A Note: Global Warming Threads

[arfa brane]

No they don't.

Who don't what? They don't say that less than 10 metres isn't some kind of boundary?

However, the principal reason for choosing this elevation is that estimates based on elevations below 10 metres could not be considered globally reliable, particularly in some types of coastal areas such as those characterized by mountainous bays.

And when they say affected, they don't neccessarily mean directly by sea level rise, they also include indirectly by things such as the increased frequency of storm surges, saline ground water intrusion and so on and so forth.

So, nothing to do with what I mentioned: tides and storms mean the boundary is less meaningful (or, harder to define)?

So where does the figure of 140 million come from in the UNEP graph?
Is this or isn't this the estimated number of people globally who are at risk, and prone to inundation if nothing is done?

Or is this the maximum number of people who could possibly be affected by rising seas, but won't be, because a lot of seawalls will be built or extended, and this won't affect anyone economically because it won't cost "much"?
Somehow that last argument seems a little implausible.

 

[Trippy]

Who don't what? They don't say that less than 10 metres isn't some kind of boundary?

Not what I said, do try and stay honest.

You stated, or suggested that they were using 10m because they were expecting a rise of several meters. EG here:

And I have never claimed that everyone living below 10 metres ASL will be inundated. I repeated what the authors said: that many people could be affected over the next century. This is because, unlike adoucette, they take into account the possibility that there could be a rise of several metres, not one or less than one.

This isn't the case.

So, nothing to do with what I mentioned: tides and storms mean the boundary is less meaningful (or, harder to define)?

Not in the way you were suggesting, no.
It's not that those factors introduce uncertainty into the amount of rise occuring, which is what you've implied. Those factors mean that there will be people affected by factors other than inundation.

The use of 10m is because it is dependant upon Topography and climate. being 1m above sea level might be sufficient in a sheltered harbour in the southwest pacific, but it probably won't be enough in the Gulf, or off the Florida coast - because these areas are hit by extreme storm surges which are expected to become more frequent, and more severe.

It's not about being less meaningful, or harder to define, it's that the authors are confident that setting the LCEZ at 10m means that we can plan to have everybody everywhere protected from Inundation and all of the other effects that are associated with AGW.

10m isn't just about sea level rise. It's everything.

So where does the figure of 140 million come from in the UNEP graph?
Is this or isn't this the estimated number of people globally who are at risk, and prone to inundation if nothing is done?

Again, we come back to honesty, the UNEP graph you posted, this one:

Is for a 1m rise in Sea level.

Or is this the maximum number of people who could possibly be affected by rising seas, but won't be, because a lot of seawalls will be built or extended, and this won't affect anyone economically because it won't cost "much"?
Somehow that last argument seems a little implausible.

LOL.
No.
It's an estimate of the number of people that live at an altitude of <1m above MSL, based on the GPW3 dataset, which uses a 30 arc second grid to represent the data (equating to 1km at the equator). Using a GIS tool, it overlays this with the GLOBE DEM elevation data set, and then effectively uses a "Count If" statement - I've done precisely this sort of work to provide estimates of other datasets.

 

[arfa brane]

You stated, or suggested that they were using 10m because they were expecting a rise of several meters. EG here:

I said a rise of several metres can't be discounted.

I'm sorry, but it is the case that not enough is known about nonlinear effects to do more than estimate or project a global rise. That means "make an educated guess". No-one is saying that more than 1 metre is impossible, they're saying it's unlikely.

It's not that those factors introduce uncertainty into the amount of rise occuring, which is what you've implied.

No, I didn't say or imply that at all. I said the 10 metre "boundary" is uncertain because of storm surges and high tides. Besides, "they" say that the level will be different around the globe. You then explain why this is; but I already know why it is.
But that's based on what's known and necessarily ignores what isn't.

Thanks for explaining why adoucette's argument about 140 million at risk--from the educated guess which doesn't include nonlinear effects since they aren't well understood--being "not very many" is obviously optimistic. And how building seawalls will affect people--the ones who can't afford to build seawalls, for instance. It won't cost nothing, so it will have an effect on countries who can afford to build them.

Oh hell, sorry, did I just explain it all over again?

 

[Trippy]

I said a rise of several metres can't be discounted.

But that's not what the literature says.

I'm sorry, but it is the case that not enough is known about nonlinear effects to do more than estimate or project a global rise. That means "make an educated guess". No-one is saying that more than 1 metre is impossible, they're saying it's unlikely.

You're disagreeing with a semi emperical model?

No, I didn't say or imply that at all.

Yes, you did.

I said the 10 metre "boundary" is uncertain because of storm surges and high tides. Besides, "they" say that the level will be different around the globe. You then explain why this is; but I already know why it is.
But that's based on what's known and necessarily ignores what isn't.

So you're hypothesizing a pink teapot then?

Thanks for explaining why adoucette's argument about 140 million at risk--from the educated guess which doesn't include nonlinear effects since they aren't well understood--being "not very many" is obviously optimistic. And how building seawalls will affect people--the ones who can't afford to build seawalls, for instance. It won't cost nothing, so it will have an effect on countries who can afford to build them.

Oh hell, sorry, did I just explain it all over again?

This is all bogus.

 

[adoucette]

Thanks for explaining why adoucette's argument about 140 million at risk--from the educated guess which doesn't include nonlinear effects since they aren't well understood--being "not very many" is obviously optimistic. And how building seawalls will affect people--the ones who can't afford to build seawalls, for instance. It won't cost nothing, so it will have an effect on countries who can afford to build them.

Again, you are just dragging the goal posts around.

You started this issue about sea level claiming that rising seas would create millions to billions of REFUGEES. (post 686)

Refugees are people who have to leave the country they live in because of the problem and can't return.

I replied: The fact is sea level is expected to rise roughly half a meter over the next 100 years and that's about as good as anyone can plan for, and that level of sea level rise won't generate millions of refugees, indeed on a global perspective it will generate hardly any.

So my numbers were SPECIFIC for 1/2 of a meter rise.
The term "hardly any" was related to our GLOBAL POPULATION (which by 2050 is supposed to be 9 Billion)

DON'T apply my numbers or words to higher levels of sea level rise, because clearly more people are affected and the costs go up as the amount of sea level goes up. I've been quite specific to stick to the IPCC numbers.

DON'T now claim that "being affected" includes the relatively low cost of adaption (when spent over 50 years) when previously you were talking about people becoming REFUGEEs in order to pump up the number of people who are affected.

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

You started this issue about sea level claiming that rising seas would create millions to billions of REFUGEES. (post 686)

Refugees are people who have to leave the country they live in because of the problem and can't return.

Well, there is your problem, not identifying people who are climate refugees in their own country. Rising seas will create increasing numbers of such refugees, and today there are thousands. As sea levels get higher this number will increase to hundreds of millions, then exceed a billion eventually.

As land disappears so does a country's capacity to feed people, so there will be more than the billion or so already hungry today. Unless someone figures out how to grow enough food without using arable land, perhaps.

The last four paragraphs of your post are irrelevant. Except maybe for this:

DON'T now claim that "being affected" includes the relatively low cost of adaption (when spent over 50 years)

Instead of "relatively low cost", can you conjecture what the cost will be, and relative to what?
Do you have a figure for how much is being spent now, relative to whatever, on adaptation? Is it more than $0.00?

 

[adoucette]

Well, there is your problem, not identifying people who are climate refugees in their own country.

Not my problem at all.

According to the United Nations, a refugee is a person who flees their home country due to a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."

(that's why the Meyer's article you linked to earlier made the claim that environmental refugees aren't even recognized, because they aren't yet on that list of causes)

In addition to refugees, there's a category of displaced people known as "Internally Displaced Persons" who are not officially refugees because they have not left their own country

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/refugees.htm

I can't help it if you use a term for which you don't understand the meaning.

It's an important distinction because of the implications.
If people have to move away from the coast but can do so simply by relocating to other available land in the same country, often close to where they live, speaking the same language etc then they are usually in far better shape then someone who can't stay in their own country.

Rising seas will create increasing numbers of such refugees, and today there are thousands.

Again it sounds like you are using the term displaced people for Refugees.
Can you provide a source supporting the claim that thousands of people been forced to flee their country because of rising seas?

As sea levels get higher this number will increase to hundreds of millions, then exceed a billion eventually.

Source?
And for this you need to limit "eventually" to a reasonable time horizon, so far what is a reasonable period for most studies is this century and we are talking about actual REFUGEES, not just those who internally relocate.

The last four paragraphs of your post are irrelevant.

Not irrelevant to the fact that you keep taking my words out of context and using statements made specifically about one scenario as if they apply to every scenario. I've been perfectly willing to discuss the greater impacts of twice the IPCC estimates of around 1/2 meter sea level rise this century, indeed I said early on in this discussion that it is prudent to plan for a reasonable level that is higher than the top IPCC estimate.

Except maybe for this:Instead of "relatively low cost", can you conjecture what the cost will be, and relative to what?
Do you have a figure for how much is being spent now, relative to whatever, on adaptation? Is it more than $0.00?

Again you are taking my words out of context.

I said don't claim in your numbers those "being affected" those people with relatively low cost of adaption (when spent over 50 years).

That clearly doesn't mean that every place will have relatively low cost of adaption. I've been quite clear that that is not the case.

So while this is true for the EU:

Considerable amounts of damage can be avoided by relative low investments on coastal adaption for most EU coastal member states.

that statement is not likely to apply to certain areas of Bangladesh etc.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

From UNEP's site:

Population, area and economy affected by a 1 m sea level rise (global and regional estimates, based on today's situation)

Population, area and economy affected by a 1 m sea level rise (global and regional estimates, based on today's situation). Even for today’s socio-economic conditions, both regionally and globally, large numbers of people and significant economic activity are exposed to sea-level rise. The densely populated megadeltas are especially vulnerable to sea-level rise. More than 1 million people living in the Ganges- Brahmaputra, Mekong and Nile deltas will be directly affected simply if current rates of sea-level rise continue to 2050 and there is no adaptation. More than 50 000 people are likely to be directly impacted in each of a further nine deltas, and more than 5000 in each of a further 12 deltas. Some 75 per cent of the population affected live on the Asian megadeltas and deltas, with a large proportion of the remainder living on deltas in Africa. These impacts would increase dramatically with accelerated sea-level rise. The economy part of this graphic represents the annual share of economy in this zone, in GDP (market exchange rates).

--http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&so...__W9AQ&usg=AFQjCNH-uDFLMQXbh1S01o_U0pBUK5qrbQ

ed: I've bolded parts of the subtext for the diagram to aid those with an unsatisfactory reading comprehension situation.

ed: I've removed your bolding and replaced it with the one important caveat that you keep leaving out of the discussion.

Those numbers are IF THERE IS NO ADAPTION.

But, if you go to the SOURCE of this graph:

This report examines the implications of large rises in sea level, both over the 21st century and beyond. Using GIS methods, an exposure analysis assesses the land area, existing population and existing economic activity situated within 10-m of present sea levels – these areas are not threatened within the 21st century, ....

this analysis suggests that protection is much more likely and rational than is widely assumed, even with a large rise in sea level. In conclusion, this analysis confirms the significant exposure that exists to sea-level rise, but stresses that human responses including protection are rational even under large changes.

(bolding mine)

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/53223/
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp96_0.pdf

Arthur

 

[arfa brane]

I said don't claim in your numbers those "being affected" those people with relatively low cost of adaption (when spent over 50 years).

Do you have a figure for how much is being spent now, relative to whatever, on adaptation? Is it more than $0.00?

Since there is still the caveat "if there is no adaptation" to deal with.

Again it sounds like you are using the term displaced people for Refugees.
Can you provide a source supporting the claim that thousands of people been forced to flee their country because of rising seas?

It looks like you want to keep using the term "displaced people" for those fleeing from the effects of climate change--i.e. climate refugees.
As if you don't understand what "climate refugee" means.

Using GIS methods, an exposure analysis assesses the land area, existing population and existing economic activity situated within 10-m of present sea levels – these areas are not threatened within the 21st century, ....

I'll read that as saying: "are not currently expected to be threatened within the 21st century, ..."

you need to limit "eventually" to a reasonable time horizon, so far what is a reasonable period for most studies is this century and we are talking about actual REFUGEES, not just those who internally relocate.

Ok, let's make this reasonable time horizon the next 1000 years.
After 2100 how much will have been spent on adaptation, relocation and mitigation? How do you see this changing over 2100-2200?

 

[Trippy]

Do you have a figure for how much is being spent now, relative to whatever, on adaptation? Is it more than $0.00?

Since there is still the caveat "if there is no adaptation" to deal with.

Give over.
We both know that there's more to the story then money spent.
There's savings to consider as well.
A one off investment of 100M$ to build a dyke might save five times that much money in terms of flood damage, that doesn't need to be repaired.

It looks like you want to keep using the term "displaced people" for those fleeing from the effects of climate change--i.e. climate refugees.
As if you don't understand what "climate refugee" means.

Ok, let's make this reasonable time horizon the next 1000 years.
After 2100 how much will have been spent on adaptation, relocation and mitigation? How do you see this changing over 2100-2200?

Here you're bordering on dishonest, and what makes it worse is once again, you're failing to provide anything to support your assertions - yes, I'm criticisizing your lack of research, again. For example.

An honest person would aknowledge the controversy that the term has caused for the reasons that Adoucette has been outlining (in that under the geneva convention they're not strictly classified as refugees, because the Geneva convention is quite specific about what qualifies a reugee), aknowledge, for example, that even the UNHCR has aknowledged that the use of the term could lead to future problems, and then go on and point out that the term has been around since 1976 by Lester Brown, and has entered the popular and political parlance as meaning:
"people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardised their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life." (El-Hinnawi 1985)
Or as the Global Governance Project says:
"...people who have to leave their habitats, immediately or in the near future, because of sudden or gradual alterations in their natural environment related to at least one of three impacts of climate change: sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and drought and water scarcity."
And probably accept that "Environmentally Displaced Person" or "Environmental Migrant" or even "Climigrant" are also used, and are (at least) equally valid.

However, the point must be made, that like PIN Number, VIN Number and Quad Bike, just because the term has entered the common parlance doesn't mean that it's correct, only popular.

 

[iceaura]

Slow warming of the water column is a prediction of his models, not an assumption.

It's an assumption of the effects of slow warming of the air by the effects of slowly increasing ("chronic" or "background") methane release without a positive feedback loop launching somehow. He refers to it as a presumption - the word "presumably" is his.

Archer comes to the conclusion, based on his models, which successfully reprpoduce field observations, that if the melting timescale (of Clathrates) is shorter than 1000 years is likely, then we would be unlikely to have the significant clathrate deposits we observe today.

And I made a completely concurrent observation, pages back, without data: that possibly the best evidence we have that a sudden onset methane feedback loop of disastrous effect is all but impossible (that the odds are sufficiently long for comfort) is that it apparently hasn't happened for a very long time.

However, we also have not had a CO2 forcing signal like this latest. So the odds are different now than they have ever been before, to some degree - - -

So your objections have been explicitly addressed, speculated upon, and set to one side as being outside the scope of the paper.

So we are all in agreement - Archer, you, me, everyone except probably adoucette - with my evaluation of the paper's relevance to the issues here? That certainly took a while to discover.

So you're objecting to something not being in the paper, that the paper explicitly stated would not be in the paper..?

I'm not objecting to anything in or not in the paper itself. I read it back when you linked to it the first time, and had no objections to it then. I complimented the author on more or less clearly labeling the relevant (to this discussion) assumptions etc. I found it informative. I'm not objecting to the paper. I have no quarrel with the paper. The paper is fine with me. Paper good, good good paper. Me like.

We both know that there's more to the story then money spent.
There's savings to consider as well.
A one off investment of 100M$ to build a dyke might save five times that much money in terms of flood damage, that doesn't need to be repaired.

Those savings will not be available to those unable or unwilling (for a variety of reasons, including hardship) to front the "investment".

 

[arfa brane]

There's savings to consider as well.
A one off investment of 100M$ to build a dyke might save five times that much money in terms of flood damage, that doesn't need to be repaired.

But the dyke will need to be repaired over time. $100M probably isn't a very big dyke.
Nonetheless, yes the idea is that spending money now is going to save having to spend even more money later, appears to be what the environmental reports governments are looking at are all saying.

The question remains: how much is being spent, in order to make this saving?
Is that an unreasonable question?

 

[Trippy]

It's an assumption of the effects of slow warming of the air by the effects of slowly increasing ("chronic" or "background") methane release without a positive feedback loop launching somehow. He refers to it as a presumption - the word "presumably" is his.

That's not how I take s2.4.1 Archer 2007. Or are you referring to s4.3 where he's talking about structural deposits?

And I made a completely concurrent observation, pages back, without data: that possibly the best evidence we have that a sudden onset methane feedback loop of disastrous effect is all but impossible (that the odds are sufficiently long for comfort) is that it apparently hasn't happened for a very long time.

Funny thing is, I made a similar observation, and was castigated for invoking a logical fallacy.

Incidentally, you're saying it's improbable. I stated it was implausable (or implied it by saying it wasn't plasuable, or there was no plausable mechanism).
Implausible: Unlikely, dubious.

However, we also have not had a CO2 forcing signal like this latest. So the odds are different now than they have ever been before, to some degree

Maybe.
The PETM keeps getting my attention.
But also, the simple fact of the matter is that there is only so fast that the oceans can warm, and it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature of water.

So we are all in agreement - Archer, you, me, everyone except probably adoucette - with my evaluation of the paper's relevance to the issues here? That certainly took a while to discover.

I'm not sure if I'd go that far. I'm still of the opinion that it's a good guideline, and I remain uncovinced that it's conclusions are going to change that greatly - that there's no plausible mechanism for the catastrophic release of Methane into the atmosphere, but we may have chronic releases to deal with on longer timescales, which in reality, is all i've ever really said.

I'm not objecting to anything in or not in the paper itself. I read it back when you linked to it the first time, and had no objections to it then. I complimented the author on more or less clearly labeling the relevant (to this discussion) assumptions etc. I found it informative. I'm not objecting to the paper. I have no quarrel with the paper. The paper is fine with me. Paper good, good good paper. Me like.

I doubt that - I first linked to it several months ago in a discussion with Billy T regarding his Clathrate Bomb Hypothesis (I cited it for much the same reasons then, that I did here), that extended to plate tectonics and some of the fundamental differences that exist between Earth and Venus.

 

[Trippy]

Those savings will not be available to those unable or unwilling (for a variety of reasons, including hardship) to front the "investment".

:Sigh:
A Point that has explicitly been addressed in one of the sources that Artur posted to make his point, and a Point that I am 99% certain that Arthur has explicitly made.

 

[Trippy]

But the dyke will need to be repaired over time. $100M probably isn't a very big dyke.

Who gives a shit?
Seriously, my point is unchanged, and your un-neccessary pedantism doesn't address it (here's a clue - my point wasn't that it would nececssarily be cheap).

Especially when you aknowledge the very point that I was trying to make here:

Nonetheless, yes the idea is that spending money now is going to save having to spend even more money later, appears to be what the environmental reports governments are looking at are all saying.

That in most cases, the money saved by not having to (for example) repair infrastructure is going to exceed the cost of building the Dyke in the first place.

The question remains: how much is being spent, in order to make this saving?
Is that an unreasonable question?

I'm fairly certain it's been posted, or estimates have been posted, or there are estimates in papers referenced in links that have been posted.

 

[Trippy]

Those savings will not be available to those unable or unwilling (for a variety of reasons, including hardship) to front the "investment".

Oh - and allow me to express my dismay at this comment.

Nobody is claiming it is an investment - in the sense that there will be returns from it that can be passed on, and if that's what you took from my comment, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick.

My point was we have two options. Do nothing to protect our cities and low lying areas, or, do something to protect our cities and low lying areas.

Doing something requires an initial investment, and some ongoing costs - for example, building and maintaining a Dyke, or building and maintaining a desalinization plant.

Doing nothing requires no initial initial investment, but incurs ongoing costs through things such as damage to infrastructure, loss of productivity, damage to the economy, insurance costs, loss of life and so on and so forth.

Generally, the cost of doing nothing exceeds the cost of doing something resulting in a net saving of money. It's not that there's money that's nececssarily being put aside to return to people, it's just that there's less being spent, which has some positive flow on effects.

Even (or especially) for people who are vulnerable, doing nothing still costs more than doing something. Money that's not being spent on infrastructure can instead, for example, be spent on social development projects, or economic development projects that create jobs (then again, building projects - like building a dyke, if it's handled properly can have a net positive flow on effect, because, if it's handled properly, it generates income in the local economy).

 

[iceaura]

My point was we have two options. Do nothing to protect our cities and low lying areas, or, do something to protect our cities and low lying areas.

And my point was that many millions of people have only one option, realistically and at the necessary scale - do nothing.

It's one reason poor people have bad teeth. Sure, avoiding the dentist and eating cheap calories costs more in the long run - but the money isn't there, in the short run.

 

[Trippy]

And my point was that many millions of people have only one option, realistically and at the necessary scale - do nothing.

It's one reason poor people have bad teeth. Sure, avoiding the dentist and eating cheap calories costs more in the long run - but the money isn't there, in the short run.

Unlike bad teeth though, this isn't reliant on individual action, this is reliant on action at regional or national levels.

Consider, for example McGranahan's figures for Asia.
466M in the LCEZ.
That figure includes Shanghai, Tianjin, 32M people - just shy of 7% of that total.

In one place McGranahan estimates that there are 600M people living in the LCEZ, of which 360M live in Urban areas, so simply by governments (be it regional or central) moving to protect their Urban assets, they're also protecting the majority of the people in the LCEZ.

Which, to be sure, sucks if you're in the Minority...

This has the added advantage that it's debt that, the balance of probabilities seems to suggest can be spread over a decade or more.

 

[Trippy]

As an addendum to my last post, I wish to make the following statement.

I realized while I was in the shower, that one aspect of my previous post was inadvertantly ambiguous.

When I said 'Regional' I didn't mean regional as in 'East Asia', I meant Regional as in administrative subdivisions.

In NZ (generally) our administrative subdivisions are National, Regional, District, Town (with a handful of exceptions which blur lines). And I work at the Regional level of Government.

In the case of China it would (I believe) be 'Provincial Response' and in the US it would (I believe) be State Response.

In New Zealand, Central Government (the Ministry for the Environment) requires Regional Authorities and Territorial-Local Authorities to plan taking (I think) IPCC predictions into account (I'm not 100% certain it's based on IPCC however), so when (for example) the Dunedin City Council upgrade their Stormwater infrastructure, they're supposed to take into account (for example) the predictions made regarding the increasing frequency of severe rain storms, or as they upgrade the potable water infrastructure, they're supposed to be taking into account the predictions currently being made about changes in regional rainfall to ensure an adequate supply of potable water for at least the next 100 years (or whatever the projected lifetime of the infrstructure is), or as another example, the new stadium currently being built here is being built I think 4m above current ground level to account for flooding, sea level rise and storm surges. At the Regional level, when we carry out things like flood protection works, again, we're supposed to take into account predictions regarding storm frequency and rainfall volumes, and how those will change flood flow dynamics.

 

[arfa brane]

Seriously, my point is unchanged, and your un-neccessary pedantism doesn't address it (here's a clue - my point wasn't that it would nececssarily be cheap).

Who gives a shit how cheap it will be? I want to know if there are any plausible schemes in train, if there is anything material--even funding--beyond the discussion or "consideration" so far by any government.
Since you brought up pedantism, this is a good example of unnecessary point-scoring by being just that: (especially considering most people wouldn't have much if any trouble with "climate refugee". Who cares if it's a term recognised by the UN?)

Here you're bordering on dishonest, and what makes it worse is once again, you're failing to provide anything to support your assertions - yes, I'm criticisizing your lack of research, again. For example.

An honest person would aknowledge the controversy that the term has caused for the reasons that Adoucette has been outlining (in that under the geneva convention they're not strictly classified as refugees, because the Geneva convention is quite specific about what qualifies a reugee), aknowledge, for example, that even the UNHCR has aknowledged that the use of the term could lead to future problems, and then go on and point out that the term has been around since 1976 by Lester Brown, and has entered the popular and political parlance as meaning:
"people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardised their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life." (El-Hinnawi 1985)
Or as the Global Governance Project says:
"...people who have to leave their habitats, immediately or in the near future, because of sudden or gradual alterations in their natural environment related to at least one of three impacts of climate change: sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and drought and water scarcity."
And probably accept that "Environmentally Displaced Person" or "Environmental Migrant" or even "Climigrant" are also used, and are (at least) equally valid.

However, the point must be made, that like PIN Number, VIN Number and Quad Bike, just because the term has entered the common parlance doesn't mean that it's correct, only popular.