Global warming: Regional climate change impacts

[Chad]

@IlliniDave

The "heat" issue is really a matter of adaptation.

Speak for yourself. I don't know how people live down there.

They do and they have for millennia, and much warmer/more humid places than the southeast USA. I'm speaking more to the ability of the species to survive than any individual's personal preference. People here look at places like Chicago and Boston and even Seattle and wonder "how people live up there" because they're not used to cold air. I dislike heat immensely which is why I'm heading the direction I'm heading once my freedom is earned. The incidents Jacob referred to in Europe and Chicago had to do with people who were simply unprepared/uneducated for the conditions. Humans don't die off in droves simply because of those temperatures, although at times death can seem preferable . Presuming those sort of heat waves become more common, some city dwellers in northern cities will have to change their behavior or move to cities even further north.

Of course, they can survive. We don't live in a country or a time of just survival. Summer in the South is just a more expensive winter in the North. All it does is change the time of year you spend in doors. Going forward, the north might find a new love, as heat is cheaper than A/C and it's easier to get warm than to cool down.

[IlliniDave]

Of course, they can survive. We don't live in a country or a time of just survival. Summer in the South is just a more expensive winter in the North. All it does is change the time of year you spend in doors. Going forward, the north might find a new love, as heat is cheaper than A/C and it's easier to get warm than to cool down.

Well, okay. I took the theme of the thread to be discussing survival when things essentially reach the tipping point where business as usual won't be successful anymore, for whatever reason. I'm a northerner by birth and have never fully acclimated to the southern climate, though I've proven to myself during my run up to ER that I can endure it far better than I thought initially. However, once I've extracted enough wealth from the south I'll be heading almost due north many hundreds of miles without wasting any time, voting with my feet as it were. The south and even more so the southwest were sparsely populated prior to the widespread availability of A/C, and if that availability becomes threatened we may well see a reversal of the migration patterns of the last 50 years. No argument there.

I think it is plausible though not guaranteed that the human population in much of the "first world" might not be able to maintain their present level of comfort and convenience indefinitely. For the sake of my descendants I hope I'm incorrect.

[IlliniDave]

If the midwestern USA turns into the North American Sahara (an example of a mega drought that has happened during human history) then it will support the same population as the Sahara desert. It's pretty hard to get around that.

That's my point with this thread. It's not a matter of if but when. As in when the midwestern USA turns into New Mexico climate. We all do what we can or will. If we know in advance, we can make proactive choices. If we don't we can only react.

I also see this as a train wreck in slow motion ... I can't stop it, but I can move the rear rather than staying in the front. I can also choose to do so before everybody else. I've given up on making any judgments or starting any debates; just stating where the front and rear of this metaphorical train wreck is. CA will be in the front. AL will be in the middle. IL and WI will be near the rear.

This was basically my point as well, although I'm less inclined to weigh specific predictions and more inclined to act on common sense. To me it does not make sense to live in a place where there is not enough native capacity to support the present population (for the most part, this means that there is not enough water without massive human intervention, but it extends to agriculture and livestock as they are highly dependent on water as well). So I've been leery of places like Arizona and So Cal since before Al Gore popularized the topic of "global warming". Such places have an inherent frailty in my mind and more than climate change could topple the house of cards.

It is in part coincidence that the places I've chosen for my out years also appear prudent in light of the few climate projections I've looked at, i.e., climate change predictions were not among the primary screening criteria. I will say that climate predictions have prompted me to consider increasing my footprint in NE Minnesota modestly. However, in 2060 I'll be well into my 90s and if I'm even alive living off the land is a pretty ludicrous hedge at that point. But maybe my grandkids can leverage it into some survival strategy.

[NPV]

Here are the meat and potatoes for the US where you can look up your state. These predictions are for the RCP2.6 and 4.5 scenarios though.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... hange.html
they are based on
http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/fede ... n-modeling
(plenty of reading there!)

This is a global map where you can see overall impacts AND local temperatures. That allows you to translate RCP8.5's 4 degrees global average into local degrees. For example, for Chicago, that 14 degrees Fahrenheit. (Inland heats much more than coastal).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... e-rise/map

Jacob, thanks a lot for this helpful review and summary of sources on potential climate change impacts. I do not see much on potential positive impacts though (even though it is fairly clear net-net it is a negative). E.g., as agriculture in currently warm states suffers, I would expect an increase in agricultural productivity in more northern states and Canada due to longer growing season, new land opening to agriculture which was previously in areas too cold. Instead, assessments of the Northeast and Northwest agriculture (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fil ... theast.pdf, http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/fil ... thwest.pdf) from above focus on how cultures currently grown would suffer from higher temperature, but make little mention of benefits from potentially adapting more warm-loving cultures). Investing in (potentially agricultural in a warmer world) land in the north could be one way to hedge one's investments against climate change risk, wouldn't it?

[jacob]

More CO2 does make plants grow faster as evidenced in greenhouses (controlled environments) and this would naively suggest that more CO2 leads to higher production. However, in uncontrolled environments (aka outside under the open sky) faster growing plants also require more water which may or may not be available. Warmer temperatures will move the growing belts north (towards the poles), but it will also reduce their extent because plants generally don't deal well with too much heat. In addition, heat influences germination. Heatwaves can screw with the natural cycle. This lowers the resistance of crop plants which means more insects. Furthermore, this holds for crops but it holds even better for more opportunistic species which grow better on marginal land, aka. weeds. In addition, while hardiness zones move north, the topsoil stays put. More northerly lattitudes have thin layers of topsoil. It's marginal land. The natural rate of topsoil generation is very very slow. Intensive organic farming can exceed that natural rate by orders of magnitude. However, current farming methods don't generate topsoil, rather they waste it. Overall in North Amerca, the upper midwest and lower Canada will become slightly more productive in the low emissions scenario. All areas will become substantially less productive (60-80% less) in the high emissions scenarios.

Given how much harder it will be to grow food, I'd expect a lot more human capital to be required. The land-owner might not necessarily benefit in the same way since it won't be land that's in shortage but rather farmworkers, water, and soil.

[workathome]

Let them eat Facebook!

[NPV]

Given how much harder it will be to grow food, I'd expect a lot more human capital to be required. The land-owner might not necessarily benefit in the same way since it won't be land that's in shortage but rather farmworkers, water, and soil.

Thanks for explaining.

[DSKla]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... tory.html#

California has about one year of water left.

Buy real estate in Portland and sell in 2017?

[tommytebco]

Related to this subject, I just noted an article about major investors selling all their investments in Ski Resorts in North America.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ell-16-sk/

I'll bet the Global Warming Trend figures in this decision.

I live in Central Florida. Lots of news about the early stages of the water wars here.

I have become a believer, but I'm old enough that no action is required by myself.

[workathome]

Oh shit

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/clim ... eyor-18810

[jacob]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/californias-dr ... d=30047515
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environm ... ns-n334096
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32151413

California water rationing begins for the first time ever. State-wide mandatory 25% cuts.

Overall mountain snow pack is down to 5% of what it usually is at this time of the year.

Do we get an "I told you so"? Nah... looks like politics as usual (politicians as usual?) hasn't quite grasped the full implications. Looks like CA is in stage 3 with their rationing now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

However, from http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/04 ... e-warming4

Q: So you’re looking at a scenario of permanent water rationing?

CHU: No, you’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. When you lose 70 percent of your water in the mountains, I don’t see how agriculture can continue. California produces 20 percent of the agriculture in the United States. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.

I figure they'll keep trying anyway for a while...

Implications for the rest of us:
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/ ... tID=368934

[cmonkey]

Truly frightening.

Everyone needs to be planting their own fruit and nut trees about 10 years ago.

[workathome]

Good thing I eat dollars instead of food, the Fed can always just print some more.

[Chad]

I'm sure everyone has seen different versions of this, but it's interesting.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-if- ... rth-2015-4

[black_son_of_gray]

Interesting discussion of the drought in the West (emphasis on California), climate change, and water usage
~1 hr radio show with an expert panel

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015- ... n-the-west

[DSKla]

The annoying part about the rationing is that there is none for ag, which uses 80% of CA's water. Residential users have been asked to reduce their 20% share by 25%. Given that the rest of the nation depends quite a bit on our agriculture, I'm wondering how we could ration ag in a way that affects other states as little as possible. Ration by crops? For example, almond farming alone used more water than all of SF and LA combined. People can survive without almonds just fine.

Long run, it may not matter, but I'd prefer to ease into a massive drought than dive headfirst because we can't figure out who gets to use how much.

[jacob]

The ironic part is that there's no rationing for the oil&gas industry either ... (their usage is very low at <1% but still )

[DSKla]

Maybe the question I should be asking is, "When will the groups who have well-paid lobbyists be forced to ration as well?"

[theanimal]

More talk from Obama on global warming today in south Florida.

“We do not have time to deny the effects of climate change, folks,” Obama said Wednesday in a speech at Everglades National Park. “Nowhere is it going to have a bigger impact than here in South Florida.”

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015 ... vironment/

[IlliniDave]

Leaving aside the whole carbon emission issue, I don't know why anyone would expect climate to be static. My understanding is that from the paleo record, a 10-15 year drought cycle in the West/Southwest is not unprecedented, and much longer droughts have occurred. My own "home state" of Illinois is another example. It is known as the "Prairie State" because prior to the institution of western agriculture large portions of the northern half of the state were effectively savannah when the French first wandered through. Anyone who lives there now can tell you any untended patch of ground today quickly turns into broadleaf forest. The prairies where a holdover from a hotter, drier time whose existence was preserved into the 17th century by large grazing animals and unchecked wildfires. Once humans from Europe intervened, killed the animals and precluded the fires, the prairies were gone for good. There are a few attempts at "preserves", but they are difficult to maintain because the climate is not optimal for it and favors trees over grasslands. I don't know much about South Florida, but I tend to doubt this is the first time such changes have happened there.

Polluting the atmosphere and environment is not a good thing, but we will always be fighting climate change we cannot "do anything about". In my view this is a substantial long-term issue of which the human addition of carbon to the atmosphere is only a facet. We've seen tens of millions of people move into areas, and bring agriculture with them, that don't naturally have the water resources to sustain them. That's probably a mistake on our part.