Countries that will suffer the most temperature change from global warming

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01155-z/tables/1

by matco11 • 3 years ago

39 52 3 years ago

nature.com

Simulacra• 3 years ago

US is not even on the list.

degun• 3 years ago

Should it?

arp2422• 3 years ago

Because it's not in the top 10...

arrowsmith2• 3 years ago

The US is a big place - big enough that different parts of the country are sure to be affected very differently.

Whatever the figures are for the US, I'd be interested to see a state-by-state breakdown of them.

scrozart• 3 years ago

And?

Luc• 3 years ago

Link to supplementary notes with tables containing more countries: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs418...

criddell• 3 years ago

I wonder if there are some countries that will see a net benefit from global warming?

qaq• 3 years ago

Ireland ?

arp2422• 3 years ago

Won't it mean it will rain even more?

But yeah, I read about people fainting and dying of the heat all over Europe, and meanwhile I'm sitting in Ireland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nshTBTnHFMw

chasing• 3 years ago

Russia.

mistrial92• 3 years ago

this comment ignores massive detriment -- forest fire alone will cause unsolveable damage.

romusha• 3 years ago

Also known as the country who is vehemently for global warming

vbezhenar2• 3 years ago

A very significant part of Russia is permafrost. As climate gets warm, more of permafrost land is melting. It's not really clear the consequences of this process. It releases trapped CO2, it changes ecosystems, it transforms solid land into a swamp.

I'm not claiming that you're not correct. Cold climate requires spending truly enormous energy and resources to heat people, to build warm houses, to craft warm clothes. Cold climate harvests very lesser amounts of wheat and other plants and animals. This is extremely big part of equation.

dreen2• 3 years ago

If someone is wondering why: much of Siberian land is difficult to develop due to permafrost. 65% of Russian territory, which comes up to 11.1 km2, is permafrost. Almost all of it is owned by the state/military and they probably couldn't give less of a fuck about any negative consequences.

blondie9x• 3 years ago

There is no benefit to life from anthropogenic climate change anywhere on Earth. 350 ppm of CO2 was the perfect balance that life is made for.

We are up to about 420 ppm of CO2 now. We raised it 70 ppm in less than 200 years. Unreal.

candiddevmike• 3 years ago

Any interesting links around why 350 is the target? I searched and everyone keeps quoting the same climate guru without any reasoning behind why that number specifically was chosen.

oppositelock• 3 years ago

Why is 350ppm the perfect concentration? Higher is better for plants, because most are carbon limited, for example. The Carboniferous era, whose biosphere sequestered so much carbon, had far higher concentrations.

I’m not disagreeing, but that seemed like a statement out of the blue.

tzs• 3 years ago

Are you sure you didn't mean 250 ppm? That's a lot closer to what it was 200 years ago. 350 ppm is around 1990 levels and it is hard to see how 1990 levels would be what life was made for.

agilob• 3 years ago

There's a joke that Czechia will have access to the sea

maratc• 3 years ago

Canada?

neom3• 3 years ago

Well except we'll have no trees because they all burned down, but otherwise sure.

_fizz_buzz_• 3 years ago

People thought that until a few months ago.

gonzo412• 3 years ago

Depressingly, the north Atlantic pass comes to mind.

pharmakom• 3 years ago

Scotland maybe?

WinstonSmith842• 3 years ago

Most (very) cold countries actually. This will require adjustments (like for Canada with its wildfires) but over time these cold countries shall (net) benefit.

arrowsmith2• 3 years ago

Their biggest problem will be dealing with all the climate refugees that show up at their borders.

xwdv2• 3 years ago

Some of these numbers don’t feel compatible with human life.

moralestapia3• 3 years ago

Like, which ones?

ginko2• 3 years ago

A 30% relative change in temperature from an avg 20°C/293K would be a difference of almost 100K.

gmuslera3• 3 years ago

The problem are not yearly averages, but outliers. Never cross a river that is on average 4 feet deep. As long as extreme cold somewhat "compensate" extreme heat your average temperature may not be so different from what it is today, but your day to day life may not be exactly enjoyable, to say the least.

Frequent enough extreme weather events can ruin crops, damage infrastructure and make unreliable to live there for the long term, even for industrialized countries. Once in a century extreme weather events are happening every few years now. And no countries are safe from that.

About reaching global yearly average temperature of 2ºC by 2050, we already reached 1.5ºC as global average temperature for some days. This year, due to El Niño conditions that officially started some weeks ago, we are breaking records so bad that there is a big enough visible gap against the trends on the last 40+ years. The change is not smooth nor linear. And we are getting conditions that defies any average.

ospray• 3 years ago

Also if you don't think 2°C matters try changing you office thermostat by that amount.

gmuslera3• 3 years ago

Global averages are not the same as the temperature you are feeling right now. If that global average rises doesn't mean that your local temperature will rise that amount over what it used to be the same day 100 years ago. You should see it as the increase of the energy of the climate system, that will bring more extreme weather events (even cold ones) and reaching new peaks.

Think in the increase of surface sea temperature from https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ that we are seeing today, that would be equivalent to maybe millions of times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb (to put it easier to understand terms). It is not that the planet heated that amount suddenly in the last few months, but that the extra heat we've been receiving and keeping all this years has been circulating through the system, something is being emitted back, some may had hit saturation points, and some positive feedback loops probably has been triggered.

And those feedback loops with their corresponding tipping points are the reason why we drew the line in 1.5ºC. Not because your thermostat would be 1.5ºC higher, but because by then the system may reach a stage where things will increasingly worsen a lot by themselves, even without our action.

JaggerFoo• 3 years ago

I notice that Mexico and Australia are not included on the extended list, I'm not sure what that says about the study or the two countries.

wzdd• 3 years ago

Australia is 57th in supplementary table 5 of the linked paper, which adjusts for urban areas only. I assume that coastal areas (where the cities are) are impacted more under this CDD measure than deserts (which is what most of Australia is).

WithinReason• 3 years ago

Due to how CDD is defined, this just seems to become a list of hot and cold countries.

karmakaze• 3 years ago

Cooling Degree Days seem to have varying definitions (from other references):

Cooling degree days (CDDs) are a widely used measure of heat exposure and cooling demand. It measures how much the mean temperature exceeds a reference temperature each day over a given period, using the dry bulb temperature. For example, considering 18ºC as the baseline temperature for CDD calculation, a day with a mean outdoor temperature of 30°C, has 12 CDDs (30-18). If the next day has a mean temperature of 28°C, it has 10 CDDs. The total for the two days is, therefore, 22 CDDs.
Degree days are measures of how cold or warm a location is. A degree day compares the mean (the average of the high and low) outdoor temperatures recorded for a location to a standard temperature, usually 65° Fahrenheit (F) in the United States. The more extreme the outside temperature, the higher the number of degree days. A high number of degree days generally results in higher levels of energy use for space heating or cooling.

So this all seems quite arbitrary. As everything warms I suspect that we'll be adjusting that base temp from 18'C/65'F to something warmer that is still tolerable. In the summer I find 24'C indoor temps to be just fine as long as humidity doesn't get too high.

Countries that will suffer the most temperature change from global warming

Related Stories