Excerpt:
But it’s one thing to look at these maps and start dreaming of your climate condo in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. It’s another thing entirely to say that the “Yooper” is a place you should move now....The Yooper is a place?! To call the U.P. "The Yooper" just underscores your aversion to going anywhere near there. (A "Yooper" is a person who lives in the place they call the U.P.)
But despite the occasional trend story about coastal millennials moving to places that seem better positioned to ride out the ravages of climate change, there’s no real evidence that the Upper Peninsula is attracting new residents due to its climate prospects.....Live for today. Isn't that why we're having this climate change in the first place? These people who are "worried about climate change" are really basically just worried about today, and worrying about climate change is something that is done to try to look good today. And you'll be looking your best looking good looking worried in someplace that's warm today.
That’s partly because real estate investing works at a different pace than climate change does.... The maps that show the Upper Peninsula winning against other parts of the country are forecasts of the year 2100. “But why does it matter that [the value of the land] will go up in 100 years?” [said a professor of economics]....
When people talk about the best place to move to avoid climate risks, he thinks they’re usually thinking about places that are currently too cold becoming, well, more like California and other parts of the country in which Americans are willing to take economic losses in order to enjoy today....
UPDATE: FiveThirtyEight has fixed its "Yooper" gaffe. The passage quoted above is replaced by:
But it’s one thing to look at these maps and start dreaming of your climate condo in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. It’s another thing entirely to say that it is a place you should move now....They haven't hidden the gaffe, so I give them credit for taking the hit openly:
CORRECTION (Sept. 20, 2019, 11:00 a.m.): A previous version of this article used the word “Yooper” to refer to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. That was an incorrect use of the word. The U.P. is the place. The Yoopers are the people.
Posts
139 comments:
The writer of that article has never lived in the UP during March-May.
BTW -- my recollections from 1984 is that there were a lot more doomy articles about Nuclear Winter than Global Warming.
Luckily for all of us that live in the sane world, we know the climate change scare is a hoax. No reason to move from the Great State of Wisconsin. All the fresh water you can drink.
Last night I turned on the ceiling fan while running the air conditioning, just to I could sleep under a warm blanket. I was a great night's sleep.
Good news. The new cotton fields will be in Wisconsin and Atlanta will be beach front property.
Any fool that believes this Big Lie BS deserves his Phd. Real people won't believe obvious con men.
You moved to Madison in 1984 because of “Global Warming”? Thirty Five years later, do you feel duped yet?
Ted Danson and Ed Beagly Jr (and later Al Gore) sold you a bill of goods.
Moved to Madison in 1984 because of global warming?
I see that a legal education and science don't mix.
Move to "The" Yooper. LOL.
These people have no sense of time or their own limited lifespan. Please don't move to "The" Yooper. We don't want you idiots up here.
The climate woke know the scientific consensus says there is no observable evidence severe weather is becoming more severe or more frequent. The climate woke know there are only predictions of it...Ha Ha! Just kidding! They don't think that...
I predicted there would be some go-getter Yooper making a mint marketing and selling cheapo inland UP real estate as sanctuary to climate refugees. How'm I doin'? I haven't seen it yet....
Ann's thinking and experience points out what a scam CAGW is. These people have been wrong for over 40 years and now we're supposed to believe them? The American people aren't that stupid. We can look back at the history of their wildly wrong predictions and make a rational decision.
Since all this glowball warmening stuff is an attempt to gain power by the Leftist Collectivists, most people just bought guns instead of moving.
Love when Brooklynites discover a 'new' place that can latch onto and wait to see if anyone actually does before they jump.
The UP would actually be a phenomenal place for the irritated inhabitants of New York, Boston, Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco to move to. Michigan can then officially allow Wisconsin to annex it back and the Great Badger State can finally have a run of 100 years of great Liberal Governance.
Those left in the UP will not sense any warming in the next 100 years. Their kids will speak in a bit different dialect.
there’s no real evidence that the Upper Peninsula is attracting new residents due to its climate prospects.
That is shocking.
There are plenty of good reasons to live in Madison, but the weather is not one of them.
Greenland, baby!
The smart money (the Obamas??) are buying large and expensive properties on Martha's Vineyard.
What does that tell you?
Or at least short the stocks of companies that derive a significant part of their revenue from snowblowers?
"There are plenty of good reasons to live in Madison, but the weather is not one of them."
So we have a little winter. Big deal.
After making it home yesterday during the Houston lunch hour; I'm more skeptical about being skeptical.
Still, I'm going to die of old age long before climate change would make me want to move thousands of miles inland, so that I can feel like I'm living up to my beliefs. After all; do you know how much energy it takes to transport goods over land to keep those areas supplied?
If I move out of Texas, it would be Greenville, SC.
In 1985, I was 14 years old and recognized that the "The end is nigh!" climate panickers were full of crap. Private school spared me much of the idiocy that my public school friends were subjected to. My science teachers actually taught science, which is not permitted these days, unless it comes buried in political propaganda dressed up as "data".
Meanwhile all stops have been pulled to scare the shit out of children.
While Wisconsin is at it, please also take our gnats and humidity while we enjoy the beach breezes.
If you move to the U.P. your grand kids will hate you even more.
How are you supposed to get around on the U.P. after Andrew Yang has confiscated your cars? I imagine that Wisconsin dairy farmers will want to know whether Yang intends to get rid of dairy cattle along with beef cattle.
Sault Ste. Marie (eastern UP) was my home from birth to ~ age 21. We visit regularly but will probably never move back. However, it's still "home" if you know what I mean...
Wisconsin dairy farmers will want to know whether Yang intends to get rid of dairy cattle along with beef cattle.
Of course he does. Daily means the veal industy and that is cow babycide. Human babycide is OK, though.
"There are plenty of good reasons to live in Madison, but the weather is not one of them."
99 reasons, but a beach ain't one?
We welcome all of Gaia’s children to Peace Pavilion West. Just last night at song time, in the Human Pagoda, the announcement was made that another three ecopodments have opened up. Joy!
Help Wanted: Earth Engineer. Choir Director. Scientartist.
My science teachers actually taught science, which is not permitted these days
I went to public high school, and I still remember my physics teacher explaining how population expansion meant that humans would occupy every three square feet by now. I never learned much physics in that class, but I did become an engineer, and I have been to socialist countries with sky high and mostly empty communes as their populations have, um, necessarily declined.
"worrying about climate change is something that is done to try to look good today"
And then to force the rest of us to submit to prog coercion.
Ann, you moved to Wisconsin in 1984 due to global warming concerns? Color me skeptical. The global warming argument didn’t really get traction until the late 80s if my memory serves me correctly. And it does.
"And I'm saying this as someone who was genuinely worried about global warming in 1984 when I chose to move to Madison"
I don't think the idea of global warming became a thing until well after that. A google search for the term "global warming" in news stories finds nothing between 1980 and the end of 1984. This site, agrees with my memory that it became a thing somewhere between 1988-1989:
"The early 1980s would mark a sharp increase in global temperatures. Many experts point to 1988 as a critical turning point when watershed events placed global warming in the spotlight.
The summer of 1988 was the hottest on record (although many since then have been hotter). 1988 also saw widespread drought and wildfires within the United States.
Scientists sounding the alarm about climate change began to see media and the public paying closer attention. NASA scientist James Hansen delivered testimony and presented models to congress in June of 1988, saying he was “99 percent sure” that global warming was upon us.
IPCC
One year later, in 1989, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established under the United Nations to provide a scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts."
https://www.history.com/topics/natural-disasters-and-environment/history-of-climate-change
M.Jordan, Ann did not move for global warming, she moved for a sinecure.
In the 80's, I remember people still panicking over "The Coming Ice Age". And since we were near the coast, we were inundated with stories of rising sea levels making Cape Cod uninhabitable. Of course, Polaroids from the same beach that I've been attending for 48 years show the beach is virtually unchanged today.
I suggest Greenland, the next American territory. It worked during the Medieval Warm Period.
"that included the idea that the southern United States was going to be unbearable in 10 years." Well, that was wrong. And science doesn't say that now either.
The temperature will go up a degree or two, and there will be some impacts. You probably shouldn't move to the Florida coast. That's about it.
"And I'm saying this as someone who was genuinely worried about global warming in 1984 when I chose to move to Madison, Wisconsin."
Really? In 1984 the global warming hoax hadn't even hit the public panic yet. I left Illinois 5 years ago because I felt like the last clown packed in a phone booth. I think I also move to Wisconsin for the Fish Frys and Brandy Old Fashioneds.
Not surprising, Ann jumped out of the pot before the stove was even turned on.
A Venn diagram of leftist politics and fear of global; warming would show a pretty congruent circle.
I have it on good authority that Martha's Vineyard, beachfront no less, is the place to be for these last, few years.
Oddly,I have heard no MSM talking head ask a global climate change person why they thought the O's bought there.
If you look at the current UN climate change projections for 100 years from now of about 1.5 degrees C, it equates to a move of about 150 miles north.
Hardly time to start reserving U-Hauls.
The 1970's were the time of the global cooling scare. Don't know about 1984 but in 1987, James Hansen of NASA testified that temps in 2050 would be 5 - 7 degrees hotter and the greenhouse effect was being bandied about in the late '80's in other news reports.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
I think I'm understanding how to be a good person that appreciates and advocates on behalf of the climate: publicly express worry about climate change. You don't actually have to do any more than that, just worry, fret even, and you too can be a member in good standing of the Climate Change Alarmists Club.
I'm participating in the Climate Strike.
No comments.
And fuck cutting the grass.
Here’s The Best Place To Move If You’re Worried About Climate Change
That's WHY the O'Bama's are moving to Martha's Vineyard, Right?
"And I'm saying this as someone who was genuinely worried about global warming in 1984 when I chose to move to Madison"
“I don't think the idea of global warming became a thing until well after that. A google search for the term "global warming" in news stories finds nothing between 1980 and the end of 1984. This site, agrees with my memory that it became a thing somewhere between 1988-1989:”
In 1990 I got stuck listening to CO US Senator Timmy Wirthless give the same speech three times on the inevitability of CAGC, unless we gave up carbon based energy and ceded significantly more power to ecologically minded Dem politicians. He had, of course, without missing a beat, switched to CAGW within a year or two. The first time I heard his speech was bad. The third, on June 2, 1990, outside under the clear blue CO sky, was excruciating.
Darrell said...
Dairy means the veal industry and that is cow babycide. Human babycide is OK, though
Fetus Parmesan?
Fetus Scallopini?
I'm not sure i Really Like this Brave, New, World
The guy I spent last night visiting, is from central UP. He loved growing up there, but hates it every time he has to visit his parents there, because it inevitably involves maybe a six hour drive from/to a real airport. He has one brother an hour away from them, and one in the LP, but every health crisis requires these epic journeys on his part.
I believed what I read and that included the idea that the southern United States was going to be unbearable in 10 years.
Really? REALLY?
Good heavens. That's so...naive, so doltish. Woof.
We have had no rain since the beginning of the month, though it got cloudy yesterday and might have . . . . We have set temperature records for the last few weeks also, but it's starting to feel like autumn, season of mists and mellow fruitfulness.
Jupiter was bright in the west last night.
Narr
Fall lover
I'm in Arizona which is a good spot from which to observe global cooling as the sun spots remain at a Maunder Minimum,
Ah Ms. Althouse--you moved to Madison in 1984 because you'd heard the Southern states would be unbearable in 10 years time. Okay---the temperature in the Southern states was not fit for man nor beast until Willis Carrier invented air conditioning--which mostly fixed that problem.
But had you not read Time magazine in 1975 which said a New Ice Age was coming? Did you not worry about glaciers returning to Wisconsin?
Of course none of this really matters. We are past the various deadline(s) imposed by Al Gore and many other idiot savants. Well, leave the "savants" part of that off the sentence. And we are maybe 9 and a half years away from the end of the world as predicted by AOC.
"And I'm saying this as someone who was genuinely worried about global warming in 1984 when I chose to move to Madison, Wisconsin."
A former true believer, that explains the bitter tone on climate change.
Even in the most dire climatic fantasies there are huge swathes of North America and indeed the rest of the world that would become far more attractive to live in than they are now. Far more agriculturally productive as well
Federal government takes away authority of California to impose more stringent vehicle emission standards.
1967 - 239 smog alerts in California
2016 - zero smog alerts
90% cut in black carbon since 1967
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
“But why does it matter that [the value of the land] will go up in 100 years?” [said a professor of economics]....
A professor of economics should understand that the price of the land would have already risen (and would continue to rise over time) in anticipation of the greater demand 100 years from now. Maybe not a lot, but asset prices are "forward looking." If they haven't, well, maybe it's because the "science" isn't exactly settled, as Althouse has learned the hard way. From what I've read there's been no warming at all over the last 15 years.
Professor, I give you credit for admitting you fell for it 35 years ago.
For the young’ uns , if I believed all this, the world would have ended in the 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s. Or the 2000s or 11 years from now.
I’ve been living with this doomsday junk science 50 years now. It’s getting old.
I might not be here, but I’m betting the world will be. (Wars excluded)
Still here and we are a lot cleaner than back then. If you want a glimpse of the world the boomers grew up in, watch Miracke in Ice. I don’t think the timeline is exactly right, but....
Remember, anyone feeding you this BS had better be walking their talk. And stay far away from them if they are. They’re nuts. Or greedy control freaks.
better positioned to ride out the ravages of climate change, there’s no real evidence that the Upper Peninsula is attracting new residents due to its climate prospects.....
In order to move to the UP you need to believe it's warming.
"Climate Change" is whatever the Media want it to be.
And if it really got warmer, then the UP would be Tornado Ally.
Try Calgary.
Years ago, I lived in Smith county Texas. Periodically, a news item would be published stating that Disney was secretly buying land for an amusement park in Smith county. Get in while the gettin' is good!!
Cuz....ya know....Tyler, Texas is half-way between Dallas, and Shreveport. Can't you see the possibilities??
The weather records for the last 100 years clearly show that temperatures are decreasing, not increasing. Climate change is a fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk
"We believe there is no point in going to school if we are not going to have a future to live in."
The dog ate my climate.
The new Lefty cause of the day. Thank God Trump got us out the Paris Accords, which were a sham. you can be sure that even if Climate change is real, the true purpose of the Left is power and money. While its unsure they can solve Climate Change, its 100% sure they will use the issue to deprive people of Freedom and get some extra $$ for themselves.
the “Yooper” is a place you should move now
Greetings, fellow flyover country kids.
For those of you doubting whether I was motivated by predictions of global warming in 1984, read this, from the Global Warming Time Line:
-------------------
1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists doubt all theories as journalists talk of a new ice age.
1977
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century....
1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. ...
1982
Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record. ...
1983
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict; greenhouse warming becomes a factor in mainstream politics. ...
------------------------
I was very busy in those years having 2 babies and beginning my law career in a federal clerkship and at a big Wall Street law firm, but I did read the news. Not sure exactly what I read, but I believed the science reporting of the time.
tcrosse said...
There are plenty of good reasons to live in Madison, but the weather is not one of them.
Come for the racism, stay for the whatsit!
John Henry
By the time the seas rise enough to matter, humans will not have bodies, but be just entities of pure energy who can live anywhere.
The earth has been much warmer, with tropical forests far into Canada, and at that time it was lush and much more full of life and diversity than it is with today's climate. I'm looking forward to global warming, and I'm doing my part to bring it on, but I'm not trying as hard as many celebrity climate alarmist. I mean we can't all afford a carbon footprint like Al Gore, but I do have my occasional bonfire or barbecue with big juicy fart-raised steaks.
I do give Althouse credit for learning her lesson about scares of doom and gloom. She seems to share our skepticism about climate change hysteria.
"Ann's thinking and experience points out what a scam CAGW is. These people have been wrong for over 40 years and now we're supposed to believe them? The American people aren't that stupid."
P.T. Barnum would disagree with you. :)
I just looked up "global warming" in the NYT archive, and there were lots of articles about global warming in the fall of 1983 when I was interviewing for lawprof jobs.
That report from the US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency got a lot of attention.
In the NYT, there was HOW TO LIVE IN A GREENHOUSE:
-----------------
Two rather different reports on the ''greenhouse effect'' were released in Washington last week. One holds that the process leading to a serious warming of the earth's atmosphere is already so firmly set in motion that nothing short of a ban on coal could prevent it. The other concludes it lies so far ahead that no preventive steps are even worth attempting for the next 20 years. Which group of scientists should be believed?
The greenhouse effect is the prediction that the earth will get hotter as carbon dioxide gas released from the combustion of coal builds up in the atmosphere and traps the sun's heat like the glass of a greenhouse. Climatologists, having debated the effect for a century, now agree that the theory is right. If carbon dioxide increases enough, ice sheets of Greenland and the west Antarctic could melt and raise sea level by up to 20 feet. Vast climate changes would disrupt agriculture and change fertile lands to desert. Boston would enjoy the climate of Miami, but most of it would lie under water.
The two new reports, one prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency and the other for the National Academy of Sciences, have more in common than might at first appear. They agree on the theory of the greenhouse effect, but differ on the numbers to be plugged into it. Perhaps because of the guidance of two economists, William Nordhaus and Thomas Schelling, the Academy's report is more tentative in predicting change and more confident of the adaptability of economic systems.
Surely the seas may rise and the crop-growing belt may be pushed northward. But, says the Academy report, dikes could be built around coastal cities like Boston, just as the Dutch have walled out the sea for centuries. Crops could be genetically engineered to grow in changed climates. Indeed, all the predictable effects of a global warming can be coped with. The unpredictable effects, perhaps a sudden release of the methane gas stored in ocean sediments, are the only thing we have to fear. The Academy's message, in brief, is that the greenhouse effect is for real but we can live with it. That needed saying, because the greenhouse effect still has its skeptics. A major embarrassment for the theory is that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has been steadily rising for the last 25 years, yet the predicted warming has not definitely appeared. Explanations can be provided, but are inevitably ad hoc. The Academy thinks that amid the natural short- and long-term fluctuations of global temperature a warming signal is discernible, and at least not clearly absent. ''A soberness and sense of urgency should underlie our response to a greenhouse warming,'' concludes the Environmental Protection Agency. ''There is little urgency for reductions in CO2 emissions below an uncontrolled path before A.D. 1990,'' states the Academy. Preventing the CO2 emissions from coal plants would be extraordinarily costly. Though the Academy sees no need for immediate policy changes, the greenhouse warming is a strong, long-term argument for an energy program that is as diverse as possible, emphasizing both workable nuclear power and conservation.
--------------------
"Let's Move!" -- M. 0bama
So the "real newspapers" have been misleading you for a long time, yet they still get your time, consideration, and unwarranted respect. Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome?
Think about this. How many times has the MSM lied to you, and compare that to how much the mainstream right wing media has lied to you. You might have to go and look for the right wing version. Just like the truth, they take a little effort to find. You will notice that although they also have a bias, it rarely leads them all the way to knowingly lying or misleading you, as places like the NYT or CNN do daily.
Go south, Young...uhh...person, go south. The coming Ice Age will not be kind to northerners.
Speaking of lying scammers, just moments ago, I got one of those scam phone calls about your Microsoft account being terminated. The alarming thing is it came from my own phone number, and therefore showed up on my caller ID as "VOICEMAIL". How did they do that?
"There are plenty of good reasons to live in Madison, but the weather is not one of them."
It's funny, Meade and I could move anywhere, but nearly 3 years into my retirement, I don't see a place I prefer. And weather is a big factor for me. I don't like dryness and glaring sun. It's not what's right for my skin and my eyes. Other people have different affinities. I need some shade and moisture, and I start feeling hot when the temperature is 72° — lower when the humidity is too high. And the change of the seasons is really important to me (and my mother often spoke about loving the changing seasons). I love the feeling of the next season coming on. I prefer the moderate temperatures, like maybe 50° to 70°, but I'm okay with them cycling out and then back again. I wouldn't trade less winter for more summer. Bundling up and going out in the snow is at least as good to me as going out wearing as little as possible and needing to spray myself with sunscreen.
"Federal government takes away authority of California to impose more stringent vehicle emission standards."
Good. Why should idiots in California have the right to dictate what the rest of us buy? Because that's what happens.
If there ever were a legitimate case for the feds regulating interstate commerce, this is it.
The UP is actually gorgeous. There's no reason people wouldn't want to create wonderful little enclaves there, aside from the weather (which is supposedly going to change!) and transportation. It they could build a big, accessible airport there, it would make a great little global warming get away.
I'm going to bid $10 for ownership of the Maldives.
I know it's too much for property doomed, DOOMED I sez, to be swamped any day now, but I'm feeling flush with cash.
Which group of scientists should be believed?
The ones who are not living on AGW grants,
Ann, thanks for the link to the global warming timeline. It never mentions any predictions of when catastrophe will occur, yet mentions both Chernobyl and Fukushima as ending hopes for nuclear power. Hmmmm . .
IIRC, the Big Thing That Was Terrifying Everyone around 84-85 was the hole in the Ozone Layer. The moral panic then was to ban CFCs, because otherwise the entire layer was going to vanish and we'd all be DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED.
Global Warming was brought to public awareness by James Hansen's Congressional testimony on 23-June-1988.
Coincidentally, the global warming movement was rising as the USSR was collapsing.
Anyone truly worried that the icebergs were going to melt, and the oceans were going to rise, would move to the mountains immediately. Flagstaff AZ would become beachfront property. Route 66 would be the new PCH. There's plenty of mountainous regions with lots of available land in the middle of the country. How come the elites aren't moving there? Why are they buying property in Montecito (Al Gore) and Martha's Vineyard (Obama)?
Is it possible that they know it's all bullshit? Naaaah, it couldn't be ...
"I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." -- Insty
Twenty years ago, a casual friend told me he wanted to move to Wilmington NC but was afraid it would be underwater in a few years. I but just avoided laughing at him.
A move to Wilmington, NC is something I've considered a few times. Might still do it someday. I like that it's on the ocean, but doesn't really seem like a "Beach City". It functions 12 months a year, seems to have all the amenities you'd find in any mid-size City, and the climate is right up my alley. Hurricanes are a bitch, but relatively rare.
The global warming argument didn’t really get traction until the late 80s if my memory serves me correctly.
Well, kinda. We were still recovering from the Great Ice Age!! scare of the '70s, while the '80s were spent screaming about nuclear war and the Ozone layer.
Don't forget Gore's NYT? global warming editorial. Must have been around the same time as
Hansen's testimony in 1988.
Blogger Bobb said...
I suggest Greenland, the next American territory. It worked during the Medieval Warm Period.
In the long run even the vikings couldn’t make a go of it.
I worked in the woods of the UP for a few weeks one summer. It was sweltering and I was nearly eaten alive by blackflies. It's truly amazing to see the time and effort that people put into these climate change fantasies. It reminds me of people sitting around a campfire making up scary stories.
“Anyone truly worried that the icebergs were going to melt, and the oceans were going to rise, would move to the mountains immediately. Flagstaff AZ would become beachfront property. Route 66 would be the new PCH. There's plenty of mountainous regions with lots of available land in the middle of the country. How come the elites aren't moving there? Why are they buying property in Montecito (Al Gore) and Martha's Vineyard (Obama)?”
Actually no to Flagstaff being beachfront property. Flag is roughy 7,000 feet. If every glacier and ice sheet in the world melted, I would expect only a coupe hundred feet, if that. Which means that we Phoenix would be high and dry. Of course, we aren’t really seeing any net melting, since Antarctic ice seems to be expanding as fast, if not faster, than it has shrunk in the Northern Hemisphere.
The middle part of the UP get's a ton of snow. The norther part, close to Lake Superior, gets around 80 inches of snow a year. Best invest in a snow mobile if your gonna move up there!
Blogger bagoh20 said...
By the time the seas rise enough to matter, humans will not have bodies, but be just entities of pure energy who can live anywhere.
In the future we will all be hooloovoos for 15 minutes.
If the U.P. is such a great place to escape "climate dhange", then why aren't all Canadians happy as clams at high tide?
Instead, their government is seriously dicking with old climate data in order to "prove" that Canada is getting uncomfortably hot:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/19/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change/
"Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter that Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change."
IOW data is out, but models are in.
Snort.
Watching all of you congratulating each other for knowing more than the vast majority of those with PhD in climate science is pretty funny. Anyone stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
I do know of a friend of my Austin son who moved to the U.P. to homestead. I guess he hadn't heard of the used up potato farms up there, or the snow packs. He's been there 5 years and is barely surviving. As soon as we heat up I'm sure he'll be okay. (sarcasm)
More like NUCLEAR WINTER AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WILL DIE
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nuclear-winter-180967198/
Jersey Fled said...
If you look at the current UN climate change projections for 100 years from now of about 1.5 degrees C, it equates to a move of about 150 miles north.
**************
And if you do the math using the Kelvin scale (and not its Celsius subset) that is a change of 0.55%
Big whoop.
And lets not forget that all the bullshit about "highest temperature on record" ignores the fact that (1) the Earth has been both much warmer and much cooler than today, AND (b) there were NO global temperatures taken until satellites went up to record them, which began in 1970 AND (c) the notion of highest global temperature actually meaning anything is, from a physics standpoint, simply outlandish: anyone familiar with the term "enthalpy" knows that 100F in dry Death Valley is a lot different from 100F in pre-monsoon New Delhi.
(the first mercury thermometer was invented in 1714, btw. And there were virtually NO systematic temperature measurements in the Southern Hemisphere until about 1900. So the highest temperature on record bullshit is...bullshit, all the way down.)
steve uhr said...
Watching all of you congratulating each other for knowing more than the vast majority of those with PhD in climate science is pretty funny.
***************
Steve, report back when you have something factual to say about this topic.
You might start by actually telling us how many people actually have a PhD in "climate science".
You might also explain your clairvoyant knowledge about what OUR science backgrounds are.
in 1984 (...) I believed what I read and that included the idea that the southern United States was going to be unbearable in 10 years
Well, the NFL did add teams in Carolina and Jacksonville in 1995...
“Blogger etbass said...
The 1970's were the time of the global cooling scare. Don't know about 1984 but in 1987, James Hansen of NASA testified that temps in 2050 would be 5 - 7 degrees hotter and the greenhouse effect was being bandied about in the late '80's in other news reports.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions”
Like I’ve posted before, there’s good money to be made in the fear mongering racket. Al Gore has scammed his way to 9 figures and he isn’t the only one. As for those climate models, garbage in, garbage out. None of them is tracking close to reality. If your model doesn’t agree with the real world, it isn’t the real world that’s wrong. Not all computer mdels are created equally or are equally vetted. On the one hand, we have multiple teams of modelers working with decades of vetted data who can’t accurately predict the path of a hurricane more than a few days out. On the other hand, we have climate modelers working with heavily “adjusted” data who claim they can accurately predict the climate decades into the future. Sorry, but no.
Observing, measuring, experimentation have all been thrown out the window in favor of "models" that so far have all failed. To embrace CAGW is to abandon the scientific method entirely.
The is nothing about a PhD that makes a climate scientist immune to greed, narcissism, dishonesty, or peer pressure. Those are the problems with climate science, becuase of how it has been politicized, monetized, and glamorized.
Imagine a climate scientist discovers some evidence that leads him to profound skepticism of the climate alarmist narrative. Is he going to throw away the grants, the respect of his peers, the acceptance of his circle, and the opportunities that are there for alarmists just so he can be right when he knows that will make him poorer, less accepted, and bring him threats and derision while being thoroughly ostracized by his community? Heroes, saints and voluntary martyrs are not that common, though there are a few.
"The norther part, close to Lake Superior, gets around 80 inches of snow a year."
Don't sugar coat it! "Last year the highest snowfall was at the Calumet (Tamarack Loc.) with 331 inches of snowfall for the season."
I was a climate change skeptic for many years. Not that I didn't believe it could happen, but that there had not been enough data gathered/analyzed for the possibility to be convincing enough. Now I can see that it is happening. Not on the catastrophic level that the popularizers claim (there will always be people who turn a problem into an apocalypse), but enough to mean that we will have to adapt greatly. I am baffled by all the commenters here who seem to think that those who worry about AGW are not really worried, but due to some nefarious motive (hatred of fossil fuels? greed if they plan to sell solar panels? extreme veganism?) they pretend to be worried. That is not the case.
And, I live in Illinois. Corn and soybeans, our main agricultural products, are having a hard time. for many reasons, including extreme weather. There is no doubt that living things (wild plants, birds, other fauna) are extending their habitats Northwards, and there is a sense that crops will be doing the same. Not quickly, but very definitely.
And finally, my family is from the UP. The summers are much more bearable, but the winters are terrible. Even if the temperature goes up some, the snow will still be very hard to cope with, as it already has been in living memory. I can foresee a lot of people who feel a need to find a better climate in the summer, packing it in in the winter.
"You might start by actually telling us how many people actually have a PhD in "climate science".
You might also explain your clairvoyant knowledge about what OUR science backgrounds are."
Funny, isn't it, the ignorance of the alarmists. And these are the people telling us the science is settled.
Anyway, Mann, Hansen, Lindzen et al., are mostly physicists. PhD programs in "climate science" are a recent thing.
"If you were genuinely worried about climate change . . . you would go through with it."
Perhaps not, if you realized that living in a cold climate, where staying warm will involve fossil fuels consumption in the near future, will likely make you contribute that much more to future warming.
Unknown, we are skeptical because we have observed weather/climate our entire lives. Not models, not papers, actual climate. How much hotter/drier is Illinois this year than 5 years ago? 20 years ago? 100 years ago?
Believing in global warming and believing in God are both based on faith.
According to NASA CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest level in 650,000 years. During that entire period up till 1950 the level had not exceeded 300 ppm. Currently it is 410 ppm. Keep your head in the sand until it turns to glass.
Watching all of you congratulating each other for knowing more than the vast majority of those with PhD in climate science is pretty funny.
Not really. I'm simply looking back at all the times your 'sky is falling' predictions have actually come true.
Maybe you could name one?
Take 100 random climate scientists.
Lets say 10 are already skeptics of catastrophic global warming. They are widely derided by their 90 colleagues, and the media, and everybody else who is "worried".
Imagine serious skeptical evidence is found, which is the case all the time. How many would risk changing sides or even acknowledging the evidence as valid? Lets be generous and say 5 would.
Now there are 85 colleagues ostracizing the 15 plus they still get all the derision from the media and others who still believe. The pressure, politicization, and money involved assures that valid skeptical evidence will be suppressed. And if the evidence is only preliminary needing more study, it won't get it, and won't even be spoken of. Who wants to be ruined just for asking questions? The logical thing to expect of scientists, if they are human, is to not be skeptical, and even to swallow that and change sides if you are.
That situation alone makes me very skeptical of the "consensus" on global warming. It should make anybody skeptical who honestly cares about the truth and the integrity of science. It's being corrupted, regardless of who is right. If you have the data and it can survive scrutiny, you don't need to attack those with differing hypotheses. You don't need to fudge your data, and you don't need to hide your data and your methodology, all of which has been done.
And, I live in Illinois. Corn and soybeans, our main agricultural products, are having a hard time. for many reasons, including extreme weather. There is no doubt that living things (wild plants, birds, other fauna) are extending their habitats Northwards, and there is a sense that crops will be doing the same. Not quickly, but very definitely.
*************
Your anecdotes are not supported by actual data.
Care to offer any? You know, like records of unusual temperature changes, storm frequency and intensity, floods, etc.? Over the past 100 years?
Because you are essentially arguing that the 1.8 degree increase claimed since the 1850's to 1980 was OK, but another 0.2 degree increase since then has had measurable effects.
Yet if you go out to view the historical records there are virtually NO unusual differences in any of the effects you cite.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/21/new-book-extremes-and-averages-in-contiguous-u-s-climate/
Check it out.
I am baffled by all the commenters here who seem to think that those who worry about AGW are not really worried
If they were really worried, they wouldn't be spending $15 million on beachfront property in Martha's Vineyard.
Wholelotta, you can't use actual data, you must use only approved "Climate Change" catastrophic speculation. Science is forbidden in this scientific debate.
And I'm saying this as someone who was genuinely worried about global warming in 1984 when I chose to move to Madison, Wisconsin. I believed what I read and that included the idea that the southern United States was going to be unbearable in 10 years.
@Althouse, what you really seem to be saying is that you’ve been gullible for at least the past thirty-five years.
Climate, Collusion, Covington, Kavanaugh...the alliteration is a coincidence, the lies were deliberate.
What “sky is falling” predictions have I made?
Lincolntf — somehow your personal experience with weather over the past 5-20 years does not increase my comfort level. On the contrary it just illustrates your ignorance. Also, btw, according to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years on record globally have occurred since 2001.
steve uhr said...
According to NASA CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest level in 650,000 years. During that entire period up till 1950 the level had not exceeded 300 ppm. Currently it is 410 ppm. Keep your head in the sand until it turns to glass.
*******************
Utter marlarkey.
When the Little Ice Age ended in the 1840's, the Earth had only 200 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, historic low. At 150ppm plants would not have enough of the raw material for photosynthesis. They would die, and with it all animal life. As we've emerged from that cold period, CO2 concs have gone up, no doubt.
But CO2 has also been much much higher in the deep past, and the Earth did not heat up dramatically , nor did animal and plant life perish.
So, yes, CO2 has increased , but no, that does not mean that CO2 causes atmospheric temps to rise. The atmosphere is, after all, a non-linked, multi-factorial, chaotic system that we are just beginning to understand. The idea that a trace gas is behind claimed temperature changes is nothing more--at this point---than the fallacy called "the argument from ignorance" :
("What else *can* it be???")
And steve, since you're the one who jeers at us for not agreeing with PhDs armed with "climate science" degrees, can you tell us you are among the deluded folk who believe in Gore and Greta Thunberg? Can you tell us why we should believe *them*?
"According to NASA CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at their highest level in 650,000 years."
And all the time before 650,000 years ago the levels averaged far above today's Much of climate alarmism is of this type: carefully chosen data like periods that tend to start right after the exculpatory evidence ends. Or temperature sets that show the desired effect while ignoring others that show the opposite.
I don't know how much of global warming is true, becuase the proponents try so hard to be one-sided. They ignore or diminish valid evidence to the contrary. They kill their own credibility and try to replace it with appeals to authority, when that should not be necessary.
Calypso said... Calumet was a record whereas usually it gets around 311 or so. In 1978 Mother Earth News pushed the ice age line so hard it fell over. I became a certified chimney sweep in anticipation of the coming trauma. We had run out of petroleum, natural gas and propane. People were building dwellings into hillsides. And this all was WELL AFTER Barry McGuire announced the Eve Of Destruction. A pertinent question to ask these greenies is "how old was your grandfather/grandmother after living thru this polluted cesspool of a planet?"
You HAVE to doubt someone who gets paid by the word. i.e. China Syndrome, Erin Brockovich, and my favorite... Y2K.
experiment:
1. You place an ice cube in a glass of water. Does the water level rise as the ice melts?
2. Is your answer the same if you use salt water?
Since you are all experts I assume you know the answer without actually doing the experiment.
Wanna see a harvest collapse? Remove CO2! The earth is warmed by the sun, photosynthesis is the engine of life on earth.
wholelottasplainin' said...
Also, btw, according to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years on record globally have occurred since 2001.
****************
Steve, you really are a ditz. Many here have pointed out that until 1970 there were NO systematic records taken of temperatures over the globe's land and water.
Bupkis. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Not until we sent satellites up to survey the Earth's radiance from space did we have the capability to do that. Not until 2000 did we have a system of ocean buoys to measure ocean temperatures and currents, and their effects on heat transport in and over the water.
So "the record" consists at most of fifty years of temps. For a planet that's 4 billion years old.
Get a grip.
Freshwater on freshwater, no change, a little change when it's freshwater (less dense) into saltwater. I believe the current (real) science says that If all the sea ice currently on the oceans were to melt, it would raise sea level by 4 to 6 centimeters.
What “sky is falling” predictions have I made?
A better question would be which 'sky is falling' predictions have you and your Democratic Party not made over the last 50 years?
steve uhr said...
experiment:
1. You place an ice cube in a glass of water. Does the water level rise as the ice melts?
2. Is your answer the same if you use salt water?
Since you are all experts I assume you know the answer without actually doing the experiment.
**************
Deflection is a loser's strategy.
Lincolntf's answer is correct. (but I think ice melting salt water achieves the same result, since the water ice displaces less of its volume in the denser salt water.)
Question: what have you proven here, Steve?
I'll tell you one thing: there are millions of warmistas who think that if the Arctic Ice melts, the oceans will rise and inundate shorelines. But that ice, like the large ice shelves around Antarctica, is already floating on the water, so there will be virtually no change in the ocean levels. (Since the end of the Little Ice age, the oceans have been rising about 1.5 to 3 millimeters a year.)
And in the cases of Antarctica and Greenland, most of the ice over the land sits in what is essentially a bowl, so that if it all melted, almost all of it would form huge lakes.
Due to the density difference, if 100% of all the ice cubes in the sea melted, it would raise the sea level 4cm. (1.5") Catastrophe!
"And in the cases of Antarctica and Greenland, most of the ice over the land sits in what is essentially a bowl, so that if it all melted, almost all of it would form huge lakes."
Where you are invited to enjoy my chain of Tiki Bars that will be opening there amongst the palm trees in a warmer more life-sustaining climate.
Everything but the snow points to Puget Sound country, Althouse!
bagoh20 said...
"And in the cases of Antarctica and Greenland, most of the ice over the land sits in what is essentially a bowl, so that if it all melted, almost all of it would form huge lakes."
Where you are invited to enjoy my chain of Tiki Bars that will be opening there amongst the palm trees in a warmer more life-sustaining climate.
**************
Interesting...what are your franchise fees?
heh
But that ice, like the large ice shelves around Antarctica, is already floating on the water, so there will be virtually no change in the ocean levels.
Amazing that they do not understand that simple fact.
I am actually more concerned about a Younger Dryas type event.
"The Younger Dryas was the most recent and longest of several interruptions to the gradual warming of the Earth's climate since the severe Last Glacial Maximum, c. 27,000 to 24,000 years BP. The change was relatively sudden, taking place in decades, and it resulted in a decline of 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and advances of glaciers and drier conditions, over much of the temperate northern hemisphere. It is thought to have been caused by a decline in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which transports warm water from the Equator towards the North Pole, in turn thought to have been caused by an influx of fresh cold water from North America to the Atlantic." ~ Wikipedia
Imagine that. It happened over just a few decades. Would the government force us to fly private jets to the grocery store?
"Interesting...what are your franchise fees?"
You just have to find your own ice.
Here at elev. 2750 ft. we have other worries.
“Watching all of you congratulating each other for knowing more than the vast majority of those with PhD in climate science is pretty funny. Anyone stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?”
What precisely is a Climate Scientist? The field is so broad that it laps into a lot of disciplines: chemistry, physics, engineering, etc.
The interesting thing is that when someone came up with 95% of Climate scientists agreeing that there was warming, the way that they got to that was by only polling certain narrow specialties, and intentionally ignoring certain ones that are likely to be filled with skeptics, such as physicists and esp astrophysicists, who study such things as sunspots, solar radiation levels, earth wobble, orbit asymmetries, etc, that all have been shown to affect global temperatures. Moreover, they didn’t require a PhD, nor even a Master’s degree to be counted. And, of course, they counted in the 95% people who thought that CO2 might have minimal effect on temperatures.
The original group of “climate scientists” who got CAGW going were tree ring counters. And, with Mann’s long discredited Hockey Stick, they were also shown to be fairly poor statisticians. And their programming ability was just as abysmal. And with their Hide The Decline exposure, not very academically honest either. This was compounded, of course, by repeatedly scamming and pressuring the peer review process (such as steering papers to friends for peer reviewing, and boycotting prominent publications if they tried to publish adverse findings).
The science is settled on where the planet is headed. Settled. Science. Are eggs currently good for us?
My grandparents lived in Hancock, MI until about 1913, when they moved to sunny Milwaukee. My uncle was fond of saying that the snow was asshole deep to a tall Indian.
This was compounded, of course, by repeatedly scamming and pressuring the peer review process (such as steering
Not to mention the programming anomalies at EAU and the programmers's notes about all the bad data,
Hey guys, leave Steve alone. We still have freedom of religion in this country and, if there is anything that global warming/climate change is, it is a religion.
Lived four years in the U.P. and was married to a Yooper for eight. Couldn't take her out of the frozen north, I guess. Lovely place, except for the harshest of harsh winter days. We would foray into Wisconsin occasionally in the spring to get to any golf course that was open.
The joke when someone was leaving the U.P. was they were going to tie a snow shovel to the front of the car and drive south until someone asked them what that was on the car. That was where they would set up roots.
Yooper was Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for Monday, 9/16. It's a pity the author doesn't listen to that podcast. I had never heard the word before, and now I've encountered it twice in one week!
The ex was from the tiny town of Ontonagan, population 1,500. My high school had five times as many people in it.
what an idiot
Post a Comment