Science and Technology

Climate Change Will Be Very Bad For Dallas County

A new study looks at the economic effects of climate change at a county-by-county level, demonstrating that global warming is a local issue.

The most talked-about effects of climate change—rising sea levels and soaring temperatures—can seem distant from Dallas. We’re far from the coast, and we’re used to the heat. But even if the worst case global scenario is prevented, Dallas won’t be exempt from the fallout that comes with a hotter planet.

A new study led by climate scientists and economists at the University of Chicago and the University of California, published last month in Science, drives that point home. It takes a detailed county-by-county look at how climate change will affect communities across the U.S., finding that Texas and the South are especially vulnerable to projected economic losses caused by global warming, as desirable jobs move to wealthier and cooler climes to the west and north, and an unpredictable climate wreaks havoc on agriculture and industry. (An emboldened mosquito population is another issue.)

While Dallas County will dodge some of the worst effects (Harris County, closer to the coast, is hit much harder, for example), charts included in the study show lower income, higher energy expenditures, and a higher mortality rate here by the end of the century. An interactive map from the Climate Impact Lab, as the researchers call themselves, unfortunately only includes projected average temperature increases by county. But it’s easy enough to find Dallas on the charts below, which measure anticipated changes from 2080 to 2099. Click the image to look a little closer.

This study seems like evidence that climate change will serve to worsen the problems already facing Dallas, from public health to widening income inequality. It’s a local issue.

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

  • So… people who have never made a climate model that works predictively are now making ECONOMIC models, which economists have never made work predictively, and I’m supposed to make life decisions and policy decisions based on THAT?

    Call my phrenologist and get my astrologer on the phone, because I need some more Wise Advice from people who believe in anything.

    • stephan011

      In point of fact, the models are *quite* accurate, I don’t know where you got the idea they weren’t, From Forbes:
      “The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly”
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#e100d046614d

      =====
      Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
      The expansion of the Hadley cells.
      The poleward movement of storm tracks.
      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

  • DubiousBrother
  • Mavdog
  • stephan011

    Here’s a simple proof that we are heating the planet. No model or projections are necessary, just physics:

    1. CO2 levels are rising: This is data from the Scrippts Observatory on Hawaii which has been tracking CO2 levels since the 1950’s. Data before this, relies on air trapped in ice cores and then correlated with the modern record. CO2 air measurements can be repeated by anyone, anywhere:
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

    The sharp spike on the right side started with the industrial revolution, when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    2. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2, the more heat. This was discovered in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius who later went on to win the Nobel Prize, here is his original paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

    And here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

    This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

    If CO2 levels are going up, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then we are heating the planet. Full stop.

    There really isn’t any way around these basic facts.

    Modeling where that heat goes, is a useful and important thing to do, but not central to the argument. Models will always be approximate, but no flaw in a model will undo the basic underlying reality that we are pumping a *lot* of energy into the planet.

    • You’ve ignored tons of problems with that theory, especially that as CO2 increases, water vapor (a REAL greenhouse gas) goes up, which also creates more cloud cover, which ends up cooling as a result of it blocking sunlight. One of the biggest observed heatings occurred the week after 9/11 simply as a result of the plane grounding eliminating contrails and the lack of their cooling effect — a MINOR part of the cloud cover.

      It’s frustrating when people who think they are smart try to simplify a complex system.

      • Mavdog

        You do not know that “more cloud cover” i.e. water vapor results in a positive feedback loop wherein the atmospheric temperature increases even more?

        “It’s frustrating when people who think they are smart try to simplify a complex system.”
        yeah, maybe you should follow this advise.

      • stephan011

        Except increased cloud cover is likely to amplify warming:

        Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record
        https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7614/full/nature18273.html

      • stephan011

        Bottom line is:

        1. We are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
        2. CO2 traps heat, the more CO2 the more heat.

        We really are heating up the planet.

        • 36 gigatons of manmade carbon released, compared to over 400 gigatons of natural emissions from decay and natural fires.

          “massive amounts” indeed. Scratch a warming hysteric, find someone bad at math.

          • stephan011

            This is why the ‘tiny amount’ argument is wrong:
            Say you had a bath tub and it was half full and it was draining out 100 gallons an hour. Then you turn on the water so that 100 gallons a minute are flowing in.

            What would happen to the water level?
            It would stay even, the same amount going in, is going out.

            But now you turn up the water a *tiny* amount, just 3%.
            Now what happens? The bathtub will overflow.

            It may be ‘only’ 3% of the total, but if it’s accumulating then it’s bad news. And we *know* it’s accumulating, because we can watch the concentration climbing from roughly 280 PPM now up to 410 PPM. That’s a huge increase.

          • No, it isn’t, because the natural sinks are growing at the same rate, and we don’t know how the oceanic sink will react (and have also never accurately modeled it.) It’s like turning up the water by a tiny amount… and also pulling the plug on the tub.

            You don’t know shit about shit, so pull up your pants and try to figure out what is going on before you piss yourself and start shrieking hysteria. No one hear is buying it and you are just making a fool of yourself.

          • stephan011

            No, they are not growing at the same rate.

            And we have direct evidence that proves this: if they were growing at the same rate, the concentrations in the atmosphere wouldn’t be rising as they clearly are.

            This graph shows CO2 for the last 10,000 years, the spike on the right hand side is us, that started with the industrial revolution when we started dumping massive amounts of carbon into our atmosphere: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_10k.png

            This is the proof that sinks and emissions aren’t in balance.

          • DubiousBrother

            Do you know what ppm stands for?

          • stephan011

            It means parts per million. But small concentrations doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact.

            Here’s an actual demonstration of the CO2 greenhouse effect, it takes about 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

            This experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere.

            If CO2 levels are going up, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then we are heating the planet. Full stop.

            There really isn’t any way around these basic facts.

          • DubiousBrother

            That is a funny demonstration but typical – they did not disclose how much they increased the CO2 and methane in the enclosed greenhouses to arrive at the result they wanted. They also used an enclosed structure and as you know, the thickness of the troposphere varies depending on time of day, season and location over the planet. I’m surprised you didn’t say the science is settled.

          • stephan011

            There is zero question that CO2 traps heat. It was discovered over 100 years ago and can be trivially confirmed.

            Science is never settled, but consensus is reached when the evidence becomes overwhelming, which it has.

            Please consider: There isn’t a SINGLE scientific institution in the entire world, which hasn’t told you that global warming is real, and that humanity is causing it, please take the time to read a few of their statements:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

            Meanwhile FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS are funding a covert disinformation campaign:

            “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

            They are funding literarily, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

            So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, did?

          • DubiousBrother

            If you can show me the CO2 levels are exactly the same at the exact same time in readings from the Arctic, Antarctica, L.A., Cape Town, Mexico City, Death Valley, Mount Everest and Sweetwater, Texas I will believe your closed system theory where you can just pop out a couple of random CO2 level numbers to prove that it is increasing due to human activity. If you can’t, you may have to model it with appropriate adjustments to prove your theory and you could be eligible for funding.

          • stephan011

            DB: anyone can do CO2 measurements, they trivial to do and no one doubts the record. Plus we can tell the carbon that comes from burning fossil fuels because of carbon-14 differences, it has a signature.

            The reality is we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and because CO2 traps heat energy, we are trapping a lot more heat, and heating the planet.

            That’s just reality.

          • DubiousBrother

            You are using global warming math skills in your example. You have to round 6,000 gallons down to less than or equal to 100 gallons to keep your water level.

          • stephan011

            A small increase each year will lead to large increases over time. That’s just basic logic.

            At the start of the industrial revolution the CO2 concentration was ~280 PPM, today it’s ~410 PPM, 1 45% increase. That’s a huge increase, and it’s destabilized our planet’s heat balance.

          • DubiousBrother

            You are throwing out meaningless numbers. Who says the CO2 concentration has increased from 280 PPM to 410 PPM and that our planet’s heat balance has been destabilized? The global warming “scientists” that rely on global warming to be a real thing to get their funding have already been caught “adjusting” the numbers to get a result that sells the theory. That is not science.

          • stephan011

            No climate data was ever faked, you’ve been lied to and manipulated. There’s been a series of manufactured scandals, but every single one of them has been debunked, not that you’d ever hear that from right-wing media.

            *Six* separate investigations cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
            “Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy”
            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.WUPbisaZOkY

          • DubiousBrother

            I guess you don’t think UCSUSA has an agenda – without global warming, they do not exist.

          • stephan011

            Union of Concerned Scientists has been around for years, and doesn’t do global warming research.

            At any rate UCS is just reporting, there were 6 inquires into the supposed fake data and all of them concluded it didn’t happen.

            You are being scammed by fossil fuel interests, here’s how:

            “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

            They are funding literally, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

          • stephan011

            Please consider: There isn’t a SINGLE scientific institution in the entire world, which hasn’t told you that global warming is real, and that humanity is causing it, please take the time to read a few of their statements:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

            Meanwhile FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS are funding a covert disinformation campaign:

            “Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years”
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

            They are funding literarily, the *same* people who told us that cigarettes are safe, and don’t cause cancer. THESE are the people who are funding climate denialism sites.

            So which gigantic conspiracy do YOU think is more likely? That *thousands* of scientists, in *every* country, decided to lie about global warming? OR that the fossil fuel industry, seeking to protect their profits, did?

  • Walter J Williams

    This article is complete rubbish. NASA ,NOAA have been caught deliberately manipulating data to support their doomsday scinero. When the correct data was published, it showed no warming. Then it quickly dissappeared, denial and suppression was quickly imposed, even so far as to ban scientific records or papers from other nations. Now there is a push to make it illegal even to question the viability of this scandal.