If it varies as the AGW researchers think is most likely, humanity will not prosper without taking expensive, global, and very well coordinated measures beginning now. And even that will probably not be enough to maintain industrial civilization on a planetary scale, if the AGW researchers are anywhere near correct in their findings and calculations.
This is what I name alarmism.
Industrial civilization is not even endangered. Except those nations who go insane following the climate religion and destroy themselves.
Adaptation for climate change does not require global coordinated measures. Infrastructure improvements are a local thing, forestation and similar measures are also local, changing crops is local. The techniques for handling such things are well-known and old, and therefore also sufficiently cheap.
They don't destroy agriculture with sufficient infrastructure support. Which collects the water if it comes down to use it during the drought, and protects the fields from too much water with appropriate drainage.
It doesn't exist. Whether it can be invented and then built fast enough and cheaply enough to keep up with AGW is unknown.
It exists. As everything, it needs improvements, that's all. Not much need for inventions.
Your photo shows inappropriate infrastructure, part of an irreplaceable agricultural system that AGW can destroy in less than a decade at any time between now and a century from now - at which time everyone dependent on it would have to move or die.
Alarmist fantasies. It needs some maintenance, and if the rains become much heavier it must be strengthened. But the basic principle is ok, if too much water comes down, it immediately flows down at places where it should, no loss of soil because there is no erosion (the water velocity is low in the fields, and there the water flows down there are stones). If there is not enough water, no water flows down.
You appear to be assuming that an increase in global average temperature would be evenly distributed and affect most strongly those regions currently too cold for optimal human life or whatever, that droughts can be made more severe without long term damage to agriculture, that the torrential rainfall expected can be contained and saved for later use in normal circumstances and with known technologies such as exist now, that current high temperatures are not damaging agriculture anywhere, that there is room for the temperature spikes expected from AGW without destroying agriculture over large areas currently being farmed, and so forth.
The definition of an optimal temperature requires no such assumptions. But let's mention here a positive change: In the past, iceaura would have plainly lied "you claim", now we read "you appear to assume". This at least makes clear that what follows is iceaura's fantasy.
The only thing which I indeed assume is that with appropriate infrastructure the water coming with torrential rainfalls can be contained and saved for later use. One such technology doing this is named reservoir dam.
(What you would need, for a reasonable argument, is 1) an estimation of how much currently unfarmable land would be made fit for agriculture by being warmed only, or by having its current rainstorms made heavier and its droughts longer only;
The land in Northern Russia as well as Canada/Alaska is unused because it is too cold. Warming will make those lands usable for agriculture, and we do not have to speculate in this case about aridity or the volatility of water supply. This is a lot of land.
The second point is complete nonsense. I have never assumed that the increase in volatility (that means, heavier torrents combined with droughts instead of nicely distributed rain only) is something positive. It is clearly and obviously a negative side effect. But it will not destroy agriculture as long as there is enough rain. And if heavy torrents appear once a year in areas which are actually deserts then agriculture will become possible there if necessary.
The positive effect is the increase in average precipitation. Then, you use the predicted increase in volatility to paint extreme pictures. There is no base for presenting such extreme pictures as if they would define the weather everywhere.
and 2) an estimate of how much of that land area would be warmed without increasing aridity, or brought heavier rain in capturable circumstances without being unduly warmed or subjected to severe drought (which would increase the demand for water, etc). )
You construct thousands of imaginable scenarios and ask me to develop estimates how often they will appear? WTF? In the average, there will be more precipitation. This is the base for all estimates, this is what matters.
You have claimed the existence of an optimal global average temperature, based on considerations that are not governed by average global temperature but by other factors you ignore.
They are certainly and obviously dependent on the average global temperature too. Of course, I ignore a lot of other factors, and I can do this without any problem. Those other factors, if fixed, will probably have some influence on the optimal temperature. If not fixed, there will be some probability distribution over them (Bayesian interpretation), and we can integrate over them.
Government tax breaks for capitalists have nothing to do with the useful life span of infrastructure during AGW.
I have not claimed they have something to do with AGW. But they have something to do with the useful life span of infrastructure, simply because governments which have tax rules based on estimates close to reality will have better tax incomes. Of course, that's nonetheless heavily distorted, but in this case a factor 2 or so is not a problem at all because all I looked for was the order of magnitude.
Why not? This is what peasants have done all the time.
When their agricultural base is ruined, and their heat waves become unsurvivable, and their water supply is destroyed, the people in the affected towns and cities will move or die.
In some alarmist scenarios that's possible. But look at Arabia. It has a lot of towns in desert areas, and the citizens are not in a "move or die" situation, despite the impossibility of agriculture nearby.
If the AGW researchers are right, the expected number of climate change refugees will be in the hundreds of millions during the lifetime of children already born.
The number of peasants moving to towns will be anyway greater even without any climate change. That's simply by continuation of the standard urbanization. Let's see:
"Rural population (% of total population) in India was 65.97 as of 2018. Its highest value over the past 58 years was 82.08 in 1960, while its lowest value was 65.97 in 2018.". So down by 16% during 58 years. Population 1.330 millions. Take for simplicity further 15% during the next 60 years and you have 200 million in India alone. Compare with China, which came down from ~ 80% to ~40%. If they go down another 30% during the next 60 years, this gives another 600 million. If India reaches something similar to China, during the next 60 years, 30% instead of 15%, China and India alone give 1 billion. So I'm not impressed.
My "your point" question was answered with
That increasing the average temperature via AGW will not necessarily - or likely - create productive farmland where it is now merely too cold.
In this case, you have failed. Of course, which of the imaginable farmland will be really used depends on a lot of things. So I would expect a lot of usable land remaining unused. But in the catastrophic alarmist scenarios they could be used.
.jpg)
