There is little reason to expect more severe flooding over Washington State by the end of the century.
With better management of our rivers and development, there could be LESS flooding even with the very modest increases in precipitation.
Extreme Temperature Deaths Will Decline
There is a deep literature showing that cold waves kill far more people than heat waves. For example, a 2015 article in The Lancet found 17 times more deaths from cold than heat (see figure from that article below).
Thus, global warming will REDUCE deaths from extreme temperatures.
Furthermore, it is generally much easier to protect from heat than cold, with air conditioning being effective for taking the edge off of generally shorter head waves, compared to the extended cold waves that result in most of the deaths.
Northwest Snowpack
Global warming is causing the region to slowly warm, which will cause a slow decline in snowpack. A very slow decline.
As shown by the data, Washington State has warmed by about 1°F over the past 125 years during the winter snow accumulation season (October through March). Human greenhouse gas emissions were the key contributor to the recent warming.
This modest warming has only produced a very small decline in April 1 snowpack at the official (SNOTEL) observing sites (Figure below produced by past Washington State Climatologist, Mark Albright)
High-resolution regional climate models suggest a continued slow decline in Northwest snowpack, dropping by ~15% by mid-century. Not the end of the world.
Wildfires
Probably the most irresponsibly hyped aspect of global warming is the connection with wildfire. The truth is that human alteration of the surface, increasing population, and human ignition of fires are FAR more important than climate change.
Consider a plot of wildfire acres burning across the U.S. (below). A LOT more fire acreage a century ago, when global warming was very small.
Considering only Washington State during the past ten years...a period when global warming was supposedly the greatest... wildfires are actually down.
The truth is that human ignition and wildfire management are central. That human modification of the surface is critical....and far more important than climate change.
The development of the technology of fire suppression and the funding of a massive suppression infrastructure led to a big drop in fires during the middle of the 20th century.
Human mismanagement of forests and human introduction of flammable grasses contributed to the recent modest fire increase. There has a huge increase in human ignitions (e.g., powerlines and arson) and the massive intrusion of flammable structures into the wildland/urban interface.
Warming temperatures are a very minor contributor to the modest increases in wildfires during the past decades.
Sea Level Rise?
Sea-level is slowly rising with NO acceleration as claimed by climate activists. Here is the long-term trend at Seattle--about an 8-inch rise over a century. Very typical of locations around the world.
Climate Economists Set the Record Straight
There have been a number of studies of the impacts of global warming on the world economy. The general conclusion: even unfettered global warming would only have a very small impact on economic growth across the planet.
Without or without global warming, humanity will be immeasurably richer and better off by the end of the century.
William Nordhaus, who received the Nobel Prize for his analysis, found that even unfettered global warming would decrease global economic growth by a few percent. The entire world will be MUCH richer and healthier by the end of this century, even with global warming.
Final Words
Why are so many groups hyping and exaggerating the impacts of global warming? Claiming disaster and existential threats without a factual basis.
For some, it may give them the satisfaction that they are "saving the world", giving meaning to their lives.
For others, it may be a political tool to undermine the opposing political party. Or a way to gain political power (e.g., certain prior governors)
For others, it may be a way to gain money and resources. The Washington State CCA is a poster child for such greed.
Whatever the reason, climate change hype and exaggeration are both destructive and counterproductive, often hurting the very people advocates claim to be concerned about.
How sure are you that the relatively rapid anthropogenic CO2 increase will not trigger any weather or biological feedback loop reactions? Isn't it possible that we could be approaching unseen tipping points due to the anomalous rate of change?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
1. Should we make efforts to resuce CO2 emissions with renewables, heat pumps, EVs or should we just live normal life?
ReplyDelete2. How has CO2 concentration in the atmosphere changed due to human activity post industrial revolution and what was the climate like at the same CO2 levels in past?
3.When are we getting snow on the slopes?
To answer number 2, if I remember right, carbon dioxide has gone from about 280 ppm (0.028%) to about 420 ppm now. The information is readily available. And yes, we should work to reduce our emissions, in my opinion. As for the snow, no one knows, but the forecast I heard suggests that we will probably get a good deal of it in the second half of the winter.
DeleteIs there any risk, even weakly understood, that human-forced global warming may influence the timing of potential abrupt sea level rise or other globally disruptive irreversible changes? If so, is it quite appropriate to call it a modest problem? And does this optimistic outlook depend in part on continuing efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions?
ReplyDeleteThis is very sad. I see nothing about the impacts on any other species. Nor do I see any mention of the future impacts of rising ocean levels? Reads more like talking points for the anti-environmental organizations.
ReplyDeleteI added sea level rise....another modest issue...and one we can do a lot about (ask the Dutch). The truth is non anti-environmental....why would say that? Other species? Which ones are you concerned about? If we were concerned about other species, we should restore our forests and shop pushing development into natural areas. But that has little to do with climate change.
DeleteWhat are your thoughts about potential sea level rise due to glacial melting on Greenland and Antarctica?
ReplyDeleteOur socioeconomic system is dependent on increasing growth; people and productivity. Eventually (unless we get off the planet), there will be a need to stop growing and figure out how to achieve a healthy equilibrium. However, humans are probably not much different from other lifeforms. We will grow to the limits imposed by our environment and then experience significant, perhaps cataclysmic, setbacks. Climate change is just one of many factors in this grand experiment of life on earth.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this analysis based on facts and common sense.
ReplyDeleteAs you noted, for some climate alarmists, "it may give them the satisfaction that they are "saving the world", giving meaning to their lives."
Great Blog Cliff!
ReplyDeleteCliff, what about the other effect of CO2 increases, namely the rise in carbonic acid level in the oceans, AKA ocean acidification? Most oceanic taxa rely on the ability to fix calcium carbonate, either at their own taxanomic level or at lower prey levels. Over geological timescales, continental weathering can solve the acidification problem, but half a million years is a long time to wait. I have never heard a warming optimist address this very reassuringly.
ReplyDeleteabe...ocean "acidication" is a very, very minor issue. I have blogged about it several times. The ocean will never become acidic and moduation of upwelling is hugely greater modulator of ocean PH..cliff
DeleteWell, talk to the oysters farmers in Wash who have to modify and try to adapt to increasing ocean acidity that is interfering with farming practices.
Deleteaaaaa... the oyster are fine. It turned out that the problem had nothing to do with ocean acidification, but the oyster hatcheries ingesting upwelled water that naturally was less basic...cliff
DeleteGiven your stance that it's a modest problem at worst, what should policymakers, leaders of industry, and ordinary citizens do to address global warming? Nothing? Or some more measured approach to prevention and/or mitigation?
ReplyDeleteThe charts and data are starting to diverge from our everyday experience. The claims of modest change do not pass anyone’s smell test at this point. But sure, it’s all going to be just fine!
ReplyDeleteScience is not done by "smell". It is done with facts. The facts are quite clear.... GW is a significant, but modest problem.
DeleteNo, the model projections are diverting from everyday experience. We now have ample evidence from empirical sources that support Dr. Mass'es contentions. The modelers should have corrected their models years ago but have refused to do so. Modeled results are not proof.
DeleteOur "every day experience" is the weather, not GW.
DeleteExcellent article. People are so gas lit by this topic though, I can't imagine it's going to get much traction. It'd be nice if it did!
ReplyDeleteYou state "Washington State has warmed by about 1°F over the past 125 years ...Human greenhouse gas emissions were the key contributor to the recent warming." What is the scientific proof for this claim?
ReplyDeleteVery poor snowpack this season. About the same as 2015 statewide.
ReplyDeleteAre there similar studies for Alaska? I understand that global warming affects are more pronounced in polar regions.
ReplyDeleteI have been following you since I was a kid. Love this article. The lies and stealing of money to attack a problem they deem the end of Washington drives me crazy. The carbon credit system needs to go! The biggest issue I see in our state relating to forest fires is the mismanagement of forest land. Snow is down this time of year but the next few weeks are looking great! February will be a great ski month!
ReplyDeleteFantastic, science based article. This climate catastrophe narrative for political gain and the almighty dollar is possibly the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Could you please notify every mainstream media outlet that presents this "crisis" as a non-negotiable fact.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGreat article. The institute of Public Affairs in Australia publishes a series of books "Climate Change the Facts". They come out every few years and are collections of technical articles on the wide variety of climate issues from a perspective like Cliff's. The first was in 2017 and the current one in 2025. Most are highly technical but nonetheless good reading for objective info.
Jeez Cliff, get out more. We have a place in Skykomish at maybe 1000 feet elevation. 20 years ago we were routinely sledding in our backyard. Haven’t been able to do that in the last 10 years. The persistent snowpack at lower elevations has disappeared. This fall we could easily walk across the Skykomish river due to low flow. Your snowpack percent of average numbers do not tell a complete picture - go out and talk to people who experience winter activities first hand, they will tell you of some significant trends. And when all the people who rely on places like the Summit at Snoqualmie for their livelihood lose out due to elevated snow levels (as you mentioned in a past post), tell the, global warming is only a modest problem. Shame.
ReplyDeleteLow level snowpack is declining. This is why it is a modest problem. Higher level snowpack is holding. We just should not hype and exaggerate the impacts.
DeleteI think Alaska may disagree with your assessment. They seem to be on the front line of some climate changes that have little to do with development and forest practices.
ReplyDeleteRe: Sea level rise. Of course a linear fit will show no acceleration. However, NOAA’s best fit does show sea level rise accelerating.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, then -- what are your policy recommendations to address this significant but modest problem? Accept that the benefits (economic growth, etc.) outweigh the costs? Even if it's not an existential problem, should we be taking steps to reduce warming and CO2 emissions? If so, how should we do that?
ReplyDeleteWe need to do smart things and not go into panic mode. Expand use of fission power. Develop fusion power. This solves the energy problem. Fix our forests. Build smart in vulnerable areas. Work on resilience. Stop wasting money (such as WA CCA). Don't make people fearful for no reason....just cruel.
DeletePerhaps we can all agree that doubling down on coal, oil, and gas are not smart things to do.
DeleteJerry....no one is doubling down on coal. Doubling down on gas is a great idea (the reason why the US carbon emissions is down). We should double down on nuclear...and triple down on fusion research and development. ..cliff
DeleteI've heard some reports that a lack of sea ice in the Arctic is one of the causes of the weakening polar vortex and stretched vortex down into the lower 48 that we are seeing as the predominant pattern this Winter. Is this just a theory?
ReplyDeleteAlso when you mentioned Climate Change as a "modest"problem, one of the reasons I agree with you is the amount of time that we have to adapt to some of the more major effects of Climate change is actually significant. For example, the sea level rise will take centuries before it becomes a bigger problem and there's lots of time to adapt. Furthermore, the glaciers melting will be a problem in the summer due to lack of water in some river systems.But it can also be fixed with better water storage , such as higher dams and larger storage capacity in reservoirs , to contain some of the atmospheric river water that will fall in the fall and winter.
Are you discounting the West Antarctic Ice sheet? Even without that we would be looking at around 50 centimeters on the east coast by 2100 per MIT Climate ( which would be pretty catastrophic for Florida and building dutch style dikes is not going to work there because there are no choke points to dam). But if the Ice sheet starts melting it would be much worse, on the order of 2 - 10 meters, which would be truly catastrophic even for the Northwest.
ReplyDeleteNot discounting anything. No reason to expect a major loss of ice in Antartica. If anyone is suggesting this, they are being very irresponsible...
DeleteAny mention of nuclear fusion as a significant energy source is not borne out by the lack of progress in developing this technology. Building a small sun turns to be very difficult. What hasn’t been mentioned is the loss af arable land and declining freshwater sources like deep aquifers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w
on the contrary...there has been substantial progress in developing fusion power, such as https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/01/260101160855.htm
DeleteIt's quite apparent that your implied b message here is that Climate change is "A modest Problem" right now - at this moment of history. For the sake of argument I would agree and so does most anyone else of any skill (just forget about the headlines for now, focus on the skilled opinions)
ReplyDeleteHowever when it comes to the future - a time you seem to avoid in this post - there is a strong consensus that climate change will not be merely "a modest problem" and that without a doubt a transition away from fossil fuels is mandatory if we want to avoid increasingly destabilized ecological systems.
You are clearly on record acknowledging all this - even in your comments here about nuclear fusion for example - and you've even staked a political position on that in being a carbon tax promoter going back a decade or more. The question is, why actively promote a carbon tax or nuclear fusion at all ......
if Climate change is a "modest problem"?
Bruce...you are not correct.... I am talking about the future as well...particularly about the future. As the world gets more richer and technically advanced, climate change fades as a problem...even with increased warming...cliff
ReplyDeleteCan we honestly say with absolute confidence that there are no potential tipping points on the horizon and that this trajectory of modest change has no chance of transforming into accelerated change and/or an otherwise more severe situation, one that we may or may not be able to effectively mitigate? My understanding is that this is exactly what many climate models predict might happen. Are you saying all those models are wrong and you are the scientist best qualified to make that judgement? I would argue that neither Cliff nor anyone else possesses the scientific power to be sure about this. Therefore I believe it comes down to a simple question: what are the consequences of being wrong? If we succeed at shifting away from fossil fuels and are wrong about the climate change trajectory and it stays “modest”; we at least helped create a new clean energy economy and technology. But if we rationalize ourselves into complacency based on plots of recent trends…. and end up being wrong. Wouldn’t that be far far worse for humanity and the planet?
ReplyDeleteHi Smithalino, Mike Smith here. I am a meteorologist who has specialized in extreme weather for more than 50 years.
DeleteWith regard to "Tipping Points," I invite you to read something I wrote on my blog years ago: https://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2013/08/tipsy-from-tipping-points.html
None of those have come to pass.
In contrast to the minor problem of global warming there is the environmentally disastrous consequences of several types of “green” energy. By far the worst of these is biofuels. The net energy gain from our largest source of biofuels, cor-based ethanol, is near zero. It takes a gallon of ethanol to produce a gallon of ethanol. Over 30 million acres are used to grow biofuels. That is the largest land use change of the last 50 years. Millions of acres of Forests and grasslands have been destroyed worldwide to grow near useless biofuels. We have spent trillions of dollars to destroy the environment to grow these biofuels
ReplyDelete