See stories and graphics that show how your part of the North may change over time. Use these to better understand and reduce risk, plan infrastructure, manage natural resources, and communicate change. You can also download data.

Temperatures are rising. Earlier springs, warmer summers, later autumns, and less severe winters are changing the mix of species on the Northern landscape.

Permafrost is thawing. This alters surface drainage and increases possible rooting depths, yielding ecological shifts.

Wildfires are more frequent. More early-succession and fewer late-succession vegetation species appear across landscapes.

Think broadly. Climate projections are most reliable when averaged across time or space because daily variations are “smoothed out.” Examples: “projected average of 30 years of winter precipitation for Bethel, Alaska” or “projected hottest temperature for the north coast of Alaska.”

What seems most likely? The climate we will experience will not look exactly like any one projection, but it will look like a lot of them. So, plan for the likely range of climates, impacts, and risks for the time frame and region you’re working with.

Don’t wait! Projections are always improving, but don’t wait for a better one—you’ll always be waiting, and the costs of waiting will increase. Instead, plan for the range of historical variability plus the range of climates described by a moderate or higher warming model under a high emissions scenario.

These models provide a range that brackets average outputs across all CMIP5 models, and also perform well in Northern regions.

• Use multiple decades and historical comparisons. Longer-term averages resist model variability and natural variations. Compare a future (like 2070–2099) to a historical reference (like 1981–2010)—the later the reference, the more climate change is already a part of it!
• Summarize data over a region. Larger areas, such as watersheds or planning units, are less affected by local variations in elevation, vegetation, etc. than small areas.
• Use multiple emissions scenarios. Humans are unpredictable, so pick at least two scenarios that bracket the likely range, unless you only want the “higher risk” or “lower risk” case. RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 are good choices.
• Use multiple models and/or an average. All models are plausible, if not equally likely. Use several models if the full range of possibilities is important to your work. Use a model average if you’re more interested in the most likely outputs.
• Include medium-term and longer-term futures. A comprehensive assessment would consider a historical, a mid-21st century future, and a late-21st century future. The two futures should each have a high, low, and middle range, with multiple models and multiple emission scenarios in each future window.