Wow! Jeanne your climate predictions are happening
I am putting this here because there are many predictions Jeanne has foreseen ( and others) that are happening now in Florida. This includes a divide between those with money and those without, rising sea levels and what we can expect in the future.
Lovendures, thank you for posting that article. It gave me chills to see that something I always knew would happen, something that most scientists did not think would happen that quickly, is now becoming accepted even in the business world. I wrote a couple of articles on this site back in 2012 to 2015 stating that South Florida would be gone by 2100. I even thought that perhaps all of Florida would be gone, but decided it was already radical enough to just write that South Florida will be gone.
At the time, the highly respected U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting seas would rise by just a few inches by 2100. I expect they are sorry now that they were so conservative.
It's a strange feeling when you just know something is going to happen and others just don't see it. It's like so many of us see the monster that is running the country but others don't see it.
As for the people in the article who are rushing to buy land that is just 3 feet above sea level - Don't they see that the properties they will build at 3 feet sea level will themselves be gone by 2100? That Miami will be gone altogether by 2100?
Along the same lines as the above, the following article discusses the ramifications of the increase in speed of glacial melting and what that means as far as a rise in sea levels. It is happening faster than they thought.
Here are two articles I wrote about it five years ago. Here and here.
The link doesn't work - I get an error saying "Sorry, you are not allowed to edit this item."
Sorry about the link— Here are two links to articles. All of the climate change articles I wrote are also accessed by going to the menu <Articles> and hovering until you see <Climate Change>.
Thanks for the article. Makes sense, and I always felt the IPCC were politically influenced in the wrong direction.
In this article I wrote for this website back in 2013 and updated in 2014, I had found a survey of climate scientists that I felt told the truth about what they really thought about our climate future. Perhaps that was what you are referring to that you saw on this site.
The study I found was a 2013 survey by Real Climate.org who sent out questionnaires to hundreds of actively working climate scientists who had published at least once in the previous five years. They asked the scientists what they thought the sea level rise (S.L.R.) would be by 2021 under best case and worst case scenarios. Since the IPCC was uselessly conservative, I took this study as the only way I could tell what the experts really knew in their heart of hearts.
For anyone who has read Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, the first chapter of that book deals with the instant knowing of experts and how they have a knowing about their subject that they might censor in written analyses, but if they are asked to make a judgement off the top of their heads, they can be quite accurate. It's a type of thinking, a kind of intuition, called "thin slicing" where the brain has distilled the essence of knowledge that experts have gained from their profession.
Getting back to the climate survey, out of about 400 who they asked, 90 responded and a tiny number predicted sea level rise would reach 10-20 feet by end of century as a worst case scenario.
I just "knew" that 20 feet would be the true situation and that it would be a minimum. Also I felt it could be up to threefold higher in some hot spots, like the U.S. eastern seaboard which has seen in some cases much higher S.L.R. than the global average for a number of reasons that I think I also put in that article.
Also James Hansen saw 10-20 feet as real possibilities in a worst case scenario, and, having seen him give a few talks, and having read some of his studies, I "knew" he was right.
The IPCC will go down in history as having dropped the ball when it mattered most that they should have stepped up their warnings. They failed humanity. They have now issued more dire warnings as more data has emerged - too little too late.
P.S. Later in 2016, I discussed my climate intuitions with Zoron who also had a big interest in climate science and was a member of a climate group that focused on the Arctic. He felt 20 feet SLR would happen sooner, more like 2075.
Warning: not much positive in the above, but it might make someone feel less alone.
Thanks for the links, Jeanne. It's interesting to note how, since those RealClimate survey findings were released in 2013, lots of studies have verifiably shown that rapid SLR is a possibility this century (read this article from Yale for more details). In light of all of those recent findings, I wonder how many climatologists surveyed six years ago would revise their estimates of SLR upwards if the survey were repeated today For some perspective, it helps to keep in mind that during the last interglacial period 120,000 years ago, temperatures were only 1 degree celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels, but sea levels were 20-30 feet higher. Now we've already warmed the atmosphere by 1 degree since the pre-industrial era, and we're fast approaching the 1.5 degree threshold.
Here is a new article and map about how hot the US will get in the years 2036 to 2065.
You nailed it again.
The news truly sucks.
There are some surprises here for me. I am amazed at what nearly the entire state of Texas looks like. Worse than Arizona. Florida is worse too. I believe your view on the mass migration from the south fits in well with this information Jeanne.
Looking at the historical average of 100 plus degree days ( through 2000) to what is projected in the years 2036-2065 is freaking surreal. I looked up where I live in AZ. We are going from 50 days of 100 plus historical average degree days to 101 days. That is double. But, Collier County, Florida, the worst that I could find, is going from an average of 64 100 days to 147. Let that sink in for a moment. I don't know what our current 100 plus degree days are in the Phoenix area but know it is above what it averaged through the year 2000.
Add this information to the drought areas you have seen Jeanne as well as the underwater areas of Florida ( and other places ) and OMG!!!
This is a "mind blown" feeling from someone who has read what you have been writing for years and follows climate change news regularly.
Utah is looking pretty good right now. I never thought I would be saying that.
My daughter lives in Tucson, and she said the monsoon season isn't producing much rain, but she said it could be because they had a rainy winter. It has been so hot that she can't go walking after work sometimes. I said go early, but she can't because of work.
Thanks a lot for bringing this to all of our attention. These sorts of granular projections about future weather are exactly what we need to convey the magnitude of the changes that are taking place. Since the researchers based this report on the heat index (which factors in humidity) and not absolute temperature, it make sense that Florida and Texas will be worse off than Arizona.
An opinion writer for the New York Times just published an eye-opening article about how the scientific community has progressed in the past 30 years from relative nonchalance about the pace of climate change to an increasing realization that catastrophic earth changes, once considered to be far-off or impossible, are already arriving and mounting with gathering speed (basically, they are coming around to the predictions being made by Jeanne, others on this site, and the likes of James Hansen).
The article illustrates that right now, the most severe projections of sea level rise by a government agency come from a 2017 report by NOAA, which projects that in a worst-case scenario, SLR is expected to reach 8.2 feet above current levels by 2100. That's still a long way off from the 20 feet of SLR that Jeanne and James Hansen have been predicting for 2100, but the author of the NYT article writes that "As we now know, all of those predictions [from the 1980s & 90s] turned out to be completely wrong. Which makes you wonder whether the projected risks of further warming, dire as they are, might still be understated. How bad will things get?"
@coyote Thank you again for your post. This work is tough and emotional and it helps me to get some positive support like you just gave.
The IPCC let the world down by taking a political view that sided with the fossil fuel industry rather than with science. They claimed they were just summarizing the 10,000 scientists who made up their membership, but it was like William Barr "summarizing" the Mueller Report. My favorite study, the one I quoted in this 2014 article I wrote on this site, showed the views of 150 or so climate scientists who replied to a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked these climate experts for their gut opinion of what sea level rise would be by 2100. A small number of courageous scientists were willing to take a stab at it.
In the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, the author shows repeatedly how the psyche is most accurate when an expert simply uses a gut sense about something rather than rely only on analytics. If you lack expertise, this gut sense does not apply to you. The famous anecdote was in one woman's view that a statue was a fake. The Getty Museum spent $100,000 on consultants and a year analyzing the relic before determining it was not a fake and spending $10 million on it. Before it was unveiled to the public an antiquities expert took one look at it and said it was definitely a fake! She turned out to be right. She used her considerable history of examining antiquities, and her gut sense. She did not do any chemical analyses nor did she do X-rays or whatever other high tech means the $100K consultants used. Just her gut sense.
It is the combination of knowledge and intuition that I am going for with figuring out climate change.
The climate scientist James Hansen is someone who uses both expertise and intuition. So I feel does Rachel Maddow in her journalism, although I haven't been watching her now for a couple of years, so can't attest to her ability now. But I used to watch Maddow regularly and noticed how expertly she combined in depth journalism with a keen intuition. I don't watch her any more because I get too upset at her findings and I feel I know enough about how dark Trump and his people are.
I really like what you said about expertise and intuition. I have found that my intuition is "ok". on it's own, but paired with something I have knowledge about, it is much better. I tend to be more "in the zone" then.