Also from that link:
> Our localized approach to studying the relationship between climate and society reveals that the burden is spread unevenly. In many counties, GDP decline could total more than 10% by 2100, and in the worst-hit county, Florida's Union County, losses could near 28% for a likely warming scenario under continued emissions growth (the 7°F median change, not the extreme 15°F change highlighted in press coverage). The combined tally almost certainly understates the extent of the damages, because the worst effects are concentrated in places where incomes are lowest. Tumbling incomes in poor counties have a correspondingly small impact on nationwide GDP, meaning the economic burden of climate change is reduced because it falls on those with low incomes.
> If the burden is spread evenly, 1% or 2% of national GDP might seem manageable, but we will not all be equal in the face of climate change. Across the United States, there will be winners and losers. What is lost in all of this noise is the sad fact that even those smaller numbers are too high a cost. They come from a subset of outcomes that are well-measured. As ever in this debate, it is important that we look beyond the headlines, beyond the averages, and examine the people at the heart of the issue. Look at the mass of evidence that points to people who will actually be negatively affected by climate change. They are not abstract people not-yet-born and in some far-off land. They are your neighbors. They are your friends. They are you. Combining local climate projections with historical observations yields a personalized, evidence-based outlook of future risk. Our ongoing research is mapping out these local impacts across the globe.
That sounds pretty catastrophic.