Claim: Northern States to have Global Warming by 2050

The PLoS paper lists 15 authors. The first author listed as the Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing” author. The other 14 including the senior author are listed as “review & editing”.

Strangely none of them saw this error in their Results section discussing their Fig 2A :
“Overall 78% of the 520 Future Cities studied present a climate within the hypervolume representing covered combinations of climate conditions. Therefore, 22% of the Future Cities’ climate conditions would disappear from this current climatic domain (Fig 2A). As such, 22% of the world’s cities are likely to exist in a climatic regime that does current exist on the planet today. ”

And as far as hotter and drier goes, I can tell you for certain none of these Swiss academics have ever spent a June-July-August in Phoenix, Arizona. They followed that cucked-up sentence (above) with this gem statement:
“The situation is even more pronounced in the tropics, with 30% of cities experiencing novel climate conditions essentially because the climate will get drier.”

Someone should go tell the IPCC WG1 authors that the hydrologic cycle is going to slow and thus the tropics are going to get drier. First the history, AR5 WG Chapter 2, p 202 has this statement along with the historical graphing of the precipitation data:
“As a result the period 1951–2008 shows no significant overall trend in tropical land precipitation in any of the datasets (Table 2.10). Longer term trends (1901–2008) in the tropics, shown in Table 2.10, are also non-significant for each of the four data sets.”

As for “future”, the IPCC’s chicken-bone and voodoo models say this about tropical precip:
“In the tropics, precipitation changes exhibit strong regional contrasts, with increased precipitation over the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans and decreases over much of the subtropical ocean. However, decreases are not projected to be larger than natural 20-year variations anywhere until the end of this century under the RCP8.5 scenario. ”
and this:”Over large landmasses, the direct effect of CO2 on precipitation is the opposite owing to the small thermal inertia of land surfaces (Andrews et al., 2010; Bala et al., 2010; Cao et al., 2012; Bony et al., 2013)” (AR5 Chapter 12, pages 1079-1080).

As far as the hydrologic cycle goes, the IPCC AR5 says this:
“Projected climate changes from simulations assessed in this report (shown schematically in FAQ 12.2, Figure 1) generally show an increase in precipitation in parts of the deep tropics and polar latitudes that could exceed 50% by the end of the 21st century under the most extreme emissions scenario. In contrast, large areas of the subtropics could have decreases of 30% or more. In the tropics, these changes appear to be governed by increases in atmospheric water vapour and changes in atmospheric circulation that further concentrate water vapour in the tropics and thus promote more tropical rainfall. “ (FAQ 12.2 | How Will the Earth’s Water Cycle Change, Chapter 12, AR5)

So it appears that in communicating “climate change” by environmental studies groups, any old stuff can be made up to fit a narrative, even if it doesn’t adhere to IPCC scripture, as long as an alarmist message is presented.

My bet would be on the side of we will have problems breathing the air because of too much CO2 before CO2 causes a 1.5C increase in temps. CO2 still only emits @ur momisugly three different wavelengths. Only two of those is in the thermal range and only one of those is relevant. 92% of what the earth emits is still invisible to CO2. And only a little less than 1/2 of that will be emitted in the direction of the planet.

With more CO2 it will just get in the way of the emissions as they head back towards earth.

ROFLMAO! These quacks need sued, seriously. They are a waste of tax dollars and are publicly proclaiming the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

So who plans on starting an orange grove in Washington D.C.? Hey, maybe someone should start a vineyard in Oslo, or an alligator farm in Des Moines. I look forward to buying my coffee straight from the plantations in Lubbock, TX and growing Avocado in my front yard.

2019 plus 11 years = 2030! The alleged point of no return scenario for these alarmists.
2019 plus 31 years – 2050! Where alleged climate change impacts cost $12 trillion per year!
* Right now, an estimated $1.5 trillion per year is wasted on ineffectual efforts in a pretense to address global warming. Those are not global warming caused costs!
* Every year between now and 2050 will allegedly incur an additional $387 billion dollars of global warming costs.

N.B. Using the recent fashionable name of “climate change” identifies the intended scam.
N.B. Isn’t it amazing when desperate alarmists pull numbers, facts, imaginary scenarios and specious claims from their nether regions!?

“Our Climate Future
Millions marching the streets, daily articles in every newspaper and heartfelt pleas: never before has the topic of climate change been so omnipresent.”

Another research claim basing itself upon complicit media endless hype.

“The problem: We only have 11 years until passing the point of no return.”

Use a thoroughly bogus claim.

“The imminence of the climate threat requires unified actions across all sectors of society. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that facts and data, which are often hard to understand, do not necessarily persuade people to act.”

Make a false claim about difficulty of understanding data. Meaning that there are zero directly observable climate effects; so the alleged researchers muddy up the obvious while implying alarmists versions of data will eventually have value.

An admission that alarmists crying wolf for thirty years is near ineffective.

“Behavioral change is much more likely to be inspired by visualizations that make climate issues tangible.
Introduction
With our analysis, we aim to do just this. Rather than describing quantitative change variables, we paired the predicted climate conditions of 520 major cities in 2050 with analogues conditions of cities around the world today. We thereby demonstrate concrete scenarios for the future of the life in those cities. By making data relatable, we hope to motivate citizens and policy makers to adapt their decision making accordingly. ”

When crying wolf fail, ramp up the alleged dangers; i.e. now these alleged researchers are shrieking ‘wolves’ are coming.
The exact same dangers that fail to motivate people; only more, sooner and directly relatable. Yeah, right…

Diarrhetic buzzard excrement dressed up with spoiled shaving soap.
Apparently compiled by alarmists with Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome, who are unable to communicate their excessive fears.