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.
Stop telling me what I'll like and not like (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarah Palin could - without even leaving her kitchen.
Re: (Score:3)
Because she already lives there... Almost.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how much global warming are you expecting?
3 degrees C average temperature corresponds to how many miles of latitude?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
so we need to go back to bad weather? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You owe it to owners of beach houses.
Re: (Score:2)
This past February, we had 2 Saturdays in a row that the temperature approached 70
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An interglacial period doesn't mean the glaciers are going to reappear tomorrow, and it certainly doesn't give us license to vomit CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities under the false impression that we're helping.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot ate my "2"s. Apparently it doesn't support superscript or underscript characters.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's what Russia has been saying for years: "Warming? In Russia? How is that bad? It's usually f8cking cold here!"
Re: (Score:2)
...which is bad for Russia how?
I'm not one of those (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The humidity was horrendous last night, the grocery store was almost sold out of ice cream as people gorge themselves on cold treats to try and get by.
Air conditioning has been a thing for 100 years now. :)
The major problems will be man made (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors
Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
A chance of raining meatballs... (Score:3)
Finally the truth (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Still Not Buying (Score:2, Troll)
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.
Cherry Picking Hippocracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
An ALMOST scientific prediction (Score:2, Troll)
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.
You want to know why we should pay? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Terraforming (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the major bread baskets suddenly start suffering prolonged droughts.
For what values of "for now"? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
'Cause invasive species (Score:2)
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
It's like the Wizard of Oz (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no one is saying that, you stupid troll.
It's not the best way of saying it, but the essense of it, I believe, is correct. The average person (pedants: as defined for the entire population, not just Slashdotters, so hush your mouth!) doesn't grok 'climate science' any better than they understand 'rocket science' enough to fabricate and launch a satellite into geosynchronous orbit, so when someone talks about 'global warming', what do they do? They look outside the window at what's going on, or maybe look at the weather forecast; the average person is not the most forward-looking person you'll ever meet, they're more concerned about tomorrow, or next week, or maybe as far as next month, but 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now? Usually, not so much. If the weather has been nice where they are, they're not going to get very disturbed by the abstract ideas of some news report that says in 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, things won't be pleasant, and similarly, they find it difficult to get too upset by the fact that people they don't know in some country they'd be hard-pressed to find on a map is experiencing what is for them bizarre and destructive weather patterns. If you want to see the majority of U.S. citizens being forefront-of-their-thoughts concerned about 'global warming', you'll likely have to wait until they're being seriously inconvenienced by it, which of course will be way, way too late to do anything about it. Which is why scientists and others who do understand the implications of global warming keep amplifying their reports on it -- which of course just causes the deniers of global warming to amplify their claims that they're just spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Then the religious types chime in to muddy the intellectual waters even further, confusing the faithful with passages from the Bible that aren't even necessarily relevant.
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the weather has been nice where they are, they're not going to get very disturbed by the abstract ideas of some news report that says in 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, things won't be pleasant, and similarly, they find it difficult to get too upset by the fact that people they don't know in some country they'd be hard-pressed to find on a map is experiencing what is for them bizarre and destructive weather patterns.
Quoted for truth...
The average person out in the world simply doesn't pay this nearly as much attention as people who post on message boards about it. Even my wife, who has to listen to me talk about this from time to time, doesn't really care all that much.
Oh sure, if you say "do you care about the Earth's environment for your children", she'll say "yes, of course, we should keep it clean". Then if you follow up and say, "So are you ok to give up your nice big truck and get a small car, and watch clothes by hand, and have no air conditioning?", she will say: "Are you nuts? No!"
If you were to push her on it, she'll probably say something like, "Even if I give all that up, nothing will change and other nations will keep polluting".
Re: (Score:3)
other countries don't have the same problem with climate deniers/skeptics/whatever:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac... [nytimes.com]
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:4, Informative)
Grok is actually a pretty useful term. The fact that it was fabricated by a novelist is no good reason to shun it. It's a meaningfully distinctive term.
Most people don't actually grok this stuff. They just repeat what others have said. It's total appeal to authority nonsense like quoting lines out of the Bible. It's even less sophisticated than that actually.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Read this whole discussion. You'll find plenty of slashdotters who seems to think that way.
Re: (Score:3)
because random anonymous slashdot posters from around the world represent the majority of americans.
I never said that. I was replying to operagost who said "no one is saying that", which is obviously not true.
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?
Serious question... Because you're asking that person to change their lifestyle and pay more money, to help people they don't know and will never meet.
That's a crock. (Score:2, Insightful)
Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste. The third world countries are struggling to compete in the global market, and can't afford environmentally-friendly production technologies. So, rather than starve to death, they pollute. A lot.
I could link sources, but I don't have any on hand and am too lazy to search for them. If you are actually interested, y
Re: (Score:2)
Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste.
Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.
Re: (Score:3)
Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.
China is emitting about twice as much CO2 right now as the US is, they are now nearly 1/3 of the whole planet's CO2.
Even holding at current levels, it won't take long for them to emit more CO2 than all Western nations have done in our entire histories...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.
And yet you want the US to cut further, without having China cut?
I think you missed the forest for the trees...
The whole planet has to cut 80%, and that sadly isn't going to happen in our lifetimes...
Re: (Score:2)
you should praise China, the only country which implemented a massive birth limitation policy
Re: (Score:2)
So anyway, there really is no reason why someone living in Iowa should care...they aren't the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For now, it's screwing other people over. Within a few decades it will be screwing that country boy and his kids over. And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.
Perhaps, but he might be more concerned about next month's rent or mortgage payment than what might happen in 20 years.
You cannot expect someone to have a long range view when they are simply trying to live day-to-day.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do expect governments to take a long range view.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do expect governments to take a long range view.
I do? Not really, not the US Government...
Why? Because we hold national elections every 2 years and everyone is up for relection at least once every 6 years.
In the House, everyone is up for election every 2 years, so frankly if it isn't happening in the next 2 years, it isn't much on their RADAR screen...
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?
Because I expect them not to be assholes. I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet. I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well mee
Re: (Score:2)
Because I expect them not to be assholes.
Prepare to be horribly disappointed...
I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet.
See my first point... your expectations are not reality. We could debate all day long if they SHOULD be, but that is another conversation... they aren't, today...
I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.
Actually no, the Iowa child is highly UNLIKELY to grow up and meet the person from the other side of the planet... unless we're are war with them...
Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans?
I suspect you measure "basic human decency" differently than some people. They will be friendly and nice to you, but they are mostly concerned with their own l
Re: (Score:2)
isn't that part of that bible doctrine you seem to like so much?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is saying they shouldn't? They also should. Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year.
That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions. The typical Indian can still double. But by altruism they shouldn't raise them 10 fold.
Re: (Score:3)
Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year.
That would still be much too high, we need to get it lower than that to really stop the CO2 rise.
That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions.
That is true, and that has zero chance of happening any time soon. You might *want* it to happen, but various forces are at work, largely political and economic, that will prevent it from happening within our lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
Since people won't act on their own lets hit their pocketbook. Add massive taxes on energy. See how much motivation people have to buy a more appropriate car, appliance, house...
All that would do is crush the economy, put millions out of work, destroy home values, and cause endless other problems.
People replace cars, on average, every 11 years. Some every 3 years, others drive them 20+ years.
But houses get replaced far less often. My home was built in 2001, it is 3,800 sqft. It likely will be standing in the year 2100. You can't say "buy a more appropriate house" when someone else just has to buy mine.
Unless you plan to tear them all down, but that isn't realistic.
The truth is,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions
Ahh yes, your "one world government"...
Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this? You and what Army?
You might think that response is flip, but I challenge you to walk among average Americans, as a foreigner, and tell them that you think Americans should be "forced" by someone else to do anything.
You'll quickly get reminded that we have the most powerful military in the world, and if you'd like a demonstration, you're welcome to try.
while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't ra
Re: (Score:3)
And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.
Maybe... but I wasn't saying what is "good" or "bad", I was saying what was...
So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer.
Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.
Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time. The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.
Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.
This is not democracy, and it isn't "playground fairness". We can blame the Chinese all we want, and they can igno
Re: (Score:3)
...while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
So you want to prevent Third World populations from advancing to 20th-century (never mind 21st-century) levels of technology/industry/medicine and living standards by force?
Strange definition of "altruism" you have there.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
We don't currently have the technology to produce the energy necessary to maintain a 21st century 1st-World living standard and technology level at the emission reduction levels that have been put forth as necessary to have a significant and meaningful impact.
This means the US population would face reductions in medicine, food, technolog
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?
Nobody said that it should. But as an evolutionary matter, it is good if it goes primarily forward (i.e. if we care about the future of our species and of our children more than we care about our own.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called altruism.
Excellent concept, but a bit abstract for the average person.
Millions of Americans are just trying to pay the rent/mortgage, feed their families, keep their jobs, and retire with dignity.
Next to those concerns, the concerns of an Indian half way around the planet are rather far down the list.
You might not LIKE that, but it is reality and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
Re: (Score:2)
But also, because the rest of the world could (and should, legitimately) tax trade with polluting countries, which could impact that selfish Iowa boy even more.
No decision happens in a vacuum...
First, a lot of the rest of the world is polluting as well, so everyone taxes everyone else and we're back to square one.
Second, from a practical point of view, you generally shouldn't pull the tiger's tail. The United States of America has the most powerful military on Earth and we control the world's reserve currency. We are more likely than not to come out on top of such a dispute. The Iowa country boy (or girl) may well tell our leadership to go kick someone's ass un
Re: (Score:3)
Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy" :)
You clearly don't seem to get what it means. Invading the UK is not a perfect solution, not even an imperfect one.
You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one.
From my point of view, polluters already started the war by exporting their greenhouse gases to other countries.
The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe.
Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.
I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.
Look, let me tell you this straight. You are an idiot if you think the only two possible outcomes are either a 80% cut or the status quo (a big increase over the next decades).
Also, even if
Re: (Score:3)
Moral authority is best achieved through leadership by example.
Americans in particular are better paid, get to keep more of what they make, and have more effective disposable income. They also have choices that citizens of other industrialized nations simply don't have.
If you spent 20% of your income on charity, you would still be ahead of Europeans.
Re: (Score:2)
Altruism and selfishness represent opposite extremes on a wide spectrum. You seem to be committing a fallacy of excluded middle.
I fail to see the middle in this particular example. "I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.
Re: (Score:3)
But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,
You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.
I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.
It's not about equal life or equal resources. However, the person in Iowa is polluting the air of the African. That means the Iowan owes the African. Wether you like it or not.
Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?
Let's just hope they don't, isn't it? Otherwise, they'd send us their pollution too and it would be even worse.
Your thinking in the end is nothing more than racism. The African don't deserve to pollute and live just like we do. If we lower our emissions, they should lower theirs too.
True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either...
Nothing? You must be kidding. Capping the CO2 at cur
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rest of the world helps the US so much.
Re: (Score:2)
They do. The US wouldn't have close to this standard of living without those working for cheap in China, or without oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:4, Insightful)
They deliver that oil out of the goodness of their hearts? No? Well you're just a fuckwit than.
Trade is for mutual benefit. Our it wouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both China and the US could tell the rest of the world to f*ck off and do pretty well. We're large countries with a lot of useful land and ample natural resources. People like to fixate on the US as an industrial power but we really never stopped being an agricultural one. That's what ultimately matters in the end.
The Iowa farm boy can likely adapt to what comes. It's the urban city dwellers that will suffer first and worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be told that. It doesn't mean it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been better for the US, therefore it must be good.
By 'better' they probably just mean 'hotter' because everyone likes really hot weather, right?
Re:Fuck the rest of the world. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well it has been recognized for a while. That Global Climate change will have areas which benefit from it and those that will not.
For the most part, and why it is hard to call people to action, is that we as humans are rather adaptable to climates, so while our long term environmental food cycles and water cycles are affecting a lot of life in the world. We as humans are not so affected. Attempts in the past to try to exaggerate the effects on humans (Images of NYC flooded so you can only see the top of the statue of liberty) May mobilize some, but it also turns a lot of people away, as these potent images, which turn out to be false, discredits the more realistic problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that that "manishs destiny" I've been hearing about?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the "good side" isn't permanent, and once the more severe effects, like rain belts shifting, you're going to see the "bad side".
Beyond that, in many areas, mild winters are really fucking bad. Where I live, that means much lower snow pack, which means major water restrictions and wildfire season coming earlier and earlier every year.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why "Global Warning" is now called "Climate Change".
The term "Climate Change" has been pretty common for several decades now. The IPCC, for example, was founded in 1988.
Re: (Score:2)
Large areas of the United States have been in drought conditions for over two decades now.
Some of that has to do with population growth and migration.
We're suffering from water issues here in North Texas because the people who issue permits to build new homes are not the same people who manage our water supply.
20 years ago, the government wanted to build a huge new reservoir north of DFW, but the NIMBY people up north stopped it.
So now we have 2 million more people than we did 20 years ago, and no new water supply. And the permit people keep issuing permits to build new homes.
Re: (Score:2)
But many humans can't. Look what happens when a bunch of humans from the Middle East decide they want to pick up and move to Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
It is for agrarian and urbanized civilization.
Re: (Score:2)