate the difference.

[skierinvermont]

You can do it yourself

1) Find the numerical increase in Global population

2) Find where the refugees were/are using a census count

3) Find the increase in population in the affected areas where refugee #s have increased & decreased.

Calculate the difference.

brilliant.. why didn't I think of this?!

LOL

As I said before, most of the countries in question don't even have censuses. Moreover, a census isn't going to tell you who is a refugee and who isn't.

[BethesdaWX]

brilliant.. why didn't I think of this?!

LOL

As I said before, most of the countries in question don't even have censuses.

Ahhhh, so, you see my point on "no proof"?

No proof, no evidence, no correlation.

Skeir argument go Bye Bye.

[skierinvermont]

Ahhhh, so, you see my point on "no proof"?

No proof, no evidence, no correlation.

Skeir argument go Bye Bye.

I never said that the number of refugees was increasing in response to climate change. Yet another strawman and claiming I've said things I have not. All nuance is lost upon you.

[BethesdaWX]

I never said that the number of refugees was increasing in response to climate change.

This quote will be saved

We actually agree on something.

[Clifford]

The thing about refugees is it really depends on the country's infrastructure.

Hurricane Katrina caused about a million internally displaced people.

They didn't move to Bangladesh and Nigeria.

The country was able to absorb and relocate them.

Rebuilding has been slow, and perhaps parts of New Orleans were poorly located, and should not be rebuilt, but most people now have permanent residence somewhere.

Japan also has about a half a million to a million internally displaced residents from flooding and environmental catastrophe, but they aren't clamoring to move to Nigeria either.

The countries with problems have serious issues with population growth, government, economy, agriculture, sustainability, and often corruption and fraud. The solutions should target the internal issues that leads to the inability of the countries to support their residents, and not focus other countries thousands of miles away.

[superjames1992]

I'm trying to figure out how you realistically and without bias quantify the number of "climate refugees"...

[tacoman25]

I'm trying to figure out how you realistically and without bias quantify the number of "climate refugees"...

That's the problem.

Which is why it's stupid and just another alarmist scare tactic for organizations like the U.N. to throw out these numbers that can't even be verified.

[skierinvermont]

I'm trying to figure out how you realistically and without bias quantify the number of "climate refugees"...

Eventually it may become clear that the number of environmental refugees has increased because of climate change, if the frequency of these events increases substantially, but I agree it would be hard to detect or quantify a small increase.