Davis, Sacramento Temps to Rise over 8 Degrees by 2100

Share:

by Jerika L.H.

New research by Climate Central has given a bleak projection for the future of California, which it estimates will be pushed into a completely different climatic zone due to the effects of global warming. While San Francisco and Los Angeles will endure the most extreme impacts, significant changes will be felt closer to home, as Sacramento is estimated to shift toward a climate more apt for the American Southwest. In fact, the whole California Central Valley will adopt a climate which mirrors the current weather conditions of Tucson, Arizona, by 2100.  As Inside Climate News states, “According to the research, U.S. cities could be up to 12 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are today by 2100. St. Paul, Minnesota could feel like Dallas, Texas. Las Vegas could feel like places in Saudi Arabia, with average temperatures of 111 degrees Fahrenheit. Phoenix could feel like Kuwait City, one of the hottest cities in the world, with average temperatures of 114 degrees Fahrenheit.”

The California Coast will witness entire land masses disappear into submerged waters. This NCCS (Northern California Coast Survey)’s topographical map of the San Francisco Archipelago reflects the new coastline resulting from the unexpectedly rapid disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet and sea levels finally hitting the 200′ mark (via spatialities.com). Peninsulas are set to become islands, as gravity and oceanic flow will push rising waters inland, turning lowlands into giant lakes.  These maps are the latest glimpse into the dystopian future that awaits us if global emissions continue without human intervention.

Although global warming will affect every continent on the planet, the implications for California are especially ominous, as the state provides up to 85 percent of the country’s produce. If California were a country, it would represent the world’s fifth biggest economy.  For example, the state provides 99 percent of artichokes eaten in the USA, 99 percent of the walnuts, 97 percent of the kiwis, 97 percent of the plums, 95 percent of the celery, 95 percent of the garlic, 89 percent of the cauliflower, 71 percent of the spinach, and 69 percent of the carrots. Thus, the loss of California’s fertility would be catastrophic, and possibly apocalyptic.

Cities all across California are expected to see an alarming increase in storm intensity, an increase in dry periods and drought, and less overall snowpack. This translates into numerous dire repercussions, including the loss of native fish species, increase in wildfires, and increased air pollution.

While the post-icecap future will undoubtedly shift previously longstanding geography on Earth, it is important to note that these projections represent what the nation will look like in 2100 if current emission trends continue. Unfortunately, the path we are on does not lead scientists to believe that the reality will differ much from their estimations, given widespread apathy and lack of intervention.  This emerging data is made ever more hard to swallow in the recent aftermath of Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement.



Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$
USD
Sign up for

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

19 thoughts on “Davis, Sacramento Temps to Rise over 8 Degrees by 2100”

  1. Don Shor

    I don’t believe the scenario presented here represents the consensus of most geophysicists. Here is a more restrained assessment: 
    http://climate.calcommons.org/article/central-valley-change

    I think it is inaccurate to refer to “New research by Climate Central….” Climate Central appears to be a site that reports research by others. As such, anything you post from that site should provide links to the original research cited. This article basically presents the most extreme outcome of some modeling, which is not the most accurate depiction of the current state of our climate forecasting models.

    1. David Greenwald

      http://www.climatecentral.org/

      Don:

      WHO WE ARE
      An independent organization of leading scientists and journalists researching and reporting the facts about our changing climate and its impact on the public.

      What We Do
      Climate Central surveys and conducts scientific research on climate change and informs the public of key findings. Our scientists publish and our journalists report on climate science, energy, sea level rise, wildfires, drought, and related topics. Climate Central is not an advocacy organization. We do not lobby, and we do not support any specific legislation, policy or bill. Climate Central is a qualified 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.
       

       

      1. Don Shor

        I know that’s what it says on their site, but I don’t think that accurately reflects what they do or what is portrayed in this article.
        We have great geophysicists here at UCD who work in the field of climate change. I suggest the author contact some of them and see if they agree with this scenario.

        1. Leanna Sweha

          According to what I assume to be the source article on sea-level rise at Climate Central, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-sea-level-rise-stakes-for-america-21387

          “Climate Central used NOAA’s localized extreme sea level projections, NOAA tidal models, and lidar-based (laser-based) land elevations to identify land that could fall below the high tide line in 2100.

          Scientists are still uncertain about the chances of an extreme outcome this century, even under continued high emissions rates; understanding the likelihood better is an active area of ongoing research.”

          Check out the article – it has an interesting graphic of Mar-a-Lago under water.

        2. Don Shor

          Yes, I think the graphic of Mar-a-Lago underwater also undercuts the credibility of any argument they are making.

          The IPCC is projecting 1.5 – 3′ of sea level rise by 2100, and our current rate of increase is at the low end. The new modeling of Antarctic melting might increase that, of course, depending on many variables including any changes in the rate of emissions by government agreements such as the Paris Accord. Taking the most extreme assumptions, which have very low probability, and using them to illustrate outcomes is really a form of advocacy.

          Also, the headline is simply not accurate. There is nothing to suggest that Davis temperatures will rise “over 8 degrees by 2100.” Davis is moderated by the coastal influence. Increasing temperatures in the Central Valley will be more extreme further inland. Redding, yes. Davis, not so much.

          Las Vegas and Phoenix already have average temperatures in summer of 105 – 108 degrees. Our high temperature here averages 93 in July and August. There will be shifts in crop patterns, but it won’t be “catastrophic” or “apocalyptic.”

          Really, overstating the problem and highlighting only the most extreme and least probable outcomes makes people dubious about the validity of any climate change predictions. There is a range of probable outcomes and there are conditions that we will need to adapt to. Agriculture will change in a number of ways. Cities in the deserts will need more energy to be livable, but also have the advantage of ample solar input.

          I understand the desire to highlight the urgency of intergovernmental cooperation to reduce carbon output. I think that it’s better to be realistic in describing the situation and the paths forward.

        3. Don Shor

          Yes, I think the graphic of Mar-a-Lago underwater also undercuts the credibility of any argument they are making.

          The IPCC is projecting 1.5 – 3′ of sea level rise by 2100, and our current rate of increase is at the low end. The new modeling of Antarctic melting <I>might</I> increase that, of course, depending on many variables including any changes in the rate of emissions by government agreements such as the Paris Accord. Taking the most extreme assumptions, which have very low probability, and using them to illustrate outcomes is really a form of advocacy.

          Also, the headline is simply not accurate. There is nothing to suggest that Davis temperatures will rise “over 8 degrees by 2100.” Davis is moderated by the coastal influence. Increasing temperatures in the Central Valley will be more extreme further inland. Redding, yes. Davis, not so much.

          Las Vegas and Phoenix already have average temperatures in summer of 105 – 108 degrees. Our high temperature here averages 93 in July and August. There will be shifts in crop patterns, but it won’t be “catastrophic” or “apocalyptic.”

          Really, overstating the problem and highlighting only the most extreme and least probable outcomes makes people dubious about the validity of <I>any</I> climate change predictions. There is a range of probable outcomes and there are conditions that we will need to adapt to. Agriculture will change in a number of ways. Cities in the deserts will need more energy to be livable, but also have the advantage of ample solar input.

          I understand the desire to highlight the urgency of intergovernmental cooperation to reduce carbon output. I think that it’s better to be realistic in describing the situation and the paths forward.

  2. Keith O

    A little perspective about this climate change think tank, Climate Central:

     

    “I joined the Board of Climate Central when it was first formed,” Krosnick said in a statement. “The organization’s mission at that time was to conduct objective natural science research related to climate change and to disseminate that research and others’ research findings to the news media for distribution to the wider public.
    “The Board helped the organization to be an objective science-informed journalistic organization.
    “Recently, the organization has chosen to change its mission, explicitly seeking to inspire the public and decision-makers to take action to address climate change. For this reason, I have resigned from the Board.”
    Krosnick said that, at the last board meeting of Climate Central he attended in May, he and others were asked about the direction of the organization. Krosnick says, and Wiles confirms, that Krosnick spoke out against the group moving toward advocacy. Krosnick says he did not know that a decision had been made to go in a new direction nor that the Climate Central Web site was rewritten to reflect the new direction and new mission statement.
    “That is very disappointing to me,” Krosnick said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/was-climate-change-poll-biased/2012/07/09/gJQAYreeYW_blog.html?utm_term=.e27a9a51a216

    1. David Greenwald

      Krosnick is a good guy, I got to know him a bit a decade ago when I did summer program at Stanford.  That said, not sure what his critic has to do with this article, since this article is presenting research and the point in question is whether that research is accurate.  What the policy implications are for that research is a separate question.

      1. Keith O

        That’s the point, Krosnick isn’t a climate change denier but the way I read this is he still resigned because he felt this organization was going in a different direction towards advocacy.

        Most of these types of organizations have an underlying objective and bias.

      2. David Greenwald

        Krosnick clearly was willing to work with them as a research agency but not an advocacy group.  I’m not surprised knowing what I do about him.

        1. Keith O

          You quoted from their site:

          Climate Central is not an advocacy organization. 

          But then you write:

          Krosnick clearly was willing to work with them as a research agency but not an advocacy group.

           

  3. Howard P

    Reminds me of some inundation maps I’ve seen regarding the failure of major dams… based on a completely full reservoir, instantaneous vaporization (not collapse) of the dam, a full downstream discharge facility (no way to pass the water through, so it pools), and no friction between the earth and the flood flows, and zero localized, upstream pooling, nor infiltration.

    Probably 10-15% of the public will, seeing something like this, will take it as ‘gospel’, with another 20-25% will take it as “deeply concerning”… that is what is truly scary. ‘Climate Central’ is about as an opaque a site as one can find on the internet.

  4. Howard P

    Another hint… the graphic shows a 200 foot increase in sea level… Davis is about elevation 45-57… not too many 150 foot deep lakes experience 92% air temperatures…

  5. Tia Will

    I will leave the climate science to those whose expertise it is. I would like to offer a perspective from the field of surgery which is in my area of expertise.

    Every surgeon knows, and every patient should be informed of the possible outcome of death associated with any major surgery. That would be the catastrophic or apocalyptic outcome for most patients. You all know how much I hate hyperbole, but that is the factual truth. Now one can quibble over the statistical probability of that occurring for any given patient given their working diagnosis, age,overall health and many other factors. But the bottom line is that they could die.

    So what do you do?  First, not become hysterical or obstinate.  Neither denying it can happen or assuming that it will is helpful. We see echoes of both in the posts here. For a medically needed surgery, you: 1. Accept that death is a possibility – prepare to mitigate circumstances most likely to lead to this outcome, blood available in case of likely hemorrhage. Antibiotics if infection likely. 2. Assemble the best surgical team possible. 3. Have all necessary equipment available 4.Follow a check list. 5. Don’t wing it. Call in further expertise if needed. 6. Don’t assume its over until the post op check.

     

  6. Jim Hoch

    Given the dire warnings and the implications for places further south, perhaps we should implement a “belt and suspenders” approach. We should do our best to reduce climate change as well as prevent the populations to the south migrating north by building a giant wall.

    Appreciate Jerika’s making the case for a giant “game of thrones” style wall on the border. After all we would not want millions of refugees who would have expectations of the type of showers and number of conjugal visiting rooms available.

    1. Howard P

      We should do our best to reduce climate change as well as prevent the populations to the south migrating north by building a giant wall.

      Heard that the Oregon legislature may actually consider that!

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for