U.S. National Climate Assessment

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States

HIGHLIGHTS

iii

Observed U.S. Temperature Change

The colors on the map show temperature changes over the past 22 years (1991-2012) compared to the 1901-1960 average for the contiguous 

U.S., and to the 1951-1980 average for Alaska and Hawai‘i. The bars on the graph show the average temperature changes for the U.S. by 

decade for 1901-2012 (relative to the 1901-1960 average). The far right bar (2000s decade) includes 2011 and 2012. The period from 2001 to 

2012 was warmer than any previous decade in every region. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Climate change is increasing the 

vulnerability of forests to wildfires 

across the U.S. West.

Solar power use is increasing 

and is part of the solution to 

climate change.

Energy choices will affect the 

amount of future climate change.

Members of the National Guard 

lay sandbags to protect against 

Missouri River flooding.

Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States

HIGHLIGHTS OF
Recommended Citation

Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 148 pp.

This report was produced by an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, for the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and at the request of the 

U.S. Government. Therefore, the report is in the public domain. Some materials used in the 

report are copyrighted and permission was granted to the U.S. government for their publication 

in this report. For subsequent uses that include such copyrighted materials, permission for 

reproduction must be sought from the copyright holder. In all cases, credit must be given for 

copyrighted materials.

First published 2014

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 9780160924033

Online at:

nca2014.globalchange.gov

Published by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov; Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
i

May 2014

Members of Congress:

On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, we are pleased 

to transmit the report of the Third National Climate Assessment: Climate Change Impacts in the United States. As required by 

the Global Change Research Act of 1990, this report has collected, evaluated, and integrated observations and research on 

climate change in the United States. It focuses both on changes that are happening now and further changes that we can 

expect to see throughout this century.

This report is the result of a three-year analytical effort by a team of over 300 experts, overseen by a broadly constituted Federal 

Advisory Committee of 60 members. It was developed from information and analyses gathered in over 70 workshops and 

listening sessions held across the country. It was subjected to extensive review by the public and by scientific experts in and 

out of government, including a special panel of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. This 

process of unprecedented rigor and transparency was undertaken so that the findings of the National Climate Assessment 

would rest on the firmest possible base of expert judgment.

We gratefully acknowledge the authors, reviewers, and staff who have helped prepare this Third National Climate 

Assessment. Their work in assessing the rapid advances in our knowledge of climate science over the past several years has 

been outstanding. Their findings and key messages not only describe the current state of that science but also the current and 

future impacts of climate change on major U.S. regions and key sectors of the U.S. economy. This information establishes 

a strong base that government at all levels of U.S. society can use in responding to the twin challenges of changing our 

policies to mitigate further climate change and preparing for the consequences of the climate changes that can no longer be 

avoided. It is also an important scientific resource to empower communities, businesses, citizens, and decision makers with 

information they need to prepare for and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

When President Obama launched his Climate Action Plan last year, he made clear that the essential information contained 

in this report would be used by the Executive Branch to underpin future policies and decisions to better understand and 

manage the risks of climate change. We strongly and respectfully urge others to do the same.

 

 Sincerely,

Dr. John P. Holdren 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office of the President 

Dr. Kathryn D. Sullivan

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

NOAA Administrator

U.S. Department of Commerce
ii

Chair

Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory

Vice-Chairs

Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Van Ness Feldman, LLP

Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University

Committee Members

Daniel Abbasi, GameChange Capital, LLC

E. Virginia Armbrust, University of Washington

Timothy (Bull) Bennett, Kiksapa Consulting, LLC

Rosina Bierbaum, University of Michigan and PCAST

Maria Blair, Independent

James Buizer, University of Arizona

Lynne M. Carter, Louisiana State University

F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska

Camille Coley, Florida Atlantic University

Jan Dell, ConocoPhillips

Placido dos Santos, WestLand Resources, Inc.

Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities

Guido Franco, California Energy Commission

Mary Gade, Gade Environmental Group 

Aris Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology

David Gustafson, Monsanto Company

David Hales, Second Nature 

Sharon Hays, Computer Sciences Corporation

Mark Howden, CSIRO

Anthony Janetos, Boston University

Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy

Rattan Lal, Ohio State University

Arthur Lee, Chevron Corporation

Jo-Ann Leong, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology

Diana Liverman, University of Arizona and Oxford University

Rezaul Mahmood, Western Kentucky University

Edward Maibach, George Mason University

Michael McGeehin, RTI International

Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting and 

Stanford University

Richard Moss, University of Maryland and PNNL

Philip Mote, Oregon State University

Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District

Marie O’Neill, University of Michigan

Lindene Patton, Zurich Financial Services

John Posey, East-West Gateway Council of Governments

Sara Pryor, Indiana University

Andrew Rosenberg, University of New Hampshire and Union of 

Concerned Scientists

Richard Schmalensee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Henry Schwartz, HGS Consultants, LLC

Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting

Donald Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Ex Officio Committee Members

Ko Barrett, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Katharine Batten, U.S. Agency for International Development 

Virginia Burkett, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Patricia Cogswell, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Gerald Geernaert, U.S. Department of Energy 

John Hall, U.S. Department of Defense 

Leonard Hirsch, Smithsonian Institution 

William Hohenstein, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Patricia Jacobberger-Jellison, National Aeronautics and Space 

 Administration 

Thomas R. Karl, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, U.S. 

Department of Commerce

George Luber, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

C. Andrew Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Robert O’Connor, National Science Foundation 

Susan Ruffo, White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Arthur Rypinski, U.S. Department of Transportation

Trigg Talley, U.S. Department of State 

Federal National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC) 

John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

	 and Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Katharine Jacobs, Director, National Climate Assessment, White House 

	 Office of Science and Technology Policy (through December 2013)	

Thomas Armstrong, Director, U.S. Global Change Research Program 

National Coordination Office, White House Office of Science and 	 	

Technology Policy

Thomas R. Karl, Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 

U.S. Department of Commerce

Tamara Dickinson, Principal Assistant Director for Environment and 

	 Energy, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Fabien Laurier, Director, Third National Climate Assessment, White 

	 House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Glynis C. Lough, NCA Chief of Staff, U.S. Global Change Research 

Program

David Easterling, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA NCDC

Federal Executive Team

Highlights and Report Production Team

Susan Joy Hassol, Senior Science Writer

Brooke Stewart, Science Editor/Production Coordinator

Tom Maycock, Technical Editor

Daniel Glick, Editor

Sara W. Veasey, Creative Director

Jessicca Griffin, Lead Graphic Designer

Report Authors and Additional Staff, see page 98

Assessment Support Staff

Fredric Lipschultz, Senior Scientist, Regional Coordinator 

Susan Aragon-Long, Senior Scientist, Sector Coordinator

Emily Therese Cloyd, Public Participation/Engagement Coordinator

Ilya Fischhoff, Program Coordinator

Bryce Golden-Chen, Program Coordinator

Julie Maldonado, Engagement Assistant, Tribal Coordinator 

Alison Delgado, Scientist, Sector Coordinator
iii

The National Climate Assessment assesses the science of climate change 

and its impacts across the United States, now and throughout this 

century. It documents climate change related impacts and responses for 

various sectors and regions, with the goal of better informing public and 

private decision-making at all levels. 

A team of more than 300 experts (see page 98), guided by a 60-member 

National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee 

(listed on page ii) produced the full report – the largest and most diverse 

team to produce a U.S. climate assessment. Stakeholders involved in the 

development of the assessment included decision-makers from the public 

and private sectors, resource and environmental managers, researchers, 

representatives from businesses and non-governmental organizations, and 

the general public. More than 70 workshops and listening sessions were 

held, and thousands of public and expert comments on the draft report 

provided additional input to the process. 

The assessment draws from a large body of scientific peer-reviewed 

research, technical input reports, and other publicly available sources; all 

sources meet the standards of the Information Quality Act. The report was 

extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including a panel of the 

National Academy of Sciences, the 13 Federal agencies of the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, and the Federal Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability.

NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT

About the

HIGHLIGHTS

About the

This book presents the major findings and selected highlights from 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States, the third National Climate 

Assessment.

This Highlights report is organized around the National Climate 

Assessment’s 12 Report Findings, which take an overarching view of the 

entire report and its 30 chapters. All material in the Highlights report is 

drawn from the full report. The Key Messages from each of the 30 report 

chapters appear in boxes throughout this document. 

In the lower left corner of each section, icons identify which chapters 

of the full report were drawn upon for that section. A key to these icons 

appears on page 1.

A 20-page Overview booklet is available online.

Online at:

nca2014.globalchange.gov

Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States

U.S. National Climate Assessment U.S. Global Change Research Program

Online at:

nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights
CONTENTS

REPORT FINDINGS

List of Report Findings ................................ 12

Climate Trends ........................................... 16

Finding 1 Our Changing Climate.................... 18

Finding 2 Extreme Weather........................... 24

Finding 3 Future Climate .............................. 28

Finding 4 Widespread Impacts ...................... 32

Finding 5 Human Health ............................... 34

Finding 6 Infrastructure................................ 38

 Urban • Transportation • Energy

Finding 7 Water ............................................ 42 

 Water Resources • Energy, Water, and Land Use

Finding 8 Agriculture .................................... 46

Finding 9 Indigenous Peoples........................ 48

Finding 10 Ecosystems .................................. 50

 Ecosystems and Biodiversity • Forests • Land Use 

 and Land Cover Change • Biogeochemical Cycles

Finding 11 Oceans ......................................... 58

Finding 12 Responses .................................... 62

 Adaptation • Mitigation • Decision Support

REGIONS

Introduction........................... 69

Northeast ............................. 70

Southeast & Caribbean......... 72

Midwest ................................ 74

Great Plains .......................... 76

Southwest ............................ 78

Northwest............................. 80

Alaska .................................. 82

Hawaiʻi & Pacific Islands ....... 84

Rural Communities ................ 86

Coasts.................................. 88

Future National Assessments...... 94

Concluding Thoughts .................. 96

Authors and Staff....................... 98

Photo Credits ........................... 105

References............................... 107

Climate Change and the American People ... 2

OVERVIEW................................ 4

iv
1

CHAPTER ICONS

Our Changing Climate

Water Resources

Energy Supply and Use

Transportation

Agriculture

Forests

Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Human Health

Energy, Water, and Land Use

Urban Systems and Infrastructure

Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources

Land Use and Land Cover Change

Rural Communities

Biogeochemical Cycles

Northeast

Southeast and Caribbean

Midwest

Great Plains

Southwest

Northwest

Alaska 

Hawai‘i and U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands

Oceans and Marine Resources

Coastal Zones

Decision Support

Mitigation

Adaptation

In the lower left corner of each section, these icons identify which chapters of the full 

report were drawn upon for that section. 

Appendix 3: Climate 

Science Supplement

Appendix 4: 

Frequently 

Asked 

Questions
2

CLIMATE CHANGE AND 

Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington State, and maple syrup producers in 

Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience. So, 

too, are coastal planners in Florida, water managers in the arid Southwest, city dwellers from 

Phoenix to New York, and Native Peoples on tribal lands from Louisiana to Alaska. This National 

Climate Assessment concludes that the evidence of human-induced climate change continues to 

strengthen and that impacts are increasing across the country.

Americans are noticing changes all around them. Summers are longer and hotter, and extended 

periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are 

generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the 

length and severity of seasonal allergies, the plant varieties that thrive in their gardens, and the 

kinds of birds they see in any particular month in their neighborhoods. 

Other changes are even more dramatic. Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood 

more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more 

flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable 

locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow 

melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn 

more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, 

and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation. 

Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant 

changes in Earth’s climatic trends. Long-term, independent records from weather stations, 

satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation, 

like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the 

oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather 

events are increasing. Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of 

the past half-century is due primarily to human activities. 

The observed warming and other climatic changes are triggering wide-ranging impacts in every 

region of our country and throughout our economy. Some of these changes can be beneficial over 

the short run, such as a longer growing season in some regions and a longer shipping season on 

the Great Lakes. But many more are detrimental, largely because our 

society and its infrastructure were designed for the climate that we have 

had, not the rapidly changing climate we now have and can expect in the 

future. In addition, climate change does not occur in isolation. Rather, 

it is superimposed on other stresses, which combine to create new 

challenges. 

This National Climate Assessment collects, integrates, and assesses 

observations and research from around the country, helping us to see 

what is actually happening and understand what it means for our lives, 
3

our livelihoods, and our future. The report includes analyses of impacts 

on seven sectors – human health, water, energy, transportation, 

agriculture, forests, and ecosystems – and the interactions among 

sectors at the national level. The report also assesses key impacts on 

all U.S. regions: Northeast, Southeast and Caribbean, Midwest, Great 

Plains, Southwest, Northwest, Alaska, Hawai`i and Pacific Islands, as 

well as the country’s coastal areas, oceans, and marine resources. 

Over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly. 

Increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now 

seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. With 

each passing year, the accumulating evidence further expands our 

understanding and extends the record of observed trends in temperature, precipitation, sea level, 

ice mass, and many other variables recorded by a variety of measuring systems and analyzed by 

independent research groups from around the world. It is notable that as these data records have 

grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have 

largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level 

rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections. 

What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change 

is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations 

unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily 

due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from 

burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural 

practices. 

Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond, but there is still 

time to act to limit the amount of change and the extent of damaging impacts. 

This report documents the changes 

already observed and those projected for 

the future. 

It is important that these findings and 

response options be shared broadly to 

inform citizens and communities across 

our nation. Climate change presents a 

major challenge for society. This report 

advances our understanding of that 

challenge and the need for the American 

people to prepare for and respond to its 

far-reaching implications. 

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
OVERVIEW

4

Climate change is already affecting the American people 

in far-reaching ways. Certain types of extreme weather 

events with links to climate change have become more 

frequent and/or intense, including prolonged periods 

of heat, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods 

and droughts. In addition, warming is causing sea level 

to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt, and oceans 

are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide. 

These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting 

people’s lives and damaging some sectors of our economy. 

Climate Change: 

Present and Future

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of 

the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. Scientists 

and engineers from around the world have meticulously 

collected this evidence, using satellites and networks 

of weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other 

observing systems. Evidence of climate change is also 

visible in the observed and measured changes in location 

and behavior of species and functioning of ecosystems. 

Taken together, this evidence tells an unambiguous story: 

the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this 

warming has been driven primarily by human activity.

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warmThese are just some of the indicators measured globally over many decades that show that the 

Earth’s climate is warming. White arrows indicate increasing trends; black arrows indicate decreasing 

trends. All the indicators expected to increase in a warming world are increasing, and all those 

expected to decrease in a warming world are decreasing. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC, based on 

data updated from Kennedy et al. 2010a).

Ten Indicators of a Warming World

ing of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, 

and clearing of forests have increased the concentration 

of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% 

since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been known for 

almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. 

Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and 

other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of 

heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like 

the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming 

observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on satellites have 

measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found 

no overall increase during the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo 

in 1991, have exerted a shortterm cooling influence. In fact, 

if not for human activities, 

global climate would actually 

have cooled slightly over the 

past 50 years. The pattern of 

temperature change through 

the layers of the atmosphere, 

with warming near the surface and cooling higher up 

in the stratosphere, further 

confirms that it is the buildup 

of heat-trapping gases (also 

known as “greenhouse gases”) 

that has caused most of the 

Earth’s warming over the past 

half century. 

Because human-induced 

warming is superimposed on a 

Coal-fired power plants emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide to 

the atmosphere.
5

background of natural variations in climate, warming 

is not uniform over time. Short-term fluctuations in 

the long-term upward trend are thus natural and expected. For example, a recent slowing in the rate of 

surface air temperature rise appears to be related to 

cyclic changes in the oceans and in the sun’s energy 

output, as well as a series of small volcanic eruptions 

and other factors. Nonetheless, global temperatures 

are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.

U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F 

to 1.9°F since 1895, and most of this increase has 

occurred since 1970. The most recent decade was 

the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 

2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of 

warming has not been uniform. In general, temperatures are rising more quickly in the north. Alaskans 

have experienced some of the largest increases in 

temperature between 1970 and the present. People 

living in the Southeast have experienced some of the 

smallest temperature increases over this period.

Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades. 

Reductions in some short-lived human-induced emissions that contribute to warming, such as black carbon (soot) and 

methane, could reduce some of the projected warming over the next couple of decades, because, unlike carbon dioxide, 

these gases and particles have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes.

The amount of warming projected beyond the next few decades is directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of 

heat-trapping gases and particles. By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, which would require substantial reductions in emissions (referred to as the “B1 scenario”), and a 5°F to 

10°F rise for a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions, predominantly from fossil fuel combustion (referred to as the “A2 scenario”). These projections are based 

on results from 16 climate models 

that used the two emissions scenarios 

in a formal inter-model comparison 

study. The range of model projections 

for each emissions scenario is the result of the differences in the ways the 

models represent key factors such as 

water vapor, ice and snow reflectivity, 

and clouds, which can either dampen 

or amplify the initial effect of human 

influences on temperature. The net 

effect of these feedbacks is expected 

to amplify warming. More information about the models and scenarios 

used in this report can be found in 

Appendix 5 of the full report.1

Different amounts of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere by human activities produce different projected increases in 

Earth’s temperature. The lines on the graph 

represent a central estimate of global average temperature rise (relative to the 1901-

1960 average) for the two main scenarios 

used in this report. A2 assumes continued 

increases in emissions throughout this century, and B1 assumes significant emissions 

reductions, though not due explicitly to climate change policies. Shading indicates the 

range (5th to 95th percentile) of results from 

a suite of climate models. In both cases, 

temperatures are expected to rise, although 

the difference between lower and higher 

emissions pathways is substantial. (Figure 

source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Projected Global Temperature Change

The green band shows how global average temperature would have changed 

over the last century due to natural forces alone, as simulated by climate 

models. The blue band shows model simulations of the effects of human and 

natural forces (including solar and volcanic activity) combined. The black line 

shows the actual observed global average temperatures. Only with the inclusion of human influences can models reproduce the observed temperature 

changes. (Figure source: adapted from Huber and Knutti 2012b). 

Separating Human and Natural 

Influences on Climate
6

OVERVIEW

Prolonged periods of high temperatures and the persistence of high nighttime temperatures have increased 

in many locations (especially in urban areas) over the past 

half century. High nighttime temperatures have widespread impacts because people, livestock, and wildlife 

get no respite from the heat. In some regions, prolonged 

periods of high temperatures associated with droughts 

contribute to conditions that lead to larger wildfires and 

longer fire seasons. As expected in a warming climate, 

recent trends show that extreme heat is becoming more 

common, while extreme cold is becoming less common. 

Evidence indicates that the human influence on climate 

has already roughly doubled the probability of extreme 

heat events such as the record-breaking summer heat 

experienced in 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma. The incidence 

of record-breaking high temperatures is projected to rise.2

Human-induced climate change means much more than 

just hotter weather. Increases in ocean and freshwater 

temperatures, frost-free days, and heavy downpours 

have all been documented. Global sea level has risen, and 

there have been large reductions in snow-cover extent, 

glaciers, and sea ice. These changes and other climatic 

changes have affected and will continue 

to affect human health, water supply, 

agriculture, transportation, energy, 

coastal areas, and many other sectors 

of society, with increasingly adverse 

impacts on the American economy and 

quality of life.3

Some of the changes discussed in this 

report are common to many regions. 

For example, large increases in heavy 

precipitation have occurred in the 

Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains, 

where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the 

capacity of storm drains and levees, 

and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion. Other impacts, such as 

those associated with the rapid thawing 

of permafrost in Alaska, are unique to 

a particular U.S. region. Permafrost 

thawing is causing extensive damage 

to infrastructure in our nation’s largest 

state.4

Percent changes in the amount of precipitation falling in very heavy events (the heaviest 1%) 

from 1958 to 2012 for each region. There is a clear national trend toward a greater amount 

of precipitation being concentrated in very heavy events, particularly in the Northeast and 

Midwest. (Figure source: updated from Karl et al. 2009c ).

Observed Change in Very Heavy Precipitation

Some impacts that occur in one region ripple beyond that 

region. For example, the dramatic decline of summer sea 

ice in the Arctic – a loss of ice cover roughly equal to half 

the area of the continental United States – exacerbates 

global warming by reducing the reflectivity of Earth’s 

surface and increasing the amount of heat absorbed. 

Similarly, smoke from wildfires in one location can 

contribute to poor air quality in faraway regions, and 

evidence suggests that particulate matter can affect 

atmospheric properties and therefore weather patterns. 

Major storms and the higher storm surges exacerbated 

by sea level rise that hit the Gulf Coast affect the entire 

country through their cascading effects on oil and gas 

production and distribution.5

Water expands as it warms, causing global sea levels to 

rise; melting of land-based ice also raises sea level by 

adding water to the oceans. Over the past century, global 

average sea level has risen by about 8 inches. Since 1992, 

the rate of global sea level rise measured by satellites 

has been roughly twice the rate observed over the last 

century, providing evidence of acceleration. Sea level rise, 
7

combined with coastal storms, has increased 

the risk of erosion, storm surge damage, and 

flooding for coastal communities, especially 

along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic seaboard, 

and in Alaska. Coastal infrastructure, 

including roads, rail lines, energy 

infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and 

military bases, are increasingly at risk from 

sea level rise and damaging storm surges. 

Sea level is projected to rise by another 1 

to 4 feet in this century, although the rise in 

sea level in specific regions is expected to 

vary from this global average for a number 

of reasons. A wider range of scenarios, 

from 8 inches to more than 6 feet by 2100, 

has been used in risk-based analyses in 

this report. In general, higher emissions 

scenarios that lead to more warming would 

be expected to lead to higher amounts of sea level rise. 

The stakes are high, as nearly five million Americans and 

hundreds of billions of dollars of property are located in 

areas that are less than four feet above the local high-tide 

level.6

In addition to causing changes in climate, increasing levels 

of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and 

other human activities have a direct effect on the world’s 

oceans. Carbon dioxide interacts with ocean water to 

form carbonic acid, increasing the ocean’s acidity. Ocean 

surface waters have become 30% more acidic over the last 

250 years as they have absorbed large amounts of carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere. This ocean acidification 

makes water more corrosive, reducing the capacity of 

marine organisms with shells or skeletons made of calcium 

carbonate (such as corals, krill, oysters, clams, and crabs) 

to survive, grow, and reproduce, which in turn will affect 

the marine food chain.7

Widespread Impacts

Impacts related to climate change are 

already evident in many regions and sectors 

and are expected to become increasingly 

disruptive across the nation throughout 

this century and beyond. Climate changes 

interact with other environmental and 

societal factors in ways that can either 

moderate or intensify these impacts.

Some climate changes currently have 

beneficial effects for specific sectors or 

regions. For example, current benefits of 

warming include longer growing seasons for 

agriculture and longer ice-free periods for 

shipping on the Great Lakes. At the same 

time, however, longer growing seasons, 

along with higher temperatures and 

carbon dioxide levels, can increase pollen 

production, intensifying and lengthening 

the allergy season. Longer ice-free periods 

on the Great Lakes can result in more lakeeffect snowfalls.

The correlation between rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (red) with 

rising carbon dioxide levels (blue) and falling pH in the ocean (green). As carbon 

dioxide accumulates in the ocean, the water becomes more acidic (the pH declines). 

(Figure source: modified from Feely et al. 2009d).

As Oceans Absorb CO2

They Become More Acidic

Pteropods, or “sea butterflies,” are eaten by a variety of marine species ranging from 

tiny krill to salmon to whales. The photos show what happens to a pteropod’s shell 

in seawater that is too acidic. On the left is a shell from a live pteropod from a region 

in the Southern Ocean where acidity is not too high. The shell on the right is from a 

pteropod in a region where the water is more acidic. (Figure source: (left) Bednaršek 

et al. 2012e (right) Nina Bednaršek).

Shells Dissolve in Acidified Ocean Water
8

OVERVIEW

Northeast Communities are affected by heat waves, more extreme precipitation events, and 

coastal flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge.

Southeast 

and 

Caribbean

Decreased water availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, 

causes increased competition for water. There are increased risks associated with 

extreme events such as hurricanes.

Midwest

Longer growing seasons and rising carbon dioxide levels increase yields of some crops, 

although these benefits have already been offset in some instances by occurrence of 

extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods.

Great Plains Rising temperatures lead to increased demand for water and energy and impacts on 

agricultural practices.

Southwest Drought and increased warming foster wildfires and increased competition for scarce 

water resources for people and ecosystems.

Northwest

Changes in the timing of streamflow related to earlier snowmelt reduce the supply of 

water in summer, causing far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic consequences.

Alaska

Rapidly receding summer sea ice, shrinking glaciers, and thawing permafrost cause 

damage to infrastructure and major changes to ecosystems. Impacts to Alaska Native 

communities increase.

Hawai‘i 

and Pacific 

Islands

Increasingly constrained freshwater supplies, coupled with increased temperatures, 

stress both people and ecosystems and decrease food and water security.

Coasts

Coastal lifelines, such as water supply infrastructure and evacuation routes, are 

increasingly vulnerable to higher sea levels and storm surges, inland flooding, and 

other climate-related changes.

Oceans

The oceans are currently absorbing about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide 

emissions to the atmosphere and over 90% of the heat associated with global 

warming, leading to ocean acidification and the alteration of marine ecosystems.

Observed and projected climate change impacts vary across the regions of the United States. Selected impacts 

emphasized in the regional chapters are shown below, and many more are explored in detail in this report. 
9

Increasing air and water temperatures, more intense precipitation and runoff, and intensifying droughts can decrease water 

quality in many ways. Here, middle school students in Colorado 

test water quality.

Sectors affected by climate changes include agriculture, 

water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, 

and ecosystems. Climate change poses a major challenge 

to U.S. agriculture because of the critical dependence 

of agricultural systems on climate. Climate change has 

the potential to both positively and negatively affect the 

location, timing, and productivity of crop, livestock, and 

fishery systems at local, national, and global scales. The 

United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in 

agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable 

to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing 

climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and 

pathogens. Climate change will also alter the stability of 

food supplies and create new food security challenges for 

the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion 

people by 2050. While the agriculture 

sector has proven to be adaptable to 

a range of stresses, as evidenced by 

continued growth in production and 

efficiency across the United States, 

climate change poses a new set of 

challenges.8

Water quality and quantity are being 

affected by climate change. Changes 

in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in 

consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface 

and groundwater supplies in many areas. These trends 

are expected to continue, increasing the likelihood of 

water shortages for many uses. Water quality is also 

diminishing in many areas, particularly due to sediment 

and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours. 

Sea level rise, storms and storm surges, and changes in 

surface and groundwater use patterns are expected to 

compromise the sustainability of 

coastal freshwater aquifers and 

wetlands. In most U.S. regions, water 

resources managers and planners will 

encounter new risks, vulnerabilities, 

and opportunities that may not be 

properly managed with existing 

practices.9

Climate change affects human health 

in many ways. For example, increasingly frequent and 

intense heat events lead to more heat-related illnesses and 

deaths and, over time, worsen drought and wildfire risks, 

and intensify air pollution. Increasingly frequent extreme 

precipitation and associated flooding can lead to injuries 

and increases in waterborne disease. Rising sea surface 

temperatures have been linked with increasing levels 

and ranges of diseases. Rising sea levels intensify coastal 

flooding and storm surge, and thus exacerbate threats to 

public safety during storms. Certain groups of people are 

more vulnerable to the range of climate change related 

health impacts, including the elderly, children, the poor, 

and the sick. Others are vulnerable because of where 

they live, including those in floodplains, coastal zones, and 

some urban areas. Improving and properly supporting the 

public health infrastructure will be critical to managing the 

potential health impacts of climate change.10

Climate change also affects the living world, including 

people, through changes in ecosystems and biodiversity. 

Ecosystems provide a rich array of benefits and services to 

humanity, including habitat for fish and wildlife, drinking 

water storage and filtration, fertile soils for growing crops, 

buffering against a range of stressors including climate 

change impacts, and aesthetic and cultural values. These 

Certain groups of people are 

more vulnerable to the range 

of climate change related 

health impacts, including the 

elderly, children, the poor, 

and the sick.

Climate change can exacerbate respiratory and asthma-related conditions through increases in pollen, ground-level ozone, 

and wildfire smoke.
10

OVERVIEW

The amount of future climate 

change will still largely be 

determined by choices society 

makes about emissions. 

benefits are not always easy to quantify, but they support 

jobs, economic growth, health, and human well-being. Climate change driven disruptions to ecosystems have direct 

and indirect human impacts, including reduced water supply and quality, the loss of iconic species and landscapes, 

effects on food chains and the timing and success of 

species migrations, and the potential for extreme weather 

and climate events to destroy or degrade the ability of 

ecosystems to provide societal benefits.11

Human modifications of ecosystems and landscapes often 

increase their vulnerability to damage from extreme 

weather events, while simultaneously reducing their natural capacity to moderate the impacts of such events. For 

example, salt marshes, reefs, mangrove forests, and barrier islands defend coastal ecosystems 

and infrastructure, such as roads and 

buildings, against storm surges. The 

loss of these natural buffers due to 

coastal development, erosion, and 

sea level rise increases the risk of 

catastrophic damage during or after 

extreme weather events. Although 

floodplain wetlands are greatly reduced from their historical extent, those that remain still absorb floodwaters 

and reduce the effects of high flows on river-margin lands. 

Extreme weather events that produce sudden increases 

in water flow, often carrying debris and pollutants, can 

decrease the natural capacity of ecosystems to cleanse 

contaminants.12

The climate change impacts being felt in the regions and 

sectors of the United States are affected by global trends 

and economic decisions. In an increasingly interconnected world, U.S. vulnerability is linked to impacts in other 

nations. It is thus difficult to fully evaluate the impacts of 

climate change on the United States without considering 

consequences of climate change elsewhere.

Response Options

As the impacts of climate change are becoming more 

prevalent, Americans face choices. Especially because of 

past emissions of long-lived heat-trapping gases, some 

additional climate change and related impacts are now 

unavoidable. This is due to the long-lived nature of many 

of these gases, as well as the amount of heat absorbed 

and retained by the oceans and other responses within 

the climate system. The amount of future climate change, 

however, will still largely be determined by choices society 

makes about emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping 

gases and particles mean less future warming and lesssevere impacts; higher emissions mean more warming and 

more severe impacts. Efforts to limit emissions or increase 

carbon uptake fall into a category of response options 

known as “mitigation,” which refers to reducing the 

amount and speed of future climate change by reducing 

emissions of heat-trapping gases or removing carbon 

dioxide from the atmosphere.13

The other major category of response options is known 

as “adaptation,” and refers to actions to prepare for and 

adjust to new conditions, thereby reducing harm or taking 

advantage of new opportunities. Mitigation and adaptation actions are linked in multiple ways, including that 

effective mitigation reduces the need for adaptation in 

the future. Both are essential parts 

of a comprehensive climate change 

response strategy. The threat of irreversible impacts makes the timing of 

mitigation efforts particularly critical. This report includes chapters on 

Mitigation, Adaptation, and Decision 

Support that offer an overview of 

the options and activities being planned or implemented around the country as local, state, federal, and tribal 

governments, as well as businesses, organizations, and 

individuals begin to respond to climate change. These 

chapters conclude that while response actions are under 

development, current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, 

and economic consequences.14

Large reductions in global emissions of heat-trapping gases, similar to the lower emissions scenario (B1) analyzed 

in this assessment, would reduce the risks of some of the 

damaging impacts of climate change. Some targets called 

for in international climate negotiations to date would require even larger reductions than those outlined in the B1 

scenario. Meanwhile, global emissions are still rising and 

are on a path to be even higher than the high emissions 

scenario (A2) analyzed in this report. The recent U.S. contribution to annual global emissions is about 18%, but the 

U.S. contribution to cumulative global emissions over the 

last century is much higher. Carbon dioxide lasts for a long 

time in the atmosphere, and it is the cumulative carbon 

emissions that determine the amount of global climate 

change. After decades of increases, U.S. CO2 emissions 

from energy use (which account for 97% of total U.S. emissions) declined by around 9% between 2008 and 2012, 

largely due to a shift from coal to less CO2-intensive nat-
11

ural gas for electricity production. Governmental actions 

in city, state, regional, and federal programs to promote 

energy efficiency have also contributed to reducing U.S. 

carbon emissions. Many, if not most of these programs are 

motivated by other policy objectives, but some are directed specifically at greenhouse gas emissions. These U.S. 

actions and others that might be undertaken in the future 

are described in the Mitigation chapter of this report. Over 

the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained 

greenhouse gas emission reductions by the United States 

and by other nations would be needed to reduce global 

emissions to a level consistent with the lower scenario (B1) 

analyzed in this assessment.15

With regard to adaptation, the pace and magnitude of 

observed and projected changes emphasize the need to 

be prepared for a wide variety and intensity of impacts. 

Because of the growing influence of human activities, the 

climate of the past is not a good basis for future planning. 

For example, building codes and landscaping ordinances 

could be updated to improve energy efficiency, conserve 

water supplies, protect against insects that spread disease 

(such as dengue fever), reduce susceptibility to heat stress, 

and improve protection against extreme events. The fact 

that climate change impacts are increasing points to the 

urgent need to develop and refine approaches that enable 

decision-making and increase flexibility and resilience in 

the face of ongoing and future impacts. Reducing non-climate-related stresses that contribute to existing vulnerabilities can also be an effective approach to climate change 

adaptation.16

Adaptation can involve considering local, state, regional, national, and international jurisdictional objectives. 

For example, in managing water supplies to adapt to a 

changing climate, the implications of international treaties 

should be considered in the context of managing the Great 

Lakes, the Columbia River, and the Colorado River to deal 

with increased drought risk. Both “bottom up” community planning and “top down” national strategies may help 

regions deal with impacts such as increases in electrical 

brownouts, heat stress, floods, and wildfires.17

Proactively preparing for climate change can reduce 

impacts while also facilitating a more rapid and efficient 

response to changes as they happen. Such efforts are 

beginning at the federal, regional, state, tribal, and local 

levels, and in the corporate and non-governmental 

sectors, to build adaptive capacity and resilience to 

climate change impacts. Using scientific information 

to prepare for climate changes in advance can provide 

economic opportunities, and proactively managing the 

risks can reduce impacts and costs over time.18

There are a number of areas where improved scientific 

information or understanding would enhance the capacity 

to estimate future climate change impacts. For example, 

knowledge of the mechanisms controlling the rate of 

ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is limited, making it 

difficult for scientists to narrow the range of expected 

future sea level rise. Improved understanding of ecological 

and social responses to climate change is needed, as is 

understanding of how ecological and social responses will 

interact.19

A sustained climate assessment process could more 

efficiently collect and synthesize the rapidly evolving 

science and help supply timely and relevant information 

to decision-makers. Results from all of these efforts could 

continue to deepen our understanding of the interactions 

of human and natural systems in the context of a changing climate, enabling society to effectively respond and 

prepare for our future.20

The cumulative weight of the scientific evidence contained 

in this report confirms that climate change is affecting 

the American people now, and that choices we make will 

affect our future and that of future generations. 

Cities providing transportation options including bike lanes, buildings designed with energy saving features such as green roofs, and 

houses elevated to allow storm surges to pass underneath are among the many response options being pursued around the country.
12

These findings distill important results that arise from this National Climate Assessment. They do not represent a 

full summary of all of the chapters’ findings, but rather a synthesis of particularly noteworthy conclusions.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a 

wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily 

due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.

Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in 

unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record 

keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent 

decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a 

naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or 

over time.21 See page 18.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and 

are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this 

century and beyond.

Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts 

with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify 

these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through 

time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is 

mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless 

global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.24 See page 32.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate 

significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.

Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with 

more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change 

beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that 

human activities emit globally, now and in the future.23 See page 28.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, 

and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related 

to human activities.

Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate 

change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of 

some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an 

increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and 

in some regions, more severe droughts.22 See page 24.

REPORT FINDINGS
13

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including 

through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and 

diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.

Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, 

and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and 

a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, 

such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment 

due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence 

or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as 

dengue fever.25 See page 34.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to 

become more severe over this century. 

Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme 

weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be 

relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer 

from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century 

on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across 

the country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.28 See page 46.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in 

a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.

Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand 

for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly 

the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is 

increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many 

uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and 

contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.27 See page 42.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and 

extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change. 

Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued 

development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, 

buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military 

installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged 

rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure 

designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such 

as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.26 See page 38.
14

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, wellbeing, and ways of life. 

Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts 

such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure 

to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other 

coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that 

some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions 

and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice 

and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and 

traditional livelihoods.29 See page 48.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation 

(to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming 

more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid 

increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.

Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and 

increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic 

development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.32 See page 62.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean 

circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. 

More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters 

harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine 

species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other 

stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food 

production and harm fishing communities.31 See page 58.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by 

climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme 

events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.

Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing 

of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many 

species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes 

have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and 

pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are 

already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as 

forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the 

impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued 

resources.30 See page 50.

REPORT FINDINGS
15

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR 

THE REPORT FINDINGS

Icons at the lower left corner of each report finding indicate the chapters drawn on for that section.
16

CLIMATE TRENDS

Extreme Weather

There have been changes in some types of extreme weather events over the last 

several decades. Heat waves have become more frequent and intense, 

especially in the West. Cold waves have become less frequent and intense 

across the nation. There have been regional trends in floods and 

droughts. Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves everywhere 

are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less 

intense everywhere.

Hurricanes

The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic 

hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest 

(Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased 

since the early 1980s. The relative contributions 

of human and natural causes to these increases 

are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm 

intensity and rainfall rates are projected to 

increase as the climate continues to warm. 

Severe Storms

Winter storms have increased in frequency 

and intensity since the 1950s, and their tracks 

have shifted northward over the United States. 

Other trends in severe storms, including the 

intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and 

damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain 

and are being studied intensively.

Temperature

U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began 

in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade 

was the nation’s warmest on record. Temperatures in the United States are expected to 

continue to rise. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying 

climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the 

country or over time.

FP

Global climate is changing and this change is apparent across a wide range of observations. 

The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities. Global climate 

is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate 

change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases 

emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to those emissions. 

These two pages present the Key Messages from the “Our Changing Climate” chapter of the full report. They 

pertain to Report Findings 1, 2, and 3, evidence for which appears on the following pages.
17

Ocean Acidification

The oceans are currently absorbing about 

a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted to 

the atmosphere annually and are becoming 

more acidic as a result, leading to concerns 

about intensifying impacts on marine 

ecosystems. See page 60.

PO

Heavy Downpours

Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to 

five decades. Largest increases are in the Midwest and Northeast. Increases in 

the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events are projected for 

all U.S. regions. 

Frost-free Season

The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has 

been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in 

the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United 

States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen.

Sea Level

Global sea level has risen by about 8 

inches since reliable record keeping 

began in 1880. It is projected to rise 

another 1 to 4 feet by 2100.

 Ice Melt

Rising temperatures are reducing ice volume and surface 

extent on land, lakes, and sea. This loss of ice is 

expected to continue. The Arctic Ocean is expected 

to become essentially ice free in summer before 

mid-century.

Precipitation

Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have 

had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had 

decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern 

United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century. 

FPO
1 OUR CHANGING CLIMATE

FINDING

18

Evidence for changes in Earth’s climate can 

be found from the top of the atmosphere 

to the depths of the oceans. Researchers 

from around the world have compiled this 

evidence using satellites, weather balloons, 

thermometers at surface stations, and many 

other types of observing systems that monitor the Earth’s weather and climate. The sum 

total of this evidence tells an unambiguous 

story: the planet is warming. 

Temperatures at Earth’s surface, in the troposphere (the active weather layer extending up 

to about 5 to 10 miles above the ground), and 

in the oceans have all increased over recent 

decades. The largest increases in temperature are occurring closer to the poles, especially in the Arctic. This warming has triggered 

many other changes to the Earth’s climate. 

Snow and ice cover have decreased in most 

areas. Atmospheric water vapor is increasing 

in the lower atmosphere because a warmer 

atmosphere can hold more water. Sea level is increasing 

because water expands as it warms and because melting 

ice on land adds water to the oceans. Changes in other 

climate-relevant indicators such as growing season 

length have been observed in many areas. Worldwide, 

the observed changes in average conditions have been 

accompanied by increasing trends in extremes of heat 

and heavy precipitation events, and decreases in extreme 

cold. It is the sum total of these indicators that leads to the 

conclusion that warming of our planet is unequivocal. 

The last five decades have seen a progressive rise in the Earth’s average surface temperature. Bars show the difference between each decade’s average temperature and 

the overall average for 1901-2000. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC).

Temperature Change by Decade

Global climate is changing and this is apparent across a wide range of observations. 

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land 

and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 

1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the 

long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below 

the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric carbon 

dioxide (CO2) concentration in parts per million (ppm). While 

there is a clear long-term global warming trend, some years do 

not show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, 

and some years show greater changes than others. These yearto-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, 

such as the effects of El Niños, La Niñas, and volcanic eruptions. 

(Figure source: updated from Karl et al. 20091).

Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide
19

Sea ice in the Arctic has decreased dramatically since 

the satellite record began in 

1978. Minimum Arctic sea 

ice extent (which occurs in 

early to mid-September) 

has decreased by more 

than 40%.2 This decline 

is unprecedented in the 

historical record, and the 

reduction of ice volume and 

thickness is even greater. 

Ice thickness decreased by 

more than 50% from 1958-

1976 to 2003-2008.3 The 

percentage of the March ice 

cover made up of thicker ice 

(ice that has survived a summer melt season) decreased 

from 75% in the mid-1980s 

to 45% in 2011.4

Ice loss increases Arctic warming by replacing white, 

reflective ice with dark water that absorbs more energy 

from the sun. More open water can also increase snowfall 

over northern land areas5 and increase the north-south 

meanders of the jet stream, consistent with the occurrence of unusually cold and snowy winters at mid-latitudes 

in several recent years.5,6 Significant uncertainties remain 

in interpreting the effect of Arctic ice changes on mid-latitude weather patterns.7

In addition to the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice, rising 

temperatures are reducing the volume and surface extent 

of ice on land and lakes. Snow cover on land has also 

decreased over the past several decades, especially in late 

spring.

Arctic Sea Ice Decline

The retreat of sea ice has occurred faster than climate models had predicted. Image on left shows Arctic 

minimum sea ice extent in 1984, which was about 2.59 million square miles, the average minimum extent 

for 1979-2000. Image on right shows that the extent of sea ice had dropped to 1.32 million square miles at 

the end of summer 2012. The dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice increases warming and has many other impacts on the region. Marine mammals including polar bears and many seal species depend on sea ice for 

nearly all aspects of their existence. Alaska Native coastal communities rely on sea ice for many reasons, 

including its role as a buffer against coastal erosion from storms and as a platform for hunting. (Figure 

source: NASA Earth Observatory 20128).

Satellite measurements show that both Greenland and Antarctica are 

losing ice as the atmosphere and oceans warm. Melting of the polar 

ice sheets and glaciers on land add water to the oceans and raise sea 

level. How fast these two polar ice sheets melt will largely determine 

how quickly sea level rises. (Figure source: adapted from Wouters et 

al. 20139). 

Ice Loss from the Two Polar Ice Sheets

The ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, 

adding to global sea level rise.
20

Finding 1: OUR CHANGING CLIMATE

Climate in the United States 

is changing.

On the left is a photograph of Muir Glacier in Alaska taken on August 13, 1941; on the right, a photograph taken from the same 

vantage point on August 31, 2004. Total glacial mass has declined sharply around the globe, adding to sea level rise. (Left photo 

by glaciologist William O. Field; right photo by geologist Bruce F. Molnia of the United States Geological Survey.)

A longer growing season provides a longer period for 

plant growth and productivity and can slow the increase 

in atmospheric CO2 concentrations through increased CO2

uptake by living things and their environment.10 The longer 

growing season can increase the growth of beneficial plants 

(such as crops and forests) as well as undesirable ones (such 

as ragweed).11 In some cases where moisture is limited, 

the greater evaporation and loss of moisture through plant 

transpiration (release of water from plant leaves) associated 

with a longer growing season can mean less productivity 

because of increased drying12 and earlier and longer fire 

seasons.

U.S. average temperature has increased by 

1.3°F to 1.9°F since record keeping began 

in 1895; most of this increase has occurred 

since about 1970. The most recent decade 

was the nation’s warmest on record. 

Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the 

temperature rise has not been, and will not 

be, uniform or smooth across the country 

or over time.

While surface air temperature is the 

most widely cited measure of climate 

change, other aspects of climate that are 

affected by temperature are often more 

directly relevant to both human society 

and the natural environment. Examples 

include shorter duration of ice on lakes 

and rivers, reduced glacier extent, earlier 

melting of snowpack, reduced lake levels 

due to increased evaporation, lengthening of the growing 

season, changes in plant hardiness zones, increased 

humidity, rising ocean temperatures, rising sea level, and 

changes in some types of extreme weather.

Taken as a whole, these changes provide compelling 

evidence that increasing temperatures are affecting both 

ecosystems and human society.

Observed U.S. Temperature Change

The colors on the map show temperature changes over the past 22 years (1991-2012) 

compared to the 1901-1960 average for the contiguous U.S., and to the 1951-1980 average for Alaska and Hawai‘i. The bars on the graph show the average temperature changes 

for the U.S. by decade for 1901-2012 (relative to the 1901-1960 average). The far right bar 

(2000s decade) includes 2011 and 2012. The period from 2001 to 2012 was warmer than 

any previous decade in every region. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).
21

Observed U.S. Precipitation Change

The colors on the map show annual total precipitation changes for 1991-2012 compared to the 1901-1960 

average, and show wetter conditions in most areas. The bars on the graph show average precipitation differences by decade for 1901-2012 (relative to the 1901-1960 average). The far right bar is for 2001-2012. 

(Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

The frost-free season length, defined as the period between the last 

occurrence of 32°F in the spring and the first occurrence of 32°F in 

the fall, has increased in each U.S. region during 1991-2012 relative 

to 1901-1960. Increases in frost-free season length correspond to 

similar increases in growing season length. (Figure source: NOAA 

NCDC / CICS-NC).

Observed Increases in Frost-Free Season Increased frost-free season length, especially in 

already hot and moisture-stressed regions like the 

Southwest, can lead to further heat stress on plants 

and increased water demands for crops. Higher temperatures and fewer frost-free days during winter can 

lead to early bud burst or bloom of some perennial 

plants, resulting in frost damage when cold conditions 

occur in late spring. In addition, with higher winter 

temperatures, some agricultural pests can persist 

year-round, and new pests and diseases may become 

established.13

The lengthening of the frost-free season has been 

somewhat greater in the western U.S. than the eastern 

U.S.,1 increasing by 2 to 3 weeks in the Northwest 

and Southwest, 1 to 2 weeks in the Midwest, Great 

Plains, and Northeast, and slightly less than 1 week 

in the Southeast. These differences mirror the overall 

trend of more warming in the north and west and less 

warming in the Southeast.

Average annual precipitation over the U.S. has increased in recent decades, although there are important regional differences. For example, precipitation 

since 1991 (relative to 1901-1960) increased the most in the Northeast (8%), Midwest (9%), and southern Great Plains 

(8%), while much of the Southeast and Southwest had a mix of areas of increases and decreases. 
22

Finding 1: OUR CHANGING CLIMATE

Climate has changed naturally throughout Earth’s history. 

However, natural factors cannot explain the recent observed warming.

In the past, climate change was driven exclusively by 

natural factors: explosive volcanic eruptions that injected 

reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, changes in 

energy from the sun, periodic variations in the Earth’s orbit, 

natural cycles that transfer heat between the ocean and 

the atmosphere, and slowly changing natural variations in 

heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. 

All of these natural factors, and their interactions with 

each other, have altered global average temperature over 

periods ranging from months to thousands of years. For 

example, past glacial periods were initiated by shifts in the 

Earth’s orbit, and then amplified by resulting decreases in 

atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and subsequently by 

greater reflection of the sun’s energy by ice and snow as the 

Earth’s climate system responded to a cooler climate. 

Natural factors are still affecting the planet’s climate today. 

The difference is that, since the beginning of the Industrial 

Revolution, humans have been increasingly affecting global 

climate, to the point where we are now the primary cause 

of recent and projected future change. 

The global warming of the past 50 years 

is primarily due to human activities, 

predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.

Carbon Emissions in the Industrial Age

Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil, and gas and producing cement, 

in units of million metric tons of carbon. These emissions account for 

about 80% of the total emissions of carbon from human activities, with 

land-use changes (like cutting down forests) accounting for the other 20% 

in recent decades. (Data from Boden et al. 201215). 

2000 Years of 

Heat-Trapping Gas Levels

Increases in concentrations of these gases since 1750 are due to 

human activities in the industrial era. Concentrations are parts per 

million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb), indicating the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion molecules of air. 

(Figure source: Forster et al. 200714).

The majority of the warming at the global scale over 

the past 50 years can only be explained by the effects 

of human influences, especially the emissions from 

burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and from 

deforestation. 

The emissions from human influences affecting 

climate include heat-trapping gases such as carbon 

dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, and particles such as black carbon (soot), which has a warming 

influence, and sulfates, which have an overall cooling 

influence. In addition to human-induced global climate 

change, local climate can also be affected by other 

human factors (such as crop irrigation) and natural 

variability.

Carbon dioxide has been building up in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era in 

the mid-1700s, primarily due to burning coal, oil, and 

gas, and secondarily due to clearing of forests. Atmospheric levels have increased by about 40% relative to 

pre-industrial levels.

Methane levels in the atmosphere have increased due 

to human activities including agriculture (with livestock producing methane in their digestive tracts and 

rice farming producing it via bacteria that live in the 

flooded fields); mining coal, extraction and transport 

of natural gas, and other fossil fuel-related activities; 
23

and waste disposal including sewage and decomposing 

garbage in landfills. Since pre-industrial times, methane 

levels have increased by 250%.

Other heat-trapping gases produced by human activities 

include nitrous oxide, halocarbons, and ozone. Nitrous 

oxide levels are increasing, primarily as a result of fertilizer 

use and fossil fuel burning. The concentration of nitrous 

oxide has increased by about 20% relative to pre-industrial 

times.

The conclusion that human influences are the primary 

driver of recent climate change is based on multiple lines 

of independent evidence. The first line of evidence is our 

fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap 

heat, how the climate system responds to increases in 

these gases, and how other human and natural factors 

influence climate. The second line of evidence is from 

reconstructions of past climates using evidence such as 

tree rings, ice cores, and corals. These show that global 

surface temperatures over the last several decades are 

clearly unusual, with the last decade (2000-2009) warmer 

than any time in at least the last 1,300 years and perhaps 

much longer. 

The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating 

the human and natural factors that influence climate. 

When the human factors are removed, these models 

show that solar and volcanic activity would have tended to 

slightly cool the earth, and other natural variations are too 

small to explain the amount of warming. Only when the 

human influences are included do the models reproduce 

the warming observed over the past 50 years.

Another line of evidence involves so-called “fingerprint” 

studies that are able to attribute observed climate changes 

to particular causes. For example, the fact that the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere) is cooling while 

the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere are warming 

is a fingerprint that the warming is due to increases in 

heat-trapping gases. In contrast, if the observed warming 

had been due to increases in solar output, Earth’s atmosphere would have warmed throughout its entire extent, 

including the stratosphere. In addition to such temperature analyses, scientific attribution of observed changes 

to human influence extends to many other aspects 

of climate, such as changing patterns in precipitation, 

increasing humidity, changes in pressure, and increasing 

ocean heat content.

Measurements of Surface Temperature 

and Sun’s Energy

The full record of satellite measurements of the sun’s energy 

received at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is shown in red, 

following its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, without 

any net increase. Over the same period, global temperature relative 

to 1961-1990 average (shown in blue) has risen markedly. This is 

a clear indication that changes in the sun are not responsible for 

the observed warming over recent decades. (Figure source: NOAA 

NCDC / CICS-NC).

Oil used for transportation and coal used for electricity generation are the largest contributors to the rise in carbon dioxide that 

is the primary driver of recent climate change.
2 EXTREME WEATHER

24

FINDING

As the world has warmed, that warming has triggered 

many other changes to the Earth’s climate. Changes in 

extreme weather and climate events, such as heat waves 

and droughts, are the primary way that most people 

experience climate change. Human-induced climate 

change has already increased the number and strength 

of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, 

much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods 

of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and 

in some regions, severe floods and droughts.

Heat Waves

Heat waves are periods of abnormally hot weather 

lasting days to weeks. The number of heat waves has 

been increasing in recent years. This trend has continued 

in 2011 and 2012, with the number of intense heat 

waves being almost triple the long-term average. The 

recent heat waves and droughts in Texas (2011) and the 

Midwest (2012) set records for highest monthly average 

temperatures. Analyses show that human-induced 

climate change has generally increased the probability 

of heat waves.1 And prolonged (multi-month) extreme 

heat has been unprecedented since the start of reliable 

instrumental records in 1895.

Drought

Higher temperatures 

lead to increased 

rates of evaporation, 

including more loss of 

moisture through plant 

leaves. Even in areas 

where precipitation 

does not decrease, 

these increases in 

surface evaporation 

and loss of water from 

plants lead to more 

rapid drying of soils if 

the effects of higher 

temperatures are not 

Map shows numbers of days with temperatures above 100°F during 

2011. Black circles denote the location of observing stations recording at least one such day. The number of days with temperatures 

exceeding 100°F is expected to increase. The record temperatures 

and drought during the summer of 2011 represent conditions that 

will occur more frequently in the U.S. as climate change continues. 

(Figure source: NOAA NCDC).

Coast-to-Coast 

100-degree Days in 2011

Dots show the average summer temperature and total rainfall in Texas for 

each year from 1919 to 2012. Red dots 

illustrate the range of temperatures and 

rainfall observed over time. The record 

temperatures and drought during the 

summer of 2011 (large red dot) represent conditions far outside those that 

have occurred since the instrumental 

record began.2 An analysis has shown 

that the probability of such an event 

has more than doubled as a result of 

human-induced climate change.3 (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Texas Summer 2011: Record Heat and Drought

Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and 

stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.
25

offset by other changes (such as reduced 

wind speed or increased humidity).4 As 

soil dries out, a larger proportion of the 

incoming heat from the sun goes into 

heating the soil and adjacent air rather than 

evaporating its moisture, resulting in hotter 

summers under drier climatic conditions.5

An example of recent drought occurred in 

2011, when many locations in Texas and 

Oklahoma experienced more than 100 days 

over 100°F. Both states set new records for 

the hottest summer since record keeping 

began in 1895. Rates of water loss, due 

in part to evaporation, were double the 

long-term average. The heat and drought 

depleted water resources and contributed 

to more than $10 billion in direct losses to 

agriculture alone.

Heavy Downpours

Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, 

especially over the last three to five 

decades. The heaviest rainfall events have 

become heavier and more frequent, and 

the amount of rain falling on the heaviest 

rain days has also increased. Since 1991, 

the amount of rain falling in very heavy 

precipitation events has been significantly 

above average. This increase has been 

greatest in the Northeast, Midwest, and 

upper Great Plains – more than 30% above 

the 1901-1960 average. There has also 

been an increase in flooding events in the 

Midwest and Northeast, where the largest 

increases in heavy rain amounts have 

occurred. 

The mechanism driving these changes is 

well understood. Warmer air can contain 

more water vapor than cooler air. Global 

analyses show that the amount of water 

vapor in the atmosphere has in fact 

increased due to human-caused warming.6

This extra moisture is available to storm 

systems, resulting in heavier rainfalls. 

Climate change also alters characteristics 

of the atmosphere that affect weather 

patterns and storms.

Droughts in recent years have been widespread. The map above shows the extent 

of drought in mid August 2012. The U.S. Drought Monitor is produced in partnership between the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. (Map courtesy of NDMC-UNL). 

Widespread Drought in 2012

One measure of heavy precipitation events is a two-day precipitation total that is 

exceeded on average only once in a 5-year period, also known as the once-in-fiveyear event. As this extreme precipitation index for 1901-2012 shows, the occurrence 

of such events has become much more common in recent decades. Changes are 

compared to the period 1901-1960, and do not include Alaska or Hawai‘i. (Figure 

source: adapted from Kunkel et al. 20137).

Observed U.S. Trends in 

Heavy Precipitation
26

Finding 2: EXTREME WEATHER

Floods

Flooding may intensify in many 

U.S. regions, even in areas where 

total precipitation is projected to 

decline. A flood is defined as any 

high flow, overflow, or inundation 

by water that causes or threatens 

damage.8 Floods are caused or 

amplified by both weather- and 

human-related factors. Major 

weather factors include heavy or 

prolonged precipitation, snowmelt, 

thunderstorms, storm surges from 

hurricanes, and ice or debris jams. 

Human factors include structural 

failures of dams and levees, altered 

drainage, and land-cover alterations 

(such as pavement). 

Increasingly, humanity is also adding 

to weather-related factors, as 

human-induced warming increases 

heavy downpours, causes more 

extensive storm surges due to sea 

level rise, and leads to more rapid 

spring snowmelt.

Worldwide, from 1980 to 2009, floods caused more 

than 500,000 deaths and affected more than 2.8 billion 

people.9 In the United States, floods caused 4,586 deaths 

from 1959 to 200510 while property and crop damage 

averaged nearly 8 billion dollars per year (in 2011 dollars) 

All flood types are affected by climate-related factors, some more than others. 

Flash floods occur in small and steep watersheds and waterways and can 

be caused by short-duration intense precipitation, dam or levee failure, or 

collapse of debris and ice jams. Most flood-related deaths in the U.S. are 

associated with flash floods. 

Urban flooding can be caused by short-duration very heavy precipitation. 

Urbanization creates large areas of impervious surfaces (such as roads, 

pavement, parking lots, and buildings) that increased immediate runoff, and 

heavy downpours can exceed the capacity of storm drains and cause urban 

flooding. 

Flash floods and urban flooding are directly linked to heavy precipitation and 

are expected to increase as a result of increases in heavy precipitation events.

River flooding occurs when surface water drained from a watershed into 

a stream or a river exceeds channel capacity, overflows the banks, and 

inundates adjacent low lying areas. Riverine flooding depends on precipitation 

as well as many other factors, such as existing soil moisture conditions and 

snowmelt.

Coastal flooding is predominantly caused by storm surges that accompany 

hurricanes and other storms that push large seawater domes toward the shore. 

Storm surge can cause deaths, widespread infrastructure damage, and severe 

beach erosion. Storm-related rainfall can also cause inland flooding and is 

responsible for more than half of the deaths associated with tropical storms.8

Climate change affects coastal flooding through sea level rise and storm surge, 

and increases in heavy rainfall during storms.

There are significant trends in the magnitude of river flooding in many parts of the 

United States.11 River flood magnitudes 

(from the 1920s through 2008) have decreased in the Southwest and increased 

in the eastern Great Plains, parts of the 

Midwest, and from the northern Appalachians into New England.12 The map 

shows increasing trends in floods in 

green and decreasing trends in brown. 

The magnitude of these trends is illustrated by the size of the triangles. (Figure 

source: Peterson et al. 201312).

Trends in 

Flood Magnitude

over 1981 through 2011.8 The risks from future floods are 

significant, given expanded development in coastal areas 

and floodplains, unabated urbanization, land-use changes, 

and human-induced climate change.9

 Major Flood Types
27

North Atlantic hurricanes have increased in intensity, frequency, 

and duration since the early 1980s.

Heavy snowfalls during winter storms affect transportation systems and other infrastructure.

Hurricanes

There has been a substantial increase in most measures of 

Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period 

during which high quality satellite data are available.13

These include measures of intensity, frequency, and 

duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 

4 and 5) storms. The recent increases in activity are 

linked, in part, to higher sea surface temperatures in 

the region that Atlantic hurricanes form in and move 

through. Numerous factors have been shown to influence 

these local sea surface temperatures, including natural 

variability, human-induced emissions of heat-trapping 

gases, and particulate pollution. Quantifying the relative 

contributions of natural and human-caused factors is an 

active focus of research.

Hurricane development, however, is influenced by more 

than just sea surface temperature. How hurricanes 

develop also depends on how the local atmosphere 

responds to changes in local sea surface temperatures, 

and this atmospheric response depends critically on the 

cause of the change.14 For example, the atmosphere 

responds differently when local sea surface temperatures 

increase due to a local decrease of particulate pollution 

that allows more sunlight through to warm the ocean, 

versus when sea surface temperatures increase more 

uniformly around the world due to increased amounts of 

human-caused heat-trapping gases.15

By late this century, models, on average, project an 

increase in the number of the strongest (Category 4 and 

5) hurricanes. Models also project greater rainfall rates in 

hurricanes in a warmer climate, with increases of about 

20% averaged near the center of hurricanes. 

Change in Other Storms

Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity 

since the 1950s,16 and their tracks have shifted northward 

over the United States.17 Other trends in severe storms, 

including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, 

and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are 

being studied intensively. There has been a sizable upward 

trend in the number of storms causing large financial and 

other losses.18 However, there are societal contributions to 

this trend, such as increases in population and wealth.7

Storm surges reach farther inland as they ride on top of sea 

levels that are higher due to warming.
3 FUTURE CLIMATE

28

FINDING

Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts 

over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the 

amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future. 

Maps show projected change in average surface air temperature in the later part of this century (2071-2099) relative to the later part of 

the last century (1970-1999) under a scenario that assumes substantial reductions in heat trapping gases (B1, left) and a higher emissions 

scenario that assumes continued increases in global emissions (A2, right). These scenarios are used throughout this report for assessing 

impacts under lower and higher emissions. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Projected Temperature Change

Increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns will alter soil moisture, which is 

important for agriculture and ecosystems and 

has many societal implications. These maps 

show average change in soil moisture compared 

to 1971-2000, as projected for late this century 

(2071-2100) under two emissions scenarios, a 

lower scenario (B1) and a higher scenario (A2).1

Eastern U.S. is not displayed because model 

simulations were only run for the area shown. 

(Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Projected Changes in Soil Moisture

Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly 

if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.
29

Projected Precipitation Change by Season

Climate change affects more than just temperature. The location, timing, and amounts of precipitation will also change as temperatures rise. 

Maps show projected percent change in precipitation in each season for 2071-2099 (compared to the period 1970-1999) under an emissions 

scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions (A2). Teal indicates precipitation increases, and brown, decreases. Hatched areas 

indicate that the projected changes are significant and consistent among models. White areas indicate that the changes are not projected to 

be larger than could be expected from natural variability. In general, the northern part of the U.S. is projected to see more winter and spring 

precipitation, while the southwestern U.S. is projected to experience less precipitation in the spring. Wet regions are generally projected to 

become wetter while dry regions become drier. Summer drying is projected for parts of the U.S., including the Northwest and southern Great 

Plains. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).
30

Finding 3: FUTURE CLIMATE

Sea level rise 

Global sea level has risen about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 

feet by 2100. The oceans are absorbing over 90% of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.2

 Like mercury in a thermometer, water expands as it warms up (this is referred to as “thermal expansion”) 

causing sea levels to rise. Melting of glaciers and ice sheets is also contributing to sea level rise at increasing rates.3

Map shows change in the number of 

consecutive dry days (days receiving 

less than 0.04 inches of precipitation) 

at the end of this century (2081-2100) 

relative to the end of last century 

(1980-1999) under the highest scenario considered in this report, RCP 

8.5. Stippling indicates areas where 

changes are consistent among at 

least 80% of the 25 models used in 

this analysis. (Figure source: NOAA 

NCDC / CICS-NC).

Change in Maximum Number of Consecutive Dry Days

Past and Projected Changes in Global Sea Level

Figure shows estimated, observed, and possible 

amounts of global sea level rise from 1800 to 

2100, relative to the year 2000. Estimates from 

proxy data4 (for example, based on sediment 

records) are shown in red (1800-1890, pink band 

shows uncertainty), tide gauge data in blue for 

1880-2009,5 and satellite observations are shown 

in green from 1993 to 2012.6 The future scenarios 

range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100.7 These 

scenarios are not based on climate model simulations, but rather reflect the range of possible 

scenarios based on other kinds of scientific studies. The orange line at right shows the currently 

projected range of sea level rise of 1 to 4 feet 

by 2100, which falls within the larger risk-based 

scenario range. The large projected range reflects 

uncertainty about how glaciers and ice sheets 

will react to the warming ocean, the warming 

atmosphere, and changing winds and currents. As 

seen in the observations, there are year-to-year 

variations in the trend. (Figure source: NASA Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory).
31

Emission Levels Determine Temperature Rises

Where we are heading

Both voluntary activities and a variety of 

policies and measures that lower emissions 

are currently in place at federal, state, 

and local levels in the U.S., even though 

there is no comprehensive national 

climate legislation. Over the remainder 

of this century, aggressive and sustained 

greenhouse gas emission reductions by 

the U.S. and by other nations would be 

needed to reduce global emissions to a 

level consistent with the lower scenario 

(B1) analyzed in this assessment.

Different amounts of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere by human activities produce different projected increases in Earth’s 

temperature. In the figure, each line represents a central estimate of global average temperature rise for a specific emissions pathway (relative 

to the 1901-1960 average). Shading indicates the range (5th to 95th percentile) of results from a suite of climate models. Projections in 2099 

for additional emissions pathways are indicated by the bars to the right of each panel. In all cases, temperatures are expected to rise, although 

the difference between lower and higher emissions pathways is substantial.

The left panel shows the two main scenarios (SRES) used in this report: A2 assumes continued increases in emissions throughout this century, and B1 assumes significant emissions reductions beginning around 2050, though not due explicitly to climate change policies. The right 

panel shows newer analyses, which are results from the most recent generation of climate models (CMIP5) using the most recent emissions 

pathways (RCPs). Some of these new projections explicitly consider climate policies that would result in emissions reductions, which the 

SRES set did not.8 The newest set includes both lower and higher pathways than did the previous set. The lowest emissions pathway shown 

here, RCP 2.6, assumes immediate and rapid reductions in emissions and would result in about 2.5°F of warming in this century. The highest 

pathway, RCP 8.5, roughly similar to a continuation of the current path of global emissions increases, is projected to lead to more than 8°F 

warming by 2100, with a high-end possibility of more than 11°F. (Data from CMIP3, CMIP5, and NOAA NCDC).
4 WIDESPREAD IMPACTS

FINDING

32

Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to 

become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.

Multiple System Failures 

During Extreme Events

Impacts are particularly severe when 

critical systems simultaneously fail. 

We have already seen multiple system 

failures during an extreme weather 

event in the United States, as when 

Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.1

Infrastructure and evacuation failures 

and collapse of critical response 

services during a storm is one example 

of multiple system failures. Another 

example is a loss of electrical power 

during heat waves or wildfires, which 

can reduce food and water safety.2 Air 

conditioning has helped reduce illness 

and death due to extreme heat,3 but if 

power is lost, everyone is vulnerable. 

By their nature, such events can exceed 

our capacity to respond.4 In succession, these events severely deplete 

resources needed to respond, from 

the individual to the national scale, 

but disproportionately affect the most 

vulnerable populations.5

Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate 

change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that 

can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes 

of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, 

the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence 

that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global 

emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

Because environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic systems are tightly 

coupled, climate change impacts can either be amplified or reduced by cultural and socioeconomic decisions. In many arenas, it is clear that societal 

decisions have substantial influence on the vulnerability of valued resources 

to climate change. For example, rapid population growth and development 

in coastal areas tends to amplify climate change related impacts. Recognition of these couplings, together with recognition of multiple sources of 

vulnerability, helps identify what information decision-makers need as they 

manage risks. 

This map illustrates the national scope of the dispersion of displaced people from Hurricane Katrina. It shows the location by zip code of the 800,000 displaced Louisiana residents who requested federal emergency assistance. The evacuees ended up dispersed 

across the entire nation, illustrating the wide-ranging impacts that can flow from extreme 

weather events, such as those that are projected to increase in frequency and/or intensity 

as climate continues to change. (Figure source: Kent 20066).

Katrina Diaspora

Storm surge on top of sea level rise exacerbates coastal flooding during hurricanes.
33

Coral Reef Ecosystem Collapse

In many social and natural systems, climate 

change combines with other stresses to 

cause or expand impacts. For example, coral 

reefs are threatened by a combination of 

ocean acidification caused by increased carbon dioxide, rising ocean temperatures, and 

a variety of other factors caused by human 

activities. 

Recent research indicates that 75% of the 

world’s coral reefs are threatened due to 

the interactive effects of climate change and 

local sources of stress, such as overfishing, 

nutrient pollution, and disease.7 In Florida, all 

reefs are rated as threatened; with significant impacts on valuable ecosystem services 

they provide.8 Caribbean coral cover has 

decreased 80% in less than three decades.9

These declines have in turn led to a flattening of the three dimensional structure of coral reefs and hence a decrease in 

the capacity of coral reefs to provide shelter and additional resources for other reef-dependent ocean life.10

The relationship between coral and zooxanthellae (algae vital for reef-building corals) is disrupted by higher than usual 

temperatures and results in a condition where the coral is still alive, but devoid of all its color (bleaching). Bleached 

corals can later die or become infected with disease.11 Thus, high temperature events alone can kill large stretches of 

coral reef, although cold water and poor water quality can also cause localized bleaching and death. Evidence suggests 

that relatively pristine reefs, with fewer human impacts and with intact fish and associated invertebrate communities, 

are more resilient to coral bleaching and disease.12

Cascading Effects Across Sectors

Agriculture, water, energy, transportation, and more, are all affected by climate change. These sectors of our economy 

do not exist in isolation and are linked in increasingly complex ways. For example, water supply and energy use are 

completely intertwined, since water is used to generate energy, and energy is required to pump, treat, and deliver water 

– which means that irrigation-dependent farmers and urban dwellers are linked as well. 

A recent illustration of these interconnections took 

place during the widespread drought of 2011-2012 

when high temperatures caused increased demand 

for electricity for air conditioning, which resulted in 

increased water withdrawal and consumption for electricity generation. Heat, increased evaporation, drier 

soils, and lack of rain led to higher irrigation demands, 

which added stress on water resources required for 

energy production. At the same time, low-flowing and 

warmer rivers threatened to suspend power plant 

production in several locations, reducing the options 

for dealing with the concurrent increase in electricity 

demand.

With electricity demands at all-time highs, water 

shortages threatened more than 3,000 megawatts of 

generating capacity – enough power to supply more 

than one million homes.13 As a result of the record 

demand and reduced supply, electricity prices spiked.14

Warm water caused this coral colony to “bleach” (left) as it expelled the symbiotic algae that gave it color and nourishment. The coral then experienced more 

disease (right), which eventually killed the colony.

Heat and drought lead to cascading impacts among sectors including 

agriculture, water, and energy.
5 HUMAN HEALTH

34

FINDING

Climate change is increasing the risks of respiratory stress from poor air quality, heat stress, and the spread of foodborne, insect-borne, and waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. 

Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the 

emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Key weather and climate drivers of health impacts include increasingly frequent, intense, and longer-lasting extreme 

heat, which worsens drought, wildfire, and air pollution risks; increasingly frequent extreme precipitation, intense 

storms, and changes in precipitation patterns that can lead to flooding, drought, and ecosystem changes; and rising 

sea levels that intensify coastal flooding and storm surge, causing injuries, deaths, stress due to evacuations, and water 

quality impacts, among other effects on public health. 

Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways.

Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather 

events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and diseasecarriers such as mosquitoes and ticks. Some of these health impacts are already underway in the United States.

Climate change will, absent other changes, amplify some of the existing health threats the nation now faces. Certain 

people and communities are especially vulnerable, including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and some 

communities of color.

Public health actions, especially preparedness and prevention, can do much to protect people from some of the impacts 

of climate change. Early action provides the largest health benefits. As threats increase, our ability to adapt to future 

changes may be limited.

Responding to climate change provides opportunities to improve human health and well-being across many sectors, 

including energy, agriculture, and transportation. Many of these strategies offer a variety of benefits, protecting people 

while combating climate change and providing other societal benefits. 

Key Messages: Human Health

Air Quality

Climate change is projected to harm 

human health by increasing groundlevel ozone and/or particulate 

matter in some locations. Groundlevel ozone (a key component of 

smog) is associated with many 

health problems, such as diminished 

lung function, increased hospital 

admissions and emergency room 

visits for asthma, and increases 

in premature deaths.1 Factors 

that affect ozone formation 

include heat, concentrations of 

precursor chemicals, and methane 

emissions, while particulate matter 

concentrations are affected by 

wildfire emissions and air stagnation 

episodes, among other factors.2

Wildfires, which are projected to increase in 

some regions due to climate change, have 

health impacts that can extend hundreds of 

miles. Forest fires in Quebec, Canada, during 

July 2002 resulted in up to a 30-fold increase 

in airborne fine particle concentrations in 

Baltimore, a city nearly a thousand miles 

downwind. These fine particles are extremely harmful to human health, affecting both 

indoor and outdoor air quality. An average of 

6.4 million acres burned in U.S. wildfires each 

year between 2000 and 2010, with 9.5 million 

acres burned in 2006 and 9.1 million acres 

in 2012.3 Global deaths from wildfire smoke 

have been estimated at 260,000 to 600,000 

annually.4 (Figure source: MODIS instrument 

on the Terra Satellite, Land Rapid Response 

Team, NASA/GSFC).

Wildfire Smoke has Widespread Health Effects
35

Warmer and drier conditions have 

already contributed to increasing 

wildfire extent across the western 

United States, and future increases 

are projected in some regions.5,6 Long 

periods of record high temperatures 

are associated with droughts that 

contribute to dry conditions and 

drive wildfires in some areas.7

Wildfire smoke contains particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, and other 

compounds, which can significantly 

reduce air quality, both locally and 

in areas downwind of fires.8,9 Smoke 

exposure increases respiratory and 

cardiovascular hospitalizations, 

emergency room visits and 

medication for asthma, bronchitis, 

chest pain, and other ailments.8,10,11

It has been associated with hundreds 

of thousands of deaths globally each 

year.4,8,10,12 Future climate change 

is projected to increase wildfire 

risks and associated emissions, with 

harmful impacts on health.6,13

Allergies and Asthma

Climate change, as well as increased CO2 by itself, can contribute to increased production of plant-based allergens.6,14,15 

Higher pollen concentrations and longer pollen seasons can increase allergic sensitizations and asthma episodes,16,17 

and diminish productive work and school days.14,17,18 Simultaneous exposure to toxic air pollutants can worsen allergic 

responses.19 Extreme rainfall and rising temperatures can also foster indoor air quality problems, including the growth of 

indoor fungi and molds, with increases in respiratory and asthma-related conditions.20

Heavy Downpours are Increasing Exposure to Disease

Ragweed pollen season length has increased in central North America between 1995 and 

2011 by as much as 11 to 27 days in parts of the U.S. and Canada, in response to rising 

temperatures. Increases in the length of this allergenic pollen season are correlated with 

increases in the number of days before the first frost. As shown in the figure, the largest 

increases have been observed in northern cities. (Data updated from Ziska et al. 201114).

Ragweed Pollen Season Lengthens

Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC
Finding 5: HUMAN HEALTH

36

Extreme Heat

Extreme heat events are the leading weather-related cause of death in the United States.28 Many cities, including St. 

Louis, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Cincinnati have suffered dramatic spikes in death rates during heat waves. Deaths 

result from heat stroke and related conditions,29 but also from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cerebrovascular disease.30,31 Heat waves are also associated with increased hospital admissions for cardiovascular, kidney, and 

respiratory disorders.31,32

Extreme summer heat is increasing in the United States. The effects of heat stress are greatest during heat waves 

lasting several days or more. As human-induced climate change causes temperatures to continue to rise, heat waves 

are projected to increase in frequency, intensity, and duration.33

Some of the risks of heat-related sickness and death have diminished in recent decades, possibly due to better forecasting, heat-health early warning systems, and/or increased access to air conditioning for the U.S. population.34 However, 

extreme heat events remain a cause of preventable death nationwide. Urban heat islands, combined with an aging 

population and increased urbanization, are projected to increase the vulnerability of urban populations, especially the 

poor, to heat-related health impacts in the future.35

While deaths and injuries related to 

extreme cold events are projected to 

decline due to climate change, these 

reductions are not expected to compensate for the increase in heat-related 

deaths.36

Diseases Carried by Vectors

Food and Waterborne Diarrheal Disease

Diarrheal disease is a major public health issue in developing countries and while not generally increasing in the United 

States, remains a persistent concern nonetheless. Exposure to a variety of pathogens in water and food causes diarrheal 

disease. Air and water temperatures, precipitation patterns, extreme rainfall events, and seasonal variations are all 

known to affect disease transmission.21 In the U.S., children and the elderly are most vulnerable to serious outcomes, 

and those exposed to inadequately or untreated groundwater will be among those most affected.

In general, diarrheal diseases including Salmonellosis and Campylobacteriosis are more common when temperatures 

are higher,22 though patterns differ by place and pathogen. Diarrheal diseases have also been found to occur more 

frequently in conjunction with both unusually high and low precipitation.23 Sporadic increases in streamflow rates, often 

preceded by rapid snowmelt24 and changes in water treatment,25 have also been shown to precede outbreaks. Risks of 

waterborne illness, and beach closures resulting from heavy rain and rising water temperatures are expected to increase 

in the Great Lakes region due to projected climate change.26,27

The Hottest Days Will Get Hotter

The maps show projected increases in the average temperature on the hottest days by 

late this century (2081-2100) relative to 1986-2005 under a scenario that assumes a rapid 

reduction in heat-trapping gases (RCP 2.6) and a scenario that assumes continued increases in these gases (RCP 8.5). The hottest days are those so hot they occur only once 

in 20 years. Across most of the continental U.S., those days will be about 10oF to 15oF 

hotter in the future under the higher emissions scenario, increasing health risks. (Figure 

source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC). 
37

Climate is one of the factors that influences the distribution of diseases borne by vectors (such as fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes, which spread pathogens that cause illness).37,38,39,40 The geographic and seasonal distribution of vector populations, and the diseases they can carry, depend not only on climate, but also on land use, socioeconomic and cultural 

factors, pest control, access to health care, and human responses to disease risk, among other factors.38,41,42

North Americans are currently at risk from numerous vector-borne diseases, including Lyme, dengue fever, West Nile 

virus, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, plague, and tularemia.40,43,44 Vector-borne pathogens not currently found in the 

U.S., such as chikungunya, Chagas disease, and Rift Valley fever viruses, are also threats. Climate change effects on the 

geographical distribution and incidence of vector-borne diseases in other countries where these diseases are already 

found can also affect North Americans, especially as a result of increasing trade with, and travel to, tropical and subtropical areas.39,42

Multiple Benefits

Policies and other strategies intended to reduce carbon pollution and mitigate climate change can often have independent influences on human health. For example, reducing CO2 emissions through renewable electrical power generation 

can reduce air pollutants like particles and sulfur dioxide. Efforts to improve the resiliency of communities and human 

infrastructure to climate change impacts can also improve human health. There is a growing recognition that the magnitude of health “co-benefits,” like reducing both pollution and cardiovascular disease, could be significant, both from a 

public health and an economic standpoint.47

Innovative urban design could create increased access to active transport (such as walking and biking).27 The compact 

geographical area found in cities presents opportunities to reduce energy use and emissions of heat-trapping gases 

and other air pollutants through active transit, improved building construction, provision of services, and infrastructure 

creation, such as bike paths and sidewalks.48,49 Urban planning strategies designed to reduce the urban heat island effect, 

such as green/cool roofs, increased green space, parkland, and urban canopy, could reduce indoor temperatures and 

improve indoor air quality, and could also produce additional societal co-benefits by promoting social interaction and 

prioritizing vulnerable urban populations.48,50

Lyme Disease

The development and survival of 

blacklegged ticks, their animal hosts, and 

the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, 

are strongly influenced by climatic factors, 

especially temperature, precipitation, and 

humidity. Potential impacts of climate 

change on the transmission of Lyme disease 

include: 1) changes in the geographic 

distribution of the disease due to the 

increase in favorable habitat for ticks to 

survive off their hosts;45 2) a lengthened 

transmission season due to earlier onset 

of higher temperatures in the spring and 

later onset of cold and frost; 3) higher tick 

densities leading to greater risk in areas 

where the disease is currently observed 

due to milder winters and potentially larger 

rodent host populations; and 4) changes in 

human behaviors, including increased time 

outdoors, which may lead to a higher risk of 

exposure to infected ticks.

The maps show the current and projected (for 2080) probability of establishment of 

tick populations (Ixodes scapularis) that transmit Lyme disease. The projected 

expansion of tick habitat includes much of the eastern half of the country by 2080. For 

some areas around the Gulf Coast, the probability of tick population establishment is 

projected to decrease by 2080. (Figure source: adapted from Brownstein et al. 200546).

Projected Changes in Tick Habitat
6 INFRASTRUCTURE

38

FINDING

Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; 

damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.

Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in 

coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and 

are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following 

heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection 

infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as 

roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Infrastructure around the country has been compromised by extreme weather events and rising sea levels. Power outages and 

road and bridge damage are among the infrastructure failures that have occurred during these extreme events. A disruption in any 

one system affects others. For example, a failure of the electrical grid can affect everything from water treatment to public health.
39

Climate change and its impacts threaten the well-being of urban residents in all U.S. regions. Essential infrastructure 

systems such as water, energy supply, and transportation will increasingly be compromised by interrelated climate change 

impacts. The nation’s economy, security, and culture all depend on the resilience of urban infrastructure systems.

In urban settings, climate-related disruptions of services in one infrastructure system will almost always result in 

disruptions in one or more other infrastructure systems.

Climate vulnerability and adaptive capacity of urban residents and communities are influenced by pronounced social 

inequalities that reflect age, ethnicity, gender, income, health, and (dis)ability differences. 

City government agencies and organizations have started adaptation plans that focus on infrastructure systems and 

public health. To be successful, these adaptation efforts require cooperative private sector and governmental activities, 

but institutions face many barriers to implementing coordinated efforts.

Key Messages: Urban Systems, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability

Climate change poses a series of interrelated 

challenges to the country’s most densely 

populated places: its cities. The U.S. is highly 

urbanized, with about 80% of its population 

living in cities and metropolitan areas. Cities 

depend on infrastructure, like water and 

sewage systems, roads, bridges, and power 

plants, much of which is aging and in need of 

repair or replacement. These issues will be 

compounded by rising sea levels, storm surges, 

heat waves, and extreme weather events, 

stressing or even overwhelming essential 

services.

Urban dwellers are particularly vulnerable to 

disruptions in essential infrastructure services, 

in part because many of these infrastructure 

systems are reliant on each other. For 

example, electricity is essential to multiple 

systems, and a failure in the electrical grid 

can affect water treatment, transportation 

services, and public health. These 

infrastructure systems – lifelines to millions – 

will continue to be affected by various climaterelated events and processes. 

Cities have become early responders to 

climate change challenges and opportunities. Integrating climate change action in everyday city and infrastructure 

operations and governance is an important planning and implementation tool for advancing adaptation in cities.1,2 By 

integrating climate-change considerations into daily operations, these efforts can forestall the need to develop a new 

and isolated set of climate-change-specific policies or procedures.3 This strategy enables cities and other government 

agencies to take advantage of existing funding sources and programs, and achieve co-benefits in areas such as 

sustainability, public health, economic development, disaster preparedness, and environmental justice. Pursuing lowcost, no-regrets options is a particularly attractive short-term strategy for many cities.1,3

New York City’s subway system, the nation’s busiest, sustained the worst damage in its 108 years of operation on October 29, 2012. Millions of people were 

left without service for at least a week. The damages from Superstorm Sandy 

are indicative of what powerful tropical storms and higher sea levels could 

bring more frequently in the future, and were very much in line with vulnerability assessments conducted over the past four years.4

 The effects of the storm 

would have been far worse if local climate resilience strategies had not been 

in place. The City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

worked aggressively to protect life and property by stopping the operation of 

the city’s subway before the storm hit and moving the train cars out of low-lying, flood-prone areas. Catastrophic loss of life would have resulted if there 

had been subway trains operating in the tunnels when the storm struck.
Finding 6: INFRASTRUCTURE

40

The impacts from sea level rise and storm surge, extreme weather events, higher temperatures and heat waves, precipitation changes, Arctic warming, and other climatic conditions are affecting the reliability and capacity of the U.S. 

transportation system in many ways. 

Sea level rise, coupled with storm surge, will continue to increase the risk of major coastal impacts on transportation 

infrastructure, including both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, ports and harbors, roads, rail lines, tunnels, 

and bridges.

Extreme weather events currently disrupt transportation networks in all areas of the country; projections indicate that 

such disruptions will increase.

Climate change impacts will increase the total costs to the nation’s transportation systems and their users, but these 

impacts can be reduced through rerouting, mode change, and a wide range of adaptive actions.

Key Messages: Transportation

Transportation systems are affected by climate change and also contribute to climate change. In 2010, the U.S. 

transportation sector accounted for 27% of all U.S. heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, with cars and trucks 

accounting for 65% of that total.5 Petroleum accounts for 93% of the nation’s transportation energy use.5 This means 

that policies and behavioral changes aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have significant implications for 

the various components of the transportation sector. 

Transportation systems are already experiencing costly climate change related impacts. Many inland states, including 

Vermont, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, have experienced severe precipitation events, hail, and flooding during the 

past three years, damaging roads, bridges, and rail systems and the vehicles that use them. Over the coming decades, 

all modes of transportation and regions will be affected by increasing temperatures, more extreme weather events, and 

changes in precipitation. Concentrated transportation impacts are particularly expected to occur in Alaska and along 

seacoasts.

Gulf Coast Transportation Hubs at Risk

Within this century, 2,400 miles of major roadway are projected to be inundated by sea level rise in the Gulf Coast region. The 

map shows roadways at risk in the event of a sea level rise of about 4 feet, which is within the range of projections for this 

region in this century. In total, 24% of interstate highway miles and 28% of secondary road miles in the Gulf Coast region are 

at elevations below 4 feet. (Figure source: Kafalenos et al. 20086).
41

Extreme weather events are affecting energy production and delivery facilities, causing supply disruptions of 

varying lengths and magnitudes and affecting other infrastructure that depends on energy supply. The frequency and intensity of certain types of extreme weather events are expected to change.

Higher summer temperatures will increase electricity use, causing higher summer peak loads, while warmer 

winters will decrease energy demands for heating. Net electricity use is projected to increase.

Changes in water availability, both episodic and long-lasting, will constrain different forms of energy production.

In the longer term, sea level rise, extreme storm surge events, and high tides will affect coastal facilities and 

infrastructure on which many energy systems, markets, and consumers depend.

As new investments in energy technologies occur, future energy systems will differ from today’s in uncertain 

ways. Depending on the character of changes in the energy mix, climate change will introduce new risks as 

well as opportunities.

Key Messages: Energy Supply and Use

The U.S. energy system 

provides a secure supply 

of energy with only 

occasional interruptions. 

However, projected 

impacts of climate change 

will increase energy 

use in the summer and 

pose additional risks 

to reliability. Extreme 

weather events and water 

shortages are already 

interrupting energy supply 

and impacts are expected 

to increase in the future. 

Most vulnerabilities and 

risks to energy supply and 

use are unique to local 

situations; others are 

national in scope.

Increases in average 

temperatures and high temperature extremes are expected to lead to increasing demands for electricity for cooling 

in every U.S. region. Virtually all cooling load is handled by the electrical grid. In order to meet increased demands for 

peak electricity, additional generating and distribution facilities will be needed, or demand will have to be managed 

through a variety of mechanisms. Electricity at peak demand typically is more expensive to supply than at average 

demand.7

In addition to being vulnerable to the effects of climate change, electricity generation is a major source of the heattrapping gases that contribute to climate change. As a result, regulatory or policy efforts aimed at reducing emissions 

would also affect the energy supply system.

Increase in Cooling Demand and Decrease in Heating Demand

The observed increase in cooling energy demand has been greater than the decrease in heating energy 

demand. Figure shows observed increases in population-weighted cooling degree days, which result in 

increased air conditioning use, and decreases in population-weighted heating degree days, meaning less 

energy required to heat buildings in winter, compared to the average for 1970-2000. Cooling degree days are 

defined as the number of degrees that a day’s average temperature is above 65oF, while heating degree days 

are the number of degrees a day’s average temperature is below 65oF. (Data from NOAA NCDC 20128).
7 WATER

42

FINDING

Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand as well as declining runoff 

and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern U.S. and the Caribbean and Pacific islands, climate 

change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water. Water quality is diminishing in many 

areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of 

ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.

Climate Change Impacts on the Water Cycle

Annual precipitation and river-flow increases are observed now in the Midwest and the 

Northeast regions. Very heavy precipitation events have increased nationally and are 

projected to increase in all regions. The length of dry spells is projected to increase in 

most areas, especially the southern and northwestern portions of the contiguous United 

States.

Short-term (seasonal or shorter) droughts are expected to intensify in most U.S. regions. 

Longer-term droughts are expected to intensify in large areas of the Southwest, southern 

Great Plains, and Southeast.

Flooding may intensify in many U.S. regions, even in areas where total precipitation is 

projected to decline. 

Climate change is expected to affect water demand, groundwater withdrawals, and 

aquifer recharge, reducing groundwater availability in some areas.

Sea level rise, storms and storm surges, and changes in surface and groundwater use patterns are expected to compromise the sustainability of coastal freshwater aquifers and wetlands.

Increasing air and water temperatures, more intense precipitation and runoff, and intensifying droughts can decrease river 

and lake water quality in many ways, including increases in sediment, nitrogen, and other pollutant loads.

Key Messages: Water Resources

Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources Use and Management

Climate change affects water demand and the ways water is used within and across regions and economic sectors. The 

Southwest, Great Plains, and Southeast are particularly vulnerable to changes in water supply and demand.

Changes in precipitation and runoff, combined with changes in consumption and withdrawal, have reduced surface and 

groundwater supplies in many areas. These trends are expected to continue, increasing the likelihood of water shortages 

for many uses. 

Increasing flooding risk affects human safety and health, property, infrastructure, economies, and ecology in many basins 

across the United States.

Adaptation and Institutional Responses

In most U.S. regions, water resources managers and planners will encounter new risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities 

that may not be properly managed within existing practices. 

Increasing resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity provide opportunities to strengthen water resources management 

and plan for climate change impacts. Many institutional, scientific, economic, and political barriers present challenges to 

implementing adaptive strategies.
43

Changes to Water Demand and Use

Climate change, acting concurrently with 

demographic, land-use, energy generation and 

use, and socioeconomic changes, is challenging 

existing water management practices by 

affecting water availability and demand and 

by exacerbating competition among uses and 

users. In some regions, these current and 

expected impacts are hastening efficiency 

improvements in water withdrawal and use, 

the deployment of more proactive water 

management and adaptation approaches, and 

the re-assessment of the water infrastructure 

and institutional responses.1

Water Withdrawals

Total freshwater withdrawals (including water 

withdrawn and consumed as well as water that 

returns to the original source) and consumptive 

uses have leveled off nationally since 1980 at 

350 billion gallons of withdrawn water and 

100 billion gallons of consumptive water per 

day, despite the addition of 68 million people 

from 1980 to 2005.2 Irrigation and electric 

power plant cooling withdrawals account 

for approximately 77% of total withdrawals, 

municipal and industrial for 20%, and livestock 

and aquaculture for 3%. Most thermoelectric withdrawals are returned back to rivers after their use for power plant 

cooling, while most irrigation withdrawals are consumed by the processes of evapotranspiration (evaporation and loss of 

moisture from leaves) and plant growth. Thus, consumptive water use is dominated by irrigation (81%) followed distantly 

by municipal and industrial (8%) and the remaining water uses (5%). The largest withdrawals occur in the drier western 

states for crop irrigation. In the east, water withdrawals mainly serve municipal, industrial, and thermoelectric uses. 

Some of the largest demand increases are projected in regions where groundwater aquifers are the main water supply 

source, such as the Great Plains and parts of the Southwest and Southeast. The projected water demand increases 

(shown below) combined with potentially declining recharge rates threaten the sustainability of many aquifers.

Water Stress in the U. S.

In many places, competing demands for water create stress in local and regional 

watersheds. Map shows a “water supply stress index” for the U.S. based on 

observations, with widespread stress in much of the Southwest, western Great 

Plains, and parts of the Northwest. From an energy production and demand context, 

watersheds are considered stressed when water demand from agriculture, power 

plants, and municipalities exceeds 40% of available supply. This often causes conflict 

for water resources among sectors. In other contexts, many basins experience 

critical stresses far below this threshold. (Figure source: Averyt et al. 20113).

Projected Changes in Water Withdrawals

The effects of climate change, primarily associated with increasing temperatures and potential evapotranspiration, are projected to 

significantly increase water demand across most of the United States. Maps show percent change from 2005 to 2060 in projected demand 

for water assuming (a) change in population and socioeconomic conditions consistent with the A1B emissions scenario (increasing emissions 

through the middle of this century, with gradual reductions thereafter), but with no change in climate, and (b) combined changes in population, 

socioeconomic conditions, and climate according to the A1B emissions scenario. (Figure source: Brown et al. 20134)
44

Finding 7: WATER

Water Quality

Lower and more persistent low flows under drought conditions as well as higher flows during floods can worsen water 

quality. Increasing precipitation intensity, along with the effects of wildfires and fertilizer use, are increasing sediment, 

nutrient, and contaminant loads in surface waters used by downstream water users5 and ecosystems in some places. 

Changing land cover, flood frequencies, and flood magnitudes are expected to increase mobilization of sediments in 

large river basins.6

Projected Snow Water Equivalent

66%

84%

43%

67%

31% 66%

98%91% 74%

96%

87%

34%

99%

58%

12%

76%

47%

1971-2000 2006-2035 2041-2070 2070-2099 100% 100% 100%100%

87%

Snow water equivalent refers to the amount of water held in a volume of snow, which depends on the 

density of the snow and other factors. Figure shows 

projected snow water equivalent for the Southwest, as 

a percentage of 1971-2000 levels, assuming continued 

increases in global emissions (A2 scenario). The size 

of the bars is in proportion to the amount of snow each 

state contributes to the regional total; thus, the bars 

for Arizona are much smaller than those for Colorado, 

which contributes the most to region-wide snowpack. 

Declines in peak snow water equivalent are strongly 

correlated with early timing of runoff and decreases in 

total runoff. For watersheds that depend on snowpack to 

provide the majority of the annual runoff, such as in the 

Sierra Nevada and in the Upper Colorado and Upper 

Rio Grande River Basins, lower snow water equivalent 

generally translates to reduced reservoir water storage. 

(Data from Scripps Institution of Oceanography).

Water Supplies Projected to Decline

Climate change is projected to reduce water supplies in some parts of the country. This is true in areas where precipitation is projected to 

decline, and even in some areas where precipitation is expected to increase. Compared to 10% of counties today, by 2050, 32% of counties 

will be at high or extreme risk of water shortages. Numbers of counties are in parentheses in key. Projections assume continued increases in 

greenhouse gas emissions through 2050 and a slow decline thereafter (A1B scenario). (Figure source: Reprinted with permission from Roy et 

al. 20127. Copyright American Chemical Society).
45

Energy production, land use, and water resources are linked in 

complex ways. Electric utilities and energy companies compete 

with farmers and ranchers for water rights in some parts of the 

country. Land-use planners need to consider the interactive 

impacts of strained water supplies on cities, agriculture, and 

ecological needs. Across the country, these intertwined sectors 

will witness increased stresses due to climate changes that 

are projected to reduce water quality and/or quantity in many 

regions and change heating and cooling electricity demand, 

among other impacts. 

Energy, water, and land systems interact in many ways. Climate change affects the individual sectors and their interactions; the combination of these factors affects climate change vulnerability as well as adaptation and mitigation options 

for different regions of the country.

The dependence of energy systems on land and water supplies will influence the development of these systems and 

options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as their climate change vulnerability.

Jointly considering risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities associated with energy, water, and land use is challenging, 

but can improve the identification and evaluation of options for reducing climate change impacts.

Key Messages: Energy, Water, and Land Use

Energy, Water, Land,

and Climate Interactions

The interactions between and among the energy, water, land, and 

climate systems take place within a social and economic context. 

(Figure source: Skaggs et al. 20128).
8 AGRICULTURE

FINDING

46

Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more 

severe over this century. 

Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While 

some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 

25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. 

From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the 

country – a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply. 

Crop yields are very sensitive to temperature and rainfall. They are especially sensitive to high temperatures 

during the pollination and grain-filling period. For example, corn (left) and soybean (right) harvests in Illinois and 

Indiana, two major producers, were lower in years with average maximum summer (June, July, and August) 

temperatures that were higher than the 1980-2007 average. Most years with below-average yields are both 

warmer and drier than normal.1,2 There is a very high correlation between warm and dry conditions during 

Midwest summers3 due to similar meteorological conditions and drought-caused changes4 in the land surface. 

(Figure source: redrawn from Mishra and Cherkauer 20101).

Crop Yields Decline under Higher Temperatures

Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the past 40 years and are projected to increase over the 

next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, 

diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.

Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets due to increasing extremes in precipitation will 

continue to challenge both rainfed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented. 

The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity 

because critical thresholds are already being exceeded. 

Agriculture has been able to adapt to recent changes in climate; however, increased innovation will be needed to ensure 

the rate of adaptation of agriculture and the associated socioeconomic system can keep pace with climate change over 

the next 25 years.

Climate change effects on agriculture will have consequences for food security, both in the U.S. and globally, through 

changes in crop yields and food prices and effects on food processing, storage, transportation, and retailing. Adaptation 

measures can help delay and reduce some of these impacts.

Key Messages: Agriculture
47

Climate change poses a major challenge 

to U.S. agriculture, because of the critical 

dependence of the agricultural system on 

climate and because of the complex role 

agriculture plays in social and economic 

systems. Climate change has the potential 

to both positively and negatively affect the 

location, timing, and productivity of crop, 

livestock, and fishery systems at local, 

national, and global scales. 

The U.S. produces nearly $330 billion per 

year in agricultural commodities.5 This 

productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts 

on crop and livestock development and 

yield from changing climate conditions 

and extreme weather events, and indirect 

impacts through increasing pressures from 

pests and pathogens. Climate change has the 

potential to both positively and negatively 

affect agricultural systems at local, national, 

and global scales. Climate change will also 

alter the stability of food supplies and create 

new food security challenges for the U.S. as 

the world seeks to feed nine billion people 

by 2050. 

The agricultural sector continually adapts 

through a variety of strategies that have 

allowed previous agricultural production 

to increase, as evidenced by the continued 

growth in production and efficiency across 

the United States. However, the magnitude 

of climate change projected for this century 

and beyond, particularly under higher 

emissions scenarios, will challenge the ability 

of the agriculture sector to continue to 

successfully adapt.

Frost-free season is projected 

to lengthen across much of the 

nation. Taking advantage of the 

increasing length of the growing 

season and changing planting 

dates could allow planting of 

more diverse crop rotations, 

which can be an effective adaptation strategy.

The annual maximum number of 

consecutive dry days (less than 

0.01 inches of rain) is projected to 

increase, especially in the western 

and southern parts of the nation, 

negatively affecting crop and animal production. The trend toward 

more consecutive dry days and 

higher temperatures will increase 

evaporation and add stress to 

limited water resources, affecting 

irrigation and other water uses.6

Hot nights are defined as nights 

with a minimum temperature 

higher than 98% of the minimum 

temperatures between 1971 and 

2000. Such nights are projected 

to increase throughout the nation. 

High nighttime temperatures can 

reduce grain yields and increase 

stress on animals, resulting in reduced rates of meat, milk, and egg 

production.7

Key Climate Variables 

Affecting Agricultural Productivity

Projections are shown for 2070-2099 as compared to 1971-2000 under an emissions scenario that assumes 

continued increases in heat-trapping gases (A2). (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).
9INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

FINDING

48

The peoples, lands, and resources of indigenous communities in 

the United States, including Alaska and the Pacific Rim, face an 

array of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities. The consequences of observed and projected climate change have and will 

undermine indigenous ways of life that have persisted for thousands of years. Native cultures are directly tied to Native places 

and homelands, and many indigenous peoples regard all people, 

plants, and animals that share our world as relatives rather than 

resources. Language, ceremonies, cultures, practices, and food 

sources evolved in concert with the inhabitants, human and 

non-human, of specific homelands. 

Climate change impacts on many of the 566 federally recognized 

tribes and other tribal and indigenous groups are projected to be 

especially severe, since these impacts are compounded by a number of persistent social and economic problems.1

 Key vulnerabilities include the loss of traditional knowledge in the face of rapidly 

changing ecological conditions, increased food insecurity due to reduced availability of traditional foods, changing water 

availability, Arctic sea ice loss, permafrost thaw, and relocation from historic homelands.2,3

Observed and future impacts from climate change threaten Native Peoples’ access to traditional foods such as fish, 

game, and wild and cultivated crops, which have provided sustenance as well as cultural, economic, medicinal, and 

community health for generations. 

A significant decrease in water quality and quantity due to a variety of factors, including climate change, is affecting 

drinking water, food, and cultures. Native communities’ vulnerabilities and limited capacity to adapt to water-related 

challenges are exacerbated by historical and contemporary government policies and poor socioeconomic conditions.

Declining sea ice in Alaska is causing significant impacts to Native communities, including increasingly risky travel and 

hunting conditions, damage and loss to settlements, food insecurity, and socioeconomic and health impacts from loss of 

cultures, traditional knowledge, and homelands.

Alaska Native communities are increasingly exposed to health and livelihood hazards from increasing temperatures and 

thawing permafrost, which are damaging critical infrastructure, adding to other stressors on traditional lifestyles.

Climate change related impacts are forcing relocation of tribal and indigenous communities, especially in coastal 

locations. These relocations, and the lack of governance mechanisms or funding to support them, are causing loss of 

community and culture, health impacts, and economic decline, further exacerbating tribal impoverishment. 

Key Messages: Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources

We humbly ask permission from all our relatives; our elders, our families, our children, the winged and the insects, 

the four-legged, the swimmers, and all the plant and animal nations, to speak. Our Mother has cried out to us. 

She is in pain. We are called to answer her cries. Msit No’Kmaq – All my relations! 

— Indigenous Prayer

Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, 

and ways of life. 

Human-caused stresses such as dam building have 

greatly reduced salmon on the Klamath River.
49

Indigenous communities in various parts of the U.S. have observed 

climatic changes that result in impacts such as the loss of 

traditional foods, medicines, and water supplies. The Southwest’s 

182 federally recognized tribes and communities in its U.S.-Mexico 

border region share particularly high vulnerabilities to climate 

changes such as high temperatures, drought, and severe storms. 

Changes in long-term average temperature, precipitation, and 

declining snowpack have altered the physical and hydrologic 

environment on the Colorado Plateau, making the Navajo Nation 

more susceptible to drought impacts.4 Southwest tribes have 

observed damage to agriculture and livestock, the loss of springs 

and medicinal and culturally important plants and animals, and 

impacts on drinking water supplies.5 In the Northwest, tribal treaty 

rights are being affected by the reduction of rainfall and snowmelt 

in the mountains, melting glaciers, rising temperatures, and shifts 

in ocean currents.6 Tribal communities in coastal Louisiana are 

experiencing climate change induced rising sea levels, along with 

saltwater intrusion, subsidence, and intense erosion and land 

loss due to oil and gas extraction, levees, dams, and other river 

management techniques, forcing them to either relocate or try 

to find ways to save their land.7 In Hawai‘i, Native peoples have 

observed a shortening of the rainy season, increasing intensity of 

storms and flooding, and unpredictable rainfall patterns.8

Alaska Natives Face Multiple Climate Impacts 

Alaska is home to 40% (229 of 566) of the federally recognized 

tribes in the United States.9 The small number of jobs, high cost of living, and rapid social change make rural, 

predominantly Native, communities highly vulnerable to climate change through impacts on traditional hunting and 

fishing practices. In Alaska, water availability, quality, and quantity are threatened by the consequences of permafrost 

thaw, which has damaged community water infrastructure, as well as by the northward extension of diseases such as 

those caused by the Giardia parasite.10

Arctic regional temperatures have risen at twice 

the global rate over the past few decades.2 This 

temperature increase – which is expected to continue 

with future climate change – is accompanied by 

significant reductions in sea ice thickness and extent, 

increased permafrost thaw, more extreme weather 

and severe storms, and changes in seasonal ice melt/

freeze of lakes and rivers, water temperature, sea 

level, flooding patterns, erosion, and snowfall timing 

and type.11,12 These changes increase the number of 

serious problems for Alaska Native populations, which 

include: injury from extreme or unpredictable weather 

and thinning sea ice; changing snow and ice conditions 

that limit safe hunting, fishing, or herding practices; 

malnutrition and food insecurity from lack of access 

to subsistence food; contamination of food and water; 

increasing economic, mental, and social problems from 

loss of culture and traditional livelihood; increases 

in infectious diseases; and loss of buildings and 

infrastructure from permafrost erosion and thawing, 

resulting in the relocation of entire communities.2,10,12,13

For more, see pages 82-83.

Harvesting traditional foods is important to Native 

Peoples’ culture, health, and economic well being. In 

the Great Lakes region, wild rice is unable to grow in its 

traditional range due to warming winters and changing 

water levels.

Rising temperatures are causing damage in Native villages in Alaska 

as sea ice declines and permafrost thaws. Resident of Selawik, 

Alaska, and his granddaughter survey a water line sinking into the 

thawing permafrost, August 2011.
10 ECOSYSTEMS

50

FINDING

Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being 

observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological 

events such as spring bud burst, and substantial range 

shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an 

increased risk of species extinction. These changes have 

social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as 

droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated 

with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the 

West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes 

limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier 

beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles 

in reducing the impacts of extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources. 

In addition to direct impacts on ecosystems, societal 

choices about land use and agricultural practices affect the 

cycling of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and other 

elements, which also influence climate. These choices can 

affect, positively or negatively, the rate and magnitude 

of climate change and the vulnerabilities of human and 

natural systems. 

Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. 

The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and 

severe storms is being overwhelmed.

Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

Climate change, combined with other stressors, is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from 

extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

Landscapes and seascapes are changing rapidly, and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from 

regions where they have been prevalent, or become extinct, altering some regions so much that their mix of plant and 

animal life will become almost unrecognizable. 

Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, has shifted, leading to important impacts on species and habitats.

Whole system management is often more effective than focusing on one species at a time, and can help reduce the 

harm to wildlife, natural assets, and human well-being that climate disruption might cause. 

Key Messages: Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Changes in snowmelt patterns are affecting water supply.

Mt. Rainier, Washington.
51

Climate change affects the living world, including people, through changes in ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. 

Ecosystems entail all the living things in 

a particular area as well as the non-living 

things with which they interact, such as air, 

soil, water, and sunlight. Biodiversity refers 

to the variety of life, including the number 

of species, life forms, genetic types, and 

habitats and biomes (which are characteristic groupings of plant and animal species 

found in a particular climate). Biodiversity 

and ecosystems produce a rich array of 

benefits that people depend on, including 

fisheries, drinking water, fertile soils for 

growing crops, climate regulation, inspiration, and aesthetic and cultural values.1

These benefits are called “ecosystem 

services” – some of which, like food, are 

more easily quantified than others, such 

as climate regulation or cultural values. 

Changes in many such services are often 

not obvious to those who depend on them.

Ecosystem services contribute to jobs, economic growth, 

health, and human well-being. Although we interact 

with ecosystems and ecosystem services every day, their 

linkage to climate change can be elusive because they 

are influenced by so many additional entangled factors.2

Ecosystem perturbations driven by climate change have 

direct human impacts, including reduced water supply and 

quality, the loss of iconic species and landscapes, distorted 

rhythms of nature, and the potential for extreme events to 

overwhelm the regulating services of ecosystems. 

Even with these well-documented ecosystem impacts, it is 

often difficult to quantify human vulnerability that results 

from shifts in ecosystem processes and services. For 

example, although it is relatively straightforward to predict 

how precipitation will change water flow, it is much harder 

to pinpoint which farms, cities, and habitats will be at risk 

of running out of water, and even more difficult to say 

how people will be affected by the loss of a favorite fishing 

spot or a wildflower that no longer blooms in the region. 

A better understanding of how a range of ecosystem 

responses affects people – from altered water flows to the 

loss of wildflowers – will help to inform the management 

of ecosystems in a way that promotes resilience to climate 

change. 

Ecosystems also represent potential “sinks” for CO2, which 

are places where carbon can be stored over the short 

or long term. At the continental scale, there has been a 

large and relatively consistent increase in forest carbon 

stocks over the last two decades,3 due to recovery from 

past forest harvest, net increases in forest area, improved 

forest management regimes, and faster growth driven by 

climate or fertilization by CO2 and nitrogen.4,5 Emissions of 

CO2 from human activities in the United States continue to 

exceed ecosystem CO2 uptake by more than three times. 

As a result, North America remains a net source of CO2

into the atmosphere4 by a substantial margin. 

The release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning in North America (shown here 

for 2010) vastly exceeds the amount that is taken up and temporarily stored in forests, 

crops, and other ecosystems (shown here is the annual average for 2000-2006). 

(Figure source: King et al. 20124). 

Major North American Carbon Dioxide 

Sources and Sinks

Forests absorb carbon dioxide and provide many other 

ecosystem services, such as purifying water and providing 

recreational opportunities.
52

Finding 10: ECOSYSTEMS

Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of many forests to ecosystem changes and tree mortality through fire, 

insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. 

U.S. forests and associated wood products currently absorb and store the equivalent of about 16% of all carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. each year. Climate change, combined with current societal trends in 

land use and forest management, is projected to reduce this rate of forest CO2 uptake. 

Bioenergy could emerge as a new market for wood and could aid in the restoration of forests killed by drought, insects, 

and fire. 

Forest management responses to climate change will be influenced by the changing nature of private forestland ownership, globalization of forestry markets, emerging markets for bioenergy, and U.S. climate change policy. 

Key Messages: Forests

Forests occur within urban areas, at the interface between urban and rural areas (wildland-urban interface), and in rural 

areas. Urban forests contribute to clean air, cooling buildings, aesthetics, and recreation in parks. Development in the 

wildland-urban interface is increasing because of the appeal of owning homes near or in the woods. In rural areas, market factors drive land uses among commercial forestry and land uses such as agriculture. Across this spectrum, forests 

provide recreational opportunities, cultural resources, and social values such as aesthetics.6

Forests provide the important ecosystem service of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. Forests are the 

largest component of the U.S. carbon sink, but growth rates of forests vary widely across the country. Well-watered forests of the Pacific 

Coast and Southeast absorb considerably more than the arid Southwestern forests or the colder Northeastern forests. Climate change 

and disturbance rates, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, are projected to reduce forest 

CO2 uptake in the coming decades. Figure shows forest growth as measured by net primary production in tons of carbon per hectare 

per year, and are averages from 2000 to 2006 (Figure source: adapted from Running et al. 20047).

Forest Growth Provides an Important Carbon Sink
53

Economic factors have historically influenced both the overall 

area and use of private forestland. Private entities own 56% of 

U.S. forestlands while 44% of forests are on public lands.8 Market 

factors can influence management objectives for public lands, but 

societal values also influence objectives by identifying benefits 

such as environmental services not ordinarily provided through 

markets, like watershed protection and wildlife habitat. Different 

challenges and opportunities exist for public and for private forest 

management decisions, especially when climate-related issues are 

considered on a national scale. For example, public forests typically carry higher levels of forest biomass, are more remote, and 

tend not to be as intensively managed as private forestlands.6

Forests provide opportunities to reduce future climate change by 

capturing and storing carbon, as well as by providing resources for 

bioenergy production (the use of forest-derived plant-based materials for energy production). The total amount of carbon stored 

in U.S. forest ecosystems and wood products (such as lumber 

and pulpwood) equals roughly 25 years of U.S. heat-trapping gas 

emissions at current rates of emission, providing an important national “sink” that could grow or shrink depending on 

the extent of climate change, forest management practices, policy decisions, and other factors.9

Factors affecting tree death, such as drought, 

physiological water stress, higher temperatures, and/

or pests and pathogens, are often interrelated, which 

means that isolating a single cause of mortality is 

rare.10 However, in western forests there have been 

recent large scale die-off events due to one or more of 

these factors,11,12,13 and rates of tree mortality are well 

correlated with both rising temperatures and associated 

increases in evaporative water demand.14

Forest Disturbance

Warmer winters allow more insects to survive the cold season, 

and a longer summer allows some insects to complete two life 

cycles in a year instead of one. Drought stress reduces trees’ 

ability to defend against boring insects. Above, beetle-killed 

trees in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado.

A Montana saw mill owner inspects a lodgepole pine covered 

in pitch tubes that show the tree trying, unsuccessfully, to defend itself against the bark beetle. The bark beetle is killing 

lodgepole pines throughout the western United States.

Fire is another important forest disturbance. Given 

strong relationships between climate and fire, even 

when modified by land use and management, such as 

fuel treatments, projected climate changes suggest that 

western forests in the U.S. will be increasingly affected 

by large and intense fires that occur more frequently.13,15

Climate change is increasing vulnerability to wildfires 

across the western U.S. and Alaska.
54

Finding 10: ECOSYSTEMS

Choices about land-use and land-cover patterns have affected and 

will continue to affect how vulnerable or resilient human communities and ecosystems are to the effects of climate change.

Land-use and land-cover changes affect local, regional, and global 

climate processes.

Individuals, businesses, non-profits, and governments have the 

capacity to make land-use decisions to adapt to the effects of 

climate change.

Choices about land use and land management may provide a 

means of reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

Key Messages:

Land Use and Land Cover Change

Land-use and land-cover changes affect climate processes. 

Above, development along Colorado’s Front Range.

Many forested areas in the U.S. have experienced a recent building 

boom in what is known as the “wildland-urban interface.” This figure 

shows the number of buildings lost from the 25 most destructive 

wildland-urban interface fires in California history from 1960 to 2007 

(Figure source: Stephens et al. 200918).

Building Loss by Fires at California 

Wildland-Urban Interfaces

Construction near forests and wildlands is growing. Here, wildfire 

approaches a housing development.

In addition to emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases from energy, industrial, agricultural, and other activities, humans affect climate through changes in land use (activities taking place on land, like growing food, cutting trees, or building 

cities) and land cover (the physical characteristics of the land surface, including grain crops, trees, or concrete). For example, 

cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside because the greater extent of paved areas in cities affects how water 

and energy are exchanged between the land and the atmosphere, and how exposed the population is to extreme heat 

events. Decisions about land use and land cover can therefore affect, positively or negatively, how much our climate will 

change, and what kind of vulnerabilities humans and natural systems will face as a result. 

The combination of residential location choices with wildfire occurrence dramatically illustrates how the interactions 

between land use and climate processes can affect climate change impacts and vulnerabilities. Low-density (suburban and 

exurban) housing patterns in the U.S. have expanded, and are projected to continue to expand.16 One result is a rise in the 

amount of construction in forests and other wildlands17 that in turn has increased the exposure of houses, other structures, 

and people to damages from wildfires. The number of buildings lost in the 25 most destructive fires in California history 

increased significantly in the 1990s and 2000s compared to the previous three decades, as shown in the figure.18 These 

losses are one example of how changing development patterns can interact with a changing climate to create dramatic new 

risks. In the western U.S., increasing frequencies of large wildfires and longer wildfire durations are strongly associated with 

increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.19
55

Human activities have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 40% over pre-industrial levels and more than 

doubled the amount of nitrogen available to ecosystems. Similar trends have been observed for phosphorus and other 

elements, and these changes have major consequences for biogeochemical cycles and climate change. 

In total, land in the U.S. absorbs and stores an amount of carbon equivalent to about 17% of annual U.S. fossil fuel 

emissions. U.S. forests and associated wood products account for most of this land sink. The effect of this carbon 

storage is to partially offset warming from emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Altered biogeochemical cycles together with climate change increase the vulnerability of biodiversity, food security, 

human health, and water quality to changing climate. However, natural and managed shifts in major biogeochemical 

cycles can help limit rates of climate change.

Key Messages: Biogeochemical Cycles

Biogeochemical cycles involve the 

fluxes of chemical elements among 

different parts of the Earth: from 

living to non-living, from atmosphere to land to sea, and from 

soils to plants. Human activities 

have mobilized Earth elements 

and accelerated their cycles – for 

example, more than doubling the 

amount of reactive nitrogen that 

has been added to the biosphere 

since pre-industrial times.20

Global-scale alterations of biogeochemical cycles are occurring 

from human activities, both in the 

U.S. and elsewhere, with impacts 

and implications now and into 

the future. Global carbon dioxide 

emissions are the most significant 

driver of human-caused climate 

change. But human-accelerated 

cycles of other elements, especially nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

sulfur, also influence climate. 

These elements can affect climate 

directly and indirectly, amplifying 

or reducing the impacts of climate 

change. Climate change is having, 

and will continue to have, impacts 

on biogeochemical cycles, which 

will alter future impacts on climate 

and affect our capacity to cope with 

coupled changes in climate, biogeochemistry, and other factors. 

Many Factors Combine to Affect

Biogeochemical Cycles

Human activities alter the cycling of carbon dioxide and other elements through the whole Earth 

system, affecting climate. The top panel shows the impact of the alteration of the carbon cycle 

alone. Added CO2 in the atmosphere exerts a warming influence, illustrated by the plus sign, 

while carbon storage in plant material and soils has the opposite effect. 

The bottom panel shows the impacts of the alteration of the carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur cycles. 

Some of these increase warming while others decrease it, indicated by the plus and minus 

signs. For example, ammonia (NH3) is a fertilizer and thus likely to increase plant growth, decreasing the warming influence. On the other hand, it also leads to soil acidification, decreasing 

nutrients and therefore adding to the warming influence. 
56

Finding 10: ECOSYSTEMS

Mussel and barnacle beds have 

declined or disappeared along parts 

of the Northwest coast due to higher 

temperatures and drier conditions.

21

Decreases in the weight and survival 

of polar bear offspring along the 

north Alaska coast have been linked to 

changes in mother’s body size and/or 

condition following years with lower 

availability of optimal sea ice habitat.22

Warmer springs in Alaska have reduced 

calving success in caribou populations 

as a result of earlier onset of plant 

emergence and decreased spatial 

variation in growth and availability of 

forage to breeding caribou.25

Climate change is likely to influence 

elevational patterns in vegetation as 

Hawaiian mountain vegetation types 

vary in their sensitivity to changes in 

moisture availability.26

In response to climaterelated habitat change, many 

small mammal species have 

altered their ranges, with 

lower-elevation species 

expanding their ranges and 

higher-elevation species 

contracting their ranges.

23

Quaking aspen tree 

dominated systems are 

experiencing declines in 

the western U.S. due to 

drought stress during 

the last decade.24

Conifers in many 

western forests have 

died, experiencing 

mortality rates up to 87%, 

from warming-induced 

changes in the prevalence 

of pests and pathogens 

and drought stress.12

species responses

Finding 10: ECOSYSTEMS
57

First flowering dates plant species in North Dakota have shifted 

significantly in more than 40% of 

the 178 species examined, with 

the greatest changes observed 

during the two warmest years of 

the study.28

Climatic fluctuations increase the 

probability of infidelity in birds that 

are normally monogamous. This 

increases gene exchange and the 

likelihood of offspring survival.32

Studies of black ratsnake

populations in Illinois and 

Texas suggest that snake 

populations, particularly in 

the northern parts of their 

ranges, could benefit from 

rising temperatures if there 

are no negative impacts on 

their habitat and prey.30

Warming-induced interbreeding 

was detected between southern and 

northern flying squirrels in the Great 

Lakes region of Ontario, Canada, and 

Pennsylvania after a series of warm 

winters created more overlap in their 

habitat ranges.27

Some warm-water fishes have moved northwards, 

and some tropical and subtropical fishes in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico have increased in temperate 

ocean habitat.34 Similar shifts and invasions have been 

documented in Long Island Sound and Narragansett 

Bay in the Atlantic Ocean.35

Seedling survival for nearly 

20 species of trees decreased 

during years of lower rainfall in 

the Southern Appalachians and 

the Piedmont areas, indicating 

reductions in native species.33

Widespread declines in body size of 

resident and migrant birds in western 

Pennsylvania were documented over a 40-

year period. The higher the average regional 

temperatures in the preceding year, the 

smaller the birds.31

In the Northwest Atlantic, 24 out of 

36 commercial fish stocks showed 

significant range shifts, both in latitude 

and depth, between 1968 and 2007 in 

response to increased sea surface and 

bottom temperatures.29

to climate change
11OCEANS

FINDING

58

Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, 

chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.

The rise in ocean temperature over the last century will persist into the future, with continued large impacts on climate, 

ocean circulation, chemistry, and ecosystems.

The ocean currently absorbs about a quarter of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, leading to 

ocean acidification that will alter marine ecosystems in dramatic yet uncertain ways.

Significant habitat loss will continue to occur due to climate change for many species and areas, including Arctic and 

coral reef ecosystems, while habitat in other areas and for other species will expand. These changes will consequently 

alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species.

Rising sea surface temperatures have been linked with increasing levels and ranges of diseases in humans and marine 

life, including corals, abalones, oysters, fishes, and marine mammals.

Climate changes that result in conditions substantially different from recent history may significantly increase costs to 

businesses as well as disrupt public access and enjoyment of ocean areas.

In response to observed and projected climate impacts, some existing ocean policies, practices, and management 

efforts are incorporating climate change impacts. These initiatives can serve as models for other efforts and ultimately 

enable people and communities to adapt to changing ocean conditions. 

Key Messages: Oceans

As a nation, we depend on the oceans for seafood, recreation and tourism, cultural heritage, transportation of 

goods, and, increasingly, energy and other critical resources. The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical 

miles seaward from the coasts, spanning an area about 

1.7 times the land area of the continental United States. 

This vast region is host to a rich diversity of marine plants 

and animals and a wide range of ecosystems, from tropical 

coral reefs to Arctic waters covered with sea ice. 

Oceans support vibrant economies and coastal communities with numerous businesses and jobs. More than 160 

million people live in the coastal watershed counties of the 

U.S., and population in this zone is expected to grow in the 

future. The oceans help regulate climate, absorb carbon 

dioxide, and strongly influence weather patterns far into 

the continental interior. Ocean issues touch all of us in 

both direct and indirect ways.1,2

More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter 

the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry 

of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based 

food production and harm fishing communities. 

Sea surface temperatures for the ocean surrounding the U.S. and its territories have risen by more than 0.9°F 

over the past century. (Figure source: adapted from Chavez et al. 20113).

Observed Ocean Warming
59

As heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) (panel A), have increased over the past decades, 

not only has air temperature increased worldwide, but so has the ocean surface temperature (panel B). The 

increased ocean temperature, combined with melting of glaciers and ice sheets on land, is leading to higher 

sea levels (panel C). Increased air and ocean temperatures are also causing the continued, dramatic decline in 

Arctic sea ice during the summer (panel D). Additionally, the ocean is becoming more acidic as increased atmospheric CO2 dissolves into it (panel E). (CO2 data from Etheridge 2010, Tans and Keeling 2012, and NOAA 

NCDC 2012; SST data from NOAA NCDC 2012 and Smith et al. 2008; Sea level data from CSIRO 2012 and 

Church and White 2011; Sea ice data from University of Illinois 2012; pH data from Doney et al. 20124,5).

Ocean Impacts of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Changing climate conditions are already affecting these valuable marine ecosystems and the array of resources and 

services we derive from the sea. Some climate trends, such as rising seawater temperatures and ocean acidification, 

are common across much of the coastal areas and open ocean worldwide. The biological responses to climate change 

often vary from region to region, depending on the different combinations of species, habitats, and other attributes of 

local systems. 
Finding 11: OCEANS

60

The oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earth’s 

surface and play a very important role in regulating the 

Earth’s climate and in climate change. Today, the world’s 

oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by 

increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere due to human activities. This extra energy 

warms the ocean, causing it to expand and sea levels to 

rise. Of the global sea level rise observed over the last 

35 years, about 40% is due to this warming of the water. 

Most of the rest is due to the melting of glaciers and ice 

sheets. Ocean levels are projected to rise another 1 to 4 

feet over this century, with the precise number largely 

depending on the amount of global temperature rise and 

polar ice sheet melt.

Observations from past climate combined with climate 

model projections of the future suggest that over the next 

100 years the Atlantic Ocean’s overturning circulation 

(known as the “Ocean Conveyor Belt”) could slow down 

as a result of climate change. These ocean currents carry 

warm water northward across the equator in the Atlantic 

Ocean, warming the North Atlantic (and Europe) and cool-

(Photo) Bleached brain coral; (Maps) The global extent and severity of mass coral 

bleaching have increased worldwide over the last decade. Red dots indicate severe 

bleaching. (Figure source: Marshall and Schuttenberg 2006;12 Photo credit: NOAA).

Coral Bleaching

ing the South Atlantic. A slowdown of the Conveyor Belt 

would increase regional sea level rise along the east coast 

of the U.S. and change temperature patterns in Europe 

and rainfall in Africa and the Americas, but would not lead 

to global cooling.

Warming ocean waters also affect marine ecosystems like 

coral reefs, which can be very sensitive to temperature 

changes. When water temperatures become too high, 

coral expel the algae (called zooxanthellae) which help 

nourish them and give them their vibrant color. This is 

known as coral bleaching. If the high temperatures persist, 

the coral die.

Acidification

In addition to the warming, the acidity of seawater is 

increasing as a direct result of increasing atmospheric CO2. 

Due to human-induced emissions, atmospheric CO2 has 

risen by about 40% above pre-industrial levels.5,6 About a 

quarter of this excess CO2 has dissolved into the oceans, 

thereby changing seawater chemistry and decreasing pH 

(making seawater more acidic).2,7 There has been about 

a 30% increase in surface ocean acidity 

since pre-industrial times.8 Ocean acidification will continue in the future due 

to the interaction of atmospheric CO2

and ocean water. Regional differences in 

ocean pH occur as a result of variability 

in regional or local conditions, such as 

upwelling that brings subsurface waters 

up to the surface.9 Locally, coastal waters 

and estuaries can also exhibit acidification 

as the result of pollution and excess 

nutrient inputs.

More acidic waters create repercussions 

along the marine food chain. The chemical changes caused by the uptake of CO2

make it more difficult for living things to 

form and maintain calcium carbonate 

shells and skeletons and increases erosion 

of coral reefs,10 resulting in alterations in 

marine ecosystems that will become more 

severe as present-day trends in acidification continue or accelerate.11 Tropical 

corals are particularly susceptible to the 

combination of ocean acidification and 

ocean warming, which would threaten 

the rich and biologically diverse coral reef 

habitats. See page 33.
61

These 36-day-old clams are a single species, Mercenaria mercenaria, grown in the laboratory under varying levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

in the air. CO2 is absorbed from the air by ocean water, acidifying the water and thus reducing the ability of juvenile clams to grow their 

shells. As seen in the photos, 36-day-old clams (measured in microns) grown under elevated CO2 levels are smaller than those grown under 

lower CO2 levels. The highest CO2 level, about 1500 parts per million (ppm; far right), is higher than most projections for the end of this century but could occur locally in some estuaries. (Figure source: Talmage and Gobler 201013).

Ocean Acidification Reduces Size of Clams

Diseases

There has been a significant increase in reported incidences of disease in corals, urchins, mollusks, marine 

mammals, turtles, and echinoderms (a group of some 

70,000 marine species including sea stars, sea urchins, 

and sand dollars) over the last several decades.14,15

Increasing disease outbreaks in the ocean affecting 

ecologically important species, which provide critically 

important habitat for other species such as corals,

algae, and eelgrass, have been linked with rising temperatures.15,16,17 Disease increases mortality and can 

reduce abundance for affected populations as well as 

fundamentally change ecosystems by altering habitat 

or species relationships. For example, loss of eelgrass 

beds due to disease can reduce critical nursery habitat 

for several species of commercially important fish.17,18

Fisheries Shifting North

Ocean species are shifting northward along U.S. coastlines as ocean 

temperatures rise. As a result, over the past 40 years, more northern 

ports have gradually increased their landings of four marine species 

compared to earlier landings. While some species move northward out of 

an area, other species move in from the south. This kind of information 

can inform decisions about how to adapt to climate change. Such 

adaptations take time and have costs, as local knowledge and equipment 

are geared to the species that have long been present in an area. (Figure 

source: adapted from Pinsky and Fogerty 201219).
12 RESPONSES

62

FINDING

Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce 

future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, 

but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, 

environmental, and economic consequences.

Substantial adaptation planning is occurring in the public and private sectors and at all levels of government; however, 

few measures have been implemented and those that have appear to be incremental changes.

Barriers to implementation of adaptation include limited funding, policy and legal impediments, and difficulty in anticipating climate related changes at local scales.

There is no “one-size fits all” adaptation, but there are similarities in approaches across regions and sectors. Sharing 

best practices, learning by doing, and iterative and collaborative processes including stakeholder involvement, can help 

support progress.

Climate change adaptation actions often fulfill other societal goals, such as sustainable development, disaster risk 

reduction, or improvements in quality of life, and can therefore be incorporated into existing decision-making processes.

Vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated by other stresses such as pollution and habitat fragmentation. Adaptation 

to multiple stresses requires assessment of the composite threats as well as tradeoffs amongst costs, benefits, and risks 

of available options. 

The effectiveness of climate change adaptation has seldom been evaluated, because actions have only recently been 

initiated, and comprehensive evaluation metrics do not yet exist. 

Key Messages: Adaptation

Adaptation actions can be implemented reactively, after 

changes in climate occur, or proactively, to prepare for a 

changing climate.5 Proactively preparing can reduce the 

harm from certain climate change impacts, such as increasingly intense extreme events, shifting zones for agricultural 

crops, and rising sea levels, while also facilitating a more 

rapid and efficient response to changes as they happen. 

FEDERAL: A November 2013 Executive Order calls for, 

among other things, modernizing federal programs to 

support climate resilient investments, managing lands and 

waters for climate preparedness and resilience, creating a 

Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, and the 

creation of a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force 

on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.6 Federal agencies are all required to plan for adaptation. Actions include 

coordinated efforts at the White House, regional and 

cross-sector efforts, agency-specific adaptation plans, and 

support for local-level adaptation planning and action. 

STATE: States have become important actors in national climate change related efforts. State governments can 

create policies and programs that encourage or discourage 

adaptation at other governance scales (such as counties or 

regions)7 through regulation and by serving as laboratories 

for innovation.8 Although many of these actions are not 

specifically designed to address climate change, they often 

include climate adaptation components. Many state level 

climate change-specific adaptation actions focus on planning. As of winter 2012, at least 15 states had completed 

Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that 

are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life. 

Over the past few years, the focus moved from “Is climate changing?” to “Can society manage unavoidable changes and 

avoid unmanageable changes?”1,2 Research demonstrates that both mitigation (efforts to reduce future climate changes) 

and adaptation (efforts to reduce the vulnerability of society to climate change impacts) are needed in order to minimize 

the damages from human-caused climate change and to adapt to the pace and ultimate magnitude of changes that will 

occur.3 Adaptation and mitigation are closely linked; adaptation efforts will be more difficult, more costly, and less likely 

to succeed if significant mitigation actions are not taken.2,4
63

eral, state, tribal, and local actions appear in the Adaptation chapter of the full National Climate Assessment. 

Adaptation to climate change is in a nascent stage. The 

federal government is beginning to develop institutions 

and practices necessary to cope with climate change. 

While the federal government will remain the funder of 

emergency responses following extreme events for which 

communities were not adequately prepared, an emerging federal role is to enable and facilitate early adaptation 

within states, regions, local communities, and the public 

and private sectors.5 The approaches include working to 

limit current institutional constraints to effective adaptation, funding pilot projects, providing useful and usable 

adaptation information – including disseminating best 

practices, and helping develop tools and techniques to 

evaluate successful adaptation. 

Despite emerging efforts, the pace and extent of adaptation activities are not proportional to the risks to people, 

property, infrastructure, and ecosystems from climate 

change; important opportunities available during the normal course of planning and management of resources are 

also being overlooked. A number of state and local governments are engaging in adaptation planning, but most have 

not taken action to implement the plans.17 Some companies in the private sector and numerous non-governmental organizations have also taken early action, particularly 

in capitalizing on the opportunities associated with facilitating adaptive actions. Actions and collaborations have 

occurred across all scales. At the same time, barriers to 

effective implementation continue to exist.

climate adaptation plans; four states are in the process of 

writing their plans; and seven states have made recommendations to create state-wide adaptation plans.9

TRIBES: Tribal governments have been particularly active in assessing and preparing for the impacts of 

climate change. Some are using traditional knowledge 

gleaned from elders, stories, and songs and combining 

this knowledge with downscaled climate data to inform 

decision-making.10 Others have integrated climate change 

into decision-making in major sectors, such as education, 

fisheries, social services, and human health.11

LOCAL: Most adaptation efforts to date have occurred at 

local and regional levels. A survey of 298 U.S. local governments shows 59% engaged in some form of adaptation planning.12 Mechanisms used by local governments 

to prepare for climate change include: land-use planning; 

provisions to protect infrastructure and ecosystems; regulations related to the design and construction of buildings, road, and bridges; and preparation for emergency 

response and recovery.13 Local adaptation planning and 

actions are unfolding in municipalities of different sizes. 

Regional agencies and regional aggregations of governments too are taking actions.14

BUSINESS: Many companies are concerned about how 

climate change will affect feedstock, water quality, infrastructure, core operations, supply chains, and customers’ 

ability to use products and services.15 Some companies are 

taking action to avoid risk and explore potential opportunities, such as: developing or expanding into new products, services, and operational areas; extending growing 

seasons and hours of operation; and 

responding to increased demand for 

existing products and services.15,16

NGOs: Non-governmental organizations have played significant roles 

in the national effort to prepare for 

climate change by providing assistance to stakeholders that includes 

planning guidance, implementation tools, explanations of climate 

information, best practices, and 

help with bridging the science-policy 

divide.

See regional sections of this Highlights report for additional examples 

of adaptation efforts. Selected fedAdaptation Example: 

The Southeast Florida Regional Compact

The Southeast Florida 

Regional Compact is a 

joint commitment among 

Broward, Miami-Dade, 

Palm Beach, and Monroe 

Counties to partner in reducing heat-trapping gas 

emissions and adapting to 

climate impacts, including in transportation, 

water resources, natural 

resources, agriculture, and disaster risk reduction. Through the collaboration of 

county, state, and federal agencies, a comprehensive action plan was developed 

that includes hundreds of actions. Notable policies include regional collaboration to revise building codes and land development regulations to discourage 

new development or post-disaster redevelopment in vulnerable areas.18

Miami-Dade County staff leading workshop on incorporating 

climate change considerations in local planning. 
64

Finding 12: RESPONSES

Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes at a rate that is roughly half of the current rate of 

emissions from human activities. Therefore, mitigation efforts that only stabilize global emissions will not reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, but will only limit their rate of increase. The same is true for other long-lived 

greenhouse gases.

To meet the lower emissions scenario (B1) used in this assessment, global mitigation actions would need to limit global 

carbon dioxide emissions to a peak of around 44 billion tons per year within the next 25 years and decline thereafter. In 

2011, global emissions were around 34 billion tons, and have been rising by about 0.9 billion tons per year for the past 

decade. Therefore, the world is on a path to exceed 44 billion tons per year within a decade. 

Over recent decades, the U.S. economy has emitted a decreasing amount of carbon dioxide per dollar of gross domestic 

product. Between 2008 and 2012, there was also a decline in the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted annually from 

energy use in the U.S. as a result of a variety of factors, including changes in the economy, the development of new 

energy production technologies, and various government policies. 

Carbon storage in land ecosystems, especially forests, has offset around 17% of annual U.S. fossil fuel emissions of 

greenhouse gases over the past several decades, but this carbon “sink” may not be sustainable. 

Both voluntary activities and a variety of policies and measures that lower emissions are currently in place at federal, 

state, and local levels in the U.S., even though there is no comprehensive national climate legislation. Over the remainder of this century, aggressive and sustained greenhouse gas emission reductions by the U.S. and by other nations will 

be needed to reduce global emissions to a level consistent with the lower scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment.

Key Messages: Mitigation

The amount of future climate change will largely be determined by choices society makes about emissions. Lower 

emissions of heat trapping gases and particles mean less 

future warming and less severe impacts; higher emissions 

mean more warming and more severe impacts. Efforts to 

limit emissions or increase carbon uptake fall into a category of response options known as “mitigation.” 

Carbon dioxide accounted for 84% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011.19 The vast majority (97%) of 

this CO2 comes from energy use. Thus, the most direct 

way to reduce future climate change is to reduce emissions from the energy sector by using energy more efficiently and switching to lower carbon energy sources. 

In 2011, 41% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were attributable to liquid fuels (petroleum), followed closely by solid 

fuels (principally coal in electric generation), and to a lesser extent by natural gas.19 Electric power generation (coal 

and gas) and transportation (petroleum) are the sectors 

predominantly responsible. 

Achieving the lower emissions path (B1) analyzed in this 

assessment would require substantial decarbonization of 

the global economy by the end of this century, implying a 

fundamental transformation of the global energy system. 

The principal types of national actions that could effect 

such changes include putting a price on emissions, setting regulations and standards for activities that cause 

emissions, changing subsidy programs, and direct federal 

expenditures. Market-based approaches include cap-andtrade programs that establish markets for trading emissions 

permits, analogous to the Clean Air Act provisions for sulfur 

dioxide reductions. 

None of these price-based measures has been implemented at the national level in the U.S., though cap-and-trade 

systems are in place in California and in the Northeast’s 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. A wide range of governmental actions are underway at federal, state, regional, and city levels using other measures, as are voluntary 

efforts, that can reduce the U.S. contribution to total 

global emissions. Many, if not most of these programs are 

motivated by other policy objectives – energy, transportation, and air pollution – but some are directed specifically 

at greenhouse gas emissions, including:

• Energy Efficiency: Reduction in CO2 emissions from 

energy end-use and infrastructure through the adoption of energy-efficient components and systems – 

including buildings, vehicles, manufacturing processes, 

applicances, and electric grid systems;

• Low-Carbon Energy Sources: Reduction of CO2 emissions from energy supply through the promotion of 

renewables (such as wind, solar, and bioenergy), nuclear energy, and coal and natural gas electric generation 

with carbon capture and storage; and
65

• Non-CO2 Emissions: Reduction of emissions of nonCO2 greenhouse gases and black carbon (soot); for 

example, by lowering methane emissions from energy and waste, transitioning to climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs, cutting methane and nitrous oxide 

emissions from agriculture, and improving combustion 

efficiency and means of particulate capture.

Federal Actions

The Federal Government has implemented a number of 

measures that promote energy efficiency, clean technologies, and alternative fuels.20 Sample federal measures are 

provided in Table 27.1 in the Mitigation chapter in the full 

report. These actions include greenhouse gas regulations, 

other rules and regulations with climate co-benefits, various standards and subsidies, research and development, 

and federal procurement practices. 

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has the 

authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the 

Clean Air Act. The Department of Energy provides most 

of the funding for energy research and development, and 

also regulates the efficiency of appliances.

The Administration’s Climate Action Plan21 builds on these 

activities with a broad range of mitigation, adaptation, 

and preparedness measures. The mitigation elements of 

the plan are in part a response to the commitment made 

during the 2010 Cancun Conference of the Parties of the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by about 

17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Actions proposed in the 

Plan include:

• limiting carbon emissions from both new and existing 

power plants; 

• continuing to increase the stringency of fuel economy 

standards for automobiles and trucks;

• continuing to improve energy efficiency in the buildings sector;

• reducing the emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases 

through a variety of measures;

• increasing federal investments in cleaner, more efficient energy sources for both power and transportation; and

• identifying new approaches to protect and restore our 

forests and other critical landscapes, in the presence 

of a changing climate.

Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can yield co-benefits 

for objectives apart from climate change, such as energy security, ecosystem services, and biodiversity.22 In particular, there 

are health co-benefits from reductions in air pollution. Because 

greenhouse gases and other air pollutants share common sources, 

particularly from fossil fuel combustion, actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce other air pollutants. 

The human health benefits can be immediate and local, in contrast to the long-term and widespread effects of climate change.23 

These efforts have been found to be cost effective.23,24 Methane 

reductions have also been shown to generate health benefits from 

reduced ground-level ozone.25

Co-Benefits for Air Pollution and Human Health

Actions to reduce greenhouse gases can also reduce 

other air pollutants, yielding human health benefits.

Programs underway that reduce carbon dioxide emissions include the promotion of solar, nuclear, and wind power, and efficient vehicles.
66

Finding 12: RESPONSES

City, State, and Regional Actions

Jurisdiction for greenhouse gases and energy policies is 

shared between the Federal government and states.26 For 

example, states regulate the distribution of electricity and 

natural gas to consumers, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas and electricity. Many states have 

adopted climate initiatives as well as energy policies that 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For a survey of many 

of these state activities, see Table 27.2 in the full report. 

Many cities are taking similar actions. 

The most ambitious state activity is California’s Global 

Warming Solutions Act, with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The program 

caps emissions and uses a market-based system of trading in emissions credits, as well as a number of regulatory 

actions. The most well-known, multi-state effort has been 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), formed by 

10 northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (though New Jersey exited in 2011). RGGI is a cap-and-trade system in the 

power sector directing revenue from allowance auctions 

to investments in efficiency and renewable energy.

Voluntary Actions 

Corporations, individuals, and non-profit organizations 

have initiated a host of voluntary actions, including:

• The Carbon Disclosure Project enables companies to 

measure, disclose, manage, and share climate change 

and water-use information. Some 650 U.S. signatories 

include banks, pension funds, asset managers, insurance companies, and foundations.

• More than 1,055 municipalities from all 50 states have 

signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,27 and many of these communities are actively 

implementing strategies to reduce their emissions.

• Federal voluntary programs include Energy STAR, a 

labeling program that, among other things, identifies 

energy efficient products for use in residences and 

commercial and industrial buildings.

Managing Land for Mitigation

Mitigation can involve increasing the uptake of carbon 

through various means of expanding carbon sinks on land 

through management of forests and soils.

Selected Mitigation Measures

Existing federal laws and regulations to reduce emissions include:

Emissions Standards for Vehicles and Engines

• For light-duty vehicles, rules establishing 

standards for 2012-2016 model years and 

2017-2025 model years.

• For heavy- and medium-duty trucks, a rule 

establishing standards for 2014-2018 model 

years.

Appliance and Building Efficiency Standards

• Energy efficiency standards and test procedures for residential, commercial, industrial, 

lighting, and plumbing products.

• Model residential and commercial building 

energy codes, and technical assistance to 

state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations.

Financial Incentives for Efficiency and Alternative 

Fuels and Technology

• Weatherization assistance for low-income households, tax incentives for commercial and residential buildings 

and efficient appliances, and support for state and local efficiency programs.

Weatherization can include installing more efficient windows to save 

energy. 
67

Decisions about how to address climate change can be complex, and responses will require a combination of adaptation 

and mitigation actions. Decision-makers – whether individuals, public officials, or others – may need help integrating 

scientific information into adaptation and mitigation decisions.

To be effective, decision support processes need to take account of the values and goals of the key stakeholders, evolving scientific information, and the perceptions of risk.

Many decision support processes and tools are available. They can enable decision-makers to identify and assess 

response options, apply complex and uncertain information, clarify trade-offs, strengthen transparency, and generate 

information on the costs and benefits of different choices.

Ongoing assessment processes should incorporate evaluation of decision support tools, their accessibility to decision-makers, and their application in decision processes in different sectors and regions.

Steps to improve collaborative decision processes include developing new decision support tools and building human 

capacity to bridge science and decision-making.

Key Messages: Decision Support

As a result of human-induced climate change, historically successful strategies for managing climate-sensitive resources 

and infrastructure will become less effective over time. Decision support processes and tools can help structure 

decision-making, organize and analyze information, and build consensus around options for action.

Although decision-makers routinely make complex decisions under uncertain conditions, decision-making in the context 

of climate change can be especially challenging. Reasons include the rapid pace of changes, long time lags between 

human activities and response of the climate system, the high economic and political stakes, the number and diversity of 

potentially affected stakeholders, the need to incorporate uncertain scientific information of varying confidence levels, 

and the values of stakeholders and decision-makers.28,29 The social, economic, psychological, and political dimensions of 

these decisions underscore the need for ways to improve communication of scientific information and uncertainties and 

to help decision-makers assess risks and opportunities.

Decisions take place within a complex context. Decision support processes and tools can help structure decision-making, organize and 

analyze information, and build consensus around options for action.

Decision-Making Elements and Outcomes
68

Finding 12: RESPONSES

Decision Support Case Study: Denver Water

Climate change is one of the 

biggest challenges facing the 

Denver Water system. Due to 

recent and anticipated effects of climate variability and 

change on water availability, 

Denver Water faces the challenge of weighing alternative 

response strategies and is 

looking at developing options 

to help meet more challenging 

future conditions. 

Denver Water is using scenario 

planning in its long-range planning process (looking out to 2050) to consider a range of plausible futures involving climate change, demographic 

and water use changes, and economic and regulatory changes. The strategy focuses on keeping as many future 

options open as possible while trying to ensure reliability of current supplies.

The next step for Denver Water is to explore a more technical approach to test their existing plan and identified 

options against multiple climate change scenarios. Following a modified robust decision-making approach,33 Denver 

Water will test and hedge its plan and options until those options demonstrate that they can sufficiently handle a 

range of projected climate conditions.

Collaboration: The importance of both 

scientific information and societal 

considerations suggests the need for the 

public, technical experts, and decision-makers 

to engage in mutual shared learning and 

shared production of relevant knowledge.29,30

Uncertainty: An “iterative adaptive risk 

management framework” is useful for 

decisions about adaptation and ways to 

reduce future climate change, especially 

given uncertainties and ongoing advances 

in scientific understanding.31 An idealized 

iterative adaptive risk management 

process includes clearly defining the issue, 

establishing decision criteria, identifying 

and incorporating relevant information, 

evaluating options, and monitoring and 

revisiting effectiveness.

Risk Management: Making effective climaterelated decisions requires balance among 

actions intended to manage, reduce, and transfer risk. Risks are threats to life, health and safety, the environment, 

economic well-being, and other things of value. Methods such as multiple criteria analysis, valuation of both risks and 

opportunities, and scenarios can help to combine experts’ assessment of climate change risks with public perception of 

these risks.32

This illustration highlights several stages of a well-structured decision-making process. (Figure source: adapted from NRC 2010 and Willows and Connell 200331).

Decision-Making Framework
69

REGIONS

Evidence of climate change can be found in every region, and impacts are visible in every state. 

Americans are seeing changes such as species moving northward, increases in invasive species and 

insect outbreaks, and changes in the length of the growing season. In many cities, impacts to the urban 

environment are closely linked to the changing climate, with increased flooding, greater incidence of heat 

waves, and diminished air quality. Along most of our coastlines, increasing sea levels and associated 

threats to coastal areas and infrastructure are becoming a common experience. 

The pages that follow provide a summary of changes and impacts that are observed and anticipated in 

each of the eight regions of the United States, as well as in rural and coastal areas.
NORTHEAST

70

Sixty-four million people are concentrated in the 

Northeast. The high-density urban coastal corridor from Washington, D.C., north to Boston is one 

of the most developed environments in the world. 

It contains a massive, complex, and long-standing 

network of supporting infrastructure. The Northeast also has a vital rural component, including 

large expanses of sparsely populated but ecologically and agriculturally important areas.

Although urban and rural regions in the Northeast are profoundly different, they both include 

populations that are highly vulnerable to climate 

hazards and other stresses. The region depends 

on aging infrastructure that has already been 

stressed by climate hazards including heat waves 

and heavy downpours. The Northeast has experienced a greater recent increase in extreme precipitation than any other region in the U.S.; between 

1958 and 2010, the Northeast saw more than a 

70% increase in the amount of precipitation falling 

in very heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1% 

of all daily events).1 This increase, combined with 

coastal and riverine flooding due to sea level rise 

and storm surge, creates increased risks. For all of 

these reasons, public health, agriculture, transportation, communications, and energy systems in 

the Northeast all face climate-related challenges.

Urban Heat Island

Surface temperatures in New York City on a summer’s day show the 

“urban heat island,” with temperatures in populous urban areas being approximately 10°F higher than the forested parts of Central Park. Dark blue 

reflects the colder waters of the Hudson and East Rivers. (Figure source: 

Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University).

Heat waves, coastal flooding, and river flooding will pose a growing challenge to the region’s environmental, social, and economic systems. This will increase the vulnerability of the region’s residents, especially its most disadvantaged populations. 

Infrastructure will be increasingly compromised by climate-related hazards, including sea level rise, 

coastal flooding, and intense precipitation events.

Agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised over the next century by 

climate change impacts. Farmers can explore new crop options, but these adaptations are not costor risk-free. Moreover, adaptive capacity, which varies throughout the region, could be overwhelmed 

by a changing climate. 

While a majority of states and a rapidly growing number of municipalities have begun to incorporate 

the risk of climate change into their planning activities, implementation of adaptation measures is 

still at early stages. 

Key Messages
71

Sea Level is Rising

Rising sea levels are already affecting coastal cities in the Northeast, and projections suggest 

that impacts will be widespread. The map on the left shows local sea level trends in the Northeast region. The length of the arrows varies with the length of the time series for each tide 

gauge location. (Figure source: NOAA). The graph at the right shows observed sea level rise 

in Philadelphia, which has increased by 1.2 feet over the past century, significantly exceeding 

the global average of 8 inches, increasing the risk of impacts to critical urban infrastructure in 

low-lying areas. (Data from Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level6). 

Hurricane Vulnerability

Hurricanes Irene and Sandy demonstrated the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events and the potential for 

adaptation to reduce impacts. Hurricane Irene produced a broad swath of very heavy rain (greater than 5 inches in total 

and 2 to 3 inches per hour in some locations) from southern Maryland to northern Vermont from August 27 to 29, 2011. 

These heavy rains were part of a broader pattern of wet weather preceding the storm that exacerbated the flooding. 

In anticipation of Irene, the New York City mass transit system was shut down, and 2.3 million coastal residents in Delaware, 

New Jersey, and New York faced mandatory evacuations. But inland impacts, especially in upstate New York and in central 

and southern Vermont, were most severe. Flash flooding washed out roads 

and bridges, undermined railroads, 

brought down trees and power lines, 

flooded homes and businesses, and 

damaged floodplain forests. Hazardous wastes were released in a number 

of areas, and 17 municipal wastewater 

treatment plants were breached by 

the floodwaters. Crops were flooded 

and many towns and villages were 

isolated for days. 

Hurricane Sandy, which hit the East 

Coast in October 2012, caused massive coastal damage from storm surge 

and flooding. Sandy was responsible 

for approximately 150 deaths, about 

half of those in the Northeast, and 

monetary impacts on coastal areas, 

especially in New Jersey, New York, 

and Connecticut estimated at $60 to 

$80 billion.2,3 Floodwaters inundated 

subway tunnels in New York City, 8.5 

million people were without power, 

and an estimated 650,000 homes 

were damaged or destroyed.2

Selected Adaptation Efforts

The City of Philadelphia is greening its 

combined sewer infrastructure to protect 

rivers, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

improve air quality, and enhance adaptation 

to a changing climate.4

Officials in coastal Maine are working 

with the statewide Sustainability Solutions 

Initiative to identify how culverts that 

carry stormwater can be maintained and 

improved, in order to increase resiliency to 

more frequent extreme precipitation events. 

This includes actions such as using larger 

culverts to carry water from major storms.5

This one-acre stormwater wetland was constructed in Philadelphia to treat 

stormwater runoff in an effort to improve drinking water quality while minimizing the impacts of storm-related flows on natural ecosystems.
SOUTHEAST

AND CARIBBEAN

72

The Southeast and Caribbean region is exceptionally vulnerable to sea level rise, extreme heat events, hurricanes, and 

decreased water availability. The geographic distribution of these impacts and vulnerabilities is uneven, since the region 

encompasses a wide range of environments, from the Appalachian Mountains to the coastal plains. The region is home 

to more than 80 million people and some of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas,1 three of which are along the coast 

and vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge. The Gulf and Atlantic coasts are major producers of seafood and home 

to seven major ports2 that are also vulnerable. The Southeast is a major energy producer of coal, crude oil, and natural 

gas, and is the highest energy user of any of the National Climate Assessment regions.2

The Southeast warmed during the early part of last century, cooled for a few decades, and is now warming again. 

Temperatures across the region are expected to increase in the future. Major consequences include significant increases 

in the number of hot days (95°F or above) and decreases in freezing events. Higher temperatures contribute to the 

formation of harmful air pollutants and allergens.3 Higher temperatures are also projected to reduce livestock and crop 

productivity.4 Climate change is expected to increase harmful blooms of algae and several disease-causing agents in 

inland and coastal waters.5 The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes 

in the North Atlantic and the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events have increased over recent decades, and further increases 

are projected.

Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to both natural and built environments and 

to the regional economy. 

Increasing temperatures and the associated increase in frequency, intensity, and duration of 

extreme heat events will affect public health, natural and built environments, energy, agriculture, 

and forestry.

Decreased water availability, exacerbated by population growth and land-use change, will continue 

to increase competition for water and affect the region’s economy and unique ecosystems.

Key Messages

Southeast Temperature:

Observed and Projected

Temperature projections compared to observed temperatures from 1901-1960 for two emissions scenarios, one assuming substantial emissions reductions 

(B1) and the other continued growth in emissions 

(A2). For each scenario, shading shows range of 

projections and line shows a central estimate. (Figure 

source: adapted from Kunkel et al. 20136).

This map summarizes the number of times over the past 30 years that each state has 

been affected by weather and climate events that have resulted in more than a billion 

dollars in damages. The Southeast has been affected by more billion-dollar disasters 

than any other region. The primary disaster type for coastal states such as Florida is 

hurricanes, while interior and northern states in the region also experience sizeable 

numbers of tornadoes and winter storms. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC7). 

Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters

1980-2012
73

Global sea level rose about eight inches in the last 

century and is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet in 

this century. Large numbers of southeastern cities, 

roads, railways, ports, airports, oil and gas facilities, 

and water supplies are vulnerable to the impacts 

of sea level rise. Major cities like New Orleans, with 

roughly half of its population below sea level,8 Miami, 

Tampa, Charleston, and Virginia Beach are among 

those most at risk.9

As a result of current sea level rise, the coastline of 

Puerto Rico around Rincòn is being eroded at a rate of 

3.3 feet per year.10 Puerto Rico has one of the highest 

population densities in the world, with 56% of the 

population living in coastal municipalities.10

Sea level rise and storm surge can have impacts far 

beyond the area directly affected. Sea level rise combines with other climate-related impacts and existing 

pressures such as land subsidence, causing significant 

economic and ecological implications. According to a 

recent study co-sponsored by a regional utility, coastal 

areas in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas 

already face losses that annually average $14 billion 

from hurricane winds, land subsidence, and sea level 

rise. Losses for the 2030 timeframe could reach $23 

billion assuming a nearly 3% increase in hurricane 

wind speed and just under 6 inches of sea level rise. 

About 50% of the increase in losses is related to 

climate change.11

Louisiana State Highway 1, heavily used for delivering 

critical oil and gas resources from Port Fourchon, is 

sinking, at the same time sea level is rising, resulting 

in more frequent and more severe flooding during 

high tides and storms.12 A 90-day shutdown of this 

road would cost the nation an estimated $7.8 billion.13

Freshwater supplies from rivers, streams, and groundwater sources near the coast are at risk from accelerated saltwater intrusion due to higher sea levels. 

Porous aquifers in some areas make them particularly 

vulnerable to saltwater intrusion.14 For example, 

officials in the city of Hallandale Beach, Florida, have 

already abandoned six of their eight drinking water 

wells.15

Continued urban development and increases in 

irrigated agriculture will increase water demand while 

higher temperatures will increase evaporative losses. 

All of these factors will combine to reduce the availability of water in the Southeast. Severe water stress 

is projected for many small Caribbean islands.16

Selected Adaptation Efforts

Clayton County, 

Georgia’s innovative 

water recycling 

project enabled it to 

maintain abundant 

water supplies, with 

reservoirs at or near 

capacity, during the 

2007-2008 drought, 

while neighboring 

Lake Lanier, the water supply for Atlanta, was at record lows. 

The project involved a series of constructed wetlands (see 

photo) used as the final stage of a wastewater treatment 

process that recharges groundwater and supplies surface 

reservoirs. The county has also implemented water efficiency 

and leak detection programs.18

In other adaptation efforts, the North Carolina Department 

of Transportation is raising U.S. Highway 64 across the 

Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula by four feet, which includes 18 

inches to allow for higher future sea levels.19

For another example, see page 63 for a description of the 

Southeast Florida Regional Compact’s plans to reduce heattrapping gas emissions and adapt to climate change impacts.

Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise

The map shows the relative risk as sea level rises using a Coastal Vulnerability Index calculated based on tidal range, wave height, coastal slope, 

shoreline change, landform and processes, and historical rate of relative 

sea level rise. The approach combines a coastal system’s susceptibility 

to change with its natural ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and yields a relative measure of the system’s natural vulnerability 

to the effects of sea level rise. (Data from Hammar-Klose and Thieler 

200117). 
74

MIDWEST

The Midwest’s agricultural lands, forests, Great Lakes, industrial activities, and cities are all vulnerable to climate variability and climate change. Climate change will tend to amplify existing risks climate poses to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Direct effects will include increased heat stress, flooding, drought, and late spring freezes. Climate change also 

alters pests and disease prevalence, competition from non-native or opportunistic native species, ecosystem disturbances, 

land-use change, landscape fragmentation, atmospheric and watershed pollutants, and economic shocks such as crop 

failures, reduced yields, or toxic blooms of algae due to extreme weather events. These added stresses, together with the 

In the next few decades, longer growing seasons and rising carbon dioxide levels will increase yields of some 

crops, though those benefits will be progressively offset by extreme weather events. Though adaptation options 

can reduce some of the detrimental effects, in the long term, the combined stresses associated with climate 

change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity. 

The composition of the region’s forests is expected to change as rising temperatures drive habitats for many 

tree species northward. The role of the region’s forests as a net absorber of carbon is at risk from disruptions to 

forest ecosystems, in part due to climate change. 

Increased heat wave intensity and frequency, increased humidity, degraded air quality, and reduced water 

quality will increase public health risks. 

The Midwest has a highly energy-intensive economy with per capita emissions of greenhouse gases more than 

20% higher than the national average. The region also has a large and increasingly utilized potential to reduce 

emissions that cause climate change. 

Extreme rainfall events and flooding have increased during the last century, and these trends are expected to 

continue, causing erosion, declining water quality, and negative impacts on transportation, agriculture, human 

health, and infrastructure.

Climate change will exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes, including changes in the range and distribution of certain fish species, increased invasive species and harmful blooms of algae, and declining beach 

health. Ice cover declines will lengthen the commercial navigation season.

Key Messages

Projected Climate Change

Temperatures above 95°F are associated 

with negative human health impacts and 

suppressed agricultural yields. The frequency of these days is projected to increase by 

mid-century. 

Cooling degree days (a measure of energy 

demand for air conditioning) are also projected 

to increase, leading to potential increases in the 

seasonality and annual total electricity demand.

The frequency of days with very heavy precipitation (the wettest 2% of days) is also projected to increase, raising the risk of floods 

and nutrient pollution.

Projections above from global climate models are shown for 2041-2070 as compared to 1971-2000 under an emissions scenario that assumes continued increases in 

heat-trapping gases (A2 scenario). (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC)

Change in Days Above 95°F Change in Cooling Degree Days Change in Heavy Precipitation
75

direct effects of climate change, are projected to 

alter ecosystem and socioeconomic patterns and 

processes in ways that most people in the region 

would consider detrimental. 

Most of the Midwest’s population lives in urban 

environments. Climate change may intensify other 

stresses on urban dwellers and vegetation, including increased atmospheric pollution, heat island 

effects, a highly variable water cycle, and frequent 

exposure to new pests and diseases. Further, many 

of the cities have aging infrastructure and are 

particularly vulnerable to climate change related 

flooding and life-threatening heat waves. The 

increase in heavy downpours has contributed to 

the discharge of untreated sewage due to excess 

water in combined sewage-overflow systems in a 

number of cities in the Midwest.1

Much of the region’s fisheries, recreation, tourism, 

and commerce depend on the Great Lakes and 

expansive northern forests, which already face pollution and invasive species pressures – pressures 

exacerbated by climate change. 

Extreme weather events will influence future crop 

yields more than changes in average temperature 

or annual precipitation. High temperatures during 

early spring, for example, can decimate fruit crop 

production2 when early heat 

causes premature plant budding 

that exposes flowers to later 

cold injury, as happened in 2002, 

and again in 2012, to Michigan’s 

$60 million tart cherry crop. 

Springtime cold air outbreaks are 

projected to continue to occur 

throughout this century.3

Any increased productivity of 

some crops due to higher temperatures, longer growing seasons, and elevated carbon dioxide 

concentrations could be offset 

by water limitations and other 

stressors.4 Heat waves during pollination of field crops such as corn 

and soybean also reduce yields.5

Wetter springs may reduce crop 

yields and profits,6

 especially 

if growers are forced to switch 

to late-planted, shorter-season 

varieties. 

Great Lakes Ice Cover Decline

Great Lakes ice coverage has declined substantially, as shown by these decade averages of annual maximum ice coverage since reliable measurements began, although there 

is substantial variability from year to year. Less ice, coupled with more frequent and 

intense storms,7 leaves shores vulnerable to erosion and flooding and could harm property and fish habitat.8Reduced ice cover also has the potential to lengthen the shipping 

season.9 The navigation season increased by an average of eight days between 1994 

and 2011. Increased shipping days benefit commerce but could also increase shoreline 

scouring and bring in more invasive species.9,10 (Figure source: Data updated from Bai 

and Wang 201211).

Selected Adaptation Efforts

The city of Cedar Falls’ new floodplain 

ordinance expands zoning restrictions 

from the 100-year floodplain to the 

500-year floodplain to better reflect the 

flood risks experienced by this and other 

Midwest cities during the 2008 floods.12

Cedar Rapids has also taken significant 

steps to reduce future flood damage, with 

buyouts of more than 1,000 properties, 

and numerous buildings adapted with 

flood protection measures.

Some cities have begun to incorporate 

adaptation planning for a range of climate 

change impacts. Chicago was one of the 

first cities to officially integrate climate 

adaptation into a citywide plan. Since 

the Climate Adaptation Plan’s release, 

a number of strategies have been 

implemented to help the city manage 

heat, protect forests, and enhance green 

design, using techniques such as green 

roofs.13
GREAT PLAINS

76

The Great Plains is a diverse region where climate is woven into the fabric of life. Daily, monthly, and yearly variations in 

the weather can be dramatic and challenging. The region experiences multiple climate and weather hazards, including 

floods, droughts, severe storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and winter storms. In much of the Great Plains, too little precipitation falls to replace that needed by humans, plants, and animals. These variable conditions already stress communities 

and cause billions of dollars in damage. Climate change will add to both stress and costs.

The people of the Great Plains historically have adapted to this challenging climate. Although projections suggest more 

frequent and more intense droughts, heavy downpours, and heat waves, people can reduce vulnerabilities through the 

use of new technologies, community-driven policies, and the judicious use of resources. Efforts to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and adapt to climate change can be locally driven, cost effective, and beneficial for local economies and 

ecosystem services.

Even small shifts in timing of plant growth cycles caused by climate change can disrupt ecosystem functions like predator-prey relationships or food availability. While historic bison herds migrated to adapt to changing conditions, habitats 

are now fragmented by roads, agriculture, and structures, inhibiting similar large-scale migration.1

The trend toward more dry days and higher temperatures across 

the Southern Plains will increase evaporation, decrease water supplies, reduce electricity transmission capacity, and increase cooling 

demands. These changes will add stress to limited water resources 

and affect management choices related to irrigation, municipal use, 

and energy generation.2 Increased drought frequency and intensity 

can turn marginal lands into deserts. 

Changing extremes in precipitation are projected across all seasons, 

including higher likelihoods of both increasing heavy rain and snow 

events3 and more intense droughts.4 Winter and spring precipitation and heavy downpours are both projected to increase in the 

Rising temperatures are leading to increased demand for water and energy. In parts of the region, 

this will constrain development, stress natural resources, and increase competition for water among 

communities, agriculture, energy production, and ecological needs.

Changes to crop growth cycles due to warming winters and alterations in the timing and magnitude 

of rainfall events have already been observed; as these trends continue, they will require new 

agriculture and livestock management practices.

Landscape fragmentation is increasing, for example, in the context of energy development activities 

in the northern Great Plains. A highly fragmented landscape will hinder adaptation of species when 

climate change alters habitat composition and timing of plant development cycles.

Communities that are already the most vulnerable to weather and climate extremes will be stressed 

even further by more frequent extreme events occurring within an already highly variable climate 

system.

The magnitude of expected changes will exceed those experienced in the last century. Existing 

adaptation and planning efforts are inadequate to respond to these projected impacts.

Key Messages

Increases in heavy downpours contribute to flooding.
77

north, leading to increased runoff and flooding that will 

reduce water quality and erode soils. Increased snowfall, 

rapid spring warming, and intense rainfall can combine to 

produce devastating floods, as is already common along the 

Red River of the North. More intense rains will also contribute to urban flooding. 

Expectations of more precipitation in the northern Great 

Plains and less in the southern Great Plains were strongly 

manifest in 2011, with exceptional drought and recording-setting temperatures in Texas and Oklahoma – and 

flooding in the northern Great Plains. Many locations in 

Texas and Oklahoma experienced more than 100 days 

over 100°F, with both states setting new high temperature 

records. Rates of water loss were double the long-term average, depleting water resources and contributing to more 

than $10 billion in direct losses to agriculture alone. In the 

future, average temperatures in this region are expected to 

increase and will continue to contribute to the intensity of 

heat waves. 

By contrast, the Northern Plains were exceptionally wet, with Montana and Wyoming recording all-time wettest springs 

and the Dakotas and Nebraska not far behind. Record rainfall and snowmelt combined to push the Missouri River and its 

tributaries beyond their banks and leave much of the Crow Reservation in Montana underwater. The Souris River near 

Minot, North Dakota, crested at four feet above its previous record, causing losses estimated at $2 billion.

Projected climate change will have both positive and negative consequences for agricultural productivity in the Northern Plains, where increases in winter and spring precipitation will benefit productivity by increasing water availability 

through soil moisture reserves during the early growing season, but this can be offset by fields too wet to plant. Rising 

temperatures will lengthen the growing season, possibly allowing a second annual crop in some places and some years. 

However, warmer winters pose challenges.5 Some pests and invasive weeds will be able to survive the warmer winters,6

and winter crops that emerge from dormancy earlier are susceptible to spring freezes.7

In the Southern Plains, projected declines in precipitation in 

the south and greater evaporation everywhere due to higher 

temperatures will increase irrigation demand and exacerbate 

current stresses on agricultural 

productivity. Increased water 

withdrawals from the Ogallala 

and High Plains Aquifers would 

accelerate ongoing depletion 

in the southern parts of the 

aquifers and limit the ability to 

irrigate.8 Holding other aspects 

of production constant, the 

climate impacts of shifting from 

irrigated to dryland agriculture 

would reduce crop yields by 

about a factor of two.9

A Texas State Park police officer walks across a cracked lakebed 

in August 2011. This lake once spanned more than 5,400 acres.

Selected Responses

The Oglala Lakota tribe in South 

Dakota is incorporating climate 

change adaptation and mitigation 

planning as they consider longterm sustainable development. 

Their Oyate Omniciye plan 

is a partnership built around 

six livability principles related 

to transportation, housing, 

economic competitiveness, 

existing communities, federal 

investments, and local values. 

Their vision incorporates plans to 

reduce and adapt to future climate 

change while protecting cultural 

resources.10
78

SOUTHWEST

The Southwest is the hottest and driest region in the U.S., where the availability of water has defined its landscapes, history of human settlement, 

and modern economy. Climate changes pose challenges for an already 

parched region that is expected to get hotter and, in its southern half, 

significantly drier. 

Increased heat and changes to rain and snowpack will send ripple effects 

throughout the region, affecting 56 million people – a population expected 

to increase to 94 million by 20501 – and its critical agriculture sector. Severe 

and sustained drought will stress water sources, already over-utilized 

in many areas, forcing increasing competition among farmers, energy 

producers, urban dwellers, and ecosystems for the region’s most precious 

resource.

The region’s populous coastal cities face rising sea levels, extreme high 

tides, and storm surges, which pose particular risks to highways, bridges, 

power plants, and sewage treatment plants. Climate-related challenges 

also increase risks to critical port cities, which handle half of the nation’s 

incoming shipping containers. The region’s rich diversity of plant and 

animal species will be increasingly stressed. Widespread tree death and 

fires, which already have caused billions of dollars in economic losses, are 

projected to increase. Tourism and recreation also face climate change 

challenges, including reduced streamflow and a shorter snow season, 

influencing everything from the ski industry to lake and river recreation.

Snowpack and streamflow amounts are projected to decline in parts of the Southwest, decreasing 

surface water supply reliability for cities, agriculture, and ecosystems.

The Southwest produces more than half of the nation’s high-value specialty crops, which are irrigation-dependent and particularly vulnerable to extremes of moisture, cold, and heat. Reduced yields 

from increasing temperatures and increasing competition for scarce water supplies will displace 

jobs in some rural communities. 

Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change, have 

increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project 

more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas.

Flooding and erosion in coastal areas are already occurring even at existing sea levels and damaging some California coastal areas during storms and extreme high tides. Sea level rise is projected 

to increase as Earth continues to warm, resulting in major damage as wind-driven waves ride upon 

higher seas and reach farther inland.

Projected regional temperature increases, combined with the way cities amplify heat, will pose 

increased threats and costs to public health in southwestern cities, which are home to more than 

90% of the region’s population. Disruptions to urban electricity and water supplies will exacerbate 

these health problems.

Key Messages

Heat, drought, and competition for water supplies will increase in the Southwest with continued climate change.

Climate change contributes to increasing fires.
79

More than half of the nation’s high-value 

specialty crops, including certain fruits, nuts, 

and vegetables, come from the Southwest. 

A longer frost-free season, less frequent 

cold air outbreaks, and more frequent heat 

waves accelerate crop ripening and maturity, 

reduce yields of corn, tree fruit, and wine 

grapes, stress livestock, and increase agricultural water consumption.2

 These changes 

are projected to continue and intensify, 

possibly requiring a northward shift in crop 

production, displacing existing growers and 

affecting farming communities.3

Winter chill periods are projected to fall 

below the duration necessary for many 

California trees to bear nuts and fruits, which 

will result in lower yields.4

Once temperatures increase beyond optimum growing thresholds, further increases, 

like those projected beyond 2050, can cause 

large decreases in crop yields and hurt the 

region’s agricultural economy.

Climate change is exacerbating the major 

factors that lead to wildfire: heat, drought, and dead trees.5,6 Between 1970 and 2003, warmer and drier conditions increased burned area in western U.S. mid-elevation conifer forests by 650%.7

 Climate outweighed other factors in determining burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003.8

 Winter warming due to climate change has exacerbated bark 

beetle outbreaks by allowing more beetles, which normally die in cold weather, to survive and reproduce.9 More wildfire 

is projected as climate change continues,6,10,11,12 including a doubling of burned area in the southern Rockies,11 and up to 

74% more fires in California.12 For more on fire in the Southwest see pages 53-54.

Longer Frost-Free Season

Increases Stress on Crops

Graph shows significant increases in the number of consecutive frost-free days per 

year in the past three decades compared to the 1901-2010 average. This leads to 

further heat stress on plants and increased water demands for crops. Warmer winters 

can also lead to early bud burst or bloom of some perennial plants, resulting in frost 

damage when cold conditions occur in late spring. Higher winter temperatures also 

allow some agricultural pests to persist year-round, and may allow new pests and 

diseases to become established.14 (Figure source: Hoerling et al. 201315).

Selected Responses

Adaptation options that 

can reduce vulnerability to 

urban heat stress and/or 

reduce emissions include: 

using reflective white roofs, 

planting shade trees, using 

more efficient appliances and 

adding solar power capacity to 

handle summer peak demand, 

and providing cooling centers and 

programs to check on elderly and 

at-risk residents. 

The Southwest’s abundant geothermal, 

wind, and solar resources could help transform the 

region’s electric system into one that uses substantially more 

renewable energy and lead to large reductions in heat-trapping gas emissions. This would also reduce the need for 

power plant cooling water, which will be more scarce in a hotter, drier future. Shown is one scenario in which different 

energy combinations in each state could achieve an 80% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 in the 

Southwest electricity sector. (Data from Wei et al. 2012, 201313). 
NORTHWEST

80

The Northwest’s economy, infrastructure, natural systems, public health, 

and agriculture sectors all face important climate change related risks. 

Impacts on infrastructure, natural systems, human health, and economic 

sectors, combined with issues of social and ecological vulnerability, will 

unfold quite differently in largely natural areas, like the Cascade Range, 

than in urban areas like Seattle and Portland,1 or among the region’s many 

Native American tribes.2

Seasonal water patterns shape the life cycles of the region’s flora and 

fauna, including iconic salmon and steelhead, and forested ecosystems.3

Adding to the human influences on climate, human activities have altered natural habitats, threatened species, and 

extracted so much water that there are already conflicts among multiple users in dry years. As conflicts and trade-offs 

increase, the region’s population continues to grow. Particularly in the face of climate change, the need to seek solutions 

to these conflicts is becoming increasingly urgent.

Observed regional warming has been 

linked to changes in the timing and 

amount of water availability in basins 

with significant snowmelt contributions 

to streamflow. By 2050, snowmelt is 

projected to shift three to four weeks 

earlier than the last century’s average, 

and summer flows are projected to be 

substantially lower, even for a scenario 

that assumes emissions reductions (B1).4

These reduced flows will require tradeoffs among reservoir system objectives,5

especially with the added challenges 

of summer increases in electric power 

demand for cooling and additional water 

consumption by crops and forests. 

Changes in the timing of streamflow related to changing snowmelt are already observed and will 

continue, reducing the supply of water for many competing demands and causing far-reaching 

ecological and socioeconomic consequences.

In the coastal zone, the effects of sea level rise, erosion, inundation, threats to infrastructure and 

habitat, and increasing ocean acidity collectively pose a major threat to the region.

The combined impacts of increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are already 

causing widespread tree die-off and are virtually certain to cause additional forest mortality by 

the 2040s and long-term transformation of forest landscapes. Under higher emissions scenarios, 

extensive conversion of subalpine forests to other forest types is projected by the 2080s.

While the agriculture sector’s technical ability to adapt to changing conditions can offset some 

adverse impacts of a changing climate, there remain critical concerns for agriculture with respect 

to costs of adaptation, development of more climate resilient technologies and management, and 

availability and timing of water.

Key Messages

Mixed rain-snow watersheds, such as the 

Yakima River basin, an important agricultural area in eastern Washington, will 

see increased winter flows, earlier spring 

peak flows, and decreased summer flows 

in a warming climate, causing widespread 

impacts. Natural surface water availability 

during the already dry late summer period 

is projected to decrease across most of 

the Northwest.6 Projections are based on 

the A1B emissions scenario, which assumes continued increases in emissions 

through mid century and gradual declines 

thereafter. (Figure source: adapted from 

Elsner et al. 20104).

Future Shift in Timing of Streamflows

Rising summer temperatures and changing water 

flows threaten salmon and other fish species.
81

Selected Adaptation Efforts

In Washington’s Nisqually River Delta, large-scale estuary restoration 

to assist salmon and wildlife recovery provides an example of 

adaptation to climate change and sea level rise. After a century 

of isolation behind dikes, much of the Nisqually National Wildlife 

Refuge was reconnected with tidal flow in 2009 by removal of a 

major dike and restoration of 762 acres, with the assistance of 

Ducks Unlimited and the Nisqually Indian Tribe. This reconnected 

more than 21 miles of historical tidal channels and floodplains 

with Puget Sound.12 A new exterior dike was constructed to protect 

freshwater wetland habitat for migratory birds from tidal inundation, 

future sea level rise, and increasing river floods.

Climate change will alter Northwest forests by increasing wildfire risk, insect and disease outbreaks, and by forcing 

longer-term shifts in forest types and species. Many impacts will be driven by water deficits, which increase tree stress 

and mortality, tree vulnerability to insects, and fuel flammability. By the 2080s, the median annual area burned in the 

Northwest would quadruple relative to the 1916-2007 period to 2 million acres (range 0.2 to 9.8 million acres) under a 

scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions through mid century and gradual declines thereafter (A1B).11

Insects and Fire in Northwest Forests

(Left) Insects and fire have cumulatively affected large areas of the Northwest and are projected to be the dominant drivers of forest 

change in the near future. Map shows areas recently burned (1984 to 2008)7 or affected by insects or disease (1997 to 2008).8

(Right) Map indicates the increases in area burned that would result from the regional temperature and precipitation changes associated 

with a 2.2°F global warming9 across areas that share broad climatic and vegetation characteristics.10 Local impacts will vary greatly within 

these broad areas with sensitivity of fuels to climate.11

Oyster harvest in Coos Bay, Oregon. Ocean acidification poses threats to the region’s important shellfish industry.
ALASKA

82

Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as 

rapidly as the rest of the U.S., with average annual air temperature 

increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability.1

 Most of the warming 

occurred around 1976 during a shift in a long-lived climate pattern 

(the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) from a cooler pattern to a warmer 

one. The underlying long-term warming trend has moderated the 

effects of the more recent shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

to its cooler phase in the early 2000s.2 Alaska’s warming involves 

more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cold days.1,3 Because 

of its cold-adapted features 

and rapid warming, climate 

change impacts on Alaska are 

already pronounced, including earlier spring snowmelt, 

reduced sea ice, widespread 

glacier retreat, warmer 

permafrost, drier landscapes, 

and more extensive insect 

outbreaks and wildfire.

The state’s largest industries, energy production, mining, and fishing, are all 

affected by climate change. Continuing pressure for oil, gas, and mineral development on land and offshore in ice-covered waters increases the demand for 

infrastructure, placing additional stresses on ecosystems. Land-based energy 

exploration will be affected by a shorter season when ice roads are viable, yet 

reduced sea ice extent may create more opportunity for offshore development. 

Arctic summer sea ice is receding faster than previously projected and is expected to virtually disappear before mid-century. This is altering marine ecosystems and leading to greater ship access, 

offshore development opportunity, and increased community vulnerability to coastal erosion.

Most glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia are shrinking substantially. This trend is expected to 

continue and has implications for hydropower production, ocean circulation patterns, fisheries, and 

global sea level rise. 

Permafrost temperatures in Alaska are rising, a thawing trend that is expected to continue, causing 

multiple vulnerabilities through drier landscapes, more wildfire, altered wildlife habitat, increased 

cost of maintaining infrastructure, and the release of heat-trapping gases that increase climate 

warming.

Current and projected increases in Alaska’s ocean temperatures and changes in ocean chemistry 

are expected to alter the distribution and productivity of Alaska’s marine fisheries, which lead the 

U.S. in commercial value.

The cumulative effects of climate change in Alaska strongly affect Native communities, which are 

highly vulnerable to these rapid changes but have a deep cultural history of adapting to change.

Key Messages

Inupiaq seal hunter on the Chukchi Sea. Reductions 

in sea ice alter food availability for many species from 

polar bear to walrus, and make hunting less safe for 

Alaska Native hunters. 

Bars show Alaska average temperature 

changes by decade for 1901-2012 relative 

to the 1901-1960 average. The far right bar 

(2000s decade) includes 2011 and 2012. 

(Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

Rising Temperatures
83

The Big Thaw

As temperatures rise, permafrost thawing increases. Maps show projections of average annual ground temperature at a depth of 3.3 feet for three time periods if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to grow (higher scenario, A2), and if they are 

substantially reduced (lower scenario, B1). (Figure source: Permafrost Lab, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks).

Selected Responses

Villages including Newtok, Shishmaref (bottom), and Kivalina are facing relocation 

because of sea level rise and coastal erosion. Storm surges that used to be 

buffered by ice are now causing more shoreline and infrastructure damage. 

Residents of these villages face thawing permafrost, tilting houses, and sinking 

boardwalks along with aging fuel tanks and other infrastructure. Newtok has 

worked for a generation to move to a safer location, but current federal legislation 

does not authorize federal or state agencies to assist communities in relocating, 

or the use of public funds to repair or upgrade storm-damaged infrastructure in 

flood-prone locations.14 Shishmaref and Kivalina are also seeking to relocate but 

have been similarly unsuccessful.

Local governments and tribes throughout Alaska are planting native vegetation, 

moving inland or away from rivers, and building riprap walls, seawalls, or groins, 

which are shore-protection structures built perpendicular to the shoreline.13 Top 

photo shows a Homer seawall battered by waves while still under construction.

Alaska is home to 40% of the federally recognized tribes in the United States.4

 The small 

number of jobs, high cost of living, and rapid 

social change make rural, predominantly 

Native, communities highly vulnerable to climate change through impacts on traditional 

hunting and fishing and cultural connection 

to the land and sea. 

Arctic sea ice extent and thickness have 

declined substantially, especially in late 

summer (September), when there is now 

only about half as much sea ice as at the 

beginning of the satellite record in 1979.5,6

The seven Septembers with the lowest ice 

extent all occurred in the past seven years. 

Sea ice has also become thinner, with less ice 

lasting over multiple years, and is therefore 

more vulnerable to further melting.6 Models 

that best match historical trends project that 

northern waters will be virtually ice-free in 

late summer by the 2030s.7

Reductions in sea ice increase the amount 

of the sun’s energy absorbed by the ocean. 

This melts more ice, leaving more dark open 

water that gains even more heat, leading to a 

self-reinforcing cycle that increases warming.

In Alaska, 80% of land is underlain by permafrost – frozen ground that restricts water drainage and therefore strongly 

influences landscape water balance and the design and maintenance of infrastructure. More than 70% of this area is 

vulnerable to subsidence (land sinking) upon thawing because of its ice content.8 Permafrost near the Alaskan Arctic 

coast has warmed 6°F to 8°F at 3.3 foot depth since the mid-1980s.9 Thawing is already occurring in interior and southern 

Alaska, where permafrost temperatures are near the thaw point.10 Permafrost will continue to thaw,11 and some models 

project that near-surface permafrost will be lost entirely from large parts of Alaska by the end of this century.12
HAWAI‘I AND

PACIFIC ISLANDS

84

The U.S. Pacific Islands are at risk from climate changes that will affect nearly every aspect of life. The region includes 

more than 2,000 islands spanning millions of square miles of ocean. Rising air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall 

patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms and drought, decreasing streamflows, rising sea levels, and 

changing ocean chemistry will threaten the sustainability of globally important and diverse ecosystems on land and in 

the oceans, as well as local communities, livelihoods, and cultures.

On most islands, increased temperatures coupled with decreased rainfall and increased drought will reduce the amount 

of freshwater available for drinking and crop irrigation.1 Climate change impacts on freshwater resources will vary with 

differing island size and topography, affecting water storage capability and susceptibility to coastal flooding. Low-lying 

islands will be particularly vulnerable due to their small land mass, geographic isolation, limited potable water sources, 

and limited agricultural resources.2

 Sea level rise will increase 

saltwater intrusion from the 

ocean during storms.3,4

Rising sea levels will escalate the 

threat to coastal structures and 

property, groundwater reservoirs, 

harbor operations, airports, 

wastewater systems, shallow 

coral reefs, sea grass beds, intertidal flats and mangrove forests, 

and other social, economic, and 

natural resources. 

Warmer oceans are leading to increased coral bleaching events and disease outbreaks in coral 

reefs, as well as changed distribution patterns of tuna fisheries. Ocean acidification will reduce 

coral growth and health. Warming and acidification, combined with existing stresses, will strongly 

affect coral reef fish communities. 

Freshwater supplies are already constrained and will become more limited on many islands. Saltwater intrusion associated with sea level rise will reduce the quantity and quality of freshwater in 

coastal aquifers, especially on low islands. In areas where precipitation does not increase, freshwater supplies will be adversely affected as air temperature rises.

Increasing temperatures, and in some areas reduced rainfall, will stress native Pacific Island plants 

and animals, especially in high-elevation ecosystems with increasing exposure to invasive species, 

increasing the risk of extinctions. 

Rising sea levels, coupled with high water levels caused by storms, will incrementally increase 

coastal flooding and erosion, damaging coastal ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture, and 

negatively affecting tourism.

Mounting threats to food and water security, infrastructure, health, and safety are expected to lead 

to increasing human migration, making it increasingly difficult for Pacific Islanders to sustain the 

region’s many unique customs, beliefs, and languages.

Key Messages

The Pacific Islands include “high” volcanic islands, such as that on the left, that reach nearly 

14,000 feet above sea level, and “low” atolls and islands, such as that on the right, that peak at 

just a few feet above present sea level. (Left) Ko`olau Mountains on the windward side of Oahu, 

Hawai‘i. (Right) Laysan Island, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

“High” and “Low” Pacific Islands Face Different Threats
85

Coastal infrastructure and agricultural activity on low islands will be 

affected as sea level rise decreases 

the land area available for farming,3

and periodic flooding increases the 

salinity of groundwater. 

Many of Hawai‘i’s native birds, 

marvels of evolution largely limited to high-elevation forests, are 

increasingly vulnerable as rising temperatures allow mosquitoes carrying 

diseases like avian malaria to thrive 

at higher elevations.5 Mangrove area 

in the region could decline 10% to 

20% in this century due to sea level 

rise.6 This would reduce the nursery 

areas, feeding grounds, and habitat 

for fish, crustaceans, and other species, as well as shoreline protection 

and wave dampening, and water 

filtration provided by mangroves.7 Pacific seabirds that breed on low-lying atolls will lose large portions of their breeding 

populations8 as their habitat is increasingly and more extensively covered by seawater. 

Economic impacts from tourism loss will be greatest on islands with more developed infrastructure. In Hawai‘i, for example, where tourism comprises 26% of the state’s economy, damage to tourism infrastructure could have large economic 

impacts – the loss of Waikīkī Beach alone could lead to an annual loss of $2 billion in visitor expenditures.9

Because Pacific Islands are almost entirely dependent upon imported food, fuel, and material, the vulnerability of ports 

and airports to extreme events, sea level rise, and increasing wave heights is of great concern. Climate change is also 

expected to have serious effects on human health, for example by increasing the incidence of dengue fever.10 In addition, 

sea level rise and flooding are expected to overwhelm sewer systems and threaten public sanitation.

The traditional lifestyles and cultures of Indigenous communities in all Pacific Islands will be seriously affected by climate 

change. Drought threatens traditional food sources such as taro and breadfruit, and coral death from warming-induced 

bleaching will threaten subsistence fisheries in island communities.4 Climate change impacts, coupled with socioeconomic or political motivations, may be great enough to lead 

some people to relocate. Depending on the scale and distance of 

migration, a variety of challenges face migrants and the communities receiving them. 

Higher Sea Level Rise in Western Pacific

Map shows large variations across the Pacific Ocean in sea level trends for 1993-2010. The largest sea level increase has been observed in the Western Pacific, due, in part to changing wind 

patterns associated with natural climate variability. (Figure source: adapted from Merrifield 201111

by permission of American Meteorological Society).

Increasing ocean temperature and acidity threaten coral reef ecosystems. By 2100, assuming ongoing increases in emissions of heat-trapping gases (A2 scenario), continued loss of coral reefs and the shelter 

they provide will result in extensive losses in numbers and species of 

reef fishes.12 For more on ocean impacts, see pages 59-60.

Selected Adaptation

The State of Hawai‘i, in cooperation with university, 

private, state, and federal scientists and others, has 

drafted an adaptation plan,13 one of the priorities 

of which is preserving water sources through 

conservation of the forests, as indicated in their 

“Rain Follows The Forest” report.14
RURAL

COMMUNITIES

86

More than 95% of U.S. land area is classified as rural, but is home to just 19% of the population.1 Rural areas provide 

natural resources that much of the rest of the U.S. depends on for food, energy, water, forests, recreation, national character, and quality of life.2

 Rural economic foundations and community cohesion are intricately linked to these natural 

systems, which are inherently vulnerable to climate change. Urban areas that depend on goods and services from rural 

areas will also be affected by climate change driven impacts across the countryside.

Warming, climate volatility, extreme weather events, and environmental change are already affecting the economies 

and cultures of rural areas. Many communities face considerable risk to their infrastructure, livelihoods, and quality of 

life from observed and projected climate shifts. These 

changes will progressively increase volatility in food 

commodity markets, shift locations where particular 

economic activities can thrive, alter the ranges of plant 

and animal species, and, depending on the region, increase water scarcity, exacerbate flooding and coastal 

erosion, and increase the intensity and frequency of 

wildfires across the rural landscape. Because many 

rural communities are less diverse than urban areas in 

their economic activities, changes in the viability of one 

traditional economic sector will place disproportionate 

stresses on community stability.

Rural America has already experienced impacts of 

climate change related weather effects, including crop 

and livestock loss from severe drought and flooding,3

damage to levees and roads from extreme storms,4

shifts in planting and harvesting times,5 and large-scale 

losses from fires and other weather-related disasters.6

These impacts have profound effects, often significantly affecting the health and well-being of rural residents 

and communities, and are amplified by the essential 

economic link between these communities and their 

natural resource base. 

Rural communities are highly dependent upon natural resources for their livelihoods and social 

structures. Climate change related impacts are currently affecting rural communities. These impacts will progressively increase over this century and will shift the locations where rural economic 

activities (like agriculture, forestry, and recreation) can thrive. 

Rural communities face particular geographic and demographic obstacles in responding to and 

preparing for climate change risks. In particular, physical isolation, limited economic diversity, and 

higher poverty rates, combined with an aging population, increase the vulnerability of rural communities. Systems of fundamental importance to rural populations are already stressed by remoteness 

and limited access. 

Responding to additional challenges from climate change impacts will require significant adaptation 

within rural transportation and infrastructure systems, as well as health and emergency response 

systems. Governments in rural communities have limited institutional capacity to respond to, plan 

for, and anticipate climate change impacts.

Key Messages

Many Rural Areas 

are Losing Population

Census data show significant population decreases in many rural 

areas, notably in the Great Plains. Many rural communities’ existing 

vulnerabilities to climate change, including physical isolation, reduced 

services like health care, and an aging population, are projected to 

increase as population decreases. (Figure source: USDA Economic 

Research Service 20137).
87

Hunting, fishing, bird watching, 

and other wildlife-related 

activities will be affected as 

wildlife habitats shift and 

relationships among species 

change.8 Cold-weather recreation and tourism will be 

adversely affected by climate 

change. Snow accumulation in 

the West has decreased, and 

is expected to continue to decrease, as a result of observed 

and projected warming. Similar changes to snowpack are expected in the Northeast.9 Adverse impacts on winter sports 

are projected to be more pronounced in the Northeast and Southwest.10

Coastal areas will be adversely affected by sea level rise and increased severity of storms.11 Changing conditions, such as 

wetland loss and beach erosion in coastal areas,12 and increased risk of natural hazards such as wildfire, flash flooding, 

storm surge, river flooding, drought, and extremely high temperatures can alter the character and attraction of rural 

areas as tourist destinations.

Changing demographics and economic activities influence the ability to respond to climate change. Rural areas are characterized by higher unemployment, more dependence on government transfer payments, less diversified economies, 

and fewer social and economic resources needed for resilience in the face of climate change.10,13

Climate variability and increases in temperature, extreme events (such as storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts), 

and sea level rise are expected to have widespread impacts on the provision of services from state, regional, 

local, and tribal governments. Emergency management, energy use and distribution systems, transportation and 

infrastructure planning, and public health will all be affected. 

Rural governments often depend heavily on volunteers to meet community challenges like fire protection or flood 

response. Rural communities have limited locally available financial resources to cope with the effects of climate 

change. Small community size tends to make services expensive or available only by traveling some distance. 

Adaptation efforts require planning, but local governance structures tend to de-emphasize planning capacity 

compared to urban areas. While 73% of metropolitan counties have land-use planners, only 29% of rural counties not 

adjacent to a metropolitan county had one or more planners. Moreover, rural communities are not equipped to deal 

with major infrastructure expenses.14

If rural communities are to respond adequately to future climate changes, they will likely need help assessing their 

risks and vulnerabilities, prioritizing and coordinating projects, funding and allocating financial and human resources, 

and deploying information-sharing and decision support tools. 

Impacts due to climate change will cross community and regional lines, making solutions dependent upon meaningful 

participation of numerous stakeholders from federal, state, local, and tribal governments, science and academia, 

the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the general public. Effective adaptation measures are closely tied to 

specific local conditions and needs and take into account existing social networks.15

Decisions regarding adaptation responses for both urban and rural populations can occur at various scales (federal, 

state, local, tribal, private sector, and individual) but need to take interdependencies into account. Many decisions 

that significantly affect rural communities may not be under the control of local governments or rural residents. 

Timing is a critical aspect of adaptation and mitigation, so engaging rural residents early in decision processes about 

investments in public infrastructure, protection of shorelines, changes in insurance provision, or new management 

initiatives can influence behavior and choices in ways that enhance positive outcomes of adaptation and mitigation.

Adaptation Challenges

Flooded corn field and river flood waters illustrate threats rural areas face in a changing climate.
COASTS

88

More than 50% of Americans – 164 million people – live in coastal counties, with 1.2 million added each year. Residents, combined with the more than 180 million tourists that flock to the coasts each year,1,2 place heavy demands on 

the unique natural systems and resources that make coastal areas so attractive and productive.1,2

No other region concentrates so many 

people and so much economic activity 

on so little land, while also being so 

relentlessly affected by the sometimes 

violent interactions of land, sea, and 

air. Humans have heavily altered the 

coastal environment through development, changes in land use, and overexploitation of resources.

Now, the changing climate is imposing 

additional stresses,3 making life on the 

coast more challenging. The consequences will ripple through the entire 

nation.

Coastal lifelines, such as water supply and energy infrastructure and evacuation routes, are increasingly vulnerable to higher sea levels and storm surges, inland flooding, erosion, and other 

climate-related changes.

Nationally important assets, such as ports, tourism, and fishing sites, in already-vulnerable coastal 

locations, are increasingly exposed to sea level rise and related hazards. This threatens to disrupt 

economic activity within coastal areas and the regions they serve and results in significant costs 

from protecting or moving these assets.

Socioeconomic disparities create uneven exposures and sensitivities to growing coastal risks and 

limit adaptation options for some coastal communities, resulting in the displacement of the most 

vulnerable people from coastal areas.

Coastal ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change because many have already been 

dramatically altered by human stresses; climate change will result in further reduction or loss of the 

services that these ecosystems provide, including potentially irreversible impacts.

Leaders and residents of coastal regions are increasingly aware of the high vulnerability of coasts to 

climate change, and are developing plans to prepare for potential impacts on citizens, businesses, 

and environmental assets. Significant institutional, political, social, and economic obstacles to 

implementing adaptation actions remain.

Key Messages

Damage to coastal roads is already a problem along the shores of the U.S. and will 

worsen as sea level continues to rise.
89

Lifelines at Risk

Key coastal vulnerabilities arise from complex interactions among climate change and other physical, human, and ecological factors. These vulnerabilities have the potential to fundamentally alter life at the coast and disrupt coast-dependent 

economic activities. 

The more than 60,000 miles of coastal roads are essential for human activities. Already, many coastal roads are affected 

during storm events5 and extreme high tides.6 As coastal bridges, tunnels, and roads are built or redesigned, engineers 

must account for present and future climate change impacts.7

Wastewater management and drainage systems are also at risk. Systems will become overwhelmed with increased rainfall intensity over more impervious surfaces, such as asphalt and concrete.8

 Sea level rise will cause a variety of problems 

including salt water intrusion into coastal aquifers.9 Together, climate change impacts increase the risks of urban flooding, combined sewer overflows, deteriorating coastal water quality, and human health impacts.10

The nation’s energy infrastructure, such as power plants, oil and gas 

refineries, storage tanks, transformers, and electricity transmission 

lines, are often located directly in the coastal floodplain.11 Roughly 

two-thirds of imported oil enters the U.S. through Gulf of Mexico 

ports,12 and unless adaptive measures are taken, storm-related flooding, erosion, and permanent inundation from sea level rise will disrupt 

the supply of refined products to the rest of the nation.13

There are a variety of options to protect, replace, and redesign 

existing infrastructure, including flood proofing and flood protection 

through dikes, berms, pumps, integration of natural landscape features, elevation, more frequent upgrades, or relocation.14 Such adaptation options are best assessed in a site-specific context, weighing 

social, economic, and ecological considerations. 

Paths of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Relative to Oil and Gas Production Facilities

A substantial portion of U.S. energy facilities are located on the Gulf Coast as well as offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, 

where they are particularly vulnerable to hurricanes and other storms and sea level rise. (Figure source: U.S. Government Accountability Office 20064

).

Natural gas platform in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates 

some of the infrastructure at risk from coastal storms.
90

Coasts

Economic Disruption

More than 5,790 square miles and more than $1 trillion of property and structures are at risk of inundation from sea 

level rise of two feet above current sea level – which could be reached by 2050 under a high rate of sea level rise, by 

2070 assuming a lower rate of rise, and sooner in areas of rapid land subsidence.15,16,17 Roughly half of the vulnerable 

property value is located in Florida.16,18

Although comprehensive national estimates are not yet available, regional studies are indicative of the potential risk: 

the incremental annual damage of climate change to capital assets in the Gulf region alone could be $2.7 to $4.6 billion 

by 2030, and $8.3 to $13.2 billion by 2050; about 20% of these at-risk assets are in the oil and gas industry.19 Investing 

approximately $50 billion for adaptation over the next 20 years could lead to approximately $135 billion in averted losses 

over the lifetime of adaptive measures.19,20

Coastal recreation and tourism comprises the largest and fastest-growing sector of the U.S. service industry, accounting 

for 85% of the $700 billion annual tourism-related revenues.1,21 Hard shoreline protection against the encroaching sea 

(like building sea walls or riprap) generally aggravates erosion and beach loss, and causes negative effects on coastal 

ecosystems, undermining the attractiveness of beach tourism. Thus, “soft protection,” such as beach replenishment or 

conservation and restoration of sand dunes and wetlands, is increasingly preferred to “hard protection” measures.

Socioeconomic Disparities

There are large socioeconomic disparities in coastal areas,23,24 and a full understanding of risk for coastal communities 

requires consideration of social vulnerability factors that limit people’s ability to adapt. These factors include lower 

income, minority status, low educational achievement, advanced age, lower economic and social mobility, and much 

lower likelihood of being insured than wealthy property owners.25 The most socially vulnerable populations also tend to 

have fewer adaptation options in their current locations, and thus may be at greater risk of dislocation.24,26

Coast-to-Inland Economic Connections

Ports are deeply interconnected with inland areas through the goods imported and exported each year. Climate change impacts on ports can 

thus have far-reaching implications for the nation’s economy. Maps show the exports and imports in 2010 (in tons/year) and freight flows (in 

trucks per day) from two major U.S. ports (Los Angeles and New York/New Jersey) to other U.S. areas designated in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). Note: Highway Link Flow less than 5 FAF Trucks/Day are not shown. (Figure source: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight Analysis Framework, 

version 3.4, 201222).
91

Vulnerable Ecosystems

Coastal ecosystems provide a suite of valuable benefits (ecosystem services) on which humans depend, including reducing the impacts from floods, buffering from storm surge and waves, and providing nursery habitat for important fish and 

other species, water filtration, carbon storage, and opportunities for recreation and enjoyment.27,28

However, many of these ecosystems and the services they provide are rapidly being degraded by human impacts, including pollution, habitat destruction, and the spread of invasive species.

These existing stresses on coastal ecosystems will be exacerbated by climate change effects, such as increased ocean 

temperatures that lead to coral bleaching,29 altered river flows affecting the health of estuaries,30 and acidified waters 

threatening shellfish.31 Of particular concern is the potential for coastal ecosystems to cross thresholds of rapid change 

(“tipping points”), beyond which they exist in a dramatically altered state or are lost entirely from the area. Some ecosystems are already near tipping points and in some cases the changes will be irreversible.32

Adaptation Challenges and Opportunities

Coastal leaders and populations are 

increasingly concerned about climate-related 

impacts and are developing adaptation 

plans,33 but support for development 

restrictions or managed retreat is limited.34

Enacting measures that increase resilience in 

the face of current hazards, while reducing 

long-term risks due to climate change, 

continues to be challenging.35

A robust finding is that the cost of 

inaction is 4 to 10 times greater than 

the cost associated with preventive 

hazard mitigation.16,36 Even so, prioritizing 

expenditures now whose benefits accrue far 

in the future is difficult.37

Cumulative costs to the economy of 

responding to sea level rise and flooding 

events alone could be as high as $325 

billion by 2100 for 4 feet of sea level rise, 

with $130 billion expected to be incurred in 

Florida and $88 billion in the North Atlantic 

region.17 The projected costs associated with 

one foot of sea level rise by 2100 are roughly 

$200 billion. These figures exclude losses of valuable ecosystem services, as well as indirect losses from business 

disruption, lost economic activity, impacts on economic growth, or other non-market losses.17,38

Property insurance can serve as an important mode of financial adaptation to climate risks,39 but the full potential of 

leveraging insurance rates and availability has not yet been realized.40,41 Federal fiscal exposure for the National Flood 

Insurance Program was estimated at nearly $1.3 trillion in 2012.42 Reforms were enacted in 2012, though various 

challenges remain.43

Climate adaptation efforts that integrate hazard mitigation, natural resource conservation, and restoration of coastal 

ecosystems can enhance ecological resilience and reduce the exposure of property, infrastructure, and economic 

activities to climate change impacts.28,44 Yet, the integration and translation of scientific understanding of the benefits 

provided by ecosystems into engineering design and hazard management remains challenging.45 Adaptation efforts 

to date that have begun to connect these issues across jurisdictional and departmental boundaries and create 

innovative solutions are thus extremely encouraging.40,46

A coastal ecosystem restoration project in New York City integrates 

revegetation (a form of green infrastructure) with bulkheads and riprap (gray or built infrastructure). Investments in coastal ecosystem 

conservation and restoration can protect coastal waterfronts and 

infrastructure, while providing additional benefits, such as habitat for 

commercial and recreational fish, birds, and other animal and plant 

species, that are not offered by built infrastructure.
COASTAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

92

NORTHWEST

• The substantial global sea level rise is regionally moderated by the continuing uplift of land, with few exceptions, such as the Seattle area and central Oregon.

• Commercial shellfish populations are at risk from 

ocean acidification.

• The region’s relatively high economic dependence 

on commercial fisheries makes it sensitive to climate 

change impacts on marine species and ecosystems 

and related coastal ecosystems.

• Coastal storm surges are expected to be higher due to 

increases in sea level alone, and more intense persistent storm tracks (atmospheric river systems) will 

increase coastal flooding risks from inland runoff.

ALASKA

• Summer sea ice is receding rapidly, altering marine ecosystems, allowing for greater ship access and offshore development, 

and making Native communities highly 

susceptible to coastal erosion.

• Ice loss from melting Alaskan and Canadian glaciers currently contributes almost 

as much to sea level rise as does melting 

of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

• Current and projected increases in Alaska’s 

ocean temperatures 

and changes in 

ocean chemistry 

are expected to 

alter the distribution 

and productivity of 

Alaska’s marine fisheries.

HAWAI‘I AND PACIFIC ISLANDS

• Warmer and drier conditions will reduce freshwater supplies on many Pacific 

Islands, especially on low lying islands and atolls.

• Sea level rise will continue at accelerating rates, exacerbating coastal erosion, 

damaging infrastructure and agriculture, reducing critical habitat, and threatening shallow coral reef systems.

• Extreme water levels occur when high tides combine with interannual and interdecadal sea level variations (such as El Niño Southern Oscillation, Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation, mesoscale eddy events) and storm surge.

• Coral reef changes pose threats to communities, cultures, and ecosystems.

CALIFORNIA

• Sea level has risen approximately 7 inches from 1900 to 2005, and is expected to rise 

at growing rates in this century.

• Higher temperatures; changes in precipitation, runoff, and water supplies; and saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers will result in negative impacts on coastal water 

resources.

• Coastal storm surges are expected to be higher due to increases in sea level alone, and 

more intense persistent storm tracks (atmospheric river systems) will increase coastal 

flooding risks from inland runoff.

• Expensive coastal development, critical infrastructure, and valuable coastal wetlands 

are at growing risk from coastal erosion, temporary flooding, and permanent inundation.

• The San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin/Sacramento River Delta are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and changes in salinity, temperature, and runoff; endangering 

one of the ecological “jewels” of the West Coast, as well as growing development, and 

crucial water infrastructure.

High 

Vulnerability

>1.5

0.6 to 1.5

-0.4 to .05

-1.4 to -.05

<-1.5

Low 

Vulnerability
THREATS AROUND THE U.S.

93

SOUTHEAST AND CARIBBEAN

• A large number of cities, critical infrastructure, and water supplies are at low 

elevations and exposed to sea level rise, 

in some places moderated by land uplift.

• Ecosystems of the Southeast are vulnerable to loss from relative sea level rise, 

especially tidal marshes and swamps.

• Sea level rise will affect coastal agriculture through higher storm surges, saltwater intrusion, and impacts on freshwater supplies.

• The number of land-falling tropical 

storms may decline, reducing important 

rainfall.

• The incidence of harmful algal blooms 

is expected to increase with climate 

change, as are health problems previously uncommon in the region.

MID-ATLANTIC

• Rates of local sea level rise in 

the Chesapeake Bay are greater 

than the global average.

• Sea level rise and related flooding and erosion threaten coastal 

homes, infrastructure, and commercial development, including 

ports.

• Chesapeake Bay ecosystems 

are already heavily degraded, 

making them more vulnerable to 

climate-related impacts.

NORTHEAST

• Highly built-up coastal corridor concentrates 

population and supporting infrastructure.

• Storm surges from nor’easters and hurricanes 

can cause significant damage.

• The historical rate of relative sea level rise varies across the region.

• Wetlands and estuaries are vulnerable to inundation from sea level rise; buildings and infrastructure are most vulnerable to higher storm 

surges as sea level rises.

GREAT LAKES

• Higher temperatures and longer growing seasons in the Great Lakes region favor production of blue-green and toxic algae that can 

harm fish, water quality, habitat, and aesthetics.

• Increased winter air temperatures will lead 

to decreased Great Lakes ice cover, making 

shorelines more susceptible to erosion and 

flooding.

• Current projections of lake level changes are 

uncertain.

GULF COAST

• Hurricanes, land subsidence, sea level rise, and erosion already 

pose great risks to Gulf Coast areas, placing homes, critical infrastructure, and people at risk, and causing permanent land loss.

• Coastal inland and water temperatures are expected to rise; coastal 

inland areas are expected to become drier.

• There is still uncertainty about future frequency and intensity of Gulf 

of Mexico hurricanes, but sea level rise will increase storm surges.

• The Florida Keys, South Florida, and coastal Louisiana are particularly vulnerable to additional sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.

Boxes summarize coastal climate change threats for each region.

Map shows how social vulnerability varies around the coasts.48

SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

Map shows a Social Vulnerability 

Index, providing a quantitative, integrative measure of vulnerability of 

human populations in the U.S. 

High vulnerability (dark pink) typically indicates some combination of high 

exposure and high sensitivity to the 

effects of climate change and low capacity to deal with them. 

Index components and weighting are specific to each region 

(North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Great Lakes, 

Alaska, and Hawai‘i), and are constructed from Census 

data including measures of poverty, age, family structure, 

location (rural versus urban), foreign-born status, wealth, 

gender, Native American status, and occupation.24,47
FUTURE

94

NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENTS

Sustained Assessment

Since 1990, Congress has required periodic updates on 

climate science and its implications. A primary goal of the 

National Climate Assessment (NCA) is to help the nation 

anticipate, mitigate, and adapt to impacts from climate 

change in the context of other national and global change 

factors. 

As this third NCA was being prepared, a vision for a new 

approach to assessments took shape. This vision includes 

an ongoing process for understanding and evaluating the 

nation’s vulnerabilities to climate change and its capacity to 

respond. A sustained assessment, in addition to producing 

quadrennial assessment reports as required by law, recognizes that the ability to understand, predict, assess, and 

respond to rapid changes in the global environment requires 

ongoing efforts to integrate new knowledge and experience.

A sustained assessment process would: 1) advance the 

science needed to improve the assessment process and its 

outcomes, building associated foundational knowledge and 

collecting relevant data; 2) develop targeted scientific reports and other products that respond directly to the needs 

of federal agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and 

other decision-makers; 3) create a framework for continued 

interactions between the assessment partners and stakeholders and the scientific community; and 4) support the capacity of those engaged in assessment activities to maintain 

such interactions.

To provide decision-makers with more timely, concise, and 

useful information, a sustained assessment process would 

include both ongoing, extensive engagement with public 

and private partners and targeted, scientifically rigorous 

reports that address concerns in a timely fashion. A growing 

body of assessment literature has guided and informed the 

development of this approach to a sustained assessment.1

The envisioned sustained assessment process includes 

continuing and expanding engagement with scientists and 

other professionals from government, academia, business, 

and non-governmental organizations. These partnerships 

broaden the knowledge base from which conclusions can 

be drawn. In addition, sustained engagement with decision-makers and end users helps scientists understand what 

information society wants and needs, and provides mechanisms for researchers to receive ongoing feedback on the 

utility of the tools and data they provide.

An ongoing process that supports these forms of outreach 

and engagement allows for more comprehensive and insightful evaluation of climate changes across the nation, including 

how decision-makers and end users are responding to these 

changes. The most thoughtful and robust responses 

to climate change can be made only when these 

complex issues, including the underlying science 

and its many implications for the nation, are documented and communicated in a way that both 

scientists and non-scientists can understand. This 

sustained assessment process will lead to better 

outcomes by providing more relevant, comprehensible, and usable knowledge to guide decisions 

related to climate change at local, regional, and 

national scales. More information is available in 

the NCADAC special report “Preparing the Nation 

for Change: Building a Sustained National Climate 

Assessment.”2

A sustained assessment process would provide decision-makers 

with more timely and useful information.

Ongoing monitoring and observations can help guide decision-making.
95

Research Needs

Five priority research goals have been identified to 

advance future climate and global change assessments. 

• Improve understanding of the climate system and its 

drivers.

• Improve understanding of climate impacts and 

vulnerability.

• Increase understanding of adaptation pathways.

• Identify the mitigation options that reduce the risk of 

longer-term climate change.

• Improve decision support and integrated assessment.

This assessment also identifies five cross-cutting foundational capabilities that are essential for advancing the 

ability to continue to conduct climate and global change 

assessments and for addressing the five research goals.

• Integrate natural and social science, engineering, and 

other disciplinary approaches.

• Ensure availability of observations, monitoring, and 

infrastructure for critical data collection and analysis.

• Build capacity for climate assessment through training, 

education, and workforce development.

• Enhance the development and use of scenarios.

• Promote international research and collaboration.

These are not intended to prescribe a specific research 

agenda but rather to summarize the research needs and 

gaps that emerged during development of this NCA that 

are relevant to the development of future research plans.

Contributions of a Sustained Assessment Process

In addition to producing the quadrennial assessment reports required by the 1990 Global Change Research Act, a 

well-designed and executed sustained assessment process would produce many other important outcomes:

1. Increase the nation’s capacity to measure and evaluate the impacts of and responses to further climate change 

in the U.S., locally, regionally, and nationally.

2. Improve the collection of assessment-related critical data, access to those data, and the capacity of users to 

work with datasets – including their use in decision support tools – relevant to their specific issues and interests. This includes periodically assessing how users are applying such data.

3. Support the creation of the first integrated suite of national indicators of climate-related trends across a variety 

of important climate drivers and responses.

4. Catalyze the production of targeted, in-depth reports on various topics that help inform choices about mitigation and adaptation. These reports would generate new insights about climate change, its impacts, and the 

effectiveness of societal responses. In addition, other reports could focus on improvements to aspects of the 

process (for example, scenarios and indicators) to reinforce the foundation for the quadrennial assessments. 

5. Facilitate, support, and leverage a network of scientific, decision-maker, and user communities for extended 

dialog and engagement regarding climate change.

6. Provide a systematic way to identify gaps in knowledge and uncertainties faced by the scientific community and 

by U.S. domestic and international partners and to assist in setting priorities for their resolution.

7. Enhance integration with other assessment efforts such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

and modeling efforts such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.

8. Develop and apply tools to evaluate progress and guide improvements in processes and products over time, 

supporting an iterative approach to managing risks and opportunities associated with changing conditions.

For example, several important topics could not be comprehensively covered in this assessment and could be 

considered in future reports. These include analyses of the 

economic costs of climate change impacts (and the associated benefits of mitigation and adaptation strategies); the 

considerations related to climate change for U.S. national 

security, as appropriate, as a topic integrated with other 

regional and sectoral discussions; and the interactions of 

adaptation and mitigation options, including consideration 

of the co-benefits and potential unintended consequences 

of particular decisions. 

The following criteria should be considered in establishing 

research priorities that support assessments: 

• Promote understanding of the fundamental behavior 

of the Earth’s climate and environmental systems.

• Promote understanding of the socioeconomic impacts 

of a changing climate. 

• Build capacity to assess risks and consequences.

• Support research that enables the infrastructure needed for analysis.

• Build decision support capacity.

• Support engagement of the private sector and investment communities.

• Leverage private sector, university, and international 

resources and partnerships.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

96

There is still time to act 

to limit the amount of climate 

change and the extent of 

damaging impacts.

As climate change and its impacts 

become more prevalent, Americans 

face choices. Although some additional climate change and related 

impacts are now unavoidable, the 

amount of future climate change 

and its consequences will still largely 

be determined by our choices, now 

and in the near future. There is still time to act to limit the 

amount of climate change and the extent of damaging 

impacts we will face.

This report offers an overview of some of the options 

and activities being implemented or planned around the 

Across the nation, Americans are beginning to act:

Cities Mitigate and Adapt

Many cities are undertaking initiatives to reduce 

heat-trapping gas emissions. More than 1,055 municipalities from all 50 states have signed the U.S. Mayors 

Climate Protection Agreement, and many of these 

communities are actively implementing strategies to 

reduce their greenhouse gas footprint. By integrating 

climate-change considerations into daily operations, 

some cities are forestalling the need to develop new or 

isolated climate change specific policies or procedures. 

This strategy enables cities and other government 

agencies to take advantage of existing funding sources 

and programs and achieve co-benefits in areas such as 

sustainability, public health, economic development, 

disaster preparedness, and environmental justice. 

Pursuing low-cost, no-regrets options is a particularly 

attractive short-term strategy for many cities.

Managing Heavy Rainfall

Municipalities across the country are increasingly 

implementing a range of adaptation options to manage 

the increase in heavy downpours, including using green 

roofs, rain gardens, roadside plantings, porous pavement, and rainwater harvesting. These techniques typically utilize soils and vegetation to absorb runoff close 

to where it falls, limiting flooding and sewer backups. 

In Maine, an initiative is underway to help towns adapt 

culverts to handle the heavier rainfalls already occurring and expected to increase further over the lifetime 

of the culverts. People are creating decision tools to 

map culvert locations, schedule maintenance, estimate 

needed culvert size, and analyze replacement needs 

and costs. There are complex, multi-jurisdictional challenges for even such seemingly simple actions as using 

larger culverts to carry water from major storms. 

country as governments, businesses, 

and individuals begin to respond to 

climate change. These include efforts 

to reduce heat-trapping emissions 

and adapt to changing conditions. 

There are many pathways to significantly reduce heat-trapping gas 

emissions. In addition, actions to reduce emissions can 

yield benefits for objectives apart from managing climate 

change, such as increasing energy security and improving 

human health. Similarly, actions to prepare for and adapt 

to climate change impacts can also improve our resilience 

in other ways.
97

Northeast Takes Action

The most well-known, multi-state effort has been the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), formed 

by ten northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (though 

New Jersey exited in 2011). RGGI is a cap-and-trade 

system applied to the power sector with revenue from 

allowance auctions 

directed to investments in efficiency 

and renewable 

energy.

Achieving the lower emissions 

pathway used in this assessment 

would require substantial decarbonization of the global economy by 

the end of this century, implying a 

fundamental transformation of the 

global energy system.

Many technologies are potentially available to accomplish 

emissions reduction. They include ways to increase the 

efficiency of energy use and facilitate a shift to low-carbon 

energy sources, improvements in the cost and performance of renewables (such as wind, solar, and bioenergy) 

and nuclear energy, ways to reduce the cost of carbon 

capture and storage, means to expand carbon sinks 

through management of forests and soils and increased 

agricultural productivity, and phasing down the use of 

other heat-trapping gases, like 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), widely 

used for refrigeration. 

The United States has declared a 

goal of reducing its greenhouse gas 

emissions about 17% below 2005 

levels by 2020 through a range of actions, including limiting carbon emissions from power plants and continuing 

to increase the fuel economy of cars and trucks and the 

energy efficiency of buildings. The U.S. has also indicated 

that it will seek to exert leadership internationally. 

Climate change presents us with both challenges and opportunities. The information contained in this report can 

help enable our society to effectively respond and prepare 

for our future. 

Southwest Ramps Up Renewables

The Southwest’s abundant geothermal, wind, and solar 

power-generation resources could help transform the 

region’s electric generating system into one that uses 

substantially more renewable energy. This transformation has already started, driven in part by renewable 

energy portfolio standards that require a certain amount 

of electricity to be generated with renewables. These 

standards have been adopted by five of six Southwest 

states, and also include renewable energy goals in Utah. 

California Acts to Reduce Emissions

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) 

is an ambitious law that sets a state goal to reduce 

its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 

2020. The state program caps emissions and uses a 

market-based system of trading in emissions credits 

(cap-and-trade), limits imports of baseload electricity 

generation from coal and oil, and implements a 

number of other regulatory actions. 

Climate change presents us 

with both challenges and 

opportunities.
98

1. Overview and Report Findings

Convening Lead Authors

Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory

Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Van Ness Feldman, LLP

Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University

2. Our Changing Climate

Convening Lead Authors

John Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Donald Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Lead Authors

Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University

James Kossin, NOAA National Climatic Data Center 

Kenneth Kunkel, CICS-NC, North Carolina State Univ., 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Graeme Stephens, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Peter Thorne, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center

Russell Vose, NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Michael Wehner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Josh Willis, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Contributing Authors

David Anderson, NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Scott Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Richard Feely, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

Paula Hennon, CICS-NC, North Carolina State Univ., 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Viatcheslav Kharin, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, 

Environment Canada

Thomas Knutson, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Felix Landerer, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Tim Lenton, Exeter University

John Kennedy, UK Meteorological Office

Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

Univ. of California, San Diego

3. Water Resources

Convening Lead Authors: 

Aris Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology

Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities

Lead Authors: 

Michael Dettinger, U.S. Geological Survey

Christa Peters-Lidard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Terese (T.C.) Richmond, Van Ness Feldman, LLP

Ken Reckhow, Duke University

Kathleen White, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Yates, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

4. Energy Supply and Use

Convening Lead Authors

Jan Dell, ConocoPhillips

Susan Tierney, Analysis Group Consultants

Lead Authors

Guido Franco, California Energy Commission

Richard G. Newell, Duke University

Rich Richels, Electric Power Research Institute

John Weyant, Stanford University

Thomas J. Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

5. Transportation

Convening Lead Authors

Henry G. Schwartz, HGS Consulting, LLC

Michael Meyer, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Lead Authors

Cynthia J. Burbank, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Michael Kuby, Arizona State University

Clinton Oster, Indiana University

John Posey, East-West Gateway Council of Governments

Edmond J Russo, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Arthur Rypinski, U.S. Department of Transportation

6. Agriculture

Convening Lead Authors 

Jerry Hatfield, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Gene Takle, Iowa State University

Lead Authors

Richard Grotjahn, University of California, Davis

Patrick Holden, Waterborne Environmental, Inc.

R. Cesar Izaurralde, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Terry Mader, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Elizabeth Marshall, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Contributing Authors

Diana Liverman, University of Arizona

7. Forests

Convening Lead Authors

Linda A. Joyce, U.S. Forest Service

Steven W. Running, University of Montana

Lead Authors

David D. Breshears, University of Arizona

Virginia H. Dale, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Robert W. Malmsheimer, SUNY Environmental Science and Forestry

R. Neil Sampson, Vision Forestry, LLC

Brent Sohngen, Ohio State University

Christopher W. Woodall, U.S. Forest Service

Third NCA Author Teams
99

8. Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services

Convening Lead Authors

Peter M. Groffman, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies 

Peter Kareiva, The Nature Conservancy

Lead Authors

Shawn Carter, U.S. Geological Survey

Nancy B. Grimm, Arizona State University

Josh Lawler, University of Washington

Michelle Mack, University of Florida

Virginia Matzek, Santa Clara University

Heather Tallis, Stanford University

9. Human Health

Convening Lead Authors

George Luber, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Kim Knowlton, Natural Resources Defense Council and Mailman School of 

Public Health, Columbia University

Lead Authors

John Balbus, National Institutes of Health

Howard Frumkin, University of Washington

Mary Hayden, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Jeremy Hess, Emory University

Michael McGeehin, RTI International

Nicky Sheats, Thomas Edison State College

Contributing Authors

Lorraine Backer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

C. Ben Beard, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Kristie L. Ebi, ClimAdapt, LLC

Edward Maibach, George Mason University

Richard S. Ostfeld, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Christine Wiedinmyer, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Emily Zielinski-Gutiérrez, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Lewis Ziska, U.S. Department of Agriculture

10. Energy, Water, and Land Use

Convening Lead Authors

Kathy Hibbard, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Tom Wilson, Electric Power Research Institute

Lead Authors

Kristen Averyt, University of Colorado Boulder

Robert Harriss, Environmental Defense Fund

Robin Newmark, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Steven Rose, Electric Power Research Institute 

Elena Shevliakova, Princeton University

Vincent Tidwell, Sandia National Laboratories 

11. Urban Systems, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability

Convening Lead Authors

Susan L. Cutter, University of South Carolina

William Solecki, City University of New York

Lead Authors

Nancy Bragado, City of San Diego

JoAnn Carmin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Michail Fragkias, Boise State University

Matthias Ruth, Northeastern University

Thomas J. Wilbanks, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

12. Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources

Convening Lead Authors

T.M. Bull Bennett, Kiksapa Consulting, LLC

Nancy G. Maynard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 

University of Miami

Lead Authors

Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Commission

Robert Gough, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

Kathy Lynn, University of Oregon

Julie Maldonado, American University, 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Garrit Voggesser, National Wildlife Federation

Susan Wotkyns, Northern Arizona University

Contributing Authors

Karen Cozzetto, University of Colorado at Boulder

13. Land Use and Land Cover Change

Convening Lead Authors

Daniel G. Brown, University of Michigan

Colin Polsky, Clark University

Lead Authors

Paul Bolstad, University of Minnesota

Samuel D. Brody, Texas A&M University at Galveston

David Hulse, University of Oregon

Roger Kroh, Mid-America Regional Council

Thomas R. Loveland, U.S. Geological Survey

Allison Thomson, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
100

14. Rural Communities

Convening Lead Authors

David Hales, Second Nature

William Hohenstein, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Lead Authors

Marcie D. Bidwell, Mountain Studies Institute

Craig Landry, East Carolina University

David McGranahan, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Joseph Molnar, Auburn University

Lois Wright Morton, Iowa State University

Marcela Vasquez, University of Arizona

Contributing Authors

Jenna Jadin, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

15. Biogeochemical Cycles

Convening Lead Authors

James N. Galloway, University of Virginia 

William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Lead Authors

Christopher M. Clark, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nancy B. Grimm, Arizona State University

Robert B. Jackson, Duke University 

Beverly E. Law, Oregon State University

Peter E. Thornton, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Alan R. Townsend, University of Colorado Boulder 

Contributing Author

Rebecca Martin, Washington State University Vancouver 

16. Northeast

Convening Lead Authors

Radley Horton, Columbia University

Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University

Lead Authors

William Easterling, Pennsylvania State University

Robert Kates, University of Maine

Matthias Ruth, Northeastern University

Edna Sussman, Fordham University School of Law 

Adam Whelchel, The Nature Conservancy

David Wolfe, Cornell University

Contributing Author

Fredric Lipschultz, NASA and Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences

17. Southeast and Caribbean 

Convening Lead Authors

Lynne M. Carter, Louisiana State University

James W. Jones, University of Florida

Lead Authors

Leonard Berry, Florida Atlantic University

Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Murley, South Florida Regional Planning Council

Jayantha Obeysekera, South Florida Water Management District

Paul J. Schramm, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

David Wear, U.S. Forest Service 

18. Midwest

Convening Lead Authors

Sara C. Pryor, Indiana University

Donald Scavia, University of Michigan

Lead Authors

Charles Downer, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Marc Gaden, Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Louis Iverson, U.S. Forest Service

Rolf Nordstrom, Great Plains Institute

Jonathan Patz, University of Wisconsin

G. Philip Robertson, Michigan State University

19. Great Plains

Convening Lead Authors

Mark Shafer, Oklahoma Climatological Survey 

Dennis Ojima, Colorado State University

Lead Authors

John M. Antle, Oregon State University

Doug Kluck, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Renee A. McPherson, University of Oklahoma

Sascha Petersen, Adaptation International

Bridget Scanlon, University of Texas

Kathleen Sherman, Colorado State University

20. Southwest

Convening Lead Authors

Gregg Garfin, University of Arizona

Guido Franco, California Energy Commission

Lead Authors

Hilda Blanco, University of Southern California

Andrew Comrie, University of Arizona

Patrick Gonzalez, National Park Service

Thomas Piechota, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

Rebecca Smyth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Reagan Waskom, Colorado State University

Third NCA Author Teams
101

21. Northwest

Convening Lead Authors

Philip Mote, Oregon State University

Amy K. Snover, University of Washington

Lead Authors

Susan Capalbo, Oregon State University

Sanford D. Eigenbrode, University of Idaho

Patty Glick, National Wildlife Federation

Jeremy Littell, U.S. Geological Survey 

Richard Raymondi, Idaho Department of Water Resources

Spencer Reeder, Cascadia Consulting Group 

22. Alaska

Convening Lead Authors

F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Sarah F. Trainor, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Lead Authors

Patricia Cochran, Alaska Native Science Commission

Henry Huntington, Huntington Consulting

Carl Markon, U.S. Geological Survey

Molly McCammon, Alaska Ocean Observing System

A. David McGuire, U.S. Geological Survey and University of Alaska Fairbanks

Mark Serreze, University of Colorado

23. Hawai‘i and U.S. Affiliated Pacific Islands

Convening Lead Authors

Jo-Ann Leong, University of Hawai‘i

John J. Marra, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Lead Authors

Melissa L. Finucane, East-West Center

Thomas Giambelluca, University of Hawai‘i

Mark Merrifield, University of Hawai‘i

Stephen E. Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Jeffrey Polovina, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Eileen Shea, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Contributing Authors

Maxine Burkett, University of Hawai‘i

John Campbell, University of Waikato

Penehuro Lefale, Meteorological Service of New Zealand Ltd. 

Fredric Lipschultz, NASA and Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences

Lloyd Loope, U.S. Geological Survey

Deanna Spooner, Pacific Island Climate Change Cooperative

Bin Wang, University of Hawai‘i 

24. Oceans and Marine Resources

Convening Lead Authors

Scott Doney, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Union of Concerned Scientists

Lead Authors

Michael Alexander, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Francisco Chavez, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

C. Drew Harvell, Cornell University

Gretchen Hofmann, University of California Santa Barbara

Michael Orbach, Duke University

Mary Ruckelshaus, Natural Capital Project

25. Coastal Zone Development and Ecosystems

Convening Lead Authors

Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting and 

Stanford University

Margaret A. Davidson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Lead Authors

Paul Kirshen, University of New Hampshire

Peter Mulvaney, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

James F. Murley, South Florida Regional Planning Council

James E. Neumann, Industrial Economics, Inc.

Laura Petes, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Denise Reed, The Water Institute of the Gulf

26. Decision Support: Connecting Science, Risk 

Perception, and Decisions

Convening Lead Authors

Richard Moss, Joint Global Change Research Institute, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland

P. Lynn Scarlett, The Nature Conservancy

Lead Authors

Melissa A. Kenney, University of Maryland

Howard Kunreuther, University of Pennsylvania

Robert Lempert, RAND Corporation

Jay Manning, Cascadia Law Group

B. Ken Williams, The Wildlife Society

Contributing Authors

James W. Boyd, Resources for the Future

Emily T. Cloyd, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Laurna Kaatz, Denver Water

Lindene Patton, Zurich North America
102

27. Mitigation

Convening Lead Authors

Henry D. Jacoby, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Anthony C. Janetos, Boston University

Lead Authors

Richard Birdsey, U.S. Forest Service

James Buizer, University of Arizona

Katherine Calvin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland

Francisco de la Chesnaye, Electric Power Research Institute

David Schimel, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Ian Sue Wing, Boston University

Contributing Authors

Reid Detchon, United Nations Foundation

Jae Edmonds, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of Maryland

Lynn Russell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

University of California, San Diego

Jason West, University of North Carolina

28. Adaptation

Convening Lead Authors

Rosina Bierbaum, University of Michigan

Arthur Lee, Chevron Corporation

Joel Smith, Stratus Consulting

Lead Authors

Maria Blair, Independent

Lynne M. Carter, Louisiana State University

F. Stuart Chapin III, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities

Susan Ruffo, The Nature Conservancy

Contributing Authors

Shannon McNeeley, Colorado State University

Missy Stults, University of Michigan

Laura Verduzco, Chevron Corporation

Emily Seyller, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

29. Research Needs for Climate and Global Change 

Assessments

Convening Lead Authors

Robert W. Corell, Florida International University and the GETF Center for 

Energy and Climate Solutions 

Diana Liverman, University of Arizona

Lead Authors

Kirstin Dow, University of South Carolina

Kristie L. Ebi, ClimAdapt, LLC

Kenneth Kunkel, CICS-NC, North Carolina State Univ., 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Linda O. Mearns, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Jerry Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory

30. Sustained Assessment: A New Vision for Future 

U.S. Assessments

Convening Lead Authors

John A. Hall, U.S. Department of Defense

Maria Blair, Independent

Lead Authors

James L. Buizer, University of Arizona

David I. Gustafson, Monsanto Company

Brian Holland, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability

Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting and 

Stanford University

Anne M. Waple, Second Nature and University Corporation for 

Atmospheric Research

Appendix 3. Climate Science Supplement, and 

Appendix 4. Frequently Asked Questions

Convening Lead Authors

John Walsh, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Donald Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Lead Authors

Katharine Hayhoe, Texas Tech University

James Kossin, NOAA National Climatic Data Center 

Kenneth Kunkel, CICS-NC, North Carolina State Univ., 

NOAA National Climatic Data Center 

Graeme Stephens, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Peter Thorne, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center

Russell Vose, NOAA National Climatic Data Center

Michael Wehner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Josh Willis, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Contributing Authors

David Anderson, NOAA National Climatic Data Center 

Viatcheslav Kharin, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, 

Environment Canada

Thomas Knutson, NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Felix Landerer, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Tim Lenton, Exeter University

John Kennedy, UK Meteorological Office

Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

Univ. of California, San Diego

Third NCA Author Teams
103

National Climate Assessment Staff

USGCRP National Climate Assessment Coordination 

Office

Katharine Jacobs, Director, National Climate Assessment, White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (through December 2013) / University 

of Arizona

Fabien Laurier, Director, Third National Climate Assessment, White House

OSTP (previously Deputy Director, USGCRP) (from December 2013)

Glynis Lough, NCA Chief of Staff, USGCRP / UCAR (from June 2012)

Sheila O’Brien, NCA Chief of Staff, USGCRP / UCAR (through May 2012)

Susan Aragon-Long, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, U.S.

Geological Survey 

Ralph Cantral, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, NOAA 

(through November 2012)

Tess Carter, Student Assistant, Brown University

Emily Therese Cloyd, NCA Public Participation and Engagement Coordinator, 

USGCRP / UCAR

Chelsea Combest-Friedman, NCA International Coordinator, Knauss Marine 

Policy Fellow, NOAA (February 2011-February 2012)

Alison Delgado, NCA Scientist and Sector Coordinator, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of 

Maryland (from October 2012)

William Emanuel, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, 

University of Maryland (June 2011-September 2012)

Matt Erickson, Student Assistant, Washington State University 

(July-October 2012)

Ilya Fischhoff, NCA Program Coordinator, USGCRP / UCAR 

Elizabeth Fly, NCA Coastal Coordinator, Knauss Marine Policy Fellow, NOAA 

(February 2013-January 2014)

Chelcy Ford, NCA Sector Coordinator, USFS (August-November 2011)

Wyatt Freeman, Student Assistant, George Mason University / UCAR 

(May-September 2012)

Bryce Golden-Chen, NCA Program Coordinator, USGCRP / UCAR

Nancy Grimm, NCA Senior Scientist and Sector Coordinator, NSF / Arizona 

State University (July 2011-September 2012)

Tess Hart, NCA Communications Assistant, USGCRP / UCAR (June-July 2011)

Melissa Kenney, NCA Indicators Coordinator, NOAA / University of Maryland

Fredric Lipschultz, NCA Senior Scientist and Regional Coordinator, NASA / 

Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences

Stuart Luther, Student Assistant, Arizona State University / UCAR 

(June-August 2011)

Julie Maldonado, NCA Engagement Assistant and Tribal Coordinator, 

USGCRP / UCAR

Krista Mantsch, Student Assistant, Indiana University / UCAR 

(May-September 2013)

Rebecca Martin, Student Assistant, Washington State University 

(June-August 2012)

Paul Schramm, NCA Sector Coordinator, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (June-November 2010)

Technical Support Unit, National Climatic Data 

Center, NOAA/NESDIS 

David Easterling, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA National Climatic 

Data Center (from March 2013)

Anne Waple, NCA Technical Support Unit Director, NOAA NCDC / UCAR 

(through February 2013)

Susan Joy Hassol, Senior Science Writer, Climate Communication, LLC / 

Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, North Carolina State University 

(CICS-NC) 

Paula Ann Hennon, NCA Technical Support Unit Deputy Director, CICS-NC

Kenneth Kunkel, Chief Scientist, CICS-NC 

Sara W. Veasey, Creative Director, NOAA NCDC 

Andrew Buddenberg, Software Engineer/Scientific Programmer, CICS-NC 

Fred Burnett, Administrative Assistant, Jamison Professional Services, Inc. 

Sarah Champion, Scientific Data Curator and Process Analyst, CICS-NC

Doreen DiCarlo, Program Coordinator, CICS-NC (August 2011-April 2012)

Daniel Glick, Editor, CICS-NC

Jessicca Griffin, Lead Graphic Designer, CICS-NC

John Keck, Web Consultant, LMI, Inc. (August 2010 - September 2011)

Angel Li, Web Developer, CICS-NC

Clark Lind, Administrative Assistant, The Baldwin Group, Inc. 

(January-September 2012)

Liz Love-Brotak, Graphic Designer, NOAA NCDC

Tom Maycock, Technical Editor, CICS-NC

Janice Mills, Business Manager, CICS-NC

Deb Misch, Graphic Designer, Jamison Professional Services, Inc.

Julie Moore, Administrative Assistant, The Baldwin Group, Inc. 

(June 2010-January 2012)

Ana Pinheiro-Privette, Data Coordinator, CICS-NC (January 2012-July 2013)

Deborah B. Riddle, Graphic Designer, NOAA NCDC

April Sides, Web Developer, ERT, Inc. 

Laura E. Stevens, Research Scientist, CICS-NC

Scott Stevens, Support Scientist, CICS-NC

Brooke Stewart, Science Editor/Production Coordinator, CICS-NC

Liqiang Sun, Research Scientist/Modeling Support, CICS-NC

Robert Taylor, Student Assistant, UNC Asheville, CICS-NC

Devin Thomas, Metadata Specialist, ERT, Inc.

Teresa Young, Print Specialist, Team ERT/STG, Inc.

Review Editors 

Joseph Arvai, University of Calgary

Peter Backlund, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Lawrence Band, University of North Carolina

Jill S. Baron, U.S. Geological Survey / Colorado State University

Michelle L. Bell, Yale University

Donald Boesch, University of Maryland

Joel R. Brown, New Mexico State University

Ingrid C. (Indy) Burke, University of Wyoming

Gina Campoli, Vermont Agency of Transportation

Mary Anne Carroll, University of Michigan

Scott L. Collins, University of New Mexico
104

John Daigle, University of Maine

Ruth DeFries, Columbia University

Lisa Dilling, University of Colorado

Otto C. Doering III, Purdue University

Hadi Dowlatabadi, University of British Columbia

Charles T. Driscoll, Syracuse University

Hallie C. Eakin, Arizona State University

John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Chris E. Forest, Pennsylvania State University

Efi Foufoula-Georgiou, University of Minnesota

Adam Freed, The Nature Conservancy

Robert Fri, Resources for the Future

Stephen T. Gray, U.S. Geological Survey

Jay Gulledge, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Terrie Klinger, University of Washington

Ian Kraucunas, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Larissa Larsen, University of Michigan

William J. Massman, U.S. Forest Service

Michael D. Mastrandrea, Stanford University

Pamela Matson, Stanford University

Ronald G. Prinn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

J.C. Randolph, Indiana University

G. Philip Robertson, Michigan State University

David Robinson, Rutgers University

Dork Sahagian, Lehigh University

Christopher A. Scott, University of Arizona

Peter Vitousek, Stanford University

Andrew C. Wood, NOAA

United States Global Change Research Program

Thomas Armstrong (OSTP), Executive Director, USGCRP

Chris Weaver (OSTP / EPA), Deputy Executive Director, USGCRP

Subcommittee on Global Change Research 

Chair

Thomas Karl, U.S. Department of Commerce

Vice Chairs

Ann Bartuska, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Vice Chair, Adaptation Science

Gerald Geernaert, U.S. Department of Energy, Vice Chair, Integrated Modeling

Mike Freilich, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Vice Chair, 

Integrated Observations

Roger Wakimoto, National Science Foundation, Vice-Chair 

Principals

John Balbus, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Katharine Batten, U.S. Agency for International Development

Joel Clement, U.S. Department of the Interior

Robert Detrick, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Scott L. Harper, U.S. Department of Defense

Leonard Hirsch, Smithsonian Institution

William Hohenstein, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Jack Kaye, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Michael Kuperberg, U.S. Department of Energy

C. Andrew Miller, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Arthur Rypinski, U.S. Department of Transportation

Joann Roskoski, National Science Foundation

Trigg Talley, U.S. Department of State

Interagency National Climate Assessment 

Working Group 

Chair

Katharine Jacobs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(through December 2013)

Fabien Laurier, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(from December 2013)

Vice-Chair

Virginia Burkett, U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Geological 

Survey (from March 2013)

Anne Waple, NOAA NCDC / UCAR (through February 2013)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Allison Leidner, Earth Science Division / Universities Space Research 

Association

National Science Foundation

Anjuli Bamzai, Directorate for Geosciences (through May 2011)

Eve Gruntfest, Directorate for Geosciences (January-November 2013)

Rita Teutonico, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 

(through January 2011)

Smithsonian Institution

Leonard Hirsch, Office of the Undersecretary for Science

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Linda Langner, U.S. Forest Service (through January 2011)

Carolyn Olson, Office of the Chief Economist

Toral Patel-Weynand, U.S. Forest Service

Louie Tupas, National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Margaret Walsh, Office of the Chief Economist

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ko Barrett, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(from February 2013)

David Easterling, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National 

Climatic Data Center (from March 2013)

Nancy McNabb, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(from February 2013)

Adam Parris, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Anne Waple, NOAA NCDC / UCAR (through February 2013)

National Climate Assessment Staff
105

U.S. Department of Defense

William Goran, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

John Hall, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Katherine Nixon, Navy Task Force Climate Change (from May 2013)

Courtney St. John, Navy Task Force Climate Change (through August 2012)

U.S. Department of Energy

Robert Vallario, Office of Science

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

John Balbus, National Institutes of Health

Paul Schramm, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (through July 2011)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Mike Kangior, Office of Policy (from November 2011)

John Laws, National Protection and Programs Directorate (from May 2013)

U.S. Department of the Interior

Susan Aragon-Long, U.S. Geological Survey

Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey

Leigh Welling, National Park Service (through May 2011)

U.S. Department of State

David Reidmiller, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental 

& Scientific Affairs

Kenli Kim, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental 

& Scientific Affairs (from February 2013)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Arthur Rypinski, Office of the Secretary

Mike Savonis, Federal Highway Administration (through March 2011)

AJ Singletary, Office of the Secretary (through August 2010)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rona Birnbaum, Office of Air and Radiation

Anne Grambsch, Office of Research and Development

Lesley Jantarasami, Office of Air and Radiation

White House Council on Environmental Quality

Jeff Peterson (through July 2013)

Jamie Pool (from February 2013)

White House Office of Management and Budget

Stuart Levenbach (through May 2012)

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Katharine Jacobs, Environment and Energy Division (through December 2013)

Fabien Laurier, Environment and Energy Division (from December 2013)

With special thanks to former NOAA Administrator, Jane Lubchenco and former 

Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Shere Abbott

Photo Credits

Cover–Sandbagging: DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Michael Crane, U.S. Air Force; 

Oil rig and wind turbine: ©Jim West/imagebroker/Corbis; Fireman: ©AP 

Photo/The Press-Enterprise/Terry Pierson; Solar panel: 

©Dennis Schroeder, NREL; Blue-green textured background on front and 

back covers and on title page: ©iStockPhoto.com/javaman3 

pg. viii–Man in field: ©John Fedele/Blend Images/Corbis; Man standing in flood 

waters: ©Dave Martin/AP/AP/Corbis 

pg. 2–Woman inspecting grapes: ©Ted Wood Photography

pg. 3–Man holding soil: ©iStockPhoto.com/shotbydave; Woman and 

solar panel: © Bill Miles/Mint Images/Corbis

pg. 4–Coal-fired power plant: ©Frans Lanting/Corbis

pg. 9–Athlete using inhaler: ©National Geographic Society; Middle school 

students testing water quality: ©Ted Wood Photography

pg. 11–Man riding bike: ©John Sebastian Russo/San Francisco Chronicle/ 

Corbis; Green roofs: ©Proehl Studios/Corbis; House built on stilts: Courtesy 

of FEMA

pg. 12–Person pumping gas: Charles Minshew/KOMU; People cooling off 

during heatwave: ©Julie Jacobson/AP/Corbis; Smog over city: 

©iStockPhoto.com/Daniel Stein; Child blowing nose: ©Stockbyte/

Getty Images

pg. 13–Mosquito: ©James Gathany, CDC; Road washed out due to flooding: 

©John Wark/AP/Corbis; Mountain stream: ©Dan Sherwood/Design Pics/ 

Corbis; Farmer with corn: ©iStockPhoto.com/ValentinRussanov

pg. 14–Person building house: ©Aaron Huey/National Geographic 

Society/Corbis; Bear: ©Chase Swift/Corbis; Manatee: US Fish and Wildlife 

Service; Person with solar panels: ©Dennis Schroeder, NREL

pg. 15–People fishing in front of power plant: ©Ted Wood Photography

pg. 16–Chicago sunset: ©Bill Ross/Corbis; Farm during drought: ©Scott Olson/

Getty Images; North Atlantic hurricane: Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Rapid 

Response Team, NASA/GSFC caption; Supercell thunderstorm over a plain: 

©Roger Hill/Science Photo Library/Corbis; Blue marble globe: 

courtesy NASA 

pg. 17– Blue marble globe: courtesy NASA; Clouds with precipitation: ©Eric

Raptosh Photography/Blend Images/Corbis; Car in flooded road: ©James 

Borchuck/ZUMA Press/Corbis; field: ©AgStock Images/Corbis; Ice melt: 

©Steve Morgan/epa/Corbis; Beach waves near city: ©Joe Raedle/Getty

Images; Dissolved shell in acidified ocean water: David Liittschwager, 

National Geographic Images

pg. 19–Calving ice sheet: ©Paul Souders/Corbis

pg. 20–Muir Glacier, AK in 1941: ©William O. Field; Muir Glacier, AK in 2004: 

©Bruce F. Molnia, U.S. Geological Survey

pg. 23–Highway traffic: ©Tom Mihalek/Reuters/Corbis; Power plant: ©Phillip J. 

Redman, U.S. Geological Survey

pg. 27–North Atlantic hurricane: NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab; Cars 

washed away in storm surge: ©Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images; Abandoned 

cars during winter storm: ©John Zich/zrImages/Corbis

pg. 30–Wheat field in sunlight: ©iStockPhoto.com/Mazuryk Mykola

pg. 31–Wind turbines: ©iStockPhoto.com/Patrick Poendl, all rights reserved

pg. 32–Coastal flooding: courtesy NOAA
106

pg. 33–Coral bleaching: courtesy Ernesto Weil; Farmer observing drought: 

©Scott Olson/Getty Images 

pg. 34–Satellite image of smoke and fires: courtesy NASA/GSFC

pg. 35–Person sneezing: ©Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc./Blend Images/Corbis

pg. 36–Man wiping forehead: ©Richard Drew/AP/Corbis

pg. 38–Utility worker: ©Gene Blevins; Worker inspecting damaged road: ©AP 

Photo/The Virginian-Pilot, Steve Earley; Urban power outage: ©Iwan Baan/

Reportage by Getty Images; Road washed out due to flooding: ©John Wark

pg. 39–Flooded subway: ©William Vantuono, Railway Age Magazine

pg. 42–Mountain stream: ©Dan Sherwood/Design Pics/Corbis

pg. 45–Hydroelectric plant: ©James Christensen/Foto Natura/Minden Pictures/

Corbis; Wind turbines and cows: ©John Epperson/The Denver Post/Getty 

Images

pg. 46–Man inspecting wheat: ©iStockPhoto.com/small_frog

pg. 47–Farmer with corn: ©iStockPhoto.com/ValentinRussanov

pg. 48–Salmon fishing on Klamath River: ©David McLain/Aurora Photos

pg. 49–Wild rice harvesting: © Phil Schermeister/Corbis; Man and girl surveying 

water line: ©Mike Brubaker 

pg. 50–Mt. Rainier, WA: ©Tim Fitzharris/Minden Pictures/Corbis

pg. 51–Person walking in forest: ©Michele Westmorland/Corbis

pg. 53–Alaska wildfire: ©Daryl Pederson/AlaskaStock/Corbis; Man inspecting 

tree: ©Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty 

Images; Dead trees in forest: ©Pete McBride/National Geographic Society

pg. 54–Development along Colorado’s Front Range: ©Ted Wood Photography; 

Wildfire approaching housing development: ©Elmer Frederick Fischer/Corbis

pg. 56–Mussels: ©Doug Sokell/Visuals Unlimited/Corbis; Forest: ©Kevin 

R. Morris/Corbis; Polar bears: ©Jenny E. Ross/Corbis; Pika: 

©iStockPhoto.com/Global_Exposure; Quaking aspen trees: ©Adam Jones/

Visuals Unlimited/Corbis; Caribou calf: ©Matthias Breiter/Minden Pictures/ 

Corbis; Hawaiian mountain vegetation: ©Michael Interisano/Design 

Pics/Corbis

pg. 57–Flying squirrel: ©Stephen Dalton/Minden Pictures/Corbis; Commercial 

fisher: ©Jeffrey Rotman/Corbis; Sunflowers: ©Annie Griffiths Belt/Corbis; 

Black rat snake: ©Gary Meszaros/Visuals Unlimited/Corbis; Mother bird 

and chick: ©Ronald Thompson/Frank Lane Picture Agency/Corbis; Two 

birds in water: ©Arthur Morris/Corbis; Tree seedling: ©Philip Gould/Corbis; 

Lionfish: ©Bruce Smith/AP/Corbis

pg. 59–Ocean: ©iStockPhoto.com/DigiClicks

pg. 60–Coral bleaching: courtesy of NOAA

pg. 61–Fishing vessel: ©iStockPhoto.com/mayo5 

pg. 63–People discussing science findings: courtesy Armando Rodriguez, 

Miami-Dade County

pg. 65–Men installing solar panels: ©Don Mason/Blend Images/Corbis; Nuclear 

power plant: ©Joseph Sohm/Visions of America/Corbis; Wind turbines at 

sunset: ©Layne Kennedy/Corbis; Workers on automobile assembly line: 

©Joseph Sohm/Visions of America/Corbis; Smog over city: ©iStockPhoto.

com/SteinPhoto

pg. 66–Man assembling window: ©Carlos Osorio/AP/Corbis

pg. 68–Denver water system: ©Photo courtesy Denver Water

pg. 69–Ocean: ©iStockPhoto.com/AndrewJohnson

pg. 70–Autumn forest: ©Frank Siteman/Science Faction/Corbis

pg. 71–Stormwater wetland in Philadelphia: ©Louis Cook for PWD

pg. 72–Beach: ©Richard H. Cohen/Corbis

pg. 73–Clayton County, GA water recycling project: ©CCWA

pg. 74–Midwest farm: ©iStockPhoto.com/George_Burga

pg. 75–Flood in Cedar Falls: ©American Red Cross_Flickr

pg. 76–Bison in field: ©USFWS; Man and mailbox in flood: ©Lane 

Hickenbottom/Reuters/Corbis

pg. 77–Officer walking across cracked lakebed: ©Tony Gutierrez/AP/Corbis; 

Lakota tribe girl: ©Aaron Huey

pg. 78–Southwest image: ©Momatiuk-Eastcott/Corbis; Southwest image: 

©Momatiuk-Eastcott/Corbis; Firefighters and wildfire: ©Frans Lanting/Corbis

pg. 80–Northwest image: Bryant Olsen, USFWS; Salmon: courtesy NOAA

pg. 81–Woman and oyster harvest: ©Macduff Everton/Corbis; Estuary 

restoration: Jesse Barham, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

pg. 82–Alaska image: ©Bryan F. Peterson/Corbis; Inupiaq seal hunter: 

©Daniel Glick

pg. 83–Shore-protection structure: ©Carl Schoch; Newtok, Shishmaref village: 

©Ned Rozell

pg. 84–Hawaiian image: ©Michael Wells/fstop/Corbis; Ko`olau Mountains, 

Oahu, HI: ©kstrebor via Flickr; Laysan Island, Papahānaumokuākea Marine 

National Monument: Andy Collins, NOAA

pg. 85–Coral reef: ©Ron Dahlquist/Corbis; Hawaiian waterfall: ©Air Maui

pg. 86–Aerial farm view: ©W. Perry Conway/Corbis

pg. 87–Flooded corn field: ©Nati Harnik/AP/Corbis; River flood waters: ©STR/

Reuters/Corbis

pg. 88–Coastal image: ©Ocean/Corbis; Coastal road damage: ©John Tlumacki/

The Boston Globe via Getty Images

pg. 89–Natural gas platform: ©Eric Kulin/First Light/Corbis

pg. 91–New York City coastal ecosystem restoration: ©Department of City 

Planning, New York City

pg. 94–Women discussing science findings: ©Lynn Laws Iowa State 

University 2013; Ongoing monitoring and observations: courtesy 

NOAA/NCDC

pg. 96–Men near culvert: ©Esperanza Stancioff, UMaine Extension and Maine 

Sea Grant; New York City bus: ©Najlah Feanny/Corbis

pg. 97– Women with rooftop garden: ©Denise Applewhite, Princeton Univ.; 

Southwest solar panels: ©Michael DeYoung/Blend Images/Corbis; Wind 

turbines: ©Jerome Levitch/Corbis

Back Cover–Field: ©Timothy Hearsum/AgStock Images/Corbis; Woman and 

solar panel: ©Bill Miles/Mint Images/Corbis; Sea ice melt: 

©Steve Morgan/epa/Corbis; Flood rescue workers and victim: 

©Adam Hunger/Reuters/Corbis

Photo Credits
107

References

The information presented in this Highlights report is derived directly 

from Climate Change Impacts in the United States - the full version of the Third 

National Climate Assessment. Thus the primary sources for Highlights are 

the relevant chapters of the full report and the external sources cited therein. 

In many cases, material selected for Highlights included direct references to 

external sources, and those references are provided below.

Overview 

Numbered references for the Overview indicate the chapters from the full 

report that provide supporting evidence for the reported conclusions.

1. Ch. 2.

2. Ch. 2, 3, 6, 9, 20.

3. Ch. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 25.

4. Ch. 2, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.

5. Ch. 2, 4, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25.

6. Ch. 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25.

7. Ch. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25.

8. Ch. 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19.

9. Ch. 2, 3, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.

10. Ch. 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 25.

11. Ch. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25.

12. Ch. 3, 7, 8, 25.

13. Ch. 2, 26, 27.

14. Ch. 26, 27, 28.

15. Ch. 2, 4, 27.

16. Ch. 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28.

17. Ch. 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28.

18. Ch. 28.

19. Ch. 29, Appendix 6.

20. Ch. 30.

21. Ch. 2, Appendices 3 and 4.

22. Ch. 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, Appendices 3 and 4.

23. Ch. 2, 27, Appendices 3 and 4.

24. Ch. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 

 24, 25.

25. Ch. 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23.

26. Ch. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25.

27. Ch. 2, 3, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.

28. Ch. 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19.

29. Ch. 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25.

30. Ch. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 25.

31. Ch. 2, 12, 23, 24, 25.

32. Ch. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28.

Letter references refer to external sources

a. Kennedy, J. J., P. W. Thorne, T. C. Peterson, R. A. Reudy, P. A. Stott, 

D. E. Parker, S. A. Good, H. A. Titchner, and K. M. Willett, 2010: 

How do we know the world has warmed? State of the Climate in 2009. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, S26-27, doi:10.1175/

BAMS-91-7-StateoftheClimate. [Available online at http://journals.

ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-91-7-StateoftheClimate]

b. Huber, M., and R. Knutti, 2012: Anthropogenic and natural 

warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. Nature 

Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327. [Available online at 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/pdf/ngeo1327.pdf]

c. Karl, T. R., J. T. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 

189 pp. [Available online at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/

usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf]

d.	 Feely, R. A., S. C. Doney, and S. R. Cooley, 2009: Ocean acidification:

Present conditions and future changes in a high-CO2 world. 

Oceanography, 22, 36-47, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.95. [Available 

online at http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/22-4_feely.

pdf]

e. Bednaršek, N., G. A. Tarling, D. C. E. Bakker, S. Fielding, E. M. 

Jones, H. J. Venables, P. Ward, A. Kuzirian, B. Lézé, R. A. Feely, and 

E. J. Murphy, 2012: Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the 

Southern Ocean. Nature Geoscience, 5, 881-885, doi:10.1038/ngeo1635

Finding 1: Our Changing Climate

1. Karl, T. R., J. T. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 

189 pp. [Available online at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/

usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf]

2. NSIDC, cited 2012: Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Extent for the 

Year and the Satellite Record. The National Snow and Ice Data 

Center. [Available online at http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_

seaiceminimum.html]

3. Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock, 2009: Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness 

from submarine and ICESat records: 1958–2008. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009gl039035. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039035/pdf]

4. Maslanik, J., J. Stroeve, C. Fowler, and W. Emery, 2011: Distribution 

and trends in Arctic sea ice age through spring 2011. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 38, L13502, doi:10.1029/2011gl047735. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047735/pdf]

5. Liu, J., J. A. Curry, H. Wang, M. Song, and R. M. Horton, 2012: 

Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 4074-4079, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1114910109. [Available online at http://www.pnas.org/

content/109/11/4074.full.pdf+html]

6. Francis, J. A., and S. J. Vavrus, 2012: Evidence linking Arctic 

amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 39, L06801, doi:10.1029/2012GL051000. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051000/pdf]

7. Screen, J. A., and I. Simmonds, 2013: Exploring links between 

Arctic amplification and mid-latitude weather. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 40, 959-964, doi:10.1002/grl.50174. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50174/pdf]

8. NASA Earth Observatory, cited 2012: Visualizing the 2012 Sea Ice 

Minimum. NASA Earth Observatory, EOS Project Science Office,

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. [Available online at http://

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79256]

9. Wouters, B., J. L. Bamber, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts, 

and I. Sasgen, 2013: Limits in detecting acceleration of ice sheet 

mass loss due to climate variability. Nature Geoscience, 6, 613-616, 

doi:10.1038/ngeo1874. 
108

10. Peñuelas, J., T. Rutishauser, and I. Filella, 2009: Phenology 

feedbacks on climate change. Science, 324, 887-888, doi:10.1126/

science.1173004. [Available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/

content/324/5929/887.short]

11. Ziska, L., K. Knowlton, C. Rogers, D. Dalan, N. Tierney, M. A. 

Elder, W. Filley, J. Shropshire, L. B. Ford, C. Hedberg, P. Fleetwood, 

K. T. Hovanky, T. Kavanaugh, G. Fulford, R. F. Vrtis, J. A. Patz, J. 

Portnoy, F. Coates, L. Bielory, and D. Frenz, 2011: Recent warming 

by latitude associated with increased length of ragweed pollen season 

in central North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

108, 4248-4251, doi:10.1073/pnas.1014107108. [Available online at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/10/4248.full.pdf+html]

12. Hu, J. I. A., D. J. P. Moore, S. P. Burns, and R. K. Monson, 2010: 

Longer growing seasons lead to less carbon sequestration by a 

subalpine forest. Global Change Biolog y, 16, 771-783, doi:10.1111/

j.1365-2486.2009.01967.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01967.x/pdf]

13. Frisvold, G., L. E. Jackson, J. G. Pritchett, and J. Ritten, 2013: Ch. 11: 

Agriculture and ranching. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest 

United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, G. 

Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, Eds.,

Island Press, 218-239. [Available online at http://swccar.org/sites/

all/themes/files/SW-NCA-color-FINALweb.pdf]

14. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D. W. 

Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D. C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. 

Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz, and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Ch. 2: Changes 

in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Climate Change 

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. 

B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds., Cambridge University 

Press. [Available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_

data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html]

15. Boden, T., G. Marland, and B. Andres, 2012: Global CO2 Emissions 

from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacutre, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2009.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge national 

Laboratory. [Available online at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/

global.1751_2009.ems]

Finding 2: Extreme Weather

1. Christidis, N., P. A. Stott, and S. J. Brown, 2011: The role 

of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm 

daytime temperatures. Journal of Climate, 24, 1922-1930, 

doi:10.1175/2011JCLI4150.1. 

Duffy, P. B., and C. Tebaldi, 2012: Increasing prevalence of extreme 

summer temperatures in the U.S. Climatic Change, 111, 487-495, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0396-6. 

2. NCDC, cited 2012: Climate Data Online. National Climatic Data 

Center. [Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/]

3. Hoerling, M., M. Chen, R. Dole, J. Eischeid, A. Kumar, J. W. 

Nielsen-Gammon, P. Pegion, J. Perlwitz, X.-W. Quan, and T. 

Zhang, 2013: Anatomy of an extreme event. Journal of Climate, 26, 

2811–2832, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00270.1. [Available online at 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00270.1]

4.	 Sheffield, J., E. F. Wood, and M. L. Roderick, 2012: Little change

in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature, 491, 435-438, 

doi:10.1038/nature11575. [Available online at http://www.nature.

com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/pdf/nature11575.pdf]

5. Mueller, B., and S. I. Seneviratne, 2012: Hot days induced by 

precipitation deficits at the global scale. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 109, 12398-12403, doi:10.1073/pnas.1204330109. 

[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/content/109/31/12398.

full.pdf+html]

6. Dai, A., 2006: Recent climatology, variability, and trends in global 

surface humidity. Journal of Climate, 19, 3589-3606, doi:10.1175/

JCLI3816.1. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/

pdf/10.1175/JCLI3816.1] 

Santer, B. D., C. Mears, F. J. Wentz, K. E. Taylor, P. J. Gleckler, 

T. M. L. Wigley, T. P. Barnett, J. S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann, N. P. 

Gillett, S. A. Klein, G. A. Meehl, T. Nozawa, D. W. Pierce, P. A. 

Stott, W. M. Washington, and M. F. Wehner, 2007: Identification

of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 15248-15253, 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0702872104. [Available online at http://

sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/PNAS-2007-

Santer-15248-53.pdf] 

Simmons, A. J., K. M. Willett, P. D. Jones, P. W. Thorne, and D. 

P. Dee, 2010: Low-frequency variations in surface atmospheric 

humidity, temperature, and precipitation: Inferences from reanalyses 

and monthly gridded observational data sets. Journal of Geophysical 

Research, 115, 1-21, doi:10.1029/2009JD012442. 

Willett, K. M., P. D. Jones, N. P. Gillett, and P. W. Thorne, 2008: 

Recent changes in surface humidity: Development of the HadCRUH 

dataset. Journal of Climate, 21, 5364-5383, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2274.1. 

7. Kunkel, K. E., T.R. Karl, H. Brooks, J. Kossin, J. Lawrimore, 

D. Arndt, L. Bosart, D. Changnon, S.L. Cutter, N. Doesken, K. 

Emanuel, P.Ya. Groisman, R.W. Katz, T. Knutson, J. O’Brien, C. 

J. Paciorek, T. C. Peterson, K. Redmond, D. Robinson, J. Trapp, 

R. Vose, S. Weaver, M. Wehner, K. Wolter, and D. Wuebbles, 2013: 

Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: State of 

knowledge. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94, doi:10.1175/

BAMS-D-11-00262.1. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.

org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1]

8. NOAA, 2013: United States Flood Loss Report - Water Year 2011, 10 

pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Weather Service. [Available online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

hic/summaries/WY2011.pdf]

9. Doocy, S., A. Daniels, S. Murray, and T. D. Kirsch, 2013: The 

human impact of floods: A historical review of events 1980-2009

and systematic literature review. PLOS Currents Disasters, doi:10.1371/

currents.dis.f4deb457904936b07c09daa98ee8171a. [Available online 

at http://currents.plos.org//disasters/article/the-human-impactof-floods-a-historical-review-of-events-1980-2009-and-systematicliterature-review/pdf]

10. Ashley, S. T., and W. S. Ashley, 2008: Flood fatalities in the United 

States. Journal of Applied Meteorolog y and Climatolog y, 47, 805-818, 

doi:10.1175/2007JAMX1611.1. [Available online at http://journals.

ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JAMC1611.1]

11.	 Hirsch, R. M., and K. R. Ryberg, 2012: Has the magnitude of floods

across the USA changed with global CO2 levels? Hydrological Sciences 

Journal, 57, 1-9, doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.621895. [Available online 

at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2011.62

1895] 

References
109

Villarini, G., F. Serinaldi, J. A. Smith, and W. F. Krajewski, 2009: 

On the stationarity of annual flood peaks in the continental United

States during the 20th century. Water Resources Research, 45, W08417, 

doi:10.1029/2008wr007645. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR007645/pdf] 

Villarini, G., and J. A. Smith, 2010: Flood peak distributions for 

the eastern United States. Water Resources Research, 46, W06504, 

doi:10.1029/2009wr008395. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009WR008395/pdf] 

Villarini, G., J. A. Smith, M. L. Baeck, and W. F. Krajewski, 2011: 

Examining flood frequency distributions in the Midwest U.S.

JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47, 447-463, 

doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00540.x. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00540.x/pdf]

12. Peterson, T. C., R. R. Heim, R. Hirsch, D. P. Kaiser, H. Brooks, N. 

S. Diffenbaugh, R. M. Dole, J. P. Giovannettone, K. Guirguis, T. R. 

Karl, R. W. Katz, K. Kunkel, D. Lettenmaier, G. J. McCabe, C. J. 

Paciorek, K. R. Ryberg, S. Schubert, V. B. S. Silva, B. C. Stewart, A. 

V. Vecchia, G. Villarini, R. S. Vose, J. Walsh, M. Wehner, D. Wolock, 

K. Wolter, C. A. Woodhouse, and D. Wuebbles, 2013: Monitoring 

and understanding changes in heat waves, cold waves, floods and

droughts in the United States: State of knowledge. Bulletin American 

Meteorological Society, 94, 821-834, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1. 

[Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/

BAMS-D-12-00066.1]

13. Bell, G. D., E. S. Blake, C. W. Landsea, T. B. Kimberlain, S. 

B. Goldenberg, J. Schemm, and R. J. Pasch, 2012: [Tropical 

cyclones] Atlantic basin [in “State of the Climate in 2011”]. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93, S99-S105, 

doi:10.1175/2012BAMSStateoftheClimate.1. [Available online at 

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climateassessment-2011-lo-rez.pdf] 

Landsea, C. W., and J. L. Franklin, 2013: Atlantic hurricane database 

uncertainty and presentation of a new database format. Monthly 

Weather Review, 141, 3576-3592, doi:10.1175/MWR-D-12-00254.1. 

[Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/

doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00254.1] 

Torn, R. D., and C. Snyder, 2012: Uncertainty of tropical cyclone 

best-track information. Weather and Forecasting, 27, 715-729, 

doi:10.1175/waf-d-11-00085.1. [Available online at http://journals.

ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/WAF-D-11-00085.1]

14. Emanuel, K., and A. Sobel, 2013: Response of tropical sea surface 

temperature, precipitation, and tropical cyclone-related variables to 

changes in global and local forcing. Journal of Advances in Modeling 

Earth Systems, 5, 447-458, doi:10.1002/jame.20032. [Available online 

at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jame.20032/pdf] 

Zhang, R., and T. L. Delworth, 2009: A new method for 

attributing climate variations over the Atlantic Hurricane Basin's 

main development region. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, 5, 

doi:10.1029/2009GL037260. 

15.	Camargo, S. J., M. Ting, and Y. Kushnir, 2013: Influence of local and

remote SST on North Atlantic tropical cyclone potential intensity. 

Climate Dynamics, 40, 1515-1529, doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1536-4. 

Ramsay, H. A., and A. H. Sobel, 2011: Effects of relative and 

absolute sea surface temperature on tropical cyclone potential 

intensity using a single-column model. Journal of Climate, 24, 183-

193, doi:10.1175/2010jcli3690.1. [Available online at http://journals.

ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010JCLI3690.1] 

Vecchi, G. A., A. Clement, and B. J. Soden, 2008: Examining the 

tropical Pacific’s response to global warming. Eos, Transactions, 

American Geophysical Union, 89, 81-83, doi:10.1029/2008EO090002. 

Vecchi, G. A., and B. J. Soden, 2007: Effect of remote sea surface 

temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 

450, 1066-1070, doi:10.1038/nature06423. 

16. Vose, R. S., S. Applequist, M. A. Bourassa, S. C. Pryor, R. J. 

Barthelmie, B. Blanton, P. D. Bromirski, H. E. Brooks, A. T. 

DeGaetano, R. M. Dole, D. R. Easterling, R. E. Jensen, T. R. Karl, 

R. W. Katz, K. Klink, M. C. Kruk, K. E. Kunkel, M. C. MacCracken, 

T. C. Peterson, K. Shein, B. R. Thomas, J. E. Walsh, X. L. Wang, M. 

F. Wehner, D. J. Wuebbles, and R. S. Young, 2013: Monitoring and 

understanding changes in extremes: Extratropical storms, winds, 

and waves. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, in press, 

doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00162.1. [Available online at http://

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00162.1]

17. Wang, X. L., Y. Feng, G. P. Compo, V. R. Swail, F. W. Zwiers, R. 

J. Allan, and P. D. Sardeshmukh, 2012: Trends and low frequency 

variability of extra-tropical cyclone activity in the ensemble of 

twentieth century reanalysis. Climate Dynamics, 1-26, doi:10.1007/

s00382-012-1450-9. 

Wang, X. L., V. R. Swail, and F. W. Zwiers, 2006: Climatology and 

changes of extratropical cyclone activity: Comparison of ERA40 with NCEP-NCAR reanalysis for 1958-2001. Journal of Climate, 

19, 3145-3166, doi:10.1175/JCLI3781.1. [Available online at http://

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3781.1]

18. NOAA, cited 2013: Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Available 

online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions]

Finding 3: Future Climate

1. Dai, A., 2012: Increasing drought under global warming in 

observations and models. Nature Climate Change, 3, 52-58, doi:10.1038/

nclimate1633. [Available online at http://www.nature.com/

nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1633.html?utm_

source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_

content=559845&utm_campaign=0] 

Liang, X., D. P. Lettenmaier, E. F. Wood, and S. J. Burges, 1994: A 

simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy 

fluxes for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

99, 14415-14428, doi:10.1029/94JD00483. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94JD00483/pdf] 

Liang, X., E. F. Wood, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 1996: Surface soil 

moisture parameterization of the VIC-2L model: Evaluation 

and modification. Global and Planetary Change, 13, 195-206, 

doi:10.1016/0921-8181(95)00046-1. 

Maurer, E. P., A. W. Wood, J. C. Adam, D. P. Lettenmaier, and B. 

Nijssen, 2002: A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land 

surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. Journal 

of Climate, 15, 3237-3251, doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<3237:AL

THBD>2.0.CO;2. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.org/

doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015%3C3237%3AALTHBD%3

E2.0.CO%3B2] 
110

Nijssen, B., D. P. Lettenmaier, X. Liang, S. W. Wetzel, and E. F. Wood, 

1997: Streamflow simulation for continental-scale river basins. Water 

Resources Research, 33, 711-724, doi:10.1029/96WR03517. [Available 

online at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/96WR03517.

shtml] 

Wood, A. W., A. Kumar, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2005: A 

retrospective assessment of National Centers for Environmental 

Prediction climate model–based ensemble hydrologic forecasting 

in the western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 16, 

doi:10.1029/2004JD004508. 

Wood, A. W., and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2006: A test bed for new 

seasonal hydrologic forecasting approaches in the western United 

States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1699-1712, 

doi:10.1175/BAMS-87-12-1699. 

2. Church, J. A., N. J. White, L. F. Konikow, C. M. Domingues, J. 

G. Cogley, E. Rignot, J. M. Gregory, M. R. van den Broeke, A. J. 

Monaghan, and I. Velicogna, 2011: Revisiting the Earth’s sea-level 

and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical Research Letters, 

38, L18601, doi:10.1029/2011GL048794. 

3. AMAP, 2011: Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic 

(SWIPA): Climate Change and the Cryosphere, 538 pp., Arctic 

Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway. [Available 

online at http://www.amap.no/documents/download/968]

4. Kemp, A. C., B. P. Horton, J. P. Donnelly, M. E. Mann, M. Vermeer, 

and S. Rahmstorf, 2012: Climate related sea-level variations over 

the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

108, 11017-11022, doi:10.1073/pnas.1015619108. [Available online at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/27/11017.full.pdf+html]

5. Church, J. A., and N. J. White, 2011: Sea-level rise from the late 

19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics, 32, 585-602, 

doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1. 

6. Nerem, R. S., D. P. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum, 2010: 

Estimating mean sea level change from the TOPEX and Jason 

altimeter missions. Marine Geodesy, 33, 435-446, doi:10.1080/01490

419.2010.491031. [Available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/

doi/pdf/10.1080/01490419.2010.491031]

7. Parris, A., P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. Hall, 

R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, A. Sallenger, and J. 

Weiss, 2012: Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States 

National Climate Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1, 

37 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD. [Available online at http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/

sites/default/files/NOAA_SLR_r3_0.pdf]

8. IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution 

of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, 

M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, Eds. 

Cambridge University Press, 996 pp. [Available online at http://

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_

assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm] 

Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. M. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, 

F. P., X. Gao, W. J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, 

C. Tebaldi, A. J. Weaver, and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term climate 

change: Projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate 

Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 

I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. 

Allen, J. Boschung, Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P. M. Midgley, 

Eds., Cambridge University Press. [Available online at http://www.

climatechange2013.org/report/review-drafts/]

Finding 4: Widespread Impacts

1. Lister, S. A., 2005: Hurricane Katrina: The Public Health and 

Medical Response, 24 pp., Congressional Research Service Report 

for Congress. [Available online at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/

organization/54255.pdf]

2. Anderson, G. B., and M. L. Bell, 2012: Lights out: Impact of 

the August 2003 power outage on mortality in New York, NY. 

Epidemiolog y, 23, 189-193, doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e318245c61c. 

3. Ostro, B., S. Rauch, R. Green, B. Malig, and R. Basu, 2010: The 

effects of temperature and use of air conditioning on hospitalizations. 

American Journal of Epidemiolog y, 172, 1053-1061, doi:10.1093/

aje/kwq231. [Available online at http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/

content/172/9/1053.full.pdf+html]

4. Hess, J. J., J. Z. McDowell, and G. Luber, 2012: Integrating 

climate change adaptation into public health practice: Using 

adaptive management to increase adaptive capacity and build 

resilience. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 171-179, doi:10.1289/

ehp.1103515. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3279431/]

5. Shonkoff, S. B., R. Morello-Frosch, M. Pastor, and J. Sadd, 2011: 

The climate gap: Environmental health and equity implications 

of climate change and mitigation policies in California—a review 

of the literature. Climatic Change, 485-503, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-

0310-7. 

6. Kent, J. D., 2006: Louisiana Hurricane Impact Atlas, 39 pp., 

Louisiana Geographic Information Center, Baton Rouge, LA. 

[Available online at http://lagic.lsu.edu/lgisc/publications/2005/

LGISC-PUB-20051116-00_2005_HURRICANE_ATLAS.pdf]

7. Burke, L., L. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry, 2011: Reefs at Risk 

Revisited. World Resources Institute, 130 pp. [Available online at 

http://pdf.wri.org/reefs_at_risk_revisited.pdf] 

Dudgeon, S. R., R. B. Aronson, J. F. Bruno, and W. F. Precht, 2010: 

Phase shifts and stable states on coral reefs. Marine Ecolog y Progress 

Series, 413, 201-216, doi:10.3354/meps08751. [Available online at 

http://johnfbruno.web.unc.edu/files/2011/11/Dudgeon-et-alMEPS-ASS-2010.pdf] 

Frieler, K., M. Meinshausen, A. Golly, M. Mengel, K. Lebek, S. D. 

Donner, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg, 2013: Limiting global warming 

to 2°C is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change, 3,

165-170, doi:10.1038/nclimate1674. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. 

Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K.

Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, 

R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M. E. Hatziolos, 2007: Coral reefs 

under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318,

1737-1742, doi:10.1126/science.1152509. 

Hughes, T. P., N. A. J. Graham, J. B. C. Jackson, P. J. Mumby, and 

R. S. Steneck, 2010: Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef 

resilience. Trends in Ecolog y & Evolution, 25, 633-642, doi:10.1016/j.

tree.2010.07.011. 

References
111

8. Mumby, P. J., and R. S. Steneck, 2011: The resilience of coral reefs 

and its implications for reef management. Coral Reefs: An Ecosystem in 

Transition, Z. Dubinsky, and N. Stambler, Eds., 509-519. 

9. Gardner, T. A., I. M. Côté, J. A. Gill, A. Grant, and A. R. Watkinson, 

2003: Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science, 

301, 958-960, doi:10.1126/science.1086050. 

10. Alvarez-Filip, L., N. K. Dulvy, J. A. Gill, I. M. Côté, and A. R. 

Watkinson, 2009: Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: Region-wide 

declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

B: Biological Sciences, 276, 3019-3025, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0339. 

[Available online at http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/

content/276/1669/3019.full.pdf+html]

11. Miller, J., E. Muller, C. Rogers, R. Waara, A. Atkinson, K. R. T. 

Whelan, M. Patterson, and B. Witcher, 2009: Coral disease following 

massive bleaching in 2005 causes 60% decline in coral cover on 

reefs in the US Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs, 28, 925-937, doi:10.1007/

s00338-009-0531-7. [Available online at http://link.springer.com/

content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00338-009-0531-7] 

Weil, E., A. Croquer, and I. Urreiztieta, 2009: Temporal variability 

and impact of coral diseases and bleaching in La Parguera, Puerto 

Rico from 2003–2007. Caribbean Journal of Science, 45, 221-246. 

[Available online at http://caribjsci.org/45_2_3/45_221-246.pdf]

12. Sandin, S. A., J. E. Smith, E. E. DeMartini, E. A. Dinsdale, S. 

D. Donner, A. M. Friedlander, T. Konotchick, M. Malay, J. E. 

Maragos, D. Obura, O. Pantos, G. Paulay, M. Richie, F. Rohwer, R. 

E. Schroeder, S. Walsh, J. B. C. Jackson, N. Knowlton, and E. Sala, 

2008: Baselines and degradation of coral reefs in the northern Line 

Islands. PLoS ONE, 3, 1-11, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001548. 

[Available online at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/pubs/

Sandin_etal_PLosONE_2008.pdf]

13. ERCOT, 2011: Grid Operations and Planning Report (Austin, Texas, 

December 12-13, 2011), 25 pp., Electric Reliability Council of Texas. 

[Available online at http://www.ercot.com/content/meetings/

board/keydocs/2011/1212/Item_06e_-_Grid_Operations_and_

Planning_Report.pdf]

14. Giberson, M., cited 2012: Power Consumption Reaches New Peaks 

in Texas, ERCOT Narrowly Avoids Rolling Blackouts. The Energy 

Collective. [Available online at http://theenergycollective.com/

michaelgiberson/63173/power-consumption-reaches-new-peakstexas-ercot-narrowly-avoids-rolling-blacko]

Finding 5: Human Health

1. Dennekamp, M., and M. Carey, 2010: Air quality and chronic 

disease: Why action on climate change is also good for health. New 

South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 21, 115-121, doi:10.1071/NB10026. 

[Available online at http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_

file&file_id=NB10026.pdf] 

Kampa, M., and E. Castanas, 2008: Human health effects of 

air pollution. Environmental Pollution, 151, 362-367, doi:10.1016/j.

envpol.2007.06.012. 

Kinney, P. L., 2008: Climate change, air quality, and human health. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 459-467, doi:10.1016/j.

amepre.2008.08.025. [Available online at http://www.ajpmonline.

org/article/S0749-3797%2808%2900690-9/fulltext] 

Anderson, G. B., J. R. Krall, R. D. Peng, and M. L. Bell, 2012: Is 

the relation between ozone and mortality confounded by chemical 

components of particulate matter? Analysis of 7 components in 

57 US communities. American Journal of Epidemiolog y, 176, 726-

732, doi:10.1093/aje/kws188. [Available online at http://aje.

oxfordjournals.org/content/176/8/726.full.pdf+html]

2. Fiore, A. M., V. Naik, D. V. Spracklen, A. Steiner, N. Unger, M. 

Prather, D. Bergmann, P. J. Cameron-Smith, I. Cionni, W. J. Collins, 

S. Dalsoren, V. Eyring, G. A. Folberth, P. Ginoux, L. W. Horowitz, 

B. Josse, J.-F. Lamarque, I. A. MacKenzie, T. Nagashima, F. M. 

O'Connor, M. Righi, S. T. Rumbold, D. T. Shindell, R. B. Skeie, K. 

Sudo, S. Szopa, T. Takemura, and G. Zeng, 2012: Global air quality 

and climate. Chemical Society Reviews, 41, 6663-6683, doi:10.1039/

c2cs35095e. 

Peel, J. L., R. Haeuber, V. Garcia, L. Neas, and A. G. Russell, 2012: 

Impact of nitrogen and climate change interactions on ambient air 

pollution and human health. Biogeochemistry, doi:10.1007/s10533-

012-9782-4. [Available online at http://link.springer.com/content/

pdf/10.1007%2Fs10533-012-9782-4]

3.	 NCDC, cited 2012: State of the Climate Wildfires. NOAA’s National

Climatic Data Center. [Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.

gov/sotc/fire/2012/11]

4. Johnston, F. H., S. B. Henderson, Y. Chen, J. T. Randerson, M. 

Marlier, R. S. DeFries, P. Kinney, D. M. J. S. Bowman, and M. 

Brauer, 2012: Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke 

from landscape fires. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 695-701, 

doi:10.1289/ehp.1104422. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3346787/]

5. Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling, 

2009: Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces,

1916-2003. Ecological Applications, 19, 1003-1021, doi:10.1890/07-

1183.1. 

MacDonald, G. M., 2010: Water, climate change, and sustainability 

in the southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107,

21256-21262, doi:10.1073/pnas.0909651107. [Available online at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21256.full.pdf] 

Mills, D. M., 2009: Climate change, extreme weather events, and US 

health impacts: What can we say? Journal of Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine, 51, 26-32, doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817d32da. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest 

wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940-943, doi:10.1126/science.1128834. 

Westerling, A. L., M. G. Turner, E. A. H. Smithwick, W. H. Romme, 

and M. G. Ryan, 2011: Continued warming could transform 

Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 13165-13170, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1110199108. [Available online at http://www.pnas.org/

content/early/2011/07/20/1110199108.abstract; http://www.pnas.

org/content/108/32/13165.full.pdf]

6. Shea, K. M., R. T. Truckner, R. W. Weber, and D. B. Peden, 2008: 

Climate change and allergic disease. Journal of Allerg y and Clinical 

Immunolog y, 122, 443-453, doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.06.032. 

7. Trenberth, K. E., 2011: Changes in precipitation with climate 

change. Climate Research, 47, 123-138, doi:10.3354/cr00953. 
112

8.	 Dennekamp, M., and M. J. Abramson, 2011: The effects of bushfire

smoke on respiratory health. Respirolog y, 16, 198-209, doi:10.1111/

j.1440-1843.2010.01868.x. 

9. Jaffe, D., D. Chand, W. Hafner, A. Westerling, and D. Spracklen, 

2008: Influence of fires on O3 concentrations in the western US. 

Environmental Science & Technolog y, 42, 5885-5891, doi:10.1021/

es800084k. 

Jaffe, D., W. Hafner, D. Chand, A. Westerling, and D. Spracklen, 

2008: Interannual variations in PM2.5 due to wildfires in the

western United States. Environmental Science & Technolog y, 42, 2812-

2818, doi:10.1021/es702755v. 

	 Pfister, G. G., C. Wiedinmyer, and L. K. Emmons, 2008: Impacts

of the fall 2007 California wildfires on surface ozone: Integrating

local observations with global model simulations. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 35, L19814, doi:10.1029/2008GL034747. 

Spracklen, D. V., J. A. Logan, L. J. Mickley, R. J. Park, R. Yevich, 

A. L. Westerling, and D. A. Jaffe, 2007: Wildfires drive interannual

variability of organic carbon aerosol in the western US in summer. 

Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16816, doi:10.1029/2007GL030037. 

10.	Delfino, R. J., S. Brummel, J. Wu, H. Stern, B. Ostro, M. Lipsett, A.

Winer, D. H. Street, L. Zhang, T. Tjoa, and D. L. Gillen, 2009: The 

relationship of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions 

to the southern California wildfires of 2003. Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine, 66, 189-197, doi:10.1136/oem.2008.041376. 

[Available online at [http://oem.bmj.com/content/66/3/189.full.

pdf+html]

11. Elliott, C., S. Henderson, and V. Wan, 2013: Time series analysis 

of fine particulate matter and asthma reliever dispensations in

populations affected by forest fires. Environmental Health, 12, 11, 

doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-11. [Available online at http://www.

ehjournal.net/content/12/1/11]

12. Jenkins, J. L., E. B. Hsu, L. M. Sauer, Y. H. Hsieh, and T. D. Kirsch, 

2009: Prevalence of unmet health care needs and description of 

health care-seeking behavior among displaced people after the 2007 

California wildfires. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3,

S24-28, doi:10.1097/DMP.0b013e31819f1afc. [Available online at 

http://www.dmphp.org/cgi/content/full/3/Supplement_1/S24] 

Lee, T. S., K. Falter, P. Meyer, J. Mott, and C. Gwynn, 2009: 

Risk factors associated with clinic visits during the 1999 forest 

fires near the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, California, USA.

International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 19, 315-327, 

doi:10.1080/09603120802712750. 

13. Henderson, S. B., M. Brauer, Y. C. Macnab, and S. M. Kennedy, 

2011: Three measures of forest fire smoke exposure and their

associations with respiratory and cardiovascular health outcomes 

in a population-based cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119,

1266-1271, doi:10.1289/ehp.1002288. [Available online at http://

europepmc.org/articles/PMC3230386?pdf=render] 

Holstius, D. M., C. E. Reid, B. M. Jesdale, and R. Morello-Frosch, 

2012: Birth weight following pregnancy during the 2003 southern 

California wildfires. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 1340-1345, 

doi:10.1289/ehp.110451. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440113/pdf/ehp.1104515.pdf] 

Jacob, D. J., and D. A. Winner, 2009: Effect of climate change 

on air quality. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 51-63, doi:10.1016/j.

atmosenv.2008.09.051. [Available online at http://www.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231008008571] 

Marlier, M. E., R. S. DeFries, A. Voulgarakis, P. L. Kinney, J. T. 

Randerson, D. T. Shindell, Y. Chen, and G. Faluvegi, 2013: El Nino 

and health risks from landscape fire emissions in southeast Asia.

Nature Climate Change, 3, 131-136, doi:10.1038/nclimate1658. 

Rappold, A., W. Cascio, V. Kilaru, S. Stone, L. Neas, R. Devlin, 

and D. Diaz-Sanchez, 2012: Cardio-respiratory outcomes associated 

with exposure to wildfire smoke are modified by measures of

community health. Environmental Health, 11, 71, doi:10.1186/1476-

069X-11-71. [Available online at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/

pdf/1476-069X-11-71.pdf] 

Westerling, A. L., and B. P. Bryant, 2008: Climate change and 

wildfire in California. Climatic Change, 87, 231-249, doi:10.1007/

s10584-007-9363-z. 

14. Ziska, L., K. Knowlton, C. Rogers, D. Dalan, N. Tierney, M. A. 

Elder, W. Filley, J. Shropshire, L. B. Ford, C. Hedberg, P. Fleetwood, 

K. T. Hovanky, T. Kavanaugh, G. Fulford, R. F. Vrtis, J. A. Patz, J. 

Portnoy, F. Coates, L. Bielory, and D. Frenz, 2011: Recent warming 

by latitude associated with increased length of ragweed pollen season 

in central North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

108, 4248-4251, doi:10.1073/pnas.1014107108. [Available online at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/10/4248.full.pdf+html]

15. Emberlin, J., M. Detandt, R. Gehrig, S. Jaeger, N. Nolard, and A. 

Rantio-Lehtimäki, 2002: Responses in the start of Betula (birch) 

pollen seasons to recent changes in spring temperatures across 

Europe. International Journal of Biometeorolog y, 46, 159-170, doi:10.1007/

s00484-002-0139-x. 

Pinkerton, K. E., W. N. Rom, M. Akpinar-Elci, J. R. Balmes, H. 

Bayram, O. Brandli, J. W. Hollingsworth, P. L. Kinney, H. G. 

Margolis, W. J. Martin, E. N. Sasser, K. R. Smith, and T. K. Takaro, 

2012: An official American Thoracic Society workshop report:

Climate change and human health. Proceedings of the American Thoracic 

Society, 9, 3-8, doi:10.1513/pats.201201-015ST. [Available online at 

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1513/pats.201201-015ST] 

Schmier, J. K., and K. L. Ebi, 2009: The impact of climate change 

and aeroallergens on children's health. Allerg y and Asthma Proceedings, 

229-237 pp. 

	 Sheffield, P. E., J. L. Carr, P. L. Kinney, and K. Knowlton, 2011:

Modeling of regional climate change effects on ground-level ozone 

and childhood asthma. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, 251-

257, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.04.017. [Available online at http://

download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0749-3797/

PIIS0749379711003461.pdf] 

	 Sheffield, P. E., and P. J. Landrigan, 2011: Global climate change and

children’s health: Threats and strategies for prevention. Environmental 

Health Perspectives, 119, 291-298, doi:10.1289/ehp.1002233. [Available 

online at http://environmentportal.in/files/climate%20change%20

and%20childrens%20health.pdf]

16. Ariano, R., G. W. Canonica, and G. Passalacqua, 2010: Possible 

role of climate changes in variations in pollen seasons and 

allergic sensitizations during 27 years. Annals of Allerg y, Asthma & 

Immunolog y, 104, 215-222, doi:10.1016/j.anai.2009.12.005. 

Breton, M. C., M. Garneau, I. Fortier, F. Guay, and J. Louis, 2006: 

Relationship between climate, pollen concentrations of Ambrosia

References
113

and medical consultations for allergic rhinitis in Montreal, 1994–

2002. Science of The Total Environment, 370, 39-50, doi:10.1016/j.

scitotenv.2006.05.022. 

EPA, 2008: Review of the Impact of Climate Variability and 

Change on Aeroallergens and Their Associated Effects. EPA/600/

R-06/164F, 125 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/

eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=490474]

17.	 Sheffield, P. E., K. R. Weinberger, K. Ito, T. D. Matte, R. W. Mathes,

G. S. Robinson, and P. L. Kinney, 2011: The association of tree pollen 

concentration peaks and allergy medication sales in New York City: 

2003–2008. ISRN Allerg y, 2011, 1-7, doi:10.5402/2011/537194. 

[Available online at http://downloads.hindawi.com/isrn/

allergy/2011/537194.pdf]

18. Staudt, A., P. Glick, D. Mizejewski, and D. Inkley, 2010: Extreme 

Allergies and Global Warming, 12 pp., National Wildlife Federation 

and Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. [Available 

online at http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/

Reports/NWF_AllergiesFinal.ashx]

19. D’amato, G., and L. Cecchi, 2008: Effects of climate change on 

environmental factors in respiratory allergic diseases. Clinical 

& Experimental Allerg y, 38, 1264-1274, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222-

2008.03033.x. 

D’amato, G., L. Cecchi, M. D’amato, and G. Liccardi, 2010: Urban 

air pollution and climate change as environmental risk factors of 

respiratory allergy: An update. Journal of Investigational Allergolog y and 

Clinical Immunolog y, 20, 95-102. 

Reid, C. E., and J. L. Gamble, 2009: Aeroallergens, allergic disease, 

and climate change: Impacts and adaptation. EcoHealth, 6, 458-470, 

doi:10.1007/s10393-009-0261-x. [Available online at http://link.

springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10393-009-0261-x ] 

Nordling, E., N. Berglind, E. Melén, G. Emenius, J. Hallberg, 

F. Nyberg, G. Pershagen, M. Svartengren, M. Wickman, and 

T. Bellander, 2008: Traffic-related air pollution and childhood

respiratory symptoms, function and allergies. Epidemiolog y, 19,

401-408, doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816a1ce3. [Available online 

at http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/05000/Traffic_

Related_Air_Pollution_and_Childhood.11.aspx]

20. Fisk, W. J., Q. Lei-Gomez, and M. J. Mendell, 2007: Meta-analyses 

of the associations of respiratory health effects with dampness 

and mold in homes. Indoor Air, 17, 284-296, doi:10.1111/j.1600-

0668.2007.00475.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00475.x/pdf] 

IOM, 2011: Climate Change, the Indoor Environment, and Health. The 

National Academies Press. [Available online at www.nap.edu] 

Mudarri, D., and W. J. Fisk, 2007: Public health and economic 

impact of dampness and mold. Indoor Air, 17, 226-235, doi:10.1111/

j.1600-0668.2007.00474.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00474.x/pdf] 

Wolf, J., N. R. R. O’Neill, C.A., M. L. Muilenberg, and L. H. 

Ziska, 2010: Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations 

amplify Alternaria alternata sporulation and total antigen production. 

Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 1223-1228, doi:10.1289/

ehp.0901867. 

21. Curriero, F. C., J. A. Patz, J. B. Rose, and S. Lele, 2001: The 

association between extreme precipitation and waterborne disease 

outbreaks in the United States, 1948–1994. American Journal of Public 

Health, 91, 1194-1199, doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.8.1194. 

ECDC, 2012: Assessing the potential impacts of climate change 

on food- and waterborne diseases in Europe. European Centre for 

Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm. [Available online at 

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1203-

TER-Potential-impacts-climate-change-food-water-bornediseases.pdf] 

Semenza, J. C., J. E. Suk, V. Estevez, K. L. Ebi, and E. Lindgren, 

2011: Mapping climate change vulnerabilities to infectious diseases 

in Europe. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 385-392, doi:10.1289/

ehp.1103805. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3295348/pdf/ehp.1103805.pdf]

22. Fleury, M., D. F. Charron, J. D. Holt, O. B. Allen, and A. R. 

Maarouf, 2006: A time series analysis of the relationship of ambient 

temperature and common bacterial enteric infections in two 

Canadian provinces. International Journal of Biometeorolog y, 50, 385-

391, doi:10.1007/s00484-006-0028-9. 

Hall, G. V., I. C. Hanigan, K. B. G. Dear, and H. Vally, 2011: 

The influence of weather on community gastroenteritis in

Australia. Epidemiolog y and Infection, 139, 927-936, doi:10.1017/

s0950268810001901. 

Hu, W., K. Mengersen, S.-Y. Fu, and S. Tong, 2010: The use of 

ZIP and CART to model cryptosporidiosis in relation to climatic 

variables. International Journal of Biometeorolog y, 54, 433-440, 

doi:10.1007/s00484-009-0294-4. 

Hu, W., S. Tong, K. Mengersen, and D. Connell, 2007: Weather 

variability and the incidence of cryptosporidiosis: Comparison 

of time series Poisson regression and SARIMA models. Annals of 

Epidemiolog y, 17, 679-688, doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.020. 

Lipp, E. K., A. Huq, R. R. Colwell, E. K. Lipp, A. Huq, and R. R. 

Colwell, 2002: Effects of global climate on infectious disease: The 

cholera model. Clinical Microbiolog y Reviews, 15, 757-770, doi:10.1128/

CMR.15.4.757-770.2002. [Available online at http://cmr.asm.org/

content/15/4/757.full.pdf+html] 

Naumova, E. N., J. S. Jagai, B. Matyas, A. DeMaria, I. B. MacNeill, 

and J. K. Griffiths, 2007: Seasonality in six enterically transmitted

diseases and ambient temperature. Epidemiolog y and Infection, 135,

281-292, doi:10.1017/S0950268806006698. [Available online at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870561/] 

Onozuka, D., M. Hashizume, and A. Hagihara, 2010: Effects of 

weather variability on infectious gastroenteritis. Epidemiolog y and 

Infection, 138, 236-243, doi:10.1017/s0950268809990574. 

23. Febriani, Y., P. Levallois, S. Gingras, P. Gosselin, S. E. Majowicz, 

and M. D. Fleury, 2010: The association between farming activities, 

precipitation, and the risk of acute gastrointestinal illness in rural 

municipalities of Quebec, Canada: A cross-sectional study. BMC 

Public Health, 10, 48, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-48. [Available online 

at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-48.

pdf] 

Nichols, G., C. Lane, N. Asgari, N. Q. Verlander, and A. Charlett, 

2009: Rainfall and outbreaks of drinking water related disease and 

in England and Wales. Journal of Water Health, 7, 1-8, doi:10.2166/
114

wh.2009.143. [Available online at http://www.iwaponline.com/

jwh/007/0001/0070001.pdf]

24. Harper, S. L., V. L. Edge, C. J. Schuster-Wallace, O. Berke, and S. A. 

McEwen, 2011: Weather, water quality and infectious gastrointestinal 

illness in two Inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada: Potential 

implications for climate change. Ecohealth, 8, 93-108, doi:10.1007/

s10393-011-0690-1. 

25. Rizak, S., and S. E. Hrudey, 2008: Drinking-water safety: Challenges 

for community-managed systems. Journal of Water Health, 6, 33-

42, doi:10.2166/wh.2008.033. [Available online at http://www.

iwaponline.com/jwh/006/s033/006s033.pdf]

26. Baker-Austin, C., J. A. Trinanes, N. G. H. Taylor, R. Hartnell, A. 

Siitonen, and J. Martinez-Urtaza, 2012: Emerging Vibrio risk at high 

latitudes in response to ocean warming. Nature Climate Change, 3, 73-

77, doi:10.1038/nclimate1628. 

CDC, 1998: Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections associated 

with eating raw oysters-Pacific Northwest, 1997. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47,

457-462. [Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/

mmwrhtml/00053377.htm] 

Patz, J. A., S. J. Vavrus, C. K. Uejio, and S. L. McLellan, 2008: 

Climate change and waterborne disease risk in the Great Lakes 

region of the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 451-458, 

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.026. [Available online at http://www.

ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00702-2/fulltext]

27. Patz, J., D. Campbell-Lendrum, H. Gibbs, and R. Woodruff, 2008: 

Health impact assessment of global climate change: Expanding 

on comparative risk assessment approaches for policy making. 

Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 27-39, doi:10.1146/annurev.

publhealth.29.020907.090750. [Available online at http://www.sage.

wisc.edu/pubs/articles/M-Z/patz/PatzAnnRevPubHealth2008.

pdf]

28. NWS, cited 2012: Weather Fatalities. [Available online at http://

www.nws.noaa.gov/os/hazstats/resources/weather_fatalities.pdf]

29. Åström, D. O., F. Bertil, and R. Joacim, 2011: Heat wave impact on 

morbidity and mortality in the elderly population: A review of recent 

studies. Maturitas, 69, 99-105, doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2011.03.008. 

Huang, C., A. G. Barnett, X. Wang, P. Vaneckova, G. FitzGerald, 

and S. Tong, 2011: Projecting future heat-related mortality under 

climate change scenarios: A systematic review. Environmental Health 

Perspectives, 119, 1681-1690, doi:10.1289/Ehp.1103456. [Available 

online at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/119/12/

ehp.1103456.pdf] 

Li, B., S. Sain, L. O. Mearns, H. A. Anderson, S. Kovats, K. L. Ebi, 

M. Y. V. Bekkedal, M. S. Kanarek, and J. A. Patz, 2012: The impact 

of extreme heat on morbidity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Climatic 

Change, 110, 959-976, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0120-y. 

Ye, X., R. Wolff, W. Yu, P. Vaneckova, X. Pan, and S. Tong, 2012: 

Ambient temperature and morbidity: A review of epidemiological 

evidence. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 19-28, doi:10.1289/

ehp.1003198. 

Zanobetti, A., M. S. O’Neill, C. J. Gronlund, and J. D. Schwartz, 

2012: Summer temperature variability and long-term survival 

among elderly people with chronic disease. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 109, 6608-6613, doi:10.1073/pnas.1113070109. 

30. Basu, R., 2009: High ambient temperature and mortality: A review 

of epidemiologic studies from 2001 to 2008. Environmental Health, 8,

1-13, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-40. 

31. Rey, G., E. Jougla, A. Fouillet, G. Pavillon, P. Bessemoulin, P. 

Frayssinet, J. Clavel, and D. Hémon, 2007: The impact of major heat 

waves on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in France from 1971

to 2003. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 

80, 615-626, doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0173-4. 

32. Knowlton, K., M. Rotkin-Ellman, G. King, H. G. Margolis, D. 

Smith, G. Solomon, R. Trent, and P. English, 2009: The 2006 

California heat wave: Impacts on hospitalizations and emergency 

department visits. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117, 61-67, 

doi:10.1289/ehp.11594. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627866/pdf/EHP-117-61.pdf] 

Lin, S., M. Luo, R. J. Walker, X. Liu, S. A. Hwang, and R. Chinery, 

2009: Extreme high temperatures and hospital admissions for 

respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Epidemiolog y, 20, 738-746, 

doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181ad5522. 

Nitschke, M., G. R. Tucker, A. L. Hansen, S. Williams, Y. Zhang, 

and P. Bi, 2011: Impact of two recent extreme heat episodes on 

morbidity and mortality in Adelaide, South Australia: A case-series 

analysis. Environmental Health, 10, 1-9, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-42. 

[Available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/

pdf/1476-069X-10-42.pdf] 

Ostro, B. D., L. A. Roth, R. S. Green, and R. Basu, 2009: Estimating 

the mortality effect of the July 2006 California heat wave. Environmental 

Research, 109, 614-619, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2009.03.010. [Available 

online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-

2009-036/CEC-500-2009-036-F.PDF]

33. Gershunov, A., D. R. Cayan, and S. F. Iacobellis, 2009: The great 

2006 heat wave over California and Nevada: Signal of an increasing 

trend. Journal of Climate, 22, 6181-6203, doi:10.1175/2009jcli2465.1. 

[Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/

pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2465.1] 

Gershunov, A., Z. Johnston, H. G. Margolis, and K. Guirguis, 2011: 

The California heat wave 2006 with impacts on statewide medical 

emergency: A space-time analysis. Geography Research Forum, 31, 6-31. 

Sheridan, S., C. Lee, M. Allen, and L. Kalkstein, 2011: A Spatial 

Synoptic Classification Approach to Projected Heat Vulnerability in

California Under Future Climate Change Scenarios. Final Report 

to the California Air Resources Board. Research Contract 07-

304, 155 pp., California Air Resources Board and the California 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Available online at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2011/HeatImpa.pdf] 

Sheridan, S. C., M. J. Allen, C. C. Lee, and L. S. Kalkstein, 2012: 

Future heat vulnerability in California, Part II: Projecting future 

heat-related mortality. Climatic Change, 115, 311-326, doi:10.1007/

s10584-012-0437-1. 

Sheridan, S. C., C. C. Lee, M. J. Allen, and L. S. Kalkstein, 2012: 

Future heat vulnerability in California, Part I: Projecting future 

weather types and heat events. Climatic Change, 115, 291-309, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0436-2. 

References
115

34. Barnett, A. G., 2007: Temperature and cardiovascular deaths 

in the US elderly: Changes over time. Epidemiolog y, 18, 369-372, 

doi:10.1097/01.ede.00002575.15.34445.a0. 

Kalkstein, L. S., S. Greene, D. M. Mills, and J. Samenow, 2011: An 

evaluation of the progress in reducing heat-related human mortality 

in major US cities. Natural Hazards, 56, 113-129, doi:10.1007/s11069-

010-9552-3. 

35. Johnson, D. P., J. S. Wilson, and G. C. Luber, 2009: Socioeconomic 

indicators of heat-related health risk supplemented with remotely 

sensed data. International Journal of Health Geographics, 8, 1-13, 

doi:10.1186/1476-072X-8-57. [Available online at http://www.ijhealthgeographics.com/content/8/1/57] 

Wilby, R. L., 2008: Constructing climate change scenarios of urban 

heat island intensity and air quality. Environment and Planning B: 

Planning and Design, 35, 902-919, doi:10.1068/b33066t. 

CDC, 2012: Heat-related deaths after an extreme heat event — four 

states, 2012, and United States, 1999–2009. Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62,

433-436. [Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/

mmwrhtml/mm6222a1.htm?s_cid=mm6222a1_w]

36. Medina-Ramón, M., and J. Schwartz, 2007: Temperature, 

temperature extremes, and mortality: A study of acclimatisation 

and effect modification in 50 US cities. Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine, 64, 827-833, doi:10.1136/oem.2007.033175. [Available 

online at http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.full.pdf+html] 

Yu, W., K. Mengersen, X. Wang, X. Ye, Y. Guo, X. Pan, and S. Tong, 

2011: Daily average temperature and mortality among the elderly: 

A meta-analysis and systematic review of epidemiological evidence. 

International Journal of Biometeorolog y, 56, 569-581, doi:10.1007/s00484-

011-0497-3. 

Li, T., R. M. Horton, and P. L. Kinney, 2013: Projections of seasonal 

patterns in temperature-related deaths for Manhattan, New York. 

Nature Climate Change, 3, 717-721, doi:10.1038/nclimate1902. 

37. Epstein, P., 2010: The ecology of climate change and infectious 

diseases: Comment. Ecolog y, 91, 925-928, doi:10.1890/09-0761.1. 

Reiter, P., 2008: Climate change and mosquito-borne disease: 

Knowing the horse before hitching the cart. Revue Scientifique et 

Technique-Office International des Épizooties, 27, 383-398. [Available 

online at http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w777157/Reiter%202008.pdf] 

Rosenthal, J., 2009: Climate change and the geographic 

distribution of infectious diseases. EcoHealth, 6, 489-495, 

doi:10.1007/s10393-010-0314-1. [Available online at http://

download.springer.com/static/pdf/305/art%253A10.10

07%252Fs10393-010-0314-1.pdf?auth66=1362580261_

e7030052d90896d4fec0fbabe27e8083&ext=.pdf] 

Russell, R. C., 2009: Mosquito-borne disease and climate change in 

Australia: Time for a reality check. Australian Journal of Entomolog y, 

48, 1-7, doi:10.1111/j.1440-6055.2008.00677.x. 

Tabachnick, W. J., 2010: Challenges in predicting climate and 

environmental effects on vector-borne disease episystems in 

a changing world. Journal of Experimental Biolog y, 213, 946-954, 

doi:10.1242/jeb.037564. [Available online at http://jeb.biologists.

org/content/213/6/946.long] 

Rogers, D. J., and S. E. Randolph, 2006: Climate change and vectorborne diseases. Advances in Parasitolog y, S. I. Hay, A. Graham, and D. 

J. Rogers, Eds., Academic Press, 345-381. 

Ogden, N. H., L. R. Lindsay, M. Morshed, P. N. Sockett, and H. 

Artsob, 2009: The emergence of Lyme disease in Canada. Canadian 

Medical Association Journal, 180, 1221-1224, doi:10.1503/cmaj.080148. 

[Available online at http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/12/1221.full]

38. Gage, K. L., T. R. Burkot, R. J. Eisen, and E. B. Hayes, 2008: Climate 

and vectorborne diseases. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35,

436-450, doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.030. 

Lafferty, K. D., 2009: The ecology of climate change and infectious 

diseases. Ecolog y, 90, 888-900, doi:10.1890/08-0079.1. 

39. McGregor, G. R., 2011: Human biometeorology. Progress in Physical 

Geography, 36, 93-109, doi:10.1177/0309133311417942. 

40.	Mills, J. N., K. L. Gage, and A. S. Khan, 2010: Potential influence of

climate change on vector-borne and zoonotic diseases: A review and 

proposed research plan. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 1507-

1514, doi:10.1289/ehp.0901389. [Available online at http://www.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974686/]

41. Hess, J. J., J. Z. McDowell, and G. Luber, 2012: Integrating 

climate change adaptation into public health practice: Using 

adaptive management to increase adaptive capacity and build 

resilience. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 171-179, doi:10.1289/

ehp.1103515. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC3279431/] 

Patz, J. A., and M. B. Hahn, 2013: Climate change and human health: 

A one health approach. Current Topics in Microbiolog y and Immunolog y, 

Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 141-171. 

42. Wilson, K., 2009: Climate change and the spread of infectious ideas. 

Ecolog y, 90, 901-902, doi:10.1890/08-2027.1. 

43. Diuk-Wasser, M. A., G. Vourc’h, P. Cislo, A. G. Hoen, F. Melton, 

S. A. Hamer, M. Rowland, R. Cortinas, G. J. Hickling, J. I. Tsao, 

A. G. Barbour, U. Kitron, J. Piesman, and D. Fish, 2010: Field 

and climate-based model for predicting the density of host-king 

nymphal Ixodes scapularis, an important vector of tick-borne disease 

agents in the eastern United States. Global Ecolog y and Biogeography, 19,

504-514, doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00526.x. 

Keesing, F., J. Brunner, S. Duerr, M. Killilea, K. LoGiudice, K. 

Schmidt, H. Vuong, and R. S. Ostfeld, 2009: Hosts as ecological 

traps for the vector of Lyme disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences, 276, 3911-3919, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1159. 

Ogden, N. H., L. St-Onge, I. K. Barker, S. Brazeau, M. BigrasPoulin, D. F. Charron, C. Francis, A. Heagy, L. R. Lindsay, A. 

Maarouf, P. Michel, F. Milord, C. J. O’Callaghan, L. Trudel, and 

R. A. Thompson, 2008: Risk maps for range expansion of the 

Lyme disease vector, Ixodes scapularis, in Canada now and with 

climate change. International Journal of Health Geographics, 7, 24, 

doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-24. [Available online at http://www.ijhealthgeographics.com/content/7/1/24] 

CDC, cited 2013: Interactive Lyme Disease Map. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. [Available online at http://www.

cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps/interactiveMaps.html]
116

44. Degallier, N., C. Favier, C. Menkes, M. Lengaigne, W. M. Ramalho, 

R. Souza, J. Servain, and J. P. Boulanger, 2010: Toward an early 

warning system for dengue prevention: Modeling climate impact 

on dengue transmission. Climatic Change, 98, 581-592, doi:10.1007/

s10584-009-9747-3. [Available online at http://www.locean-ipsl.

upmc.fr/~ndelod/production/climatic_Change.pdf] 

Johansson, M. A., D. A. T. Cummings, and G. E. Glass, 2009: 

Multiyear climate variability and dengue—El Niño southern 

oscillation, weather, and dengue incidence in Puerto Rico, Mexico, 

and Thailand: A longitudinal data analysis. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000168, 

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000168. [Available online at http://www.

plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.

pmed.1000168] 

	 Jury, M. R., 2008: Climate influence on dengue epidemics in Puerto

Rico. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 18, 323-334, 

doi:10.1080/09603120701849836. 

Kolivras, K. N., 2010: Changes in dengue risk potential in Hawaii, 

USA, due to climate variability and change. Climate Research, 42, 1-11, 

doi:10.3354/cr00861. [Available online at http://www.int-res.com/

articles/cr2010/42/c042p001.pdf] 

Lambrechts, L., K. P. Paaijmans, T. Fansiri, L. B. Carrington, L. 

D. Kramer, M. B. Thomas, and T. W. Scott, 2011: Impact of daily 

temperature fluctuations on dengue virus transmission by Aedes 

aeg ypti. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 7460-7465, 

doi:10.1073/pnas.1101377108. [Available online at http://www.pnas.

org/content/108/18/7460.full.pdf+html] 

Ramos, M. M., H. Mohammed, E. Zielinski-Gutierrez, M. H. 

Hayden, J. L. R. Lopez, M. Fournier, A. R. Trujillo, R. Burton, J. 

M. Brunkard, L. Anaya-Lopez, A. A. Banicki, P. K. Morales, B. 

Smith, J. L. Muñoz, and S. H. Waterman, 2008: Epidemic dengue 

and dengue hemorrhagic fever at the Texas–Mexico border: Results 

of a household-based seroepidemiologic survey, December 2005. 

The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 78, 364-369. 

[Available online at http://www.ajtmh.org/content/78/3/364.full.

pdf+html] 

Gong, H., A. T. DeGaetano, and L. C. Harrington, 2011: Climatebased models for West Nile Culex mosquito vectors in the 

Northeastern U.S. International Journal of Biometeorolog y, 55, 435-446, 

doi:10.1007/s00484-010-0354-9. 

Morin, C. W., and A. C. Comrie, 2010: Modeled response of the 

West Nile virus vector Culex quinquefasciatus to changing climate 

using the dynamic mosquito simulation model. International Journal 

of Biometeorolog y, 54, 517-529, doi:10.1007/s00484-010-0349-6. 

CDC, cited 2012: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. [Available online at www.cdc.gov/

rmsf/stats] 

Nakazawa, Y., R. Williams, A. T. Peterson, P. Mead, E. Staples, and 

K. L. Gage, 2007: Climate change effects on plague and tularemia 

in the United States. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, 7, 529-540, 

doi:10.1089/vbz.2007.0125. 

45. Ogden, N. H., C. Bouchard, K. Kurtenbach, G. Margos, L. 

R. Lindsay, L. Trudel, S. Nguon, and F. Milord, 2010: Active 

and passive surveillance and phylogenetic analysis of Borrelia 

burgdorferi elucidate the process of Lyme disease risk emergence in 

Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 909-914, doi:10.1289/

ehp.0901766. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pmc/articles/PMC2920908/pdf/ehp-118-909.pdf]

46. Brownstein, J. S., T. R. Holford, and D. Fish, 2005: Effect of climate 

change on Lyme disease risk in North America. EcoHealth, 2, 38-46, 

doi:10.1007/s10393-004-0139-x. 

47. Grabow, M. L., S. N. Spak, T. Holloway, B. Stone Jr, A. C. Mednick, 

and J. A. Patz, 2012: Air quality and exercise-related health 

benefits from reduced car travel in the midwestern United States.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 120, 68-76, doi:10.1289/ehp.1103440. 

[Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC3261937/pdf/ehp.1103440.pdf] 

Haines, A., A. J. McMichael, K. R. Smith, I. Roberts, J. Woodcock, 

A. Markandya, B. G. Armstrong, D. Campbell-Lendrum, A. 

D. Dangour, M. Davies, N. Bruce, C. Tonne, M. Barrett, and P. 

Wilkinson, 2009: Public health benefits of strategies to reduce

greenhouse-gas emissions: Overview and implications for 

policy makers. The Lancet, 374, 2104-2114, doi:10.1016/s0140-

6736(09)61759-1. [Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S0140673609617591] 

Maizlish, N., J. Woodcock, S. Co, B. Ostro, A. Fanai, and D. Fairley, 

2013: Health cobenefits and transportation-related reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions in the San Francisco Bay area. American 

Journal of Public Health, 103, 703-709, doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300939. 

[Available online at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CCDPHP/

Documents/ITHIM_Technical_Report11-21-11.pdf]

48. Bambrick, H. J., A. G. Capon, G. B. Barnett, R. M. Beaty, and A. J. 

Burton, 2011: Climate change and health in the urban environment: 

Adaptation opportunities in Australian cities. Asia-Pacific Journal of 

Public Health, 23, 67S-79S, doi:10.1177/1010539510391774. 

49. Wilkinson, P., K. R. Smith, S. Beevers, C. Tonne, and T. Oreszczyn, 

2007: Energy, energy efficiency, and the built environment. The 

Lancet, 370, 1175-1187, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61255-0. 

50. Stone, B., J. J. Hess, and H. Frumkin, 2010: Urban form and extreme 

heat events: Are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change 

than compact cities? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118, 1425-1428, 

doi:10.1289/ehp.0901879. [Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957923/pdf/ehp-118-1425.pdf]

Finding 6: Infrastructure

1. NRC, 2010: Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. America's 

Climate Choices: Report of the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts 

of Climate Change. National Research Council. The National 

Academies Press, 292 pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12783]

2. Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, S. A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra, 2010: 

Cities lead the way in climate-change action. Nature, 467, 909-911, 

doi:10.1038/467909a. [Available online at http://ccrun.org/sites/

ccrun/files/attached_files/2010_Rosenzweig_etal_2.pdf]

3. Foster, J., S. Winkelman, and A. Lowe, 2011: Lessons Learned on 

Local Climate Adaptation from the Urban Leaders Adaptation 

Initiative, 23 pp., The Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, D.C. 

[Available online at http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/988/

Urban_Leaders_Lessons_Learned_FINAL.pdf]

4. Jacob, K., C. Rosenzweig, R. Horton, D. Major, and V. Gornitz, 

2008: MTA Adaptations to Climate Change: A Categorical 

References
117

Imperative State agency report, 48 pp., State of New York, 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York, NY. [Available 

online at http://www.mta.info/sustainability/pdf/Jacob_et%20

al_MTA_Adaptation_Final_0309.pdf] 

New York State, 2011: Responding to Climate Change in New York 

State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate 

Change Adaptation in New York State. Vol. 1244, Blackwell 

Publishing, 649 pp. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06331.x/pdf] 

New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010: Report to the 

Legislature, 102 pp., New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, Albany, NY. [Available online at http://www.dec.

ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf] 

Zimmerman, R., and C. Faris, 2010: Infrastructure impacts 

and adaptation challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of 

Sciences, 1196, 63-86, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05318.x. 

5. EPA, 2011: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

2000 – 2009. EPA 430-R-11-005, 459 pp., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://

www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/USGHG-Inventory-2011-complete_Report.pdf]

6. Kafalenos, R. S., K. J. Leonard, D. M. Beagan, V. R. Burkett, B. 

D. Keim, A. Meyers, D. T. Hunt, R. C. Hyman, M. K. Maynard, B. 

Fritsche, R. H. Henk, E. J. Seymour, L. E. Olson, J. R. Potter, and 

M. J. Savonis, 2008: Ch. 4: What are the implications of climate 

change and variability for Gulf Coast transportation? Impacts of 

Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: 

Gulf Study, Phase I. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program 

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Final Report of Synthesis 

and Assessment Product 4.7, M. J. Savonis, V. R. Burkett, and J. R. 

Potter, Eds., U.S. Department of Transportation. [Available online 

at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-7/final-report/

sap4-7-final-all.pdf]

7. Wilbanks, T., D. Bilello, D. Schmalzer, and M. Scott, 2012: 

Climate Change and Energy Supply and Use. Technical Report 

to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National 

Climate Assessment, 79 pp., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak Ridge, TN. [Available

online at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/eess/EnergySupplyUse.pdf]

8. NCDC, cited 2012: Heating & Cooling Degree Day Data. NOAA’s 

National Climatic Data Center. [Available online at http://www.

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/documentlibrary/hcs/hcs.html]

Finding 7: Water

1. Pietrowsky, R., D. Raff, C. McNutt, M. Brewer, T. Johnson, T. 

Brown, M. Ampleman, C. Baranowski, J. Barsugli, L. D. Brekke, L. 

Brekki, M. Crowell, D. Easterling, A. Georgakakos, N. Gollehon, J. 

Goodrich, K. A. Grantz, E. Greene, P. Groisman, R. Heim, C. Luce, 

S. McKinney, R. Najjar, M. Nearing, D. Nover, R. Olsen, C. PetersLidard, L. Poff, K. Rice, B. Rippey, M. Rodgers, A. Rypinski, M. 

Sale, M. Squires, R. Stahl, E. Z. Stakhiv, and M. Strobel, 2012: Water 

Resources Sector Technical Input Report in Support of the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, National Climate Assessment - 

2013, 31 pp. 

2. Kenny, J. F., N. L. Barber, S. S. Hutson, K. S. Linsey, J. K. Lovelace, 

and M. A. Maupin, 2009: Estimated Use of Water in the United 

States in 2005. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 pp., U.S. 

Geological Survey Reston, VA. [Available online at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/circ/1344/]

3. Averyt, K., J. Fisher, A. Huber-Lee, A. Lewis, J. Macknick, N. 

Madden, J. Rogers, and S. Tellinghuisen, 2011: Freshwater Use by 

US Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource. A 

Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative, 62 

pp., Union of Concerned Scientists. [Available online at http://www.

ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/ew3/ew3-freshwateruse-by-us-power-plants.pdf]

4. Brown, T. C., R. Foti, and J. A. Ramirez, 2013: Projecting fresh water 

withdrawals in the United States under a changing climate. Water 

Resources Research, 49, 1259-1276, doi:10.1002/wrcr.20076. [Available 

online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wrcr.20076/

pdf]

5. Pruski, F. F., and M. A. Nearing, 2002: Climate-induced changes 

in erosion during the 21st century for eight U.S. locations. Water 

Resources Research, 38, 34-31 - 34-11, doi:10.1029/2001WR000493. 

[Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1029/2001WR000493/pdf] 

——, 2002: Runoff and soil-loss responses to changes in 

precipitation: A computer simulation study. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation, 57, 7-16. 

6. Osterkamp, W. R., and C. R. Hupp, 2010: Fluvial processes and 

vegetation--Glimpses of the past, the present, and perhaps the future. 

Geomorpholog y, 116, 274-285, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.11.018. 

7. Roy, S. B., L. Chen, E. H. Girvetz, E. P. Maurer, W. B. Mills, and T. 

M. Grieb, 2012: Projecting water withdrawal and supply for future 

decades in the U.S. under climate change scenarios. Environmental 

Science & Technolog y, 46, 2545−2556, doi:10.1021/es2030774. 

8. Skaggs, R., T. C. Janetos, K. A. Hibbard, and J. S. Rice, 2012: Climate 

and Energy-Water-Land System Interactions Technical Report to 

the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate 

Assessment, 152 pp., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

Richland, Washington. [Available online at http://climatemodeling.

science.energy.gov/f/PNNL-21185_FINAL_REPORT.pdf]

Finding 8: Agriculture

1. Mishra, V., and K. A. Cherkauer, 2010: Retrospective droughts in 

the crop growing season: Implications to corn and soybean yield in 

the midwestern United States. Agricultural and Forest Meteorolog y, 150,

1030-1045, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.04.002. 

2. Changnon, S. A., and D. Winstanley, 1999: Long-Term Variations 

in Seasonal Weather Conditions and Their Impacts on Crop Production and 

Water Resources in Illinois. Water Survey Research Report RR-127. Illinois 

State Water Survey, Dept. of Natural Resources. [Available online at 

http://www.isws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/RR/ISWSRR-127.pdf]

3. Karl, T. R., B. E. Gleason, M. J. Menne, J. R. McMahon, R. R. Heim, Jr., 

M. J. Brewer, K. E. Kunkel, D. S. Arndt, J. L. Privette, J. J. Bates, P. Y. 

Groisman, and D. R. Easterling, 2012: U.S. temperature and drought: 

Recent anomalies and trends. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union, 93, 473-474, doi:10.1029/2012EO470001. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012EO470001/pdf]
118

4. Kunkel, K. E., 1989: A surface energy budget view of the 1988 

midwestern United States drought. Boundary-Layer Meteorolog y, 48,

217-225, doi:10.1007/BF00158325. 

5. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012: The 2012 Statistical Abstract: Agriculture, 

533-558 pp., U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.census.gov/

prod/2011pubs/12statab/agricult.pdf]

6. Colby, B., and P. Tanimoto, 2011: Using climate information to 

improve electric utility load forecasting. Adaptation and Resilience: The 

Economics of Climate-Water-Energ y Challenges in the Arid Southwest, B. G. 

Colby, and G. B. Frisvold, Eds., RFF Press, 207-228. 

7. Mader, T. L., 2012: Impact of environmental stress on feedlot cattle. 

Western Section, American Society of Animal Science, 62, 335-339. 

Finding 9: Indigenous Peoples

1. Maynard, N. G., Ed., 2002: Native Peoples-Native Homelands 

Climate Change Workshop. Final Report: Circles of Wisdom. 

Albuquerque Convention Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. [Available online at http://

www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/native.pdf] 

Houser, S., V. Teller, M. MacCracken, R. Gough, and P. Spears, 

2001: Ch. 12: Potential consequences of climate variability and 

change for native peoples and homelands. Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States: Potential Consequences of Climate Change and Variability 

and Change, Cambridge University Press, 351-377. [Available online 

at http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment/12NA.pdf]

2. Cochran, P., O. H. Huntington, C. Pungowiyi, S. Tom, F. S. Chapin, 

III, H. P. Huntington, N. G. Maynard, and S. F. Trainor, 2013: 

Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate 

change in Alaska. Climatic Change, 120, 557-567, doi:10.1007/s10584-

013-0735-2. 

3. Lynn, K., J. Daigle, J. Hoffman, F. Lake, N. Michelle, D. Ranco, C. 

Viles, G. Voggesser, and P. Williams, 2013: The impacts of climate 

change on tribal traditional foods. Climatic Change, 120, 545-556, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0736-1. 

Maldonado, J. K., C. Shearer, R. Bronen, K. Peterson, and H. 

Lazrus, 2013: The impact of climate change on tribal communities 

in the US: Displacement, relocation, and human rights. Climatic 

Change, 120, 601-614, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0746-z. 

Voggesser, G., K. Lynn, J. Daigle, F. K. Lake, and D. Ranco, 2013: 

Cultural impacts to tribes from climate change influences on forests.

Climatic Change, 120, 615-626, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0733-4. 

4. Redsteer, M. H., K. B. Kelley, H. Francis, and D. Block, 2011: 

Disaster Risk Assessment Case Study: Recent Drought on the 

Navajo Nation, southwestern United States. Contributing Paper 

for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 19 

pp., United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and U.S.

Geological Survey, Reston, VA. [Available online at http://www.

preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/Redsteer_

Kelley_Francis_&_Block_2010.pdf]

5. Christensen, K., 2003: Cooperative Drought Contingency Plan 

- Hualapai Reservation. Hualapai Tribe Department of Natural 

Resources, Peach Springs, AZ. [Available online at http://hualapai.

org/resources/Aministration/droughtplan.rev3BOR.pdf] 

Ferguson, D. B., C. Alvord, M. Crimmins, M. Hiza Redsteer, M. 

Hayes, C. McNutt, R. Pulwarty, and M. Svoboda, 2011: Drought 

Preparedness for Tribes in the Four Corners Region. Report from 

April 2010 Workshop. Tucson, AZ: Climate Assessment for the 

Southwest., 42 pp., The Climate Assessment for the Southwest 

(CLIMAS), The Institute of the Environment, The University of 

Arizona [Available online at http://www.drought.gov/workshops/

tribal/Drought-Preparedness-Tribal-Lands-FoursCorners-2011-1.

pdf] 

	 Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, Eds.,

2013: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A 

Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. Island press, 528 pp. 

[Available online at http://swccar.org/sites/all/themes/files/SWNCA-color-FINALweb.pdf] 

Gautam, M. R., K. Chief, and W. J. Smith, Jr., 2013: Climate change 

in arid lands and Native American socioeconomic vulnerability: The 

case of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. Climatic Change, 120, 585-599, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0737-0. [Available online at http://link.

springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0737-0.pdf]

6.	 Dittmer, K., 2013: Changing streamflow on Columbia basin tribal

lands—climate change and salmon. Climatic Change, 120, 627-641, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0745-0. [Available online at http://link.

springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0745-0.pdf] 

Grah, O., and J. Beaulieu, 2013: The effect of climate change on 

glacier ablation and baseflow support in the Nooksack River

basin and implications on Pacific salmonid species protection and

recovery. Climatic Change, 120, 657-670, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-

0747-y. 

McNutt, D., 2008: Native Peoples: The “Miners Canary” on Climate 

Change, 16 pp., Northwest Indian Applied Research Institute, 

Evergreen State College. [Available online at http://nwindian.

evergreen.edu/pdf/climatechangereport.pdf]

7. Coastal Louisiana Tribal Communities, 2012: Stories of Change: 

Coastal Louisiana Tribal Communities’ Experiences of a 

Transforming Environment (Grand Bayou, Grand Caillou/Dulac, 

Isle de Jean Charles, Pointe-au-Chien). Workshop Report Input Into 

the National Climate Assessment. Pointe-aux-Chenes, Louisiana. 

8. Souza, K., and J. Tanimoto, 2012: PRiMO IKE Hui Technical Input 

for the National Climate Assessment – Tribal Chapter. PRiMO IKE 

Hui Meeting – January 2012, Hawai‘i, 5 pp., U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, Washington, D.C. 

9. BIA, cited 2012: Alaska Region Overview. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. [Available online at http://www.

bia.gov/WhoWeAre/RegionalOffices/Alaska/]

10. Brubaker, M. Y., J. N. Bell, J. E. Berner, and J. A. Warren, 2011: 

Climate change health assessment: A novel approach for Alaska 

Native communities. International journal of circumpolar health, 70, 

doi:10.3402/ijch.v70i3.17820. 

11. Hinzman, L. D., N. D. Bettez, W. R. Bolton, F. S. Chapin, III, M. 

B. Dyurgerov, C. L. Fastie, B. Griffith, R. D. Hollister, A. Hope, H.

P. Huntington, A. M. Jensen, G. J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, D. L. Kane, D. 

R. Klein, G. Kofinas, A. H. Lynch, A. H. Lloyd, A. D. McGuire,

F. E. Nelson, W. C. Oechel, T. E. Osterkamp, C. H. Racine, V. E. 

Romanovsky, R. S. Stone, D. A. Stow, M. Sturm, C. E. Tweedie, 

G. L. Vourlitis, M. D. Walker, D. A. Walker, P. J. Webber, J. M. 

Welker, K. S. Winker, and K. Yoshikawa, 2005: Evidence and 

References
119

implications of recent climate change in Northern Alaska and other 

Arctic regions. Climatic Change, 72, 251-298, doi:10.1007/s10584-

005-5352-2. [Available online at http://www.springerlink.com/

index/10.1007/s10584-005-5352-2] 

Laidler, G. J., J. D. Ford, W. A. Gough, T. Ikummaq, A. S. Gagnon, 

S. Kowal, K. Qrunnut, and C. Irngaut, 2009: Travelling and hunting 

in a changing Arctic: Assessing Inuit vulnerability to sea ice change 

in Igloolik, Nunavut. Climatic Change, 94, 363-397, doi:10.1007/

s10584-008-9512-z. 

Wang, M., and J. E. Overland, 2012: A sea ice free summer Arctic 

within 30 years: An update from CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 39, L18501, doi:10.1029/2012GL052868. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052868/pdf]

12. Pungowiyi, C., 2009: Siberian Yupic Elder, personal communication 

Pungowiyi, C., 2002: Special report on climate impacts in the Arctic. 

Native Peoples-Native Homelands Climate Change Workshop: Final Report: 

Circles of Wisdom, N. G. Maynard, Ed., NASA Goddard Space Flight 

Center, 11-12. [Available online at http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/

Library/nationalassessment/native.pdf]

13. Parkinson, A. J., 2010: Sustainable development, climate change and 

human health in the Arctic. Circumpolar Health, 69, 99-105. [Available 

online at http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/

ijch/article/view/17428]

Finding 10: Ecosystems

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human 

Well-Being. Health Synthesis. Island press 53 pp. 

2. Staudt, A., A. K. Leidner, J. Howard, K. A. Brauman, J. S. Dukes, L. 

J. Hansen, C. Paukert, J. Sabo, and L. A. Solórzano, 2013: The added 

complications of climate change: Understanding and managing 

biodiversity and ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecolog y and the Environment, 

11, 494-501, doi:10.1890/120275. [Available online at http://www.

esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/120275]

3. Woodbury, P. B., J. E. Smith, and L. S. Heath, 2007: Carbon 

sequestration in the US forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest 

Ecolog y and Management, 241, 14-27, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.12.008. 

4. King, A. W., D. J. Hayes, D. N. Huntzinger, O. Tristram, T. O. West, 

and W. M. Post, 2012: North America carbon dioxide sources and 

sinks: Magnitude, attribution, and uncertainty. Frontiers in Ecolog y 

and the Environment, 10, 512-519, doi:10.1890/120066. 

5. Williams, C. A., G. J. Collatz, J. Masek, and S. N. Goward, 2012: 

Carbon consequences of forest disturbance and recovery across the 

conterminous United States. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 26, GB1005, 

doi:10.1029/2010gb003947. 

6. Vose, J. M., D. L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, Eds., 2012: Effects 

of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive 

Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-870. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, 265 pp. [Available online at

http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/effects_2012/FS_

Climate1114%20opt.pdf]

7. Running, S. W., R. R. Nemani, F. A. Heinsch, M. Zhao, M. Reeves, 

and H. Hashimoto, 2004: A continuous satellite-derived measure 

of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience, 54, 547-560, 

doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2. 

[Available online at http://ecocast.arc.nasa.gov/pubs/pdfs/2004/

Running_Bioscience.pdf]

8. Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, C. H. Perry, and S. A. Pugh, 2009: Forest 

Resources of the United States, 2007. General Technical Report 

WO-78. 336 pp., U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/

pubs/gtr/gtr_wo78.pdf]

9. EPA, 2013: Annex 3.12. Methodology for estimating net carbon 

stock changes in forest land remaining forest lands. Inventory of US 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011. Epa 430-R-13-001, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, A-254 - A-303. [Available online 

at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/

US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Annex_Complete_Report.pdf] 

Woodall, C. W., K. Skog, J. E. Smith, and C. H. Perry, 2011: 

Maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon cycles 

(criterion 5). National Report on Sustainable Forests -- 2010. FS-979, G. 

Robertson, P. Gaulke, and R. McWilliams, Eds., U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, II-59 - II-65. [Available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/

documents/draft2010sustainabilityreport.pdf]

10. Allen, C. D., A. K. Macalady, H. Chenchouni, D. Bachelet, 

N. McDowell, M. Vennetier, T. Kitzberger, A. Rigling, D. D. 

Breshears, E. H. Hogg, P. Gonzalez, R. Fensham, Z. Zhang, J. 

Castro, N. Demidova, J.-H. Lim, G. Allard, S. W. Running, A. 

Semerci, and N. Cobb, 2010: A global overview of drought and heatinduced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for 

forests. Forest Ecolog y and Management, 259, 660-684, doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2009.09.001. [Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.

com/science/article/pii/S037811270900615X] 

Dukes, J. S., J. Pontius, D. Orwig, J. R. Garnas, V. L. Rodgers, N. 

Brazee, B. Cooke, K. A. Theoharides, E. E. Stange, R. Harrington, 

J. Ehrenfeld, J. Gurevitch, M. Lerdau, K. Stinson, R. Wick, and M. 

Ayres, 2009: Responses of insect pests, pathogens, and invasive 

plant species to climate change in the forests of northeastern North 

America: What can we predict? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 

39, 231-248, doi:10.1139/X08-171. [Available online at http://www.

nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/X08-171] 

McDowell, N., W. T. Pockman, C. D. Allen, D. D. Breshears, N. 

Cobb, T. Kolb, J. Plaut, J. Sperry, A. West, E. A. Yepez, and D. 

G. Williams, 2008: Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality 

during drought: Why do some plants survive while others succumb 

to drought? New Phytologist, 178, 719-739, doi:10.1111/j.1469-

8137.2008.02436.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x/pdf]

11. Raffa, K. F., B. H. Aukema, B. J. Bentz, A. L. Carroll, J. A. Hicke, M. 

G. Turner, and W. H. Romme, 2008: Cross-scale drivers of natural 

disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics

of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience, 58, 501-517, doi:10.1641/b580607. 

[Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1641/

B580607.pdf]

12. Van Mantgem, P. J., N. L. Stephenson, J. C. Byrne, L. D. Daniels, 

J. F. Franklin, P. Z. Fule, M. E. Harmon, A. J. Larson, J. M. Smith, 

A. H. Taylor, and T. T. Veblen, 2009: Widespread increase of tree 

mortality rates in the western United States. Science, 323, 521-524, 

doi:10.1126/science.1165000. 
120

13. Williams, A. P., C. D. Allen, C. I. Millar, T. W. Swetnam, J. 

Michaelsen, C. J. Still, and S. W. Leavitt, 2010: Forest responses to 

increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21289-21294, 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0914211107. [Available online at http://www.pnas.

org/content/107/50/21289.full]

14.	Williams, A. P., C. D. Allen, A. K. Macalady, D. Griffin, C. A.

Woodhouse, D. M. Meko, T. W. Swetnam, S. A. Rauscher, R. Seager, 

H. D. Grissino-Mayer, J. S. Dean, E. R.Cook, C. Gangodagamage, 

M. Cai, and N. G. McDowell, 2013: Temperature as a potent 

driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nature 

Climate Change, 3, 292-297, doi:10.1038/nclimate1693. [Available 

online at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/pdf/

nclimate1693.pdf]

15. Bowman, D. M. J. S., J. K. Balch, P. Artaxo, W. J. Bond, J. M. Carlson, 

M. A. Cochrane, C. M. D’Antonio, R. S. DeFries, J. C. Doyle, S. P. 

Harrison, F. H. Johnston, J. E. Keeley, M. A. Krawchuk, C. A. Kull, 

J. B. Marston, M. A. Moritz, I. C. Prentice, C. I. Roos, A. C. Scott, 

T. W. Swetnam, G. R. van der Werf, and S. J. Pyne, 2009: Fire in the 

Earth system. Science, 324, 481-484, doi:10.1126/science.1163886. 

Keane, R. E., J. K. Agee, P. Fulé, J. E. Keeley, C. Key, S. G. Kitchen, 

R. Miller, and L. A. Schulte, 2009: Ecological effects of large fires

on US landscapes: Benefit or catastrophe? International Journal of 

Wildland Fire, 17, 696-712, doi:10.1071/WF07148. 

Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling, 

2009: Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces,

1916-2003. Ecological Applications, 19, 1003-1021, doi:10.1890/07-

1183.1. 

NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and 

Impacts over Decades to Millennia. National Research Council. The 

National Academies Press, 298 pp. [Available online at http://www.

nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12877] 

Westerling, A. L., M. G. Turner, E. A. H. Smithwick, W. H. Romme, 

and M. G. Ryan, 2011: Continued warming could transform 

Greater Yellowstone fire regimes by mid-21st century. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 13165-13170, doi:10.1073/

pnas.1110199108. [Available online at http://www.pnas.org/

content/early/2011/07/20/1110199108.abstract; http://www.pnas.

org/content/108/32/13165.full.pdf]

16. Bierwagen, B. G., D. M. Theobald, C. R. Pyke, A. Choate, P. 

Groth, J. V. Thomas, and P. Morefield, 2010: National housing

and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact 

assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 20887-

20892, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002096107. 

17. Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. 

Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry, 2005: The wildland-urban interface in 

the United States. Ecological Applications, 15, 799-805, doi:10.1890/04-

1413. 

Theobald, D. M., and W. H. Romme, 2007: Expansion of the US 

wildland-urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 340-354, 

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.06.002. 

18. Stephens, S. L., M. A. Adams, J. Handmer, F. R. Kearns, B. 

Leicester, J. Leonard, and M. A. Moritz, 2009: Urban–wildland 

fires: How California and other regions of the US can learn from

Australia. Environmental Research Letters, 4, 014010, doi:10.1088/1748-

9326/4/1/014010. 

19. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest 

wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940-943, doi:10.1126/science.1128834. 

20. Galloway, J. N., A. R. Townsend, J. W. Erisman, M. Bekunda, Z. 

C. Cai, J. R. Freney, L. A. Martinelli, S. P. Seitzinger, and M. A. 

Sutton, 2008: Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, 

questions, and potential solutions. Science, 320, 889-892, doi:10.1126/

science.1136674. 

Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, R. W. Howarth, G. E. Likens, P. A. 

Matson, D. W. Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, and D. G. Tilman, 

1997: Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and 

consequences. Ecological Applications, 7, 737-750, doi:10.1890/1051-

0761(1997)007[0737:HAOTGN]2.0.CO;2. 

21. Harley, C. D. G., 2011: Climate change, keystone predation, and 

biodiversity loss. Science, 334, 1124-1127, doi:10.1126/science.1210199. 

22. Rode, K. D., S. C. Amstrup, and E. V. Regehr, 2010: Reduced body 

size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice 

decline. Ecological Applications, 20, 768-782, doi:10.1890/08-1036.1. 

23. Moritz, C., J. L. Patton, C. J. Conroy, J. L. Parra, G. C. White, and S. 

R. Beissinger, 2008: Impact of a century of climate change on smallmammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science, 322,

261-264, doi:10.1126/science.1163428. 

24. Anderegg, W. R. L., J. M. Kane, and L. D. L. Anderegg, 2012: 

Consequences of widespread tree mortality triggered by drought 

and temperature stress. Nature Climate Change, 3, 30-36, doi:10.1038/

nclimate1635. 

25. Post, E., C. Pedersen, C. C. Wilmers, and M. C. Forchhammer, 

2008: Warming, plant phenology and the spatial dimension of 

trophic mismatch for large herbivores. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

B: Biological Sciences, 275, 2005-2013, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0463. 

[Available online at http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/

content/275/1646/2005.full.pdf+html]

26. Crausbay, S. D., and S. C. Hotchkiss, 2010: Strong relationships 

between vegetation and two perpendicular climate gradients high 

on a tropical mountain in Hawai‘i. Journal of Biogeography, 37, 1160-

1174, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02277.x. 

27. Garroway, C. J., J. Bowman, T. J. Cascaden, G. L. Holloway, C. G. 

Mahan, J. R. Malcolm, M. A. Steele, G. Turner, and P. J. Wilson, 2009: 

Climate change induced hybridization in flying squirrels. Global 

Change Biolog y, 16, 113-121, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01948.x. 

[Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

j.1365-2486.2009.01948.x/pdf]

28.	Dunnell, K. L., and S. E. Travers, 2011: Shifts in the flowering

phenology of the Northern Great Plains: Patterns over 100 years 

American Journal of Botany, 98, 935-945, doi:10.3732/ajb.1000363. 

[Available online at http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/6/935.full.

pdf+html]

29. Nye, J. A., J. S. Link, J. A. Hare, and W. J. Overholtz, 2009: 

Changing spatial distribution of fish stocks in relation to climate and

population size on the Northeast United States continental shelf. 

Marine Ecolog y Progress Series, 393, 111-129, doi:10.3354/meps08220. 

References
121

30. Sperry, J. H., G. Blouin-Demers, G. L. F. Carfagno, and P. J. 

Weatherhead, 2010: Latitudinal variation in seasonal activity and 

mortality in ratsnakes (Elaphe obsoleta). Ecolog y, 91, 1860-1866, 

doi:10.1890/09-1154.1. 

31. Van Buskirk, J., R. S. Mulvihill, and R. C. Leberman, 2008: Variable 

shifts in spring and autumn migration phenology in North American 

songbirds associated with climate change. Global Change Biolog y, 15,

760-771, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01751.x. 

32. Botero, C. A., and D. R. Rubenstein, 2012: Fluctuating environments, 

sexual selection and the evolution of flexible mate choice in birds.

PLoS ONE, 7, e32311, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032311. 

33. Ibáñez, I., J. S. Clark, and M. C. Dietze, 2008: Evaluating the 

sources of potential migrant species: Implications under climate 

change. Ecological Applications, 18, 1664-1678, doi:10.1890/07-1594.1. 

34. Fodrie, F., K. L. Heck, S. P. Powers, W. M. Graham, and K. L. 

Robinson, 2009: Climate-related, decadal-scale assemblage changes 

of seagrass-associated fishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Global 

Change Biolog y, 16, 48-59, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01889.x. 

[Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

j.1365-2486.2009.01889.x/pdf]

35. Wood, A. J. M., J. S. Collie, and J. A. Hare, 2009: A comparison 

between warm-water fish assemblages of Narragansett Bay and

those of Long Island Sound waters. Fishery Bulletin, 107, 89-100.

Finding 11: Oceans

1. NMFS, 2012: Fisheries of the United States 2011, 139 pp., National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Silver

Spring, MD. [Available online at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/

fus/fus11/FUS_2011.pdf] 

NOC, 2012: National Ocean Policy Draft Implementation Plan, 118 

pp., National Ocean Council, Washington, D.C. [Available online 

at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/

national_ocean_policy_draft_implementation_plan_01-12-12.pdf] 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004: An Ocean Blueprint for 

the 21st Century: Final Report, 28 pp., U.S. Commission on Ocean 

Policy, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://govinfo.

library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/000_

ocean_full_report.pdf]

2.	 NRC, 2010: Ocean Acidification. A National Strategy to Meet

the Challenges of a Changing Ocean, 175 pp., Committee on 

the Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean 

Acidification Monitoring Research and Impacts Assessment,

Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National 

Research Council, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://

www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12904]

3. Chavez, F. P., M. Messié, and J. T. Pennington, 2011: Marine 

primary production in relation to climate variability and change. 

Annual Review of Marine Science, 3, 227-260, doi:10.1146/annurev.

marine.010908.163917. 

4. Etheridge, D. M., et al., 2010: Law Dome Ice Core 2000-Year 

CO2, CH4, and N2O Data, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for 

Paleoclimatology. Data Contribution Series #2010-070. NOAA/

NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, CO. 

NCDC, cited 2012: Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface 

Temperature NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. [Available 

online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/] 

Smith, T. M., R. W. Reynolds, T. C. Peterson, and J. Lawrimore, 

2008: Improvements to NOAA’s historical merged land-ocean 

surface temperature analysis (1880-2006). Journal of Climate, 21,

2283-2296, doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2100.1. 

	 CSIRO, cited 2012: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation [Available online at www.csiro.au/] 

Church, J. A., and N. J. White, 2011: Sea-level rise from the late 

19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics, 32, 585-602, 

doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1. 

University of Illinois, 2012: Sea Ice Dataset, University of Illinois, 

Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Urbana, IL. [Available online 

at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/] 

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, J. E. Duffy, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, 

C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, 

N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, 

and L. D. Talley, 2012: Climate change impacts on marine 

ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 4, 11-37, doi:10.1146/

annurev-marine-041911-111611. [Available online at http://

www.annualreviews.org/eprint/fzUZd7Z748TeHmB7p8cn/

full/10.1146/annurev-marine-041911-111611]

5. Tans, P., and R. Keeling, cited 2012: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon 

Dioxide, Full Mauna Loa CO2 Record. NOAA’s Earth System 

Research Laboratory. [Available online at http://www.esrl.noaa.

gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/]

6. MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. 

Langenfelds, and T. van Ommen, 2006: Law Dome CO2, CH4, and 

N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026152/pdf]

7. Sabine, C. L., R. A. Feely, N. Gruber, R. M. Key, K. Lee, J. L. 

Bullister, R. Wanninkhof, C. S. Wong, D. W. R. Wallace, B. 

Tilbrook, F. J. Millero, T.-H. Peng, A. Kozyr, T. Ono, and A. F. 

Rios, 2004: The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science, 305,

367-371, doi:10.1126/science.1097403. 

8.	 Feely, R. A., S. C. Doney, and S. R. Cooley, 2009: Ocean acidification:

Present conditions and future changes in a high-CO2 world. 

Oceanography, 22, 36-47, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.95. [Available 

online at http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/22-4_feely.

pdf]

9. Feely, R. A., C. L. Sabine, J. M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. 

Hales, 2008: Evidence for upwelling of corrosive “acidified” water

onto the continental shelf. Science, 320, 1490-1492, doi:10.1126/

science.1155676. [Available online at http://www.sciencemag.org/

content/320/5882/1490.short]

10. Tribollet, A., C. Godinot, M. Atkinson, and C. Langdon, 2009: 

Effects of elevated pCO2 on dissolution of coral carbonates by 

microbial euendoliths. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23, GB3008, 

doi:10.1029/2008GB003286. 
122

Wisshak, M., C. H. L. Schönberg, A. Form, and A. Freiwald, 

2012: Ocean acidification accelerates reef bioerosion.

PLoS ONE, 7, e45124, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045124. 

[Available online at http://www.plosone.org/article/

fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.

pone.0045124&representation=PDF]

11. Cooley, S. R., H. L. Kite-Powell, L. Hauke, and S. C. Doney, 2009: 

Ocean acidification’s potential to alter global marine ecosystem

services. Oceanography, 22, 172-181, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.106. 

Doney, S. C., W. M. Balch, V. J. Fabry, and R. A. Feely, 2009: Ocean 

acidification: A critical emerging problem for the ocean sciences.

Oceanography, 22, 16-25, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.93. [Available 

online at https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/

handle/1912/3181/22-4_doney.pdf?sequence=1] 

Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. Crim, I. E. Hendriks, L. Ramajo, 

G. S. Singh, C. M. Duarte, and J.-P. Gattuso, 2013: Impacts of 

ocean acidification on marine organisms: Quantifying sensitivities

and interaction with warming. Global Change Biolog y, 19, 1884-1896, 

doi:10.1111/gcb.12179. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12179/pdf] 

Kroeker, K. J., R. L. Kordas, R. N. Crim, and G. G. Singh, 

2010: Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean 

acidification on marine organisms. Ecolog y Letters, 13, 1419-1434, 

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x/pdf]

12. Marshall, P., and H. Schuttenberg, 2006: A Reef Manager's Guide to 

Coral Bleaching. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, IUCN 

Global Marine Programme, and U.S. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 163 pp. [Available online at http://

data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2006-043.pdf]

13. Talmage, S. C., and C. J. Gobler, 2010: Effects of past, present, 

and future ocean carbon dioxide concentrations on the growth and 

survival of larval shellfish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

107, 17246-17251, doi:10.1073/pnas.0913804107. [Available online 

at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100928154754.

htm]

14. Bates, A. E., W. B. Stickle, and C. D. G. Harley, 2010: Impact of 

temperature on an emerging parasitic association between a spermfeeding scuticociliate and Northeast Pacific sea stars. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biolog y and Ecolog y, 384, 44-50, doi:10.1016/j.

jembe.2009.12.001. 

Eakin, C. M., J. A. Morgan, S. F. Heron, T. B. Smith, G. Liu, L. 

Alvarez-Filip, B. Baca, E. Bartels, C. Bastidas, C. Bouchon, M. 

Brandt, A. W. Bruckner, L. Bunkley-WIlliams, A. Cameron, B. 

D. Causey, M. Chiappone, T. R. L. Christensen, M. J. C. Crabbe, 

O. Day, E. de la Guardia, G. Díaz-Pulido, D. Di Resta, D. L. GilAgudelo, D. S. Gilliam, R. N. Ginsburg, S. Gore, H. M. Guzmán, J. 

C. Hendee, E. A. Hernández-Delgado, E. Husain, C. F. G. Jeffrey, 

R. J. Jones, E. Jordán-Dahlgren, L. S. Kaufman, D. I. Kline, P. 

A. Kramer, J. C. Lang, D. Lirman, J. Mallela, C. Manfrino, J.-P. 

Maréchal, K. Marks, J. Mihaly, W. J. Miller, E. M. Mueller, E. M. 

Muller, C. A. Orozco Toro, H. A. Oxenford, D. Ponce-Taylor, 

N. Quinn, K. B. Ritchie, S. Rodríguez, A. Rodríguez Ramírez, 

S. Romano, J. F. Samhouri, J. A. Sánchez, G. P. Schmahl, B. V. 

Shank, W. J. Skirving, S. C. C. Steiner, E. Villamizar, S. M. Walsh, 

C. Walter, E. Weil, E. H. Williams, K. W. Roberson, and Y. Y., 

2010: Caribbean corals in crisis: Record thermal stress, bleaching, 

and mortality in 2005. PLoS ONE, 5, e13969, doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0013969. [Available online at http://www.plosone.org/article/

info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013969] 

Harvell, D., S. Altizer, I. M. Cattadori, L. Harrington, and E. Weil, 

2009: Climate change and wildlife diseases: When does the host 

matter the most? Ecolog y, 90, 912-920, doi:/10.1890/08-0616.1. 

Staehli, A., R. Schaerer, K. Hoelzle, and G. Ribi, 2009: 

Temperature induced disease in the starfish Astropecten jonstoni. 

Marine Biodiversity Records, 2, e78, doi:10.1017/S1755267209000633. 

[Available online at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/

displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5466240] 

Ward, J. R., and K. D. Lafferty, 2004: The elusive baseline of marine 

disease: Are diseases in ocean ecosystems increasing? PLoS Biolog y, 

2, e120, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020120. 

15. Bruno, J. F., E. R. Selig, K. S. Casey, C. A. Page, B. L. Willis, C. D. 

Harvell, H. Sweatman, and A. M. Melendy, 2007: Thermal stress 

and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biolog y, 5,

e124, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124. 

16. Boyett, H. V., D. G. Bourne, and B. L. Willis, 2007: Elevated 

temperature and light enhance progression and spread of black band 

disease on staghorn corals of the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Biolog y, 

151, 1711-1720, doi:10.1007/200227-006-0603-y. 

Ward, J. R., K. Kim, and C. D. Harvell, 2007: Temperature affects 

coral disease resistance and pathogen growth. Marine Ecolog y Progress 

Series, 329, 115-121, doi:10.3354/meps329115. 

Case, R. J., S. R. Longford, A. H. Campbell, A. Low, N. Tujula, P. 

D. Steinberg, and S. Kjelleberg, 2011: Temperature induced bacterial 

virulence and bleaching disease in a chemically defended marine 

macroalga. Environmental Microbiolog y, 13, 529-537, doi:10.1111/

j.1462-2920.02356.x. 

17. Hughes, J. E., L. A. Deegan, J. C. Wyda, M. J. Weaver, and A. 

Wright, 2002: The effects of eelgrass habitat loss on estuarine fish

communities of southern New England. Estuaries and Coasts, 25,

235-249, doi:10.1007/BF02691311. 

18. Bjork, M., F. Short, E. McLeod, and S. Beer, 2008: Managing Seagrasses 

for Resilience to Climate Change. World Conservation Union. 

19. Pinsky, M. L., and M. Fogarty, 2012: Lagged social-ecological 

responses to climate and range shifts in fisheries. Climatic Change, 

115, 883-891, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0599-x. 

Finding 12: Responses

1. Bierbaum, R. M., D. G. Brown, and J. L. McAlpine, 2008: Coping with 

Climate Change: National Summit Proceedings. University of Michigan 

Press, 256 pp. 

2. SEGCC, 2007: Confronting Climate Change: Avoiding the 

Unmanageable and Managing the Unavoidable. Report Prepared for 

the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. R. 

Bierbaum, J. P. Holdren, M. MacCracken, R. H. Moss, P. H. Raven, 

and H. J. Schellnhuber, Eds., 144 pp., Scientific Expert Group on

Climate Change, Sigma Xi and the United Nations Foundation, 

Research Triangle Park, NC and Washington, D.C. . [Available 

online at http://www.globalproblems-globalsolutions-files.org/

unf_website/PDF/climate%20_change_avoid_unmanagable_

manage_unavoidable.pdf]

References
123

3. McMullen, C. P., and J. R. Jabbour, 2009: Climate Change Science 

Compendium 2009. United Nations Environment Programme. 

Skaggs, R., T. C. Janetos, K. A. Hibbard, and J. S. Rice, 2012: Climate 

and Energy-Water-Land System Interactions Technical Report to 

the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National Climate 

Assessment, 152 pp., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,

Richland, Washington. [Available online at http://climatemodeling.

science.energy.gov/f/PNNL-21185_FINAL_REPORT.pdf] 

Wilbanks, T., D. Bilello, D. Schmalzer, and M. Scott, 2012: 

Climate Change and Energy Supply and Use. Technical Report 

to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support of the National 

Climate Assessment, 79 pp., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak Ridge, TN. [Available

online at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/eess/EnergySupplyUse.pdf] 

Wilbanks, T., S. Fernandez, G. Backus, P. Garcia, K. Jonietz, 

P. Kirshen, M. Savonis, B. Solecki, and L. Toole, 2012: Climate 

Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities. 

Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support 

of the National Climate Assessment, 119 pp., Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak

Ridge, TN. [Available online at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/eess/

Infrastructure.pdf]

4. Karl, T. R., J. T. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson, Eds., 2009: Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 

189 pp. [Available online at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/

usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf]

5. NRC, 2010: Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. America’s Climate 

Choices: Report of the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.

National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 292 

pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_

id=12783]

6. The White House, 2013: Executive Order 13653. Preparing the 

United States for the Impacts of Climate Change. The White House, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-unitedstates-impacts-climate-change]

7. Goulder, L. H., and R. N. Stavins, 2011: Challenges from statefederal interactions in US climate change policy. The American 

Economic Review, 101, 253-257, doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.253. 

Morsch, A., and R. Bartlett, 2011: Policy Brief: State Strategies to Plan 

for and Adapt to Climate Change - NI PB 11-08, 11 pp., Nicholas 

Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions – Duke University, 

Durham, NC. [Available online at http://nicholasinstitute.duke.

edu/sites/default/files/publications/state-strategies-to-plan-forand-adapt-to-climate-change-paper.pdf]

8. Feldman, I. R., and J. H. Kahan, 2007: Preparing for the day after 

tomorrow: Frameworks for climate change adaptation. Sustainable 

Development Law & Policy, 8, 31-39, 87-89. [Available online at 

http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.

cgi?article=1162&context=sdlp] 

Moser, S. C., 2009: Good Morning America! The Explosive 

Awakening of the US to Adaptation, 39 pp., California Energy 

Commission, NOAA-Coastal Services Center, Sacramento, CA and 

Charleston, SC. [Available online at http://www.preventionweb.

net/files/11374_MoserGoodMorningAmericaAdaptationin.pdf]

9. C2ES, cited 2013: State and Local Climate Adaptation. Center for 

Climate and Energy Solutions. [Available online at http://www.

c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/adaptation]

10. Simmonds, J., 2011: Resource for Consideration by the NCA Teams 

Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Native Communities. 

Native Communities and Climate Change Project of the University 

of Colorado Law School and the Cooperative Institute for Research 

in Environmental Science. 

11. Lamb, R., and M. V. Davis, 2011: Promoting Generations of Self 

Reliance: Stories and Examples of Tribal Adaptation to Change, 

27 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, 

WA. [Available online at http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/tribal/

stories_and_examples_of_tribal_adaptation_to_change.pdf]

12. Carmin, J., N. Nadkarni, and C. Rhie, 2012: Progress and Challenges 

in Urban Climate Adaptation Planning: Results of a Global Survey, 

30 pp., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ICLEI Local 

Governments for Sustainability, Cambridge, MA. [Available online 

at http://web.mit.edu/jcarmin/www/urbanadapt/Urban%20

Adaptation%20Report%20FINAL.pdf]

13. Dierwechter, Y., 2010: Metropolitan geographies of US climate 

action: Cities, suburbs, and the local divide in global responsibilities. 

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12, 59-82, doi:10.1080/1523

9081003625960. 

Grannis, J., 2011: Adaptation Tool Kit: Sea-Level Rise and Coastal 

Land Use. How Governments Can Use Land-Use Practices to Adapt 

to Sea-Level Rise, 100 pp., Georgetown Climate Center, Washington, 

D.C. [Available online at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/

default/files/Adaptation_Tool_Kit_SLR.pdf] 

Kahn, M. E., 2009: Urban growth and climate change. Annual 

Review of Resource Economics, 1, 333-350, doi:10.1146/annurev.

resource.050708.144249. 

Selin, H., and S. D. VanDeveer, 2007: Political science and prediction: 

What's next for U.S. climate change policy? Review of Policy Research, 

24, 1-27, doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00265.x. [Available online at 

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~sdv/US-Climate-Policy.pdf] 

Solecki, W., and C. Rosenzweig, Eds., 2012: U.S. Cities and Climate 

Change: Urban, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability Issues, Technical 

Input Report Series, U.S. National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, D.C. 

Tang, Z., S. D. Brody, C. Quinn, L. Chang, and T. Wei, 2010: 

Moving from agenda to action: Evaluating local climate change 

action plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53, 41-

62, doi:10.1080/09640560903399772. 

14. Staudinger, M. D., N. B. Grimm, A. Staudt, S. L. Carter, F. S. Chapin, 

III, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, and B. A. Stein, 2012: Impacts 

of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem 

Services. Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment 

296 pp., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. [Available online 

at http://downloads.usgcrp.gov/NCA/Activities/BiodiversityEcosystems-and-Ecosystem-Services-Technical-Input.pdf] 
124

Colson, M., K. Heery, and A. Wallis, 2011: A Survey Of Regional 

Planning For Climate Adaptation, 20 pp., The National Association 

of Regional Councils, Washington, DC. [Available online at http://

narc.org/wp-content/uploads/NOAA_White_Paper-FINAL2.

pdf]

15. CDP, 2011: CDP S&P 500 Report: Strategic Advantage Through 

Climate Change Action, 49 pp., Carbon Disclosure Project, New 

York, NY and London, UK. [Available online at https://www.

cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-2011-SP500.pdf]

16. Agrawala, S., M. Carraro, N. Kingsmill, E. Lanzi, M. Mullan, and 

G. Prudent-Richard, 2011: Private sector engagement in adaptation 

to climate change: Approaches to managing climate risks. OECD 

Environment Working Papers, 39, doi:10.1787/5kg221jkf1g7-en. 

Dell, J., and P. Pasteris, 2010: Adaptation in the Oil and Gas Industry 

to Projected Impacts of Climate Change. Society of Petroleum 

Engineers, 16 pp. 

Oxfam America, cited 2012: The New Adaptation Marketplace: 

Climate Change and Opportunities for Green Economic Growth. 

Oxfam America. [Available online at http://www.usclimatenetwork.

org/resource-database/the-new-adaptation-marketplace.pdf] 

PWC, 2010: Business Leadership on Climate Change 

Adaptation: Encouraging Engagement and Action, 36 pp., 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP London, UK. [Available 

online at http://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/imagelibrary/

downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1837]

17. Bierbaum, R., J. B. Smith, A. Lee, L. Carter, F. S. Chapin, III, P. 

Fleming, S. Ruffo, S. McNeeley, M. Stults, E. Wasley, and L. 

Verduzco, 2013 A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in 

the United States: More than before, but less than needed. Mitigation 

and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 361-406, doi:10.1007/

s11027-012-9423-1. [Available online at http://link.springer.com/

article/10.1007%2Fs11027-012-9423-1]

18. SFRCCC, 2012: A Region Responds to a Changing Climate. 

Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties. 

Regional Climate Action Plan, 80 pp., South Florida Regional 

Climate Change Compact Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, 

and Palm Beach Counties, FL. [Available online at http://

southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/pdf/Regional%20Climate%20

Action%20Plan%20FINAL%20ADA%20Compliant.pdf]

19. EPA, 2013: Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990-2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. [Available online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.

pdf]

20. The White House, 2010: Economic Report of the President, Council 

of Economic Advisors, 462 pp., The White House, Washington, 

D.C. [Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/microsites/economic-report-president.pdf] 

——, 2010: Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to Congress.

Office of Management and Budget, 34 pp. 

——, 2012: A Secure Energy Future: Progress Report. [Available 

online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/emailfiles/the_blueprint_for_a_secure_energy_future_oneyear_

progress_report.pdf] 

DOE, 2009: Strategies of the Commercialization and Deployment 

of Greenhouse Gas Intensity-Reducing Technologies and Practices. 

DOE/PI-000, 190 pp., the Committee on Climate Change Science 

and Technology Integration [Available online at http://www.

climatetechnology.gov/Strategy-Intensity-Reducing-Technologies.

pdf] 

GAO, 2011: Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify 

National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding 

Decisions. GAO-11-317, 95 pp., U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. [Available online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.

pdf]

21. The White House, cited 2013: The President’s Climate Action Plan. 

The White House. [Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

share/climate-action-plan]

22. Janetos, A., and A. Wagener, 2002: Understanding the Ancillary 

Effects of Climate Change Policies: A Research Agenda. World 

Resources Institute Policy Brief, Washington, D.C. [Available 

online at http://pdf.wri.org/climate_janetos_ancillary.pdf] 

Haines, A., K. R. Smith, D. Anderson, P. R. Epstein, A. J. McMichael, 

I. Roberts, P. Wilkinson, J. Woodcock, and J. Woods, 2007: Policies 

for accelerating access to clean energy, improving health, advancing 

development, and mitigating climate change. The Lancet, 370, 1264-

1281, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61257-4. 

23. Nemet, G. F., T. Holloway, and P. Meier, 2010: Implications 

of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change

policymaking. Environmental Research Letters, 5, 014007, 

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007. [Available online at 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014007/pdf/1748-

9326_5_1_014007.pdf]

24. Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C. 

Bloyd, 2003: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US

from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity 

sector. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45, 650-673, 

doi:10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00022-0. 

25. West, J. J., A. M. Fiore, L. W. Horowitz, and D. L. Mauzerall, 2006: 

Global Health Benefits of Mitigating ozone pollution with methane

emission controls. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103,

3998-3993, doi:10.1073/pnas.0600201103. [Available online at 

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/11/3988.full.pdf+html]

26. NRC, 2010: Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change. America’s 

Climate Choices. Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change.

National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Sciences 

and Climate, Division of Earth and Life Studies. The National 

Academies Press, 276 pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12785]

27. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, cited 2012: List of 

Participating Mayors. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Center, 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors. [Available online at http://www.

usmayors.org/climateprotection/list.asp]

28. Beratan, K. K., and H. A. Karl, 2012: Ch. 10: Managing the sciencepolicy interface in a complex and contentious world. Restoring 

Lands - Coordinating Science, Politics and Action: Complexities of Climate 

and Governance, H. A. Karl, L. Scarlett, J. C. Vargas-Moreno, and M. 

Flaxman, Eds., Springer, 183-216. 

References
125

Mattson, D., H. Karl, and S. Clark, 2012: Ch. 12: Values in natural 

resource management and policy. Restoring Lands - Coordinating Science, 

Politics and Action: Complexities of Climate and Governance, H. A. Karl, L. 

Scarlett, J. C. Vargas-Moreno, and M. Flaxman, Eds., Springer, 239-

259. 

29. NRC, 2009: Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. National 

Research Council, Panel on Strategies and Methods for ClimateRelated Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions 

of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. National Academies Press, 200 pp. [Available online at 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12626]

30. Lee, K. N., 1993: Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for 

the Environment. Island Press, 255 pp. 

31. NRC, 2010: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change. 

America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Informing Effective Decisions 

and Actions Related to Climate Change. National Research Council, 

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and 

Life Studies, National Academies Press, 348 pp. [Available online at 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12784] 

Willows, R. I., and R. K. Connell, Eds., 2003: Climate Adaptation: 

Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-Making. UKCIP Technical Report. 

UK Climate Impacts Programme. 166 pp. [Available online at 

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/PDFs/UKCIPRisk-framework.pdf]

32. Kahan, D. M., and D. Braman, 2006: Cultural cognition and public 

policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 24, 149-172. 

33. Hall, J. W., R. J. Lempert, K. Keller, A. Hackbarth, C. Mijere, and 

D. J. McInerney, 2012: Robust climate policies under uncertainty: A 

comparison of robust decision making and info-gap methods. Risk 

Analysis, 32, 1657-1672, doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01802.x. 

Lempert, R. J., S. W. Popper, and S. C. Bankes, 2003: Shaping the 

Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, LongTerm Policy Analysis. Rand Corporation, 186 pp. [Available online 

at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1626.

pdf]

Northeast

1. Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, and O. G. Zolina, 2013: Recent 

trends in regional and global intense precipitation patterns. Climate 

Vulnerability, R. A. Pielke, Sr., Ed., Academic Press, 25-55. 

2. Blake, E. S., T. B. Kimberlain, R. J. Berg, J. P. Cangialosi, and J. 

L. Beven, II 2013: Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Sandy. 

(AL182012) 22 – 29 October 2012, 157 pp., National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Hurricane Center [Available 

online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.

pdf]

3. NOAA, cited 2013: Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters, List 

of Events. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

[Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events]

4. PWD, cited 2013: Green City, Clean Waters. Philadelphia Water 

Department. [Available online at http://www.phillywatersheds.

org/ltcpu/]

5. Jain, S., E. Stancioff, and A. Gray, cited 2012: Coastal Climate 

Adaptation in Maine’s Coastal Communities: Governance Mapping 

for Culvert Management. [Available online at http://umaine.

edu/maineclimatenews/archives/spring-2012/coastal-climateadaptation-in-maines-coastal-communities/]

6. NOAA, cited 2013: Sea Level Trends. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service. [Available 

online at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml]

Southeast and Caribbean

1. Mackun, P., S. Wilson, T. R. Fischetti, and J. Goworowska, 

2010: Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010, 12 

pp., U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. [Available online at http://

www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf]

2. Ingram, K., K. Dow, and L. Carter, 2012: Southeast Region 

Technical Report to the National Climate Assessment 334 pp. 

[Available online at http://downloads.usgcrp.gov/NCA/Activities/

NCA_SE_Technical_Report_FINAL_7-23-12.pdf]

3. Portier, C. J., T. K. Thigpen, S. R. Carter, C. H. Dilworth, A. E. 

Grambsch, J. Gohlke, J. Hess, S. N. Howard, G. Luber, J. T. Lutz, 

T. Maslak, N. Prudent, M. Radtke, J. P. Rosenthal, T. Rowles, P. A. 

Sandifer, J. Scheraga, P. J. Schramm, D. Strickman, J. M. Trtanj, 

and P.-Y. Whung, 2010: A Human Health Perspective on Climate 

Change: A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human 

Health Effects of Climate Change, 80 pp., Environmental Health 

Perspectives and the National Institute of Environmental Health 

Services, Research Triangle Park, NC. [Available online at www.

niehs.nih.gov/climatereport]

4.	 Hatfield, J., K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B. A. Kimball,

T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thompson, and D. Wolfe, 

2008: Ch. 2: Agriculture. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, 

Land Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research, P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote,

P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B. A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, 

D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M. G. Ryan, S. R. Archer, 

R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, 

G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, 

D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B. P. Kelly, 

L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw, Eds., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 21-74. [Available online at http://library.globalchange.

gov/products/sap-3-4-the-effects-of-climate-change-onagcriculture-land-resources-water-resources-and-biodiversity] 

Alexandrov, V. A., and G. Hoogenboom, 2000: Vulnerability and 

adaptation assessments of agricultural crops under climate change 

in the Southeastern USA. Theoretical and Applied Climatolog y, 67, 45-

63, doi:10.1007/s007040070015. 

5. Hallegraeff, G. M., 2010: Ocean climate change, phytoplankton 

community responses, and harmful algal blooms: A formidable 

predictive challenge. Journal of Phycolog y, 46, 220-235, doi:10.1111/

j.1529-8817.2010.00815.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2010.00815.x/full] 

Moore, S. K., V. L. Trainer, N. J. Mantua, M. S. Parker, E. A. Laws, 

L. C. Backer, and L. E. Fleming, 2008: Impacts of climate variability 

and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human 

health. Environmental Health, 7, 1-12, doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-S2-S4. 

[Available online at http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-

069X-7-S2-S4.pdf] 
126

Tester, P. A., R. L. Feldman, A. W. Nau, S. R. Kibler, and R. Wayne 

Litaker, 2010: Ciguatera fish poisoning and sea surface temperatures

in the Caribbean Sea and the West Indies. Toxicon, 56, 698-710, 

doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.02.026. 

Tirado, M. C., R. Clarke, L. A. Jaykus, A. McQuatters-Gollop, 

and J. M. Frank, 2010: Climate change and food safety: A 

review. Food Research International, 43, 1745-1765, doi:10.1016/j.

foodres.2010.07.003. 

Wiedner, C., J. Rücker, R. Brüggemann, and B. Nixdorf, 2007: 

Climate change affects timing and size of populations of an invasive 

cyanobacterium in temperate regions. Oecologia, 152, 473-484, 

doi:10.1007/s00442-007-0683-5. 

6. Kunkel, K. E., L. E. Stevens, S. E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, 

D. Wuebbles, C. E. Konrad, II, C. M. Fuhrman, B. D. Keim, M. 

C. Kruk, A. Billet, H. Needham, M. Schafer, and J. G. Dobson, 

2013: Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National 

Climate Assessment: Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S. NOAA 

Technical Report 142-2. 103 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service, Washington D.C. [Available online at http://

www.nesdis.noaa.gov/technical_reports/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_

Report_142-2-Climate_of_the_Southeast_U.S.pdf]

7. NOAA, cited 2013: Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters, List 

of Events. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

[Available online at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events]

8. Campanella, R., 2010: Delta Urbanism: New Orleans. American 

Planning Association, 224 pp. 

9. Strauss, B. H., R. Ziemlinski, J. L. Weiss, and J. T. Overpeck, 2012: 

Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level 

rise and flooding for the contiguous United States. Environmental 

Research Letters, 7, 014033, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014033. 

10. PRCCC, 2013: State of Puerto Rico’s Climate 2010-2013 

Executive Summary. Assessing Puerto Rico’s Social-Ecological 

Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. ELECTRONIC VERSION, 

27 pp., Puerto Rico Climate Change Council. Puerto Rico 

Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management (NOAA-OCRM), San Juan, PR. [Available online 

at http://www.drna.gobierno.pr/oficinas/arn/recursosvivientes/

costasreservasrefugios/pmzc/prccc/prccc-2013/PRCCC_

ExecutiveSummary_ElectronicVersion_English.pdf]

11. AWF/AEC/Entergy, 2010: Building a Resilient Energy Gulf Coast: 

Executive Report, 11 pp., America’s Wetland Foundation, America’s 

Energy Coast, and Entergy. [Available online at www.entergy.com/

content/our_community/environment/GulfCoastAdaptation/

Building_a_Resilient_Gulf_Coast.pdf]

12. State of Louisiana, 2012: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan 

for a Sustainable Coast, draft Jan 2012, State of Louisiana. Coastal 

Protection and Restoration Authority, Baton Rouge, LA. [Available 

online at http://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012-

master-plan/final-master-plan/]

13. DHS, 2011: Louisiana Highway 1/Port Fourchon Study, 76 pp., 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. [Available online at http://

www.nimsat.org/sites/nimsat/files/Final%20Report.pdf]

14. Obeysekera, J., M. Irizarry, J. Park, J. Barnes, and T. Dessalegne, 

2011: Climate change and its implications for water resources 

management in south Florida. Stochastic Environmental Research and 

Risk Assessment, 25, 495-516, doi:10.1007/s00477-010-0418-8. 

SFWMD: Climate Change and Water Management in South Florida. 

Interdepartmental Climate Change Group report November 12, 

2009. South Florida Water Management District. [Available online 

at https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_

repository_pdf/climate_change_and_water_management_in_

sflorida_12nov2009.pdf]

15. Berry, L., F. Bloetscher, N. Hernández Hammer, M. Koch-Rose, D. 

Mitsova-Boneva, J. Restrepo, T. Root, and R. Teegavarapu, 2011: 

Florida Water Management and Adaptation in the Face of Climate 

Change, 68 pp., Florida Climate Change Task Force. [Available 

online at http://floridaclimate.org/docs/water_managment.pdf]

16. UNEP, 2008: Climate Change in the Caribbean and the Challenge 

of Adaptation, 92 pp., United Nations Environment Programme, 

Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Panama City,

Panama. [Available online at http://www.pnuma.org/deat1/pdf/

Climate_Change_in_the_Caribbean_Final_LOW20oct.pdf]

17. Hammar-Klose, E., and E. Thieler, 2001: National Assessment of 

Coastal Vulnerability to Future Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results 

for the US Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. US Reports

99–593, 00-178, and 00-179. U.S. Geological Survey. [Available 

online at http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/cvi/]

18. Hewes, W., and K. Pitts, 2009: Natural Security: How Sustainable 

Water Strategies Are Preparing Communities for a Changing 

Climate, 112 pp., American Rivers, Washington, D.C. [Available 

online at http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/reports-andpublications/natural-security-report.pdf]

19. Devens, T., 2012: Phone Interview. N. Hernández Hammer, 

recipient 

Henderson, B., 2011: Rising Waters Threaten the Coast Of North 

Carolina. The Charlotte Observer, January 18, 2011. The McClatchy 

Company. [Available online at http://www.charlotteobserver.

com/2011/01/18/1983784/rising-waters-threaten-nc-coast.html] 

Titus, J., 2002: Does sea level rise matter to transportation along the 

Atlantic coast? The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation, 

Summary and Discussion Papers, Federal Research Partnership Workshop, 

October 1-2, 2002, U.S. Department of Transportation Center for 

Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, 135-150. 

Midwest

1. Patz, J. A., S. J. Vavrus, C. K. Uejio, and S. L. McLellan, 2008: 

Climate change and waterborne disease risk in the Great Lakes 

region of the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 451-458, 

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.026. [Available online at http://www.

ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00702-2/fulltext]

2. Winkler, J. A., J. Andresen, J. Bisanz, G. Guentchev, J. Nugent, K. 

Primsopa, N. Rothwell, C. Zavalloni, J. Clark, H. K. Min, A. Pollyea, 

and H. Prawiranta, 2013: Ch. 8: Michigan’s tart cherry industry: 

Vulnerability to climate variability and change. Climate Change in the 

Midwest: Impacts, Risks, Vulnerability and Adaptation, S. C. Pryor, Ed., 

Indiana University Press, 104-116. 

References
127

3. Vavrus, S., J. E. Walsh, W. L. Chapman, and D. Portis, 2006: The 

behavior of extreme cold air outbreaks under greenhouse warming. 

International Journal of Climatolog y, 26, 1133-1147, doi:10.1002/joc.1301. 

4. Gu, L., P. J. Hanson, W. Mac Post, D. P. Kaiser, B. Yang, R. Nemani, 

S. G. Pallardy, and T. Meyers, 2008: The 2007 eastern US spring 

freezes: Increased cold damage in a warming world? BioScience, 58,

253-262, doi:10.1641/b580311. [Available online at http://www.

jstor.org/stable/10.1641/B580311] 

Leakey, A. D. B., 2009: Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide 

concentration and the future of C4 crops for food and fuel. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 2333-2343, 

doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1517. [Available online at http://rspb.

royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1666/2333.full.pdf+html] 

Sage, R., and D. Kubien, 2003: Quo vadis C4? An ecophysiological 

perspective on global change and the future of C4 plants. Photosynthesis 

Research, 77, 209-225, doi:10.1023/a:1025882003661. 

Lobell, D. B., and C. B. Field, 2007: Global scale climate - crop 

yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environmental 

Research Letters, 2, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002. [Available 

online at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002/

pdf/1748-9326_2_1_014002.pdf]

5.	 Hatfield, J. L., K. J. Boote, B. A. Kimball, L. H. Ziska, R. C.

Izaurralde, D. Ort, A. M. Thomson, and D. Wolfe, 2011: Climate 

impacts on agriculture: Implications for crop production. Agronomy 

Journal, 103, 351-370, doi:10.2134/agronj2010.0303. 

6. Rosenzweig, C., F. N. Tubiello, R. Goldberg, E. Mills, and J. 

Bloomfield, 2002: Increased crop damage in the US from excess

precipitation under climate change. Global Environmental Change, 12,

197-202, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00008-0. 

7. Pryor, S. C., R. J. Barthelmie, D. T. Young, E. S. Takle, R. W. Arritt, 

D. Flory, W. J. Gutowski, Jr., A. Nunes, and J. Roads, 2009: Wind 

speed trends over the contiguous United States. Journal of Geophysical 

Research, 114, 2169-8996, doi:10.1029/2008JD011416. 

8. Ferris, G., cited 2012: State of the Great Lakes 2009. Climate 

change: Ice duration on the Great Lakes. Environment Canada and 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. [Available online 

at http://www.epa.gov/solec/sogl2009/] 

Mackey, S., 2012: Great Lakes nearshore and coastal systems. U.S. 

National Climate Assessment Midwest Technical Input Report, J. Winkler, J. 

Andresen, J. Hatfield, D. Bidwell, and D. Brown, Eds., Great Lakes

Integrated Sciences and Assessments (GLISA), National Laboratory 

for Agriculture and the Environment, 14. [Available online at http://

glisa.msu.edu/docs/NCA/MTIT_Coastal.pdf] 

Wuebbles, D. J., K. Hayhoe, and J. Parzen, 2010: Introduction: 

Assessing the effects of climate change on Chicago and the 

Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36, 1-6, doi:10.1016/j.

jglr.2009.09.009. 

9. Millerd, F., 2011: The potential impact of climate change on 

Great Lakes international shipping. Climatic Change, 104, 629-652, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9872-z. 

10. Hellmann, J. J., J. E. Byers, B. G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes, 

2008: Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive 

species. Conservation Biolog y, 22, 534-543, doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2008.00951.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x/pdf] 

Smith, A. L., N. Hewitt, N. Klenk, D. R. Bazely, N. Yan, S. Wood, 

I. Henriques, J. I. MacLellan, and C. Lipsig-Mummé, 2012: Effects 

of climate change on the distribution of invasive alien species in 

Canada: A knowledge synthesis of range change projections in a 

warming world. Environmental Reviews, 20, 1-16, doi:10.1139/a11-020. 

11. Bai, X., and J. Wang, 2012: Atmospheric teleconnection patterns 

associated with severe and mild ice cover on the Great Lakes, 

1963–2011. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada 47, 421–435, 

doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2012.009. 

12. Maus, E., 2013: Case Studies in Floodplain Regulation, 14 

pp. [Available online at http://www.georgetownclimate.org/

sites/default/files/Case%20Studies%20in%20Floodplain%20

Regulation%206-3-final.pdf]

13. City of Chicago, 2008: City of Chicago Climate Action Plan: 

Our City. Our Future, 57 pp. [Available online at http://

www.chicagoclimateaction.org/filebin/pdf/finalreport/

CCAPREPORTFINALv2.pdf]

Great Plains

1. H. John Heinz III Center for Science Economics and the 

Environment, 2008: The State of the Nation’ Ecosystems 2008: Measuring 

the Land, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States. Island Press, 44 

pp. [Available online at http://www.heinzctr.org/Ecosystems_files/

The%20State%20of%20the%20Nation%27s%20Ecosystems%20

2008.pdf] 

Kostyack, J., J. J. Lawler, D. D. Goble, J. D. Olden, and J. M. Scott, 

2011: Beyond reserves and corridors: Policy solutions to facilitate 

the movement of plants and animals in a changing climate. Bioscience, 

61, 713-719, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.10. [Available online at http://

www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.10]

2. Colby, B., and P. Tanimoto, 2011: Using climate information to 

improve electric utility load forecasting. Adaptation and Resilience: The 

Economics of Climate-Water-Energ y Challenges in the Arid Southwest, B. G. 

Colby, and G. B. Frisvold, Eds., RFF Press, 207-228. 

3. Kunkel, K. E., L. E. Stevens, S. E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. 

Wuebbles, M. C. Kruk, D. P. Thomas, M. D. Shulski, N. Umphlett, 

K. G. Hubbard, K. Robbins, L. Romolo, A. Akyuz, T. Pathak, T. 

R. Bergantino, and J. G. Dobson, 2013: Regional Climate Trends 

and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment: Part 4. 

Climate of the U.S. Great Plains. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 

142-4. 91 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.nesdis.noaa.

gov/technical_reports/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-4-

Climate_of_the_U.S.%20Great_Plains.pdf]

4. Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Overpeck, and S. Solomon, 2004: Exploring 

drought and its implications for the future. Eos, Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 85, 27, doi:10.1029/2004EO030004. 

5.	 Dunnell, K. L., and S. E. Travers, 2011: Shifts in the flowering

phenology of the Northern Great Plains: Patterns over 100 years 

American Journal of Botany, 98, 935-945, doi:10.3732/ajb.1000363. 

[Available online at http://www.amjbot.org/content/98/6/935.full.

pdf+html] 
128

Hu, Q., A. Weiss, S. Feng, and P. S. Baenziger, 2005: Earlier winter 

wheat heading dates and warmer spring in the U.S. Great Plains. 

Agricultural and Forest Meteorolog y, 135, 284-290, doi:10.1016/j.

agrformet.2006.01.001. 

Wu, C., A. Gonsamo, J. M. Chen, W. A. Kurz, D. T. Price, P. M. 

Lafleur, R. S. Jassal, D. Dragoni, G. Bohrer, C. M. Gough, S. B.

Verma, A. E. Suyker, and J. W. Munger, 2012: Interannual and 

spatial impacts of phenological transitions, growing season length, 

and spring and autumn temperatures on carbon sequestration: A 

North America flux data synthesis. Global and Planetary Change, 92-

93, 179-190, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.05.021. 

6. Nardone, A., B. Ronchi, N. Lacetera, M. S. Ranieri, and U. 

Bernabucci, 2010: Effects of climate change on animal production 

and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science, 130, 57-

69, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011. [Available online at http://

dspace.unitus.it/bitstream/2067/1339/1/LIVSCI%201108%20

Nardone%20et%20al%202010.pdf] 

Van Dijk, J., N. D. Sargison, F. Kenyon, and P. J. Skuce, 2010: 

Climate change and infectious disease: Helminthological challenges 

to farmed ruminants in temperate regions. Animal, 4, 377-392, 

doi:10.1017/S1751731109990991. 

7. NOAA, and USDA, 2008: The Easter Freeze of April 2007: 

A Climatological Perspective and Assessment of Impacts and 

Services. NOAA/USDA Tech Report 2008-1, 56 pp., NOAA, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. [Available online at http://www1.ncdc.

noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr200801/tech-report-200801.pdf]

8. Konikow, L. F., 2011: Contribution of global groundwater 

depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 38,

L17401, doi:10.1029/2011GL048604. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048604/pdf] 

Scanlon, B. R., J. B. Gates, R. C. Reedy, W. A. Jackson, and J. P. 

Bordovsky, 2010: Effects of irrigated agroecosystems: 2. Quality 

of soil water and groundwater in the southern High Plains, Texas. 

Water Resources Research, 46, 1-14, doi:10.1029/2009WR008428. 

[Available online at http://www.beg.utexas.edu/staffinfo/Scanlon_

pdf/Scanlon_et_al_WRR_2010_HP_Irrig_Qual.pdf]

9. Colaizzi, P. D., P. H. Gowda, T. H. Marek, and D. O. Porter, 2009: 

Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: A brief history and potential 

reductions in demand. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 58,

257-274, doi:10.1002/ird.418. 

10. Oyate Omniciye, 2011: Oglala Lakota Plan, 141 pp. [Available online 

at http://www.oglalalakotaplan.org/?s=Oglala+Lakota+Plan]

Southwest

1. Theobald, D. M., W. R. Travis, M. A. Drummond, and E. S. Gordon, 

2013: Ch. 3: The Changing Southwest. Assessment of Climate Change 

in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate 

Assessment, G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S.

LeRoy, Eds., Island Press, 37-55. [Available online at http://swccar.

org/sites/all/themes/files/SW-NCA-color-FINALweb.pdf]

2. Baldocchi, D., and S. Wong, 2008: Accumulated winter chill is 

decreasing in the fruit growing regions of California. Climatic Change, 

87, 153-166, doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9367-8. 

Battisti, D. S., and R. L. Naylor, 2009: Historical warnings of future 

food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science, 323, 240-

244, doi:10.1126/science.1164363. 

	 Lobell, D. B., C. B. Field, K. N. Cahill, and C. Bonfils, 2006: Impacts

of future climate change on California perennial crop yields: Model 

projections with climate and crop uncertainties. Agricultural and 

Forest Meteorolog y, 141, 208-218, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.10.006. 

Purkey, D. R., B. Joyce, S. Vicuna, M. W. Hanemann, L. L. Dale, 

D. Yates, and J. A. Dracup, 2008: Robust analysis of future climate 

change impacts on water for agriculture and other sectors: A 

case study in the Sacramento Valley. Climatic Change, 87, 109-122, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9375-8. 

3. Jackson, L., V. R. Haden, S. M. Wheeler, A. D. Hollander, J. 

Perlman, T. O’Geen, V. K. Mehta, V. Clark, and J. Williams, 

2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in 

California Agriculture. A White Paper from the California Energy 

Commission’s California Climate Change Center (PIER Program). 

Publication number: CEC-500-2012-031, 106 pp., Sacramento, 

California Energy Commission. [Available online at http://www.

energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-031/CEC-500-

2012-031.pdf] 

Medellín-Azuara, J., R. E. Howitt, D. J. MacEwan, and J. R. Lund, 

2012: Economic impacts of climate-related changes to California 

agriculture. Climatic Change, 109, 387-405, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-

0314-3. 

4. Luedeling, E., E. H. Girvetz, M. A. Semenov, and P. H. Brown, 

2011: Climate change affects winter chill for temperate fruit and nut 

trees. PLoS ONE, 6, e20155, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020155.

5.	 Bonfils, C., B. D. Santer, D. W. Pierce, H. G. Hidalgo, G. Bala, T. Das,

T. P. Barnett, D. R. Cayan, C. Doutriaux, A. W. Wood, A. Mirin, and 

T. Nozawa, 2008: Detection and attribution of temperature changes 

in the mountainous western United States. Journal of Climate, 21, 

6404-6424, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2397.1. [Available online at http://

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2397.1] 

Williams, A. P., C. D. Allen, C. I. Millar, T. W. Swetnam, J. 

Michaelsen, C. J. Still, and S. W. Leavitt, 2010: Forest responses to 

increasing aridity and warmth in the southwestern United States. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 21289-21294, 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0914211107. [Available online at http://www.pnas.

org/content/107/50/21289.full] 

Abatzoglou, J. T., and C. A. Kolden, 2011: Climate change in western 

US deserts: Potential for increased wildfire and invasive annual

grasses. Rangeland Ecolog y & Management, 64, 471-478, doi:10.2111/

rem-d-09-00151.1. 

6. Moritz, M. A., M. A. Parisien, E. Batllori, M. A. Krawchuk, J. 

Van Dorn, D. J. Ganz, and K. Hayhoe, 2012: Climate change and 

disruptions to global fire activity. Ecosphere, 3, 1-22, doi:10.1890/

ES11-00345.1. [Available online at http://www.esajournals.org/doi/

pdf/10.1890/ES11-00345.1]

7. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest 

wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940-943, doi:10.1126/science.1128834. 

8. Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling, 

2009: Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces,

1916-2003. Ecological Applications, 19, 1003-1021, doi:10.1890/07-

1183.1. 

References
129

9. Raffa, K. F., B. H. Aukema, B. J. Bentz, A. L. Carroll, J. A. Hicke, M. 

G. Turner, and W. H. Romme, 2008: Cross-scale drivers of natural 

disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: The dynamics

of bark beetle eruptions. BioScience, 58, 501-517, doi:10.1641/b580607. 

[Available online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1641/

B580607.pdf]

10. Gonzalez, P., R. P. Neilson, J. M. Lenihan, and R. J. Drapek, 2010: 

Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts 

due to climate change. Global Ecolog y and Biogeography, 19, 755-768, 

doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00558.x. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00558.x/

pdf] 

Krawchuk, M. A., M. A. Moritz, M. A. Parisien, J. Van Dorn, and 

K. Hayhoe, 2009: Global pyrogeography: The current and future 

distribution of wildfire. PLoS ONE, 4, e5102, doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0005102. [Available online at http://www.plosone.org/article/

info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005102]

11. Litschert, S. E., T. C. Brown, and D. M. Theobald, 2012: Historic 

and future extent of wildfires in the Southern Rockies Ecoregion,

USA. Forest Ecolog y and Management, 269, 124-133, doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2011.12.024. 

12. Westerling, A. L., B. P. Bryant, H. K. Preisler, T. P. Holmes, H. 

G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S. R. Shrestha, 2011: Climate change and 

growth scenarios for California wildfire. Climatic Change, 109, 445-

463, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0329-9. 

13. Wei, M., H. N. James, B. G. Jeffery, M. Ana, J. Josiah, T. Michael, 

Y. Christopher, J. Chris, E. M. James, and M. K. Daniel, 2013: 

Deep carbon reductions in California require electrification and

integration across economic sectors. Environmental Research Letters, 

8, 014038, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014038. [Available online 

at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014038/pdf/1748-

9326_8_1_014038.pdf] 

Wei, M., J. H. Nelson, M. Ting, C. Yang, J. Greenblatt, and J. 

McMahon, 2012: California's Carbon Challenge. Scenarios for 

Achieving 80% Emissions Reductions in 2050. Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, and Itron to the 

California Energy Commission, UC Berkley, Santa Cruz, CA. 

[Available online at http://eaei.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/california_

carbon_challenge_feb20_20131_0.pdf]

14. Frisvold, G., L. E. Jackson, J. G. Pritchett, and J. Ritten, 2013: Ch. 11: 

Agriculture and ranching. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest 

United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, G. 

Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, Eds.,

Island Press, 218-239. [Available online at http://swccar.org/sites/

all/themes/files/SW-NCA-color-FINALweb.pdf]

15. Hoerling, M. P., M. Dettinger, K. Wolter, J. Lukas, J. Eischeid, R. 

Nemani, B. Liebmann, and K. E. Kunkel, 2013: Ch. 5: Present 

weather and climate: Evolving conditions Assessment of Climate Change 

in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate 

Assessment, G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S.

LeRoy, Eds., Island Press, 74-97. [Available online at http://swccar.

org/sites/all/themes/files/SW-NCA-color-FINALweb.pdf]

Northwest

1. Solecki, W., and C. Rosenzweig, Eds., 2012: U.S. Cities and Climate 

Change: Urban, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability Issues, Technical 

Input Report Series, U.S. National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, D.C. 

2. Lynn, K., O. Grah, P. Hardison, J. Hoffman, E. Knight, A. Rogerson, 

P. Tillmann, C. Viles, and P. Williams, 2013: Tribal communities. 

Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, 

And Communities, P. Mote, M. M. Dalton, and A. K. Snover, Eds., 

Island Press, 224. 

Voggesser, G., K. Lynn, J. Daigle, F. K. Lake, and D. Ranco, 2013: 

Cultural impacts to tribes from climate change influences on forests.

Climatic Change, 120, 615-626, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0733-4. 

3. Smith, W. B., P. D. Miles, C. H. Perry, and S. A. Pugh, 2009: Forest 

Resources of the United States, 2007. General Technical Report 

WO-78. 336 pp., U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/

pubs/gtr/gtr_wo78.pdf]

4. Elsner, M. M., L. Cuo, N. Voisin, J. S. Deems, A. F. Hamlet, J. A. 

Vano, K. E. B. Mickelson, S. Y. Lee, and D. P. Lettenmaier, 2010: 

Implications of 21st century climate change for the hydrology of 

Washington State. Climatic Change, 102, 225-260, doi:10.1007/

s10584-010-9855-0. 

5. Isaak, D. J., S. Wollrab, D. Horan, and G. Chandler, 2011: Climate 

change effects on stream and river temperatures across the 

northwest US from 1980–2009 and implications for salmonid 

fishes. Climatic Change, 113, 499-524, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-

0326-z. [Available online at http://link.springer.com/content/

pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0326-z]

6. Hamlet, A. F., M. M. Elsner, G. S. Mauger, S.-Y. Lee, I. Tohver, and 

R. A. Norheim, 2013: An overview of the Columbia Basin Climate 

Change Scenarios project: Approach, methods, and summary of key 

results. Atmosphere-Ocean, 51, 392-415, doi:10.1080/07055900.2013.8

19555. [Available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1

0.1080/07055900.2013.819555]

7. Eidenshink, J., B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. Zhu, B. Quayle, and S. 

Howard, 2007: A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire 

Ecolog y, 3, 3-21. [Available online at http://fireecology.org/docs/

Journal/pdf/Volume03/Issue01/003.pdf] 

USGS, cited 2012: National Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

(MTBS) Burned Area Boundaries Dataset. U.S. Geological Survey. 

[Available online at http://www.mtbs.gov/compositfire/mosaic/

bin-release/burnedarea.html]

8. USFS, cited 2012: Forest Service, Insect & Disease Detection 

Survey Data Explorer. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service. [Available online at http://foresthealth.fs.usda.gov/portal]

9. NRC, 2011: Ch. 5: Impacts in the next few decades and coming 

centuries. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and 

Impacts over Decades to Millennia, Committee on Stabilization Targets 

for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentration, The National 

Academies Press, 298. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12877]

10. Bailey, R. G., 1995: Description of the Ecoregions of the United 

States (2nd ed.). 1995. Misc. Pub. No. 1391. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. [Available online at http://nationalatlas.

gov/mld/ecoregp.html]

11. Littell, J. S., E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J. A. Hicke, J. A. Lutz, R. A. 

Norheim, and M. M. Elsner, 2010: Forest ecosystems, disturbance, 

and climatic change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change, 102,

129-158, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9858-x. 
130

12. USFWS, 2010: Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change, 32 pp., U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

[Available online at http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/

pdf/CCStrategicPlan.pdf]

Alaska

1. Stewart, B. C., K. E. Kunkel, L. E. Stevens, L. Sun, and J. E. Walsh, 

2013: Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National 

Climate Assessment: Part 7. Climate of Alaska. NOAA Technical 

Report NESDIS 142-7. 60 pp. [Available online at http://www.

nesdis.noaa.gov/technical_reports/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_

Report_142-7-Climate_of_Alaska.pdf]

2. Bieniek, P. A., J. E. Walsh, R. L. Thoman, and U. S. Bhatt, 2014: 

Using climate divisions to analyze variations and trends in Alaska 

temperature and precipitation. Journal of Climate, in press, doi:10.1175/

JCLI-D-13-00342.1. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.

org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00342.1] 

	 Wendler, G., L. Chen, and B. Moore, 2012: The first decade of

the new century: A cooling trend for most of Alaska. The Open 

Atmospheric Science Journal, 6, 111-116, doi:10.2174/187428230120601

0111. [Available online at http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/

articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf]

3. CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate 

- Regions of Focus - North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. 

Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science

Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. T. R. 

Karl, G. A. Meehl, C. D. Miller, S. J. Hassol, A. M. Waple, and W. L. 

Murray, Eds., 164 pp., Department of Commerce, NOAA's National 

Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://

downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf]

4. BIA, cited 2012: Alaska Region Overview. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. [Available online at http://www.

bia.gov/WhoWeAre/RegionalOffices/Alaska/]

5. Maslowski, W., J. Clement Kinney, M. Higgins, and A. Roberts, 

2012: The future of Arctic sea ice. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 

Sciences, 40, 625-654, doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345. 

[Available online at http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/

pdf/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345]

6. Stroeve, J. C., M. C. Serreze, M. M. Holland, J. E. Kay, J. Malanik, 

and A. P. Barrett, 2012: The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: 

A research synthesis. Climatic Change, 110, 1005-1027, doi:10.1007/

s10584-011-0101-1. [Available online at http://link.springer.com/

content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0101-1.pdf]

7. Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze, 

2007: Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703. [Available online at 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml] 

Wang, M., and J. E. Overland, 2009: A sea ice free summer 

Arctic within 30 years? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L07502, 

doi:10.1029/2009GL037820. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037820/pdf] 

——, 2012: A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An 

update from CMIP5 models. Geophysical Research Letters, 39,

L18501, doi:10.1029/2012GL052868. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052868/pdf]

8. Jorgenson, T., K. Yoshikawa, M. Kanevskiy, Y. Shur, V. Romanovsky, 

S. Marchenko, G. Grosse, J. Brown, and B. Jones, 2008: Permafrost 

characteristics of Alaska. Extended Abstracts of the Ninth International 

Conference on Permafrost, June 29-July 3, 2008. , D. L. Kane, and K. M. 

Hinkel, Eds., University of Alaska Fairbanks, 121-123. [Available 

online at http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/sites/default/files/

AlaskaPermafrostMap_Front_Dec2008_Jorgenson_etal_2008.

pdf]

9. Romanovsky, V. E., S. S. Marchenko, R. Daanen, D. O. Sergeev, 

and D. A. Walker, 2008: Soil climate and frost heave along the 

Permafrost/Ecological North American Arctic Transect. Proceedings 

of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost, Institute of Northern 

Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1519-1524 pp. 

10. French, H., 2011: Geomorphic change in northern Canada. 

Changing Cold Environments: A Canadian Perspective, H. French, and O. 

Slaymaker, Eds., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 200-221. 

Romanovsky, V. E., S. L. Smith, and H. H. Christiansen, 2010: 

Permafrost thermal state in the polar Northern Hemisphere during 

the international polar year 2007-2009: A synthesis. Permafrost and 

Periglacial Processes, 21, 106-116, doi:10.1002/ppp.689. [Available 

online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp.689/pdf]

11. Avis, C. A., A. J. Weaver, and K. J. Meissner, 2011: Reduction in 

areal extent of high-latitude wetlands in response to permafrost 

thaw. Nature Geoscience, 4, 444-448, doi:10.1038/ngeo1160. 

Euskirchen, E. S., A. D. McGuire, D. W. Kicklighter, Q. Zhuang, J. 

S. Clein, R. J. Dargaville, D. G. Dye, J. S. Kimball, K. C. McDonald, 

J. M. Melillo, V. E. Romanovsky, and N. V. Smith, 2006: Importance 

of recent shifts in soil thermal dynamics on growing season length, 

productivity, and carbon sequestration in terrestrial high-latitude 

ecosystems. Global Change Biolog y, 12, 731-750, doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2486.2006.01113.x. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01113.x/pdf] 

Lawrence, D. M., and A. G. Slater, 2008: Incorporating organic 

soil into a global climate model. Climate Dynamics, 30, 145-160, 

doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0278-1. [Available online at http://www.

springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00382-007-0278-1]

12. Jafarov, E. E., S. S. Marchenko, and V. E. Romanovsky, 2012: 

Numerical modeling of permafrost dynamics in Alaska using a 

high spatial resolution dataset. The Cryosphere Discussions, 6, 89-124, 

doi:10.5194/tcd-6-89-2012. 

13. ICLEI, cited 2013: Homer, Alaska’s Climate Adaptation Progress 

Despite Uncertainties. ICLEI. [Available online at http://www.

cakex.org/virtual-library/2555]

14. Bronen, R., 2011: Climate-induced community relocations: Creating 

an adaptive governance framework based in human rights doctrine. 

NYU Review Law & Social Change, 35, 357-408. [Available online 

at http://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/climateinduced-migration-bronen-35-2.pdf]

Hawai‘i and Pacific Islands

1. Döll, P., 2002: Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation 

requirements: A global perspective. Climatic Change, 54, 269-293, 

doi:10.1023/A:1016124032231. 

Sivakumar, M. V. K., and J. Hansen, 2007: Climate Prediction and 

Agriculture: Advances and Challenges. Springer, 307 pp. 

References
131

Wairiu, M., M. Lal, and V. Iese, 2012: Ch. 5: Climate change 

implications for crop production in Pacific Islands region. Food 

Production - Approaches, Challenges and Tasks, A. Aladjadjiyan, Ed. 

[Available online at http://www.intechopen.com/books/foodproduction-approaches-challenges-and-tasks/climate-changeimplications-for-crop-production-in-pacific-islands-region]

2. Barnett, J., and W. N. Adger, 2003: Climate dangers and 

atoll countries. Climatic Change, 61, 321-337, doi:10.1023/

B:CLIM.0000004559.08755.88. 

3. Easterling, W. E., P. K. Aggarwal, P. Batima, K. M. Brander, L. 

Erda, S. M. Howden, A. Kirilenko, J. Morton, J.-F. Soussana, J. 

Schmidhuber, and F. N. Tubiello, 2007: Ch. 5: Food, fibre, and forest

products. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, 

J. P. Palutikof, P. J. Van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, Eds., 

Cambridge University Press, 273-313. [Available online at http://

www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.

pdf]

4. Maclellan, N., 2009: Rising tides–responding to climate change in 

the Pacific. Social Alternatives, 28, 8-13. 

5. Benning, T. L., D. LaPointe, C. T. Atkinson, and P. M. Vitousek, 

2002: Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and 

land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds 

using a geographic information system. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 99, 14246-14249, doi:10.1073/pnas.162372399. 

[Available online at http://www.pnas.org/content/99/22/14246.

full.pdf+html] 

LaPointe, D. A., C. T. Atkinson, and M. D. Samuel, 2012: Ecology and 

conservation biology of avian malaria. Annals of the New York Academy 

of Sciences, 1249, 211-226, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06431.x. 

6. Gilman, E. L., J. Ellison, N. C. Duke, and C. Field, 2008: Threats to 

mangroves from climate change and adaptation options: A review. 

Aquatic Botany, 89, 237-250, doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2007.12.009. 

7. Waycott, M., L. McKenzie, J. E. Mellors, J. C. Ellison, M. T. 

Sheaves, C. Collier, A. M. Schwarz, A. Webb, J. E. Johnson, and C. 

E. Payri, 2011: Ch. 6: Vulnerability of mangroves, seagrasses and 

intertidal flats in the tropical Pacific to climate change. Vulnerability 

of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, J. D. Bell, 

J. E. Johnson, and A. J. Hobday, Eds., Secretariat of the Pacific

Community, 297-368. 

8. Arata, J. A., P. R. Sievert, and M. B. Naughton, 2009: Status 

assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, North Pacific

Ocean, 1923-2005. Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5131, 80

pp., U.S. Geological Survey. [Available online at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/sir/2009/5131/pdf/sir20095131.pdf]

9.	 Waikīkī Improvement Association, 2008: Economic Impact

Analysis of the Potential Erosion of Waikīkī Beach, 123 pp.,

Hospitality Advisors, LLC, Honolulu, HI. [Available online 

at http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2008/Dec/07/

HospitalityAdvisorsReport.pdf]

10. Lewis, N., 2012: Islands in a sea of change: Climate change, health 

and human security in small island states. National Security and Human 

Health Implications of Climate Change, H. J. S. Fernando, Z. Klaić, and J.

L. McCulley, Eds., Springer, 13-24. 

11.	 Merrifield, M. A., 2011: A shift in western tropical Pacific sea

level trends during the 1990s. Journal of Climate, 24, 4126-4138, 

doi:10.1175/2011JCLI3932.1. [Available online at http://journals.

ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011JCLI3932.1]

12. Pratchett, M. S., P. L. Munday, N. A. J. Graham, M. Kronen, S. 

Pinca, K. Friedman, T. D. Brewer, J. D. Bell, S. K. Wilson, J. E. 

Cinner, J. P. Kinch, R. J. Lawton, A. J. Williams, L. Chapman, F. 

Magron, and A. Webb, 2011: Ch. 9: Vulnerability of coastal fisheries

in the tropical Pacific to climate change: Summary for Pacific Island

Countries and Territories. Vulnerability of Tropical Pacific Fisheries and 

Aquaculture to Climate Change, J. D. Bell, J. E. Johnson, and A. J. 

Hobday, Eds., Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 367-370. 

13. NOAA, 2010: Adapting to Climate Change: A Planning Guide 

for State Coastal Managers, 133 pp., NOAA Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management, Silver Spring, MD. [Available 

online at http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/

adaptationguide.pdf]

14. HDLNR, 2011: The Rain Follows The Forest: A Plan to Replenish 

Hawaii’s Source of Water, 24 pp., Department of Land and Natural 

Resources, State of Hawai`i. [Available online at http://dlnr.hawaii.

gov/rain/files/2014/02/The-Rain-Follows-the-Forest.pdf]

Rural Communities

1.	 HRSA, cited 2012: Defining the Rural Population. U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services 

Administration. [Available online at http://www.hrsa.gov/

ruralhealth/policy/definition_of_rural.html] 

U.S. Census Bureau, cited 2012: United States Census 2010. 

U.S. Census Bureau,. [Available online at http://www.census.

gov/2010census/] 

	 ——, cited 2012: 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification

and Urban Area Criteria. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department 

of Commerce. [Available online at http://www.census.gov/geo/

reference/frn.html] 

USDA, cited 2012: Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. [Available 

online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/atlas-of-ruraland-small-town-america/go-to-the-atlas.aspx]

2. ERS, cited 2012: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. [Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/

rurality/newdefinitions/]

3. Peterson, T. C., P. A. Stott, and S. Herring, 2012: Explaining 

extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society, 93, 1041-1067, doi:10.1175/

BAMS-D-12-00021.1. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.

org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1]

4. DOT, cited 2010: Freight Analysis Framework (Version 3) Data 

Tabulation Tool, Total Flows. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

[Available online at http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx]

5. Kunkel, K. E., D. R. Easterling, K. Hubbard, and K. Redmond, 2009: 

2009 update to data originally published in “Temporal variations in 

frost-free season in the United States: 1895–2000”. Geophysical Research 

Letters, 31, L03201, doi:10.1029/2003GL018624. [Available online at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018624/full]
132

6. Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam, 

2006: Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest 

wildfire activity. Science, 313, 940-943, doi:10.1126/science.1128834. 

7. USDA, cited 2013: Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. [Available 

online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/atlas-of-ruraland-small-town-america/go-to-the-atlas.aspx]

8. Allen, C. D., C. Birkeland, I. Chapin. F.S., P. M. Groffman, G. R. 

Guntenspergen, A. K. Knapp, A. D. McGuire, P. J. Mulholland, 

D. P. C. Peters, D. D. Roby, and G. Sugihara, 2009: Thresholds 

of Climate Change in Ecosystems: Final Report, Synthesis and 

Assessment Product 4.2, 172 pp., U.S. Geological Survey, University 

of Nebraska Lincoln. [Available online at http://digitalcommons.

unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=usgspubs] 

Staudinger, M. D., N. B. Grimm, A. Staudt, S. L. Carter, F. S. Chapin, 

III, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus, and B. A. Stein, 2012: Impacts 

of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem 

Services. Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment 

296 pp., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. [Available online 

at http://downloads.usgcrp.gov/NCA/Activities/BiodiversityEcosystems-and-Ecosystem-Services-Technical-Input.pdf]

9. Pietrowsky, R., D. Raff, C. McNutt, M. Brewer, T. Johnson, T. 

Brown, M. Ampleman, C. Baranowski, J. Barsugli, L. D. Brekke, L. 

Brekki, M. Crowell, D. Easterling, A. Georgakakos, N. Gollehon, J. 

Goodrich, K. A. Grantz, E. Greene, P. Groisman, R. Heim, C. Luce, 

S. McKinney, R. Najjar, M. Nearing, D. Nover, R. Olsen, C. PetersLidard, L. Poff, K. Rice, B. Rippey, M. Rodgers, A. Rypinski, M. 

Sale, M. Squires, R. Stahl, E. Z. Stakhiv, and M. Strobel, 2012: Water 

Resources Sector Technical Input Report in Support of the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, National Climate Assessment - 

2013, 31 pp. 

10. Lal, P., J. R. R. Alavalapati, and E. D. Mercer, 2011: Socio-economic 

impacts of climate change on rural United States. Mitigation and 

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16, 819-844, doi:10.1007/

s11027-011-9295-9. [Available online at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/

pubs/ja/2011/ja_2011_lal_002.pdf]

11. Burkett, V., and M. Davidson, 2012: Coastal Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerabilities: A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment.

Island Press, 216 pp. 

Hoyos, C. D., P. A. Agudelo, P. J. Webster, and J. A. Curry, 

2006: Deconvolution of the factors contributing to the increase 

in global hurricane intensity. Science, 312, 94-97, doi:10.1126/

science.1123560. [Available online at http://www.jstor.org/

stable/3845986?origin=JSTOR-pdf] 

Rygel, L., D. O'Sullivan, and B. Yarnal, 2006: A method for 

constructing a Social Vulnerability Index: An application to 

hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitigation and 

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 741-764, doi:10.1007/s11027-

006-0265-6. [Available online at http://www.cara.psu.edu/about/

publications/Rygel_et_al_MASGC.pdf]] 

Wu, S. Y., B. Yarnal, and A. Fisher, 2002: Vulnerability of coastal 

communities to sea-level rise: A case study of Cape May County, 

New Jersey, USA. Climate Research, 22, 255-270, doi:10.3354/

cr022255. 

12. Galgano, F. A., and B. C. Douglas, 2000: Shoreline position 

prediction: Methods and errors. Environmental Geosciences, 7, 23-31, 

doi:10.1046/j.1526-0984.2000.71006.x. 

13. Isserman, A. M., E. Feser, and D. E. Warren, 2009: Why some rural 

places prosper and others do not. International Regional Science Review, 

32, 300-342, doi:10.1177/0160017609336090. 

14. Kraybill, D. S., and L. Lobao, 2001: The Emerging Roles of County 

Governments in Rural America: Findings from a Recent National 

Survey. American Agricultural Economics Association (New 

Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association), 

20 pp. [Available online at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/

bitstream/20697/1/sp01kr01.pdf]

15. Berkes, F., 2007: Understanding uncertainty and reducing 

vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41,

283-295, doi:10.007/s11069-006-9036-7. 

Nelson, D. R., 2011: Adaptation and resilience: Responding to a 

changing climate. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 113-

120, doi:10.1002/wcc.91. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.91/pdf] 

Ostrom, E., 2009: A general framework for analyzing sustainability 

of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419-422, doi:10.1126/

science.1172133. [Available online at http://www.era-mx.org/

biblio/Ostrom,%202009.pdf]

Coasts

1. Houston, J. R., 2008: The economic value of beaches – a 2008 

update. Shore & Beach, 76, 22-26. 

2. OTTI, 2012: Overseas Visitation Estimates for U.S. States, Cities, 

and Census Regions: 2011, 6 pp., U.S. Department of Commerce, 

International Trade Commission, Office of Travel and Tourism

Industries, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://tinet.ita.

doc.gov/outreachpages/download_data_table/2011_States_and_

Cities.pdf]

3. Moser, S. C., S. J. Williams, and D. F. Boesch, 2012: Wicked 

challenges at land’s end: Managing coastal vulnerability under 

climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Natural Resources, 

37, 51-78, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021611-135158. [Available 

online at http://susannemoser.com/documents/Moseretal_2012_

AnnualReview_preformat.pdf]

4. GAO, 2006: Natural Gas: Factors Affecting Prices and Potential 

Impacts on Consumers (GAO-06-420T). 28 pp., U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://

www.gao.gov/assets/120/112796.pdf]

5. FHWA, 2008: Highways in the Coastal Environment, Second 

Edition. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 25. FHWANHI-07-096. S. L. K. Douglass, J., Ed., 250 pp., Federal Highway 

Administration. Department of Civil Engineering, University of 

South Alabama, Mobile, AL. [Available online at http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/07096/07096.pdf] 

FDEP, 2012: Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida, 76 pp., Florida 

Department of Envrionmental Protection, Bureau of Beaches 

and Coastal Systems, Division of Water Resource Management. 

[Available online at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/

publications/pdf/critical-erosion-report-2012.pdf] 

	 Texas General Land Office, cited 2012: Caring for the Coast:

Coastal Management Program. State of Texas. [Available online at 

http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grantsfunding/cmp/index.html] 

References
133

Wolshon, B., 2006: Evacuation planning and engineering for 

Hurricane Katrina. The Bridge, 36, 27-34. 

6. California King Tides Initiative, cited 2012: California King Tides 

Initiative. [Available online at http://www.californiakingtides.org/

aboutus/] 

State of Washington, cited 2012: Climate Change, King Tides in 

Washington State. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. 

[Available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_

hightide.htm] 

Turner, S., 2011: Extreme high tides expected along RI coast; grab 

your camera East Greenwich Patch, October 25, 2011. [Available online 

at http://eastgreenwich.patch.com/articles/extreme-high-tidesexpected-along-ri-coast-b5b7ee05] 

Watson, S., 2011: Alignment of the Sun, moon and Earth will 

cause unusually high tides. pressofAtlanticCity.com, October 25, 2011. 

[Available online at http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/

top_three/sun-moon-earth-line-up-for-unusually-high-tides/

article_4080f60a-ff70-11e0-ab3e-001cc4c002e0.html]

7. MDOT, cited 2003: Bridge Design Guide. Maine Department 

of Transportation, Prepared by Guertin Elkerton & Associates. 

[Available online at http://www.maine.gov/mdot/technicalpubs/

bdg.htm]

8. Bierwagen, B. G., D. M. Theobald, C. R. Pyke, A. Choate, P. 

Groth, J. V. Thomas, and P. Morefield, 2010: National housing

and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact 

assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 20887-

20892, doi:10.1073/pnas.1002096107. 

Bjerklie, D. M., J. R. Mullaney, J. R. Stone, B. J. Skinner, and M. 

A. Ramlow, 2012: Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of SeaLevel Rise on Groundwater Levels in New Haven, Connecticut. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1025, 56 pp., U.S. 

Department off the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. [Available 

online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1025/pdf/ofr2012-1025_

report_508.pdf] 

Changnon, S. A., 2011: Temporal distribution of weather 

catastrophes in the USA. Climatic Change, 106, 129-140, doi:10.1007/

s10584-010-9927-1. 

	 Johnson, L., 2012: Rising groundwater may flood underground

infrastructure of coastal cities Scientific American, May 2, 2012. 

Nature Publishing Group. [Available online at http://www.

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-groundwater-mayflood-underground-infrastructure-of-coastal-cities] 

Peterson, T. C., P. A. Stott, and S. Herring, 2012: Explaining 

extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of 

the American Meteorological Society, 93, 1041-1067, doi:10.1175/

BAMS-D-12-00021.1. [Available online at http://journals.ametsoc.

org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00021.1] 

Seneviratne, S. I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C. M. Goodess, S. 

Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K. McInnes, M. Rahimi, 

M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang, 2012: Ch. 

3: Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural 

physical environment. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and 

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of 

Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, 

K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. K. 

Allen, M. Tignor, and P. M. Midgley, Eds., Cambridge University 

Press, 109-230. 

Toll, D. G., cited 2012: The Impact of Changes in the Water 

Table and Soil Moisture on Structural Stability of Buildings and 

Foundation Systems. Systematic review CEE10-005 (SR90). 

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. [Available online 

at http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Draft_

reviews/Draftreview10-005.pdf]

9. Rotzoll, K., and C. H. Fletcher, 2013: Assessment of groundwater 

inundation as a consequence of sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change, 

3, 477-481, doi:10.1038/nclimate1725. 

Solecki, W., and C. Rosenzweig, Eds., 2012: U.S. Cities and Climate 

Change: Urban, Infrastructure, and Vulnerability Issues, Technical 

Input Report Series, U.S. National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, Washington, D.C. 

Hilton, T. W., R. G. Najjar, L. Zhong, and M. Li, 2008: Is there 

a signal of sea-level rise in Chesapeake Bay salinity? Journal of 

Geophysical Research: Oceans, 113, C09002, doi:10.1029/2007jc004247. 

[Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1029/2007JC004247/pdf]

10. CCAP and EESI, 2012: Climate Adaptation & Transportation: 

Identifying Information and Assistance Needs, 66 pp., Center for 

Clean Air Policy and Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://cakex.org/virtuallibrary/climate-adaptation-transportation-identifying-informationand-assistance-needs] 

EPA, 2008: A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of 

Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in

the Great Lakes and New England Regions. EPA/600/R-07/033F, 

50 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

[Available online at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.

getfile?p_download_id=472009] 

	 Kenward, A., D. Yawitz, and U. Raja, 2013: Sewage Overflows

From Hurricane Sandy, 43 pp., Climate Central. [Available online at 

http://www.climatecentral.org/pdfs/Sewage.pdf]

11. Hayhoe, K., M. Robson, J. Rogula, M. Auffhammer, N. Miller, J. 

VanDorn, and D. Wuebbles, 2010: An integrated framework for 

quantifying and valuing climate change impacts on urban energy 

and infrastructure: A Chicago case study. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research, 36, 94-105, doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2010.03.011. 

Perez, P. R., 2009: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on California's 

Energ y Infrastructure and Identification of Adaptation Measures: Staff Paper.

California Energy Commission, 23 pp. 

Sathaye, J., L. Dale, P. Larsen, G. Fitts, K. Koy, S. Lewis, and A. 

Lucena, 2011: Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure 

from Projected Climate Change, 85 pp., Ernest Orlando Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, California Energy Commission, 

Berkeley, CA. [Available online at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/

servlets/purl/1026811/1026811.PDF] 

Wilbanks, T., S. Fernandez, G. Backus, P. Garcia, K. Jonietz, 

P. Kirshen, M. Savonis, B. Solecki, and L. Toole, 2012: Climate 

Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities. 

Technical Report to the U.S. Department of Energy in Support 

of the National Climate Assessment, 119 pp., Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory. U.S Department of Energy, Office of Science, Oak
134

Ridge, TN. [Available online at http://www.esd.ornl.gov/eess/

Infrastructure.pdf]

12. DOT, 2012: Climate Impacts and U.S. Transportation: Technical 

Input Report for the National Climate Assessment. DOT OST/P-33. 

13. Francis, R. A., S. M. Falconi, R. Nateghi, and S. D. Guikema, 2011: 

Probabilistic life cycle analysis model for evaluating electric power 

infrastructure risk mitigation investments. Climatic Change, 106, 31-

55, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0001-9. 

Rosato, V., L. Issacharoff, F. Tiriticco, S. Meloni, S. Porcellinis, 

and R. Setola, 2008: Modelling interdependent infrastructures 

using interacting dynamical models. International Journal of Critical 

Infrastructures, 4, 63-79, doi:10.1504/IJCIS.2008.016092. 

Vugrin, E. D., and R. C. Camphouse, 2011: Infrastructure resilience 

assessment through control design. International Journal of Critical 

Infrastructures, 7, 243-260, doi:10.1504/IJCIS.2011.042994. 

Zimmerman, R., 2006: Ch. 34: Critical infrastructure and 

interdependency. The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook, D. G. 

Kamien, Ed., McGraw-Hill, 523-545. 

Vugrin, E. D., D. E. Warren, M. A. Ehlen, and R. C. Camphouse, 

2010: A framework for assessing the resilience of infrastructure and 

economic systems. Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems, 

K. Gopalakrishnan, and S. Peeta, Eds., Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

77-116. 

14. Hallegatte, S., 2008: Adaptation to climate change: Do not count on 

climate scientists to do your work, 15 pp. [Available online at http://

regulation2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/04/

RP08-01_topost.pdf] 

U.S. Government, 2009: Executive Order 13514. Federal Leadership 

in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. 52117-

52127 pp., Federal Register, Washington, D.C. [Available online at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_

rel.pdf]

15. Parris, A., P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. Hall, 

R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, A. Sallenger, and J. 

Weiss, 2012: Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States 

National Climate Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1, 

37 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD. [Available online at http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/

sites/default/files/NOAA_SLR_r3_0.pdf]

16. Neumann, J., D. Hudgens, J. Herter, and J. Martinich, 2010: 

The economics of adaptation along developed coastlines. Wiley 

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 89-98, doi:10.1002/wcc.90. 

[Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/

wcc.90/pdf]

17. Neumann, J. E., D. E. Hudgens, J. Herter, and J. Martinich, 2010: 

Assessing sea-level rise impacts: A GIS-based framework and 

application to coastal New Jersey. Coastal Management, 38, 433-455, 

doi:10.1080/08920753.2010.496105. 

18. Biging, G., J. Radke, and J. H. Lee, 2012: Vulnerability assessments 

of transportation infrastructure under potential inundation due to 

sea-level rise and extreme storm events in the San Francisco Bay 

Region. Paper for the California Vulnerability and Adaptation Study. Public 

Interest Energ y Research Program. California Energ y Commission Report, in 

press. 

19. AWF/AEC/Entergy, 2010: Building a Resilient Energy Gulf Coast: 

Executive Report, 11 pp., America’s Wetland Foundation, America’s 

Energy Coast, and Entergy. [Available online at www.entergy.com/

content/our_community/environment/GulfCoastAdaptation/

Building_a_Resilient_Gulf_Coast.pdf]

20. State of Louisiana, 2012: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan 

for a Sustainable Coast, draft Jan 2012, State of Louisiana. Coastal 

Protection and Restoration Authority, Baton Rouge, LA. [Available 

online at http://www.coastalmasterplan.louisiana.gov/2012-

master-plan/final-master-plan/]

21.	NOAA, 1998: National Ocean Report. NOAA’s Office of Public and

Constituent Affairs. [Available online at http://www.publicaffairs.

noaa.gov/oceanreport/tourism.html] 

U.S. Travel Association, cited 2012: U.S. Travel Forecasts. U.S 

Travel Association. [Available online at http://www.ustravel.org/

sites/default/files/page/2009/09/ForecastSummary.pdf]

22. DOT, cited 2010: Freight Analysis Framework (Version 3) Data 

Tabulation Tool, Total Flows. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

[Available online at http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction1.aspx]

23. Burton, C., and S. Cutter, 2008: Levee failures and social vulnerability 

in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, California. Natural 

Hazards Review, 9, 136, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:3(136). 

Cutter, S. L., and C. Finch, 2008: Temporal and spatial changes 

in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 105, 2301-2306, doi:10.1073/pnas.0710375105. 

Emrich, C. T., and S. L. Cutter, 2011: Social vulnerability to climatesensitive hazards in the southern United States. Weather, Climate, and 

Society, 3, 193-208, doi:10.1175/2011WCAS1092.1. [Available online 

at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011WCAS1092.1] 

Oxfam America, 2009: Exposed: Social Vulnerability and Climate 

Change in the US Southeast, 24 pp., Oxfam America Inc., Boston, 

MA. [Available online at http://adapt.oxfamamerica.org/resources/

Exposed_Report.pdf] 

Rygel, L., D. O’Sullivan, and B. Yarnal, 2006: A method for 

constructing a Social Vulnerability Index: An application to 

hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitigation and 

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 741-764, doi:10.1007/s11027-

006-0265-6. [Available online at http://www.cara.psu.edu/about/

publications/Rygel_et_al_MASGC.pdf]]

24. Martinich, J., J. Neumann, L. Ludwig, and L. Jantarasami, 2013: 

Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United 

States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 169-

185, doi:10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0. [Available online at http://link.

springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11027-011-9356-0]

25. Bovbjerg, R. R., and J. Hadley, 2007: Why Health Insurance Is 

Important. Report No. DC-SPG no. 1, 3 pp., The Urban Institute. 

[Available online at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411569_

importance_of_insurance.pdf] 

Clark, G. E., S. C. Moser, S. J. Ratick, K. Dow, W. B. Meyer, S. 

Emani, W. Jin, J. X. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, and H. E. Schwarz, 

1998: Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme 

storms: The case of Revere, MA., USA. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change, 3, 59-82, doi:10.1023/A:1009609710795. 

References
135

Cutter, S. L., B. J. Boruff, and W. L. Shirley, 2003: Social vulnerability 

to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242-261, 

doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002. 

Moser, S. C., R. E. Kasperson, G. Yohe, and J. Agyeman, 2008: 

Adaptation to climate change in the Northeast United States: 

opportunities, processes, constraints. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change, 13, 643-659, doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9132-

3. [Available online at http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/

pdf/miti/moser_et_al.pdf] 

Texas Health Institute, 2012: Climate Change, Environmental 

Challenges and Vulnerable Communities: Assessing Legacies 

of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future, 109 pp., The 

Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Research Project, 

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://www.jointcenter.org/

docs/Climate_Change_Full_Report.pdf]

26. Cooley, H., E. Moore, M. Heberger, and L. Allen, 2012: Social 

Vulnerability to Climate Change in California. California Energy 

Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2012-013, 69 pp., 

Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA. 

Bronen, R., 2011: Climate-induced community relocations: Creating 

an adaptive governance framework based in human rights doctrine. 

NYU Review Law & Social Change, 35, 357-408. [Available online 

at http://socialchangenyu.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/climateinduced-migration-bronen-35-2.pdf] 

Maldonado, J. K., C. Shearer, R. Bronen, K. Peterson, and H. 

Lazrus, 2013: The impact of climate change on tribal communities 

in the US: Displacement, relocation, and human rights. Climatic 

Change, 120, 601-614, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0746-z. 

Titus, J. G., D. E. Hudgens, D. L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W. H. 

Nuckols, C. H. Hershner, J. M. Kassakian, C. J. Linn, P. G. Merritt, 

T. M. McCue, J. F. O'Connell, J. Tanski, and J. Wang, 2009: State and 

local governments plan for development of most land vulnerable to 

rising sea level along the US Atlantic coast. Environmental Research 

Letters, 4, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044008. 

27.	 Holzman, D. C., 2012: Accounting for nature’s benefits: The

dollar value of ecosystem services. Environmental Health Perspectives, 

120, a152-a157, doi:10.1289/ehp.120-a152. [Available online at 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339477/pdf/

ehp.120-a152.pdf] 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Ecosystems and Human 

Well-Being. Health Synthesis. Island press 53 pp. 

Ruckelshaus, M., S. C. Doney, H. M. Galindo, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, 

J. E. Duffy, C. A. English, S. D. Gaines, J. M. Grebmeier, A. B. 

Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, 

and L. D. Talley, 2013: Securing ocean benefits for society in the

face of climate change. Marine Policy, 40, 154-159, doi:10.1016/j.

marpol.2013.01.009. 

Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, M. L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. J. 

Anderson, and K. Mulder, 2008: The value of coastal wetlands for 

hurricane protection. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 

37, 241-248, doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[241:tvocwf]2.0.co;2. 

[Available online at http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1579/0044-

7447%282008%2937%5B241%3ATVOCWF%5D2.0.CO%3B2]

28. Principe, P., P. Bradley, S. H. Yee, W. S. Fisher, E. D. Johnson, P. 

Allen, and D. E. Campbell, 2012: Quantifying Coral Reef Ecosystem 

Services. EPA/600/R-11/206, 158 pp., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,

Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_

public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=239984]

29. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, P. 

Greenfield, E. Gomez, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K.

Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, 

R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M. E. Hatziolos, 2007: Coral reefs 

under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318,

1737-1742, doi:10.1126/science.1152509. 

30. Petes, L. E., A. J. Brown, and C. R. Knight, 2012: Impacts of 

upstream drought and water withdrawals on the health and survival 

of downstream estuarine oyster populations. Ecolog y and Evolution, 

2, 1712-1724, doi:10.1002/ece3.291. [Available online at http://

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.291/pdf]

31. Barton, A., B. Hales, G. G. Waldbusser, C. Langdon, and R. A. Feely, 

2012: The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation 

to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for nearterm ocean acidification effects. Limnolog y and Oceanography, 57, 698-

710, doi:10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0698. 

32. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., and J. F. Bruno, 2010: The impact of climate 

change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science, 328, 1523-1528, 

doi:10.1126/science.1189930. 

33. Goidel, K., C. Kenny, M. Climek, M. Means, L. Swann, T. Sempier, 

and M. Schneider, 2012: 2012 Gulf Coast Climate Change Survey 

Executive Summary. MASGP-12-017, 36 pp., National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, Texas Sea Grant, Louisiana 

Sea Grant, Florida Sea Grant, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant 

Consortium. [Available online at http://www.southernclimate.

org/documents/resources/Climate_change_perception_survey_

summary_NOAA_Sea_Grant_2012.pdf] 

Responsive Management, 2010: Responsive Management: Delaware 

Residents’ Opinions on Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, 351 

pp., Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, VA. [Available 

online at http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/coastal/Documents/

SeaLevelRise/SLRSurveyReport.pdf] 

Krosnik, J., 2013: Stanford University Climate Adaptation National 

Poll, 20 pp., Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. 

[Available online at http://woods.stanford.edu/research/publicopinion-research/2013-Stanford-Poll-Climate-Adaptation]

34. Abbott, T., 2013: Shifting shorelines and political winds – The 

complexities of implementing the simple idea of shoreline setbacks 

for oceanfront developments in Maui, Hawaii. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 73, 13-21, doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.12.010. 

[Available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/

pii/S0964569112003353] 

Agyeman, J., P. Devine-Wright, and J. Prange, 2009: Close to the 

edge, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place 

attachment in a climate changed world. Environment and Planning A, 

41, 509-513, doi::10.1068/a41301. [Available online at http://www.

envplan.com/epa/editorials/a41301.pdf] 

Peach, S., 2012: Sea Level Rise, One More Frontier For Climate 

Dialogue Controversy. Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. Yale 

University. [Available online at http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.

org/2012/02/sea-level-rise-one-more-frontier-for-climatedialogue-controversy/] 
136

Kick, E. L., J. C. Fraser, G. M. Fulkerson, L. A. McKinney, and 

D. H. De Vries, 2011: Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of

FEMA mitigation offers: An analysis with community–system 

policy implications. Disasters, 35, 510-539, doi:10.1111/j.1467-

7717.2011.01226.x. 

35. Rosenzweig, C., W. D. Solecki, R. Blake, M. Bowman, C. Faris, V. 

Gornitz, R. Horton, K. Jacob, A. LeBlanc, R. Leichenko, M. Linkin, 

D. Major, M. O'Grady, L. Patrick, E. Sussman, G. Yohe, and R. 

Zimmerman, 2011: Developing coastal adaptation to climate change 

in the New York City infrastructure-shed: Process, approach, tools, 

and strategies. Climatic Change, 106, 93-127, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-

0002-8. [Available online at http://www.ccrun.org/sites/ccrun/

files/attached_files/2011_Rosenzweig_etal.pdf] 

Hudson, B., 2012: Coastal land loss and the mitigation – adaptation 

dilemma: Between Scylla and Charybdis. Louisiana Law Review, 

73. [Available online at http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/

vol73/iss1/3] 

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to 

Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups 

I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. C. B. Field, 

V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. 

Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and 

P. M. Midgley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 582 pp. [Available 

online at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_

FINAL.pdf]

36. Multihazard Mitigation Council, 2005: Natural Hazard Mitigation 

Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings From 

Mitigation Activities. Volume 2 - Study Documentation, 150 pp., 

National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C. [Available 

online at http://www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/MMC/hms_vol2_

ch1-7.pdf?hhSearchTerms=Natural+and+hazard+and+mitigation]

37. Cropper, M. L., and P. R. Portney, 1990: Discounting and the 

evaluation of life-saving programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3,

369-379, doi:10.1007/BF00353347. 

38. Franck, T., 2009: Coastal adaptation and economic tipping points. 

Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20, 434-

450, doi:10.1108/14777830910963762. 

Hallegatte, S., 2012: A framework to investigate the economic 

growth impact of sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 7,

015604, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/015604. 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science Energy and the Environment, 

2000: The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications for Risk Assessment 

and Mitigation. A multisector collaborative project of the H. John 

Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. Island 

Press, 252 pp. 

39. Barthel, F., and E. Neumayer, 2010: A trend analysis of normalized 

insured damage from natural disasters. Climatic Change, 113, 215-237, 

doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0331-2. 

40. Burkett, V., and M. Davidson, 2012: Coastal Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerabilities: A Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment.

Island Press, 216 pp. 

41. GAO, 2010: National Flood Insurance Program: Continued 

Actions Needed to Address Financial and Operational Issues. U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. [Available

online at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/124468.pdf] 

Ntelekos, A. A., M. Oppenheimer, J. A. Smith, and A. J. Miller, 

2010: Urbanization, climate change and flood policy in the United

States. Climatic Change, 103, 597-616, doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9789-

6. 

42. FEMA, cited 2013: Total Coverage by Calendar Year. U.S. Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. [Available online at http://www.

fema.gov/policy-claim-statistics-flood-insurance/policy-claimstatistics-flood-insurance/policy-claim-13-12]

43. H. John Heinz III Center for Science Energy and the Environment, 

2000: Evaluation of Erosion Hazards, 205 pp, Washington, DC, 

USA. [Available online at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/

erosion.pdf] 

Czajkowski, J., H. Kunreuther, and E. Michel-Kerjan, 2011: 

A Methodological Approach for Pricing Flood Insurance and 

Evaluating Loss Reduction Measures: Application to Texas, 

Wharton Risk Management Center and CoreLogic, Philadelphia, 

PA and Santa Ana, CA, 87 pp. [Available online at http://

opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WhartonRiskCenter_

TexasFloodInsurancePricingStudy.pdf] 

Kunreuther, H. C., and E. O. Michel-Kerjan, 2009: At War with the 

Weather: Managing Large-Scale Risks in a New Era of Catastrophes. The 

MIT Press, 416 pp. 

	 Michel-Kerjan, E., and H. Kunreuther, 2011: Redesigning flood

insurance. Science, 333, 408-409, doi:10.1126/science.1202616. 

[Available online at http://erwannmichelkerjan.com/wp-content/

uploads/2011/07/RedesigningFloodIns_ScienceMag_20110722-1.

pdf] 

Michel-Kerjan, E. O., 2010: Catastrophe economics: The National 

Flood Insurance Program. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 165-

186, doi:10.1257/jep.24.4.165. [Available online at http://www.jstor.

org/stable/pdfplus/20799178.pdf] 

King, R. O., 2011: National Flood Insurance Program: Background, 

Challenges, and Financial Status. R40650, 33 pp., Congressional 

Research Service, Washington, D.C. [Available online at http://

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40650.pdf]

44. Colls, A., N. Ash, and N. Ikkala, 2009: Ecosystem-based Adaptation: 

A Natural Response to Climate Change. International Union for 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 16 pp. [Available 

online at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2009-049.pdf] 

Danielsen, F., M. K. Sørensen, M. F. Olwig, V. Selvam, F. Parish, 

N. D. Burgess, T. Hiraishi, V. M. Karunagaran, M. S. Rasmussen, 

L. B. Hansen, A. Quarto, and N. Suryadiputra, 2005: The Asian 

tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. Science, 310, 643, 

doi:10.1126/science.1118387. 

Swann, L. D., 2008: The Use of Living Shorelines to Mitigate 

the Effects of Storm Events on Dauphin Island, Alabama, USA. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 12 pp., Department of 

Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture, Auburn University, Ocean 

Springs, MS. [Available online at http://livingshorelinesolutions.

com/uploads/Dr._LaDon_Swann__Living_Shorelines_Paper.

pdf] 

The World Bank, 2009: Convenient Solutions for an Inconvenient Truth: 

Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change. The World Bank, The 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 91 pp. 

References
137

Tobey, J., P. Rubinoff, D. Robadue Jr, G. Ricci, R. Volk, J. Furlow, 

and G. Anderson, 2010: Practicing coastal adaptation to climate 

change: Lessons from integrated coastal management. Coastal 

Management, 38, 317-335, doi:10.1080/08920753.2010.483169. 

UNEP-WCMC, 2006: In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other 

Ecosystem Services From Mangroves and Coral Reefs. UNEP-WCMC, 33 

pp. [Available online at http://www.unep.org/pdf/infrontline_06.

pdf] 

Villanoy, C., L. David, O. Cabrera, M. Atrigenio, F. Siringan, P. 

Aliño, and M. Villaluz, 2012: Coral reef ecosystems protect shore 

from high-energy waves under climate change scenarios. Climatic 

Change, 112, 1-13, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0399-3. 

45. Daily, G. C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P. M. Kareiva, H. A. Mooney, 

L. Pejchar, T. H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, and R. Shallenberger, 2009: 

Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in 

Ecolog y and the Environment, 7, 21-28, doi:10.1890/080025. 

Koch, E. W., E. B. Barbier, B. R. Silliman, D. J. Reed, G. M. E. 

Perillo, S. D. Hacker, E. F. Granek, J. H. Primavera, N. Muthiga, 

S. Polasky, B. S. Halpern, C. J. Kennedy, C. V. Kappel, and E. 

Wolanski, 2009: Non-linearity in ecosystem services: Temporal 

and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecolog y and 

the Environment, 7, 29-37, doi:10.1890/080126. [Available online at 

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/080126]

46. Georgetown Climate Center, cited 2012: Helping Communities 

Adapt to Climate Change. [Available online at http://www.

georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/overview] 

Moser, S. C., and J. A. Ekstrom, 2012: Identifying and Overcoming 

Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in San Francisco Bay: 

Results from Case Studies. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-

034 186 pp., California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 

[Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/

CEC-500-2012-034/CEC-500-2012-034.pdf] 

NPCC, 2010: Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building 

a Risk Management Response: New York City Panel on Climate Change 

2009 Report. Vol. 1196, C. Rosenzweig, and W. Solecki, Eds. WileyBlackwell, 328 pp. [Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.

com/doi/10.1111/nyas.2010.1196.issue-1/issuetoc] 

——, 2009: Climate Risk Information, 74 pp., New York City Panel 

on Climate Change, New York, New York. [Available online at 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf]

47. Schmidtlein, M. C., R. C. Deutsch, W. W. Piegorsch, and S. L. 

Cutter, 2008: A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. 

Risk Analysis, 28, 1099-1114, doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01072.x. 

[Available online at https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/sustainabilityscience/2010%20weekly-sessions/session-3-09.27.2010/

supplemental-readings-from-princeton-group/misc-ideas-papers/

Schmidtlein%20et%202008%20sensitiv%20analysis%20of%20

vuln%20indiex.pdf]

48. Regional Threats from Climate Change are compiled from technical 

input reports, the regional chaptersin thisreport, and from scientific

literature. 

Future National Assessments

1. Cash, D. W., and S. C. Moser, 2000: Linking global and local scales: 

Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global 

Environmental Change, 10, 109-120, doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-

0. 

Clark, W. C., R. B. Mitchell, and D. W. Cash, 2006: Ch. 1: Evaluating 

the influence of global environmental assessments. Global 

Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, R. B. Mitchell, W. 

C. Clark, D. W. Cash, and N. Dickson, Eds., The MIT Press, 1-26. 

Farrell, A., and J. Jäger, Eds., 2005: Assessments of Regional and Global 

Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science 

in Decision-Making. Resources for the Future, 301 pp. [Available 

online at http://www.amazon.com/Assessments-Regional-GlobalEnvironmental-Risks/dp/1933115041] 

Mitchell, R. B., W. C. Clark, D. W. Cash, and N. M. Dickson, Eds., 

2006: Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence. MIT 

Press, 352 pp. 

NRC, 2007: Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned.

National Research Council, Committee on Analysis of Global 

Change Assessments, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 

Division on Earth and Life Studies. National Academies Press, 196 

pp. [Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_

id=11868]

2. Buizer, J., P. Fleming, S. L. Hays, K. Dow, C. Field, D. Gustafson, 

A. Luers, and R. H. Moss, 2013: Preparing the Nation for Change: 

Building a Sustained National Climate Assessment. National Climate 

Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, Washington, 

D.C. [Available online at http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/NCADAC/

pdf/NCA-SASRWG%20Report.pdf]


U.S. Global Change Research Program

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 250 • Washington, DC 20006 USA

http://www.globalchange.gov

This report summarizes the impacts of climate change 

 on the United States, now and in the future. 

U.S. National Climate Assessment