… As noted by NBC News, but it’s absolutely, positively, definitely got nothing to do with global climate change (!!!).
Here is a longer term depiction of rising temperatures.
Source: NOAAAnd that’s just data for May. Given the duration of the high temperatures, I’m guessing July average temperatures will be above norm.
For those unable to detect sarcasm, here’s a discussion of the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. From “Expert credibility in climate change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2010):
… we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Two key graphs (shown in this post highlight that fact that among published (in peer reviewed journals) climate scientist, the overwhelming consensus is on that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is occurring.
Note that UE denotes unconvinced; CE denotes convinced (by the thesis of anthropogenic climate change).
So if your local power grid fails, I want you to remember all the individuals who said how easy it will be to “adjust” to warmer temperatures.
Update, 9:30PM Pacific: Bruce Carman’s mention of droughts reminded me of the collision between global climate change and spending cuts (this is for all of you who relish the reductions in nominal government spending). Even with small increments in temperatures, wildfires are worse, and colliding with development, even as fiscal pressures on USDA are increased.
Source: NPR.From :
The deaths of 19 firefighters near Yarnell, Ariz., this summer have focused a lot of attention on just how bad wildfire has become in the West. And research predicts the situation is going to get worse.
Over the past decade, the region has seen some of the worst fire seasons on record. In addition to lives lost, the fires have cost billions in terms of lost property and in taxpayer money spent fighting the blazes.
Ray Rasker, an economist who lives in the fire country of southwestern Montana, tracks fire records the way other economists study business cycles or commodity prices. He’s seen a disturbing trend.
First, he says, “the fires are twice as large, they’re burning twice as long, and the season is starting earlier and ending later.” Second: More homes are being built right next to national forests, and when those forests burn, firefighters have to defend those homes.
Already, the firefighting portion of the Forest Service’s budget is higher than ever. “In 2012 [the share of budget] was over 47 percent,” says David Cleaves, the service’s climate and fire expert. That’s tripled over the past decade or so.
Cleaves says it’s not a crisis now, but “economically, and in a policy sense, you could call it a crisis in the future.” That’s because more money that goes to firefighting means there’s less money available for prevention.
Perhaps the invisible hand will solve this problem.
This piece is cross-posted from Econbrowser with permission.