Washington, DC's famous cherry trees are now blossoming earlier due to global warming-related temperature increases. But this pales in comparison to the much more serious impacts of more and fiercer hurricanes in the Southeast, major Midwest floods, shrinking glaciers in the West and rising sea levels around the nation's coastlines.
Image: celestria, courtesy Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Which parts of the United States are or will be hardest hit by global warming?
-- Aliza Perry, Burlington, VT
It’s difficult to predict which areas of the U.S. will suffer the most from global warming, but it’s safe to say that no regions will be unaffected. Scientists already point to increased severity of hurricanes on the East Coast, major Midwest floods, and shrinking glaciers in the West as proof of global warming’s onset.
Of course, America couldn’t have asked for a better poster child in the fight to stave off global warming than Alaska, which is undergoing dramatic landscape changes as a result of warming-induced temperature increases, glacial melting and sea level rise. Even Alaska’s conservative elected officials can no longer deny that human-induced warming is affecting their state. The picture isn’t looking too rosy in the western continental U.S. either, which is already facing some of the country’ largest temperature increases. The signature glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park may be all gone within just two decades.
A recent report by two leading nonprofits, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resources Defense Council, details how the 11 U.S. western states together have experienced an increase in average temperature during the last five years some 70 percent greater than the global average rise. The hottest part of the region has been drought-stricken Arizona, where average temperatures have risen some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit—120 percent greater than the global rise—between 2003 and 2007. Researchers also found that the West has experienced more frequent and severe heat waves, with the number of extremely hot days increasing by up to four days per decade since 1950.
In the Midwest, seemingly minor increases in temperature have already wrought major effects. In 2006 Lake Erie didn’t freeze for the first time in history, which led to “lake effect” snowfalls as more evaporating water was available for precipitation. Likewise, changes in the lake’s water temperature have begun to alter fish populations, which in turn affect birds and their migratory patterns. Despite localized heavier snowfalls, though, the region is generally suffering from a drying trend. Farmers worry that the result will be lower crop yields and thus more expensive food for American consumers.
On the east coast, coral reef bleaching, heat waves and increased hurricane intensity are just some of the warming-related hazards Floridians have had to deal with in recent years. Washington, DC’s famous cherry trees are now blossoming earlier due to temperature increases. Further north, milder-than-typical winter temperatures have been linked to subtle changes in ocean currents. In New York City, the average temperature has increased about four degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and could get 10 degrees hotter by 2100, according to a study commissioned by the federally funded U.S. Global Change Research Program.
But the bigger problem for New York City, as well as other low-lying areas around the nation’s coasts, will be sea level rise: Climate models predict that sea level around the Northeast is expected to rise between ¾ inch and 3 ½ feet over the course of this century.
CONTACTS: Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, www.rockymountainclimate.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; U.S. Global Change Research Program, www.usgcrp.gov.
EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentAAAA+ - Another Asinine Alarmist Article . Editors: At least put a disclaimer in this. Something like:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This article contains wild guesses, ponderings, extrapolations to the point of silliness, is based on uproven assumptions and may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with reality. But we stand by it."
I wonder which places stand to benefit from global warming. Already Canada is laying claim to important northern shipping lanes that will start opening up as Arctic ice melts. Higher latitude countries will have longer growing seasons. Rain won't go away, but the patterns will change. Where will the new rainy places with long growing seasons be? Warmer periods in the past were productive enough to provide food for the largest animals that ever existed. Certainly global warming is better than global cooling with respect to sustaining life. If worse comes to worse, we'll see what we've always seen, a migration of humans to more hospitable environments. Where will those be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh, maybe because there was a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850 A.D. Do any of these "climate specialists" know the Law of Uniformitarianism or ever speak to geologists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In New York City, the average temperature has increased about four degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and could get 10 degrees hotter by 2100, according to a study commissioned by the federally funded U.S. Global Change Research Program."
I own around 300 acres of forest land in S. Virginia and have been trying hard to guess how it will be affected. I grow southern pines. Given the probable rainfall patterns, temperture changes and richer CO2 environment, my best guess is that the trees will grow faster and stronger. We will have a little more trouble with the pine beetle, but we can a manage that with better silvaculture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it is useful to talk about being "hardest hit". We will adapt. The changes present risks ... and opportunities. I have planted some baldcypress, for example.
I would not advocate warming, but if we are going to get it we need to start thinking about what we are going to do rather than just cry about our loses.
You ask "Where in the U.S. Will Global Warming Hit the Hardest?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a toss-up:
1) In your wallet.
2) In your life expectancy as cold returns.
3) In your liberty.
Any benefit derived from poleward shifts of the tropical jet streams will be short-lived at best, as increased acidity levels reduce nutrient contents in soil and water. We've made our bed and it's time to lie down in it now..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo true! While I believe some areas will be hit by natural disasters, the worst-case scenarios depend on nothing being done. While our societies have had some negative impact, our survival has been augmented by our adaptability: big brains and opposable thumbs. We can and will adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUndoubtedly, the hardest hit place will be the wallets of all Americans that earn a living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFFFF- Foolish, Funny, Fouled-up, Fatuous
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake a science course. In anything!!
PeterT
Let me get this straight. I am kind of old and slow. Human use of carbon fuels is causing the risk of run away global warming. When I was in school it was going to cause the next ice age. Yep! and they had all the science data to prove it. It was an undisputable fact. Maybe if I wait a few more years it will agin be global cooling. The last mini ice age was over, 200 years ago. Myself, I've seen hot periods and cold. As a farmer I prefer hot. It's much harder to make a crop in cold years, and I like to eat. During the last mini ice age 1/3 of the population died off. wonderful
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"drought-stricken Arizona, where average temperatures have risen some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit120 percent greater than the global risebetween 2003 and 2007" - One could probably take only 2 years and get an "average" temperature rise much greater. Anyone with knowledge of weather knows that 4 years is far too short a time period to state anything meaningful about trends or averagse!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"drought-stricken Arizona, where average temperatures have risen some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit120 percent greater than the global risebetween 2003 and 2007" - One could probably take only 2 years and get an "average" temperature rise much greater. Anyone with knowledge of weather knows that 4 years is far too short a time period to state anything meaningful about trends or averagse!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"drought-stricken Arizona, where average temperatures have risen some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit—120 percent greater than the global rise—between 2003 and 2007" - One could probably take only 2 years and get an "average" temperature rise much greater. Anyone with knowledge of weather knows that 4 years is far too short a time period to state anything meaningful about trends or averages!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Human use of carbon fuels is causing the risk of run away global warming. When I was in school it was going to cause the next ice age"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSulfur and particulates have a cooling effect. These effects do not last as long as the CO2 effect. Also becuase of acid rain and local ground level pollution control, sulfur and particulates have been reduced which has hastened the effects of warming. It was these sulfur and particlates that many were pointing to causing an ice age in the 70s. The late 70s were very cold. Whether that was effect or random chance or both is debateable. We modified our global deterraforming efforts since then.
Interesting; I remember the 70's as a warm spell , long growing seasons, with warm summers and falls and not as dry as the 60s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn partial response to gvelasco, while there may be some benefits for Canada, Russia, Agentina and other countries with a substantial far north or far south presence, these countries will also experience some of the most negative impacts of climate change warming. Vast swamps caused by perma-frost melting and insect and other infestations of the vast sub-artic forests are only two examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn another point, some people take heart in the fact that the most recent winters have been colder and speculate that the global warming trend over the past 30 years may only be part of a natural cycle which has now shifted into a cooling phase. We may well be entering a cooling phase which may offset to some extent the warming effects of human induced climate change, however, there is no reason to assume that these two trends are not co-existant or that human induced climate change does not remain a grave challenge.
the discussion is" worst hit area in U.S. by climate change". As a matter of the agriculture in the U.S. the cropping belts will move north with warming, south with cooling. Warming yielding more total food, cooling less. The amount and timing of precipitation will change. Generally; warmer equals more precipitation with greater evaporation and more thunder storms in summer. Better growing and harvest. More pests and less crop disease. People in cities will be hotter due to localized heating and thirsty due to heavier water use which they will take from the farmers. Maybe lawns and pools verses food. More reservoirs and water works will be needed to even out water needs. When my ancestors came to California it was an area of drought and flood, sometimes at same time at different ends of the state. They built for the future, reservoirs and distribution system which made a garden that drew 10's of millions of people who stopped the completion of the system. They want to save the environment and use the resources because they don't understand or care about how things came to be. If allowed people will adapt. If you stop paying people to rebuild along beach fronts they will move farther inland to where they can afford the risk of more storms and higher wave surge. Global climate change is a constant and not a new thing. Go back to grammar school and learn about world history and geography, this time pay attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read where the northern pacific ocean just experienced a greater than 1.5 degree drop last year. Scientists in the know say that the human contribution to "global warming" over the last 100 years is less than 1 degree F.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read that that the northern Pacific ocean experienced a greater than 1 degree F. drop last year and that environmental scientists are saying that human contribution to "global warming" over the last 100 years is less than 1 degree F.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people would cover up tire marks on their chests in order to be able to deny that they might be run over by a bus. You, Shoshin, would appear to be one of those people : )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this