Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Global Warming Has Made the Weather Better For Most In US -- For Now (latimes.com) 317

An anonymous reader shares an article on LA Times: Since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S.. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study. Research shows Americans typically -- and perhaps unsurprisingly -- like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best. A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago. "Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes," writes Patrick Egan, a political scientist at New York University, and Megan Mullin, professor of environmental politics at Duke University. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before. The paper does not predict how changing weather patterns will influence migration patterns over the coming century.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Warming Has Made the Weather Better For Most In US -- For Now

Comments Filter:
  • by ITRambo ( 1467509 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:30AM (#51955981)
    Prognostications that tell me what I'll like in the future are annoying. Now it's my turn. Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Don't forget Siberia.

    • Prognostications that tell me what I'll like in the future are annoying. Now it's my turn. Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.

      For one thing most of the land which would become agricultural is Crown Land so good luck getting to use it for commercial purposes for hundreds of years due to untangling regulations. This is Canada, the land of the Great Regulations.

      For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.

      • Just how much global warming are you expecting?

        3 degrees C average temperature corresponds to how many miles of latitude?

      • For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.

        Um, no. At least not when it comes to economics. Some very conservative numbers: https://www.fraserinstitute.or... [fraserinstitute.org]

        I suppose some Canadians hate Aboriginals because it is so hard to fire them when they're doing a bad job, and of course there's some basic racism, but there's such a huge immigrant population in Canada these days that I think more of the racism is directed toward the immigrants, and or to the old favorite (French speakers if you're outside of Quebec) (English speakers if you're in Quebec). P

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.

      Not likely. The growing season is lengthening only because it's warmer longer. You still have the same amount of sun, so that's the upper limit to how much you can grow. While the sunbelt states can grow almost year-round, even the longest of growing seasons would be half a year or less. The growing season has extended by a few weeks - not enough to have two full crops as you do in the US, and unlikely to extended lo

      • by Alomex ( 148003 )

        Wrong, the growing regions of Canada are sufficiently far north that temperature is the limiting factor, not sun.

        Quote from Agriculture Canada: The Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM 3.1) model predicts a 1 to 2 degree Celsius increase in monthly average temperatures by 2010 to 2039, resulting in slightly earlier crop seeding dates, and later fall frost dates on the prairies.

    • Probably not. Even if it's warmer, there's still not much sunlight up there.
  • by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:31AM (#51955991)
    so the crappy pre-global warming weather we had is what we need to go back to? back when i was in the army all the guys i knew from the midwest talked about their normal winters of -20 with the wind chill
    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      You owe it to owners of beach houses.

    • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      I'm in Ohio. -20F wind chill still occurs. From my experience, the temperature is often warmer but the wind is stronger. We have less precipitation which is a problem because the underground aquifers are mostly replenished by the spring thaw. When it does get cold, it doesn't last long. I use to be able to play pond hockey frequently (all of Jan/Feb), now we're lucky to get 1 week of ice that is thick enough to be safe.

      This past February, we had 2 Saturdays in a row that the temperature approached 70
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:32AM (#51956001) Journal

    It's what Russia has been saying for years: "Warming? In Russia? How is that bad? It's usually f8cking cold here!"

  • I moved back to where I grew up in part because I missed the winter. I'm back and have very little winter in this place - snow doesn't last (too warm), lakes don't freeze early enough (same reason) - I would have moved further north if I'd have known ahead of time that I was going to run in to this. I really enjoy snow and cold myself; I know I can always make more heat or put on another layer of clothing but making cold air is a challenge - and the world doesn't need me running around naked.
  • What do you predict will happen it something like a major change in humidity [mit.edu] affects a region that has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors? Keep in mind that's mainly just added moisture from a change in local weather patterns, something likely of typical changes in the future.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors

      Texas?

    • What do you predict will happen it something like a major change in humidity [mit.edu] affects a region that has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors? Keep in mind that's mainly just added moisture from a change in local weather patterns, something likely of typical changes in the future.

      Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.

      • Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity.

        The Persian Gulf area will be uninhabitable.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/science/intolerable-heat-may-hit-the-middle-east-by-the-end-of-the-century.html [nytimes.com]

      • Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.

        The United States still has Alaska, which is a little over 20% as large as the rest of the United States, and with basically no population. The entire population could fit there easily if you built it up.

        Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily. The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes); France would complain but probably not do anything. If Canada was really smart it could cut the still s

        • Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily.

          Why do either? Canada has 10 provinces and territories...

          State # 51-60, there you go...

          The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes)

          Even if we invaded Canada by force, Britain is not going to nuke the US, that would be suicide. More likely, they can have 2 or 3 provinces.

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:52AM (#51956179)
    I read something a while back that 20th century weather was a "statistical fluke" and humanity will never experience another period of stable weather. Oh, well. I'm moving to the hills in the next 20 years to avoid raising sea levels in California.
  • by BlueCoder ( 223005 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @10:59AM (#51956223)

    For the most part weather is the western world has been getting better for residential living...

    Without humans it would actually had been much colder albeit there would be more species still in existence.

    Weather is not static, nor is the earths atmosphere which bleeds off into outer space.

    Lets stop talking about anthropomorphic climate change and actually make it fact by actively managing it and taking responsibility.

    Come the next ice age we will need to burn all that oil and coal currently in the ground.

    • I think there is a good chance that global warming and the resulting atmospheric moisture will bring water back to the Sahara. This should also be true for the southwest usa where monsoonal rains depend on ocean surface temperature in the gulf of california.
    • Come the next ice age we will need to burn all that oil and coal currently in the ground.

      We've already burned more than enough oil and coal to stop the next ice age.

  • When you take in the Heat Waves of the 30's we're no where near that bad in the US, and from the 60's to 1991 had a significant effect of global cooling due to a fairly large amount of SO2 in the Stratosphere due to a series of volcanic eruptions. Is this an improvement due to Global Warming CO2 or an improvement due to a lack of SO2 eruptions into the Stratosphere. I can go into why the rain has spontaneously increased since about 2010 due to an enhanced evaporation effect caused by the last solar cycle th
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It's because you cherry-pick your facts and you don't permit the possibility that facts are additive, not exclusive.

      • I haven't cherry picked a single thing. I've seen global warming advocated cherry pick around the evaporation data. It's not convenient because the results are in stark contradiction with several global warming claims. Oh it's flat from 1950 to 2010 so it can't show any global warming, all while totally ignoring that it did go up and follow the last solar cycle along with the Rain following the same solar cycle pattern. But no I must be cherry picking by Including data and you can't be cherry picking by exc
  • However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before.

    That's almost scientific. It has a measurable number and it does not use the evasive "may" or "could", using a solid "will" instead.

    What's missing is the when. 2021? 2026?

    Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.

  • First, saying that you live in Iowa (as one poster puts it), and don't know or will ever meet someone from the other side of the world is a) massively ignorant and downright nasty (where does some of your food come from? how 'bout your clothes, or cars, or computers or computer parts come from?), and b) did I mention "ignorant"?

    I've lived in Texas and Florida. I'm in the DC metro area now, and the weather's starting to remind me of Texas. Which I find horrifying.

    Why, you ask?

    Let me give you two reasons tha

    • First, saying that you live in Iowa (as one poster puts it), and don't know or will ever meet someone from the other side of the world is a) massively ignorant and downright nasty (where does some of your food come from? how 'bout your clothes, or cars, or computers or computer parts come from?), and b) did I mention "ignorant"?

      That poster was me... and I was simply making a point that you reinforced..

      Calling the Iowa person "ignorant" doesn't improve your chances of getting him to care about your cause, it makes it worse. Make he *IS* ignorant, but so what?

      And, of course, all the climate-change deniers, who claim to be Free Markets Forever!!! can't seem to see any business opportunities in the changeover to producing renewables, and the equipment for creating renewable energy generation.

      The problem is that people with your snotty attitude have turned off a whole lot of people, which is why you haven't gotten the changes that needed to be done, done.

      I'm on board with CO2 being a problem, but having done the math, I can see the time to change was 30 years ago.

  • by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @11:41AM (#51956635) Journal

    I live in Canada, and the weather has indeed been getting better for me. As far as I'm concerned, we've terraformed the earth to make it more habitable here and I'm not really upset by it at all.

  • Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.

    Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.

    Second... let me give you two reasons that will hit you, personally, says the guy who lived in Texas and Florida for some years.

    1. Fire ants will move north. If you've

    • Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.

      Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.

      The Iowa person will just shrug their shoulders and say, "good, that means jobs will come back to the US again."

      You calling them ignorant isn't going to win them to your side, it will just cause them to dig their heals in further.

      You should also consider that there is more than one way to skin a cat. What if that Iowa person say, "you know, if we have too many people on the planet, perhaps we should get rid of half of them, that'll solve the problem. lets start with the half on the other side of the plane

  • You've probably heard it before, but...

    A chunk of thousands of years ago, a particularly nasty invasive species escaped from its natural habitat in Africa. Everywhere it went, it took over, causing the extinction of many animal species. To date, no workable approach to containing this species, either via mechanical methods or via evolution of a predator species, has come into being. However, as with every known population explosion known to anthropologists, biologists, and paleontologists, sooner or late

  • by Tighe_L ( 642122 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @02:13PM (#51958025) Homepage
    except they are saying that behind the curtain (not the USA) it's horrible. Don't believe it. Just like the Great Pacific garbage patch, which the media always shows photos of trash in water, but it doesn't exist. They then say it is tiny undetectable particles of plastic. Great Invisible Pacific garbage patch, yeah don't believe it. It is all a play for power over us.

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Working...