The 32 most alarming charts from the government’s climate change report

[marmar]

from Grist:



The 32 most alarming charts from the government’s climate change report
By Philip Bump


Just reading about the government’s massive new report outlining what climate change has in store for the U.S. is sobering. In brief: temperature spikes, drought, flooding, less snow, less permafrost. But if you really want to freak out, you should check out the graphs, charts, and maps.

For the more visually oriented bunker builders out there, here are the 32 most alarming images from the 1,200-page draft report.

Things will be different.

Analysis suggests that temperatures could rise as much as 11 degrees by the end of the century. On this chart, note the lines labelled SRES A2 and SRES B1. Those are the two greenhouse gas emission scenarios used as worst- and best-case scenarios in many of the charts that follow.



It’s possible that sea levels could only rise eight inches. It is also possible that they could rise over six-and-a-half feet.



Over the past 30 years, we’ve already seen hundreds of billion-dollar weather disasters — heavily centered on the South and Southeast.



................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://grist.org/news/the-32-most-alarming-charts-from-the-governments-climate-change-report/

[Agschmid]

1. Well this is alarming!

All should check out the many info graphics about this issue.

These would be great to use on FB, etc.

Thanks for sharing.

[DreamGypsy]

3. I second that emotion. Yikes (nt)

[d_r]

2. this one:

considering the house gop voting against the Sandy aid, that map is a pisser.

[Nederland]

4. These would worry me more...

...if I had any evidence that climate change models had the ability to predict future temperatures accurately. Given that the IPCC report explicitly states that models should not be viewed as predictions of what future climate will look like, I fail to see why anyone would feel the need to do so. Add to that the fact that the models were not initialized to the state of the real world and I'm wondering why anybody thinks posting these charts proves anything at all. How can you prove what the future state will look like if your model doesn't start with the current observed state? It's just silly.

[marmar]

5. Denial.....

It's just silly.

[Nederland]

6. Agreed

Denying the facts is always silly.

[pscot]

7. If you are under 40

you should have ample opportunity to reconsider.

[Nederland]

13. As will you

If the over the next ten years temperatures remain flat, will you reconsider? Or will you just continue to believe, pushing the date of our doom out a little further, just like peak oiler believers do?

[pscot]

21. That would definitely strengthen your argument

I am really just trying to understand the the signs. But reality is a slippery thing. There are many competing versions. It's a shame that we're saddled with feckless and disfunctional leadership. We desperately need some sort of vision at the top. As the Big Dog says, where there is no vision, the people perish.

[NoOneMan]

11. Our inability to predict 100% means that things could be both better or worse than modeled

Your lack of concern seems to rest upon the presumption these models are overestimating climate change effects. Why are you ignoring the other alternative? Its just silly.

[Nederland]

12. There are lots of other real, well understood problems

We should set about solving those before we go solving problems that we don't fully understand. Its not silly to hesitate before spending billions of dollars on something you don't completely understand. Its sensible and pragmatic.

[NoOneMan]

15. When HIV/AIDS first emerged, we didn't understand it

In fact, we still do not completely understand it. If we do not research it and try and combat it, we will never understand it or fully mitigate it. Frankly, the same can be said about the emergence of almost every human disease (especially many forms of cancer).

A lack of completely understanding is no excuse to do nothing.

The bottom line is that we understand what is causing climate change. We know how to reduce our contribution to that cause (reduced atmospheric carbon). Just because we do not know the exact head count from famine deaths in 50 years does not mean we should not now attempt to prevent those climate change caused famine deaths that we know will happen.

Just, nevermind. I have a post in a field that I need to have a conversation with.

[Nederland]

24. see post #23 (nt)

[NoOneMan]

18. One last thing....

Did you know that the human body is also far too complex to accurately model and predict 100% (and doctors occasionally have to make predictions). When a doctors predicts a patient will die of an unchecked bacterial infection (according to an incomplete--but sufficient--understanding of the human body), wouldn't it be prudent to consider the recommended medicine rather than bitch about our lack of complete omniscience? You really don't have to respond to that question. I do not believe any rational person can accept this argument as a sufficient excuse to do nothing. I do not think you believe this is a valid argument, but are rather using it as a tool to "win" arguments and cast doubt about climate change.

[Nihil]

22. Good analogy ...

... reinforced by considering that the people arguing against the recommended medicine
aren't doctors or even biologists but accountants & lawyers ...

[Nederland]

23. I never suggested doing nothing

What I'm suggesting is that we don't understand the problem well enough to justify the radical changes to the world economy that are being suggested. I'm all for providing more money to research the problem until we do understand it well enough to know what to do. To follow your human body analogy, what many climate change activists are suggesting is like requiring every person in the population to get vaccinated against a disease whose effects are partially unknown with a vaccine that has never been tested and might have serious side effects. To put it simply, we are jumping the gun.

Let's say we put together a plan that costs 500 billion dollars over ten years and will hold CO2 levels at their current levels. Even if such a plan were possible (and it is not), how would you determine whether or not it was a good idea? Right now our understanding of climate is so primitive no one can say with any degree of certainty what impact reducing carbon by X amount will have. Without being able to calculate the benefit of an action, you cannot possible determine whether or not spending the money is a good idea or not.

In contrast, there are many other well understood problems that the world is facing that we DO understand well enough to perform a cost benefit analysis. For example, the World Health Organization can tell you with a great deal of precision what benefit you can expect from spending X number of dollars on clean drinking water and sanitation (see link below). Given that we have limited resources to apply to the problems at hand, doesn't it make sense to spend them on the things that we understand?

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2012/globalcosts.pdf

[NoOneMan]

25. "we don't understand the problem well enough to justify the radical changes to the world"

We don't have the luxury of being able to wait until we get an exact head count of predicted deaths; our primitive assessment of vast catastrophe justifies radical change already.

I'm not entirely concerned if we blow half a trillion. Its just money (the ability to command energy, which is the problem). When the world is facing the most expensive and threatening crisis seen by mankind, do we really shuffle our feet and ask about costs? LOL

Though, I am in a school where I don't think the answer is further energy consumption (done via capital spending), but if I was, your argument would be laughable.

[Nederland]

26. Of course you're not concerned

I'm not entirely concerned if we blow half a trillion.

I see. Perhaps that is because you are not the person that is going to die if we spend that trillion on global warming instead of clean water? Presumably you've already got your clean water, so why should you care if a bunch of people in the third world die, the world has too many people anyway...

[NoOneMan]

27. Thats so rich

Sure, because all the third world nations we give water too won't be absolutely wiped out by famine when climate change destroys modern agriculture. The most vulnerable of the world are the ones already facing catastrophe, but you use them as an excuse to do nothing? Shameful.

[Nederland]

28. Seriously?

You are aware that a person without water dies quite a bit quicker than a person suffering from climate change, right?

[NoOneMan]

29. Seriously

Its about magnitude and its impact on the world, and consequently, famine is already a far bigger threat to this people you shed tears for. About 3.4 million people did of water related issues a year, which is equivalent to 4 months of starvation deaths. In other words, without climate change, famine is already kills 3 times as many people as thirst. With climate change (which will also vastly exacerbate water problems), 3 billion will face famine and our agriculture system will be devastated. Hell, these early impacts have already created a situation where our grain consumption is greater than our production.

But since you imply we can only do one or the other...Then they are destined to die anyway, right? So lets not waste precious money and give them the quickest out.

BTW, don't you think your WHO water ROI models are a little funky, considering they don't take into account climate change, which will fuck up everything we know about water availability starting already. In other words, their failure to completely understand and model the earth's dynamics casts doubt upon the effectiveness of capital investment, and therefore doesn't justify any capital investment according to your original argument regarding climate change.

[Nederland]

30. Excellent source of facts

Now let's take those facts and draw the correct conclusions.

You are arguing that because famine kills 3 times as many people as thirst, we should view famine as the more pressing problem. I agree. I also agree that we can address both water issues and famine issues at the same time, we just need to determine the most effective way of doing that. So the question becomes, is enacting the policies proposed to address climate change the best way of doing that?

The answer is clearly no.

First of all, we cannot blame all of the deaths from either famine or water related issues on global warming. People have been dying from famine and water related issues for thousands of years, and to think that none of those deaths would be happening if only we had only kept CO2 at pre-industrials levels is naive. The World Health Organization blames 150,000 deaths per year on the effects of global warming including extreme weather, drought, heat waves, decreased food production and the increased spread of diseases like malaria (http://www.dosomething.org/actnow/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-global-warming). Simple math tells you that a mere fraction of the yearly deaths from famine and water related issues can be blamed on climate change. Therefore, even if we were to completely eliminate the effects of global warming, millions of people would still die every year.

Second, even if we were to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next ten years and somehow magically reduce our CO2 emissions by 20%, the impact on the climate would be close to non-existent. If we are to believe the computer models (a questionable assumption), the feedbacks from just the existing increases in CO2 levels will continue to cause increases in temperatures for years to come. It takes decades for CO2 to work its way out of the atmosphere, and so we would basically be spending billions of dollars to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of solving the immediate crisis caused by famine and water related issues.

Simply put, any honest cost benefit analysis of climate change mitigation policies will tell you they are a complete waste of money.

[NoOneMan]

32. So an estimated 3 billion people will face famine from climate change...

And in your perspective, it costs too much to do anything about it?

The deadliest catastrophe mankind has ever faced doesn't pass muster in your cost benefit analysis?

This is about when I tune out. Thanks for your two cents

[Nederland]

33. I know why you love 'estimates'

They are so much more easy to make match your preconceived ideas than those pesky things called facts.

[NickB79]

34. So, since we can't stop the planet from crossing 2C of warming in the next few decades

We should say fuck it to any mitigation that would stop the projected 6C of warming by century's end?

It takes decades for CO2 to work its way out of the atmosphere, and so we would basically be spending billions of dollars to achieve absolutely nothing in terms of solving the immediate crisis caused by famine and water related issues.

And it would achieve HUGE feedbacks over the long run, making it incredibly worthwhile to start now. You seem to be assuming there's no real difference between 1C of warming, 2C of warming, or 4C of warming with regard to famine and water shortages.

Jesus, you sound like a CEO driving his company into a death spiral in order to boost corporate profits for the next quarter.

[Nederland]

35. Read all my posts

My point is that we should not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on something that we do not understand fully. You believe that we will see 6C of warming by century's end, but where is your proof? The only thing you have is computer models that are currently running hot despite the fact that they only project 2.4C of warming. When observed temperatures are running below model lines that only predict 2.4C of warming, what is your justification for believing there will be 6C of warming?

[limpyhobbler]

8. du rec nt

[FirstLight]

9. sooooo

now that we have issued the orders for gun control, and then we fix the debt ceiling by next week or so...then our Administration will turn it's focus on THIS!....right?

ya, i know...wishful thinking...

[NoOneMan]

10. No, we need more jobs first

Then we will tackle this. Unless we need to redo health reform. Then this.

[FirstLight]

14. you forgot the sarcasm thingy...

right?

jobs are part of this retrofitting our entire world to use less energy and more green approaches

and health...well health will sure decline as this gets worse too

[NoOneMan]

16. sure, whatever

Hopefully we can retrofit our way to prosperity so that we can all afford efficient McMansions

[FirstLight]

17. that is *so* not where I was going

Mc Mansions? get a grip...

I live in a rural community and personally fit more of the utopian hippie green community model

[NoOneMan]

19. My point is...

Im skeptical that we can create jobs & wealth (implying increased energy consumption) and maintain our standard of living in the process of going "green", while reducing our carbon emissions. If I see long-term proof of this, I will revise my opinion.

[FirstLight]

20. thank you for clarifying

I agree that growth is really not in the cards to make this work, in fact we almost NEED a population bottleneck to bring it into manageable proportions, IMO. I think we are pretty screwn, all in all. But I keep hoping for the quiick fix, because that's all we have left to hope for, right? If we could only find a way to make a cheap conversion kit for combustion engines that would switch us over easier...but ya, that will never happen as long as big oil exists in its current form. we are unfortunate passengers on a titanic ride from hell

[4dsc]

31. Our children and grandchildren are screwed