According to climate projections, in the future all Dallas sidewalks will function as stovetops. (Photo: Pockafwye/Flickr)

Nature & Environment

By 2100, Dallas Will See 98 100-Degree Days Each Year

Your grandchildren will be broiling.

The New York Times ran a few depressing maps over the weekend that show how summer temperatures will be affected across the United States if nothing is done to slow or reverse the effects of climate change.

Between 1991 and 2010, Dallas saw an average of 44 days with high temperatures of 95 degrees or more. By 85 years from now, we’ll get about 133 a year. That’s more than one-third of the year.

And most of those days — 98 — will reach triple-digit heat.

If the projections hold, hot summers will extend much farther north in the U.S. than they do now. Even places like Minneapolis and Chicago, which get zero 100-degrees days now will have dozens each year by 2100.

Another reason to enjoy this unusually mild August in North Texas.

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

  • Bull.

    In the 70s, the prediction was that NYC would be covered in a sheet of ice by 2000. In the 80s, the prediction was that NYC would be underwater by 2015. Now the NYT is running with the same bull — they’ve just bumped it out the same 30 years.

    That’s the tell that it’s bullshit.

  • DubiousBrother

    Global Warming or Climate Change or Global Climate Disruption must be the only field of study where Only the future is certain, the past is always changing.

    I’m just thankful they patched the hole in the ozone so that peak oil was postponed for a yet to be determined time since we are going to run out of food by 2000 due to overpopulation …..

  • Mavdog

    Facts speak for themselves:
    the earth is getting hotter, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
    sea levels are rising, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    and if we continue down this path humans (and just about everything else) are going to have a tough road in the not too distant future.
    Denial seems to be the choice for some, but those who have open eyes and minds understand the gravity of the issue.

    • DubiousBrother

      Please define “not too distant future” because I have been around for over 60 years and none of the global alarmist predictions have come true. Manhattan isn’t under water, hurricanes are not stronger and more frequent, the ice caps have not melted, the polar bears are not extinct, the Himalayan glaciers are not disappearing and if the globe were warming, each summer in Dallas would be hotter than the one before including more days over 100 and that hasn’t happened.

      • Mavdog

        not too distant future is after you and I are gone. We won’t experience it, but our kids? might. Our grandkids? very likely.
        that’s if we continue down the same road and not make changes….the facts are there and they can’t be denied.
        One shouldn’t look at the short term temps in Dallas and make long term assumptions like you just did.

        • DubiousBrother

          I didn’t make any short term assumptions – I just pointed out “facts” that the settled science global warming alarmist crowd has stated in the past that turned out to be nonsense. One thing they do know how to do well is make up stories to get lots of funding. Stories like 98 100 degree plus days per year by 2000.

          • Mavdog

            No “short term assumptions”? Odd, you said “if the globe were warming, each summer in Dallas would be hotter than the one before including more days over 100 and that hasn’t happened.”
            guilty as charged.
            The data I linked aren’t “stories”, they are reality, and they have nothing to do with any attempt to “get lots of funding”.

          • DubiousBrother

            Since I’ve lived in Dallas for 50 years and this article is about 84 years out I would say your guilty verdict is as ridiculous as the article prediction itself.

          • Mavdog

            50 years? So you have lived in Dallas while the average August temp has gone from 84.2 degrees in the 1960’s to the current average of 88.4 degrees during this decade? You realize the average August temperature during the 2000’s was 86.4 degrees? Bit of a noticeable trend over those 50 years.
            You know, ostrich stick their head in the ground too. That way they are able to feel safe not knowing what threats are out there. It doesn’t make them safer, or protect them from the threats, but they do it anyway. Don’t be an ostrich…..

          • DubiousBrother

            What is your source for the temperatures? Has the landscape around the temp location changed in the 50 years?
            This article is about 100 degree plus days per year which hasn’t been on an upward trend since I came to Dallas.

          • Mavdog

            National Weather Service.
            The NYT article is about how temperatures are rising and that it will be hotter and hotter. The 100 degree days per year is just the hook. What difference is 100 degrees vs 101 degrees? both are hot..

          • DubiousBrother

            Here is a pretty good recap of the last 120 years of the global warming/ global cooling scare including NYT participation:
            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/120_years_of_climate_scares.html

          • Mavdog

            reading through that annotated group of quotes from the ironically named “American Thinker”, there is not a single set of data referenced that contradicts the study done by Nature Climate Change upon which the NYT piece is based.

            nothing. nada. zilch.

            that’s referred to as the American Thinker having “a big bag of nothing”.

          • DubiousBrother

            I wasn’t addressing the NYT latest scare article with the American Thinker time line, just showing how the NYT has been involved with the Global cooling/warming scare scam for the last 100 plus years. The big bag of nothing is the climate change scam.

          • Mavdog

            You chose the word “scam”, a choice that shows how you have placed blinders over your eyes. Not once have you, or the links you posted, showed anything that contradicts the data…data that clearly establishes a dramatic increase in the earth’s temperatures, and corresponding increase in ocean temperatures.
            I’ll stay on the side of hard data. You can continue being an ostrich.

          • DubiousBrother

            You call me an ostrich and yet you never question the nonsense that has been printed on this global warming issue.

            The hockey puck graph was a lie – credit Al Gore.
            The polar bear extinction was a lie – credit Al Gore.
            The melting Himalayan glaciers was a lie – credit the IPCC at the UN.
            The climate statistics are no longer needed – credit “Scientist” Michael Mann, Penn State
            The temperature readings of the past were changed to fit the global warming narrative – credit Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia
            NOAA Global temperatures are mostly fake – credit NOAA

            You seem to reject any information that I provide as being right wing, Koch brothers tin foil hat crap so look at the information yourself. All of the people and organizations mentioned above have a financial interest in there being global warming.

            I don’t have an ax to grind in this debate but I started asking questions when my children came home from school telling me about the global warming threat. It was global cooling in the 70’s when I first started reading about it. The information that was used to scare people didn’t make sense to me and the more I have dug into it the more skeptical I became and with the information that has come out now, the skepticism was warranted.

          • Mavdog

            No, I don’t question the data from NWS, NOAA and NASA. Why should I? Why do you?

            Polar Bear’s future is uncertain. But then I never mentioned the polar bear, why do you?
            Himalayan glaciers are retreating, one scientist made an estimate on how quick it will happen and he was wrong. But then I never mentioned the Himalayan glaciers, why do you?
            What does this have to do with the data I showed? nothing.

            Odd, but you haven’t provided any “information”. Zero. You suggest that all the scientists are just in it for profit. I never wrote the word “Koch”. I posted data. You haven’t.

          • DubiousBrother
          • manny

            I have lived in Dallas for 50 years and the average temperature in August has been more like 100 degrees. What area do you live in where the temp. only reaches 84-86 degrees in August?

          • DubiousBrother

            He doesn’t give a definition for the average temperature. It could be the temp was taken every 20 seconds or every 20 minutes or every 2 hours or twice a day or average of high and low. The location of the temps is not stated either.
            By the way, the average temperature in Dallas has never been near 100 degrees in August no matter what the definition of average is.

            Phoenix or Las Vegas may approach a 100 average high for the month of August though.

          • Mavdog

            gee, what does the “average August temperature” mean? by golly it is the average temperature for the month based on each day’s average temperature. As reported by the National Weather Service.
            wow, imagine something as simple as that….

          • DubiousBrother

            Where were the temperatures taken and how may each day to get the average? Did the method change over the 50 years?
            I have come to know that methodology is very important when it comes to the settled science.

          • Mavdog

            I’m guessing it was not the same person taking the temperature each day for the last century, but you know what? the data still is credible.
            I’m guessing it wasn’t the same thermometer used each day for the last century, but you know what? the data still is credible.
            I’ve come to know questioning but then there is just plain nuts…
            http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=dmotemp

          • DubiousBrother

            Look at the bottom of your chart – they changed the location of the temperature taking 4 times. As I write this, the current temperature in the Dallas area ranges from 83 in Kaufman to 88 in Grand Prairie to 90 at DFW and 93 in Plano.
            If you look at the trend from 2011 where the average August temp was 93.4 to last year where it was 87.3 that is a drop of 6.1 degrees in 5 years which would qualify as global cooling I think.

          • Mavdog

            That comment about “changed the location” is as asinine as when Delkus starts naming the temps in all the suburbs…”In Keller it’s 94, in Ovilla it’s 95, in Cleburne it’s 94″. There is minimal if any variance of temps over a period of time and it makes zero difference if the location was moved. Second, in the timeframe of the 50 years cited it moved one time a distance of about 5 miles. Your example if pure BS.
            Ahh, I see you’re practicing that short term assumption error again….

          • DubiousBrother

            I’m asinine and pure BS to question global warming modeling from the “scientists” that have been caught faking numbers advancing their agenda but the article that projects hot day modeling 85 years in the future is to be taken as the gospel truth.
            Truly, you are the perfect candidate to buy stock in Tesla as Musk spits out the same type of nonsense and his believers never question him.

          • Mavdog

            You don’t need to put the word scientists in quotation marks. they earned their status in spite of your cynicism.
            These numbers cited weren’t faked, and they weren’t prepared to support any side of this discussion.
            I never suggested the predictions are iron clad, and neither did Heid or the author at NYT. They’re predictions! You are the one who sees this as a black/white issue.
            Listen, those who bought stock in Tesla back in 2012-13 have profited nicely. They are thanking Musk over and over. I didn’t invest as I prefer cos. that make a profit. Likewise, if you don’t see the future of transportation, and cars in particular, is other then gasoline powered you’re wrong.

      • Frank Blunt

        the polar ice melts between every ice age… the glacial maximum was about 16,000 to 20,000 years ago and the currently remaining ice is about 5% of that starting point so, apparently, 95% of the polar ice melted without our industrial help, but we shouldn’t mention that… because melting this last 5% requires car exhaust and is officially a catastrophe. we also shouldn’t mention the other 4 ice ages either, or we’ll have to call them catastrophes as well. ? this last ice age apparently did make those poor camels on ellesmere island go extinct with that evil catastrophic dropping temperature… no tears for them tho.
        how do you suppose all those trees and plant material that most of the perma frost is composed of, got under the glaciers ? the sub glacial trees are obvious evidence of a planet about 15 deg F warmer before this ice age started. it’s no secret that there are palm tree fossils and in the far northern USA and camel fossils on ellesmere island barely 300 miles from the north pole… hint. palm trees don’t migrate .. LOL
        this modern climate terror is similar to freaking out in march that recent events indicate that june will be far hotter ( in the northern hemisphere ).
        that could be scary, with some amnesia about the previous cycles.

    • Frank Blunt

      if we continue down this path, the month of june will be way hotter than the month of january !!! just like the seasonal planetary warming between each ice age except… This time, it’s our fault ! the other four previous ice age, post warming cycles were probably the result of some long term solar output and orbital / rotational planetary variances but this post-ice-age warming is certainly due to us humans !

  • JamieT

    Certainly no one involved in the average blog has anywhere near the
    expertise to understand and intelligently evaluate actual climate science and its hypothetical
    modeling. What a relief, then, that nothing about climate change needs to be true to drive fun and engaging blog discussions. About, say, boilerplate progressive talking points. Anyone can talk about those.

  • Tested

    Predictions and headlines like this are ridiculous. We might have 98 100 degree days next year. Does that mean 2100 will see 200 100 degree days? Predicting a future so far away with such certainty is foolish. They can’t accurately predict hurricane season just a few months away, why does anyone trust a prediction for 84 years from now?