Joe Romm: Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts

Calamitous predictions are in print so they must be true?

Center for American Progress climate blogger Joe Romm summarizes “what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:”

  • Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
  • Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other heavily populated regions around the globe
  • Sea level rise of around 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
  • Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity
  • Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
  • Much more extreme weather
  • Food insecurity — the increasingly difficulty task of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
  • Myriad direct health impacts

Click to be alarmed.

4 thoughts on “Joe Romm: Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts”

  1. Coming to a theater this Summer, the epic apocalyptic adventure movie…GLOBAL WARMING…starring Kevin Costner, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Angelina Jolie. Is it fiction, or a prophecy of things to come? It weill have those climate deniers shaking in their seats.

    Rated R for False Science

  2. Or, as Richard Lindzen, described the “consensus” scaremongers, “They are like children in a dark closet trying to scare one another.” They are letting us into their closet, but when the light of day floods in as the door creeks open with real observations, the illusion disappears and the world is bright again. Oh well, it was a fun scawy tale full of thrills until it ended.

  3. How can they be called “scientific predictions” when there is no science behind them?

    These points read like a bunch of guys sat around a table in a local bar and wrote whatever came to their head on a napkin, then published it in the paper.

    I’m guessing that glaciers are better for biodiversity, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.