The following is a pdf document with images of present and projected water stress (1 page). I can’t post this all here, it simply won’t fit.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind when looking at this. At first glance, it appears that the colors indicate less stress in 2025, however that is not true. The second map is how much worse water stress will be increased from the present stress levels, which is already bad for many parts of the United States.
High levels of water stress indicate that socioeconomic demand for freshwater approaches (or exceeds) the annual renewable supply.
For the United States and much of the crop producing regions of the world, water stress is already very bad (yellow, orange and red). It is also projected to significantly increase in severity and size (severely to extremely “more stressed”). Interestingly, mid-latitude locations are hardest hit.
It’s all inaccurate, because it is based upon the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (dated info). Water stress has already increased in some regions beyond this.
“For large countries (e.g. China, India, Russia, United States, etc.) aggregation of stress at the nation-state level would mask the risk of social disruption at local levels.“
What they’re telling us is the actual effects of water stress will be hidden in the images, but still there and still experienced, so large countries like the United States, China, Russia, Africa will still experience all kinds of social disruptions “at local levels” (regional and local effects from water stress).
So despite being dated information, it’s something that can be still used to project how blog readers might find their countries impacted. It reveals globally worsening conditions from an already bad situation for most of us.
Here’s what has been happening with insurance losses worldwide:
Source: Munich Re. (a) ‘Loss event’ refers to the risk that a single event, or series of events, leads to a significant deviation in actual claims from the total expected claims, usually over a short period of time (often 72 hours). (b) Earthquake, tsunami, volcanic activity. (c) Tropical storm, convective storm, local storm. (d) Flood, mass movement. (e) Extreme temperature, drought, forest fire.
Water (d, blue) shows extreme growth in insurance losses, as does storm activity (c, green).
Where you live and how “at risk” you are to water stress, excess water, too little water is clearly something to think about. We all are, actually, no matter where you live because water is essential for life and for food production. The above pdf link depicts future food shortages no doubt, the increasing water stress is right smack-dab where the world produces most of its food.
Los Angeles is reporting new records for daily rainfall (almost 4″ in a single day) in a region that is generally very dry, with associated damage, deaths and human suffering. Extreme weather is increasing, making planning for future human habitation problematic, but I can safely say this to help with anybody considering relocation – pick higher ground so that gravity works for you, not against you as these extreme water events accelerate.
I live on a small ridge, it would take a biblical flood to reach my house, but the roads would wash away, and quite a few people would lose their homes if we got 4″ of rain in one day.
I know it’s coming.
Update – from https://phys.org/news/2017-01-professors-issue-climate-trump-administration.html
“Also, among the countries most affected by this is the USA and the continent most affected is Asia, where many US multinationals have manufacturing. This makes climate change a huge US issue, especially economically.
My analysis of the impact of disasters can be summarised as the following:
- Analysing the period 1965-2015, nearly all of the cumulative property damage and the most number of people affected by natural disasters were caused by floods, droughts, storms and earthquakes. Of these, the first three (and some other disaster types such as extreme heat) are climate-related.
- If we look at the cumulative property damage for more recent years, 2000-2015, the country with the highest damage is the USA. While China, India and Bangladesh lead in the cumulative total of people affected by natural disasters, the USA is close behind these ‘leaders’. Furthermore, while Asia as a continent, is far ahead of other continents when it comes to the total number of people affected (2000-2015), North America is not far behind in property damage and will likely exceed other continents in the years to come based on trends.
- The trend of property damage (1965-2015) due to climate-related natural disasters, such as floods and storms, shows growth of about $25 billion per decade. In comparison, for non-climate-related disasters such as earthquakes, the figure is less than $10 billion per decade. The contrast is sharper for the total number of people affected globally: the growth is about 40 million more people per decade due to climate-related disasters compared to a negligible increase in the number of people affected by non-climate-related disasters. The trends are more pronounced for Asia and North America – the former for the number of people affected and the latter for property damage, so North America stands to be the ‘leader’ in property damage due to climate-related disasters in the coming years.
This analysis only ‘correlates’ the impact of climate-related disasters as well as non-climate ones but in recently published research, I have provided empirical evidence that disasters and the economy are related in a vicious cycle.
So if disasters are primarily becoming climate-related, the incoming US administration should take heed that the economy, especially that of the US will suffer greatly if climate change is not reversed or at least slowed.”