This map is little better than science fiction in terms of the extreme extrapolations it reaches at to get its results. I'm sorry but there's just way that no current climate modeling could come to these conclusions with anything even remotely approaching certainty.<p>If some of you would leave behind your climate change disaster porn fetishism for a bit (despite using plenty of the latest smartphone technologies in your comfortable middle to upper middle class lives while you lambast the world for "never changing"), you might consider these climate predictions rationally enough to realize that doom scenarios like these have been ongoing for decades, if not centuries and have literally no basis in fact. They are no more than speculation based on guesses derived from a snapshot of the present. Remember the air quality predictions of the 70's? How have those gone in many of the places where it was predicted that millions would suffocate? Just one example.<p>For one thing, the 2.7 degree increase they mention is desperately severe and seems to assume that nothing in our human world will improve in any way in so far as contamination of the world is concerned, or present and near future technologies to mitigate it. Secondly, the entire graphic hinges on afar too many unknown unknowns and a total lack of imagination for potential positive outcomes from warmer temperatures or human innovation under steady duress.<p>I don't deny the dangers of climate change or the effect that humans have on the world already, or if they're not careful about modulating their behavior down the road. It's also undeniable that even now, irresponsible climate actions have caused suffering for certain populations, but none of this justifies treating doom porn as a hard or realistic assessment of the future, when nothing so far has even concretely borne out older predictions of man-made climate catastrophe in even the present time.
Last year (not 2100) a town in Canada reached 49.5ºC, in an event when a lot of places in US got temperatures 35+ºC for a week or something like that. Siberia reached past June the 38ºC mark. Those are the heatwaves that we are getting right now, not in 80 years. Couple that with wet bulb conditions and we might have a lot of problems, this decade.<p>You don't need a full year with the average day past the uninhabitable mark to be in trouble, you just need one day with conditions that you can't survive.
This is highly misleading.<p>First, if you click on "present", it shows significant populations living in "uninhabitable" areas, making their definition of "uninhabitable" quite questionable, covering e.g. 56% of the population of India and 84% of the population of the Netherlands. Last time I checked, Rotterdam and Amsterdam were pretty habitable.<p>Second, for their 2100 display, they're assuming an increase of 2.7°C compared to pre-industrial levels, which is what their source (ClimateActionTracker) considers the outcome of currently implemented policies, ignoring any and all planned improvements/goals. That's not a realistic scenario.
Northern India seems to be the area of the map most affected by the combined factors specifically heat and water shortage. It's also, by my unscientific estimation home to hundreds of millions of people.<p>What...are we going to do about this? This seems like it could shape up to be a humanitarian crisis of completely incomparable proportions. Could a million people die from one heatwave at some point this century?
It seems a bit biased to only list the places that will become uninhabitable due to say high temperature (the losses), without also listing the places that will become inhabitable thanks to the exact same thing (the gains)<p>It's not clear to me that say an expansion of the Sahara or the desertic part of Australia won't be more than mitigated by the large amount of land currently covered by permafrost in Eurasia.<p>A proper accounting of the phenomenon would show both, if only to refute my naive take.
It was kinda interesting until I checked water stress in Buenos Aires. I live here, you dig a small hole in the ground and freshwater seeps. It’s a massive sedimentary plain where lack of water is definitely not a problem, excess I may buy. The extrapolation seems just wrong.
I live in Arizona. Looks like Arizona and much of California is in the bad red zone. But, we are talking 2100, and, my 71st birthday is this year.<p>BTW, the animation was fine on an iPad Pro.