This article assumes that business as usual will continue, the problem with this logic is that if business as usual continues...we will trigger RCP 8.5 - the IPCC scenario that increases temperatures 3.6 to 5 degrees C. Mammals do not survive with 5 degrees C of warming. In an RCP 8.5 scenario, human struggle to exist, and I doubt we will be concerned with national GDP.
2
Fascinating! the Southern states, economically vulnerable to climate change, are GOP/Donald Trump's core voting base. A president which believes climate change is a Chinese hoax to dominate the global solar panel industry.
11
The new "Ring of Fire" is in the Gulf states - as those lining its northern rim are the hottest. The gulf's water temperature is now more consistently past the 90 F threshold. This is not conducive to marine life.
The very places that have voters adamantly denying the reality of global warming and voting overwhelmingly for politicians that are dismantling the limits on greenhouse gases will pay the biggest price. Maybe there really is a deity!!
5
Florida voted itself into the sea.
8
Exactly.
My home town, Ft. Liquordale is 5 ft above sea level at its highest point, in the Coral Ridge section of town. I know this because my parents built there out of a sand lot in 1949 because it was the only part of town that didn't flood in the flood of 1946. Mom, 94, just sold the house last year.
The way things are going the only way my descendants, say 100 years out, will be able to see my childhood haunts will be from a glass bottom boat.
My home town, Ft. Liquordale is 5 ft above sea level at its highest point, in the Coral Ridge section of town. I know this because my parents built there out of a sand lot in 1949 because it was the only part of town that didn't flood in the flood of 1946. Mom, 94, just sold the house last year.
The way things are going the only way my descendants, say 100 years out, will be able to see my childhood haunts will be from a glass bottom boat.
4
A gentle reminder to all while the schadenfreude party is going on here - as we head into the celebration of a United States.
The people who will be most affected are the poor - a group the Democrats claim as their own. Wealthy people who just don't plan to care about climate change impacts can feel that way, because they have enough money to leave, adapt, whatever. Leaving the poorest behind them if need be.
If an appeal to self interest is more effective - in the United States, we take care of people with our straining, flawed safety net programs. These programs will become more strained as more is needed from them.
So, how's the best way to convince leaders in the most-at-risk states that doing the right thing is, in fact, the right thing? Why not inform and mobilize the poor to vote in their own interest? Why not shift some energy jobs down there - and federally subsidize training for jobs that might not even need a college degree? Should we extend the mapping of impacts into Mexico, and make it a scary refugee crisis in the making? Europe is already experiencing the beginning of what will happen on that side of the globe.
Just keep in mind: "United" States takes work, but let's give it a shot.
end of pontificating. Have a fun weekend.
The people who will be most affected are the poor - a group the Democrats claim as their own. Wealthy people who just don't plan to care about climate change impacts can feel that way, because they have enough money to leave, adapt, whatever. Leaving the poorest behind them if need be.
If an appeal to self interest is more effective - in the United States, we take care of people with our straining, flawed safety net programs. These programs will become more strained as more is needed from them.
So, how's the best way to convince leaders in the most-at-risk states that doing the right thing is, in fact, the right thing? Why not inform and mobilize the poor to vote in their own interest? Why not shift some energy jobs down there - and federally subsidize training for jobs that might not even need a college degree? Should we extend the mapping of impacts into Mexico, and make it a scary refugee crisis in the making? Europe is already experiencing the beginning of what will happen on that side of the globe.
Just keep in mind: "United" States takes work, but let's give it a shot.
end of pontificating. Have a fun weekend.
3
Southern states suffering more than others from climate change? It's Obama's fault! That's what is!
4
Such projections are based on "IF" temperature rises such-and-such. Computers say exactly what programmers tell them to say. They tell the computer that if CO2 is such then we declare that temperature will be such. It is only human musings. And they state their worst case prediction. Consider that accurate statistics show NO increase in temp in the last 100 years. Nothing has happened and nothing will happen. Oceans levels have not risen 1 millimeter, though we have been told they have submerged an island in the Pacific. You go figure whether the speakers are honest or competent.
It's so curious that people who can apparently type, can also fail to understand the logic of climate change. CO2 traps more heat than O, like wool is warmer than cotton. And your argument is... wool isn't warmer than cotton? CO2 traps less heat than O? Because these measurements are extremely easy to verify, and it's even easier to calculate how much O we're displacing with CO2, so warming is literally a mathematical certainty, as much as circling the globe if you travel continuously some direction or other. These are not overly complex subjects.
16
GeoSv, maybe it's your training at Enbridge, or perhaps you work on the tar sands, but you don't appear to understand statistics or computer modeling. You also misstate the results of this study, which, like all risk forecasts, includes ranges of possible outcomes.
But to help you with the basics - two links to get you up-to-date on the very extensively measured temperature and sea-level increases.
First - temperatures from NASA
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
- you could also look up NOAA, Japan Meteorological Agency, Britain's Hadley Centre, BerkeleyEarth, or even satellite data from UAH or RSS - they all measure the measurable warming.
Now for the extra ocean we're causing - this link from University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group is handy because, in the left column under "GMSL Rates" they show the current trends in sea level rise from a variety of groups.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends
If you disagree with all the sources above, please present links to your "accurate statistics". No blogs, please.
But to help you with the basics - two links to get you up-to-date on the very extensively measured temperature and sea-level increases.
First - temperatures from NASA
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
- you could also look up NOAA, Japan Meteorological Agency, Britain's Hadley Centre, BerkeleyEarth, or even satellite data from UAH or RSS - they all measure the measurable warming.
Now for the extra ocean we're causing - this link from University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group is handy because, in the left column under "GMSL Rates" they show the current trends in sea level rise from a variety of groups.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-level-trends
If you disagree with all the sources above, please present links to your "accurate statistics". No blogs, please.
12
Ah, B Fagan -- yes those graphs are wonderful. Too bad they are built on unreliable data. You do know of course that there are just at 500 ground temp stations in all of Africa --don't you? I believe that equates to 1 for every 58k square kilometers -- approximately the size of Massachusetts, CT, and NJ combined.
And sadly, when these trends were first charted, back in 1880, they had maybe 25-30 stations in Africa. All on or near the coast -- as most of them are today. From a sampling perspective, you couldn't even begin to figure out what the sampling error is. We know the temp stations weren't randomly positioned. We also have no idea what differences there might be in methods used for collecting temp data.
Similar problems occur in S America; Asia; Canada; Alaska; Russia, the poles. The only places where there isn't a huge issue with sampling & method is the US and to a lesser extent Europe.
So if you want to believe that the global temp record has high reliability, be my guest. But it doesn't and if you delve into the stats you may even come to agree if you put aside your biases.
But you simply can't suggest (even though climate scientists do) that we have a highly reliable and valid global temp data set dating back to 1880 or so. In fact, I'm not sure you could consider the current global ground station network reliable even now.
And sadly, when these trends were first charted, back in 1880, they had maybe 25-30 stations in Africa. All on or near the coast -- as most of them are today. From a sampling perspective, you couldn't even begin to figure out what the sampling error is. We know the temp stations weren't randomly positioned. We also have no idea what differences there might be in methods used for collecting temp data.
Similar problems occur in S America; Asia; Canada; Alaska; Russia, the poles. The only places where there isn't a huge issue with sampling & method is the US and to a lesser extent Europe.
So if you want to believe that the global temp record has high reliability, be my guest. But it doesn't and if you delve into the stats you may even come to agree if you put aside your biases.
But you simply can't suggest (even though climate scientists do) that we have a highly reliable and valid global temp data set dating back to 1880 or so. In fact, I'm not sure you could consider the current global ground station network reliable even now.
2
At the national level this reinforces the need for honest, robust policy to assist our communities adapt. But often we are not told about how we need to prepare ourselves as individuals or families. Should we be honest with ourselves and our families and accept that we have to migrate because of climate impact and be better prepared to compete in the workplace in cities and regions we have little connection. This begs another question; how well equipped are counties and cities which may be more resilient to climate change effects. Are they prepared, socially and physically, to absorb climate refugees from other counties. A cursory, visitors observation of organized tent cities for homeless people in San Francisco and Portland suggests 'not very well'. Perhaps if we ignore the growing risks the problem will just go away.
2
If the Southern States suffer more than the rest of us in the future, it has to be from something other than climate change. There is no climate change in the South. Just ask them.
10
As Climate Changes, Southern States Will Suffer More Than Others -
It's OK though, because they don't seem to believe in climate change; at least their politicians don't. So for them, it will just appear to be the wrath of god unleashed upon sinners, and they'll be fine with that.
I would say, however, that since god very clearly promised not to flood the world again, the impending flooding that we're looking at must therefore be OUR fault and is NOT god's wrath. So we'd better get on it.
It's OK though, because they don't seem to believe in climate change; at least their politicians don't. So for them, it will just appear to be the wrath of god unleashed upon sinners, and they'll be fine with that.
I would say, however, that since god very clearly promised not to flood the world again, the impending flooding that we're looking at must therefore be OUR fault and is NOT god's wrath. So we'd better get on it.
9
"Climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer-term prosperity. The challenges currently posed by climate change pale in significance compared with what might come. The far-sighted among you are anticipating broader global impacts on property, migration and political stability, as well as food and water security. The window of opportunity is finite and shrinking. Once climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late.” - Mark Carney, head of the Bank of England
6
Exponential economic growth is the root cause of climate change so it's interesting that it's portrayed in this article as a bad thing if GDP reduces. Reducing GDP significantly is probably our best hope of stopping climate change. The question is whether we can choose this path or whether the planet will force it upon us.
5
Summer has come and many people go out to a beach, lake, river to cool off from the hot weather. California had a very wet winter but now it is the complete opposite. The climate is changing dramatically that the generation to come will suffer more than us. The climate wont be the same for all states as a study shows such as in Florida where the sea levels could rise from melting glaciers which would destroy property near the coast. Research shows that the Midwest and Southeast would be impacted by the changing climate more that the other parts of the country and would cost the nation for every time the temperature rises. The intense heat would lead to increases of energy cost and could also cost human lives by heat related deaths. The intense heat would make it difficult for outdoor workers to work properly and cause devastation to coast cities. The climate change causes a chain reaction which would lead to all kinds of havoc. States that are already hot and now that are even getting worst would cause people to move elsewhere which research shows a pattern of migration.
Our generation could stop all of this destruction that is to occur if all of us had a chance to think about how wasteful we are. Every little thing such as not leaving any electricity being wasted if your now using it to a leaky faucet which could waste a lot of water over the year could make a big difference. Our actions would lead to a worse or if not a better future for the generation to come.
Our generation could stop all of this destruction that is to occur if all of us had a chance to think about how wasteful we are. Every little thing such as not leaving any electricity being wasted if your now using it to a leaky faucet which could waste a lot of water over the year could make a big difference. Our actions would lead to a worse or if not a better future for the generation to come.
2
Unless you build a secure community like Elysium (and we saw what happens when people are desperate enough), there's no where you can escape to on Earth and be immune to the effects of climate change.
Better to tackle it head-on using human innovation and cooperation. Even though I live in a Trump state, all of our major cities are Democrat and pro-science: we're staying put and fighting for a worthy cause.
Across the world, only US Republicans and Russians are largely climate science deniers; everyone else including conservatives in Europe and China are on board. Don't let this minority group of humans discourage you. There are smart and talented people on every continent, and if America and Russia bury their heads in the sand the world will not. I am hopeful!
Better to tackle it head-on using human innovation and cooperation. Even though I live in a Trump state, all of our major cities are Democrat and pro-science: we're staying put and fighting for a worthy cause.
Across the world, only US Republicans and Russians are largely climate science deniers; everyone else including conservatives in Europe and China are on board. Don't let this minority group of humans discourage you. There are smart and talented people on every continent, and if America and Russia bury their heads in the sand the world will not. I am hopeful!
9
Studies with such longterm horizons are meaningless. They have no hope of being accurate. And they provide no urgency for implementing environmental reforms. Why should we care that GDP will fall by 0.7% in 2088, when the GDP will likely be $70 trillion and we'll all be dead? Why should we care that 32,000 people "may" die from heat waves in 2088, in a much larger population, when 60,000 are dying today, in a smaller population, from opioids? How can you possibly speculate on the energy mix or the price of utilities 70 years from now when, only 10 years ago, the price of solar panels was 200% higher than today and the entire scientific community was predicting the imminent end of crude oil.
Besides, that number, -0.7% of GDP, is so laughably small that with a tiny tweak to the data we might see that climate change might very well boost GDP growth.
These studies should concentrate on 10 or 30 year horizons. Even those will be horribly wrong but at least they have a time frame that people can relate to.
Besides, that number, -0.7% of GDP, is so laughably small that with a tiny tweak to the data we might see that climate change might very well boost GDP growth.
These studies should concentrate on 10 or 30 year horizons. Even those will be horribly wrong but at least they have a time frame that people can relate to.
5
That .7% change may not be much if you're moving in a moderate latitude (the tip of the Olympic Peninsula actually stands to gain a lot!), but if you're a Trump voter in the redneck Riviera of Northeast Florida, you're looking at losses of 10% or more, and the will likely come on the heals of massive income stagnation caused by global competition in more educated places. Overall, the southern latitudes are looking a lot more like Mexico all the time, not only in terms of income disparity, but the corruption of politicians in places like Alabama.
7
Unfortunately, the next Hurricane Sandy that strikes New York will flip a switch regarding climate change among the financial class, at least as far as geo-engineering is concerned. And we'll be blanketing the stratosphere with sulfate aerosols before the subways are pumped clear of water.
Admittedly, it won't do anything to address the acidification of the oceans, but we'll never seriously see the oceans rise higher than jeopardizes that same coastal real estate this article mentions.
Admittedly, it won't do anything to address the acidification of the oceans, but we'll never seriously see the oceans rise higher than jeopardizes that same coastal real estate this article mentions.
1
It seems that measuring predicted damage as a percent of county GDP is skewed toward poor/rural counties. In my state, the variance of this measure seems to correlate with variance in county wealth better than with economic or cultural parameters. I think there's a lot of artifact here.
No mention here of tropical diseases moving poleward and up in elevation with warming - which is already happening. In other contexts, new epidemic disease is often cited as becoming one of the major impacts on life and economy in the warming world.
9
Lyme disease is spreading rapidly northward. Other tick related viruses are also proliferating and spreading.
4
Right. The big factor of course is that the warming's making more poleward latitudes perfectly hospitable for the vectors - ticks, 'squitos, etc.
Most likely man will adapt to the warmer climate.
They can build cities that are built under glass domes.
They can build huge air conditions that will keep the city cool which will be powered by solar energy.
energy.http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/covered-city1.htm
Robots will do the work outside this city (farming for example) so there would be no reason to go outside of this city and therefore no one will suffer because of the higher temperatures.
They can even build cities underneath the water.
It won't be as bad as this article tells us.
They can build cities that are built under glass domes.
They can build huge air conditions that will keep the city cool which will be powered by solar energy.
energy.http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/covered-city1.htm
Robots will do the work outside this city (farming for example) so there would be no reason to go outside of this city and therefore no one will suffer because of the higher temperatures.
They can even build cities underneath the water.
It won't be as bad as this article tells us.
No thanks, that sounds like a miserable existence.
2
I take it you'll pick up the tab, correct?
It's insane to say it won't be bad if/when humanity (and every other creature on the planet) have to live in an artificial environment to survive.
It's insane to say it won't be bad if/when humanity (and every other creature on the planet) have to live in an artificial environment to survive.
2
It would have been nice to be able to zoom in on that map of the U.S. graphic to get more detail and locality specific info. As it is, it was just a tease!
2
It just reinforces to me that the Trump voters should be awarded the Darwin Award. They, along with Trump and his knuckle dragger cabinet members such as Pruitt and Price, seem Hell bent on doing everything to wipe humans off this earth.
17
This map is very misleading. It shows Florida and the likes of Louisiana as it is today. It won't be. Snip off the lower 1/4 of Florida for starters as that'll be the property of the Atlantic.
10
As Guilliani said at the GOP convention in 2008 "Drill, Baby, Drill"
But the original is more apt: "Burn, Baby, Burn."
But the original is more apt: "Burn, Baby, Burn."
2
There is no joy in recognizing the sad irony that the conservative ideologues who have prevented the United States from providing the leadership needed to combat global climate change are from the very locations that will suffer most from climate warming.
What is especially sad is that there are plenty of people living in those places who recognized the dangers and have supported a progressive agenda, and they will still bear the brunt. Even more devastating is to think of the future suffering of all the animals who have had no voice in the matter and did not benefit in the slightest from our obsession with fossil fuels.
America suffers most of all from a deluge of misinformation and propaganda. Fox News has been the worst offender; it broke the mold of the standards expected of a broadcast network. It has been followed by worse.
This country will not recover anything resembling 'greatness' until this scourge has passed: a scourge of 'alternative facts', of sanctioned propaganda, of ignoring facts, of accepting advice from those who are tainted by financial support from interested parties, of ignoring advice from academics whose careers depend on being accurate and methodologically sound.
It is heartbreaking to think of all the suffering that could have been avoided if Americans had not been poisoned by conservative propaganda paid for by oil companies and the wealthiest individuals whose fortunes are tied to the worst polluters: ie. Kock and co.
What is especially sad is that there are plenty of people living in those places who recognized the dangers and have supported a progressive agenda, and they will still bear the brunt. Even more devastating is to think of the future suffering of all the animals who have had no voice in the matter and did not benefit in the slightest from our obsession with fossil fuels.
America suffers most of all from a deluge of misinformation and propaganda. Fox News has been the worst offender; it broke the mold of the standards expected of a broadcast network. It has been followed by worse.
This country will not recover anything resembling 'greatness' until this scourge has passed: a scourge of 'alternative facts', of sanctioned propaganda, of ignoring facts, of accepting advice from those who are tainted by financial support from interested parties, of ignoring advice from academics whose careers depend on being accurate and methodologically sound.
It is heartbreaking to think of all the suffering that could have been avoided if Americans had not been poisoned by conservative propaganda paid for by oil companies and the wealthiest individuals whose fortunes are tied to the worst polluters: ie. Kock and co.
33
But wait, it's a hoax, right?
1
The article sort of suggests, by the language used, that it is not certain global warming is going to occur at a critical level, and that the seas may not rise the 216 feet predicted if global warming is not stopped--now. The experts in this field have already told us there is no credible chance we are going to limit warming to the 2 degrees Centigrade (about 3.6 F) called for under the Paris accord; that such 2 degrees Centigrade was decided based on political considerations and not science; that there is little question we are headed for a 3 to 4 degrees Centigrade increase, even if we completely stopped emitting carbon dioxide and methane directly produced by humans activity, in that we have already warmed up the earth enough at the poles, and the poles are warming at twice the rate as the other parts of the world, that the permafrost is giving up greenhouse gases stored over the past ages, and the oceans have been warmed to the point that the methane they store is breaking down and being released into the atmosphere. In other words, the greenhouse gas sponges we had working for us before are full, not absorbing as in the past, and are reversing process and releasing the gases.
The picture painted by this article is nowhere near grim enough; in fact, it is downright rosy. It shows the territory of the U.S. to be intact. That is a delusion.
The picture painted by this article is nowhere near grim enough; in fact, it is downright rosy. It shows the territory of the U.S. to be intact. That is a delusion.
8
The +/- signs on the map legend are reversed.
They look like it's what the graphics providers intended, but it's very weird and confusing - when "damage" to GDP is a positive number, it means GDP will be lower, and so the minus figures are really double negatives - a plus for GDP.
1
No, they aren't. The map legend refers to damage. Thus, the + signs refer to greater damage.
1
Southern agriculture will face major negative disruption and deterioration. Wildlife habitat will decline and become less hospitable to ever-more species. It's an ugly, dangerous scenario.
3
And yet it's Republicans who say we can't address warming because it would "kill the economy."
Why is the right wing always so short sighted?
Why is the right wing always so short sighted?
13
This gives new meaning to the term "red states."
13
Looks like the climate change deniers based in the south will be vaporized!
3
Welcome to Climate Change, Trump Voters! Sad!
More fake news form the NYTimes.
It is the suns activity that is causing changes in the climate of every planet in the solar system.
It is the suns activity that is causing changes in the climate of every planet in the solar system.
2
Yes, Willt....pay no attention to the annual 10 trillion tons of carbon pumped into Earth's closed atmosphere by humans each year.....I'm sure it has zero environmental impact.
Take a math or science class and stop embarrassing yourself.
Take a math or science class and stop embarrassing yourself.
16
Willlllt, they measure solar output. During the last three solar cycles solar output has weakened slightly.
During the same few decades, each decade has been warmer than any prior decade since instrument recordkeeping started in 1850.
Sun cooler, planet hotter, with three decades breaking the record set by the prior one, and 2010s continuing that trend so far. What could it be?
By the way, did you know CO2 is really building up, too?
During the same few decades, each decade has been warmer than any prior decade since instrument recordkeeping started in 1850.
Sun cooler, planet hotter, with three decades breaking the record set by the prior one, and 2010s continuing that trend so far. What could it be?
By the way, did you know CO2 is really building up, too?
3
Southern voters push for policies that hurt the South but benefit the North. Keep on "Rollin' Coal" guys.
5
Please reassure me that the climate change deniers won't get a cent 9of taxpayer money) to help them mitigate the impact of, er, climate change.
6
It appears that the Upper Peninsula of Michigan will become the Garden of Eden. Thank Heavens for long winters and lake effect snow.
Maybe we should shift Trump's wall a tad bit north to keep all of the Right-leaning, climate change denying voters in the hellscape they helped to create.
8
Interesting how the damage is delivered in proportion to the inability to believe there will be damage. Karma?
5
Coming from a blue state myself, I'm hoping all those red staters despise us so much that they'll rather fry than trek north.
I admit, the feeling goes both ways, I'd rather go arctic than head southwards.
I admit, the feeling goes both ways, I'd rather go arctic than head southwards.
3
The only good thing about this, is it appears to REALLY hit many of the states that supported Trump--or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
2
We are so grateful for all the work that goes into producing these analytic and revealing articles. It is also good that the NYT puts them front and center.
Anyone who thinks it is better for humans, for the less well to do, or for the economy to look away from the facts and from reality is fooling themselves.
Unfortunately, I don't think more science will help. People who are incurious and wish to ignore the world around them will continue to do so until it is impossible to do so.
Unfortunately, that time - when it's impossible to ignore the mounting changes in our climate and its ability to support our exploiting ways - is coming, all too soon. With the current political climate for throwing victims in harm's way to get rid of them all the quicker, this will not end well.
Time to wake up. Only by working together to solve our common problems will we get enough done to make a difference.
Anyone who thinks it is better for humans, for the less well to do, or for the economy to look away from the facts and from reality is fooling themselves.
Unfortunately, I don't think more science will help. People who are incurious and wish to ignore the world around them will continue to do so until it is impossible to do so.
Unfortunately, that time - when it's impossible to ignore the mounting changes in our climate and its ability to support our exploiting ways - is coming, all too soon. With the current political climate for throwing victims in harm's way to get rid of them all the quicker, this will not end well.
Time to wake up. Only by working together to solve our common problems will we get enough done to make a difference.
3
Here's a cautionary tale: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/world/asia/china-drought.html
There is getting to be rather a lot of that kind of thing these days. Meanwhile, this paper has also covered the failure of "clean coal" (the plant is in debt, and will burn gas), and a few other world problem areas.
There is getting to be rather a lot of that kind of thing these days. Meanwhile, this paper has also covered the failure of "clean coal" (the plant is in debt, and will burn gas), and a few other world problem areas.
1
Is it coincidence that the states that might suffer the most are the ones who have Trump the electoral college? However, the poorest citizens of those states who will suffer even more by the changing climate can at least take comfort in knowing that their senators will not burden them with health care.
2
Trying to find a happy spin here... a teachable moment?
The authors don't seem to be aware of the "Southeastern Warming Hole": Over the last century, the Southeast US has not warmed. (Yes, the world, on average, has warmed, but the U. S. Southeast hasn't. Professional climatologists are well aware of this, and have theories as to its causes.)
It is unknown if this phenomenon will continue. But the fact that warming is more complicated than a uniformly increasing temperature, in all seasons and at all places, makes this kind of "prediction" silly.
It is unknown if this phenomenon will continue. But the fact that warming is more complicated than a uniformly increasing temperature, in all seasons and at all places, makes this kind of "prediction" silly.
2
So here we have a prediction that if we just wait 83 more years, we can find out if true. I suppose by the logic used we should see a difference in the economic fortunes of states based on how hot they are. Michigan should be doing better than Texas -- right? And Detroit should be pummeling cities like Dallas, Houston. Right?
Unfortunately for these researchers, the temperature history of the US (NOAA) shows the midwest and south have had little warming and even some cooling during the period 1900-2015. Urban areas in particular have shown warming -- in the northeast (acela corridor) and out west (LA, Phoenix). Will these trends continue?
But we can say with certainty that if damage occurs as a result of CC that it depends on how much your location warms relative to the current temps. And if we're talking global temps -- rising sea levels -- wouldn't NYC and Boston,etc. take a huge hit? Why isn't that reflected?
Of course, maybe, it could be or might be (sorry, I'm plagiarizing the authors) that anything could happen. But somehow large southern cities and cities like Phoenix have grown and prospered even though they have warmed at a faster rate than the rest of the country. Can anyone say -- air conditioning?
Of course, alarmists will ring their hands over this article (with some glee it appears though as the authors say the south is in for it). But don't get your hopes up. The data supporting warming is tenuous at best due to unreliability.
Unfortunately for these researchers, the temperature history of the US (NOAA) shows the midwest and south have had little warming and even some cooling during the period 1900-2015. Urban areas in particular have shown warming -- in the northeast (acela corridor) and out west (LA, Phoenix). Will these trends continue?
But we can say with certainty that if damage occurs as a result of CC that it depends on how much your location warms relative to the current temps. And if we're talking global temps -- rising sea levels -- wouldn't NYC and Boston,etc. take a huge hit? Why isn't that reflected?
Of course, maybe, it could be or might be (sorry, I'm plagiarizing the authors) that anything could happen. But somehow large southern cities and cities like Phoenix have grown and prospered even though they have warmed at a faster rate than the rest of the country. Can anyone say -- air conditioning?
Of course, alarmists will ring their hands over this article (with some glee it appears though as the authors say the south is in for it). But don't get your hopes up. The data supporting warming is tenuous at best due to unreliability.
1
Ralphie keeps making up foolishness about it only warming in what he declares are urban areas. By his definition, the northern Mountain States are urbanized. Call Congress, because some of these places have two Senators and only one House seat.
Alaska is warming faster than any other US state, but that doesn't fit his stream of denial.
He keeps mentioning NOAA data. Search "NOAA climate at a glance" and use their trend-charting tool.
Look around the country, then switch to the Global tab. The planet is warming up. Even the 1/50th of it that makes up the USA.
Alaska is warming faster than any other US state, but that doesn't fit his stream of denial.
He keeps mentioning NOAA data. Search "NOAA climate at a glance" and use their trend-charting tool.
Look around the country, then switch to the Global tab. The planet is warming up. Even the 1/50th of it that makes up the USA.
1
B fagan. Please adjust your reading glasses. I never said it was only urban, just primarily. Warming in Montana who knows? It could be anything from climate anomaly to methodological probs.
But even you can see the silliness of this study. It doesn't make sense logically and like most CC predictions it doesn't have to come true until most of us are all gone or too addled to read.
But this will cheer you up. I've been playing around with the Berkeley climate data. Take Africa which accounts for 20% of global land mass. Right now it has about 500 active stations (compared to US nearly 10k), in questionable shape & methods - who knows. So right there I would question the reliability of their estimates --and I mean estimates -- based on small sample size. On avg they have 1 station for every 57k sq km -- an area just under the size of Mass, CT * NJ combined.
More important, back in the late 19th century, early 20th, Africa had maybe 40 stations. Most of them coastal or near the coast. No weather stations in the deep interior. So all they can say re Africa's early temp observations is they measured coastal temps. And Berkeley makes adjustments to each stations raw data -- and surprise -- the adjustments (at least on the 70 or so most long lived stations) raise their avg annual anomaly by about 32%.
And yet all the Climate scientists count Africa & S.America & Asia even though all three suffer from the same sampling problem. Hard to trust such data.
But even you can see the silliness of this study. It doesn't make sense logically and like most CC predictions it doesn't have to come true until most of us are all gone or too addled to read.
But this will cheer you up. I've been playing around with the Berkeley climate data. Take Africa which accounts for 20% of global land mass. Right now it has about 500 active stations (compared to US nearly 10k), in questionable shape & methods - who knows. So right there I would question the reliability of their estimates --and I mean estimates -- based on small sample size. On avg they have 1 station for every 57k sq km -- an area just under the size of Mass, CT * NJ combined.
More important, back in the late 19th century, early 20th, Africa had maybe 40 stations. Most of them coastal or near the coast. No weather stations in the deep interior. So all they can say re Africa's early temp observations is they measured coastal temps. And Berkeley makes adjustments to each stations raw data -- and surprise -- the adjustments (at least on the 70 or so most long lived stations) raise their avg annual anomaly by about 32%.
And yet all the Climate scientists count Africa & S.America & Asia even though all three suffer from the same sampling problem. Hard to trust such data.
1
Well is this not ironic?
Something tells me that in a decade or two, southern congressmen are going to become very fond of government handouts.
1
The graphics said "predicted damage...". The writer either does not know the proper meaning of "predict", or, the writer knows the meaning. "Predict" is to guess based on no information, whereas, "forecast" is to see the future based on current trends. Perhaps the writer is really telling us how she or he feels about climate science, and thus used the correct verb!
How ironic that the climate deniers are the ones most affected. Of course they will not realize it and because they have no historic perspective they will take it for granted. Similarly they will not realize that they have been duped by Trump,
Global warming will produce both winners and losers. You just need to read the trends and respond accordingly. A smart long term play will be to invest in cheap arid Wyoming acreage and wait until it becomes prime beachfront property. Really shrewd investors are already regrading their desert sands into coves and inlets while it is still dry and workable.
1
Looks like the red states will get redder. Maybe they will believe that climate change exists and listen to ways to remedy it.
This is a good article on a study with interesting results. Within its chosen parameters, the study seems sophisticated.
If the researchers add consideration of rising sea levels, they may find 100 percent reduction in GDP for some counties in Florida, along the Gulf Coast, and up the East Coast, taking out barrier islands, Norfolk, Virginia, and so forth.
Yes, 10 or 15 percent a year for several years adds up to more than 100 percent, but the color coding on the map would be clearer if it indicated that some places are flooded or go to zero GDP.
If the researchers add consideration of rising sea levels, they may find 100 percent reduction in GDP for some counties in Florida, along the Gulf Coast, and up the East Coast, taking out barrier islands, Norfolk, Virginia, and so forth.
Yes, 10 or 15 percent a year for several years adds up to more than 100 percent, but the color coding on the map would be clearer if it indicated that some places are flooded or go to zero GDP.
2
I live in one those 'green' counties. Why should I worry? :-)
1
Can a study be done to show how the blue states can catch up to the red states in clean energy? Was Perry spreading false news this week when he said Texas cleaned up its air much more than most other states even despite population growth? Part of it was Federal mandate but as a recent nytimes article stated in utter incomprehension the red states are beating the blue states.
GM ' s electric car has a range of about 260 miles. Tesla and Nissan are about to come up with a models to compete. Nissan by the way has sold 250,000 Leaf ' s that only had a range of 60 miles. Is it possible in 60 years they figure out how to use fast charging capacitors in electric cars to replace batteries?
There's alot more to than hysterical hypothesis. Isn't that the news too?
GM ' s electric car has a range of about 260 miles. Tesla and Nissan are about to come up with a models to compete. Nissan by the way has sold 250,000 Leaf ' s that only had a range of 60 miles. Is it possible in 60 years they figure out how to use fast charging capacitors in electric cars to replace batteries?
There's alot more to than hysterical hypothesis. Isn't that the news too?
If you start out with a lot more dirty air, then of course it's easier to clean up 'more dirty air than the others'.
1
Texas leads the nation in wind energy. They generated 23% of their electricity from wind in the first quarter of 2017. Other red states have a lot of wind also.
It's not out of love for the environment, it's economics. Clean energy has the potential to be the cheapest energy. When that happens, how you feel about climate change won't factor in, you're just going to do it.
It's not out of love for the environment, it's economics. Clean energy has the potential to be the cheapest energy. When that happens, how you feel about climate change won't factor in, you're just going to do it.
I'm struck by how nearly all those hotter red states and counties are RED states and counties, the folks who voted for climate change deniers and dismantling environmental protection. Either it's astonishing karma or profound denial.
8
Well, that's a lot of 'prayer power' in those red states. Maybe they're counting on mass devotion to convince the almighty to fix their climate.
Red states earn the Darwin awards yet again
1
Excellent article. Climate scientists have known of these likely impacts for a number of years but the latest research, data and analyses keep fleshing out the sobering details.
The only sensible thing to do of course is to mitigate likely risks. We know the trump states don't believe in science, or the likelihood of any of this, so of course no need to reduce so called risks.
And it is interesting how they will be hardest hit. Maybe there is a cosmic justice system of some sort after all. Who knows.
But it is also too bad so many will be made to suffer for the ignorance of a minority of our overall population. The rest of us have to try and do the right things and support the right policies to the degree we can. Let's keep trying.
The only sensible thing to do of course is to mitigate likely risks. We know the trump states don't believe in science, or the likelihood of any of this, so of course no need to reduce so called risks.
And it is interesting how they will be hardest hit. Maybe there is a cosmic justice system of some sort after all. Who knows.
But it is also too bad so many will be made to suffer for the ignorance of a minority of our overall population. The rest of us have to try and do the right things and support the right policies to the degree we can. Let's keep trying.
9
South Carolina and Georgia are building nuclear power plants. Zero carbon emissions. New York and California are talking about solar panels and wind mills.
1
A few corrections, mkm.
South Carolina and Georgia are TRYING to build nuclear power plants, and the bankruptcy of Toshiba after buying Westinghouse has made these overdue, overbudget projects just drag on longer.
In the meantime, NY electricity is principally from natural gas, nuclear and hydro, and the small amount of wind and solar is still much higher than the proportion from coal.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4
Also, Norway's Statoil won an intense round of bidding to put down over $42million for offshore lease of a wind development parcel - first off of NY.
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-auctions-over-7900...
Putting offshore wind, with rapidly dropping costs, next to a huge urbanized part of the country is a no-brainer. Short transmission distance to giant market, little of the NIMBY for land-based transmission lines.
California? This from the EIA's summary page:
"In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013."
South Carolina and Georgia are TRYING to build nuclear power plants, and the bankruptcy of Toshiba after buying Westinghouse has made these overdue, overbudget projects just drag on longer.
In the meantime, NY electricity is principally from natural gas, nuclear and hydro, and the small amount of wind and solar is still much higher than the proportion from coal.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4
Also, Norway's Statoil won an intense round of bidding to put down over $42million for offshore lease of a wind development parcel - first off of NY.
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-auctions-over-7900...
Putting offshore wind, with rapidly dropping costs, next to a huge urbanized part of the country is a no-brainer. Short transmission distance to giant market, little of the NIMBY for land-based transmission lines.
California? This from the EIA's summary page:
"In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013."
Eventually, all who left to live down south from the north will be returning en masse when things get a little too warm. Already I have met several former retired snowbirds who have boomeranged back to New England due to the unbearable heat there. We will see more human migration northerly in the northern hemisphere. The equatorial zone will someday become a dead zone due to heat. No food or fresh water. The sea life/fish are leaving from there already. As my 8th grade biology teacher used to say, 'The earth is one big soup bowl'.
8
So red states that so enthusiastically supported a president and party who regard global warming as a liberal/scientific scam will be impacted much more severely than blue states - states that were prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of their southern neighbours. Is that about right?
Doing your best to save people from disaster is always, of course, the right thing to do. Saving them from themselves - on the other hand - can prove very tiresome.
Doing your best to save people from disaster is always, of course, the right thing to do. Saving them from themselves - on the other hand - can prove very tiresome.
9
I don't see anything in this story about effects on agriculture, which will surely make things even worse in the South and Midwest. Up where I am, at 6700 feet in Montana, I wouldn't mind shaving a few weeks off winter, but I think we really do need to slow the pace of global warming, and I expect deniers in the South won't come begging for help from the rest of us when they're knee deep in salt water, spending half their shrunken income on AC bills and wondering how their kids will earn a living.
2
Well, this is only fair as they are usually the biggest deniers of climate change.
16
It is unlikely that Maine will benefit economically from milder winters. For northern and western Maine winter sports and activities are economically vital. Maybe water skiing can replace Xcountry skiing?
Our billionaire class will look at this maps and buy land and resources in the best areas. That's assuming the Mars colony isn't up and running. As Southern and Western areas decline in popularity because of extreme conditions, the pressure to develop the Eastern and other regions will increase.
Mismanaged population increases and profiteering may makes things worse. We will need thoughtful, forward looking actions by state and federal governments to prepare for what may be a massive population shift.
Mismanaged population increases and profiteering may makes things worse. We will need thoughtful, forward looking actions by state and federal governments to prepare for what may be a massive population shift.
2
Patrick,
Please explain a managed population increase. Who makes that decision? Isn't that a little elitetist?
Please explain a managed population increase. Who makes that decision? Isn't that a little elitetist?
Who shall we blame for this impending disaster? Let's connect the dots. Conservatives and liberals around the world agree upon the urgent need for massive climate change mitigation, except US Republicans. Republican elected officials who agree with this need keep silent out of fear that they will be primaried out (e.g. Bob Inglis in S. Carolina) by opponents funded by the Koch brothers who oppose climate change mitigation because it reduces the values of their oil and gas investments.
As the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gasses (China is first in total but much less in per capital GHGs then the US), the absence of a robust US response almost guarantees that the worst effects of climate change will not be prevented.
Therefore, if you are looking for someone to blame for the future suffering that will befall your grandkids' generation, their name is spelled K-OC-H.
As the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gasses (China is first in total but much less in per capital GHGs then the US), the absence of a robust US response almost guarantees that the worst effects of climate change will not be prevented.
Therefore, if you are looking for someone to blame for the future suffering that will befall your grandkids' generation, their name is spelled K-OC-H.
13
The planet does not care what your per capita emissions are. It is total emissions human release that matters.
2
"... Koch brothers who oppose climate change mitigation because it reduces the values of their coal, oil and gas investments."
FIFY
FIFY
Everything has two sides:
As Climate Changes, Northern States Will Gain Most
All the green areas will gain. Svante Arrhenius who first calculated climate - correctly within a factor of two or so - was disappointed to find that it was too small to extend the growing season in Sweden , the result he had hoped for.
(In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. " )
From https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
" He (Arrhenius) eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming "
As Climate Changes, Northern States Will Gain Most
All the green areas will gain. Svante Arrhenius who first calculated climate - correctly within a factor of two or so - was disappointed to find that it was too small to extend the growing season in Sweden , the result he had hoped for.
(In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value. " )
From https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
" He (Arrhenius) eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming "
1
Climate change reminds me of airplane accidents that happen when a pilot flying on instruments looks out the window and decides he knows better. Our instruments are predicting a slow death for all of us, with the least affluent first in line. There is no better time than now to trust the instruments and act accordingly, even though the view out the window looks just fine.
8
Two problems with this article (any many other similar ones prominently featured in NYT):
(1) One cannot trust model extrapolations for 60-80 years if these temperature models are already diverging from measured temperatures in the last 10-15 years.
(2) If one believes the models, it is obvious that global warming will primarily affect southern regions. The fact that such articles are routinely published in prominent journals shows the intellectual shallowness and political advocacy of the climate "science" enterprise.
(1) One cannot trust model extrapolations for 60-80 years if these temperature models are already diverging from measured temperatures in the last 10-15 years.
(2) If one believes the models, it is obvious that global warming will primarily affect southern regions. The fact that such articles are routinely published in prominent journals shows the intellectual shallowness and political advocacy of the climate "science" enterprise.
1
I've been hearing similar findings from research dating back to 2006. Nice to see they could pull it down to the county level but we're pretty much looking at the same heat map we were 10 years ago. They've just added GDP percentages to the color coding without providing a margin of error.
Plumer and Popovich were kind enough to link the study. They also unkindly linked a subscription service site. Same is true when discussing compounded productivity reductions further down. No explanation and a pay-to-view link. Thanks but please spring for licensing rights next time.
This is probably useful to lobbyists and certain politicians. Without seeing the reports though, there's really nothing new here.
Plumer and Popovich were kind enough to link the study. They also unkindly linked a subscription service site. Same is true when discussing compounded productivity reductions further down. No explanation and a pay-to-view link. Thanks but please spring for licensing rights next time.
This is probably useful to lobbyists and certain politicians. Without seeing the reports though, there's really nothing new here.
You have to laugh at this study in 2080 and beyond. "Most of the economic losses will be due to people dying due to heat waves"!!!!
Really?
Is there going to be anyplace in the US in 2080 and beyond without air conditioning/cooling? Really? Almost no homes in the US had air conditioning 65 years ago. 65 years into the future, homes, workplaces, etc will have much more advanced heating and cooling systems.
That is not even taking into account the personal/portable cooling systems that will be available so you can run a marathon in 110F weather and be just fine.
All these studies assume humans will simply be paralyzed and have mass die-offs because the temperature goes up a few degrees.
That is not how humans operate. That is not how American will react.
Really?
Is there going to be anyplace in the US in 2080 and beyond without air conditioning/cooling? Really? Almost no homes in the US had air conditioning 65 years ago. 65 years into the future, homes, workplaces, etc will have much more advanced heating and cooling systems.
That is not even taking into account the personal/portable cooling systems that will be available so you can run a marathon in 110F weather and be just fine.
All these studies assume humans will simply be paralyzed and have mass die-offs because the temperature goes up a few degrees.
That is not how humans operate. That is not how American will react.
2
You missed some of the other consequences of weather chaos: a breakdown of the power grid and widespread civil unrest.
You need only look at the middle east to see how this threat multiplier takes every problem and makes it worse.
We are already seeing a variety of food supply problems which are reflected in increased prices for some commodities, and shortages in the worst cases.
Also, what about the 20 million at risk for famine in the Horn of Africa? Is that a number that is acceptable for *those* people?
You need only look at the middle east to see how this threat multiplier takes every problem and makes it worse.
We are already seeing a variety of food supply problems which are reflected in increased prices for some commodities, and shortages in the worst cases.
Also, what about the 20 million at risk for famine in the Horn of Africa? Is that a number that is acceptable for *those* people?
1
Know Nothings United For A Hotter, Poorer and Dumber Future !
"We don't need your stinkin' science.....our ignorance is just as good as your knowledge...and besides, the Lord will provide....eternal grinding poverty....free-dumb !"
"We don't need your stinkin' science.....our ignorance is just as good as your knowledge...and besides, the Lord will provide....eternal grinding poverty....free-dumb !"
37
I am already meeting people moving globally or domestically for environmental reasons. Rich people from crowded and polluted cities like Shanghai, Mumbai, Hong Kong, etc. are moving to certain parts of the US (and Australia now) for greater greenery, lesser pollution and milder temperatures. One reason why some Chinese business families and investors from China are buying property in California is because of the milder, or nicer, weather in California.
Also, I have already met people who have moved from San Antonio and Houston to Dallas because they say Dallas does not feel as hot, and is not as humid, though temperatures can go up to 95 degrees easily in the Dallas area, as the cities they have left.. Some of these environmental migrants do say it is the heat and the oppressive humidity as the number one reason for moving. They also want to enjoy the outdoors in the evening: like going for walks, jogging, taking their dog for a run, etc., which gets difficult in very hot and/or polluted areas.
Environmental reasons, including rising heat, is already influencing emigration, immigration and migration in some areas and among some people. It has not been well demographically researched and analyzed.
Also, I have already met people who have moved from San Antonio and Houston to Dallas because they say Dallas does not feel as hot, and is not as humid, though temperatures can go up to 95 degrees easily in the Dallas area, as the cities they have left.. Some of these environmental migrants do say it is the heat and the oppressive humidity as the number one reason for moving. They also want to enjoy the outdoors in the evening: like going for walks, jogging, taking their dog for a run, etc., which gets difficult in very hot and/or polluted areas.
Environmental reasons, including rising heat, is already influencing emigration, immigration and migration in some areas and among some people. It has not been well demographically researched and analyzed.
2
You should have used orange for the worst hit places, just to make Trump's complicity in this perfectly clear.
15
Yesterday people were commenting on which was a better country Canada or the USA and today we are looking at who the winners and losers are in global climate change. We live on a small fragile planet. We are all in this together.
It was the great English metaphysical poet John Donne who wrote in 1624 No Man is an Island.
It is 2017 and we are the richest, most secure and most technologically advanced civilization that ever was. What the heck are we talking about. There are no winners. If the Midwest and South-east USA goes down we all lose. Right now we should all be thinking Honduras and the devastation going on today due to climate change.
Even today the only Morning Jo that concerns me comes from Costa Rica. The American People knew Trump was a snake before they took him in and that was not my decision. Making America great can only mean healing the entire world.
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/ode-19/#content
It was the great English metaphysical poet John Donne who wrote in 1624 No Man is an Island.
It is 2017 and we are the richest, most secure and most technologically advanced civilization that ever was. What the heck are we talking about. There are no winners. If the Midwest and South-east USA goes down we all lose. Right now we should all be thinking Honduras and the devastation going on today due to climate change.
Even today the only Morning Jo that concerns me comes from Costa Rica. The American People knew Trump was a snake before they took him in and that was not my decision. Making America great can only mean healing the entire world.
https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/ode-19/#content
26
"Morning Joe", named for Joseph Daniels, Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson administration. Not "Jo".
More good, possible news from The old grey lady, our newspaper of record, The New York Times! Don't you just love it?!
2
I was feeling anxiety until I realized I will be long dead by 2040. And I suppose, when one doesn't procreate, there is a certain relief...but massive global migration will overrun most government's ability to handle the trend...reminds me of a movie, Children of Men, that depicted continual global migration and terrorist issues, along with the eventual infertility of the human species. These really may end up being 'the good old days.'
Looks like "Trumpland" is in trouble.
13
Red states become red hotter.
3
Build That Wall!*
(On the Mason-Dixon Line.)
(On the Mason-Dixon Line.)
42
Exactly what I was thinking.
1
That is a terrible map. What it boils down to is, if a county is a developed area, it will likely be affected, and if not developed, it won't! That's kind of tautologous.
1
The affects will be felt everywhere, but many of the states that will suffer the greatest economic damage voted for a President who in every possible way is making the damage worse.
8
Lemme Guess.....Trumps fault, right?
1
No, but he and his buddies aren't helping.
1
Let's build a wall - a big beautiful wall - around all of those southern Red states and let 'em experience what their political preferences and scientific ignorance will bring to them.
16
Isn't that where all the deniers live led by Scott Pruitt, current head of EPA?
2
2080?! I'd be shocked if the USA lasts another 10 years. We will all kill each other way before the climate does (except for the billionaires, who have houses all over the planet). The GOP will see to all of it.
1
Looks like a lot of Red states are going to get red hotter. Good thing science is wrong about climate change.
29
Climate change means more snow in the Northeast. I live in the Northeast and I like snow, so I like climate change.
In the Boston area, 135 years of record keeping shows that 6 of the 8 heaviest snowfall seasons have occurred in the past 25 years.
1. 2014-2015: 110.6 inches
2. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches
6. 1977-1978: 85.1 inches
7. 1992-1993: 83.9 inches
8. 2010-2011: 81.0 inches
Please leave climate change alone. The additional snow is lots of fun. Defenders of science should read the 2006 report "Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States".
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
In the Boston area, 135 years of record keeping shows that 6 of the 8 heaviest snowfall seasons have occurred in the past 25 years.
1. 2014-2015: 110.6 inches
2. 1995-1996: 107.6 inches
3. 1993-1994: 96.3 inches
4. 1947-1948: 89.2 inches
5. 2004-2005: 86.6 inches
6. 1977-1978: 85.1 inches
7. 1992-1993: 83.9 inches
8. 2010-2011: 81.0 inches
Please leave climate change alone. The additional snow is lots of fun. Defenders of science should read the 2006 report "Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Snowstorms in the Contiguous United States".
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAM2395.1
At least the deniers will be the ones taking the brunt of it.
15
I'm interested to see that much of Paul Ryan's district would lose, which nearly all of the rest of Wisconsin would fare quite well. His First Congressional District, along the southern border of the state, has some very rich farmland as well as underutilized manufacturing potential. The states which fare the worst under climate change have elected the most vocal climate change deniers. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect writ large on the U.S. map.
11
That seems fair. Except for California and Hawaii.
2
Southeast and midwest. Many of which states voted for the party that doesn't believe in global warming. It's called irony.
49
and they'll want to run up here............talk about the need to build a wall..........
1
... or karma.
If anything, this article UNDERSTATES the impacts, which will be profound and go far beyond the realm of economics.... 'priceless', one might say....
9
For those wondering if they should move to a greener spot on the map, may I suggest that your kids and grandkids will thank you far more for whatever you do today to speak up for the whole planet.
Everything green here will be red in another generation or less.
Everything green here will be red in another generation or less.
54