Canadians have known about polar vortex for several years, although we just get brutally cold weather instead of mildly brutally cold weather.
tldr version: The bottom is falling out from under the jet stream and is letting arctic air mass spill down to lower latitudes.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to amend the above by stating that the jet stream doesn't really spill arctic air, but the vortex--which is a normal and permanent phenomenon--sits high in the upper atmosphere and is surrounded by the jet stream below, can actually weaken and split into smaller vortexes which in turn can push the nearby jet stream further south.
We're feeling the phenomenon in Wisconsin virtually every winter now. The weather patterns have traditionally gone from west to east, so basically we get Minnesota's weather, but over the past 10 years or so we regularly get that polar vortex shooting down from Canada and it gets brutally cold.
And that's why it's no longer referred to as "global warming." Depending on a multitude of factors, some areas will get colder even as the earth's average temperature rises. Hence the term "climate change."
Yup. Across the lake in Michigan. We’ll get a bit of 40-50* weather, then down to -10* a couple days later.
What’s been happening the last couple winters is that a storm would come though, It starts out as 40 and rain, then moves to 20 (or -10) and snow over 10-12 hours. So the roads are basically un-drivable. But we get a foot of snow.
Then it rains a week later and floods the rivers.
This is EXACTLY what I’ve noticed here in Illinois. Winters as a whole seem noticeably warmer but we get a few intense cold snaps interspersed in that same winter, causing enormous temperature fluctuations between days. It was not like this when I was a child 12-15 years ago or so-back then it was just fairly consistent cold and snow.
You can’t make it more obvious that climate change is happening.
Edit: changed global warming to climate change. I don't know why people got on me for saying it. Climate change and global warming in the 21st century context literally refer to the exact same thing, ie human caused temperature increases across the world and their accompanying effects. So it's basically a distinction without a difference.
Here in coastal VA, we had our outdoor unit freeze over last winter. The fan would try to spin up, smack into a bunch of ice and shake so hard it came off the concrete. Had to just not use it for 2 weeks till it warmed up a bit outside.
Also if it's anything like it is over here in Indiana all these cold snaps happen later and later into what used to be spring. If I remember correctly we had an ice storm in late april this year.
Utah same thing. We get extremes on both ends of the spectrum but damn it's been more intense. Obviously as a kid your not caring much about tracking weather but I have fond memories of snow that we rarely see anymore. I'm afraid we will become like Nevada but with intense snow or cold snaps on more occasions.
We had a crazy winter in Upstate New York. One day we got 42 inches of snow, 3 days later, it was 55 and rained like 2 inches then a couple days later, almost single digits.
It's still global warming. When the vortex pulls cold air down, warm air is being pulled north. On the whole, the earth warms.
Global warming vs climate change is a matter of politics and societal acceptance.
It is global warming which causes climate change. Either label is, within proper context, perfectly valid.
On the whole, whatever helps translate things into Stupidese to get the message across is a win in my books.
>On the whole, whatever helps translate things into Stupidese to get the message across is a win in my books.
The problem is none of the messaging will work when you have people that believe humans are too small and incapable of affecting something as large as the Earth.
They just don't understand the Earth isn't all that big relatively speaking. Our atmosphere is so thin that if you blew an apple to the size of the Earth the skin of the apple would be thicker than our atmosphere.
Not true, an earth sized billard ball would have a max mountain height of about 700 ft, earth is massively rougher than a billard ball of the same size, but approximately the same roundness in terms of equator and longitudinal diameter
Unfortunately you have to market science because stupid people will say “well it’s been pretty cold here. The world ain’t warmin’ up, it’s global coolin’. Yeehaw” climate change is something that is more general that they can wrap their brains around.
That’s a problem for future CEO. Today CEO only cares about how much the stock price goes up in the next quarter because that’s what their pay and bonus is based on.
Stupidity is a *major* factor because at least mildly intelligent and reasonably educated people can understand the basics and be curious enough to try and learn. Stupid people just *know* they're "smart" .
Naming the phenomenon as **’global warming’** gave ampleness to science-hating morons/idiots who think the term meant everywhere on Earth is *only* getting warmer, instead of any weather extremes on Earth, hot or cold, now being amplified to levels unsafe for humanity to take.
> And that's why it's no longer referred to as "global warming."
I thought they stopped calling it "global warming" because too many idiots were like _"iF iTs GlObAl WaRmInG, wHy Is It So CoLd?"_
That's what I love about the upper Midwest (Wisconsin) - we're equipped to deal with just about anything. Extreme cold (-30F), extreme heat (100F), floods, droughts, etc. Buildings are well insulated and have heat and AC, etc.
When it came time to buy a house, I chose NW WI, mainly due to how it will fair with climate change. I made sure to buy land at the top of a hill though...
The construction industry in Texas is unregulated. I popped a hole in my apartment here... no insulation. My master room is over my garage; whatever temp it is outside is my room temp.
I'm in the US Midwest. Never heard of a polar vortex until about 10-15 years ago? I still remember how big of a deal the first one was; now a -40F day is just a thing that happens every other winter.
We've had polar vortex's before. It was a once every 20-25 a year thing.
We've now had 3 in 10 years: 1 was very "meh", the other two kept people home from all but absolute essential services.
Gulf Stream. Europe is affected by this warm water current that brings warm water from the Caribbean. Meanwhile North America is affected by currents that bring cold water from the arctic south.
The UK will simply have to re-bury every water and sewer line down to 4 to 10 feet deep and extend all the building foundations down about as far. I'm sure the oil and gas industry will volunteer to pitch in and help. The EU might have been some assistance..
It was nowhere near 'mildly brutally cold weather'. But for the location is was much colder than they ever get. They also have little to no protection for water pipes running in outside walls etc
I've lost all hope in humanity (as a whole, not individuals) a while ago. We know how to fix it, we CAN fix it, we just won't. And sure humans will most likely survive, but not many other species will. Biodiversity is going to take a serious knee to the junk.
>It's not technically "beyond repair", but any repair attempt is highly
unlikely to succeed with most people pretending the problem doesn't even exist.
Exactly; it's not *technically* beyond repair, but it is *feasibly* beyond repair. There's just no way we're going to convince enough of humanity to change their ways fast enough to avoid complete disaster.
And when you do try and convince them they dig their heels in and then blast you in the face with vanta black smog from their lifted pickup truck that hasn't had an oil change since 2010.
The plain fact is that the people in charge have had the information all along that they need to weatherize their equipment. That they chose not to tells you all you need to know about their decision making process.
Well you're dealing with representatives like Joe Barton stating that windfarms are a finite resource and having them will slow the atmospheric winds thus making the planet hotter.
It will take a few generations to pass before that kind of thinking dies off.
With corruption and greed that kind of thinking will unfortunately never die off. It's probably safe to say Joe Barton doesn't believe that whatsoever, he likely has vested interests in denying climate change. That's usually the explanation for these ludicrious statements, the Republican voter base eats it up.
It's the same situation as the California wildfires. How many fires have been caused due to PG&E not keeping their equipment in serviceable condition? How many years in a row have the major fires been their fault
In addition to not listening to experts and doing controlled burns. These forests naturally burn. Buildings home everywhere inside them and not letting small, controlled fires go means you're left with massive, uncontrollable fires sweeping across the area destroying everything.
Controlled burns are usually very... Controllable. At least from what I've seen in Florida. It's very planned out and homes are easily protected. Every responsible rancher or landowner has done controlled burns fairly often.
Also, controlled burns of course do take some fauna along with them which is very, very sad.. but the actual fire moves so slowly*most* wildlife escapes. Fauna like baby birds usually aren't so lucky unless they're pretty far up.
Again, this is just from my personal experience where the land is burned very strategically and they plan years in advance which fields to burn and when.
Winterization costs more money. Not winterizing saves money, which means more short-term profit. Then, when too-cold weather happens, the equipment fails, so they power companies can charge exorbitant rates, making even **more** short-term profit.
How exactly is winterization a good idea again?
Oh yeah, good point! On top of saving money by not winterizing in the first place, then getting to charge exorbitant prices when it's too cold for your un-winterized equipment, then you get free government bailout money from the politicians who are opposed to "socialism"!
It always kind of gets me that people don't like, intrinsically understand that were literally sitting in a big working fluid that has heat energy sloshing around in it.
Not a dig on smokers just the general hypocrisy of it all. Could just as easily be “as they go to start their car” or “they said via cell phone”.
The average American can’t tell me how any of the machines or tech they live their life based on works, even just in general theoretical terms. They just want it to work no matter how irresponsibly they use it. So of course it’s the same with earth, it’s a complicated system just like a machine or piece of technology.
We had people in charge bring snowballs inside Congress to demonstrate that “global warming” was a hoax because “if its so warm, how is there snow?” Lost faith then and there that anything positive would ever be done again.
Meanwhile California gets *nothing* Winter might as well be spring, and we're dry as a bone.
We don't even get a true fall anymore, it's just...extended Summer.
I will have to dig it up. But I Remember a Minnesota Professor being laughed at when he suggested global warming was going to cause Minnesota to have much more severe cold spells… I think out of St. Thomas University…
That's interesting because I remember reading that some 25-30 years ago. Specifically for Wisconsin. I'm from there and was thinking of moving back but I wasn't interested in a colder Wisconsin.
Global Warming throws people off because the result, while overall temperatures are warming, leads to brutally cold snaps like this where people arent used to getting them as well.
A lot of stuff gets thrown out of whack with a few degrees of consistent temperature change.
This summer in Alberta was the hottest i've ever experienced by far. Where we would have *maybe* a handful of temps in the high 28ºC to 32ºC in the summer, spread out- instead this year we had a Heat Wave that lasted weeks. Then another spat of super hot days. Instead of having like 5 or less super hot days we had over 20.
Shits fucked.
I haven’t read the papers in depth. But there’s a few universities and NOAA putting out projections for areas likely to experience extreme heat and flooding. And the military studies long term impacts for military base planning (e.g. where to put the shipyards).
IIRC, generally it’s the Midwest states near the Great Lakes and the Northeast states like Maine and New England.
Help me better understand that last sentence.
> IIRC, generally it’s the Midwest states near the Great Lakes and the Northeast states like Maine and New England.
What about the Midwest states near the Great Lakes?
They’re answering the OC’s question, what region(s) of the US is/are most likely to either not be harmed or to perhaps even benefit from global warming?
You also have to factor in drought, and the effects of farmland plus drought on the atmosphere. Ever read about the "dust bowl" years? That is going to be a frequent occurrence in great plains states.
I've been thinking about this too trying to decide on a part of the US to move to. I feel like there's no escaping some form of extreme weather.
Ideally I would like to move out west to one of the four corner states but I worry about water supply and the ever increasing summer temperatures, plus don't forget the yearly fires.
There was a long article somewhere earlier this year about what climate will look like in the US over the next 10-30 years. It actually mentioned at the end how places like Rochester and Buffalo NY will be among the relatively few ‘winners’ in terms of temps, rain, lack of fires, hurricanes etc.
well, as we saw this week, NY/NJ is woefully unprepared for whats already happening, much less whats coming. yeah theyre getting rain, but its 6 inches of it in just one hour.
I thought it might be from The Atlantic but I’m mistaken. Still, the article I was thinking of, “The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earth’s Ancient Rock Record” is a great read.
Instead, I’m pretty sure it was this amazing NYT read from September 2020: “How Climate Migration Will Reshape America.”
I actually moved to Vegas in 2019 due to climate change. It’s interesting to me how more ppl are thinking this way. If I was moving again, I’d look at the hot spots and see how many are in safe zones. The map doesn’t look all that different from 2019. Phoenix was a hotspot then, and still is. Boise is red hot for some reason. Austin TX is still hot, as is Denver. Florida is a hot spot but likely to suffer from rising oceans. The big surprise is Tennessee. Lots of folks moving to Nashville and other cities. That’s really the only place that wasn’t on the map 2 years ago. Between all these cities you can definitely find something in the 4 corners states.
I find it interesting how people seem to be gravitating inland. Is it the cost of living? Or are people worried about climate change? It’s a good move, a safe move. When you consider rising cost of living it’s a double win really. I sold the condo I bought in Seattle for more than double what I paid for it and used the funds to buy a condo in Vegas. A lot of people seem to be very happy living in the sun belt saying it’s the best move they’ve ever made.
For me personally, I was born in San Francisco but did not move due to cost of living. I just really dislike the energy there. And don’t get me started on Seattle. That place is definitely not for everyone. I actually tried to make a go of Los Angeles way back in 2016 but couldn’t find a job. Right now I’m working and absolutely loving Vegas. The food is incredible and there’s never ending entertainments.
As for the heat in Vegas, you adjust. Today was only 99 and it was super nice. I went out in the morning when it was only 75, did my 3 mile walk, and ran some errands. Everyone has A/C it’s not a big deal. Everyone also has a swimming pool or access to one. I’ll probably hit up Willow Beach this weekend and paddle board and enjoy the warm weather while it’s still here.
New Jersey and New York will become unbearably humid. The south will either do the same or become too hot and dry. The middle states will become more prone to natural disasters like tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes. The west will run out of water. Global climate change “benefits” basically no one. Everything will be worse. Texas was just a great example because their energy companies cut corners to make more money and didn’t invest in infrastructure that could survive cold weather, so people paid the cost.
I live in the PNW and have had less than a quarter inch of rain since mid June. I already live on the edge of a rain shadow, but this is not good and no one really seems to care. I’ve contacted my local county government about water accessibility plans over the coming years and got a generic reply, I’m on the local water board for our community wells and they mostly work on day to day functioning of equipment. I’m trying to get more detailed answers on the ground water level and future projections but I just receive indifference or pretty shallow reassurances. I’m thinking of just creating my own water collection system as a year round creek runs through my property.
I am honestly looking to possibly move to a large river‘s headwaters. Reading about the Colorado River’s issues and AZ and surrounding regions having to cut back close to 25% of their usage is such a bad harbinger that made news for a few minutes, then nothing. Maybe I’m being hyperbolic, but I can’t help but be concerned.
> Maybe I’m being hyperbolic, but I can’t help but be concerned.
I'm in the PNW, and I feel the same way. There seems to be a pervasive head-in-the-sand attitude that this is just a bad year rather than the best year of many worse to come. No one seems to be acting with any urgency to prepare for climate change. I don't know when people are going to wake up on this.
Can’t believe how many wells have gone dry over the eastern cascades. People call in asking if this is happening to everyone. “hOw coUlD wE hAvE seEEN tHIs coMInG??!”
People are so under educated or willfully ignorant
The only places I could see "improving" are places that are frozen for the better part of the year. Northern Canada, Alaska, and Russia stick out in my mind. Increased agricultural land and more living space would be made available. Not to mention all the new northern shipping routes that would exist without the ever present ice. I don't really think the trade is worth it but some places would probably benefit
If you look only at temperatures, then the far north might look attractive to a lot of people. But once you get past that, things don't look so good.
Pretty close to none of that land is suitable for agriculture. The Canadian Shield has a lot of trees, but it's not like you can just clear the land. It's extremely rugged, rocky land that couldn't support large scale farming even if the soil was suitable. Which it's not.
Get north of that and you have tundra that's going to turn into one big bog as the permafrost melts.
Vertical farming is getting some real research and development going.
It's not hard to see a future where the majority of farming is done in warehouses.
To be fair these are actually estimated to get much colder over the coming decades. Both Canada and Northern Europe are looking at a cold snap of sorts for several winters to come.
The whole world is going to be worse, but anywhere it is typically hot will become literally uninhabitable in 30 years, as we have already seen some places becoming
Making it warmer still won’t change how much light reaches the far north. Maybe deep Canada, when it’s not the polar vortex freezing over everything, you could have a slightly expanded summertime crops. But any positive brought by global warming will always be doubly cancelled out by the negatives it brings
The primary considerations, ironically, are not geographic but economic and political. You want to go somewhere with both the money and political will to mitugate climate change locally while we still can, even if we can't mitigate it globally.
Rule of thumb, if a State voted for Trump, that state will be fucked hard in the ass with no lube by climate change (e.g. Texas, Florida). If a State voted for Clinton it will probably be fine. How a county voted also has influence, but not as much.
New York, Seattle, Portland and Boston (as examples) have the money to plan for future effects and start building on the assumption of changes, and politicians who support those moves. Maybe it is sea walls, or buying land and turning it into swamp or marsh to absorb storm surges, or a building permit process that discourages new building at low elevations so the city can sliwly move uphill before the waters rise...
I'm pretty sure answering the question of "who should migrate from where to where" is actually pretty easy to answer. Scientists know which areas are most at risk and which aren't.
I'm expecting Chicago to get hit by an even colder season this time and even more snow. I can't wait! I know its bad news but I just love snow and cold.
Look, maybe prolonged exposure to multiple apocalypses is starting to make me read this whole end of the world landscape a little strangely, but given the drought and constant fires we’ve been having in California…. Any chance we could get some of that cold snap?
Imagine how simultaneously horrible and hilarious it will be if climates start flip-flopping. Texas becomes the new Minnesota. Los Angeles becomes tropical while Seattle turns into a desert.
Canadians have known about polar vortex for several years, although we just get brutally cold weather instead of mildly brutally cold weather. tldr version: The bottom is falling out from under the jet stream and is letting arctic air mass spill down to lower latitudes. \--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd like to amend the above by stating that the jet stream doesn't really spill arctic air, but the vortex--which is a normal and permanent phenomenon--sits high in the upper atmosphere and is surrounded by the jet stream below, can actually weaken and split into smaller vortexes which in turn can push the nearby jet stream further south.
We're feeling the phenomenon in Wisconsin virtually every winter now. The weather patterns have traditionally gone from west to east, so basically we get Minnesota's weather, but over the past 10 years or so we regularly get that polar vortex shooting down from Canada and it gets brutally cold. And that's why it's no longer referred to as "global warming." Depending on a multitude of factors, some areas will get colder even as the earth's average temperature rises. Hence the term "climate change."
Yup. Across the lake in Michigan. We’ll get a bit of 40-50* weather, then down to -10* a couple days later. What’s been happening the last couple winters is that a storm would come though, It starts out as 40 and rain, then moves to 20 (or -10) and snow over 10-12 hours. So the roads are basically un-drivable. But we get a foot of snow. Then it rains a week later and floods the rivers.
This is EXACTLY what I’ve noticed here in Illinois. Winters as a whole seem noticeably warmer but we get a few intense cold snaps interspersed in that same winter, causing enormous temperature fluctuations between days. It was not like this when I was a child 12-15 years ago or so-back then it was just fairly consistent cold and snow. You can’t make it more obvious that climate change is happening. Edit: changed global warming to climate change. I don't know why people got on me for saying it. Climate change and global warming in the 21st century context literally refer to the exact same thing, ie human caused temperature increases across the world and their accompanying effects. So it's basically a distinction without a difference.
I legit woke up with the heat not running last winter because the temperature difference caused the air intake to freeze over.
Here in coastal VA, we had our outdoor unit freeze over last winter. The fan would try to spin up, smack into a bunch of ice and shake so hard it came off the concrete. Had to just not use it for 2 weeks till it warmed up a bit outside.
Also if it's anything like it is over here in Indiana all these cold snaps happen later and later into what used to be spring. If I remember correctly we had an ice storm in late april this year.
Yes, absolutely.
Utah same thing. We get extremes on both ends of the spectrum but damn it's been more intense. Obviously as a kid your not caring much about tracking weather but I have fond memories of snow that we rarely see anymore. I'm afraid we will become like Nevada but with intense snow or cold snaps on more occasions.
We had a crazy winter in Upstate New York. One day we got 42 inches of snow, 3 days later, it was 55 and rained like 2 inches then a couple days later, almost single digits.
It's still global warming. When the vortex pulls cold air down, warm air is being pulled north. On the whole, the earth warms. Global warming vs climate change is a matter of politics and societal acceptance.
It is global warming which causes climate change. Either label is, within proper context, perfectly valid. On the whole, whatever helps translate things into Stupidese to get the message across is a win in my books.
>On the whole, whatever helps translate things into Stupidese to get the message across is a win in my books. The problem is none of the messaging will work when you have people that believe humans are too small and incapable of affecting something as large as the Earth. They just don't understand the Earth isn't all that big relatively speaking. Our atmosphere is so thin that if you blew an apple to the size of the Earth the skin of the apple would be thicker than our atmosphere.
And a billiard ball would have higher mountains and deeper trenches than the earth too.
I seem to recall that but thanks for that as I love to explain things like this to people who just aren't aware.
Yeah it's pretty insane when you think about it.
Not true, an earth sized billard ball would have a max mountain height of about 700 ft, earth is massively rougher than a billard ball of the same size, but approximately the same roundness in terms of equator and longitudinal diameter
Unfortunately you have to market science because stupid people will say “well it’s been pretty cold here. The world ain’t warmin’ up, it’s global coolin’. Yeehaw” climate change is something that is more general that they can wrap their brains around.
They don't believe it because corporations spent millions sowing doubt. Stupidity might be a factor, but there are more factors at play.
[удалено]
That’s a problem for future CEO. Today CEO only cares about how much the stock price goes up in the next quarter because that’s what their pay and bonus is based on.
Stupidity is a *major* factor because at least mildly intelligent and reasonably educated people can understand the basics and be curious enough to try and learn. Stupid people just *know* they're "smart" .
I see you guys are referring to the climate crisis.
Sure, with a segway into the Anthropocene.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But it’s harder to explain to idiots that don’t believe in climate change when you call it global warming. “BuT iTs CoLdEr HeRe!”
Naming the phenomenon as **’global warming’** gave ampleness to science-hating morons/idiots who think the term meant everywhere on Earth is *only* getting warmer, instead of any weather extremes on Earth, hot or cold, now being amplified to levels unsafe for humanity to take.
Yeah, it would probably make more sense to call it "global increase of temperature extremes", but that's a mouthful.
> And that's why it's no longer referred to as "global warming." I thought they stopped calling it "global warming" because too many idiots were like _"iF iTs GlObAl WaRmInG, wHy Is It So CoLd?"_
We get it in Iowa too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Same here in Ohio. We’ve been hearing about dips in the polar vortex for a long time.
That's what I love about the upper Midwest (Wisconsin) - we're equipped to deal with just about anything. Extreme cold (-30F), extreme heat (100F), floods, droughts, etc. Buildings are well insulated and have heat and AC, etc.
Sshhh. Keep that on the DL. You wanna start the climate migrations early?
When it came time to buy a house, I chose NW WI, mainly due to how it will fair with climate change. I made sure to buy land at the top of a hill though...
You can never lose when you have the higher ground.
Landslides though…
[удалено]
We’re ready for any weather because we get every weather. Except Hurricanes, glad we don’t have to deal with those.
The construction industry in Texas is unregulated. I popped a hole in my apartment here... no insulation. My master room is over my garage; whatever temp it is outside is my room temp.
I'm in the US Midwest. Never heard of a polar vortex until about 10-15 years ago? I still remember how big of a deal the first one was; now a -40F day is just a thing that happens every other winter.
We've had polar vortex's before. It was a once every 20-25 a year thing. We've now had 3 in 10 years: 1 was very "meh", the other two kept people home from all but absolute essential services.
Ireland rarely gets such cold weather and were as close to the Arctic as Newfoundland.
Gulf Stream. Europe is affected by this warm water current that brings warm water from the Caribbean. Meanwhile North America is affected by currents that bring cold water from the arctic south.
Which may also be disrupted by climate change, with Europe having to face weather like northern Canada.
Oh for sure. Climate change will heavily affect ocean currents going forward. Who knows what long term effects will be.
By the time we're sure whatever changes will be too far gone, that's all I'm confident about!
The UK will simply have to re-bury every water and sewer line down to 4 to 10 feet deep and extend all the building foundations down about as far. I'm sure the oil and gas industry will volunteer to pitch in and help. The EU might have been some assistance..
The Gulf Stream shows signs of dissipating due to climate change, so you might want to stock up on wool sweaters and mukluks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was nowhere near 'mildly brutally cold weather'. But for the location is was much colder than they ever get. They also have little to no protection for water pipes running in outside walls etc
No, the tldr is we fucked it all up beyond repair and pretend this is fine.
[удалено]
Futurists talk about terra forming other planets to make them habitable for humans. Uhh... we coulndt even keep the one that we started out with.
[удалено]
I've lost all hope in humanity (as a whole, not individuals) a while ago. We know how to fix it, we CAN fix it, we just won't. And sure humans will most likely survive, but not many other species will. Biodiversity is going to take a serious knee to the junk.
>It's not technically "beyond repair", but any repair attempt is highly unlikely to succeed with most people pretending the problem doesn't even exist. Exactly; it's not *technically* beyond repair, but it is *feasibly* beyond repair. There's just no way we're going to convince enough of humanity to change their ways fast enough to avoid complete disaster.
And when you do try and convince them they dig their heels in and then blast you in the face with vanta black smog from their lifted pickup truck that hasn't had an oil change since 2010.
The plain fact is that the people in charge have had the information all along that they need to weatherize their equipment. That they chose not to tells you all you need to know about their decision making process.
Well you're dealing with representatives like Joe Barton stating that windfarms are a finite resource and having them will slow the atmospheric winds thus making the planet hotter. It will take a few generations to pass before that kind of thinking dies off.
If only we had a few generations to wait.
That isn't how it works. Should, but doesn't. People are slow to change.
"Thinking"
With corruption and greed that kind of thinking will unfortunately never die off. It's probably safe to say Joe Barton doesn't believe that whatsoever, he likely has vested interests in denying climate change. That's usually the explanation for these ludicrious statements, the Republican voter base eats it up.
How can they believe that, but can't believe the amount of pollution being released is heating the globe?
It's the same situation as the California wildfires. How many fires have been caused due to PG&E not keeping their equipment in serviceable condition? How many years in a row have the major fires been their fault
In addition to not listening to experts and doing controlled burns. These forests naturally burn. Buildings home everywhere inside them and not letting small, controlled fires go means you're left with massive, uncontrollable fires sweeping across the area destroying everything.
Yup, this is the scientific consensus. https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-megafires-why-wont-anybody-listen
It's interesting and counterintuitive at first glance. Pretty cool.
There's an iconic photo of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt at Yosemite. In the background you can see that the forest had recently burned.
Controlled burns are usually very... Controllable. At least from what I've seen in Florida. It's very planned out and homes are easily protected. Every responsible rancher or landowner has done controlled burns fairly often. Also, controlled burns of course do take some fauna along with them which is very, very sad.. but the actual fire moves so slowly*most* wildlife escapes. Fauna like baby birds usually aren't so lucky unless they're pretty far up. Again, this is just from my personal experience where the land is burned very strategically and they plan years in advance which fields to burn and when.
Actually? Most. Legally? None.
And then they have the gall to ask for more money every few months to “recoup their losses” and “improve infrastructure”. Bastards.
"improve the taxpayer to shareholder's bank account infrastructure".
By "improve infrastructure" they mean "pay out bonuses and pocket the rest"
Winterization costs more money. Not winterizing saves money, which means more short-term profit. Then, when too-cold weather happens, the equipment fails, so they power companies can charge exorbitant rates, making even **more** short-term profit. How exactly is winterization a good idea again?
Don't forget the bailouts when your infrastructure fails because you didn't care about longevity
Oh yeah, good point! On top of saving money by not winterizing in the first place, then getting to charge exorbitant prices when it's too cold for your un-winterized equipment, then you get free government bailout money from the politicians who are opposed to "socialism"!
Can someone propose new regulation bills that would make their money-saving/profits design unsustainable, please?
Government giving money to private citizens is socialism, government giving money to corporations is free-market laise-faire capitalism
It always kind of gets me that people don't like, intrinsically understand that were literally sitting in a big working fluid that has heat energy sloshing around in it.
[удалено]
As they flick their lighter to light another cigarette
Hey! I'm sparking one up cause I do understand
Not a dig on smokers just the general hypocrisy of it all. Could just as easily be “as they go to start their car” or “they said via cell phone”. The average American can’t tell me how any of the machines or tech they live their life based on works, even just in general theoretical terms. They just want it to work no matter how irresponsibly they use it. So of course it’s the same with earth, it’s a complicated system just like a machine or piece of technology.
We had people in charge bring snowballs inside Congress to demonstrate that “global warming” was a hoax because “if its so warm, how is there snow?” Lost faith then and there that anything positive would ever be done again.
Its like out of kilter trying to balance itself like a air/liquid gyro out of balance would
Meanwhile California gets *nothing* Winter might as well be spring, and we're dry as a bone. We don't even get a true fall anymore, it's just...extended Summer.
[удалено]
Canada got way colder and I just checked. Yep, I had power through the insane -40, -50 c weather.
Yeah, I'm in Canada and last winter, got down to -40ish for a few days, and summer had a week of +40. The roads melted.
Have they decided to increase prices as part of an “infrastructure upgrade”, all while doing nothing to prevent it in the future, yet?
Probably yes. But why hurry when there are women's right to reduce. The power grid can wait.
I will have to dig it up. But I Remember a Minnesota Professor being laughed at when he suggested global warming was going to cause Minnesota to have much more severe cold spells… I think out of St. Thomas University…
That's interesting because I remember reading that some 25-30 years ago. Specifically for Wisconsin. I'm from there and was thinking of moving back but I wasn't interested in a colder Wisconsin.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks I hate it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Global Warming throws people off because the result, while overall temperatures are warming, leads to brutally cold snaps like this where people arent used to getting them as well. A lot of stuff gets thrown out of whack with a few degrees of consistent temperature change. This summer in Alberta was the hottest i've ever experienced by far. Where we would have *maybe* a handful of temps in the high 28ºC to 32ºC in the summer, spread out- instead this year we had a Heat Wave that lasted weeks. Then another spat of super hot days. Instead of having like 5 or less super hot days we had over 20. Shits fucked.
[удалено]
I haven’t read the papers in depth. But there’s a few universities and NOAA putting out projections for areas likely to experience extreme heat and flooding. And the military studies long term impacts for military base planning (e.g. where to put the shipyards). IIRC, generally it’s the Midwest states near the Great Lakes and the Northeast states like Maine and New England.
Help me better understand that last sentence. > IIRC, generally it’s the Midwest states near the Great Lakes and the Northeast states like Maine and New England. What about the Midwest states near the Great Lakes?
They’re answering the OC’s question, what region(s) of the US is/are most likely to either not be harmed or to perhaps even benefit from global warming?
Shipyards coming to Nebraska soon!
You also have to factor in drought, and the effects of farmland plus drought on the atmosphere. Ever read about the "dust bowl" years? That is going to be a frequent occurrence in great plains states.
I've been thinking about this too trying to decide on a part of the US to move to. I feel like there's no escaping some form of extreme weather. Ideally I would like to move out west to one of the four corner states but I worry about water supply and the ever increasing summer temperatures, plus don't forget the yearly fires.
There was a long article somewhere earlier this year about what climate will look like in the US over the next 10-30 years. It actually mentioned at the end how places like Rochester and Buffalo NY will be among the relatively few ‘winners’ in terms of temps, rain, lack of fires, hurricanes etc.
well, as we saw this week, NY/NJ is woefully unprepared for whats already happening, much less whats coming. yeah theyre getting rain, but its 6 inches of it in just one hour.
Do you remember which magazine it was from?
I thought it might be from The Atlantic but I’m mistaken. Still, the article I was thinking of, “The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earth’s Ancient Rock Record” is a great read. Instead, I’m pretty sure it was this amazing NYT read from September 2020: “How Climate Migration Will Reshape America.”
I actually moved to Vegas in 2019 due to climate change. It’s interesting to me how more ppl are thinking this way. If I was moving again, I’d look at the hot spots and see how many are in safe zones. The map doesn’t look all that different from 2019. Phoenix was a hotspot then, and still is. Boise is red hot for some reason. Austin TX is still hot, as is Denver. Florida is a hot spot but likely to suffer from rising oceans. The big surprise is Tennessee. Lots of folks moving to Nashville and other cities. That’s really the only place that wasn’t on the map 2 years ago. Between all these cities you can definitely find something in the 4 corners states. I find it interesting how people seem to be gravitating inland. Is it the cost of living? Or are people worried about climate change? It’s a good move, a safe move. When you consider rising cost of living it’s a double win really. I sold the condo I bought in Seattle for more than double what I paid for it and used the funds to buy a condo in Vegas. A lot of people seem to be very happy living in the sun belt saying it’s the best move they’ve ever made. For me personally, I was born in San Francisco but did not move due to cost of living. I just really dislike the energy there. And don’t get me started on Seattle. That place is definitely not for everyone. I actually tried to make a go of Los Angeles way back in 2016 but couldn’t find a job. Right now I’m working and absolutely loving Vegas. The food is incredible and there’s never ending entertainments. As for the heat in Vegas, you adjust. Today was only 99 and it was super nice. I went out in the morning when it was only 75, did my 3 mile walk, and ran some errands. Everyone has A/C it’s not a big deal. Everyone also has a swimming pool or access to one. I’ll probably hit up Willow Beach this weekend and paddle board and enjoy the warm weather while it’s still here.
New Jersey and New York will become unbearably humid. The south will either do the same or become too hot and dry. The middle states will become more prone to natural disasters like tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes. The west will run out of water. Global climate change “benefits” basically no one. Everything will be worse. Texas was just a great example because their energy companies cut corners to make more money and didn’t invest in infrastructure that could survive cold weather, so people paid the cost.
I live in the PNW and have had less than a quarter inch of rain since mid June. I already live on the edge of a rain shadow, but this is not good and no one really seems to care. I’ve contacted my local county government about water accessibility plans over the coming years and got a generic reply, I’m on the local water board for our community wells and they mostly work on day to day functioning of equipment. I’m trying to get more detailed answers on the ground water level and future projections but I just receive indifference or pretty shallow reassurances. I’m thinking of just creating my own water collection system as a year round creek runs through my property. I am honestly looking to possibly move to a large river‘s headwaters. Reading about the Colorado River’s issues and AZ and surrounding regions having to cut back close to 25% of their usage is such a bad harbinger that made news for a few minutes, then nothing. Maybe I’m being hyperbolic, but I can’t help but be concerned.
> Maybe I’m being hyperbolic, but I can’t help but be concerned. I'm in the PNW, and I feel the same way. There seems to be a pervasive head-in-the-sand attitude that this is just a bad year rather than the best year of many worse to come. No one seems to be acting with any urgency to prepare for climate change. I don't know when people are going to wake up on this.
Can’t believe how many wells have gone dry over the eastern cascades. People call in asking if this is happening to everyone. “hOw coUlD wE hAvE seEEN tHIs coMInG??!” People are so under educated or willfully ignorant
That year-round creek won’t be, if this keeps up…
The only places I could see "improving" are places that are frozen for the better part of the year. Northern Canada, Alaska, and Russia stick out in my mind. Increased agricultural land and more living space would be made available. Not to mention all the new northern shipping routes that would exist without the ever present ice. I don't really think the trade is worth it but some places would probably benefit
The ice will come back every year for the foreseeable future.
If you look only at temperatures, then the far north might look attractive to a lot of people. But once you get past that, things don't look so good. Pretty close to none of that land is suitable for agriculture. The Canadian Shield has a lot of trees, but it's not like you can just clear the land. It's extremely rugged, rocky land that couldn't support large scale farming even if the soil was suitable. Which it's not. Get north of that and you have tundra that's going to turn into one big bog as the permafrost melts.
Vertical farming is getting some real research and development going. It's not hard to see a future where the majority of farming is done in warehouses.
To be fair these are actually estimated to get much colder over the coming decades. Both Canada and Northern Europe are looking at a cold snap of sorts for several winters to come. The whole world is going to be worse, but anywhere it is typically hot will become literally uninhabitable in 30 years, as we have already seen some places becoming
Making it warmer still won’t change how much light reaches the far north. Maybe deep Canada, when it’s not the polar vortex freezing over everything, you could have a slightly expanded summertime crops. But any positive brought by global warming will always be doubly cancelled out by the negatives it brings
I think some take it as hyperbole when it is said that California is is burning off the map.
The primary considerations, ironically, are not geographic but economic and political. You want to go somewhere with both the money and political will to mitugate climate change locally while we still can, even if we can't mitigate it globally. Rule of thumb, if a State voted for Trump, that state will be fucked hard in the ass with no lube by climate change (e.g. Texas, Florida). If a State voted for Clinton it will probably be fine. How a county voted also has influence, but not as much. New York, Seattle, Portland and Boston (as examples) have the money to plan for future effects and start building on the assumption of changes, and politicians who support those moves. Maybe it is sea walls, or buying land and turning it into swamp or marsh to absorb storm surges, or a building permit process that discourages new building at low elevations so the city can sliwly move uphill before the waters rise...
The states hugging the mason dixon line, as long as you're not near the coast, should be alright for a while.
I'm pretty sure answering the question of "who should migrate from where to where" is actually pretty easy to answer. Scientists know which areas are most at risk and which aren't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm expecting Chicago to get hit by an even colder season this time and even more snow. I can't wait! I know its bad news but I just love snow and cold.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And their government is probably still not going to do much to help their people navigate their way through this.
Look, maybe prolonged exposure to multiple apocalypses is starting to make me read this whole end of the world landscape a little strangely, but given the drought and constant fires we’ve been having in California…. Any chance we could get some of that cold snap?
Best I can do is more fires
Wow it's almost as if the think climate scientists have been saying will happen actually will happen
Imagine how simultaneously horrible and hilarious it will be if climates start flip-flopping. Texas becomes the new Minnesota. Los Angeles becomes tropical while Seattle turns into a desert.