[soVeryTired]

He's comparing AGW, which drives a trend, with weather-based events, which are noise around the trend. He conveniently cuts his analysis off at the year 2100, by which we'll all probably be dead. But he's probably right that the trend itself doesn't cause insurmountable problems by that point.

But what about the year 2200, or 2300? At three degrees warming per century, the earth looks like a pretty hostile place to live in a few centuries.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit", and all that...

[Daishiman]

His idea of it being "not insurmountable" is essentially us not starving to death in a mass scale.

I care, in my comfortable life as an office worker, about the fact that chocolate, coffee, and wine will become luxuries as yields and quality drastically drop off.

I care about the fact that many places I visit frequently will need A/C to be _survivable_.

Those are not civilization-ending events but the hubris you need to have to just hand-wave this away are beyond my understanding.

[mike_hearn]

It's irrelevant beyond that point and possibly much earlier because the forcing effect of CO2 saturates logarithmically, it's not linear.