So Where will you go? The coming mass migrations due to Anthropogenic Climate Change

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
10 years is weather, not climate.
I used from 1949 to today. You used 2009 to today.
"In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here..."

Unless you'd like to make the case for it being 1959...?




It was MUCH warmer in the 1930's. Worldwide.
Damn those American SUVs!! They're so evil, they cause global warming in the past!
You still don't get it. We've come a long way. Things HAVE gotten better but we need to do even better. I still remember the black snow from the Coal Days.
Uh huh.

Every single "solution" proposed for "anthropogenic climate change" (that hasn't been proven actually exists -- point in case, you claiming weather is climate) turns out to be massive wealth redistribution on a planetary scale.

I'm not sure how the First World paying the Second and Third World to keep polluting will solve anything except punishing the First World for their success.

I'd ask you to explain it, but you would not be able to do so rationally.
You never asked me to explain that. You just came up with that part out your ass. Actually, I support the US to become self sufficient and to stop depending on those 3rd world countries so much. Both of us "Pay" those countries to keep trashing the world. They need us a lot more than we need them.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
Name one island that's had to be abandoned due to "rising oceans".
Nuatambu island
Micronesia
Marshal Islands

And that was from a simple google search.
You should have kept Googling, Klimate Kultist.

Busted claim: data shows that climate induced sea level rise didn't wipe out five Solomon Islands
I stated that the average increase was 10mm. What you showed was that the average since 2009 was between 2.9 and 5mm. But still, since 1949, that's a 10mm average per year increase rise. Do the math. And what that doesn't show is the intensity of the storms that are driving the waves further and further inland destroying habitats and eroding the shores at a much higher rate than normal. In a perfect world, the sea leaves as much sand and rocks as it takes. Today, it takes more than it leaves meaning the islands are shrinking.
Where's this 10mm yearly increase since 1949 -- Mr. "Do the math".. How do you get a 10mm INCREASE on a number that is right now in 4mm range? Were the SEAS FALLING during WW2 by a lot??
I already presented the proof. And I accepted the proof that one of yours presented of 2.5 to 5mm a year since 2009. What it shows is that we have made a difference. Just like we no longer have Black Snow here since we completely stopped using Coal as the major heating and electric fuel. What's funny is, this area doesn't use that much coal but we are one of the major coal exporters.
You HAD no "proof" for a 10mm/yr SLevel increase in the 20th Century.. Never happened.. And before the 50s -- there weren't sufficient tide gauges to measure a "Global Average" accurately enough..

IN FACT -- under the tide gauge method, the measured average was about 2.2mm/yr until about 25 years when we launched a full set of microwave radar satellites up.. There was an INSTANTANEOUS jump in the measurements from 2.2mm to about 4mm.. Probably measuring wave height at that point.. And the fact that water "piles up" in mid-ocean due to currents colliding and merging.

So all the BS about us "fixing this" with less coal is not very germane.. Especially remembering that ANY SLevelRise measurement is about 50% "more water" and rest is miniscule "thermal expansion" due to the small warming of deep ocean waters. That's HOW SMALL this rate is.. And apparently WILL BE for a long time to come..
Let me guess, every two weeks, you require me to list my cites all over again. Just ain't going to happen. But that's what you fruitcakes demand. Either learn to access that grey matter that you have for retaining information or keep doing the same old crap.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,186
Reaction score
11,305
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
10 years is weather, not climate.
I used from 1949 to today. You used 2009 to today.
"In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here..."

Unless you'd like to make the case for it being 1959...?




It was MUCH warmer in the 1930's. Worldwide.
Damn those American SUVs!! They're so evil, they cause global warming in the past!
You still don't get it. We've come a long way. Things HAVE gotten better but we need to do even better. I still remember the black snow from the Coal Days.
Uh huh.

Every single "solution" proposed for "anthropogenic climate change" (that hasn't been proven actually exists -- point in case, you claiming weather is climate) turns out to be massive wealth redistribution on a planetary scale.

I'm not sure how the First World paying the Second and Third World to keep polluting will solve anything except punishing the First World for their success.

I'd ask you to explain it, but you would not be able to do so rationally.
You never asked me to explain that. You just came up with that part out your ass. Actually, I support the US to become self sufficient and to stop depending on those 3rd world countries so much. Both of us "Pay" those countries to keep trashing the world. They need us a lot more than we need them.
Cool. Then you support Trump's plans to encourage manufacturing outsourced during the Obama Disaster to come back to America, and to equalize unfair trade policies of other countries, specifically, China?
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,186
Reaction score
11,305
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
Name one island that's had to be abandoned due to "rising oceans".
Nuatambu island
Micronesia
Marshal Islands

And that was from a simple google search.
You should have kept Googling, Klimate Kultist.

Busted claim: data shows that climate induced sea level rise didn't wipe out five Solomon Islands
I stated that the average increase was 10mm. What you showed was that the average since 2009 was between 2.9 and 5mm. But still, since 1949, that's a 10mm average per year increase rise. Do the math. And what that doesn't show is the intensity of the storms that are driving the waves further and further inland destroying habitats and eroding the shores at a much higher rate than normal. In a perfect world, the sea leaves as much sand and rocks as it takes. Today, it takes more than it leaves meaning the islands are shrinking.
Where's this 10mm yearly increase since 1949 -- Mr. "Do the math".. How do you get a 10mm INCREASE on a number that is right now in 4mm range? Were the SEAS FALLING during WW2 by a lot??
I already presented the proof. And I accepted the proof that one of yours presented of 2.5 to 5mm a year since 2009. What it shows is that we have made a difference. Just like we no longer have Black Snow here since we completely stopped using Coal as the major heating and electric fuel. What's funny is, this area doesn't use that much coal but we are one of the major coal exporters.
You HAD no "proof" for a 10mm/yr SLevel increase in the 20th Century.. Never happened.. And before the 50s -- there weren't sufficient tide gauges to measure a "Global Average" accurately enough..

IN FACT -- under the tide gauge method, the measured average was about 2.2mm/yr until about 25 years when we launched a full set of microwave radar satellites up.. There was an INSTANTANEOUS jump in the measurements from 2.2mm to about 4mm.. Probably measuring wave height at that point.. And the fact that water "piles up" in mid-ocean due to currents colliding and merging.

So all the BS about us "fixing this" with less coal is not very germane.. Especially remembering that ANY SLevelRise measurement is about 50% "more water" and rest is miniscule "thermal expansion" due to the small warming of deep ocean waters. That's HOW SMALL this rate is.. And apparently WILL BE for a long time to come..
Let me guess, every two weeks, you require me to list my cites all over again. Just ain't going to happen. But that's what you fruitcakes demand. Either learn to access that grey matter that you have for retaining information or keep doing the same old crap.
Just saying you've proven your ridiculous claims is not actually a citation.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
10 years is weather, not climate.
I used from 1949 to today. You used 2009 to today.
"In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here..."

Unless you'd like to make the case for it being 1959...?




It was MUCH warmer in the 1930's. Worldwide.
Damn those American SUVs!! They're so evil, they cause global warming in the past!
You still don't get it. We've come a long way. Things HAVE gotten better but we need to do even better. I still remember the black snow from the Coal Days.
Uh huh.

Every single "solution" proposed for "anthropogenic climate change" (that hasn't been proven actually exists -- point in case, you claiming weather is climate) turns out to be massive wealth redistribution on a planetary scale.

I'm not sure how the First World paying the Second and Third World to keep polluting will solve anything except punishing the First World for their success.

I'd ask you to explain it, but you would not be able to do so rationally.
You never asked me to explain that. You just came up with that part out your ass. Actually, I support the US to become self sufficient and to stop depending on those 3rd world countries so much. Both of us "Pay" those countries to keep trashing the world. They need us a lot more than we need them.
Cool. Then you support Trump's plans to encourage manufacturing outsourced during the Obama Disaster to come back to America, and to equalize unfair trade policies of other countries, specifically, China?

Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,808
Reaction score
11,142
Points
2,040
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
10 years is weather, not climate.
I used from 1949 to today. You used 2009 to today.
"In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here..."

Unless you'd like to make the case for it being 1959...?




It was MUCH warmer in the 1930's. Worldwide.
Damn those American SUVs!! They're so evil, they cause global warming in the past!
You still don't get it. We've come a long way. Things HAVE gotten better but we need to do even better. I still remember the black snow from the Coal Days.
Uh huh.

Every single "solution" proposed for "anthropogenic climate change" (that hasn't been proven actually exists -- point in case, you claiming weather is climate) turns out to be massive wealth redistribution on a planetary scale.

I'm not sure how the First World paying the Second and Third World to keep polluting will solve anything except punishing the First World for their success.

I'd ask you to explain it, but you would not be able to do so rationally.
You never asked me to explain that. You just came up with that part out your ass. Actually, I support the US to become self sufficient and to stop depending on those 3rd world countries so much. Both of us "Pay" those countries to keep trashing the world. They need us a lot more than we need them.
Cool. Then you support Trump's plans to encourage manufacturing outsourced during the Obama Disaster to come back to America, and to equalize unfair trade policies of other countries, specifically, China?

Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
That's just your TDS talking.
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
43,069
Reaction score
15,466
Points
2,290
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
Name one island that's had to be abandoned due to "rising oceans".
Nuatambu island
Micronesia
Marshal Islands

And that was from a simple google search.
You are talking about island chains of many many islands some of which are nothing more than coral atolls constantly eroding and forming. The main islands are just fine. Sea levels rise when there is a storm. Otherwise sea levels are stable.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,186
Reaction score
11,305
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
Trump could discover the cure for cancer and give it away free to the world, and you'd bitch that he didn't do anything about gingivitis.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
Trump could discover the cure for cancer and give it away free to the world, and you'd bitch that he didn't do anything about gingivitis.


Don't give Rump any ideas. He'll be claiming that he has a cure for Cancer coming out right out after he wins the next election. Along with that ghost Health Care Plan that's been two weeks from being released for the last 3 years.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,186
Reaction score
11,305
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
Trump could discover the cure for cancer and give it away free to the world, and you'd bitch that he didn't do anything about gingivitis.


Don't give Rump any ideas. He'll be claiming that he has a cure for Cancer coming out right out after he wins the next election. Along with that ghost Health Care Plan that's been two weeks from being released for the last 3 years.
Poor Daryl and his bad gums. :-(

What's the matter, dood? Didn't Obama cure your pre-existing condition?
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
Trump could discover the cure for cancer and give it away free to the world, and you'd bitch that he didn't do anything about gingivitis.


Don't give Rump any ideas. He'll be claiming that he has a cure for Cancer coming out right out after he wins the next election. Along with that ghost Health Care Plan that's been two weeks from being released for the last 3 years.
Poor Daryl and his bad gums. :-(

What's the matter, dood? Didn't Obama cure your pre-existing condition?
My Pre-existing Condtions are doing just fine. How are yours doing? I earned mine.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,186
Reaction score
11,305
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Yes, but not the way that Rump is going about it. Even when he does something right his reasoning is so out to lunch it's pure luck that it ends up doing the right thing. But overall, he hurts the whole thing in the long run.
Trump could discover the cure for cancer and give it away free to the world, and you'd bitch that he didn't do anything about gingivitis.


Don't give Rump any ideas. He'll be claiming that he has a cure for Cancer coming out right out after he wins the next election. Along with that ghost Health Care Plan that's been two weeks from being released for the last 3 years.
Poor Daryl and his bad gums. :-(

What's the matter, dood? Didn't Obama cure your pre-existing condition?
My Pre-existing Condtions are doing just fine. How are yours doing? I earned mine.
So did I. But Obama didn't cure them for you?

Odd. We were repeatedly assured that Obamacare would take care of everyone.

You mean it didn't?
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,863
Reaction score
10,644
Points
950
It's coming. You know it is.

I know nothing of the sort. Leading liberal millionaires like B. Hussein O. have JUST invested millions into seaside mansions on Martha's Vineyard and other places projected to be under water and uninhabitable due to global warming.

II
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top